Atlas Shrugged turns 50

[Nostril Cheese]

You dont really need to read Anthem. Just listen to Rush's 2112. Pretty much the same thing

[dtw]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

I first read Fountainhead, then Atlas Shrugged, I thought Atlas Shrugged was great, I have read it twice now.

For years now, Superman has consistently reminded me of Ellsworth Toohey. Some of the things he says and mind games he plays here are textbook Toohey.

So does his 'benign' condescension that he thinks hides his sneering contempt. Guess it works on most people.

[legion]

For those who can't get through the book:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781565114173&itm=1

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Superman

"Money is made possible only by the men who produce."

Who believes this?

I believe it.

How else is "money" made possible?

Best,

Kurt

[dtw]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I believe it.

How else is "money" made possible?

Best,

Kurt

I believe it too. But you're barking up the wrong tree - of course you knew that.

Does this sound like anyone we all know?

"That’s the trouble with victims - they don’t even know they’re victims, which is as it should be, but it does become monotonous and take half the fun away. You’re such a rare treat - a victim who can appreciate the artistry of its own execution…"

[the]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I believe it.

How else is "money" made possible?

Best,

Kurt

It's printed by evil corporations on machines issued to them by Dick Cheney. Duh.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by the

It's printed by evil corporations on machines issued to them by Dick Cheney. Duh.

Of course!

I think Rand is simply saying that one can earn things that have value by creating value - money is just the medium that represents this value. We could argue about ways to make this system more equitable, but the concept itself is unassailable IMHO.

In what ways can folks get/earn/receive "value" or money without creating any value?

I guess the inverse is altruism; creating value and not expecting value in return, which is a truly noble act but untenable as a basis for a civilization, again IMHO.

Best,

Kurt

[competentone]

Originally Posted by Superman

There is no questioning the power of self-interest. And the brute fact that America owes much of its prosperity to its understanding and harnessing of this force. Greed is not good, and not bad. It is what it is. Same with money. Even more so. Rand can make some folks imagine there is some special power in money or greed, or that those things earn special respect or admiration, but as was stated above, that is a purely literary construct. If rocks made you guys handsome and comfortable and enlarged your Johnsons, then I could make you imagine that rocks are a moral "good." But you'd be just as incorrect.

It is what it is. The individual does have power. We can call it a "special" power, but that would be like saying that Lendaddy has intelligent intelligence. Rand did the intellectual equivalent of selling the Ten Commandments to the Jews. They didn't need to be sold on the concept since they had already been, and it wouldn't actually be adding anything of value that was not already there. Like selling the importance and value of beauty to a group of high school cheerleaders. Brilliant! You know their reaction before you begin, and if you're skilled at dialectic, then they'll think you're a prophet.

I thought I heard a "whooshing" sound when I opened this thread.

I see it was Ayn Rand's abstractions that seem to have streamed right over the top of your head!

Twenty years ago I would have tried to "explain" things to you. Now, I just chuckle to myself knowing that some people "get it" (mostly because they want to understand) while others prefer to wallow in ignorance.

The choice is yours.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by Superman

"Money is made possible only by the men who produce."

Who believes this?

Who doesn't? Isn't this obvious?

Supe is Bertram Scudder

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by dtw

For years now, Superman has consistently reminded me of Ellsworth Toohey. Some of the things he says and mind games he plays here are textbook Toohey.

So does his 'benign' condescension that he thinks hides his sneering contempt. Guess it works on most people.

Now that you mention it...

The contempt thing is not that uncommon.

Ironically, my son married a Toohey. She is a right dame though, a bright driven young lady to tell you the truth. He married well, they will be a good team.

[Superman]

I'm not going to respond to the labels. Yes, I have some core beliefs and some specific experiences and information. if that makes me condescending, then either you guys are condescenting too, or you don't have personal beliefs. Sheesh!

Back to Rand's assertion that money would not be possible but for the efforts of her heros. Hard to believe anybody would believe that, but apparently some of you guys do. And you don't see this as an example of Rand teeing the ball up for herself. One of the very best ways to lead a reader to an erroneous conclusion is to have that conclusion logically, deductively, unarguably flow from the premises, at least one of which is wrong.

