I Have Seen the Future, and It Doesn’t Work the Way You Think
The Wall Street Journal and the Cato Institute continue their unremitting self-parody with today’s clueless editorial touting . . . (yes, get ready for it) . . . Ayn Rand’s turgid, melodramatic novel Atlas Shrugged.
Proving that Cato really is peopled exclusively with surly 15-year-old prep schoolers, Stephen Moore says with a straight face that:
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read “Atlas Shrugged” a “virgin.” Being conversant in Ayn Rand’s classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only “Atlas” were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I’m confident that we’d get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
He explains that everything predicted by prescient genius and self-annointed uberfrau Rand is really truly The Way Things Are, and we’re all going to realize it Any Day Now.
Many of us who know Rand’s work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that “Atlas Shrugged” parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit. . . .
In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as “the looters and their laws.” Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the “Anti-Greed Act” to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel’s promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the “Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act,” aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn’t Hank Paulson think of that?
These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act” and the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.” Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.” This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion — in roughly his first 100 days in office. . . .
The [book describes an event] eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in “the public interest.”
Ultimately, “Atlas Shrugged” is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand’s political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear — leaving everyone the poorer.
Leave aside the whiny doomsaying and petulant self-justification (the book was an “instant hit” among self-absorbed grandiosities and remains a joke otherwise, and there is a reason people call Randites compassionless). Skip the sheer boneheadedness as well (in Atlas Shrugged, the true capitalists are all strong-jawed individualists, the “parasites” are weak, sniveling, beggars; the capitalists withdraw from society, solemnly take a literal oath not to contribute to charity, retreat to a secluded mountain valley, and establish their own strictly libertarian and capitalistic society on the gold standard; naturally, the entire rest of the world collapses into anarchistic chaos as soon as the CEOs of several banks, railroads, and mining companies decide to take a vacation). And even ignore the deliberate distortions required to make Randianism even plausible (how is it that the ultra-capitalist objects to the government taking an equity position in the companies it’s giving money to? – that’s no more than basic business sense; note also that nobody was forced to take any money from the government – they demanded it after they had driven their own businesses into bankruptcy, and then didn’t like the terms on which it was offered – but to Moore, that’s just the same as confiscation without compensation; and perhaps it’s best just to pass over any evaluation of how our modern-day Dagny Taggarts have “cultivated wealth through intellect”, as their entire industries go bankrupt through corruption and mismanagement). What’s remarkable is how blind Moore is to the collapse of the empty myth the Friedmans and Rands of the world comforted themselves with – a collapse he documents but does not notice.
He’s right, in some sense, that the world – and the United States in particular, the homeland of fuck-you libertarianism – has steadily become ever less Randian in the 52 years since her risible amorality play was published. We grow ever closer to the rest of the civilized world by creating and extending retirement and healthcare programs that provide for all citizens, increasing support for the disabled and special education, improving emergency services (and rightly condemning those who undermine them in times of need), and guarding against ruin by regulating the financial speculators who first destroyed the stock market in the 20s and, again absent appropriate regulations, did the same to the housing mortgage and securities-derivatives markets today. Every such program has bettered the lives of Americans, and all are popular and increasingly in demand. Again and again, unbridled capitalism (and its political lapdog the GOP) has proven it cannot be entrusted with what really matters in people’s lives – it’s great with Pet Rocks, Britney Spears videos, and the Thighmaster, but it kills people or condemns them to misery when entrusted with their healthcare, retirement savings, mortgages, school funding, environment, or public safety. Again and again, prudent regulation and oversight have proven to be necessary, and usually beneficial. And the more obvious that becomes, the more idiotic Rand’s self-aggrandizing fantasy appears.
