If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   Going Galt is a good way to go broke   (businessinsider.com) divider line 191
    More: Obvious, lululemon  
•       •       •

5273 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 Nov 2013 at 12:44 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-05 11:13:59 AM
Isn't that the idea?
 
2013-11-05 11:36:46 AM
I strongly encourage every ayn randian fanatic to go galt and drop out of this evil society as fast as they can. Flee to the hills! You'll be safe in your bunkers and caves, I promise.
 
2013-11-05 11:37:02 AM
In before Bob.
 
2013-11-05 11:51:41 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: In before Bob.


i.imgur.com
I have no idea what you're talking about, so I'm just going to assume you mean Bob Dobbs.

i.imgur.com
Or Bob Wiley?

i.imgur.com
Cheddar Bob?

i.imgur.com
Bob Barker says, "Spay and Neuter your pets."

i.imgur.com
Or maybe you're feeling One Love, like Bob Marley.

i.imgur.com
And let's not forget Bob Goldthwait, responsible for "The 'Citizen Kane' of alcoholic clown movies."

Nah, but seriously. I don't frequent the Politics tab, so I don't know what Bob you mean.
 
2013-11-05 11:58:16 AM
The fact that this pseudo-religious cult dogma has lasted for so long is a testament to why every single major religion derided selfishness and pride.  Whether you believe in a God or Gods, it is pretty clear that societies across the planet had to put constraints own our douchebag natures under the penalty of smiting.

"Who is John Galt" is the perfect epitaph for the boomer generation.  Having been given everything, they proceeded to live a hedonist lifestyle that would have made Nero blush.  Now when the chickens are coming home to roost -- they are blaming the weak and the helpless and the voiceless.  The day I started to take my faith seriously, I started leaving the GOP.  They are literally the opposite of everything they proclaim.  F'em... I am going to stay with and work with the poor, because frankly they are better company.

Go Galt.. humph... why not go Dracula... both are equally as real.  Only Dracula is way cooler.
 
2013-11-05 12:06:34 PM
I think "Going Galt" is perfect advice for rich sociopaths, well not good advice so much as it is everything they want to hear.
 
2013-11-05 12:09:29 PM
I find ayn rand republicans to be a fascinating contradiction. Especially when they claim to be good Christians at the same time. It's like meeting a gay Jewish black man who wants to join the KKK. you just don't know how to to break it too them that they're seriously misinformed about their position in life.
 
2013-11-05 12:10:29 PM
Just throwing this out there, but if society's ever on the brink of collapse because the billionaire CEO of MegaPharmaPetroCorp decided to quit his job and go live on a yacht in international waters, I'll be more than happy to save the economy and step into the position myself.  Admittedly I don't have much experience in raping the economy, government, and environment of an entire country to satisfy my own personal narcissism and lust for wealth, but I'm a fast learner.
 
2013-11-05 12:12:47 PM

GreenAdder: Nah, but seriously. I don't frequent the Politics tab, so I don't know what Bob you mean.


isobeldebrujah.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-05 12:14:45 PM
The idea that the gold standard is more stable or objective is wrong.

Lols
 
2013-11-05 12:49:31 PM
Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.
 
2013-11-05 12:50:26 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: GreenAdder: Nah, but seriously. I don't frequent the Politics tab, so I don't know what Bob you mean.

[isobeldebrujah.files.wordpress.com image 790x416]


That was my question when I read Atlas Shrugged... which of these guys is going to take out the trash?
 
2013-11-05 12:56:39 PM

mcreadyblue: Inflation is around the corner folks.


Definatly a possibility, but not here yet.  With fiat currencies, there are things you can do to hedge or create inflation.  With a hard currency, your options are limited.
 
2013-11-05 12:58:54 PM

mcreadyblue: and praised Ben Bernake


Also, choosing Bennie's point about warning about the dangers of a gold-backed currency is not necessarily praise.  There are many other links that could have been chosen here.
 
2013-11-05 01:00:16 PM
There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.

/oblig
 
2013-11-05 01:02:11 PM

mcreadyblue: Inflation is around the corner folks.


Since roughly November 2008
 
2013-11-05 01:06:49 PM
"Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced."

It's amazing that people believe this shiat.
 
2013-11-05 01:11:07 PM

Target Builder: It's amazing that people believe this shiat.


It is an objective value as it is a commodity.  What that value is equivalent to is where it really gets messy.
 
2013-11-05 01:18:43 PM

gunslinger_RG: Go Galt.. humph... why not go Dracula... both are equally as real. Only Dracula is way cooler.


At least Dracula doesn't lie about his motives.

//Or maybe he does.
 
2013-11-05 01:21:02 PM
You parasites will be sorry when me and the other Randian Superheroes finally decide to GO GALT!  How will you get by without updates to my Patriot Blog?  Who will put RON PAUL stickers all over the public infrastructure in your neighborhood?

Sorry, but we'll all be at Galt's Gulch zooming around on trains and bedding all of the attractive and sexy ladies that are really into Ayn Rand.  The kind of ladies that are turned on by a real Randian Superhero.  I'm finally gonna score.  Checkmate, libs.
 
2013-11-05 01:21:20 PM
When the time to go galt arrives, I will have my money invested in what's most important: toilet paper.
 
2013-11-05 01:27:33 PM

Target Builder: "Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced."

It's amazing that people believe this shiat.


Well, I *will* say it's objectively useful in nanotech and nanoscale research. Fantastic plasmon resonance (though not as strong as silver or platinum), fairly easy to make a variety of shapes out of it (Rods and spheres *especially* are pretty easy), and, unlike silver, it doesn't farking oxidize the second you make it.
 
2013-11-05 01:27:50 PM

Rapmaster2000: attractive and sexy ladies


i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2013-11-05 01:27:52 PM

timujin: PC LOAD LETTER: GreenAdder: Nah, but seriously. I don't frequent the Politics tab, so I don't know what Bob you mean.

[isobeldebrujah.files.wordpress.com image 790x416]

That was my question when I read Atlas Shrugged... which of these guys is going to take out the trash?


Well, it is clear that Bob the angry Flower didn't actually finish the book.  This was addressed at the end.  They each grew their own crops, and traded with each other for each other's services.  They helped each other out.  when somebody needed a service, they would get help from the expert in that area. And If you were the expert in an area, you helped the people that needed it.  So if you had ability, you provided to those in need. I guess you could develop a motto about this using the themes of from those with ability to others with need, but I'm not much of a wordsmith.
 
2013-11-05 01:29:57 PM

Felgraf: Target Builder: "Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced."

It's amazing that people believe this shiat.

Well, I *will* say it's objectively useful in nanotech and nanoscale research. Fantastic plasmon resonance (though not as strong as silver or platinum), fairly easy to make a variety of shapes out of it (Rods and spheres *especially* are pretty easy), and, unlike silver, it doesn't farking oxidize the second you make it.


Clippers are objectively useful for cutting my toenails.
 
2013-11-05 01:33:47 PM

jaytkay: Felgraf: Target Builder: "Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced."

It's amazing that people believe this shiat.

Well, I *will* say it's objectively useful in nanotech and nanoscale research. Fantastic plasmon resonance (though not as strong as silver or platinum), fairly easy to make a variety of shapes out of it (Rods and spheres *especially* are pretty easy), and, unlike silver, it doesn't farking oxidize the second you make it.

Clippers are objectively useful for cutting my toenails.


Yep! I should note that I wasn't suggesting that's why gold should be used as a currency or a thing to peg the dollar to. I'm actually really happy that the price of gold is dropping like a stone, it makes buying gold pellets for the evaporator (We've got a really clever method for making gold nanotriangles on a flat substrate) a lot cheaper, and with the sequester farking up grants for my advisor, every little bit helps.
 
2013-11-05 01:34:31 PM
The Hunt brothers laugh and laugh and laugh...
 
2013-11-05 01:39:58 PM

Tricky Chicken: timujin: PC LOAD LETTER: GreenAdder: Nah, but seriously. I don't frequent the Politics tab, so I don't know what Bob you mean.

[isobeldebrujah.files.wordpress.com image 790x416]

That was my question when I read Atlas Shrugged... which of these guys is going to take out the trash?

Well, it is clear that Bob the angry Flower didn't actually finish the book.  This was addressed at the end.  They each grew their own crops, and traded with each other for each other's services.  They helped each other out.  when somebody needed a service, they would get help from the expert in that area. And If you were the expert in an area, you helped the people that needed it.  So if you had ability, you provided to those in need. I guess you could develop a motto about this using the themes of from those with ability to others with need, but I'm not much of a wordsmith.


You are close but just a little off the marx.
 
2013-11-05 01:49:44 PM

H31N0US: Tricky Chicken: timujin: PC LOAD LETTER: GreenAdder: Nah, but seriously. I don't frequent the Politics tab, so I don't know what Bob you mean.

[isobeldebrujah.files.wordpress.com image 790x416]

That was my question when I read Atlas Shrugged... which of these guys is going to take out the trash?

Well, it is clear that Bob the angry Flower didn't actually finish the book.  This was addressed at the end.  They each grew their own crops, and traded with each other for each other's services.  They helped each other out.  when somebody needed a service, they would get help from the expert in that area. And If you were the expert in an area, you helped the people that needed it.  So if you had ability, you provided to those in need. I guess you could develop a motto about this using the themes of from those with ability to others with need, but I'm not much of a wordsmith.

You are close but just a little off the marx.


Try it again in Englesh..
 
2013-11-05 01:51:39 PM

dookdookdook: Just throwing this out there, but if society's ever on the brink of collapse because the billionaire CEO of MegaPharmaPetroCorp decided to quit his job and go live on a yacht in international waters, I'll be more than happy to save the economy and step into the position myself.  Admittedly I don't have much experience in raping the economy, government, and environment of an entire country to satisfy my own personal narcissism and lust for wealth, but I'm a fast learner.


If you can be the CEO of anything bigger than a hot dog stand, WTF are you doing on here commenting snarking it up?  People with the skill sets to even manage more than teenagers mowing grass tend to be busier than you seem to be.    Someday maybe I'll have the skills you have and can run my very own whatever you founded.

/my day off just got a 3:30 mandatory meeting thrown into it, partially thanks to ACA. Going Galt sounds better and better.
 
2013-11-05 01:56:29 PM

ricbach229: dookdookdook: Just throwing this out there, but if society's ever on the brink of collapse because the billionaire CEO of MegaPharmaPetroCorp decided to quit his job and go live on a yacht in international waters, I'll be more than happy to save the economy and step into the position myself.  Admittedly I don't have much experience in raping the economy, government, and environment of an entire country to satisfy my own personal narcissism and lust for wealth, but I'm a fast learner.

If you can be the CEO of anything bigger than a hot dog stand, WTF are you doing on here commenting snarking it up?  People with the skill sets to even manage more than teenagers mowing grass tend to be busier than you seem to be.    Someday maybe I'll have the skills you have and can run my very own whatever you founded.

/my day off just got a 3:30 mandatory meeting thrown into it, partially thanks to ACA. Going Galt sounds better and better.


This!  Who will attend meetings without Randian Superheroes?  The skills needed to be a middle manager cannot be replaced so easily.

What will you parasites do without us to give you power point presentations?  How will you survive without the meeting minutes?  Who will purchase motivational posters for the break room?

Think about that.
 
2013-11-05 02:00:27 PM

mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.


Good. That would have a better impact on our debt than any GOP austerity program.
 
2013-11-05 02:01:41 PM

SomeoneDumb: mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.

Good. That would have a better impact on our debt than any GOP austerity program.


But what about Savers like me who hold all of their assets in cash?   Why should I be punished for saving!?
 
2013-11-05 02:02:23 PM

GoodyearPimp: H31N0US: Tricky Chicken: timujin: PC LOAD LETTER: GreenAdder: Nah, but seriously. I don't frequent the Politics tab, so I don't know what Bob you mean.

[isobeldebrujah.files.wordpress.com image 790x416]

That was my question when I read Atlas Shrugged... which of these guys is going to take out the trash?

Well, it is clear that Bob the angry Flower didn't actually finish the book.  This was addressed at the end.  They each grew their own crops, and traded with each other for each other's services.  They helped each other out.  when somebody needed a service, they would get help from the expert in that area. And If you were the expert in an area, you helped the people that needed it.  So if you had ability, you provided to those in need. I guess you could develop a motto about this using the themes of from those with ability to others with need, but I'm not much of a wordsmith.

