Ayn Rand, "A free economy will not break down"

[orafi]

YO STAY ON TOPIC PEOPLES

This is important to me.

I know that laissez-faire is the way, but I'm asking about this because Ayn Rand stated it as a believable fact. Something she should back up right now. It's such a serious fact that I was hoping someone would have the evidence on hand right now.

Understand?

I mean, it shouldn't be two difficult. And we definitely had a few depressions/recessions in the first100 years of the US history. (The long depression, cause by the gold/silver prop up). And a couple of post war central bank recessions.

THANK YOU

She would back it up, but she's kind of dead right now.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

There be no boom or bust w/o a central bank and Federal paper money, of course it would be far more stable.

Okay so there is no true evidence to this?

Go investigate the matter yourself by studying free market economics, not too many people are enthusiastic about spoon feeding others.

 

[Mesogen]

It's the truth, just as the first 150 years of the United States and Free Market Capitalism did more for the Common Man than ANY other time in the history of Man.

Were there really free markets in the first 150 years of the US? Most of the country had slavery for a good portion of that. Even when slavery wasn't involved, there were still regulations. They didn't have nearly the maze of regulations we have now, but there were still licenses and certificates and little rules to follow.

 

[Objectivist]

Were there really free markets in the first 150 years of the US? Most of the country had slavery for a good portion of that. Even when slavery wasn't involved, there were still regulations. They didn't have nearly the maze of regulations we have now, but there were still licenses and certificates and little rules to follow.

ANd the North won the war without the use of slaves, proving a point about slave labor, it doesn't contribute to production the way a free market does.

It was the closest we've seen to it and it did more for the common people than any other time in history. Then we are so far removed from that now it'll take a major shift in dynamics to go back to it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree with you completely.

I'm not afraid to say I embrace government and violence as long as it fits my ideals.

Laws and their enforcement are a necessary evil. No need to embrace a cobra. But if we are going to have them, best way is to keep them simple, brief, and not open to manipulation. We should not allow theft at the highest levels, while strictly enforcing the law at the lowest levels.

Never embrace violence. It isn't logical.

 

[tmosley]

ANd the North won the war without the use of slaves, proving a point about slave labor, it doesn't contribute to production the way a free market does.

It was the closest we've seen to it and it did more for the common people than any other time in history. Then we are so far removed from that now it'll take a major shift in dynamics to go back to it.

That's not really a great point. The North won because they had all the industry. High levels of industrialization are not necessarily mutually exclusive with slavery (ie slaves can and do work in factories).

I would also point out that the boom and bust cycle can be triggered by simple government spending (even through depletion of gold reserves in a gold-exchangeable currency system). If a rich government floods the market with gold reserves, it will drive down interest rates, just the same as having the Fed artificially lower interest rates. It is harder to do, and a government can't do it very often, as it will deplete their currencies, and the destructive effect it has on the economy will make it hard to refill those reserves, but it can be done. In fact, I think that the Forgotten Depression was caused by just that, massive government spending in WWI.

 

[strapko]

Sure if you study economics and look at history you will see every blame on free market economics is propaganda and once you examine closely you will see tons of government intervention that caused the problem. So far I have not seen one example of a true free market in human history failing!!!!!

 

[DAaaMan64]

There be no boom or bust w/o a central bank and Federal paper money, of course it would be far more stable.



Go investigate the matter yourself by studying free market economics, not too many people are enthusiastic about spoon feeding others.

Please don't imply that I'm being lazy. This is one hell of fact drop on Rand's hands. I would have thought it would be easily on hand and provable around here.


Thanks.

I see we can't stay on topic any more. Thats fine, I pretty much got where I need to be.

 

[Objectivist]

That's not really a great point. The North won because they had all the industry. High levels of industrialization are not necessarily mutually exclusive with slavery (ie slaves can and do work in factories).

I would also point out that the boom and bust cycle can be triggered by simple government spending (even through depletion of gold reserves in a gold-exchangeable currency system). If a rich government floods the market with gold reserves, it will drive down interest rates, just the same as having the Fed artificially lower interest rates. It is harder to do, and a government can't do it very often, as it will deplete their currencies, and the destructive effect it has on the economy will make it hard to refill those reserves, but it can be done. In fact, I think that the Forgotten Depression was caused by just that, massive government spending in WWI.

Reality is slaves produce less or more appropriately, slaves produce enough to evade or escape punishment. Free workers produce to enrich themselves, I think they call it GREED! A good worker is an asset worth keeping and paying appropriately.

And the South had industry.