Atlas Shrugged

[Androidpk]

I picked this book up early last year and started reading but never finished. Now that I've got some more spare time I've been reading it again and I've got to say some of the things going on in the book and going on in the U.S is pretty startling. Anyone else read this before? I'm about halfway through so no spoilers if you have!

[TheEschaton]

All you need to know is Ayn Rand was a psychotic bitch. Absolutely balls-deep crazy.

-TheE-

[Proxy]

I was amused by some of the stuff in that book. Hope you are as well.

[BriarFox]

She was an utter nut. There's a delightful portrait of her in "Old School" by Tom Wolffe. One of her former students actually complimented him on how accurate it was.

I read the book a couple of years ago and found it repetitive and tedious. Also, her "objectivist" philosophy is so solipsistic that it's impossible for people to follow it and still have any form of social unity.

I don't disagree with some of her points on mob mentality, capitalism, and social welfare, but she takes them waaaay too far. She would have made her point better writing something like Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," which is a short and delightfully satiric take on "fairness." (If you've got 15 minutes, Google it. It's worth the read. I assign it to freshmen in my writing classes sometimes.)

[Androidpk]

It certainly is repetitive and tedious, which is one of the reasons why I stopped reading it initially. For the most part though I do enjoy it.

[g++]

I hate that book, you could rip 99% of the pages out entirely and get the same story and conclusions. I dont get why people enjoy it.

[droit]

That Vonnegut story is one of my favorites.

[thefarmer]

Tldr

[BigWorm]

Who is John Galt?

[Androidpk]

That Vonnegut story is one of my favorites.

Which one?

[BriarFox]

Which one?

"Harrison Bergeron." I mentioned it in my post above.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

[Androidpk]

Oh yeah, duh. Thanks, I'll check that out in a little bit. I'm actually reading Slaughterhouse-Five for the first time as well, like it so far.

[waywardgs]

Vonnegut is one of my favorite authors. I was lucky enough to see him speak before he died, and I think he's got a sort of casual genius about him that I admire. I collect first editions of his books.


Oh, and Ayn Rand is a lunatic.

[Nilandia]

Harrison Bergeron is an absolutely brilliant read. I'd venture to say Vonnegut was just as good with his short stories as he was with his novels.

Gretchen

[droit]

Vonnegut is one of my favorite authors. I was lucky enough to see him speak before he died, and I think he's got a sort of casual genius about him that I admire. I collect first editions of his books.

He's definitely in my top 5. I went to high school with his daughter and every so often, I'd get to go hang out at his house and talk to him. He was really really old at that point, but he was still hilarious. He even spoke at my HS graduation in 2001 and I'll never forget his opening line: "Well, if recent events have shown us anything, it's that any one of you could some day be President."

[Androidpk]

Harrison Bergeron is an absolutely brilliant read. I'd venture to say Vonnegut was just as good with his short stories as he was with his novels.

Gretchen

Before Slaughterhouse-Five the only previous Vonnegut book I read was the one where he interviews dead people, thought that was very good.

[droit]

Harrison Bergeron is an absolutely brilliant read. I'd venture to say Vonnegut was just as good with his short stories as he was with his novels.

Gretchen

That's because he was a short-story writer at heart. He got his start writing shorts in magazines in the 50s and I think that's how he always thought of himself. He used his alter-ego, the failed sci-fi writer Kilgore Trout, as a device to insert his short story ideas into all his novels, which I always loved; in his novel, he'd present a short story that he had condensed into 2 paragraphs while still retaining its message. Brilliant.

[BriarFox]

He's definitely in my top 5. I went to high school with his daughter and every so often, I'd get to go hang out at his house and talk to him. He was really really old at that point, but he was still hilarious. He even spoke at my HS graduation in 2001 and I'll never forget his opening line: "Well, if recent events have shown us anything, it's that any one of you could some day be President."

That's pretty awesome. I was sad to read his obit in the NYT two (?) years ago. Their summary of his life was fascinating - failed out of a MFA program at Chicago (?) because the profs thought his thesis was trash and didn't make any sense, then worked as a Saab salesman before he started to publish short stories.

[Khariz]

This probably won't surprise anyone, but Atlas Shrugged is one of my personal top 3 books of all times.

And yes, to the OP, it is downright fucking SCARY how real life is parallelling the book right now. I thought it was beginning to last year, but it's blowing my mind now.

[TheEschaton]

This probably won't surprise anyone, but Atlas Shrugged is one of my personal top 3 books of all times.