You are close but just a little off the marx.

Try it again in Englesh..


Quit stalin and tell me the answer!
 
2013-11-05 02:09:29 PM

SomeoneDumb: mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.

Good. That would have a better impact on our debt than any GOP austerity program.


You must have nothing in the bank and thus nothing to lose.
 
2013-11-05 02:11:08 PM

Tricky Chicken: Well, it is clear that Bob the angry Flower didn't actually finish the book. This was addressed at the end. They each grew their own crops, and traded with each other for each other's services. They helped each other out for money. when somebody needed a service, they would get help from the expert in that area in exchange for money. And If you were the expert in an area, you helped the people that needed it in exchange for money. So if you had ability, you provided to those in need in exchange for money.


FTFY.
 
2013-11-05 02:11:41 PM

Rapmaster2000: SomeoneDumb: mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.

Good. That would have a better impact on our debt than any GOP austerity program.

But what about Savers like me who hold all of their assets in cash?   Why should I be punished for saving!?


for every winner there's a loser
 
2013-11-05 02:12:58 PM

Smeggy Smurf: SomeoneDumb: mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.

Good. That would have a better impact on our debt than any GOP austerity program.

You must have nothing in the bank and thus nothing to lose.


Exactly!  He probably has his money in something stupid like stocks, commodities, or real estate.  Why should people who keep their money in a savings account be punished?

Did you know that every year a dollar is worth less and less while a dram of gold can still buy the same monocle in 2013 that it did in 1913?  This is why we need to go back to the gold standard, so my keen investment intellect is no longer punished by the hand of government.
 
2013-11-05 02:16:51 PM
Go Galt assholes. You need us more than we need you.
 
2013-11-05 02:20:41 PM
Is the author of the article stupid or a troll?

There may be some good points in there, bit the misrepresentations of Atlas Shrugged are so egregious I couldn't tell.
 
2013-11-05 02:21:54 PM

Weaver95: I strongly encourage every ayn randian fanatic to go galt and drop out of this evil society as fast as they can. Flee to the hills! You'll be safe in your bunkers and caves, I promise.


Thanbk you. I am off to a secret canyon in Colorado where I will live on a self-sustaining ranch and barter goods and services with other high-minder makers.

You know, I just don't get it. I actually read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in their entirety back in college. I actually enjoyed them both. I like a long novel and I found them ripping good sci-fi lite yarns. But it was well over twenty years ago and they didn't seem such political touchstones at the time. It never occurred to me for a second that the ideas in those books made a goddam bit of sense as some kind of political system that someone should actually try. Simplistic horseshiat for dime-store intellectuals.
 
2013-11-05 02:22:18 PM
If you take your investment (hell, life) advice from a meth addict with no education in the field, who died penniless and on government assistance, then you deserve what you get.
 
2013-11-05 02:35:57 PM

sabreWulf07: Tricky Chicken: Well, it is clear that Bob the angry Flower didn't actually finish the book. This was addressed at the end. They each grew their own crops, and traded with each other for each other's services. They helped each other out for money. when somebody needed a service, they would get help from the expert in that area in exchange for money. And If you were the expert in an area, you helped the people that needed it in exchange for money. So if you had ability, you provided to those in need in exchange for money.

FTFY.


Actually, it was pure gold and not money. I was being snarky and silly.  Mostly I wanted to point out that she ended the book by addressing exactly what Bob the Angry Flower was going off about. Of course everything worked perfectly in her utopian epilogue.  However, by the time anybody ever got to that part of the book, they were hardly in any condition to retain anything they were reading.  The book was so long and desperately in need of an editor, that people nearing the end were about as delirious as a marathon runner nearing the finish line.  You didn't care about what you were reading anymore, it was just a personal challenge to finish.
 
2013-11-05 02:38:32 PM

ricbach229: Going Galt sounds better and better.


You should definitely do that. Let us know how it works out for you. Pics would be good too. :)
 
2013-11-05 02:40:17 PM

JohnBigBootay: It never occurred to me for a second that the ideas in those books made a goddam bit of sense as some kind of political system that someone should actually try.


So... it never occurred to you while reading Galt's 41+ page radio address monologue that you might be reading some sort of political manifesto masquerading as a novel?
 
2013-11-05 02:42:38 PM

ricbach229: dookdookdook: Just throwing this out there, but if society's ever on the brink of collapse because the billionaire CEO of MegaPharmaPetroCorp decided to quit his job and go live on a yacht in international waters, I'll be more than happy to save the economy and step into the position myself.  Admittedly I don't have much experience in raping the economy, government, and environment of an entire country to satisfy my own personal narcissism and lust for wealth, but I'm a fast learner.

If you can be the CEO of anything bigger than a hot dog stand, WTF are you doing on here commenting snarking it up?  People with the skill sets to even manage more than teenagers mowing grass tend to be busier than you seem to be.    Someday maybe I'll have the skills you have and can run my very own whatever you founded.

/my day off just got a 3:30 mandatory meeting thrown into it, partially thanks to ACA. Going Galt sounds better and better.


Libertarianism: when a bunch of Western-born, raised and educated folk read the rants of a Communist defector, compare their first world problems to it, and make a philosophy out of it.
 
2013-11-05 03:09:17 PM

The Gentleman Caller: When the time to go galt arrives, I will have my money invested in what's most important: toilet paper.


Are you reading 'The Last Policeman' series?  Guy tries to solve crimes during the chaos of what may, in fact, be the end of days.

One involves a man who basically stole an Office Depot.  Toilet paper, soap, modified staple guns to use as weapons, and giant plastic containers of cheese puffs and Twizzlers as far as the eye can see.
 
2013-11-05 03:20:33 PM
It's always amused me that the people who are so big on Atlas Shrugged are exactly the people that would be left out of the Utopia.  Also Dagny was a hoooooooo.
 
2013-11-05 03:30:16 PM

Tricky Chicken: sabreWulf07: Tricky Chicken: Well, it is clear that Bob the angry Flower didn't actually finish the book. This was addressed at the end. They each grew their own crops, and traded with each other for each other's services. They helped each other out for money. when somebody needed a service, they would get help from the expert in that area in exchange for money. And If you were the expert in an area, you helped the people that needed it in exchange for money. So if you had ability, you provided to those in need in exchange for money.

FTFY.

Actually, it was pure gold and not money. I was being snarky and silly.  Mostly I wanted to point out that she ended the book by addressing exactly what Bob the Angry Flower was going off about. Of course everything worked perfectly in her utopian epilogue.  However, by the time anybody ever got to that part of the book, they were hardly in any condition to retain anything they were reading.  The book was so long and desperately in need of an editor, that people nearing the end were about as delirious as a marathon runner nearing the finish line.  You didn't care about what you were reading anymore, it was just a personal challenge to finish.


Holy shiat, that's a perfect synopsis of how I felt getting to the end of The Fountainhead.

I don't know why but I started trying to read Atlas Shrugged too... only to realize I was reading the same book with BONUS FILLER.

I was a dumb teen, at least I grew out of it.

/Being a teen, that is
//Randianism is stupid as all hell
 
2013-11-05 03:35:34 PM

ricbach229: Going Galt sounds better and better.


Going full on French Revolution sounds better and better.  Can't wait to hold your head up to the crowd.
 
2013-11-05 03:40:24 PM

verbaltoxin: ricbach229: dookdookdook: Just throwing this out there, but if society's ever on the brink of collapse because the billionaire CEO of MegaPharmaPetroCorp decided to quit his job and go live on a yacht in international waters, I'll be more than happy to save the economy and step into the position myself.  Admittedly I don't have much experience in raping the economy, government, and environment of an entire country to satisfy my own personal narcissism and lust for wealth, but I'm a fast learner.

If you can be the CEO of anything bigger than a hot dog stand, WTF are you doing on here commenting snarking it up?  People with the skill sets to even manage more than teenagers mowing grass tend to be busier than you seem to be.    Someday maybe I'll have the skills you have and can run my very own whatever you founded.

/my day off just got a 3:30 mandatory meeting thrown into it, partially thanks to ACA. Going Galt sounds better and better.

Libertarianism: when a bunch of Western-born, raised and educated folk read the rants of a Communist defector, compare their first world problems to it, and make a philosophy out of it.


As opposed to?
 
2013-11-05 03:46:13 PM
So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?
 
2013-11-05 03:46:44 PM

NateAsbestos: Tricky Chicken: sabreWulf07: Tricky Chicken:
Actually, it was pure gold and not money. I was being snarky and silly.  Mostly I wanted to point out that she ended the book by addressing exactly what Bob the Angry Flower was going off about. Of course everything worked perfectly in her utopian epilogue.  However, by the time anybody ever got to that part of the book, they were hardly in any condition to retain anything they were reading.  The book was so long and desperately in need of an editor, that people nearing the end were about as delirious as a marathon runner nearing the finish line.  You didn't care about what you were reading anymore, it was just a personal challenge to finish.

Holy shiat, that's a perfect synopsis of how I felt getting to the end of The Fountainhead.

I don't know why but I started trying to read Atlas Shrugged too... only to realize I was reading the same book with BONUS FILLER.

I was a dumb teen, at least I grew out of it.

/Being a teen, that is
//Randianism is stupid as all hell


Toward the middle of the book, I started saying 'I get it Rand, move on.'  Almost the whole last quarter of the book, I was nearly shouting.

I get it, people work toward their own self interests.  I can buy into that. Some selfishness is needed, I can buy into that too.

But if you take her own philosophy further, you will see that not only are ideas resources, but people are resources too. And you need to develop both.  Iron ore is inherently of little value until you refine it.  An un-educated or un-trained person is a drain until you develop them. Then you need to understand the bell curve ans standard distribution.  You need to develop the whole population to the point that they are more valuable than draining.  Sure there will always be a population to the far left of the curve, but that is unavoidable.  Especially if you cherish the individuals on the right extreme.
 
2013-11-05 03:49:38 PM
whining rotters who never rouse themselves to any effort, who do not possess the ability of a filing clerk, but demand the income of a company president, who drift from failure to failure and expect you to pay their bills

Gee, that sounds like most Republican Congressmen, and many of the supposed business titans of our day !
 
2013-11-05 03:50:44 PM

Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?


Well, I think the MAIN industriliast, John Galt (CAPITALIST HERO), had managed to create some sort of magical alloy called "Rearden metal" that.. was.. really important, or something. But he kept it a closely guarded secret as to how it was made! Because he was somehow able to make *massive quantities* of the stuff without anyoen else being able to figure it out! So when he left society, society crumbled and stuff.

... I think. I admit I haven't read it either.
 
2013-11-05 04:00:08 PM
"The current actions of the Federal Reserve, many of them only possible in the absence of the gold standard, helped save the country from economic collapse and support the economy as it continues to grow."


bullshiat !    banks leveraged deposits 30 to 1 and gambled on derivatives.  they lost billions and their balance sheets reflected that.  the trillion from TARP only covered the gambling losses (filled the hole in their balance sheets).  very very little of it entered the economy.  the current Quantative Easing is zero % interest funds provided to the same banks for more gambling (and currency wars vs all who are trying to break out of the petro dollar system).  this is all racking up as US debt, owed to the owners of the same banks we are bailing out.  and it's not repayable.  they will take assets as payment. (Romney is a professional liquidator.. and if he'd won, it would already been underway).   obama won, and so we got more NASDAQ (Chicago) gambling instead... which allows them to gamble more, and increase our debt.  leading to an even bigger asset seizure.   welcome to the third world.
 
2013-11-05 04:07:09 PM

Felgraf: Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?

Well, I think the MAIN industriliast, John Galt (CAPITALIST HERO), had managed to create some sort of magical alloy called "Rearden metal" that.. was.. really important, or something. But he kept it a closely guarded secret as to how it was made! Because he was somehow able to make *massive quantities* of the stuff without anyoen else being able to figure it out! So when he left society, society crumbled and stuff.

... I think. I admit I haven't read it either.


It is a mental masterbation fantasy similar to people that advocate the removal of management class and give control of the factories to the workers.  Sure the guy that works down on the line torquing lugnuts will be able to work a finance deal to float the company through the next economic downturn.

People want to believe they are a special little snowflake.
 
2013-11-05 04:07:09 PM

mcmnky: Is the author of the article stupid or a troll?

