Objectivists offer solutions for the ideal, not the real

Jason:

That's the same line I was given at your age (or slightly older) when I was first married. Everyone told us that you had to go into debt to get a credit rating in case you ever needed it. Bilge water. What is it that you need? Furniture? Use concrete blocks for book cases. Do you have to keep up appearances so that you can maintain a certain social standing? Double bilge water.

It's called instant gratification. Get rid of your consumer debt and save that 15% for the rest of your life. It's the same as a 15% raise. Figure how much that is in a lifetime.

"But it's been turned into a tool that actively forces people to take on debt loads early in life if they don't want to be financially discriminated against for the rest of their lives."

Why then have I never been discriminated against?

This thread is about how to change society and I don't want to highjack it but it also has to do with what individuals can do to become more free.

Sam

Post 41

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 8:41pm

Sorry Sam, not "bilge water." I work with loans. Period. Maybe that's how it was when you were younger, but not any more.

And, for the record, I DON'T have much credit debt and I'm getting quite insulted at this point by your assumption that I do. I let it pass once, but your insistance on talking about instant gratification and "my" consumer debt suggests strongly to me that you're attempting to discredit everything I say by implying an ulterior motive.

Which I do not have.

Otherwise, if you want to call me a liar, just come out and do so. That way I can properly disregard you.

Post 42

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:30pm

Donald:
>Maybe over the next millennia or so things will change to favor the rational. Maybe even sooner.

Jason:
>4)Removing this system would involve literally rebuilding civillization from the ground up - banking, commerce, monetary flow, the internet, all these things and more would have to go and be completely rebuilt.

I think this thread is largely confirming Jordan's challenge. There seem to be few practical suggestions so far.

Ed:
>This week, I'll be talking about the US Constitution with dozens and dozens of students.

Good for you Ed, constitutional government is important.

- Daniel

Post 43

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 12:54am

Jason, I didn't get that Sam was implying anything other than maybe we, the younger generation, have been conditioned to accumulate debt as an acceptable method of obtaining material goods. It is about keeping up with the Jones' to a certain degree.

I do also know firsthand what you speak of. Every service I use required a credit check. Phone, internet service, cable tv, power, water. It's really annoying. You can bypass the credit checks, but usually it requires large cash deposits. I asked my cell phone provider what the costs were. To get a phone without a credit check would run ~$500.

It is entirely possible to live under the radar, or even off the grid. The only caveat I've found is with property ownership. Unless you have a lot of liquid capital, buying property usually requires a loan.

I remember watching some reality show with repo men around a year ago. The show followed the men around as they grabbed delinquents' property. How can you have a sense of ownership, of joy in knowing something is yours, if it can be taken away by a single late payment? Their advice, which they repeated over and over again throughout the show? If you can't afford it, don't but it.

Post 44

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 6:20am

Donald -

Oh, I certainly agree that the "credit culture" we're in now is abhorrent. (and thanks ever so much to the Administration for showing how one really CAN spend spend spend and never worry about the debt! Irresponsibility! It's the American way!)

Here's something I've been wondering about. I've seen analyses from economists saying, in essence, the only reason our economy didn't dip more in the last few years is that people just switched to buying more things on credit.

The problem is that it's not just a handful of people racking up debt. If you look up the national figures on the matter, it's truly terrifying. For every person like Sam who manages to get through life without significant debt, there are 10 more swamped in it. Nowadays, the average person has enough *credit* debt alone to buy a car.

And if all that's true, what's it say about our economy overall?

Post 45

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 6:32am

Jason:

My comments were not meant to be insulting. If they were I would seem be insulting the majority of my fellow Americans. I think that you and most Americans have been indoctrinated into believing in the necessity of a credit rating.

I live within a subdivision and have all the normal utilities and services. I drive a car, buy things on the internet, trade stocks actively and have commercial dealings like everyone else but I have NEVER been aware of anyone checking on my credit rating except when I bought my last car the dealer said I had no rating but I could drive any car aff the lot.