And yes, to the OP, it is downright fucking SCARY how real life is parallelling the book right now. I thought it was beginning to last year, but it's blowing my mind now.

To clarify and expand: Khariz is a psychotic bitch. Absolutely balls-deep crazy.

[Khariz]

To clarify and expand: Khariz is a psychotic bitch. Absolutely balls-deep crazy.

If you merely read the words on the pages, without even comprehending them, and read the newspapers, you will be shocked at the similarity between the occurances and the language on the part of the government.

[TheEschaton]

Yes, of course, the government is evil.

[Khariz]

I don't believe anyone is saying anything about evil.

[TheWitch]

We've been down this road before, TheE, but Atlas Shrugged is also one of my favorite books of all time, as was We The Living. I just started The Fountainhead.

And I too see the parellels, and I'm frankly alarmed.

[Khariz]

:bananahit:
We've been down this road before, TheE, but Atlas Shrugged is also one of my favorite books of all time, as was We The Living. I just started The Fountainhead.

And I too see the parellels, and I'm frankly alarmed.

I decided to finally revisit this thread. I should probably start my own thread to say this, but nobody will read it or take it seriously anyway, so I might as well bury it here:

Seriously guys, it is really happening.

The government gives a bunch of money to an industry to save it from "disaster". Part of the terms of this money is to assist in making key decisions within this industry and takeover the industry's control of its own intellectual property. The government manufactures the removal of the private company's CEO and effectively takes control of the decision making within the company. As expected, the government fails miserably at running the private company by proxy and forces the company into bankruptcy.

Thousands of dealers of the company's goods are forced to shut down (literally) for the good of the rest of the company, even though dealers of said goods BUY the goods from the company and cost it nothing. Thousands more unemployed flood the already poor economy, and the government moves on to the next industry.

Am I talking about Atlas Shrugged? Am I talking about the Steel, Copper, and Railroad industries? I could be. Or I could be talking about something else.

I could copy the character list of the book and re-assign them names you would all recognize too, but I don't think that's necessary. If you haven't even bothered to read the book, or you read it 10+ years ago and think you remember what it says, don't try to argue with me. Also, I'm not saying ANYTHING about the political/philosophical viewpoint of the book (right now anyway), I'm just pointing out how eerily similar the happenings are.

I don't see how anyone could deny it, with any amount of intellectual sincerity.

[Androidpk]

I just finished this last night and I did like it, thought I don't think it's the type
of book i'd read more then once. There are definitely some comparisons to be made between what happened in Atlas Shrugged and what is going on right now, I just don't think the motives between the governments are the same.

[Khariz]

I just finished this last night and I did like it, thought I don't think it's the type
of book i'd read more then once. There are definitely some comparisons to be made between what happened in Atlas Shrugged and what is going on right now, I just don't think the motives between the governments are the same.

The stated motives or the actual motives?

Don't mistake the puppets for the puppeteers. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist, I'm just reminding you to look more than skin deep.

Besides, motives don't necessarily matter if the end result is the same. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And I mean hell figuratively, of course.

[Sean of the Thread]

The stated motives or the actual motives?

Don't mistake the puppets for the puppeteers. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist, I'm just reminding you to look more than skin deep.

Besides, motives don't necessarily matter if the end result is the same. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And I mean hell figuratively, of course.


I'll kill this thread now with a THAT'S WHAT HITLER SAID!

[Khariz]

I'll kill this thread now with a THAT'S WHAT HITLER SAID!

I'm not sure I even understand what you are talking about, if you are doing anything other than being silly.

You realize I am condemning the people taking the well intentioned actions, right? You realize I am condemning the end results?

[BriarFox]

I'm not sure I even understand what you are talking about, if you are doing anything other than being silly.

You realize I am condemning the people taking the well intentioned actions, right? You realize I am condemning the end results?

He's invoking Godwin's Law. However, intentional invocation falls under Quirk's Exception. Invocation nullified.

[Androidpk]

If there are strings being pulled, of which I have no doubt there are, I don't think the government as we see it has any control over it.

[Khariz]

If there are strings being pulled, of which I have no doubt there are, I don't think the government as we see it has any control over it.

Indeed. My point, however, is that the intentions of the string pullers might be closer to the intention of the government in the book, than the stated intentions of our current government.

Wow, that was a messy sentence. I think you know what I mean.

[Sean of the Thread]

Your mom shrugged atlas or something.

That and Ayn Rand was seriously batshit insane. The book was almost unbearable but required reading.

