From Mises blog 2008; archived comments below.
The Ayn Rand Institute’s op-ed, The Real Lesson of the Great Depression, opines that “The Great Depression does have something to teach us about the current crisis.” According to ARI, there were various causes of the Great Depression:
“Most people believe the Great Depression was caused by an ‘excessively’ free market–and they regard the massive expansion of government intervention under FDR as its cure. But as many economists have demonstrated, it was government intervention that caused and exacerbated the Depression–from the massive tariffs of Smoot-Hawley to a series of disastrous interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve to antibusiness measures such as the National Recovery Act.”
ARI properly calls for abolition of the Fed and advocates the gold standard. The implication that the Fed should not have raised interest ratest is troubling, however, since it implies that interest rates should have been pushed lower by the fed, i.e. the money supply inflated; that failure to inflate was a cause of the Great Depression. But was it? Not according to Rothbard. See Mateusz Machaj, Friedman for Government Intervention: The Case of the Great Depression.
(For more, see ARC’s Response to the Financial Crisis; see also these comments (1, 2) on another thread, regarding Objectivists Richard Salsman’s and Yaron Brook’s denigration of the idea of a 100% reserve gold standard [and pro fractional reserve banking views].)
Update: I’ve modified this post in response to criticism; readers can click the links and judge for themselves.
***
Published: September 30, 2008 4:53 PM
Published: September 30, 2008 5:02 PM
So, in a sense, their statement can be justified, although at the same time they failed to point out that the late 20s bubble was created by the Fed in the first place due to easy credit policies so…
Published: September 30, 2008 5:04 PM
Published: September 30, 2008 5:16 PM
Jeffrey, you don’t want to deprive Stephan of an attack on the Randians, do you?
Published: September 30, 2008 5:44 PM
Published: September 30, 2008 5:52 PM
Published: September 30, 2008 5:56 PM
I think Skousen goes far too easy on the Chicago school in this book.U- it is ironic that the federal government is trying to reward career counterfeiters and thieves with hundreds of billions of dollars while the one individual who tried to introduce circulating silver coinage is now facing serious criminal charges.
Published: September 30, 2008 6:41 PM
Published: September 30, 2008 7:07 PM
Published: September 30, 2008 7:41 PM
It buttresses the assertion that not only SHOULD the Fed not manipulate the money supply (nor should anyone else, on the strength of armed force), the Fed ultimately CANNOT manipulate the money supply. It not only doesn’t and cannot know how much (more or less) money there should be at any given time, it actually lacks the MEANS to make it so with any kind of precision (of timing or amount, or even DIRECTION).
If it DID have such means, it could rapidly correct policies that seemed in hindsight to be mistakes. Obviously (history of the Depression), it does not, or the Fed’s reflationary efforts would have worked, and the Depression snuffed out early.
Published: September 30, 2008 8:48 PM
Published: September 30, 2008 11:57 PM
Published: September 30, 2008 11:58 PM
Published: October 1, 2008 12:36 AM
Published: October 1, 2008 1:57 AM
Published: October 1, 2008 4:09 AM
Published: October 1, 2008 4:52 AM
At a minimum, you should retract the blatantly dishonest title of this article — it is a stain on this website’s credibility.
Published: October 1, 2008 7:33 AM
ah yes, “attack the idea!” not objectivism itself (please, it’s fragile).
except, hang on just a minute. i don’t see a single point made about objectivism anywhere in this post, i see it associated with… where it came from.
the ARI is publishing material with decidedly little problematic theory in it, the author refers to it as the “randians,” and… this is somehow dishonest. oh, well, is the ARI “randian,” or not? i mean i confess i don’t know a thing about it.
didn’t you say you were objectivists? i guess i don’t know anything about that, either.
Published: October 1, 2008 8:20 AM
Published: October 1, 2008 8:36 AM
Published: October 1, 2008 9:10 AM
Published: October 1, 2008 10:44 AM
Published: October 1, 2008 11:04 AM
Her use of “citizen” also implies her support of the state also (but not necessarily statism, granted).
How can anyone before action “have lost rights to anything”? If the roles were reversed would Rand still stick by her statement? Could she have said that the ghetto Polish-Jews have lost all rights to anything and the Nazi commandos should kill them all because the ghetto Polish-Jews resort to terrorism?