So when I tell you that and you don't believe me there's nothing I can do about it.

Sam

Post 46

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 6:45am

Ed -- It sounds like you lead some very interesting classes. When I was in school, I loved teachers like you.

Post 47

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 7:21am

I think there are several reasons for Objectivists to be hopeful.

First, there's the Internet. It's easier now than it has ever been in history for people to get information from a variety of sources. There are far fewer gatekeepers. You don't have to persuade an editor or producer to print or broadcast your ideas in order to have the realistic potential of reaching thousands of people. As a result, it's easier for good ideas to out-compete bad ideas.

For example, it's the easiest thing in the world to start a blog, and it costs readers no more to read hundreds of blogs than to read one blog. Yet some blogs have tremendous influence, while the vast majority have none at all. The simple reason is that the good blogs -- well written, intelligent, efficient -- have out-competed the lesser blogs. In this marketplace of ideas, I'm confident that capitalism will win out.

Second, economic literacy has been increasing. Although the average American is still woefully uninformed about basic economic principles, things are much better than they were, say, 30 years ago. This is related to the Internet as well, which has made it easier for people who already wanted to go beyond the New York Times and 60 Minutes to get better economic info. The better people understand economics, the more likely it is that they will agree with the basic concepts of Objectivism.

Third, Rand's ideas have been shown to work. Reagan (and Clinton, IMO) understood the importance of reducing the size of the federal government. At a minimum, even many left-liberals have to admit that Reagan's & Clinton's efforts in cutting programs did not harm the country the way they predicted. Same goes for NAFTA. Unfortunately, the current unholy alliance of Bush & Congress has turned back the clock, but I think (or I hope) that this has generated enough disapproval that a thriftier administration will be elected in 2008.

What can we do? It seems to me that most Americans will support free-market solutions when it is shown to them that such solutions are better for everyone than the statist alternatives. Most people in the U.S. would rather have the opportunity to live like a king than be guaranteed the life of a prole. But we need to explain how the market works and how government generally hurts rather than helps. People don't have to be Objectivists to agree with programs that are consistent with Objectivism.

Finally, how come there isn't an Objectivism for Dummies? Seriously, I bet it would sell like hotcakes. Chris Sciabarra, are you listening??? ;-)

Post 48

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:04am

Jason,

I mostly like John McCain and his little cabal, and that's about it.

If you dislike disingenuous poseur politicians, you might want to re-think your admiration for McCain. You can credit him with being tough enough to survive a North Vietnamese prison camp, but unfortunately, being tough doesn't necessarily equate to being principled. He's one of the biggest hypocrites on the Hill - and that's saying a lot!

Andy

Post 49

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:09am

Sam,

I'm 72 years old and have never bought anything in my life on time, except for a various houses I have lived in.

That is admirable, Sam. I think a lot of consumers are going to wish they had the same discipline once the inevitable credit crunch occurs. Debt is a legitimate source of capital to buy assets to produce income, but not for purchasing the goodies in life. Other than to buy a house, there is no sound reason for a consumer to borrow money.

Andy

Post 50

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:18am

Jason,

Over the past couple decades your credit rating has been creeping into more and more areas where it has no business.

Your complaint about the promiscuous use of credit scores is valid. I was surprised to find out that premium for my homeowners insurance policy was based on my credit score. (Fortunately to my advantage.) However, you don't have to borrow to pump up your credit score. Get no-fee credit cards and charge cards (gas, department stores, etc.) and don't use them. Or use them for convenience like you do your debit card - just don't carry any balances.

This way you'll get three powerful factors to work in your favor:

1. A high ratio of unused credit to used credit,
2. Longevity in open accounts,
3. An unblemished payment record.

So, you can adhere to Sam's sound approach to borrowing and still get a high credit score in time.