There may be some good points in there, bit the misrepresentations of Atlas Shrugged are so egregious I couldn't tell.


I live never read it but am now intrigued. Sounds like some of the characters make quotes about the leeches of society that seem to hit a bit close to home for some of the usual suspects around here.

Is it worthwhile to read? I've always assumed it was boring.
 
2013-11-05 04:10:10 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: mcmnky: Is the author of the article stupid or a troll?

There may be some good points in there, bit the misrepresentations of Atlas Shrugged are so egregious I couldn't tell.

I live never read it but am now intrigued. Sounds like some of the characters make quotes about the leeches of society that seem to hit a bit close to home for some of the usual suspects around here.

Is it worthwhile to read? I've always assumed it was boring.


Save your time and instead visit Somalia so you can Randian philosophy in full swing.
 
2013-11-05 04:13:54 PM
What always cracks me up about those who love Atlas Shrugged is they usually don't understand that John Galt is a communist agitator. John Galt owned nothing, he was labor for hire. Taggart, d'Anconia, and Reardon these were owners, producers of wealth and John Galt convinced them to give up their wealth, to roll over and surrender to the state.

John Galt forms a commune in the mountains, sure they pretend  to "pay" people in gold, but he rewards those who he views as more equal with more gold right from the start, just like the old USSR did. He then convinces those producers to move there, getting them to imprison themselves in their own gulag without ever realizing that they are their own prisoners.

His tactics of work stoppage, slow down, obstruction and out right striking those are labor tactics not owner tactics. Going Galt is a communist solution to capitalist oppression, not a capitalist solution to communist oppression. It is truly a brilliant piece of communist propaganda that idiot class does not even realize is commie propaganda, but all of Rand's works are like this. She was a brilliant communist agitator.
 
2013-11-05 04:15:04 PM

Rapmaster2000: You parasites will be sorry when me and the other Randian Superheroes finally decide to GO GALT!  How will you get by without updates to my Patriot Blog?  Who will put RON PAUL stickers all over the public infrastructure in your neighborhood?

Sorry, but we'll all be at Galt's Gulch zooming around on trains and bedding all of the attractive and sexy ladies that are really into Ayn Rand.  The kind of ladies that are turned on by a real Randian Superhero.  I'm finally gonna score.  Checkmate, libs.


Go ahead, go off to a prison where you don't even know you are a prisoner and are your own guard.
 
2013-11-05 04:15:41 PM

mcreadyblue: Debeo Summa Credo: mcmnky: Is the author of the article stupid or a troll?

There may be some good points in there, bit the misrepresentations of Atlas Shrugged are so egregious I couldn't tell.

I live never read it but am now intrigued. Sounds like some of the characters make quotes about the leeches of society that seem to hit a bit close to home for some of the usual suspects around here.

Is it worthwhile to read? I've always assumed it was boring.

Save your time and instead visit Somalia so you can Randian philosophy in full swing.


whatever.

Have you read it? Is it any good or does it only get attention because its a libertarian favorite?
 
2013-11-05 04:21:07 PM

Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?


Not quite. They bugger off to some hidden mountain commune, but only after the government comes in and takes over their factories and companies. Because the government takes over those businesses fail. Bridges collapse, factories blow up, etc.., etc...

Meanwhile Mr. 1% is off happy as a big in their little mountain commune where they and their fellow creators can invent, produce, and profit off anything they can build or dream up and never ever would think about cheating one another, enslaving all the women, or shooting their neighbor just because he has a nicer house. Nope, they would all live happily in commune land without a government.
 
2013-11-05 04:21:14 PM

Slaves2Darkness: His tactics of work stoppage, slow down, obstruction and out right striking those are labor tactics not owner tactics. Going Galt is a communist solution to capitalist oppression, not a capitalist solution to communist oppression. It is truly a brilliant piece of communist propaganda that idiot class does not even realize is commie propaganda, but all of Rand's works are like this. She was a brilliant communist agitator.


I disagree he was a capitalist that cooped labor methods to fight an authoritarian state.
 
2013-11-05 04:25:06 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?

Not quite. They bugger off to some hidden mountain commune, but only after the government comes in and takes over their factories and companies. Because the government takes over those businesses fail. Bridges collapse, factories blow up, etc.., etc...

Meanwhile Mr. 1% is off happy as a big in their little mountain commune where they and their fellow creators can invent, produce, and profit off anything they can build or dream up and never ever would think about cheating one another, enslaving all the women, or shooting their neighbor just because he has a nicer house. Nope, they would all live happily in commune land without a government.


Enslaving women and shooting people in the face is such a 99% thing to do.
 
2013-11-05 04:28:33 PM

Slaves2Darkness: What always cracks me up about those who love Atlas Shrugged is they usually don't understand that John Galt is a communist agitator. John Galt owned nothing, he was labor for hire. Taggart, d'Anconia, and Reardon these were owners, producers of wealth and John Galt convinced them to give up their wealth, to roll over and surrender to the state.

John Galt forms a commune in the mountains, sure they pretend  to "pay" people in gold, but he rewards those who he views as more equal with more gold right from the start, just like the old USSR did. He then convinces those producers to move there, getting them to imprison themselves in their own gulag without ever realizing that they are their own prisoners.

His tactics of work stoppage, slow down, obstruction and out right striking those are labor tactics not owner tactics. Going Galt is a communist solution to capitalist oppression, not a capitalist solution to communist oppression. It is truly a brilliant piece of communist propaganda that idiot class does not even realize is commie propaganda, but all of Rand's works are like this. She was a brilliant communist agitator.


And it's all written in a style that can best be described as second  third-rate socialist realism.
 
2013-11-05 04:29:14 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: mcmnky: Is the author of the article stupid or a troll?

There may be some good points in there, bit the misrepresentations of Atlas Shrugged are so egregious I couldn't tell.

I live never read it but am now intrigued. Sounds like some of the characters make quotes about the leeches of society that seem to hit a bit close to home for some of the usual suspects around here.

Is it worthwhile to read? I've always assumed it was boring.


I liked it, but it is long-winded. Start with The Fountainhead. It's shorter and better written.

One thing you'll find if you read Atlas is any article linked to from Fark about or quoting the book was written by someone who either didn't read the book or didn't understand what they read.

Not all rich people and CEOs in the book are heroes, not all poor people and government employees are villains.

Rand is rarely subtle, but there is some nuance to get writing.
 
2013-11-05 04:33:37 PM

mcmnky: Debeo Summa Credo: mcmnky: Is the author of the article stupid or a troll?

There may be some good points in there, bit the misrepresentations of Atlas Shrugged are so egregious I couldn't tell.

I live never read it but am now intrigued. Sounds like some of the characters make quotes about the leeches of society that seem to hit a bit close to home for some of the usual suspects around here.

Is it worthwhile to read? I've always assumed it was boring.

I liked it, but it is long-winded. Start with The Fountainhead. It's shorter and better written.

One thing you'll find if you read Atlas is any article linked to from Fark about or quoting the book was written by someone who either didn't read the book or didn't understand what they read.

Not all rich people and CEOs in the book are heroes, not all poor people and government employees are villains.

Rand is rarely subtle, but there is some nuance to get writing.


Okay, thanks.
 
2013-11-05 04:33:51 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Meanwhile Mr. 1% is off happy as a big in their little mountain commune where they and their fellow creators can invent, produce, and profit off anything they can build or dream up and never ever would think about cheating one another, enslaving all the women, or shooting their neighbor just because he has a nicer house. Nope, they would all live happily in commune land without a government.


That reminds me, I wonder how that "Citadel"/Waco Redux thing's been going.  Did they ever get enough patriotsrubes lined up so they can fund their little walled-off gun cult in Utah?
 
2013-11-05 04:36:24 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: mcreadyblue: Debeo Summa Credo: mcmnky: Is the author of the article stupid or a troll?

There may be some good points in there, bit the misrepresentations of Atlas Shrugged are so egregious I couldn't tell.

I live never read it but am now intrigued. Sounds like some of the characters make quotes about the leeches of society that seem to hit a bit close to home for some of the usual suspects around here.

Is it worthwhile to read? I've always assumed it was boring.

Save your time and instead visit Somalia so you can Randian philosophy in full swing.

whatever.

Have you read it? Is it any good or does it only get attention because its a libertarian favorite?


Its a verrrry hard read.
 
2013-11-05 04:43:20 PM

Saiga410: Slaves2Darkness: His tactics of work stoppage, slow down, obstruction and out right striking those are labor tactics not owner tactics. Going Galt is a communist solution to capitalist oppression, not a capitalist solution to communist oppression. It is truly a brilliant piece of communist propaganda that idiot class does not even realize is commie propaganda, but all of Rand's works are like this. She was a brilliant communist agitator.

I disagree he was a capitalist that cooped labor methods to fight an authoritarian state.


Wasn't he an employee at a company who was being paid to develop a new motor but then stopped working when the company wouldn't cut him in on a better share of the product of his labor?
 
2013-11-05 04:51:58 PM
Sometimes they come back.
 
2013-11-05 04:56:59 PM

Target Builder: I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.


 There's no middle-management in the book, or really anyone who is moderately competent.  There's just the producers and takers.  If you're not a producer, then you're a moocher.  "Who is John Galt?" is the oft-repeated saying the characters morosely ask each other as the world falls apart around them because a tiny select few individuals have disappeared and everyone is completely baffled as to how to replace them and fill the sucking vacuums they leave in their respective markets.

 There is just no one left to step up and do their important jobs of telling others what to do.  Seriously, the entire remaining population shrugs their shoulders helplessly.  Dagny is surrounded by dullards who are unqualified to play Pocket Trains, much less develop trans-continental train schedules.  There are no assistants, there are no other executives and there are never any interim CEOs, acting managers or temporary leadership promotions.

 Everyone just gives up as twilight descends on humanity and they learn the terrible secret that all of western civilization was propped up by a dozen people.
 
2013-11-05 04:57:08 PM

dookdookdook: Slaves2Darkness: Meanwhile Mr. 1% is off happy as a big in their little mountain commune where they and their fellow creators can invent, produce, and profit off anything they can build or dream up and never ever would think about cheating one another, enslaving all the women, or shooting their neighbor just because he has a nicer house. Nope, they would all live happily in commune land without a government.

That reminds me, I wonder how that "Citadel"/Waco Redux thing's been going.  Did they ever get enough patriotsrubes lined up so they can fund their little walled-off gun cult in Utah?


I think it's supposed to be up here in Idaho, but I haven't heard anything about it in months.
 
2013-11-05 04:57:34 PM

Smeggy Smurf: SomeoneDumb: mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.

Good. That would have a better impact on our debt than any GOP austerity program.

You must have nothing in the bank and thus nothing to lose.


Sometimes it's not about me but more about my country.
 
2013-11-05 04:58:25 PM

Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?


And that's completely true.  Venezuela doesn't have any toilet paper shortages at all because that's exactly what happened.  The middle managers moved in and things keep running without a hitch.
 
2013-11-05 04:59:05 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Have you read it? Is it any good or does it only get attention because its a libertarian favorite?


It's a pretty dreary, boring read because Rand seemed to be more concerned about getting her philosophy across than actually writing a decent story.

I think  Anthem is a much better Rand book and it's very short, too.
 
2013-11-05 05:00:15 PM

gunslinger_RG: they proceeded to live a hedonist lifestyle that would have made Nero blush.


Do you know how I know you've read about zero Roman history?
 
2013-11-05 05:25:09 PM

K.B.O. Winston: The Gentleman Caller: When the time to go galt arrives, I will have my money invested in what's most important: toilet paper.

Are you reading 'The Last Policeman' series?  Guy tries to solve crimes during the chaos of what may, in fact, be the end of days.

One involves a man who basically stole an Office Depot.  Toilet paper, soap, modified staple guns to use as weapons, and giant plastic containers of cheese puffs and Twizzlers as far as the eye can see.


There's a new one out? BRB, heading to Amazon to pick it up on Kindle.
 
2013-11-05 05:25:56 PM
In other news taking seriously a fantasy novel written by a sociopath is a stupid idea.
 
2013-11-05 05:27:54 PM

Tricky Chicken: But if you take her own philosophy further, you will see that not only are ideas resources, but people are resources too. And you need to develop both.  Iron ore is inherently of little value until you refine it.  An un-educated or un-trained person is a drain until you develop them. Then you need to understand the bell curve ans standard distribution.  You need to develop the whole population to the point that they are more valuable than draining.  Sure there will always be a population to the far left of the curve, but that is unavoidable.  Especially if you cherish the individuals on the right extreme.