Historical context does matter.
Published: October 1, 2008 11:54 AM
Anyone who wants a copy of my article (from the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies) please email me at larrys@sulross.edu.
Published: October 1, 2008 12:10 PM
It is blatantly inconsistent to espouse tolerance for all freedom lovers except, it seems, for freedom lovers like Stephan. If supporting the “Ron Paul Revolution” means that one can’t argue for a correct analysis of what went wrong in the 1930’s, then who needs it?
Likewise, it is foolish to reflexively defend Dr. Brook when he is so obviously mistaken. It is Objectivists themselves who damage Objectivism’s reputation when they stake that reputation on every false statement their leaders make.
Stephan is acting well within the purposes of the Mises Institute by exposing economic falsehoods wherever they might crop up, however inconvenient such truth-telling might be for other organizations and movements.
Published: October 1, 2008 2:15 PM
It is absurd to characterise the objections to Mr Kinsella’s post as “quashing dissent”. They were well-founded objections (which he has ultimately accepted, to his great credit) to the initially incorrect and unfair title of his post.
Published: October 1, 2008 6:02 PM
Published: October 1, 2008 6:27 PM
Published: October 1, 2008 6:28 PM
Published: October 1, 2008 7:50 PM
Published: October 2, 2008 2:07 AM
Published: October 2, 2008 8:08 AM
Published: October 2, 2008 8:32 AM
Published: October 2, 2008 8:35 AM
Published: October 2, 2008 10:35 AM
Published: October 2, 2008 10:53 AM
Killing innocents through collectivism is what both of them really advocate.
Brook takes it a step further than Rand and argues for an almost celebratory attitude towards killing innocents through state action. Here is Brook on the decimation of 300,000 mostly civilian Japanese in 1945:
“America should be proud to have dropped the Bomb.”
Granted, Rand did say, “If nuclear weapons are a dreadful threat and mankind cannot afford war any longer, then mankind cannot afford statism any longer.”
Yet Brook has a pattern. There are no shortages of savage collectives and ancillary innocents to beat down. He call’s for pre-emption in this regard. After all “they” are savages.
“Islamic totalitarian states pose a severe threat to the security of the United States,” Brook says, adding that a way to defeat these regimes “is to kill up to hundreds of thousands of their supporters.” This, he said, would “shrink popular support for extremist ideas to a small minority of the population,” instead of the 40% which he claims supports such regimes now.
How can ARI be considered a champion of anti-collectivism, anti-statism, capitalism and individual rights when Brook and Co. constantly display a bias lending itself to collectivism/statism and forms of violence that make a mockery of the very ideals they claim to espouse?
Published: October 2, 2008 11:35 AM
“After all, we don’t criticize Mises’ theory on the nature of money because he supported utilitarianism. Human Action offered a “complete” economic theory, right?”
As far as I can tell, Mises’s confused views on ethical/value utilitarianism don’t contaminate or affect his economic reasoning–if they did, that would be a fair criticism. By contrast, Rand claimed to have figured out a complete philosophy, everything is “integrated,” “context matters,” blah blah blah, and she quite often mixed her personal preferences in with her other sweeping pronouncements.
Oh, we forgot to mention facial hair. It means you are hiding something. Evil!
Published: October 2, 2008 11:37 AM
> stated that Bach was “evil”
Nope. That’s a lie made up by Rothbard in his play and repeated by people who should know better.
“Rand did not dislike the classical composers; she merely preferred those of the Romantic period to a greater extent. In The Romantic Manifesto, a book particularly devoted to aesthetics, Rand does not direct a single disparaging remark toward Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven, nor does she in any other works. She writes of all high Western music, “the modern diatonic scale used in Western civilization is a product of the Renaissance. It was developed over a period of time by a succession of musical innovators.”
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Stolyarov/A_Critique_of_Murray_Rothbards_Sociology_of_the_Ayn_Rand_Cult_(Part_3_of_3).shtml
> [Rand] claimed to have figured out a complete philosophy, everything is “integrated,”
Well, reality *is* integrated. That doesn’t mean that a theory about a certain aspect of reality (its basic nature) must include one’s opinions about all other parts of reality. This is why we have concepts for the different sciences like philosophy, economics, physics, chemistry, etc.