Look around . . . the economy isn’t collapsing because of the GI Bill, Medicare, the interstate highway system, or FDIC insurance for bank deposits. Those are among the few parts of the economy that worked rightly, and still provide protections for those most in need, and most in danger of ruin at the hands of the businesses they trusted not to destroy them. The economy is collapsing because “the smartest guys in the room” were either insanely stupid or just plain vicious crooks. We’re not going to get out of this by giving those people more freedom to do what they’ve done with even less control or oversight. We’re going to get out of this – like every economy does (“there are non-Keynesian economists, but there are no non-Keynesian economies”) – by spending to stimulate growth, support for the needy to prevent tragedy, and regulations to protect the vulnerable and prevent another incompetent, criminal meltdown like this one. And when we come out the other side, as we will, after we’ve muzzled the crooks, the creeps, and the silver-spoon “rugged individualists” who got us here, we’ll keep the regulations needed to keep them in line until they think of yet more ways to evade them and create another mess later, and we’ll keep the support programs and social services needed to protect the people when they do. It’s what civilized societies do, and it’s what’s necessary when you let capitalists off the leash.
In a way, we have the Randians, the Friedmanites, and the Cato clowns to thank for this last necessary push over the hump into the decently mixed, appropriately regulated economy with robust social services that I hope and expect will arise from the Obama administration. They’ve proven they can’t be trusted with anything as serious as real-world economic policy. Better to leave them to their unreadable books and delusional mutual admiration, while their fantasy world crumbles around them and they don’t realize it.
I read the 1st couple sentences, skimmed the rest, and then came to the realization: No one is reading this.
No one will ever read from beginning to end a single paragraph of the author’s work, because it is worthless, self-indulgent crap. But such writing might still might make the world an incrementally better place, if the author enjoys himself.
So – keep on writing!
I think a lot of people have said that about Ayn Rand. (But “Ayn” is a woman.)
KTK:
You beat me to it. A fan of Rand describing someone else’s writing as “worthless, self-indulgent crap” is rich indeed.
Atlas Shrugged is an allegory, not a novel, and it’s as badly written and unbelievable as Pilgrim’s Progress. The only way in which it’s an incredible story is in the literal sense of ‘incredible’.
[...] at Memeorandum is aghast at Moore’s temerity in pointing out the obvious. Witness KTK’s anti-Rand diatribe at Leaning Left in which future generations of heroic regulators will save America by keeping the [...]
KTK, stop and consider where things of value come FROM. You cannot GIVE to anyone else until value has been created. It just doesn’t drop from the sky as Washington thinks for them to distribute.
I dare you to state how you can morally ‘take’ (by force-gov’t) value created/earned from another individual and give to someone else?
Without basic property rights, there can be no other rights.
What I earn, with my own mind and effort should be distributed how I see fit. Not by anyone or any gov’t.
So, say I have 10 widgets. State how anyone, without using force, should or can, ‘take’ it from me without an equal exchange of value.
I don’t think you have ever read ‘Shrugged’. Maybe you did to pass a class in high school. Read it again as an adult. Big difference. For example, take the case study of the ‘20th Century Motor Co.’ Strikingly similar to the big 3.
Many immoraly run business will fold, soon. And Obama does not have the money to do what he wants. The bond market is almost tapped out. What to do when you can’t borrow from the Chinese (New York times last week)?
Mises has it right. You cannot keep regulating something doomed to fail.
As for your comment ‘providing protections for those in need’ should have after it (with the use of confiscatory force if necessary) because it has to come from SOMEWHERE, right? Gov’t has devastated many VOLUNTARY charities, why VOLUNTARILY donate to a good charity when Gov’t always steps up?
[...] More here: I Have Seen the Future, and It Doesnât Work the Way You Think [...]
Unconfuse me: Who is the “Ayn Rand fan” here?
I think you are wrong about the United States being less Randian than it was fifty years ago. Back then, the mainstream of the Republican party had made its peace with the New Deal. Eisenhower and Nixon both thought that national health care was a reasonable idea. Rand’s ideas did not start gaining mainstream traction until Reagan got into office.
Vinney, I recommend either reading the book, or at least the wiki synopsis. A Randian government would exist to protect it’s citizens from fraud, coercion, and force. Keynes rules in Washington; I’d be suprised if even 5 members of congress had ever read any of her work.
As to this article, what a load of laughable rubbish! Were there any arguments in there, or just petty insults? Still, about par the course for Rand criticism.
“The economy is collapsing because ‘the smartest guys in the room’ were either insanely stupid or just plain vicious crooks.”
Stop being dramatic: the economy isn’t “collapsing.” Yeah, it’s in bad shape, but not because corporations were given unchecked freedom to twist their mustaches and screw people out of their money. The government IS to blame, particularly with these evil bailouts, but also because its web of regulations put corporations in the position of doing anything it takes to remain solvent – since doing business in a legitimate manner is practically illegal.
