ARI/ARC news — VOICES for REASON

Forbes.com has just published the latest column by Yaron Brook and me, “When It Comes to Wealth Creation, There is No Pie.”

Metaphors, to use an overused metaphor, are a double-edged sword: sometimes they clarify, sometimes they confuse. One metaphor responsible for a great deal of confusion is that of wealth as a pie–a metaphor that shows up again and again in debates over income inequality.

You can read the whole column here.

Forbes.com has just published the latest column by Yaron Brook and me, “It’s Time to Kill the ‘Robin Hood’ Myth.”

If you were to judge by the rhetoric, you might think that Paul Ryan’s plan for reducing the federal deficit slashed the government’s budget by 90%, and funded the killing of kittens to boot. E.J. Dionne, for instance, calls it “radical,” “irresponsible,” and “extreme,” and asks, is this “the end of progressive government?” The truth is that Ryan actually proposes increasing government spending in the coming years–just at a lower rate than current projections. So why are Ryan’s critics so up in arms?

Because Ryan’s plan dares to touch (albeit, merely to scratch) the untouchable entitlement state. Ryan’s plan would, among other things, trim and reorganize Medicare and Medicaid and reduce federal support for education. To the plan’s critics, this amounts to “reverse-Robin Hood redistribution,” as former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Blinder put it. “[A]bout two-thirds of Mr. Ryan’s so-called courageous budget cuts would come from programs serving low- and moderate-income Americans, while the rich would gain from copious tax cuts.”

The “reverse-Robin Hood” line suggests that Ryan’s plan robs from “the poor” and gives to “the rich.” But cutting entitlements is not robbery–and cutting taxes isn’t a gift.

You can read the whole column here.

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.

Reminder: If you would like to enter to win a free copy of the updated edition of Why Businessmen Need Philosphy, just fill out our readership survey.  This new collection features essays by ARC writers Dr. Yaron Brook, Dr. Keith Lockitch, Dr. Onkar Ghate, and Alex Epstein.  Visit the website for the book to check out the table of contents and read excerpts from the collection.

This contest ends Friday, April 29.

The April issue of the Ayn Rand Institute’s monthly newsletter Impact features an interview with Debi Ghate, co-editor of the new collection Why Businessmen Need Philosophy.

Impact: Hello, Ms. Ghate. Thank you for meeting with Impact to talk about the new edition of Why Businessmen Need Philosophy. To begin, why did you decide to revise and expand this book?

Debi Ghate: Thanks for speaking with me! The idea to update Why Businessmen Need Philosophy arose when my co-editor, Richard Ralston, learned that the first edition had sold out. He was interested in printing it again with a few updates. When I learned of this, it seemed like a tremendous opportunity for us to create a new volume that might be of more interest to the academic and business community. It brought to mind all the positive conversations we’ve had about Atlas Shrugged with businessmen, college students and educators interested in free market ideas. We personally meet or otherwise hear of many fans of the novel who say the book was influential on them–and many of them are (or will someday be) in business-related fields.

Yet very few consider themselves to be seriously interested in philosophical ideas, which of course, the novel is full of. The new edition of Why Businessmen Need Philosophy serves as a bridge between the novel and its underlying ideas with an emphasis on how they apply to the realm of business. Hence the subtitle for our new book–The Capitalist’s Guide to the Ideas Behind Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

When Richard compiled the first edition in 1999, Objectivist scholarship in this area (and in many other areas) was more limited. Since then, there has been an explosion of excellent articles on themes of interest to the audiences I’ve described. In addition, the new volume provided us with an opportunity to highlight Ayn Rand’s writings on business in a way that had not been done before.

The result is that we now have a much expanded, improved and timely book than was originally planned.

Read the rest of the interview here.  The issue also includes an excerpt from ARC senior fellow Onkar Ghate’s essay ”Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence.”

For another excerpt from the book and the full table of contents, check out the website for Why Businessmen Need Philosophy.

Forbes.com has just published the latest column by Yaron Brook and me, part 3 on the subject of ObamaCare and the debate over preexisting conditions. In this installment, we describe how a the attempt to stop insurers from taking into account preexisting conditions is paving the way for socialized medicine.

The preexisting condition rule places crippling limits on the ability of insurers to create policies based on their best assessment of risk. It will turn them into essentially passive middlemen, who no longer appraise and control risk, but who merely perform the administrative function of doling out health care benefits. It’s only a matter of time before people start to ask: Why not save money by cutting out the middleman? (That, indeed, is what happened with student loans. After decades of subsidies and regulations, the government shoved the banks aside and took over the student loan market.)

You can read the whole column here.

The revised and updated edition of Why Businessmen Need Philosophy hits stores this Tuesday, April 5!  This edition contains new essays by ARC writers Onkar Ghate, Alex Epstein, Yaron Brook, and Keith Lockitch.  Check out the website for the book, where you can peruse the table of contents, watch an interview with co-editor Debi Ghate, read an excerpt from the book, and keep up with other updates.

Don’t forget to place your order for Why Businessmen Need Philosophy today!

And if you want to be entered into a drawing to win a free copy of the book, take our survey.

Voices for Reason is conducting a survey to better understand our readership base. Those who complete the survey will be entered into a drawing to win a free copy of the new edition of Why Businessmen Need Philosophy!

To enter, please fill out the survey, which can be found here.

This contest closes on April 29, 2011.

Click here for contest rules.

The Ayn Rand Center (ARC) along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) invite you to celebrate industrial civilization and defend the energy that makes it possible during “Human Achievement Hour” this Saturday at 8:30 p.m. EST.

The event coincides with “Earth Hour,” which encourages people worldwide to turn off their lights as a protest against carbon emissions. During “Human Achievement Hour,” we encourage you to leave your lights on and fully enjoy the benefits of industrial civilization made possible by burning fossil fuels. Beginning at 8 p.m. EST, CEI is hosting a celebration at its offices in Washington D.C. and via livestream.

Back in 2009, ARC fellow Keith Lockitch explained the importance of standing against the “Earth Hour” campaign:

Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of world energy), and because the claims of abundant “green energy” from breezes and sunbeams are a myth—this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy use.

People don’t have a clear view of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don’t consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of every day. Driving our cars to work and school, sitting in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that proposed climate policies would force upon us.

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Forbes.com has just published the latest column by Yaron Brook and me, part 2 on the subject of ObamaCare and the debate over preexisting conditions. In this installment, we describe how a free market in health insurance might deal with preexisting conditions.

Imagine a world without health insurance. You’re a young entrepreneur and you notice that a perennial problem people face is how to protect themselves against the risk of incurring costly and unexpected medical expenses. For most, the apparent option–save enough money to cover any medical bill–is impractical: what if they get sick before they save enough? Or what if the cost of treatment exceeds a person’s capacity to save?

You realize that wherever there’s a problem, there’s an opportunity. You could convince some of the people in your town to purchase from you insurance that pays out in the event of accident or serious illness. But starting such a company would require a lot of work, a lot of financial capital, and complex actuarial and business skills that take a long time to acquire. You would need to set  rates to make sure more money is coming in than is going out; process claims to separate the legitimate from the illegitimate ones; and grow your client base. The challenges are enormous, but if you succeed, the value you provide clients would be huge and the profit potential should be as well.

After some careful deliberation, you decide to launch the business. You launch the first health insurance company. Your idea quickly catches on, and soon other health insurance companies spring up in your town and beyond.

You can read the whole column here.