What would Ayn Rand have to say about the collapse of capitalism now if she were here?

"The economic value of a man’s work is determined," said Ayn Rand, "on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. This is the moral meaning of the law of supply and demand....

"Various degrees of government interference and control [ ] led to the eventual destruction of capitalism....

"Capitalism did not create poverty—it inherited it...The contrast between West and East Berlin [reference the Berlin Wall--remember Rand wrote this in the 1960s] is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal...

"It must be remembered that the political systems of the nineteenth century were not pure capitalism, but mixed economies. The element of freedom, however, was dominant; it was as close to a century of capitalism as mankind has come. But the element of statism kept growing throughout the nineteenth century, and by the time it blasted the world in 1914, the governments involved were dominated by statist policies...

"If the good, the virtuous, the morally ideal is suffering and self-sacrifice—then, by that standard, capitalism had to be damned as evil. Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and achievement, here, on earth—capitalism does not tell men to serve and sacrifice, but to produce and profit—capitalism does not preach passivity, humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance—and, above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned. In all human relationships—private or public, spiritual or material, social or political or economic or moral—capitalism requires that men be guided by a principle which is the antithesis of altruism: the principle of justice."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/

The problem is people ascribe our nations as capitalist, they are anything but capitalist they reflect communism more than capitalsm tbh, capitalism would not bail out banks and insurance companies it would let them die.

You can also look at it this way in that how much spending does the government contribute to GDP? the US for example is a bit of an enigma in that it is seen as capitalist yet there is a gigantic amount of money sloshing around the system for the military for example which is spent by decree i.e. a command economic function.

There has been an economic war raging, not between capitalism and some other ideologies but between types of capitalism: Free Enterprise vs Moderated capitalism, vs State Controlled capitalism.

Round one is over. Free Enterprise has lost. Now the battle is between European styled capital and Asian styled capital, and based on where America is getting it's currency I'm betting that State Capitalism is in the lead.

Ayn Rand would be horrified and she would blame backward thinking and superstitious people. She would see us as backsliding into Feudalism and she would be right, because that is what State Capitalism IS.

She would say we have never experienced pure capitalism but a mixed economy. This mixture of free market, “capitalisms”, and government control, “socialism”, is a contradiction and can’t be sustained so we need to choose our direction. Unfortunately we have chosen socialism.

What I say - NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT CAPITALISM IS…It is always expressed that capitalism has failed and people list the day’s events as proof when it is the government control that has caused our problems. The failure is always placed on businessman as if they are all corrupt while without them we would have nothing. The blame pushed by the government is on the businessman and the answer from them in more government control.

We should have a system as Ayn Rand believed just like separation of church and state but this would be separation of the economy and government.

I'm not particularly concerned about what Ayn Rand would have thought. She espoused a form of Robber Baron capitalism or "Laisser-Faire Capitalism", what Hiram calls "Free Market Capitalism", which hasn't really existed since Teddy Roosevelt broke up the Trusts in the early part of the 20th century. It may seem that the Republican Party is espousing this sort of capitalism but that is an illusion. They might try to appease the Tea Party ignoramuses but they know better.

State Capitalism is what existed in the USSR, and Nazi Germany, where all the profits of the labor of workers went to the state. That essentially only exists in North Korea and Cuba today.

There are different forms of capitalism that are uniquely tailored to different countries. The capitalism of Europe, Japan, China, USA, Brazil, etc. are all different but all emphasize to varying degrees the return of profits to the people who control the corporations. Each has its economics weighted to benefit its economic needs, although there are always those who would argue otherwise.

All are forms of state regulated capitalism in that each country has regulations that exist to ensure the safety of its citizens, prevent other rights and abilities from being harmed, and not weaken those who govern. It is silly to advocate an unbridled capitalism as its excesses are well known and would endanger the standard of living of the average citizen.

All that said, capitalism does have a serious challenge not from a rival form of economics but from itself. Capitalism depends upon an ever increasing growth of the economy. That means an ever increasing consumption of raw materials and resources. If we haven't hit that wall we can see it on the horizon. What will happen to capitalism when it cannot continue to expand? What form will it take when it, at best, had to depend on a status quo economy? I don't know. I don't think that this implies that we necessarily will have a lowered standard of living. But it does mean painful transitions to other ways of living. Capitalism in any form one hundred years from now will not be recognizable not because there is a better way but because there is no other way.

Ayn Rand believed that a free market economy in which people provided for their own survivals was best for the societies of the time in which she lived. I suspect she would continue to believe such a system is best today.