[BigWorm]

I get my Ayn Rand objectivist philosophy from Rush lyrics:



What you say about his company
Is what you say about society
Catch the witness, catch the wit
Catch the spirit, catch the spit

[Khariz]

Your mom shrugged atlas or something.

That and Ayn Rand was seriously batshit insane. The book was almost unbearable but required reading.

Calling Rand "batshit insane" is basically the same as saying "I had no clue what I was reading". Yeah, she was a radical capitalist, and her objectivist philosophy went way off the deep end, but she pretty accurately assessed the effects of socialism/communism too (it might have been that first hand experience).

Edit: For example, I hate Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto with every fiber in my being, but I don't think Marx was "batshit insane". Everything he wrote makes theoretical sense. Nobody has figured out how to implement it without the world falling to shit around them though. Dude was anything but insane.

And yeah, the book is unbearable when you are 12, or even 18, but when you grow up and read it because you want to, you say to yourself "Holy shit...that's pretty scary".

I recommend revisiting Animal Farm and 1984 again as an adult as well. They were rather meaningless to me when I was forced to read them. They mean a lot more after you have some real life experience under your belt to assess them with.

[Latrinsorm]

Calling Rand "batshit insane" is basically the same as saying "I had no clue what I was reading". Yeah, she was a radical capitalist, and her objectivist philosophy went way off the deep end, but she pretty accurately assessed the effects of socialism/communism too (it might have been that first hand experience).Gödel was so crazy that he literally starved to death because he couldn't get over his paranoia of being poisoned. This has no bearing on his exquisite contributions to math. Insane people can (and often do) contribute to any field of human endeavor.

I don't hold and am not interested in a position regarding Mrs. Rand's psychological state, I just found your apparent perception of insanity peculiar.

[Stanley Burrell]

Ayn Rand's batshittiness helped contribute tremendously to BioShock. We fucking owe that stupid bitch.

Her book, "Anthem," is probably one of my favorite spaced-out reads. If you disagree with me, I will empty my full bladder contents on your forsythias.

[Khariz]

Ayn Rand's batshittiness helped contribute tremendously to BioShock. We fucking owe that stupid bitch.

Her book, "Anthem," is probably one of my favorite spaced-out reads. If you disagree with me, I will empty my full bladder contents on your forsythias.

I agree on the Bioshock front.

[Khariz]

Gödel was so crazy that he literally starved to death because he couldn't get over his paranoia of being poisoned. This has no bearing on his exquisite contributions to math. Insane people can (and often do) contribute to any field of human endeavor.

I don't hold and am not interested in a position regarding Mrs. Rand's psychological state, I just found your apparent perception of insanity peculiar.

You have a problem with me thinking that political radicals aren't insane? That's interesting.

See what I did there? Read something into what you said that wasn't there. You did the same thing to me.

I said she wasn't insane, and she was a radical capitalist. The line below that stated that I don't think that someone who was a radical socialist is insane either (for that reason).

Do you think taking hard line political stances is "insane"? I don't see how either person is comparable to Gödel. I didn't even remotely suggest that one's contribution has any bearing on someone's sanity. You thought I was concluding their sanity based on their contributions to society. I wasn't. I don't tend to make simple errors in basic logic, so please don't accuse me of such. I was merely stating "They aren't insane" and separately commenting on their respective positions on various matters (presuming, of course, that OTHER people would think they WERE insane BECAUSE of their various positions [and asserting, of course, that I do not]).

Edit: This is why I hate message boards. Every post shouldn't have to be accompanied by a logic map.

[Fallen]

Andrew Ryan was modeled after Ayn Rand? Never read the book, but I saw the author's name and it immediately reminded me of Bioshock. Andrew Ryan was the man.

[Khariz]

Andrew Ryan was modeled after Ayn Rand? Never read the book, but I saw the author's name and it immediately reminded me of Bioshock. Andrew Ryan was the man.

Type Bioshock and Ayn Rand into Google together. You'll find a bunch of interesting articles on how her works influences the developers.

[Androidpk]

I'd like some examples of why people think she was crazy.

[Sean of the Thread]

The book for one.

[Khariz]

I'd like some examples of why people think she was crazy.

Good luck getting anything more than what Sean just said.

[TheWitch]

I first read Atlas Shrugged in college, not as assigned reading but because this crunchy granola wackado liberal friend of mine said "DON'T READ THAT!!!111! YOU'LL PROBABLY AGREE WITH IT!!" Her knowing, of course, that my thoughts about stuff in general tended to be more conservative that hers. Marx himself may have been more conservative than this friend of mine, but nevermind.

