But Stevie-girl and The Economist said we are DOOMED!
Also ObamaCare is about to kick up a notch, and minimum wages will rise in many states. And on top of all that we are doing things the way Ayn Rand said it has to be. So how can jobs surge is so many smart people say how surely fucked we are?
Yes we have a lot of minimum wage jobs now. I am guessing you're the type who brings 10 $20 bills to a poker game and leaves pleased when he has 100 1$ bills left cuz its more bills.
@skibum: you are aware that tech and finance are also booming aren't you? But, hey, yeah, whatever your party-line is.
Che: "And one more thing. By all means enjoy yourself with your crusade to belittle the coming economic boom doubters but can you try to refrain from using Ayn Rand and libertarians in the same sentence. She was a nut job "
As are about 70% of the posters on this site. That would include stevie-girl who seems to be prone to depression (going into a funk because a hooker he knew moved on with her life, of all triggers), has zero capacity for independent though, and thinks and acts just like a 16 y/o girl even though he is, apparently, a middle-aged guy nearing 60. And this is the guy everyone just circle-jerks and accepts whatever he says as truth, not matter what rhetorical trick is his last? All because he offers a no thought circle jerk world where you can read a headline or two a day and have all the non-sense that is your party line confirmed? All a bunch of no minds and kooks.
No as for Libertarianism versus Randism. I'm not sure what practical differences there are in the political/ethical arena. I know Rand thought she had reduced politics and ethics to consequences of pure logic, but as you say, it was a terrible joke, and definitely some nutso stuff. So they might argue over that, but it's roughly akin to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin since politically they are identical. Unless you can provide me with some concrete non-contrived difference of policy they would have. I bet they would be in agreement of at least 98% of matters. Given that I'm not sure what the problem is with using them in the same sentence. I bet at least 66% of Libertarians like Rand, and, of the rest, they main reason they don't is because her name has somewhat of a worse rep than the word "Libertarian" does. The differences on less practical matters (for instance her rejection of QM because it is non-deterministic) are again just academic stuff to nearly everyone.
Che: " In that you see no real difference from Rand’s philosophy and I see no similarities"
No similarities? You have got to be kidding me! How about the fact that the core of both philosophies is the belief that the only legitimate role of government is the enforcement of contracts, common defense, and to prevent the initiation of violence amongst individuals? In particular there is almost no interference in the economy by the government. I am absolutely flabbergasted that you can claim you see no similarities. No idea how you cannot.
As for not demonizing the demonizer, the most I can give her credit for is not being a Bolshevist (something entirely different from communism, even if they did use that nae), and for her attempt to be rational.
Now, of course, she was so prone to nuttiness (narcissism and borderline is my guess) and just generally not very brightness that she did get far, but at least she tried.
I guess for the same reason I am inclined to pardon her for not seeing where the world she advocated would lead, but, OTOH, I can't rule out that she knew damn well and just fancied herself one of the world's top 1000 or so geniuses who be an effective feudal lord in such a society. In fact given her "personality damage" could be exactly what she wanted.
Lol!