Well of course, but that implies you consider other people to be more than a blight on your enjoyment of the planet. I get the impression Rand herself was very antisocial, just from reading The Fountainhead. I interpreted her love of Rourke(or Galt) types more as relief that they weren't problems, unlike those Takers. I always thought she just wanted to be alone on the planet.

But I'm no English major *shrug*
 
2013-11-05 05:29:48 PM

Fart_Machine: In other news taking seriously a fantasy novel written by a sociopath is a stupid idea.


Yes, but why bring scientology in to the discussion?
 
2013-11-05 05:35:01 PM

mcmnky: Fart_Machine: In other news taking seriously a fantasy novel written by a sociopath is a stupid idea.

Yes, but why bring scientology in to the discussion?


Yup, Objectivism and Scientology are both cults.  Glad we agree.
 
2013-11-05 05:48:06 PM
Gold makes lousy money. But it can be a store of perceived value due to rarity. But it's not as valuable as a pipeline, or a nice corner property in a city. Sure, inflation makes the money you have not worth what it was 20 years ago, but instead of just sitting on your store of wealth you invested it somewhere boring, maybe sold options on it over the years.

The Spanish conquistadors were big on bringing back gold, where they could distort the economy by buying everything they wanted. The French and English were lucky, they found trade instead of gold. There was more stuff to buy with the same amount of money, which by the time of Newton was already going off precious metals.
 
2013-11-05 05:52:08 PM
FTA: "Miss Taggart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear."


Holy crap, this is what they actually believe? It's like a manual for douchebagginess.
 
2013-11-05 06:09:30 PM

mcreadyblue: Inflation is around the corner folks.


How long has it been just around the corner?
 
2013-11-05 06:28:30 PM

flondrix: mcreadyblue: Inflation is around the corner folks.

How long has it been just around the corner?


Since the gas station put in that air pump.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-05 06:33:22 PM
So... taking business advice from a book written by sociopath is a bad idea.

Whoddathunkit?
 
2013-11-05 06:37:36 PM
The books I have for my two year old are more believable. Plus they teach how to act like a good person, not a retarded idiot.
 
2013-11-05 06:42:16 PM

trotsky: The books I have for my two year old are more believable. Plus they teach how to act like a good person, not a retarded idiot.


What sort of books do objectivists give their kids?  I know of at least one objectivist YA novel (The Girl who Owned a City) but I have no idea what they give little kids to read.  I'll bet someone has tried to write one...and I can't help but remember Rush Limbaugh's attempt at kidlit.
 
2013-11-05 06:46:41 PM

FarkedOver: ricbach229: Going Galt sounds better and better.

Going full on French Revolution sounds better and better.  Can't wait to hold your head up to the crowd.


www.biography.com

Please, proceed.
 
2013-11-05 07:00:27 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: JohnBigBootay: It never occurred to me for a second that the ideas in those books made a goddam bit of sense as some kind of political system that someone should actually try.

So... it never occurred to you while reading Galt's 41+ page radio address monologue that you might be reading some sort of political manifesto masquerading as a novel?


It occurred to me that ayn rand was off her rocker, yes. But it did not occur to me that almost thirty years later some nutjobs would think those ideas might lead to superior form of government and try to institute those ideals.
 
2013-11-05 07:00:32 PM
Too soon/late to discuss Ms. Rand's excursion into the depths of social dependance due to her health issues she caused? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

/just stirrin' the puddin'
 
2013-11-05 07:09:18 PM

Weaver95: I find ayn rand republicans to be a fascinating contradiction. Especially when they claim to be good Christians at the same time. It's like meeting a gay Jewish black man who wants to join the KKK. you just don't know how to to break it too them that they're seriously misinformed about their position in life.

 
2013-11-05 07:15:27 PM

flondrix: trotsky: The books I have for my two year old are more believable. Plus they teach how to act like a good person, not a retarded idiot.

What sort of books do objectivists give their kids?  I know of at least one objectivist YA novel (The Girl who Owned a City) but I have no idea what they give little kids to read.  I'll bet someone has tried to write one...and I can't help but remember Rush Limbaugh's attempt at kidlit.


Probably shiat like My Little Pony because I imagine all LOLibertarians to be disgusting Brony dweebs too.
 
2013-11-05 07:16:13 PM
atlas shrugged is basically fan fiction
 
2013-11-05 07:23:07 PM

yelmrog: Debeo Summa Credo: Have you read it? Is it any good or does it only get attention because its a libertarian favorite?

It's a pretty dreary, boring read because Rand seemed to be more concerned about getting her philosophy across than actually writing a decent story.

I think  Anthem is a much better Rand book and it's very short, too.


Is it better or worse than say, Upton Sinclair novels? They all (the 3 ive read) start out pretty good but then get lost in socialist/communist cheerleading that distracts from the story. They aren't that long though and are easy reads.

Not looking for a long dreary read. Based on your and other comments I might continue to pass on Rand.
 
2013-11-05 07:36:15 PM

Rapmaster2000: Sorry, but we'll all be at Galt's Gulch zooming around on trains and bedding raping all of the attractive and sexy ladies that are really into Ayn Rand.


FTFY.

Seriously, Rand had a creepy rapey thing going on in her novels.  Don't know if it was wishful thinking. . .
 
2013-11-05 08:04:37 PM
I look forward to McDonald's coming out with its 22mgAu value menus

/assayer's fees not included
 
2013-11-05 08:16:36 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Not looking for a long dreary read


...Yeah, you might wanna skip Atlas Shrugged. I doubt even its most ardent supporter could claim it isn't a struggle in places. Plus, it's very easy to sum up:

Rich people: not just good; so good they're solely responsible for everything good in society.
Poor people who worship rich people: good, although not good enough to get a happy ending.
Everyone else: eviler than Hitler and Stalin 69'ing. So evil the world explodes in like a day once they drive off the couple hundred or so really rich people.

I honestly can't get too upset about it. Ayn Rand's family lost everything when the communists took over, it's quite obvious that that drove her to construct a philosophy that was as anti-communist as possible. The fact that modern-day libertarians buy into it is pretty bizarre, though.
 
2013-11-05 08:26:35 PM
Rands work is garbage. It took me 20 minutes of reading to figure that out.

/I'm a slow reader.
 
2013-11-05 08:27:24 PM

Gunther: Debeo Summa Credo: Not looking for a long dreary read

...Yeah, you might wanna skip Atlas Shrugged. I doubt even its most ardent supporter could claim it isn't a struggle in places. Plus, it's very easy to sum up:

Rich people: not just good; so good they're solely responsible for everything good in society.
Poor people who worship rich people: good, although not good enough to get a happy ending.
Everyone else: eviler than Hitler and Stalin 69'ing. So evil the world explodes in like a day once they drive off the couple hundred or so really rich people.

I honestly can't get too upset about it. Ayn Rand's family lost everything when the communists took over, it's quite obvious that that drove her to construct a philosophy that was as anti-communist as possible. The fact that modern-day libertarians buy into it is pretty bizarre, though.


But there was evil rich people in the book.   Mooch and the Taggert boy are the easiest examples.
 
2013-11-05 08:32:26 PM
A friend of mine once pointed out that "Going Galt" wouldn't work because, after the dust settled, the so-called leeches would realize they were better off without you.
 
2013-11-05 08:33:19 PM

Saiga410: But there was evil rich people in the book.   Mooch and the Taggert boy are the easiest examples.


Point, let me add another category:

Evil rich people: always leechers/looters. No evil person is ever clever or hard-working.
 
2013-11-05 08:49:31 PM
Gunther:

I honestly can't get too upset about it. Ayn Rand's family lost everything when the communists took over, it's quite obvious that that drove her to construct a philosophy that was as anti-communist as possible. The fact that modern-day libertarians buy into it is pretty bizarre, though.

And this is the problem with libertarians. They buy into this simplistic world view that she presents. Frankly, objectivism and anarcho-capitalism both piss me off. One convinces the world that all libertarians are cold, don't care about the poor, and are selfish assholes. The other convinces the .
world that all libertarians are insane and actually believe that a stateless society would somehow work.

Whatever happened to simply being socially liberal, economically conservative, and not being insane about either of it. Guess what guys, maybe public roads, rational environmental regulations, and laws against work place discrimination can be a good thing. Maybe, just maybe, its not necessary to immediately eliminate welfare.

Yes, I am a libertarian. Although I usually say "libertarian leaning" to unsuccessfully differentiate myself from all the vocal nut jobs out there.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-11-05 08:55:09 PM

Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?


I don't know about you, but the boss of the place I work for can, and has, buggered off for two or three weeks at a time without causing much of a problem.

Now if the secretary happens to get sick ... hoo boy.
 
2013-11-05 09:09:25 PM
I don't understand why people think gold is any more stable than paper money. Precious metals and other forms of currency only have value because we assign them value. There's nothing inherently different in assigning value to gold versus assigning value to paper currency. Currency itself is entirely human in construct, it has abstract value because we assign value it. Salt was once a form of currency, maybe we should return to a salt standard because it's older?
 
2013-11-05 09:32:57 PM

ohokyeah: I don't understand why people think gold is any more stable than paper money. Precious metals and other forms of currency only have value because we assign them value. There's nothing inherently different in assigning value to gold versus assigning value to paper currency. Currency itself is entirely human in construct, it has abstract value because we assign value it. Salt was once a form of currency, maybe we should return to a salt standard because it's older?




There are some pretty sound reasons why gold was used for money: Planet Money, why Gold?

But I mostly agree with you. Levi Strauss went to the gold fields and sold pants, beginning a multi generational business that has far eclipsed the wealthiest of the actual gold miners.
 
2013-11-05 09:36:56 PM

Karac: Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?

I don't know about you, but the boss of the place I work for can, and has, buggered off for two or three weeks at a time without causing much of a problem.

Now if the secretary happens to get sick ... hoo boy.


You guys keep reminding me of one of my favorite light reads. It's just pretty much the philosophy I live by. And shows why anarcho-capitalism just won't work. It was how the world used to work. Then we became civilized. You can try to go back to pre-civilization if you want, but as sure as the sun rises every morning, we're going to end up right back to where we are now.

http://books.google.com/books?id=exrPh1u9gYC&pg=PA211#v=onepage&q&f= false
 
2013-11-05 09:47:18 PM

JohnBigBootay: Simplistic horseshiat for dime-store intellectuals.


That's exactly what Ayn Rand is about.  There was a reason her "philosophy" was soundly rejected by actual academia (both philosophical and economic) in her own time, and basically only followed by a cult-like body that exists outside legitimate intellectual circles.

However, in the growing derpstorm of the Right-wing, this defective, pathological way of thinking has somehow gained more legitimacy as something that lets the rich (or wish-they-were-rich) feel better about themselves and plays into the "taxes are always bad" Republican mantra.
 
2013-11-05 10:00:59 PM

Karac: Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?

I don't know about you, but the boss of the place I work for can, and has, buggered off for two or three weeks at a time without causing much of a problem.

Now if the secretary happens to get sick ... hoo boy.


Sure we don't work for the same guy?

/he takes multiple vacations a year.
//this year, he went to Istanbul
///but does he have the money to buy a new copier? Noooooo...
 
2013-11-05 10:07:06 PM

Rapmaster2000: You parasites will be sorry when me and the other Randian Superheroes finally decide to GO GALT!  How will you get by without updates to my Patriot Blog?  Who will put RON PAUL stickers all over the public infrastructure in your neighborhood?

Sorry, but we'll all be at Galt's Gulch zooming around on trains and bedding all of the attractive and sexy ladies that are really into Ayn Rand.  The kind of ladies that are turned on by a real Randian Superhero.  I'm finally gonna score.  Checkmate, libs.


Yeah, and I'll try to plead to someone, anyone at all, at Edwards AFB who might be able to call some other buncha Chair Force guys at some other airbase to wrassle up an A-10 or two to go play, if he gets a wild hair up his butt, before dismissing me as a distraught whackjob.

Maybe I'll namedrop an astronaut or two, who I do not know. Which I really ought not to do at all.

Maybe I should promise the airman to whom I plead a case of really good booze.
 
2013-11-05 10:15:35 PM
Holy shiat I just peeked at farking KITCO.
 
