Skeptic Ginger said:
Epic? Even if fail, it's about 95% the same as current economic understanding as to the economic power of the West.
You are cherry picking her philosophy if you think all she ever said was the free market is god. She was also completely wrong claiming third world populations were too ignorant and lazy to take advantage of their natural resources so it was fine if we considered them ours because we developed access to those resources.
You are the one who called it epic fail, not me. In order for it to be epic fail, it has to be wrong almost everywhere. I do not see that whatsoever.
Epic fail is thinking government is the core of human advancement.
I am willing to see evidence she thought there was something inherently lazy or incompetent about third world populations, as opposed to mere circumstances (culture, millenia of nothing but oppression, etc.) stultifying the local industry.
And what to do w.r.t. a third world population sitting atop natural resources we'd like to buy? As opposed to other, similar populations (Africa, e.g.) that do not sit atop them, so we leave them alone. Which tends to be better?
I, too, would like to wave a magic wand and install a free nation there. Until then, what? Someone there will seize control and sell into the international markets anyway. So even if you don't deal directly, someone will, and it will reduce international prices anyway.
Such hubris ignores the money and direct support our government invested in oppressive regimes, and it's like saying the company that built your house owns it and you are now a renter, not a homeowner. If it weren't for our propping up corrupt regimes, American and international corporations would have been paid to build infrastructure rather than been given the resources themselves in exchange for development.
Wut? Corporations do all the work, true, but are you saying there's a difference between whether they're paid directly, or do it as a side-effect of being allowed access? Are you suggesting the "locals" would get more money out of it by striking better deals with the corporations? And what does that have to do with Rand anyway?
The bottom line: Rand implied our military might was essentially part of the free market forces without ever acknowledging that fact or explaining the role of military might in her world view.
When it's used to...what? Brush aside local warlords? Gunboat diplomacy?
It's fashionable, of course, to presume that, once local warlords are swept away (in an ideal situation, I guess) that the resources are "owned by everybody" local to that area, and that the West should come in, when asked by same, and harvest it and spread the money around.
If you know a good way of doing this, let me know. I am willing to accept that "ownership" of such local resources was not obtained by any means we, in a free country, would consider proper. Which is to say, like old school kings who were the most skilled at killing off their neighbor lords.
Many of Rand's underlying premises were based solely on her personal experiences. And many of those premises were wrong.
Examples? "Many" examples?
And you are cherry picking our economy if you think police, fire, public health, highways, and a ton of other public elements only make up 5% of the economy.
And you are exhibiting hubris if you think things government does are necessarily, or even best, done by said government. We could fit the police, fire, roads, and so on, into the 5%. Just because government is an obese slob sitting on a sofa eating bon bons all day doesn't mean every last gas and fat roll is sexy. I would agree that you could not also squeeze in the gigantic, standing military.
Properly speaking, those things (police and military, anyway) are the proper tools used by free people to secure their rights.
Sure, if you like to kibitz about the edges while the whole, massive, capitalist thing moves forward like a juggernaut, bring inconceivable amounts of benefits to the masses.
A tiny fraction of the West's economy is, indeed, still huge.
You see what you want to see. I work with police, fire and public health. Then there is all that political interference in the markets Rand warned about. And much of the cost of products that are spent on disposal is not included in the product's cost. It should be. I see a bigger 'blight' on your perfectly functioning free market than you seem to recognize. And yet you are happy with the results.
"Costs of disposal not reflected in a product's cost" is a buzz phrase, much like "externalities", whose purpose is to conjure up a rationale to control business. Or so a cynic might think. If they hadn't seen it happen over and over through the decades.
Once direct attacks using class warfare began to falter at the polls more and more, those who would control business had to think up something else.
Don't really care about the minutia. Do care about the massive, wild successes of capitalism.
Yes. This is why actual, scientific studies that map outcomes to political/economic "systems" are so valuable. More so if they can actually make testable predictions.
Would you agree that theories that make predictions, which have born out time and time again, would be something that carried some weight?
If your assumptions about said predictions were correct. But when it comes to research and the economy, you'll have to present your case before I'm going to agree you actually have one.
For the eight billionth time, not that anyone pays attention,
Theory. Prediction. Successful results.
Better yet,
start with the epilogue.
Government was no magical gnostic about this. Everyone shut down development because nobody realized the issues with resistance evolving. On retrospect, humans should have used 2 or 3 antibiotic cocktails all along since it's ridiculously less likely something will spontaneously evolve a resistance to several different antibiotics at once, especially if they operate with dissimilar mechanisms.
You really shouldn't try to discuss this subject without a bit more education in the field. Your lack of knowledge of the basic underlying issues is showing here.
Evasion and cheap shot noted. Now please address it properly. Precisely what am I misunderstanding? The only technical problem (aside from interaction) with multiple antibiotics is, transparently and obviously, the issue of side effects, which can be bad enough from just one at a time.
