The cult of Rand may be what got us here in the first place.
Note how I use the phrase "cult of Rand" as well. I'm not a fan. But come on, let's apportion blame where it actually belongs. When real economic policy doesn't resemble X's economic policies, turning around and blaming X's policies when it all goes wrong is just bullshit politics.
For all we know, Randism would be worse than what we have today, but what we have today is not Randism and you can't blame it for where we are.
This is like all those people blaming the crisis on "laissez-faire capitalism", where it just sort of goes without saying that "laissez-faire capitalism" is what we have, because if you actually had to say how the mortgage system was "laissez-faire", it would be obviously wrong.
And it is very frustrating hearing so many people saying our present mess is a result of policies advocated by Rand, when they are anything but. Banks were lending out money that did not belong to them, and cutting themselves huge profits, with no risk. Anyone who says this is the type of person Rand admired has obviously read nothing written by her, they have most likely read someone attributing this to her, but it was exactly this type of behaviour that she condemned.
Why do I care? Because if people don't figure out right from wrong soon, we will be in REALLY serious trouble. Actions do have consequences.
The current situation may have been avoided by saner lending guidelines, but it could also have been avoided by better government oversight of the shell games being played by the investment banks. It's blatantly false to claim that the only problem here was federal economic policy, and that the only solution would have been less governmental involvement.
How fortunate I do not make that claim. In fact, the only claim I made is that our economy is not based on Randism. You projected the rest out.