Andy

Post 51

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:27am

note: thanks Daniel & Jay for acknowledging the importance of Constitution Day

Constitution Week Report card

1st class
-1st class was all females, and probably pomo liberals (they cringed when I mentioned that we were to talk about the US Constitution)
-settled their spirits by emphasizing that the Constitution was non-partisan
-focused on law ruling the "rulers" -- not rulers "making" the laws
-overall went well (after trepidous start)

Ed

Post 52

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 9:52am

Keep up the good work, Ed!

Jon

Post 53

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 10:53am

Andy -

How is McCain especially hypocritical? I'm asking honestly. He's one of the only politicians I know of for whom I have even a smidgen of respect. Are there things I should know about him?

I don't agree with all of his stances, especially re abortion. I just find him to be less odious than most of the Hill. A lesser evil, you could say.

Post 54

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:04am

Jason,

I'll give you one example of McCain's odious nature. You may recall that he was a charter member of the Keating Five and got stung doing favors for the Lincoln Savings & Loan in the wake of the S&L collapse. Because he is a moral weakling and can't resist do favors in exchange for campaign contributions, he assumes everyone is similarly afflicted and has pressed for draconian restrictions on free speech - i.e., McCain-Feingold. That alone should merit any libertarian's contempt.

Moreover, after passing McCain-Feingold, McCain began working with a non-profit group based in Arlington, Virginia, to funnel money in support of candidates and propositions he favored as a way to circumvent McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech. I think the Washington Times is following this story. (Sorry, I don't have time to post a link.)

The key to understanding McCain is that he has never drawn anything but a government paycheck during his life - unless you count those gifts from supporters.

Andy

Post 55

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:25am

Sam -

OK, fair enough. Perhaps you've gotten lucky in your choices of companies with whom you deal. Generally speaking, you cannot get things like utilities, or an apartment without a credit check being run. At least not any more. Or perhaps you have a better credit record than you realize.

I used to work for an electric company a couple years ago. Trust me, every single caller who wanted new service got a credit check run on them, and the majority had to put down a deposit based on it. And that, sadly, included those with no credit. (CPL / WTU power in south \ west Texas. Feel free to avoid them. They suck.)

Post 56

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:34am

Andy

I'll have to go look that up. If he IS circumventing his own donation law, than yes, that would be more than enough reason to give up on him.

Although as far as govenment paychecks go... While it's not terribly objectivist of me... if someone goes to fight for the country and ends up in a POW hellhole for years... I really don't terribly mind helping him pay his rent. I'd say he's earned it.

(although I could argue self-interest on that one. I have no interest in joining the military. But we need one. So if we provide good veterans' benefits, that makes it far more likely other people will volunteer. Look at the way the Administration has shafted the VA in the last few years. Think that has nothing to do with how the Army can't make its recruitment goals any more?)

Upon edit: Say, that makes me wonder... doesn't relying on an army mean putting my life in their hands? Does that mean there's an objectivist imperative to join up if I think the country is in danger? Just pondering.

(Edited by Jason Blalock on 9/13, 11:40am)

Post 57

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 1:21pm

Jason:

"Or perhaps you have a better credit record than you realize."

I suspect that what happens is that they check my credit history and they find out that I have absolutely none and then they look to see if I own my home, car, what's in my bank account, outstanding balance on my credit card, how long I've lived at my current address, etc. I have no idea at what they can legally glean about me, but it's pristine. However, when I moved from Canada to the U.S. ten years ago I did have some problem getting car insurance because my former insurance was through a broker and they wouldn't bother to transfer my accident history.

Sam

Post 58

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 1:26pm

On the original topic I had a thought. It deals with the objectivist response to ID in schools.

The idealist objectivist answer (dismissal) is that "If we had private schools this wouldn't be an issue." But the interesting thing is this issue is a great way to make a case for private education. You bring up ID to a person with a strong opinion on it, remind them that education on a free market would allow them to choose to allow their child to learn about it without forcing other parents to do the opposite of what they want, and then for the zinger you bring up the Rand essay "Tax Credits for Education".

The practical and Ideal combined.

---Landon

Post 59

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 1:30pm