Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5279 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 Nov 2013 at 12:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 191 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report