OT: Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

[davelj]

[quote=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
[/quote]

I agree that common sense dictates that higher IQs should lead to higher income as a rule. And I used to believe this until I read a few studies that contradicted this notion. The evidence at the bottom of that Wiki entry on siblings is persuasive, I’ll give you that. The problem is that there’s a lot of evidence both supporting and debunking the positive correlation between IQ and “success.” And, frankly, I’m not sure who’s right on this issue. So I’ll give this to you: you may be right that IQ and success are correlated. But I don’t know if we’ll ever have completely conclusive evidence.

[fredo4]

I’m reading The Fountainhead right now and Ayn Rand’s concept of architectual integrity is annoying to me. I’m sure that it was applicable to the time, but it’s gotten way past the point now where the opposite happens. Traditionally beautiful art is scoffed at in favor of “shocking”, “non-conformist” art.
I went to an exhibit a few weeks ago where a guy had video taped himself eating an entire American flag and then throwing it up. The irony is, the statement he was making was the farthest thing from non-conformity. Give me a exhibit where someone has the guts and the honesty to show art that is really objectively beautiful or politically incorrect in the face of potential scorn and ridicule of his colleagues.
That’s integrity.

[fredo4]

I’m reading The Fountainhead right now and Ayn Rand’s concept of architectual integrity is annoying to me. I’m sure that it was applicable to the time, but it’s gotten way past the point now where the opposite happens. Traditionally beautiful art is scoffed at in favor of “shocking”, “non-conformist” art.
I went to an exhibit a few weeks ago where a guy had video taped himself eating an entire American flag and then throwing it up. The irony is, the statement he was making was the farthest thing from non-conformity. Give me a exhibit where someone has the guts and the honesty to show art that is really objectively beautiful or politically incorrect in the face of potential scorn and ridicule of his colleagues.
That’s integrity.

[fredo4]

I’m reading The Fountainhead right now and Ayn Rand’s concept of architectual integrity is annoying to me. I’m sure that it was applicable to the time, but it’s gotten way past the point now where the opposite happens. Traditionally beautiful art is scoffed at in favor of “shocking”, “non-conformist” art.
I went to an exhibit a few weeks ago where a guy had video taped himself eating an entire American flag and then throwing it up. The irony is, the statement he was making was the farthest thing from non-conformity. Give me a exhibit where someone has the guts and the honesty to show art that is really objectively beautiful or politically incorrect in the face of potential scorn and ridicule of his colleagues.
That’s integrity.

[fredo4]

I’m reading The Fountainhead right now and Ayn Rand’s concept of architectual integrity is annoying to me. I’m sure that it was applicable to the time, but it’s gotten way past the point now where the opposite happens. Traditionally beautiful art is scoffed at in favor of “shocking”, “non-conformist” art.
I went to an exhibit a few weeks ago where a guy had video taped himself eating an entire American flag and then throwing it up. The irony is, the statement he was making was the farthest thing from non-conformity. Give me a exhibit where someone has the guts and the honesty to show art that is really objectively beautiful or politically incorrect in the face of potential scorn and ridicule of his colleagues.
That’s integrity.

[fredo4]

I’m reading The Fountainhead right now and Ayn Rand’s concept of architectual integrity is annoying to me. I’m sure that it was applicable to the time, but it’s gotten way past the point now where the opposite happens. Traditionally beautiful art is scoffed at in favor of “shocking”, “non-conformist” art.
I went to an exhibit a few weeks ago where a guy had video taped himself eating an entire American flag and then throwing it up. The irony is, the statement he was making was the farthest thing from non-conformity. Give me a exhibit where someone has the guts and the honesty to show art that is really objectively beautiful or politically incorrect in the face of potential scorn and ridicule of his colleagues.
That’s integrity.

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]

Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]

Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]

Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]

Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.[/quote]

Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[Author]

Posts