2013-11-05 10:27:29 PM

meat0918: So... taking business advice from a book written by sociopath is a bad idea.

Whoddathunkit?


 So running your company efficiently, rewarding those who work hard, looking for new innovations, and being honest are not good business practices? Seriously if you ever read the damned book you would know that is what she advocated. She had a banker character that was treated badly by the press for not writing loans to people who couldn't afford them.
 
2013-11-05 10:38:17 PM
 
2013-11-05 10:41:00 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: meat0918: So... taking business advice from a book written by sociopath is a bad idea.

Whoddathunkit?

 So running your company efficiently, rewarding those who work hard, looking for new innovations, and being honest are not good business practices? Seriously if you ever read the damned book you would know that is what she advocated. She had a banker character that was treated badly by the press for not writing loans to people who couldn't afford them.


You can't reason with a looter.  They're too damned evil to give a shiat.
 
2013-11-05 10:50:40 PM

Smeggy Smurf: globalwarmingpraiser: meat0918: So... taking business advice from a book written by sociopath is a bad idea.

Whoddathunkit?

 So running your company efficiently, rewarding those who work hard, looking for new innovations, and being honest are not good business practices? Seriously if you ever read the damned book you would know that is what she advocated. She had a banker character that was treated badly by the press for not writing loans to people who couldn't afford them.

You can't reason with a looter.  They're too damned evil to give a shiat.



All joking aside, that was how Hank Reardon  actually ran his business.
 
2013-11-05 11:11:16 PM
Putting aside the problems with objectivism in general, his reading of this is flat out wrong:

"Miss Taggart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear."

The point of that conversation was about people who refuse to contribute to society, and expect to be carried by everyone else at all times. Entitlement is never a good thing, and no ethical or successful businessman would support entitlement. The rest of objectivism flows from wrapping your head around that point. This world only functions when everyone works together, exchanging the product of their work in order improve their own positions.
 
2013-11-05 11:14:06 PM

Karac: Target Builder: So...

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged so could be waaaay off.

I understand the premise is that the worlds wealthy - the leaders of industry and the like - all decide to bugger off and basically leave everyone else wallowing in self pity because the factories all closed and they're all unemployed...

I assume the factories had some level of mid-management who knew how the whole place operated, an accounts guy who knew where the various orders would go, foremen who knew what the workers were supposed to do and workers who knew how to operate the machines.

When Mr. Industrialist vanishes to his mountain hideout leaving the factory all locked up - isn't that a problem everyone else who worked there could have solved with a pair of bolt cutters?

I don't know about you, but the boss of the place I work for can, and has, buggered off for two or three weeks at a time without causing much of a problem.

Now if the secretary happens to get sick ... hoo boy.


My last job the owners were rarely seen.  But once the woefully-treated and underpaid VP of Service left the whole place fell apart.  And that is the second company I've worked where the owners really didn't do much, although the other they had been owners for 30 some years and ready to sell.
 
2013-11-05 11:40:07 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: All joking aside, that was how Hank Reardon actually ran his business.


Hank Reardon, didn't she describe him thusly?:

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's  inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and  feel 'other people.' "

Oh wait. my mistake, those were her words on William Edward Hickman , "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology [Rand had] heard,"
 
2013-11-05 11:49:13 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: globalwarmingpraiser: All joking aside, that was how Hank Reardon actually ran his business.

Hank Reardon, didn't she describe him thusly?:

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's  inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and  feel 'other people.' "

Oh wait. my mistake, those were her words on William Edward Hickman , "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology [Rand had] heard,"


So that my statement invalid how? Also, is that strawman screaming yet?
 
2013-11-06 12:04:27 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Vlad_the_Inaner: globalwarmingpraiser: All joking aside, that was how Hank Reardon actually ran his business.

Hank Reardon, didn't she describe him thusly?:

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's  inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and  feel 'other people.' "

Oh wait. my mistake, those were her words on William Edward Hickman , "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology [Rand had] heard,"

So that my statement invalid how? Also, is that strawman screaming yet?


Well, this is the thing about libertarian-ish people, they use a slightly different version of English.  When they say 'moral', it's not what most English users are thinking of.  Likewise, most English users think 'Honest' means following rules and regulations,   Rand's Supermen know better than everyone and do what they want.  I wanted to reveal the character of Rand's super-est of supermen, so people can see the real life model of many of her fictional exemplars.

btw, 'strawman' is stating a puposely flawed argument (as in easy to knock down) and attributing it to an opponent.   Since I basically just posted Rand's own words regarding Hickman, it's not really a purposely flawed version of your statement, is it?  Nor did I claim you made it. Learn what words mean.
 
2013-11-06 12:10:34 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: globalwarmingpraiser: Vlad_the_Inaner: globalwarmingpraiser: All joking aside, that was how Hank Reardon actually ran his business.

Hank Reardon, didn't she describe him thusly?:

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's  inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and  feel 'other people.' "

Oh wait. my mistake, those were her words on William Edward Hickman , "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology [Rand had] heard,"

So that my statement invalid how? Also, is that strawman screaming yet?

Well, this is the thing about libertarian-ish people, they use a slightly different version of English.  When they say 'moral', it's not what most English users are thinking of.  Likewise, most English users think 'Honest' means following rules and regulations,   Rand's Supermen know better than everyone and do what they want.  I wanted to reveal the character of Rand's super-est of supermen, so people can see the real life model of many of her fictional exemplars.

btw, 'strawman' is stating a puposely flawed argument (as in easy to knock down) and attributing it to an opponent.   Since I basically just posted Rand's own words regarding Hickman, it's not really a purposely flawed version of your statement, is it?  Nor did I claim you made it. Learn what words mean.


In Atlas Shrugged, Henry Reardon followed every law and regulation. But that seems to be outside of your understanding. I am not sitting here defending Rand, I am pointing that Hank Rearden did everything we say a business man should, and you act as if he is a villainous character, But then again, you probably think that competition is bad for consumers as well.
 
2013-11-06 12:23:29 AM

mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.


Around the corner? Compare the value of a dollar in 1950 to the value of a dollar today. The author isn't saying fiat currency doesn't produce inflation, he says it produces steady, predictable inflation, which is supposed to be better. Although something which constantly leaches the value out of savings isn't really better for the individual.

It takes about $10 to buy what $1 would buy in 1950. People don't make an average of 10 times more than they did in 1950. This means that, effectively, people make less money than they did in 1950. Would it be better with a gold standard? Well, let's look at the stats: from 1800-1900: slight deflation, gold standard. 1912-2012: 23x increase in the amount of money required to buy the same things, fiat currency. Which way's better? Draw your own conclusions.
 
2013-11-06 12:31:29 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Henry Reardon followed every law and regulation


Sure sure.  There were no officially sanctioned claims that Reardon Metal was unsafe?  And Reardon didn't go ahead and sell it in safety critical applications anyway?  Sure with a wave of the authoress' magic wand these government experts were merely jealous competitors, but the way that comes out in the real world would be the  Reardon-analog  saying "I don't care what the experts say! Fark them! I, Superman, say it is safe!"
 
2013-11-06 12:31:56 AM

untaken_name: It takes about $10 to buy what $1 would buy in 1950. People don't make an average of 10 times more than they did in 1950. This means that, effectively, people make less money than they did in 1950. Would it be better with a gold standard? Well, let's look at the stats: from 1800-1900: slight deflation, gold standard. 1912-2012: 23x increase in the amount of money required to buy the same things, fiat currency. Which way's better? Draw your own conclusions.


Going by this:  http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Househ o ld%20Income.pdf  it looks like even taking into account inflation people are better off today than they were in 1950

The idea that if we were paid in gold our incomes would be protected in a way that getting paid in paper currency doesn't also relies on the colossal assumptions that  (a) the price of goods wouldn't fluctuate in relation to the price of gold and (b) your employer wouldn't just cut the amount of gold they paid their workers over the years.
 
2013-11-06 12:38:07 AM
Two A-10s with full loadout and a KC-135 on standby.

One gulch.

Y'all do the math.
 
2013-11-06 01:02:29 AM

Target Builder: untaken_name: It takes about $10 to buy what $1 would buy in 1950. People don't make an average of 10 times more than they did in 1950. This means that, effectively, people make less money than they did in 1950. Would it be better with a gold standard? Well, let's look at the stats: from 1800-1900: slight deflation, gold standard. 1912-2012: 23x increase in the amount of money required to buy the same things, fiat currency. Which way's better? Draw your own conclusions.

Going by this:  http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Househ o ld%20Income.pdf  it looks like even taking into account inflation people are better off today than they were in 1950

The idea that if we were paid in gold our incomes would be protected in a way that getting paid in paper currency doesn't also relies on the colossal assumptions that  (a) the price of goods wouldn't fluctuate in relation to the price of gold and (b) your employer wouldn't just cut the amount of gold they paid their workers over the years.


1. It worked for several thousand years. The price of goods did not fluctuate much from generation to generation (there were brief fluctuations, but they reverted to the norm quickly). Now the price of goods goes up every year, and the price of gold fluctuates in fiat currency, but is relatively stable in purchasing power. For example, if you had a $20 gold piece in 1900, you could buy a pretty snazzy suit with it, including shirt and shoes. Today, if you have a $20 gold eagle, you can trade it for about enough fiat currency to buy a pretty snazzy suit, including shirt and shoes. 2. What's to stop your employer from cutting the amount of fiat currency they pay their workers over the years?
 
2013-11-06 01:10:49 AM

untaken_name: 1. It worked for several thousand years. The price of goods did not fluctuate much from generation to generation


What utter farking nonsense. You are completely ignorant of history and economics.

1) Historically, a gold standard wasn't actually that common.
2) Whether or not a culture has a gold standard doesn't have any effect on how the price of goods fluctuates.
 
2013-11-06 02:06:45 AM
i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.
 
2013-11-06 02:21:12 AM

HotWingAgenda: Putting aside the problems with objectivism in general, his reading of this is flat out wrong:

"Miss Taggart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear."

The point of that conversation was about people who refuse to contribute to society, and expect to be carried by everyone else at all times. Entitlement is never a good thing, and no ethical or successful businessman would support entitlement. The rest of objectivism flows from wrapping your head around that point. This world only functions when everyone works together, exchanging the product of their work in order improve their own positions.


If the whole book reads like that passage then I'm glad I never read it.  Ugh, what self-righteous drivel.

As for your interpretation, you are seriously reaching.  At no point does it say the mediocre aren't doing anything, it says they aren't talented and resent the speaker for how special he believes himself to be (and since the point of the story is to prove an ideology correct, I'm sure he is actually that special).  He sounds like one of the fark high-IQ brigade prattling on about their muscular 170 IQ.
 
2013-11-06 02:24:09 AM

soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.


So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?
 
2013-11-06 02:31:34 AM

Gunther: Saiga410: But there was evil rich people in the book.   Mooch and the Taggert boy are the easiest examples.

Point, let me add another category:

Evil rich people: always leechers/looters. No evil person is ever clever or hard-working.


If they were then they wouldn't be evil.  There are few snidely whiplashes in the real world, running around twirling their 'stache at the possibility of tying someone to the tracks.  And Ayn Rand supports greed and general callousness, so those type of wealthy would be regular Dudley Do-rights.

What I think gets me the most about followers of a philosophy like this isn't that they haven't thought through how bad it is, or even that they are only fair-weather followers anyways, but that they cannot seem to understand that just because something works one way in a fictional story doesn't mean it works that way in real life. I could write a story today that proves communism works and yields a utopia, or that a purely free laissez faire economy gets that result, or even that anarchy would result in the American people chaotically proving themselves capable of doing good and spontaneously building roads and maintaining sewers.

I could write one where no government support of the sciences results in the downfall of mankind, or one where it results in a colonized mars within the decade.   

None of that means anything.

Yet we had a VP candidate who iirc makes everyone below him read Atlas Shrugged.  Disgusting.
 
2013-11-06 02:39:29 AM

Smackledorfer: HotWingAgenda: Putting aside the problems with objectivism in general, his reading of this is flat out wrong:

"Miss Taggart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear."

The point of that conversation was about people who refuse to contribute to society, and expect to be carried by everyone else at all times. Entitlement is never a good thing, and no ethical or successful businessman would support entitlement. The rest of objectivism flows from wrapping your head around that point. This world only functions when everyone works together, exchanging the product of their work in order improve their own positions.