So.......I have a wood stove. There is a tree outside. That tree has no value? Because it is not the fruit of the efforts of some human hero? If the tree belongs to my neighbor, then I don't owe him anything if I cut it down? Money is WAY simpler than Rand has you guys fooled into believing. Without money we would barter. But.....money is a more convenient form of exchange. That is all it is. It is not created by folks named Galt or Taggert. Or any other name. Money would still be convenient if nobody made anything. Her assertion that money, or value, is only created by heros is........popular among you guys and.......erroneous. But hey, you'll believe what you want to believe.

[the]

Originally Posted by Superman

So.......I have a wood stove. There is a tree outside. That tree has no value? Because it is not the fruit of the efforts of some human hero? If the tree belongs to my neighbor, then I don't owe him anything if I cut it down?

How did your neighbor acquire ownership of the tree?

[Wrecked944]

Originally Posted by Superman

"Money is made possible only by the men who produce."

Who believes this?

...certainly nobody who understands economics. Money is just a fungible substitute for "wealth". It is a tool for making economic transactions more efficient. The wealth it represents can come in many forms. It can represent things "produced by men" as Rand suggests or it can represent other things, like natural resources. For instance, I can pay money in exchange for the mineral rights beneath a piece of real estate and no men are required to produce anything.

Here is a decent place to start if you want to understand money...

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

It seems as though Rand's character, d'Aconia is suggesting a different definition of "money" than the standard definition. In his definition, "looters" and "moochers" don't use "money" as a tool. So his definition of "money" seems to be only that money which is earned directly "in payment for your effort". I doubt anyone here would argue with the virtue of earning money in payment for personal effort. The only problem I see is that this definition excludes people who make money via investing - since they are receiving payment for the direct efforts of others. It also excludes people who make money in my earlier example - by owning a valuable natural resource (which he/she may have inherited and therefore invested no personal effort). D'Aconia's definition of "money" may demonize investors and owners of non-human capital as "looters" and "moochers' since they don't personally "produce". But those people are nonetheless essential to the functioning of a capitalist economy.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by JanusCole

...certainly nobody who understands economics. Money is just a fungible substitute for "wealth". It is a tool for making economic transactions more efficient. The wealth it represents can come in many forms. It can represent things "produced by men" as Rand suggests or it can represent other things, like natural resources. For instance, I can pay money in exchange for the mineral rights beneath a piece of real estate and no men are required to produce anything.

Here is a decent place to start if you want to understand money...

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

It seems as though Rand's character, d'Aconia is suggesting a different definition of "money" than the standard definition. In his definition, "looters" and "moochers" don't use "money" as a tool. So his definition of "money" seems to be only that money which is earned directly "in payment for your effort". I doubt anyone here would argue with the virtue of earning money in payment for personal effort. The only problem I see is that this definition excludes people who make money via investing - since they are receiving payment for the direct efforts of others. It also excludes people who make money in my earlier example - by owning a valuable natural resource (which he/she may have inherited and therefore invested no personal effort). D'Aconia's definition of "money" may demonize investors and owners of non-human capital as "looters" and "moochers' since they don't personally "produce". But those people are nonetheless essential to the functioning of a capitalist economy.

My reading of Rand is that money is just the means we use to represent a method of exchanging "value".

If I invest some "money" (value) I am taking a risk in exchange for a yield. The yield is my reward, but I have provided value. Buying mineral rights is also a way of taking a risk in exchange for a chance to make more value.

Earning "value" or money involves doing something of value to get it.

My question remains, in what instances does someone receive money or value when that person has contributed no "value"?

Inheritance is one way, but returns on investment or mineral rights is not, IMHO.

How about welfare? What other ways are people given something for doing nothing?

I think this is the point.

Perhaps the issue here is one of semantics and not of principle?

Best,

Kurt

[Superman]

Nope, it's not semantic. Not in the way Rand manipulates those definitions. Some people need heros more than others. They like to believe that some people are worth WAY more than others because they are heros. they are smarter. They are faster. They are bolder. Some people are focused on what these heros accomplish. Rand gives them an excuse to take that thinking to its extreme. That the only important thing is winning. the only existant value is that which has been created, ex nihilo, by heros. And the folks who do not create.......are useless. Worse than useless. A drag on society. Winner take all. It's a good thing. We owe it all to the Heros.