Which in and of itself is somewhat of a statement about far left leaners, as a broad sweeping generalization, as well as far right leaners: They don't want people reading what they don't agree with.

TheE's first comment, which has subsequently been repeated, is that "Ayn Rand is batshit crazy, that's all you need to know." Which I interpreted as "step away from the book, thinking person, lest you be further influenced by the evil right." Sorta like what my friend in college had to say.

I think she was doing several things that women in pretty much all eras and societies prior to 40 years or so ago were simply not expected or encouraged and in too many cases allowed to do (which still holds true in too many places): Think for herself, especially about about matters political and sociological and <gasp> be very vocal about her thoughts.

It's easy for people to say "she's batshit crazy" to marginalize her. She was extreme, certainly, but men saying similarly extreme things don't get labeled crazy ... why does she?

[Khariz]

It's easy for people to say "she's batshit crazy" to marginalize her. She was extreme, certainly, but men saying similarly extreme things don't get labeled crazy ... why does she?

Yep, that's what I was saying. Just because she was extreme in some sense, doesn't mean she was insane.

[Androidpk]

That's what I figured. Either people are just confused by what she wrote or didn't like it and just want to debunk her.

[Latrinsorm]

I was merely stating "They aren't insane" and separately commenting on their respective positions on various mattersThen I misunderstood your post.
Do you think taking hard line political stances is "insane"?As I said, I hold no position on the matter.
It's easy for people to say "she's batshit crazy" to marginalize her.Just as easy as it is to attribute any attacks on a woman to misogyny, it seems.

[Khariz]

hehe, I was going to comment on the playing of the "sex card", but I left that one alone.

While it may have been true in her time, I don't think anyone in this thread is attributing her lack of sanity to her sex. But I could be mistaken.

[BigWorm]

You guys know Ayn Rand hated Libertarianism, right?

[radamanthys]

The definition of libertarianism has changed.

[TheWitch]

hehe, I was going to comment on the playing of the "sex card", but I left that one alone.

While it may have been true in her time, I don't think anyone in this thread is attributing her lack of sanity to her sex. But I could be mistaken.

Recalling my own lit classes, the professors would frequently offer up critiques on "classics" that were written in the same timeframe as the book, to give a perspective on the persons work in their time, versus 30, 50, 100 or whatever years later when we were reading the work. So if a person had read Rand as part of a lit assignment, they may have also read some of the criticism from the time, which I think misogyny would definitely have played into, and that may have influenced their thinking on her being "batshit crazy" etc. From the perspective of the time, she probably was.

No, I wasn't implying misogyny on the part of anyone in the thread, which obviously wasn't clear.

[Khariz]

The definition of libertarianism has changed.

That.

As has the definition of "progressive".

[radamanthys]

That.

As has the definition of "progressive".

lol @ 'progressives'. Such arrogance.

[Latrinsorm]

It's only arrogance if you can't back it up. Wilson brought about the second-longest era of peace in Western Europe since 1700, that's not too shabby. If it weren't for Lodge and Clemenceau, who knows?

[radamanthys]

Dude, Latrin... if I can just say. I agree with you on just about nothing. I like how you do it, though.

Ok, response:
The insinuation behind calling one's self 'progressive' (or any other vague positivity) is that the conflicting ideology is stagnant and/or represents backwards progression. Can one say that's the most veracious analysis? I'd say that these certain idealistic fiscal policies have been tried to death already. Progress it is not. That said- a progressive social agenda? In many cases, yes.

Is Wilson really the best example of modern progressive thought? While he certainly had a bevy of accomplishments upon his official exit, I'm sure there are better examples of modern 'progressive' thought. Obama, fwiw, is a byproduct, not a representative. And so far, it's politics as usual. Perhaps he's considered a harbinger?

[Latrinsorm]

Thanks! :D

That insinuation only exists if the person calling himself or herself "progressive" takes as given an adversarial political system, whether in terms of ideology or party. If one instead defines progressive as "wishing to improve America (and/or the world)", any means can be appropriated from other ideologies or parties, even apparently conflicting ones. This sort of non-linearity is certainly embodied in Wilson's economics policies: he frees up the market by emasculating tariffs while he clamps it down by hyper-strengthening anti-trust laws. In this sense, disagreeing on the means does not entail that the other person is anti-progressive or regressive so long as the goals are kept in common.

Is this a useful definition? I think the answer lies within the answer to another question: what are the goals of any individual politician? I think we can all agree that "improving America" is not necessarily at the top of any individual list, regardless of party affiliation or claimed ideology.