If the whole book reads like that passage then I'm glad I never read it.  Ugh, what self-righteous drivel.


It also bears no resemblance to how normal people think. I'm a pretty mediocre guitar player (quite honestly, that's being generous), I would really hate it if my talent was the maximum people could achieve at it, as it would mean there wouldn't be any great guitar music. I'm sure Dan Brown doesn't stay up at night consumed with envy for Cormac McCarthy's writing talent, wishing desperately that better writers than him didn't exist  The idea that people are either the best in the world at something or filled with resentment that they aren't the best in the world is ludicrous. It's the sort of mindset only a megalomaniac has.
 
2013-11-06 02:40:53 AM

Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?


Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.
 
2013-11-06 02:47:37 AM
"John Galt Blows"
 
2013-11-06 02:50:05 AM

Tricky Chicken: But if you take her own philosophy further, you will see that not only are ideas resources, but people are resources too. And you need to develop both. Iron ore is inherently of little value until you refine it. An un-educated or un-trained person is a drain until you develop them. Then you need to understand the bell curve ans standard distribution. You need to develop the whole population to the point that they are more valuable than draining. Sure there will always be a population to the far left of the curve, but that is unavoidable. Especially if you cherish the individuals on the right extreme.


That's part of the problem people have with many libertarians, randists and such.  During her life Ayn hated being compared to libertarians, because she saw her philosophy as different than their's.  There's a lot less WTF's in Rand's philosophies if you fully develop them, it's when people only take the first page where there's trouble.

For example, I'll say that I want to 'legalize, tax, and regulate recreational drugs'.  But that single statement expands into a book when you get into the details with my justifications(based on real world examples), the specifics of what is legalized, how much you'd tax it, where the tax money would go, how it would be regulated, etc...

Slutter McGee: Whatever happened to simply being socially liberal, economically conservative, and not being insane about either of it. Guess what guys, maybe public roads, rational environmental regulations, and laws against work place discrimination can be a good thing. Maybe, just maybe, its not necessary to immediately eliminate welfare.


I've been called 'less of a libertarian than a practical minarchist'.  When looking at some government program(or proposed program) I'll sit down and figure out:
1.  What improvement are we seeking to achieve?  Can the benefits be put into Dollars?  How many?
2.  How much is this costing us?  Are the costs worth the benefits?  I'll note that certain amounts of welfare pay for themselves in various ways.  Stuff like effective public schools reduce crime, for example.
3.  Is there a way we can do this cheaper while maintaining the good effects?  If we spend more money will we improve the effects disproportionally to the extra money?  It takes a certain amount of money to just keep the office doors open, so if a program is unfairly squeezed of cash it'll lose effectiveness.  But too much money is also bad.
4.  Does this impact people's 'freedom'?  Is it worth that impact?

Just to give an example of the way I think:  Pollution X costs 10k lives/year and $1B in sickness, medical care, etc...
Justification:  This is a provable group harm; we KNOW it costs approximately $1B even if we can't trace any given medical case back to a specific emitter on average.  So yes, the polluters' fist has met my face and caused me harm(in a generic sense), so they need to provide compensation.  Courts mostly enrich lawyers, so let's keep it out of there if possible.
My solution:  Figure out how much Pollution X is released each year: Y units.  At $2M per, 10k lives is still a rounding error for the $1B, so we'll ignore it for now.  Each company has to pay $1B/Y times the number of units of X they produce each year.  If they produce 1% of the total, that's $10M/year.  There's a lot of pollutants, so have it be managed by one agency(EPA probably), one as few forms as practical(could practically be a spreadsheet:  X tons of CO, Y tons of SO(x), Z tons mercury(air released), etc...  Put the monies towards subsidizing healthcare or something.  As a result, if the pollution isn't worth the economic activity, they won't produce it, or if it's cheaper to remediate they'll do that.  If it's cheap to control 99% of a pollution but uneconomic to get that last percent they'll do that.  You'll need to fudge with the amounts you charge constantly, of course, and it won't be perfect.  But it's predictable, fairly fair, and should be fairly cheap to impliment as long as you're willing to use reasonable estimates for amounts released as opposed to exact figures.  The exactness involved will vary by industry and pollutant.  For consumers you might want to charge the company that provides the fuel or equipment - it's far cheaper to be .1% accurate for an oil refinery than an individual.
 
2013-11-06 02:57:08 AM
My high school World History teacher had us read one book in her class and it was Anthem...I'm not really sure why or what that has to do with history but we had to read Anthem and she was really into it.  I recall reading it and not being very impressed but I'm glad in a way that we read that because I learned at 16 that I didn't ever need to read any Ayn Rand books ever again.  I wasn't really familiar with who she was at the time and really didn't care, I just thought it was kind of a boring story and was sort of beneath us intellectually.  I also found it ironic that we would read something about a society where we were all expected to be part of the collective and do as we were told since that's basically what high school was and that any actions we took similar to the protagonists in the story would result us in being punished for insubordination.
This individual in particular really did not enjoy when we challenged her rather simplistic view of history, for instance when she told us that the issues Ireland and Northern Ireland have had were solely due to religious differences and nothing else and didn't appreciate when I pointed out that generally speaking people tend to not really a foreign power occupying their homeland and imposing their laws and customs at gunpoint.  She kicked me out of class over that.
Looking back it was sort of ironic that she was trying to show us all the virtues of individuality so long as our individuality didn't challenge her viewpoints or authority.
As an adult I was surprised to hear that people actually not only had read more than one Ayn Rand book but that they actually liked them and there was a school of thought (or absence thereof) devoted to the symbolism in her books.  To me Anthem just seemed like a poorly written science fiction book about a bunch of pussies who just bowed to authority and when push comes to shove run off to the forest instead of fighting...I found the ending to be sort of anti-climactic.  If there was a sequel where they came back and kicked totalitarian ass or at least tried I might have liked the book.  It just seemed like kind of a cop out.
 
2013-11-06 02:58:38 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: globalwarmingpraiser: Henry Reardon followed every law and regulation

Sure sure.  There were no officially sanctioned claims that Reardon Metal was unsafe?  And Reardon didn't go ahead and sell it in safety critical applications anyway?  Sure with a wave of the authoress' magic wand these government experts were merely jealous competitors, but the way that comes out in the real world would be the  Reardon-analog  saying "I don't care what the experts say! Fark them! I, Superman, say it is safe!"



Claims. There were no regulations saying not to use it. They just didn't want him to. It is like certain elements of the government do not want you to own a weapon capable of firing 1000 rounds per minute, but it is perfectly legal to do so. Oh and it is called a Gatling Gun which if hand cranked falls into the antique weapons laws. If they had been actually breaking the law they characters would have been arrested. See in the Fountainhead Henry Roark burned down a building he designed. He broke the law and had to face a jury of his peers.

Oh and for what it is worth, I see objectivism as unworkable as communism. I am pointing out where you are wrong. I would also be glad to work for Hank Reardon. The man valued hard work, ingenuity, and honesty. I could live with that.
 
2013-11-06 03:03:19 AM

soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.


That is less intelligent than Billy Madison's views on the industrial revolution.
 
2013-11-06 03:09:56 AM
www.interviewmagazine.com
Rand reads best.
when in a
Nick Gaetano cover
 
2013-11-06 03:11:17 AM

Smackledorfer: soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.

That is less intelligent than Billy Madison's views on the industrial revolution.


There needs to be a government contraction. Can we start with the DOD, DEA, DHS, and ATF?
 
2013-11-06 03:16:16 AM

soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.


That staggering innumeracy plus your horrifically immature username ... I can't even
 
2013-11-06 03:19:50 AM

Smackledorfer: soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.

That is less intelligent than Billy Madison's views on the industrial revolution.


actually it is quite the opposite; when you consider a family and it's finances, you do not want some or all of the members of that family spending like a crackhead and taking out frivolous loans and such. It is important for people to be ordered and disciplined in their lives. When you have an element that is out of balance, it tends to throw other things out of balance as well.
 
2013-11-06 03:22:31 AM

StopLurkListen: soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.

That staggering innumeracy plus your horrifically immature username ... I can't even


then you shouldn't even attempt it if you are concerned about doing so
 
2013-11-06 03:24:22 AM

soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.

That is less intelligent than Billy Madison's views on the industrial revolution.

actually it is quite the opposite; when you consider a family and it's finances, you do not want some or all of the members of that family spending like a crackhead and taking out frivolous loans and such. It is important for people to be ordered and disciplined in their lives. When you have an element that is out of balance, it tends to throw other things out of balance as well.


So again, I ask: do you believe households should hold no debt?
 
2013-11-06 03:27:36 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.

That is less intelligent than Billy Madison's views on the industrial revolution.

There needs to be a government contraction. Can we start with the DOD, DEA, DHS, and ATF?


You point out the areas specifically where money is wasted and I'll probably agree with many, if not most of the proposed changes.

But the idea that we should never run a debt and never hold a surplus has nothing to do with that.
 
2013-11-06 03:39:21 AM

Smackledorfer: soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.

That is less intelligent than Billy Madison's views on the industrial revolution.

actually it is quite the opposite; when you consider a family and it's finances, you do not want some or all of the members of that family spending like a crackhead and taking out frivolous loans and such. It is important for people to be ordered and disciplined in their lives. When you have an element that is out of balance, it tends to throw other things out of balance as well.

So again, I ask: do you believe households should hold no debt?


yes i do; the money that is spent on interest could be used for other endeavors. It is important that we work so that our grandchildren can be successful and live well; we do not want them to be held in some sort of financial bondage so that we can live well now. We should not be performing just for ourselves.
 
2013-11-06 03:47:30 AM

Smackledorfer: globalwarmingpraiser: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: Smackledorfer: soakitincider: i am not a fan of ayn rand but i do believe in a responsible debt-free society.

So no loans of any kind?

Or did you just mean the government should be debt-free?  Should they run a large surplus, or do you believe they should have significant expansion and contraction from month to month or year to year, with no funds on hand in case something comes up?

Ideally yes, no loans of any kind; if there exists a surplus at the end of a fiscal year, then the money should be refunded back to the populous.

That is less intelligent than Billy Madison's views on the industrial revolution.

There needs to be a government contraction. Can we start with the DOD, DEA, DHS, and ATF?

You point out the areas specifically where money is wasted and I'll probably agree with many, if not most of the proposed changes.

But the idea that we should never run a debt and never hold a surplus has nothing to do with that.



I need to get some sleep. but transfer 20% of our active combat arms to reserve groups. Consolidate all administrative military functions to DOD civilian jobs. Revamp the procurement process. Privatize the R and D basically allowing companies to actively compete for what we are needing. End the war on Marijuana, Turn the TSA to private security, shut down most the the post 9/11 overreaches, and allow for private ownership of automatic weapons while giving a 5 year ban on anyone involuntarily committed. I would also end any entrapment programs. The War on Terror is done. I have an entire plan, but it would make politicians eyes bleed.
 
2013-11-06 04:20:58 AM

untaken_name: Although something which constantly leaches the value out of savings isn't really better for the individual.


It's good for society though, which means that it's ultimately good for most individuals as well.  You see, the goal is that you *DON'T* put your money in a mattress or the financial equivalent.

If there's deflation, IE the value of money is increasing, it means it makes sense for asset holders to sit on their cash.  This is bad.
If there's inflation, they want to hold cash as little as possible and invest

Technically speaking no inflation/deflation is good as well, but from a practical standpoint it's like standing on the head of a pin.

untaken_name: The price of goods did not fluctuate much from generation to generation (there were brief fluctuations, but they reverted to the norm quickly).


That was more due to steady technology states meaning that the price to produce goods wasn't changing.
 
2013-11-06 04:33:26 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: "Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' "


Hare psychopathy checklist

5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
 6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.
8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
 
2013-11-06 04:52:02 AM

LoneWolf343: A friend of mine once pointed out that "Going Galt" wouldn't work because, after the dust settled, the so-called leeches would realize they were better off without you.


Yeah, after a couple of weeks of confusion everything is back working just as before, but everyone can get paid twice as much as there isn't a bunch of leeches at the top siphoning off 50% of the income to themselves for doing nothing. While in the longer term some companies that were innovative due to their leadership might fade (like say Apple without Jobs), it is hardly going to be an immediate thing. But if they do they will get replaced by new companies from new entrepreneurs filling the gaps as they always do.