The Right and the Left in America are no longer any different, aside from a little ideological window dressing. Both want power and control over individuals’ lives, and the only thing keeping them from enacting total fascist control over the country is the idiocy that leaves them believing that there’s a difference.
So, that’s the standard the Cato Institute sets for its spokespeople – those who repeatedly prove themselves as unable to go toe-to-toe intellectually with the likes of Ben Affleck and D.L. Hughley (no offense, guys, I know you’re reading) on Real Time with Bill Maher?…
Anyway, if one wanted to attempt to throw a poignant zinger at Congress in the form of a recommended book to read, Atlas Shrugged is a trite, cliched, thoroughly mediocre choice.
Oh, Stephen, how funny, incisive, clever, and novel. Oh, I got a good one that I bet noboy’s ever heard before. Maybe they should read, get ready for it – it’s so awesome, 1984. ZING!!!
And even if you wanted to throw a libertarian novel, I’d pick “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” by Heinlien, It involves group marriage, a colony of lunar criminals, a super-intelligent computer, and it’s still much much more coherently argued (and fun!) than anything Ayn Rand ever wrote.
The government IS to blame, particularly with these evil bailouts, but also because its web of regulations put corporations in the position of doing anything it takes to remain solvent – since doing business in a legitimate manner is practically illegal.
The haymaker that connected to the jaw of the economy came in the form of the credit default swaps blowing up. The CDSes were virutally unregulated. In fact, the idea of regulating them was proposed and shot down. Underlying that decision was the notion that those involved are savvy, skilled businesspeople engaged in complex dealings and we should stay out of their way.
I would like to hear specific examples of how over-regulation has hampered business, undermining our economic stability and stifling progress on a more holistic level. I always here the charge – I never hear the actual case….
The Right and the Left in America are no longer any different, aside from a little ideological window dressing. Both want power and control over individuals’ lives, and the only thing keeping them from enacting total fascist control over the country is the idiocy that leaves them believing that there’s a difference.
Substitute “Republican” and “Democrat” for “right” and “left” respectively, and there you have a point.
Atlas Shrugged only scratches the surface of the true wickedness of the people in power today. We should hope and pray to get off that easy. But what I really dont get is these assinine morons like KTK who laugh and cheer the complete destruction of the US. As if they are paid to be ignorant. Are you, KTK, paid to be ignorant? lol.
“Look around . . . the economy isn’t collapsing because of the GI Bill, Medicare, the interstate highway system”
This is exactly what I mean about ignorance. Yes, the economy is collapsing because of all those things. Just take one: the interstate highway system. This one thing is responsible for the importation of what 6-8 mbpd of oil? It’s completely unsustainable, a total debacle. It has spawned suburbia and a whole host of other problems. And worst of all it killed off mass transit. The country may not survive such a colossal malinvestment. All thanks to government. I could apply the same analysis to any Big Government program. They are Specifically designed to weaken the country over the long term, because they are created by the scum of the earth. The whole power structure is corrupt, and has been for as far back as I can see. The only role govt should play is to keep those corrupt and dark powers from controlling societies.
To the extent that your bizarre notion about the highway system has any merit, it would be the steadfast commitment to oil, and the concomitant effects on the environment and pseudo-monopolistic economic juggernauts that develop as a result of that commitment that “destroy the economy.” The highway system is infrastructure, the effects you talk about have to do with the manner in which we use them. Your argument is like blaming dopamine receptors for heroin addiction or something.
It is true that those in power have a vested interest in maintaining may status quos that are not in the interest of the overall health of the economy or environment. And, it is true that the oil industry is extremely powerful and influential based on its wealth. And, it’s true that the highway system helped enable those morally bankrupt people accrue their wealth and power… in much the same way the invention of the typewriter helped Ann Coulter spew her venom. But all that is a far cry from the highway system wrecking the country, as much as I detest strip malls.
Thanks, Digg, excellent analogy.
Vaguely related to the OP: WSJ is scared that Obama might actually differ from a Republican in his judicial appointments, and it appalled by the possibility (yes, it’s an old link; I just found it.):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html