capitalism

Archive for Tag “capitalism”


Two New Articles on Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand

In Yahoo! Finance, Harry Binswanger contrasts Ryan’s budget plan with what an “Ayn Rand budget” would look like. He writes:

The buzz is huge. The web is “aTwitter” and the streams of the mainstream media are churning: VP candidate Paul Ryan is an admirer Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

The left is particularly exercised. Just Google “Ryan-Rand ticket” and you will find a slew of articles at Huffington Post, Daily Kos, etc., claiming that Rand’s Objectivism has “taken over the Republican Party” and that Ryan’s budget was an “Ayn Rand budget.”

If only!

Read the rest of the article here.

In Foreign Policy magazine, Elan Journo contrasts Ryan’s foreign policy proposals with Rand’s conception of a proper foreign policy. He writes:

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has credited philosopher Ayn Rand with inspiring him to enter politics — and made her 1,000-plus-page opus, Atlas Shrugged, required reading for his staff. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he said in 2005 at a gathering of Rand fans. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” It is a theme that pervades Rand’s corpus.

Given the Wisconsin congressman’s interest in Rand’s writings, Ryan’s addition to the GOP ticket has naturally unleashed a flash-mob of analysts parsing his speeches, articles, and signature proposals for evidence of her influence. On domestic policy, the impact of Rand’s ideas on Ryan’s outlook is marked, though uneven and sometimes overstated. Religion, in particular, has driven a wedge between Ryan, who would enact Catholic dogma into law, and Rand, an atheist, who championed the separation of church and state. But what has received far less attention is Ryan’s outlook on foreign policy — and whether it bears the mark of Rand’s thought.

Read the rest of the article here.


Don’t be confused by the Occupy Wall Street protesters

Here are my recent comments on the Occupy Wall Street protests:

Some Americans have expressed sympathy with the Occupy Wall Street protesters because they oppose bank bailouts and the incestuous relationship between Washington and Wall Street.

“Americans are understandably upset by what they see as ‘crony capitalism,’” said the Ayn Rand Center’s Don Watkins. “But the real motive of the protesters is not to end ‘crony capitalism’–it’s to attack real capitalism and end whatever is left of it in America.

“For years, Washington has favored certain bankers by intervening in the market. But that has nothing to do with genuine capitalism. Capitalism means that the government does one thing–protects us from force and fraud–leaving us free to conduct our economic affairs as we see fit. A capitalist government doesn’t intervene to pick winners and losers, or to save companies from their mistakes.

“But the Wall Street protests aren’t calling for an end to government intervention in markets–they want to increase it. Most of them, for example, want to increase wealth redistribution in the name of fighting income inequality.

“Contrary to their rhetoric, they do not oppose the banks on the grounds that Wall Street is in bed with Washington. Notice, for instance, the plans to protest outside the home of investor John Paulson, who cannot be accused of getting government favors, and the lack of complaints about taxpayer money being poured into GM, Chrysler, and Solyndra. They chose to protest Wall Street because, whatever its flaws, it symbolizes genuine capitalism.

“What the protesters object to is not government stacking the deck to determine winners and losers. They just want the government to pick different winners and losers. They want to take the ‘capitalism’ out of ‘crony capitalism’–not the other way around.”


Photo: Paul Stein


Watch ARC speakers during “Capitalism Awareness Week”

Over the next week, ARI speakers will participate in “Capitalism Awareness Week.” Capitalism Awareness Week is being spearheaded by the student publication The Undercurrent, and will feature a series of events at college campuses addressing what capitalism really is and how our country would be far more prosperous and just if markets were free.

  • Tonight Yaron Brook will debate Dane Smith, the president of Growth and Justice, on whether regulating capitalism is a moral necessity or moral treason.
  • On Thursday, Sept. 29, Don Watkins will tackle America’s entitlement crisis and answer whether the entitlement state and its leading programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—can and should survive.
  • On Tuesday, Oct. 4, John Allison, an ARI board member and retired chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation, will discuss the causes, consequences, and cures of the recent financial crisis.

The best part is: all of these events will be streamed live over the web. So be sure to check them out!

More information can be found at capitalismweek.org (which is also where the events can be streamed live).


Ayn Rand’s alliances

My colleague Don Watkins just posted an online comment to a recent column by Al Lewis concerning Ayn Rand. Ordinarily Don wouldn’t have bothered, except that Lewis’s diatribe went out under the auspices of the Wall Street Journal, the nation’s largest circulation daily newspaper. I’ve reproduced Don’s comment in its entirety below:

Al Lewis suggests that today’s prominent admirers of Ayn Rand (such as Rep. Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh, and Justice Clarence Thomas) “would be crushed to learn that she might never love them back.” Lewis wants us to know how baffled he is at Rand’s refusal, during her lifetime, to forge alliances with everyone who claimed to have something in common with her politics.

