I don't consider myself a Randian, but I believe Atlases do shrug in situations that can have very noticeable consequences. Venezuela isn't the best example, since once an oil rig is in place, it's not that hard to keep it pumping. However, the state-owned oil company will probably be building *new* rigs less efficiently, and will have to defer maintenance until parts are reverse-engineered.

A better example would be Zimbabwe. The government ran the printing presses full-stop and engaged in a massive land-distribution scheme, and the productive members of society simply left. The farms are producing a mere fraction of their previous yields, store shelves are completely bare, and the economy is barely functioning.

Another example would be Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, where scientists, businesses, and intellectuals left those countries en masse (one of them being Ayn Rand coincidentally). The transfers of wealth were only temporary in nature for these countries--in the end mental capital and human freedom is what produces long-term wealth.

I also have a personal Atlas-shrugged story. I used to be a programmer in Chicago, but fled the area due to onerous tax increases, an increasingly capricious, corrupt, and inept city government, as well as an outrageous cost of living. Did the city miss me specifically? Not really, but imagine thousands of people like me leaving the city--collectively it would be at a loss.

I'm much happier in the city I live now as it is more free. The city services are arguable better: no police shootings, no SWAT raids, no pot holes, no red light cameras, no eminent domain abuse, and well-plowed streets. The cultural scene is vibrant and arguable more accessible. I'm sure the city is better off with another happy productive citizen.

So I really don't buy a crucially important tenet of Rand's philosophy. She seems to believe ... that "extreme capitalism" is a good thing.

Regarding "extreme capitalism", last week, I listened to a podcast from the left-of-center anarchist Francois Tremblay. In episode 023, he explains that the word "capitalism" means different things to different people. Some, like Austrian economists, use the word simply to indicate private ownership of the means of production and the freedom to peacefully use the same. Most people in 21st century America, however, take "capitalism" to mean what we have here in the United States, where the government gets in on the action, subsidizes some, taxes others, and passes laws in favor of some at the expense of others. Under this style of "capitalism", the invisible hand pushes businessmen to get the coercive power of the state behind them. Tremblay uses the second definition. I always liked the first definition, but I now understand that I will have to be more clear when I use it.

In your uninformed opinion, which version of "extreme capitalism" did Rand advocate?

If ... you still think she's wonderful, you've got a problem.
...
(No, I never actually read the book, I'm just passing along "received wisdom" from writers of the left blogosphere)

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."

— John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)

That's not to say leaders are useless. But it is to say that followers, laborers, are more indispensible than leaders are.

It's an interesting way of looking at it. I've never felt the urge to categorize the members of society by their apparent dispensibility. Where would you say capital owners fall on the dispensibility spectrum? How productive will the workers be if the capital owner is dispensed with, and he takes his capital with him when he leaves?

I have tremendous difficulty defining the capitalism of the Reagan/elder Bush/Clinton/younger Bush era as being one of overbearing regulations. I know what you're speaking of and agree that the state has grown tremendously, but my view is that conservative/capitalist complaints of being suffocated by excessive regulations are hugely overstated and mainly used so that capital can free itself from fulfilling a socially responsible role.
Good capitalism is restrained and chained down and restricted in all kinds of ways. Bad capitalism is free to do as it wishes. I'm in favor of people making as much money as possible, I have no difficulty with people getting rich, but they need to be restrained from polluting, manipulating finances, stealing peoples' hard-earned wealth for their own corrupt uses, etc.

I'm sorry for the length of this. When you boil it down, though, it is just three questions:

You can hear Greenspan in his own words (once on the page, click "Listen Now". A discussion about Ayn Rand and Libertarianism begins at 33:00.). He says he was trying to replicate the gold standard, which is what a laissez-faire, free-market advocate in his position would do (assuming that dismantling the Fed was out of the question).

1.) Do you think Greenspan successfully replicated the gold standard as Fed Chairman?

On Ayn Rand, good call on the anachronism. One further question on her: Malone, the author of Deliberately Misplaced Blame, says this about Rand:

...Ayn Rand (with characteristically vitriolic passion) opposed the very essence of the Federal Reserve and the central-banking system on which the US economy is now based. [She] also all strongly opposed subsidies, tariffs, protectionist measures of any kind, and would have been positively mortified by the bailouts.

Baker, author of Greenspan Follies, says this about Rand:

Ayn Rand would watch the Wall Street big boys run roughshod over their shareholders' interests and be applauding them every step of the way. That is how the game is played.

2.) Are these two statements in conflict, and if so, who is right?

<<<The US over the last 30 years is my primary example [of a government that regulates too little].>>>

An Austrian economist would say this: Remember that we have a centrally planned monetary system in the Federal Reserve. This means essentially that the value of every dollar in every wallet and bank account of every man, woman, and child in this country, and the ease with which the same may be lent and borrowed, is determined by the policies of a handful of publicly appointed bureaucrats who operate largely in secret. The stated mission of this wholly pervasive institution is, among other things, to:

• conduct[] the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates[, and to]
• supervis[e] and regulat[e] banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.

To an Austrian economist, this is the very definition of central planning--and it doesn't even take into account the regulatory jungle that has enveloped the economy over the last century. Yet this is your archetype of a government that regulates too little.

3.) Are there really no governments that regulate less than this? Are there no governments, past or present, that serve as a warning of what would happen if the deregulation that Austrians economists advocate is allowed to occur?

It's like, I want to answer everything, but I don't want the conversation to go in a zillion directions. Table the Enron thought for now. I have an answer for that, but I want to keep on Rand. I want to get back to what you were saying about "extreme captialism". I want to know what means to you.

<<<I still think Baker is putting his view of Rand in the context of her being mean and cold-hearted and pro-rich people as opposed to having her theory state that she prefers a certain outcome. That might be a misinterpretation on Baker's part.>>>

Are you saying that Baker is creating a context around Rand in which he makes her out to be "cold-hearted" and "pro-rich people" (whatever that means) for his own purposes, or are you saying that Rand was, in fact, "cold-hearted" and "pro-rich people", and that this is the context around her that we should all understand?

Of the two quotes about Rand, does either of them reflect what you consider to be "extreme capitialism"? Does either of them decidedly not reflect "extreme capitalism"?

<<<Hmm, is it bad to have only [one] entity able to set interest rates? Haven't given the question any thought, so I'm open to argument on that score.>>>

How would Malone's Ayn Rand answer the question? How would Baker's? The same? Differently?

<<<[Inflation is] Too much money chasing too few goods.>>>>

Austrian economists have some very, very interesting things to say about inflation that would fit very well into your PRAWN Anti-War blog. I don't want to sidetrack though, but you must hear it at some point. I'll try to find a good link...