The current difficulties with the American economy have sources that are complex and numerous. It would be a mistake to declare that the reason why the economy went south is simply because corporate executives behaved fraudulently (though clearly they did). However, to the extent fraud was involved in their behavior, I would point out that laws against fraud were favored by Rand. I suspect she would point that out and claim that she is still right in her preference for a non-fraudulent capitalistic free market economy.

It should be noted that capitalism (of a degree) has existed in this country for more than two centuries. Thus when you say "since capitalism cannot exist, whatever form of capitalism a country concocts is never going to work," I raise my eyebrows with surprise. Clearly, it has worked in this nation for quite some time. Now, plainly you are correct to indicate that some regulation is needed in government. Rand herself indicated that proper government intervention into the economy is a good thing. She merely limited the extent of this proper intervention to the prevention of fraud and the preservation of property rights. Recent events suggest that regulations in place to prevent fraud were ineffective, but the principle of a free market economy with limited regulation is still one that is easy to defend and justify.

Rand's arguments on the subject of altruism are well-known and, unfortunately, far too lengthy for this answer. Indeed, I think that running an economy based on altruistic principles leads to problems of another sort (though equally fraudulent). We see this is in this country with fraudulent welfare and disability claims that cost taxpayers money. And, of course, under Rand's philosophy, we are not our brothers' keepers, so when you refer to people who are "interested in the betterment of the world and its people," she would indicate that the best way to better the world in which you live is to better yourself. Already, as our government deems itself responsible for the allocation of societal resources, we are seeing people vote only in accordance with the candidate who promises them the most. These people are not to be blamed for doing so, but it is unfortunate that government is so involved that legislative edict, and not individual merit, is becoming vastly more responsible for the allocations of resources in our society.

As to your philosophical recommendation, for my part, when I hear "altruism," I think socialism. I think of a world in which a strong central government will tell me where to go to school (and what I can study), what career I will pursue, where I will live, what food I will eat, etc. I think of the bread lines in the former Soviet Union, the greatest socialist power of all-time and a testament to why socialism is ill-conceived. And then, of course, I come full circle and think of Rand, a woman who fled that environment for greener pastures in America and who dedicated her life to espousing a philosophy designed to make sure the mistake of the Soviet Union would not be duplicated.

You raise an interesting question. Your thoughts on socialism, though I disagree with them, warrant the consideration of anyone who reads it. However, in choosing socialism, consider the problems that will arise then. It is insufficient to say times are hard, so capitalism is failing, so let's become a socialist nation. These are changes that require a consideration of issues that go unmentioned in your commentary. This being the case, I'll invite you to consider things further. Perhaps you will continue to believe the same way you did when you typed up the question. Perhaps you'll change your feelings (and there's never anything wrong with that). However, in any event, I suspect you would find that Rand would not share your views, so to the extent your inquiry was geared in that direction, there's your answer.

Oh, puh-lease!

There is no failure of free enterprise, but failure of the most basic fundamental of lending money:

"Don't lend money to people who can't pay it back."

The near collapse of the financial system is the repercussion of massive bad mortgage debt in the form of mortgage-backed securities (which were used by AIG and Lehman Brothers to back their insurance products) combined with the collapse of the real estate bubble of artificially inflated housing prices (upon which the mortgages were based).

When these high-risk adjustable rate mortgages began to default en-masse (when the 0% interest rate changed), the prices of the houses dropped below the cost of the debt (putting them all under water) - which means that the mortgage holders could not refinance their loans with negative equity.

Rather than convert these mortgages to a fixed interest rate to stabilize the housing market, Fannie and Freddie (which backed just about every note), failed.

When the debt-markets collapsed, the credit-economy froze when banks stopped lending.

None of this has nothing to do with free-enterprise.

Free enterprise means to establish your own business withoult penalty from the government.

China used to make it very difficult for her citizens to establish a home-based business to support their family without a lot of red tape. Now, China believes in the wisdom of free enterprise along with the wisdom of saving.

Together, China is a more stable economy.

But China would be nothing without free enterprise and capitalism.

She already said it. Read "Atlas Shrugged".

You are sadly mistaken if you think our current system is capitalism. It is exactly the same as the system of state control Rand cataloged in "Atlas...".

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not capitalistic. The Federal Reserve Bank is not capitalistic. Telling banks that they have to loan money to people that their actuaries tell them are poor risks is not capitalism. Government guarantees and loans are not capitalism.

What we have in this country is a combination of state socialism and corruption. Just as Rand outlined.

She would be furious. She would have demanded that we let them all go down the tubes. So we got a major, major depression and a wrecked world economy, so what. It is what the damn fools deserved for trusting in the system. You gotta take care of number one. Kick *** and whip butt. The biggest, baddest and smartest come out on top. Its a dog eat dog world.

She is one stupid BiT¢h.

Cf. Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Better, worthwhile, author. Didn't give up on his homeland.