OT: Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

[sdgrrl]

One thing I noticed Ayn Rand having a respect for is the Industrialist; John Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Henry Ford etc. It seems the downfall to a business occurs when it leaves the hands of the pull yourself up by your bootstraps owner/creator and into the impersonal hands of greedy CEO’s who are more plugged into the DC circle than the actual hands on operations of the company.

Its not the business owner most of us despise, it’s the corporate guy who breezes into a business, looting as much as he can get and going on with his life elsewhere richer and fatter. Many of these CEO’s have no personal stake other than loss of reputation to make them want to create the best product, but who cares if your unpopular when you have your own island in the South Pacific. Their mentality often seems to me “I better get as much as I can before I get booted outta here”.

-Concho, thank you for your input regarding the Chicago Boys, I’ll have a lot of fun researching it and discovering how it all went wrong.

-Surflust, I agree with your post completely how its a bit unfair to demonize capitalism/free market when we haven’t really seen it happen in the US; though it seems the lending/mortgage industries had a laissez faire existence for awhile and we saw how it ended up. I also agree that in order to have a free market society one must have integrity if only for the sake of doing good business to make more profit.

Butleroftwo, I don’t have too many words. I’m actually happy that Obama put the smack down on Pelosi and told her to take out the Family Panning Pork. Also, I don’t remember Obama apologizing to Arabs, but I do remember him saying something to the extent that we will not apologize for the way we live as Americans, but hey, I admit I’m a supporter so I’m definitely one sided.

-kismetdad, thank you for referencing that article I can’t wait to read it and enjoyed the trivia you threw in there about the level of influence “Atlas Shrugged” has played in lives.

-davelj, I agree luck can play a fortunate role in our lives, but we can’t depend on it. Traditional Chinese culture understands the importance of luck and that it why it is so mystically desired in babies, newlyweds and pretty much every aspect of life. I think Ayn Rand would see luck as a form of mysticism and therefore she would reject it and tell people to plod on regardless of good or bad luck.

-jf, your sounding a little liberal in your wanting to recognize the sadness of the human plight because of dumb people…lol. Nice to see you again.

[jficquette]

Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John

[jficquette]

Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John

[jficquette]

Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John

[jficquette]

Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John

[jficquette]

Anyone with common sense knows that higher iq people make more money then lower income people as a rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

People with low IQ are 10-15 times more likely to be in poverty then those with high,very high iq’s.

John

[jficquette]

Hi Gurrrl,

Nice to see you too.

John

[jficquette]

Hi Gurrrl,

Nice to see you too.

John

[jficquette]

Hi Gurrrl,

Nice to see you too.

John

[jficquette]

Hi Gurrrl,

Nice to see you too.

John

[jficquette]

Hi Gurrrl,

Nice to see you too.

John

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO]Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.[/quote]

I have to jump in and dispell a common myth about free-market systems. Many people think that free-market systems are complete anarchy, with no controls on anything.

This simply isn’t the case. For a free market to work, contract law and property rights both have to be enforced. Some may say “then it is a regulated environment and not really a free market” to which I reply – you don’t really understand what “free” means.

It doesn’t mean free to do whatever the hell you want at any time without repercussion. It means being free from people infringing on your rights. Once you understand this, I hope it changes your perception of a free market.

Any system would work well if everyone were angels. The question is – given they aren’t do you want a system that protects you from people infringing on your rights or do you want a system that allows government officials (also not angels) to infringe upon your right at any time without your consent? (A simple example would be emminent domain.) I’ll take door #1, thank you very much.

In a free market society, guys like Madoff would be as much a criminal as in any society and possibly punished more severly and swiftly than any.

You don’t need people to be angels, you just have to put systems into place that punish fraud, theft and violet crimes.

I agree that the top-loading of power is a result of human nature and not a reason to prefer one system to the other.

I don’t understand how the fact that luck plays a part in people’s success means free markets are or are not preferable to those with significant central control.

[Author]

Posts