Lewis’s column, for all its childish, hit-and-run bluster, invites attention to an important fact about Ayn Rand. As a crusader for laissez-faire capitalism, Rand traced the historical decline of freedom to a series of crucial intellectual errors. Her task, as she saw it, was to advance rigorous arguments demonstrating the system’s virtues, in order to persuade reasonable people to change their minds.

It was this serious mission that kept Rand on constant watch for advocates who might claim to be her allies, but whose arguments actually undermined the cause of freedom. Consider the examples Lewis mentions. When libertarians argued that capitalism leads to anarchism—or when Reaganite conservatives argued that a woman’s individual right to the pursuit of happiness must be sacrificed to a month-old embryo—or when right-leaning Christians argued that the profit motive, though immoral, is tolerable because it benefits society—Ayn Rand distanced herself and her philosophy from those movements. Why? Because she thought their arguments would hurt, rather than help, the cause of freedom.

In today’s world, to be selective about one’s allies is to invite accusations of dogmatism. But it was precisely Rand’s lack of dogmatism—her conviction that only rational, persuasive arguments can change the world—that made her so careful about avoiding confusion in making the case for capitalism.

From the wild array of accusations, distortions, and half-truths contained in Lewis’s column, I have selected this one issue for a too-brief discussion—the rest don’t merit rebuttal. Rand’s arguments and alliances deserve to be taken seriously, not treated in the cavalier fashion that Lewis adopts.


Debate on the Morality of Capitalism Tonight

Former chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation John Allison will debate Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein tonight in New York City.  The topic is “Capitalism: Is It Moral?”  This debate is the third event of the three-part “First Principles” debate series co-sponsored by the Ayn Rand Center, the think tank Demos, and WNYC, the local NPR affiliate.

On WNYC’s site, Mr. Allison has written a blog post describing the nature of capitalism and his experience as a commercial banker for thirty years. Mr. Allison writes:

But capitalism is not exploitative. I spent nearly twenty years as the CEO of one of America’s largest financial institutions, BB&T, and one of the things I saw again and again was that a businessman who abandons principle and tries to make money at the expense of others, although he may succeed in the short run, is doomed in the long run. Taking advantage of people is not truly selfish, it is self-defeating: people will not trust you. You might fool Fred and Suzie, but they will tell Tom, Dick, and Harry and no one will trust you. Being untrustworthy will put you out of business.

The reason BB&T has been so successful is because we help our clients achieve economic success and financial security. They voluntarily pay us for this service, allowing us to make a profit. Both BB&T and our customers are better off from this win-win relationship. On a free market, where you can’t seek favors or bailouts from Washington, business is about creating these types of win-win relationships–by figuring out ways to benefit your clients while making a profit doing so. (And, if you do defraud your customers or engage in some other crime, the government in a free market is there to put a stop to it.)

Read the rest of John Allison’s post here.

Tonight’s debate can be watched live via ARC’s Facebook page starting at 6 p.m. ET.  And if you missed the last two debates, check them out on our YouTube page.


Demos vs. ARC debate, round two

WNYC has posted round two in the online debate between Yaron Brook of ARC and Miles Rapoport of Demos, on the proper role of government. That online exchange is a prelude to a live debate Thursday night on the same topic at NYU’s Skirball Center, kicking off the First Principles Debate Series.

For those who cannot make it to the Skirball Center, note that there will be a live video stream from the event.


What is the Proper Role of Government? – NYC Debate

ny_debate_logo ARC president Dr. Yaron Brook will be engaging in a lively debate on March 10 at the NYU Skirball Center in NYC.  He will debate Miles Rapoport, of the think tank Demos, on the question: “What is the Proper Role of Government?”  This debate is the first of a three-part series called “First Principles,” in which fundamental issues in politics will be discussed.

The debate will be moderated by Brian Lehrer of The Brian Lehrer Show from WNYC, a chapter of NPR.  To build up to the event, WNYC is publishing blog posts that illustrate the starkly different views of the two debaters on what the government should and should not do.

In the first blog post, for example, Mr. Rapoport contends that government should provide the “basic opportunities . . . every person [should] have access to in order to live a dignified life,” such as health care, education, and financial security in old age.  In contrast, Dr. Brook argues that a proper government would recognize “that each individual’s life morally belongs to him, and its sustenance and happiness are his [own] responsibility,” not the government’s.  In Dr. Brook’s view, government should be limited to “protect[ing] the rights of each individual against coercive interference with others.”

Check out their remarks in full here.

And stay tuned for more blog exchanges on this issue from Dr. Brook and Mr. Rapoport!

Also be sure to RSVP to the event if you are in NYC on March 10.  If you won’t be in town, watch the event live on ARC’s Facebook page!  (You won’t need an account)


The sale before the sail

This is a post about a contract. The parties are two companies: Maersk, the world’s largest container-shipping line, and Daewoo, a South Korean shipbuilder. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, excerpted below, Maersk has ordered ten new container ships from Daewoo—ships that will be the biggest ever built.