Of course in reality the people that find themselves taking over each company are likely to pay themselves lots and the pay raises for everyone else would be much lower, as they will probably fairly quickly start thinking of themselves as the key reason the entire company works to justify their inflated pay, despite the evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-11-06 07:26:55 AM
Ayn had a pretty screwed up personality and an unrealistic philosophy, but she came from a really messed up time in history while living in the wrong place in the world. That can screw up a lot of people.
 
2013-11-06 07:38:10 AM

Firethorn: At $2M per, 10k lives is still a rounding error for the $1B, so we'll ignore it for now.


$2M * 10000 = $20B, which is not a rounding error for $1B.
 
2013-11-06 07:53:27 AM

Firethorn: There's a lot less WTF's in Rand's philosophies if you fully develop them, it's when people only take the first page where there's trouble.


Well... no. Randianism as a philosophy is little more than a goldbug's misreading of Aristotle. Poor Aristotle- abused by both the Catholics and the Randroids. The simple idea of objective value is that- very simple, and very simply wrong. It doesn't make sense as an economic philosophy- market economies depend on the fact that value is  not objective. As a metaphysical philosophy it's slightly more useful, but it's little more than neo-Platonism at that point, with "value" as the key entity in the ideal world that we can't access.

The most charitable readings of Objectivism, stripped of its elitism and sense that some are "elect", still render it a very silly, very childish philosophy at its core.
 
2013-11-06 08:00:21 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Vlad_the_Inaner: globalwarmingpraiser: Henry Reardon followed every law and regulation

Sure sure.  There were no officially sanctioned claims that Reardon Metal was unsafe?  And Reardon didn't go ahead and sell it in safety critical applications anyway?  Sure with a wave of the authoress' magic wand these government experts were merely jealous competitors, but the way that comes out in the real world would be the  Reardon-analog  saying "I don't care what the experts say! Fark them! I, Superman, say it is safe!"


Claims. There were no regulations saying not to use it. They just didn't want him to. It is like certain elements of the government do not want you to own a weapon capable of firing 1000 rounds per minute, but it is perfectly legal to do so. Oh and it is called a Gatling Gun which if hand cranked falls into the antique weapons laws. If they had been actually breaking the law they characters would have been arrested. See in the Fountainhead Henry Roark burned down a building he designed. He broke the law and had to face a jury of his peers.

Oh and for what it is worth, I see objectivism as unworkable as communism. I am pointing out where you are wrong. I would also be glad to work for Hank Reardon. The man valued hard work, ingenuity, and honesty. I could live with that.


Sounds like weaseling to me.  You think that if some inventor's plane was deemed unsafe by the FAA, he'd still be allowed to fly it over populated countery?  Likewise if the State Science Institute declared Reardon Metal unsuitible for railways, it would not be allowed to operate as a business.

But think of the bar you've set yourself. "Henry Reardon followed every law and regulation"   Your Reardon did not get stolen gold from a pirate.  Your Reardon reported the fugitive pirate to the authorities after his meeting. Your Reardon dutifully followed Directive 10-289.  I hope you have your edition signed, because it is a rare book, that is nothing like the Atlas Shrugged other people have read.

To be sure, Reardon is one of the less Hickman-esque Rand supermen.  That's mostly a literary device.  So that he can be shown to move towards the world view of Danneskjöld and Galt as the story progresses, bringing the reader with him.  There's a reason Dagany Taggart dumps him for Galt.  It seemed he just didn't measure up to Galt level in the end. Maybe if he'd been just a bit more Hickman.
 
2013-11-06 08:44:56 AM

xria: Firethorn: At $2M per, 10k lives is still a rounding error for the $1B, so we'll ignore it for now.

$2M * 10000 = $20B, which is not a rounding error for $1B.


You know, you're correct....  Was writing that while distracted.  Well spotted.

t3knomanser: Well... no. Randianism as a philosophy is little more than a goldbug's misreading of Aristotle.


I didn't say it became good if you developed it, I said there's less WTF.

Vlad_the_Inaner: Sounds like weaseling to me. You think that if some inventor's plane was deemed unsafe by the FAA, he'd still be allowed to fly it over populated countery? Likewise if the State Science Institute declared Reardon Metal unsuitible for railways, it would not be allowed to operate as a business.


Hmm...  It depends on how 'unsafe' they figure it'd be.  Ultra-lights, for example, are minimally regulated because they pretty much figure that the most you're likely to kill is yourself.

As for the railways thing - just because it's not good for railways doesn't mean that it can't be used elsewhere.  Aluminum isn't good for railways, but it's great for soda cans and airplanes.
 
2013-11-06 08:53:39 AM

Smackledorfer: So again, I ask: do you believe households should hold no debt?


Why are you continuing to argue with him?

He's actually arguing that a government should never borrow money and should repay surplus taxes every year. That's so utterly ludicrous on the face of it (what happens if the government suddenly needs to spend money on something unexpected, eg; a war? Do we just surrender? do we try to delay it for a few years until we've raised enough taxes to pay for it?) that he must be either trolling, a child or mentally deficient in some way. That's not even mentioning the "nobody should ever take a loan" thing that would mean most people can't get a college education and spend their lives renting.
 
2013-11-06 08:53:52 AM

untaken_name: Target Builder:

1. It worked for several thousand years. The price of goods did not fluctuate much from generation to generation (there were brief fluctuations, but they reverted to the norm quickly). Now the price of goods goes up every year, and the price of gold fluctuates in fiat currency, but is relatively stable in purchasing power. For example, if you had a $20 gold piece in 1900, you could buy a pretty snazzy suit with it, including shirt and shoes. Today, if you have a $20 gold eagle, you can trade it for about enough fiat currency to buy a pretty snazzy suit, including shirt and shoes. 2. What's to stop your employer from cutting the amount of fiat currency they pay their workers over the years?


1. If you got paid a $20 piece a month in 1900 there is no guarantee you would be paid the same now. It doesn't matter of the value of a $20 piece remains constant if your pay goes down.

2. Why has the value of all goods gone down by about 30% in the last year?

3. I guess snazzy suits were pretty damn cheap between the commodities boom of the 80's and the gold spike we're currently coming down from.
 
2013-11-06 08:58:33 AM

Target Builder: untaken_name: Target Builder:

1. It worked for several thousand years. The price of goods did not fluctuate much from generation to generation (there were brief fluctuations, but they reverted to the norm quickly). Now the price of goods goes up every year, and the price of gold fluctuates in fiat currency, but is relatively stable in purchasing power. For example, if you had a $20 gold piece in 1900, you could buy a pretty snazzy suit with it, including shirt and shoes. Today, if you have a $20 gold eagle, you can trade it for about enough fiat currency to buy a pretty snazzy suit, including shirt and shoes. 2. What's to stop your employer from cutting the amount of fiat currency they pay their workers over the years?

1. If you got paid a $20 piece a month in 1900 there is no guarantee you would be paid the same now. It doesn't matter of the value of a $20 piece remains constant if your pay goes down.

2. Why has the value of all goods gone up in terms of the innate value gold represents by about 30% in the last year?

3. I guess snazzy suits were pretty damn cheap in USD between the commodities boom of the 80's and the gold spike we're currently coming down from.


FTFM
 
2013-11-06 09:18:00 AM

Firethorn: I didn't say it became good if you developed it, I said there's less WTF.


Well, sure. There's  less wtf. It's gone from being 10lbs of WTF is a 5lb bag to 9lbs of WTF in the same bag. You are technically correct.
 
2013-11-06 09:23:20 AM

mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.


I hope so. See, like many smart American's, I invested in debt. I have TONS of it. Loans, Mortgages, ect... So when inflation finally hits, I will profit nicely.

You think Gold is a good investment...lol
 
2013-11-06 10:10:26 AM
Sally Rand was more interesting.
 
2013-11-06 10:15:51 AM

Rapmaster2000: Did you know that every year a dollar is worth less and less while a dram of gold can still buy the same monocle in 2013 that it did in 1913?  This is why we need to go back to the gold standard, so my keen investment intellect is no longer punished by the hand of government.


That's why I'm heavily invested in monocle factories.
 
2013-11-06 10:20:51 AM
Most of the article doesn't say you'll go broke, it says you'll be unpopular or just a terrible person, which is pretty much how rich/business people are portrayed every day by Democrats. Since going full Galt wouldn't make much of a difference there, that's not much of an argument against it. And being able to unload on the lazy, the demanding, the talentless, the whiners, and the political class is a definite plus.
 
2013-11-06 10:22:29 AM

Slaves2Darkness: .

John Galt forms a commune in the mountains, sure they pretend  to "pay" people in gold, but he rewards those who he views as more equal with more gold right from the start, just like the old USSR did. He then convinces those producers to move there, getting them to imprison themselves in their own gulag without ever realizing that they are their own prisoners.


Close, He stole gold from governments and distributed it to his followers based upon how much they had ever paid in income taxes.  The more taxes you paid, the more gold you got.

I notice Glen Beck has been hawking gold lately.
 
2013-11-06 10:46:07 AM

jjorsett: Most of the article doesn't say you'll go broke, it says you'll be unpopular or just a terrible person, which is pretty much how rich/business people are portrayed every day by Democrats. Since going full Galt wouldn't make much of a difference there, that's not much of an argument against it. And being able to unload on the lazy, the demanding, the talentless, the whiners, and the political class is a definite plus.



They are terrible people...the real whiners are the conservatives who don't get enough corporate welfare and have to pay taxes. But don't mess with their pocketbooks just the undeserving shiftless poor peoples, right? Fn whiny punks...
 
2013-11-06 10:57:01 AM
Watched "The Fountainhead" last weekend. The 1949 version with Gary Cooper.

My impression is that the antagonist, Roark, was a talented idiot.

He's an architect that refuses to design buildings that people want.

From my experience in business, you tend to provide goods or services the client wants...otherwise you gots no money.
 
2013-11-06 11:41:50 AM
Going Galt is a good way to go broke

Well, at least when you do go broke, you can suck on the government tit, like Ayn Rand.
 
2013-11-06 11:53:01 AM

Gunther: Smackledorfer: So again, I ask: do you believe households should hold no debt?

Why are you continuing to argue with him?

He's actually arguing that a government should never borrow money and should repay surplus taxes every year. That's so utterly ludicrous on the face of it (what happens if the government suddenly needs to spend money on something unexpected, eg; a war? Do we just surrender? do we try to delay it for a few years until we've raised enough taxes to pay for it?) that he must be either trolling, a child or mentally deficient in some way. That's not even mentioning the "nobody should ever take a loan" thing that would mean most people can't get a college education and spend their lives renting.


I wanted to hear him post something that stupid, and was thoroughly amused when he did.

He is probably just a troll, but oh well.
 
2013-11-06 12:21:54 PM
Business is all about relationships, and Ayn Rand was too socially damaged to ever understand business despite constantly championing it. She just didn't get people, period. She was an absolutely despicable person according to EVERYONE who ever had the misfortune of working with or even meeting her. She was indomitably defiant, obscenely difficult to talk to (you were not permitted to interrupt her, but she would interrupt you constantly), and she was known to completely suck the life out of a room. She never smiled or laughed, she abhorred small talk, and she would often approach strangers with random questions like "Tell me about your premises." She was a pure autistic in every sense of the meaning.

And the big problem with philosophy was, like all philosophers, she assumed that everyone ought to think like her.
 
2013-11-06 12:28:12 PM

JohnBigBootay: Weaver95: I strongly encourage every ayn randian fanatic to go galt and drop out of this evil society as fast as they can. Flee to the hills! You'll be safe in your bunkers and caves, I promise.

Thanbk you. I am off to a secret canyon in Colorado where I will live on a self-sustaining ranch and barter goods and services with other high-minder makers.

You know, I just don't get it. I actually read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in their entirety back in college. I actually enjoyed them both. I like a long novel and I found them ripping good sci-fi lite yarns. But it was well over twenty years ago and they didn't seem such political touchstones at the time. It never occurred to me for a second that the ideas in those books made a goddam bit of sense as some kind of political system that someone should actually try. Simplistic horseshiat for dime-store intellectuals.


100% agree. I read Fountainhead many years ago to see what the fuss was about and I just couldn't figure it out.

/same with Stranger in a Strange Land btw
 
2013-11-06 12:42:20 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Have you read it? Is it any good or does it only get attention because its a libertarian favorite?