There is mythology out there for every taste. Another related but equally amusing myth is this notion that Heros will go on strike if the compensation is not sufficiently obscene. That's like arguing that Lions will not attack unless the prey is large and slow. Leopards don't change their spots. All of the actual Heros I have met.... the extraordinary ones.....are not greedy. That is not their motivation.

Rand is an opportunistic intellectual with amazing understanding of motivation and mythology. She understands that emotions drive some peoples, intellects. And she has good writing skills. The notion that some folks regard her as a philosopher.......is hilarious.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Superman

. . . snip . . . And the folks who do not create.......are useless. Worse than useless. A drag on society. Winner take all. It's a good thing. We owe it all to the Heros.

. . . snip

Well, we live in a world of "heros" then. Most people do "produce" something of value, especially in America; that's how our systems works.


You originally said:

"Money is made possible only by the men who produce."

Who believes this?

Again, I believe this. Perhaps you have some examples of people who do not produce anything and deserve a reward of value?

Best,

Kurt

[legion]

Originally Posted by Superman

I'm not going to respond to the labels. Yes, I have some core beliefs and some specific experiences and information. if that makes me condescending, then either you guys are condescenting too, or you don't have personal beliefs. Sheesh!

Back to Rand's assertion that money would not be possible but for the efforts of her heros. Hard to believe anybody would believe that, but apparently some of you guys do. And you don't see this as an example of Rand teeing the ball up for herself. One of the very best ways to lead a reader to an erroneous conclusion is to have that conclusion logically, deductively, unarguably flow from the premises, at least one of which is wrong.

So.......I have a wood stove. There is a tree outside. That tree has no value? Because it is not the fruit of the efforts of some human hero? If the tree belongs to my neighbor, then I don't owe him anything if I cut it down? Money is WAY simpler than Rand has you guys fooled into believing. Without money we would barter. But.....money is a more convenient form of exchange. That is all it is. It is not created by folks named Galt or Taggert. Or any other name. Money would still be convenient if nobody made anything. Her assertion that money, or value, is only created by heros is........popular among you guys and.......erroneous. But hey, you'll believe what you want to believe.

What tripe. Really. The tree only has value because people understand, through their own effort, how to transform it into furniture, or energy. Without that knowledge, and the willingness by someone to exert effort based on that knowledge, the tree would have no value.

[legion]

Originally Posted by JanusCole

...certainly nobody who understands economics. Money is just a fungible substitute for "wealth". It is a tool for making economic transactions more efficient. The wealth it represents can come in many forms. It can represent things "produced by men" as Rand suggests or it can represent other things, like natural resources. For instance, I can pay money in exchange for the mineral rights beneath a piece of real estate and no men are required to produce anything.

Here is a decent place to start if you want to understand money...

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

It seems as though Rand's character, d'Aconia is suggesting a different definition of "money" than the standard definition. In his definition, "looters" and "moochers" don't use "money" as a tool. So his definition of "money" seems to be only that money which is earned directly "in payment for your effort". I doubt anyone here would argue with the virtue of earning money in payment for personal effort. The only problem I see is that this definition excludes people who make money via investing - since they are receiving payment for the direct efforts of others. It also excludes people who make money in my earlier example - by owning a valuable natural resource (which he/she may have inherited and therefore invested no personal effort). D'Aconia's definition of "money" may demonize investors and owners of non-human capital as "looters" and "moochers' since they don't personally "produce". But those people are nonetheless essential to the functioning of a capitalist economy.

Investing is the act of enabling people with ideas to execute those ideas, in exchange for some of the fruits of their effort.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by Superman

Money would still be convenient if nobody made anything.

How so?
That would be like animals in the jungle, where none of the animals make anything. Do they need money?

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I had more trouble putting it down than getting through it.

I had a hard time believing it was that old when I first read it, almost prophetic, I read it in the mid-nineties.

Same here. Have read it 8-10 times in my life, usually every 5 years or so. Book changed my life... and the lives of many others.