As you read, think about how important this contract is to all the people involved: stockholders, managers, employees, suppliers, and related companies. Then imagine the contract’s complexity—the number of different clauses required to spell out all parties’ obligations, expectations, remedies upon failure to perform, and so forth—and the depth of legal expertise needed to draft and negotiate it. Then contemplate how many thousands or millions of new shipping contracts will be made possible by the construction of these ten ships—as the article says, “to transport cargo ranging from iPhones to powdered milk between Asia and the ports of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Felixstowe, England and Bremerhaven, Germany.”

Now think about how the world’s economy functions through millions of such contracts—most not nearly as large as this $1.9 billion deal, but all of them important to the parties. Finally, think about what a remarkable political achievement it is for companies to have the freedom of contract necessary to conceive and carry out a transaction on this scale.

It’s staggering to think about how much of modern life depends on contracts like this one.

The order “changes the whole landscape in the container-ship market,” said Nam Sang-tae, chief executive of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., the South Korean company that agreed to deliver the 10 ships by 2014.

The deal, which the two companies said was the biggest in shipbuilding history, includes options for 20 more of the $190 million vessels.

The new ships will be 1,312 feet long, 193.5 feet wide and 239.5 feet high, longer than a modern aircraft carrier and bulkier than an oil tanker. They will be able to carry 18,000 20-foot containers, 2,500 [more] than the largest class of container ships now in service, which are also in Maersk’s fleet.

Maersk will use the ships to transport cargo ranging from iPhones to powdered milk between Asia and the ports of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Felixstowe, England and Bremerhaven, Germany, among the few Western ports big and deep enough to accommodate them. U.S. ports are too small to handle such large ships. . . .

The economies of scale afforded by the current generation of large container ships already has led shippers to start moving new categories of goods—commodities like wheat and corn, and bulky objects like trucks—inside containers, instead of aboard other kinds of ships

Maersk’s new order, which was signed in London, could reshape competition in the highly fragmented industry. . . .

Industry experts said the new ships are approaching maximum size. Already, if all the containers on the new Triple-E ships were laid end to end, they would stretch for 68.8 miles. In theory, bigger ships could be built, but there would have to be ports big and deep enough to handle them.

Image: WikiMedia Commons


Changing the debate on education reform

Over at the Huffington Post, PBS’s Ray Suarez blogged about a panel discussion in which I recently participated. Suarez is host of Destination Casa Blanca, a Latino-oriented current events program, and I was one of four panelists on the January 20, 2011, show. Here’s a passage from his post:

One of our guests, Tom Bowden of the Ayn Rand Institute, wanted a small federal government, but didn’t believe the newly empowered Republican caucuses on Capitol Hill were going to give him one. Israel Ortega of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation stressed his organization’s support for low taxes, lower government spending, and fewer federal duties. Bowden and Ortega agreed that emphasizing local management and local innovation would improve education more effectively than federal government oversight.

The hour-long discussion was wide-ranging, but since this post mentions education, I’ll just point out that my comments called into question the idea that government has any role in education. (You can see an edited video of that segment here.) So, my viewpoint was distinct from that of the Heritage expert—I don’t think “local management and local innovation” can address the fundamental problems with public schooling. If you’re interested in exploring the issue, here are links to a short video and a web page on privatizing the market for education.

Meanwhile, thanks to the folks at Destination Casa Blanca for welcoming an unabashedly pro-capitalist viewpoint into a variety of continuing debates that are elsewhere limited to the familiar opinions of liberals and conservatives.

Image: Wikimedia Commons


New Forbes.com Column: Can Arthur Brooks beat back Big Government?

Forbes.com has just published the latest column by Yaron Brook and me, an analysis of Arthur Brooks’ recent book The Battle.

What’s the central message of The Battle? That the advocates of big government have offered a potent moral case that wealth redistribution promotes the happiness of society, and that the supporters of free markets need to articulate their own moral defense of capitalism in reply. Brooks’ argument, in short, is that wealth redistribution does not make people happy. The source of genuine happiness is earned success, i.e., “the creation of value” by the individual — and it is capitalism that fosters earned success. To defend capitalism in moral terms, he concludes, is to defend it as the system of the pursuit of happiness.

There are important elements of truth in this narrative, but there is also a gaping hole. What Brooks doesn’t acknowledge is that the pursuit of your own happiness is at odds with the near-universal view that we have a moral obligation to sacrifice ourselves to the needs of others — and that the basic reason we live in an ever-expanding welfare state is because, when faced with a choice between the individual’s pursuit of happiness and his duty to serve others’ needs, we almost always choose the latter.

You can read the entire piece here.