The R&D into antibiotics was put on the back burner because of the wild success. When resistance started to rear its head, there was a lead time in getting back up to speed in forging new ground.
So, what am I misunderstanding here?
You say this like it's a bad thing. Looking about at the fabulous health and wealth of people in the West, when compared to other, non-capitalist systems, I'm fine with it.
You want to hang around, polishing the edges, be my guest. Please use science, though, just as we try to do everywhere else.
The Scandinavian countries seem to be doing quite well with their heavier dose of socialism. National health care programs such as Canada's and Britain's exceed the US in many outcome measures. The supposed waiting time for treatment is a myth. And governments invest in medical advances including our government,
so the free market is not the sole driving force in medical research.
Of course it isn't the sole force, but it's
is the
major force. Socialized countries that restrict medical profits (for more reasons than just socialized medicine -- generally high tax rates and business-unfriendly climates may even exceed the socialized medicine itself as a drag on medical development) do indeed produce fewer innovations, per capita, than does the US. As such, they are not carrying their weight.
And, immediately and obviously, their "free" goodies they give out are, more likely than not, not invented by themselves. Other, more capitalistic economies drive most of the innovation, and they just take advantage of it.
Like a parasite, I submit. Sad and sickening. Their very own populations would be better off in the long run re-organizing their economies to be more business friendly to drug and cure and treatment development. And that would include letting medical companies profit more.
For example, a lot of medical research in the US takes place in universities under government grants. But those private companies carry out the last step of taking the discovery to market. They get all the profits, the government gives away what should be the public's return on investment. You should complain.
And a lot of people drive on roads because the government paves them. That does not mean, sans government, roads would not exist.
In any case, the public's "return on investment" is the supposed success of the R&D efforts themselves.
Isn't that why the government asserts itself and dumps in the money? This is not an argument for government that I make, merely an observation of the status quo.
And, of course, "For example", most medical research in the US is done privately. Which says a lot because, it is true, the government dumps a ton into it.
Why wouldn't you want both?
If greed can cure cancer a year earlier, there's millions of lives saved right there. Slowing development kills on the scale of major, ongoing wars. That is what I want to avoid because I get a kick out of seeing as much success as possible, and that's how I define it: most lives saved.
And much medical research is funded through non-profits. People have an interest in solving medical problems they or their loved ones might be suffering from.
I encourage foundations and so on. I also encourage greedy capitalists.
If someone invented a cure for AIDS tomorrow, but wanted to charge $10,000 per, no exceptions, would that be good or bad? (Note: I doubt they'd be anal about it for poor people, but that's beside the point.)
You have a road to haul. To put not too fine a point on it, it's largely still in the meme/rationalization stage.
Think BP is going to have a net gain or a net loss from their business plan of putting profits over people and the environment?
A loss, I hope. They destroyed that which did not belong to them.
Also, it's perfectly reasonable for the government, by way of the vote, to set rules on how risky one can be when dealing with something like that. It is my understanding BP exceeded the government-allowed risks. And neither the government nor BP is perfect, and big problems happen from time to time, and everybody learns and tries to prevent it in the future.
By the way, when a CEO says "corporate responsibility", they're just playing the age-old game of public relations. If embarrassment and losses help to increase conscientiousness n keeping machinery running properly, I'm all for it. Threats of social ostracism are all still in the realm of the voluntary.
Witness people like Bill Gates, who may very well have started his fund with the purpose of deflecting politicians hatin' on him, trying to sic anti-trust laws and whatnot. What politician wants to stand up and say, "This guy is a greedy pig, though he happens to give billions to charity!"
It's nothing new. Rockefeller turned philanthropist, too, I suspect for much the same reason. See, he was the king of the Robber Barons blah blah blah.
That's a pretty cynical view.
Thanks! All in a day's work.
When it comes to Gates, who lives in my neighborhood, BTW, (his house is only 5 miles from mine), I think it is an ignorant view. Melinda Gates, from what I see, had a much bigger influence on Bill than any bad publicity over his accumulation of wealth.
Gates definitely was an aggressive Rand style businessman when he built his wealth. But kids and a wife, as well as entering a new life phase is what seems to me to have resulted the change. Think about it. You reach your peak in your career, where else are you going to go? A highly motivated person like Gates has likely just felt he had done all he could with Microsoft and now he'd like to cure malaria. I sincerely doubt negative publicity or fear of the government were the main driving factors.
I would like to think you are right, but even if that's so now, I still think it's curiously coincidental to start about the time of the big anti-trust stuff here and in Europe was getting under way.
I still maintain it's all too common for the ultra-rich to play defensive politics by way of philanthropy. And the curious part of me would like to see success rates for these private funds vs. public funds, to see if spending one's own money (without direct profit potential) yields more results, more efficiently.