I read the thing in its entirety while sitting on the can. It took me 2.5 years to use all the pages.

Here is it, in a nutshell:

What Ayn Rand did was simplify a complex network of economic theories, ideas, practices and human motives and constructed a mono-dimensional faux-reality as a vehicle to push her pulp. Then she filled it full of cardboard cutout characters and mary sue ubermensches who don't talk but lecture for tedious pages about why the rich and powerful have divine right to being rich and powerful. And of course things play out exactly the way her philosophy says because she's the author and she controls the outcome. In clear violation of every realistic portrayal of ethics, politics, economics, reality, life, human nature, philosophy, and farking national train corporation management.

The book's premise is ridiculous because NO ONE is so important that they think they can destroy the world by retreating from it. Nature abhors a vacuum. Everything important and meaningful that has ever been created -- from thoughts to ideas to products to technology to companies -- is instantly taught, copied, and spread around, effectively building an organic backup system in case the original fails or dies (or retreats to Galt's Gulch). No one is the sole arbiter of anything. No one has a privileged position on humanity's future. To rely on a single source for progress and advancement is dangerous to a functioning system. True stability means constant evolving contingencies, backup plans, and millions of redundancies. Society can't fail because one man lost his motor car plans in a factory. Everyone is replaceable. Even John Galt.

And that's what's wrong with Atlas Shrugged (well, there's far more, but this is the gist).
 
2013-11-06 12:58:24 PM

untaken_name: The author isn't saying fiat currency doesn't produce inflation, he says it produces steady, predictable inflation, which is supposed to be better.


It is better. It makes loans easier to pay off and increases fiscal liquidity. If there is deflation, lending slows as it gets harder to pay off debts, and everything grinds to a halt. You don't want that.
 
2013-11-06 01:02:55 PM

untaken_name: 1. It worked for several thousand years.


There were no more than a few thousand principle players in the world's largest economies for thousands of years. Today there are billions.

The problem with gold is that there is a finite amount of it in the world and we even know how much: About 33 cubic metres worth. It's been estimated that about 25 cubic metres of gold has already been discovered and scooped out of the ground, most of it within the last two centuries. There's hardly any gold left that we either don't know about or is inaccessible (bottom of the ocean, volcanoes, etc.). But the important thing to understand here is that we cannot get, nor make, any more gold. This is all we get. The only other place to get more gold is in the exploded cores of stars.

The Gold Standard was fine for world economies up until about 100 years ago because of a few things:

1) Belief in the fiscal fluidity of gold. If legal tender got scarce, you could always scoop more out of the ground to grease the engines of capitalism.

2) There were only a handful of nations with global currencies/economies. Less players in the capitalist game == less pressing need for fiscal fluidity. Economies moved relatively slow, money supply/inflation stayed the same, and all the gold in the world was enough for the major players at the time.

Today, however, there are over a hundred global currencies and 150 global economies. The dependency on a finite resource has moved from a few million bit players a century ago to most of the world's population (let's say 5+ billion), which as you might imagine, has reached a tipping point. There simply isn't enough gold to ensure fiscal fluidity (gold -- or lack of it -- frequently caused bank panics and Depressions in the 19th century for this reason).

Economists knew this as far back as the 1890s and their response was to devalue the gold supply by printing "gold certificates" (paper money representations of gold), essentially increase the amount of gold that existed by dealing in an abstract representation of gold. They needed to devalue the gold four times in the first half of the 20th century alone -- in 1921, 1934, 1938 and finally in 1944, where under the Bretton Woods agreement gold was officially worth 40% of what it was. It stayed that way until 1971 when the emergence of post-colonial economies necessitated a massive shift in global economic policy. Gold was too rigid and too structured (not fluent enough) to handle the influx of a billion more capitalist customers, so that's when they moved off gold and into the age of fiat currency (floating paper money printed by governments), backed by the US dollar.

Fiat isn't perfect. It has its problems too. There are pros and cons to every economic system, but at the time, moving to fiat may have been the most sensible choice (but maybe only a short-term one). See, that's the problem with economics -- the law of unintended consequences plays havoc with longterm planning, foresight and policy.

But technically, we've been off the gold standard since 1934.
 
2013-11-06 01:06:05 PM

Firethorn: There's a lot less WTF's in Rand's philosophies if you fully develop them


Objectivism, fully developed:

www.ishkur.com
 
2013-11-06 01:49:37 PM
Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
static.seekingalpha.com

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.
 
2013-11-06 03:37:03 PM

Mrbogey: Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
[static.seekingalpha.com image 440x143]

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.



I'm a little confused. Why did you stop reading?

See, most time, when one stops reading, it because they find the point so foolish, they they don't want to waste their time. However, you then post in support of the point.

Inflation is higher off the gold standard, however, the fluctuations are far far lower, indicated by the lower std dev. which makes cost estimation and trade far more predictable and manageable.

So are you for or against the gold standard?
 
2013-11-06 04:19:08 PM

Mrbogey: Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
[static.seekingalpha.com image 440x143]

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.


See how the standard diviation was reduced after going off of the gold standard? That would a direct measurement of "fluctuations."
 
2013-11-06 04:20:50 PM

Publikwerks: See, most time, when one stops reading, it because they find the point so foolish, they they don't want to waste their time. However, you then post in support of the point.

Inflation is higher off the gold standard, however, the fluctuations are far far lower, indicated by the lower std dev. which makes cost estimation and trade far more predictable and manageable.


Whenever gold bugs start talking, it's only a matter of time before they expose their gross ignorance of economics and monetary theory.
 
2013-11-06 04:54:40 PM

impaler: Whenever gold bugs start talking, it's only a matter of time before they expose their gross ignorance of economics and monetary theory.


Is there a way to get them talking about Free Silver (16 to 1) or do I have to bring up dimes and gasoline?
 
2013-11-06 04:56:02 PM

impaler: Publikwerks: See, most time, when one stops reading, it because they find the point so foolish, they they don't want to waste their time. However, you then post in support of the point.

Inflation is higher off the gold standard, however, the fluctuations are far far lower, indicated by the lower std dev. which makes cost estimation and trade far more predictable and manageable.

Whenever gold bugs start talking, it's only a matter of time before they expose their gross ignorance of economics and monetary theory.


I'm not a gold bug and your one to talk about "gross ignorance of economics" from your spewings here.
 
2013-11-06 05:00:19 PM

lilbjorn: Going Galt is a good way to go broke

Well, at least when you do go broke, you can suck on the government tit, like Ayn Rand.


you hit it on the nail...! She and her ilk were/are the biggest hypocrites since Jefferson Davis and Thomas Jefferson!
 
2013-11-06 05:04:54 PM

Mrbogey: Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
[static.seekingalpha.com image 440x143]

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.


Dumb.
 
2013-11-06 06:52:25 PM

Mrbogey: Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
[static.seekingalpha.com image 440x143]

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.


Not understanding your own chart..
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-06 07:14:49 PM

robbiex0r: Not understanding your own chart..


Follow my next sentence. The purpose of fiat money is to control it so you only have inflation. You trade volatility for guaranteed higher inflation.

There's benefits to a fiat currency. But when you encourage it to only inflate "so you can erase volatility" you're going to debase your currency and have problems you simply can't wash away.

Stating, if a man complains about being too hot then too cold, setting him on fire may not be the answer.
 
2013-11-06 08:03:12 PM

Prophet of Loss: impaler: Publikwerks: See, most time, when one stops reading, it because they find the point so foolish, they they don't want to waste their time. However, you then post in support of the point.

Inflation is higher off the gold standard, however, the fluctuations are far far lower, indicated by the lower std dev. which makes cost estimation and trade far more predictable and manageable.

Whenever gold bugs start talking, it's only a matter of time before they expose their gross ignorance of economics and monetary theory.

I'm not a gold bug and your one to talk about "gross ignorance of economics" from your spewings here.


Such as?
 
2013-11-06 09:05:14 PM

Mrbogey: The purpose of fiat money is to control it so you only have inflation. You trade volatility for guaranteed higher inflation.


Yep. A higher (≈ 4%) constant rate of inflation is easier to deal with than a year of 8% inflation followed by a year of -8% inflation (deflation). Sure the latter averages to 0, but it sucks to deal with.

The prior is easy. You're going to have 4% inflation. So if you want to save money, you need an interest bearing account. Historically, CDs match inflation pretty close, and an index mutual funds beat it easily.
 
2013-11-06 09:16:58 PM
Oh, I got a free copy of that tw@t's crap off the Net. F*ck paying even a plugged nickel for that drek.
 
2013-11-06 10:32:27 PM

Publikwerks: Inflation is higher off the gold standard,


As it should be -- population keeps increasing and technology keeps advancing. Fixed currencies backed by finite commodities are only applicable to steady state economies.
 
2013-11-06 11:51:52 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: I need to get some sleep. but transfer 20% of our active combat arms to reserve groups. Consolidate all administrative military functions to DOD civilian jobs. Revamp the procurement process. Privatize the R and D basically allowing companies to actively compete for what we are needing. End the war on Marijuana, Turn the TSA to private security, shut down most the the post 9/11 overreaches, and allow for private ownership of automatic weapons while giving a 5 year ban on anyone involuntarily committed. I would also end any entrapment programs. The War on Terror is done. I have an entire plan, but it would make politicians eyes bleed.


1.  We're currently activating reserve/guard groups to help with the fighting in Afghanistan.  It currently wouldn't save any money to transfer any of our 'active' combat arms to reserves because we're using them.  Some money could be saved by optimizing our forces, but that's always a factor.
2.  'All administrative military functions' to DOD civilian jobs?  We've already done a heck of a lot of that.  Still, sometimes you need to be able to do admin in a war zone, plus, well, most combat troops need non-combat dwell time.  Finally, GS jobs aren't really cheaper than enlisted folks.
3.  Revamp the procurement process - I agree with the sole caveat of 'far easier said than done'.
4.  Privatize R&D?  It's already private!  I'd take a lot of it back into the government rather than contracting it out.  The problem is that we've reached the point where there's basically two companies we can buy X from, and because developing and building X is so expensive that the company that doesn't get the job will go bankrupt if it misses the contract for Y, we essentially have a duopoloy in the production of most of our serious military assets(planes, tanks, ships).  As a result the contracts are really messed up and only 'competitive' on paper.
5. End the war on Marijuana - Yep, I'd also end the war on LSD, cocaine, heroin, etc....
6. Turn the TSA to private security - And tell it to back the hell off.
7. shut down most the the post 9/11 overreaches - Agreed
8., and allow for private ownership of automatic weapons while giving a 5 year ban on anyone involuntarily committed. - I'd have a periodic review process instead of a static ban period.
9.  I would also end any entrapment programs  - I don't know; I happen to like the fact that idiots looking for a hitman are more likely to get an undercover cop, but then that's not really entrapment, is it?  I'll agree in general on the basis of what happened to DeLorean.  Cops posting ads offering illegal things and arresting those who show up to purchase/participate in said illegal things(murder, slavery, child molestation, etc...) is mostly okay in my mind.
10. The War on Terror is done. - We always need to fight it, but it shouldn't be a freedom ending affair.  I'd rather take the occasional exploded plane than a police state that doesn't even prevent the plane exploding.

Mrbogey: Follow my next sentence. The purpose of fiat money is to control it so you only have inflation. You trade volatility for guaranteed higher inflation.


That's because deflation is really bad for economies.  And what's wrong with predictable inflation?  By the way, if you look at history we've been dropping that inflation amount for a while.  It's hovering around near 1% at the moment.  I wouldn't be surprised if it took the economists a while to learn how to stabilize inflation enough that they could keep it down to 1% while guaranteeing no deflation.

There's benefits to a fiat currency. But when you encourage it to only inflate "so you can erase volatility" you're going to debase your currency and have problems you simply can't wash away.

Keep inflation stable and not too high and your currency will be just fine.  Please be more specific with the problems that a currency that's worth 4% less each year will incur?

Ishkur: As it should be -- population keeps increasing and technology keeps advancing. Fixed currencies backed by finite commodities are only applicable to steady state economies.


That's technically a bit different than what inflation measures.  If the economy expands and the currency supply doesn't that translates into deflation.  'Neutral' would be the currency supply keeping in step with the economy, but that's deuced difficult.
 
Displayed 191 of 191 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report