Objectivism

[Sewdri]

I recently read the book The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Inside the book it spoke about objectivism and objectivity. I was wondering how anyone else viewed it. While I did sympathize with the character in the book (Howard Roark) who used objectivism. I really doubt how practical and realistic it is. To me it seemed like an idealistic view of the world while realizing that the world isn't perfect and just accepting it and knowing that you can be ideal.

[OldTrees]

Here (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro) is a good source to understand the Philosophy. Remember it has 2 parts that precede the Ethical and Political viewpoints.
Metaphysics -> Epistemology -> Ethics -> Politics

I have not read the book in question.

[Sewdri]

Thank you OldTrees. I highly recommend the book if you're looking for something to read. It's a little long but I became immersed in it quickly.

[dragonsdemesne]

It's one of my favourite books; Atlas Shrugged was really good, too, by the same author.  Certain aspects of it definitely aren't very practical; Roark was an example of someone living objectivism and look at all the trouble he had.  Mind you, he didn't care, but still...

Some of the stuff in Atlas Shrugged makes more practical sense.  If you look at some of the economic issues in that book, you'll see a lot of parallels with the way things are going these days.

[Belthus]

Some of the stuff in Atlas Shrugged makes more practical sense.  If you look at some of the economic issues in that book, you'll see a lot of parallels with the way things are going these days.

What parallels? How does Atlas Shrugged make practical sense?

[Pineapple]

When I read it four years ago, I loved it. I thought the story-telling was superb.
However, it seems quite silly now, like reading a Dr. Seuss book with a happy ending.

As for Ayn Rand's Objectivism, there are plenty of flaws in the philosophy, so I kinda glazed over those parts and accepted it as a character trait of Roark.

Some of the stuff in Atlas Shrugged makes more practical sense.  If you look at some of the economic issues in that book, you'll see a lot of parallels with the way things are going these days.

What parallels? How does Atlas Shrugged make practical sense?

It's easy to suspend your disbelief on an impossible-in-the-present economic situation of a dystopian future than on the  an impossible-in-the-present rise of a man living in the present.

[dragonsdemesne]

What parallels? How does Atlas Shrugged make practical sense?

Well, like it said that bailing out big corporations doesn't help, which is what many governments are doing now.  It also advocated a return to the gold standard, so money is actually backed up by something physical.  There's also parallels between the Taggart Railroad (not sure if that was the name of it now) and companies today that make a profit doing nothing, like those trading on carbon credits, for example, or the dotcom bubble.

There's definitely flaws in the theory, however, but like anything else, I try to take the good points and learn from those.  I try to pick out the bad points and learn from those, too, but in the opposite way.

[OldTrees]

There's definitely flaws in the theory, however, but like anything else, I try to take the good points and learn from those.  I try to pick out the bad points and learn from those, too, but in the opposite way.

Good method. I hope you also try to temporarily adopt the Objectivist perspective to gain further insight. Most philosophies (especially those build from base principles in Metaphysics) tend to be self consistent when seen in that perspective.

[Belthus]

It also advocated a return to the gold standard, so money is actually backed up by something physical.

If your employer (pretend if you don't have one) proposed to pay you in gold, would you accept the offer? Imagine taking the gold to Walmart and trying to pay with it. Walmart can accept the gold, but it almost certainly will refuse. Why would it refuse something physical and prefer fiat money?

Would you rather be paid with a twenty dollar bill or twenty dollars in pennies? (Both are backed by the government, so no difference in that respect.) You could melt down the pennies into metal that would be more valuable than a small paper rectangle. Maybe if society breaks down and you are completely on your own, you might consider melting down your coins. (And in that case, you would probably have more use for iron, steel, and lead than gold.) But it's not something you would do in normal times.

[OldTrees]

It also advocated a return to the gold standard, so money is actually backed up by something physical.

If your employer (pretend if you don't have one) proposed to pay you in gold, would you accept the offer? Imagine taking the gold to Walmart and trying to pay with it. Walmart can accept the gold, but it almost certainly will refuse. Why would it refuse something physical and prefer fiat money?

Would you rather be paid with a twenty dollar bill or twenty dollars in pennies? (Both are backed by the government, so no difference in that respect.) You could melt down the pennies into metal that would be more valuable than a small paper rectangle. Maybe if society breaks down and you are completely on your own, you might consider melting down your coins. (And in that case, you would probably have more use for iron, steel, and lead than gold.) But it's not something you would do in normal times.

Bad comparison.
Would you rather be paid in
an IOU for Gold [Gold standard Dollar]
or
an IOU for government services (paying taxes) [Fiat standard Dollar]

If people decided tomorrow to suddenly stop accepting Dollars. Then a Gold standard dollar would be able to be exchanged with the US government for Gold while a Fiat dollar would only be usable to pay taxes. This is the pro side of the Gold standard. The con side is the value of Gold standard money is tied to the value of Gold.

As long as the economy values the IOU it will be traded back and forth in exchange for services and the only pros/cons between the standards is what the government would be doing with the flexible value of Fiat money.

[Belthus]

If people decided tomorrow to suddenly stop accepting Dollars. Then a Gold standard dollar would be able to be exchanged with the US government for Gold while a Fiat dollar would only be usable to pay taxes.

If a fiat dollar is accepted as payment for taxes, then it will be accepted by those who have to pay taxes, and by extension, those who deal with former group, and so on. In fact, that (tax liability) is the foundation of the acceptance of money in domestic exchanges. So it would be unlikely that people would stop accepting fiat dollars while the government still has power.

This is the pro side of the Gold standard. The con side is the value of Gold standard money is tied to the value of Gold.

What would be the point then? We can already buy gold with dollars, though the price of gold fluctuates. If you look at the price of gold, it is much more volatile than the CPI. The reasoning of goldbugs is that gold is a stable store of value, but it clearly is not stable at all.

As long as the economy values the IOU it will be traded back and forth in exchange for services and the only pros/cons between the standards is what the government would be doing with the flexible value of Fiat money.

What the government can do is quite a lot - smoothing the business cycle if it is competent. If it is incompetent, then it can make the business cycle worse, prolonging recessions and/or increasing inflation. Government can also affect net exports. A gold standard decreases policy options and is deflationary. As prices go down, people hoard money, which deepens and prolongs a recession. Countries recovered from the Great Depression in the order that they exited the gold standard.

[OldTrees]

Good questions Belthus. However since I am not a Goldbug, I am not fully up to date on the benefits they see other than the difference between inherent and fiat value for money. That difference has pros and cons.

PS: The Great Depression is the worst example in economics because the causes and solutions are greatly controversial and differ based upon perspective.