It is rational to apply one’s philosophy to life – people who fail to do are called hypocrites.
Published: October 2, 2008 12:05 PM
Published: October 2, 2008 12:17 PM
Now, the subject here is not Ayn Rand’s musical preferences (or mine) but the question of the gold standard and the causes of the Great Depression.
Published: October 2, 2008 2:58 PM
Published: October 2, 2008 3:15 PM
Even Alan Greenspan – while he was still a decent guy – wavered on this issue. If you read his essay “Gold and Economic Freedom” with a magnifying glass, you will see this.
Unfortunately, too few Objectivists are familiar with Austrian economics. And unfortunately, too few Austrians are familiar with Objectivism.
Published: October 2, 2008 4:12 PM
You may be right that I confused her condemnation of Beethoven with Bach. That is irrelevant; and I believe your maligning of Rothbard’s honesty is uncalled for–I would assume it was an honest mistake based on the utter stupidity of Rand’s remarks here. Who can keep her cranky stuff straight?
“”Rand did not dislike the classical composers; she merely preferred those of the Romantic period to a greater extent. In The Romantic Manifesto, a book particularly devoted to aesthetics, Rand does not direct a single disparaging remark toward Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven, nor does she in any other works. She writes of all high Western music, “the modern diatonic scale used in Western civilization is a product of the Renaissance. It was developed over a period of time by a succession of musical innovators.””
Yes, yes, whatever. She is entitled to her pet preferences. She also had horrible, insulting, obviously biased things to say about non-Western art and music, e.g. that of Asia.
“> [Rand] claimed to have figured out a complete philosophy, everything is “integrated,”
Well, reality *is* integrated.”
With what?
“It is rational to apply one’s philosophy to life – people who fail to do are called hypocrites.”
Oh, for God’s sake.
“> “deception” or “petty ideological bigotry” or “smearing Objectivism”
“A suggestion: when you use quotation marks in reference to someone’s comments, you are expected to quote their actual words. Using quotation marks to enclose statements someone did not actually make is intellectually dishonest.”
In a thread like this when people can easily glance up the page to check quotes, it’s hardly “dishonest.” What a serious charge to so lightly hurl at others.
@Samuelsson
“David Veksler: I think you´re right that the statement “Bach was evil” is just a lie made up by Rothbard. (I’ve never seen or heard a word on Bach from Miss Rand.)
“She did say she didn’t like Beethoven (although she realized his greatness).”
Huge difference!
“Btw, both Bach and Beethoven are among my personal favorites.”
You don’t have an evil beard too, do you? Or refrain from taming fire at your fingertips (smoking)??
“Salsman – who is a “fractionalist” – certainly has some influence. But I have noticed that the person who nowadays gives lectures on economics at Objectivist conferences is Brian Simpson – and he has declared that he is an admirer and a disciple of George Reisman. And that must mean that he is in favor of the 100% gold standard.”
Oh, good; I hadn’t heard of Simpson.
“Unfortunately, too few Objectivists are familiar with Austrian economics. And unfortunately, too few Austrians are familiar with Objectivism.”
I don’t think this is a symmetrical case. One doesn’t need Objectivism to lead a happy life or to be a libertarian or to have sound economic views.
Published: October 2, 2008 7:47 PM
Published: October 2, 2008 8:11 PM
I wasn’t there in the 1960’s, but I did read _The Romantic Manifesto_, which was written in the same time period, and in it Miss Rand states that musical tastes are a matter of personal preference and not subject to moral judgment, since their basis cannot be rationally examined.
I think I’m done with this thread, but there’s a lot more than can be said on Rothbard’s absurd and malicious vilification of Rand over the years – see
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/mixedpremises.html
Published: October 2, 2008 10:01 PM
Published: October 17, 2008 4:50 PM
The current situation, where the bankers’ skill is replaced by reckless money printing, is obviously absurd. Not only does it aggravate the problem, it also obscures what is the true skill of banking, that of discriminating between profitable and useless projects.
Published: July 14, 2009 4:20 AM
But I think we need slow, consistent rate hikes, or the economy would be killed overnight.
Published: July 14, 2009 4:26 AM