Now, I would also say that in Wilson's case there was certainly the insinuation that the alternatives to his plans embodied stagnation or regress - but look at what he was acting against: robber barons, child labor, limitless-hour work "days", etc. etc. If we can't agree that outlawing child labor represents progress, I'm not sure we can rationally discuss this topic.

[Seran]

That insinuation only exists if the person calling himself or herself "progressive" takes as given an adversarial political system, whether in terms of ideology or party. If one instead defines progressive as "wishing to improve America (and/or the world)", any means can be appropriated from other ideologies or parties, even apparently conflicting ones. This sort of non-linearity is certainly embodied in Wilson's economics policies: he frees up the market by emasculating tariffs while he clamps it down by hyper-strengthening anti-trust laws.

Ayn Rand illistrates very clearly that the lack of competition in an Industry is as dangerous to the idea of free market Capitalism as is overburdening Corporations with restrictions and legislation that do little more than fund socialistic agendas.

In Atlas Shrugged, the author villainized the concept of government interference; particularly as it relates inhibiting or restricting the success of Capitalism for the sole purpose of granting it (the government) more power.

There were very clearly three sets of antagonists in the book;

Those that wished to use government legislation in the guise of "brother-love" to further their personal wealth at the expense of all else.

Those who were blinded by socialistic ideals who wished to penalize and enslave Industry to support all of mankind to the ultimate destruction of all through taxation and so called equality and fairness.

And finally those who tried to destroy Industry by and large, and through it the ultimate destruction of mankind by taking the freedom of growth, production and output until it was impossible to remain in business.

The book can be preachy at times, but it is a very clear portrayal of the evils of Socialism, and I make it a point to read the book every few months as it is in fact of my favorites.

As to drawing simularities from Atlas Shrugged and applying it to current times, I think it's very clear that Bush, his cronies and the TARP were examples of the first group. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their supporters clearly espouse the tenants of the second group.

[Khariz]

The book can be preachy at times, but it is a very clear portrayal of the evils of Socialism, and I make it a point to read the book every few months as it is in fact of my favorites.

As to drawing simularities from Atlas Shrugged and applying it to current times, I think it's very clear that Bush, his cronies and the TARP were examples of the first group. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their supporters clearly espouse the tenants of the second group.

I'm not sure I agree that Bush and his cronies were examples of people trying "to use government legislation in the guise of 'brother-love' to further their personal wealth at the expense of all else". I don't understand how Bush was trying to personally profit above all else, and that such was his motivation behind the things that he did. You say that it is "very clear". How so? Are we back on Haliburton? Are we back on the whole "the Iraq war was about oil"? Serious questions, as I don't understand where you are coming from.

On the other hand, yes, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their supporters, are definitely "blinded by socialistic ideals [and wish] to penalize and enslave Industry to support all of mankind to the ultimate destruction of all through taxation and so called equality and fairness." They are AT LEAST that. But that supposes that they are in fact "blinded" and don't know what they are actively doing. I'm not sure that's true of all of them. Certainly some are just along for the ride.

[Keller]

I'm not sure I agree that Bush and his cronies were examples of people trying "to use government legislation in the guise of 'brother-love' to further their personal wealth at the expense of all else". I don't understand how Bush was trying to personally profit above all else, and that such was his motivation behind the things that he did. You say that it is "very clear". How so? Are we back on Haliburton? Are we back on the whole "the Iraq war was about oil"? Serious questions, as I don't understand where you are coming from.

On the other hand, yes, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their supporters, are definitely "blinded by socialistic ideals [and wish] to penalize and enslave Industry to support all of mankind to the ultimate destruction of all through taxation and so called equality and fairness." They are AT LEAST that. But that supposes that they are in fact "blinded" and don't know what they are actively doing. I'm not sure that's true of all of them. Certainly some are just along for the ride.

You could have said, "I don;t think you're right, but I know am 100% right, at least. Maybe 110% right."

[Khariz]

You could have said, "I don;t think you're right, but I know am 100% right, at least. Maybe 110% right."

I can also offer all the examples and information required to support my assertion. All you gotta do is go to nytimes.com and copy and paste the stories for the past 4 months though, and the job would be done for you. If you don't see overwhelming socialist overtones...you don't have eyeballs.

On the other hand, I'm at a loss to come up with examples of how anything congress passed during the Bush administration was to cause Bush to profit. I'm willing to look at them though.

[Keller]

I can also offer all the examples and information required to support my assertion. All you gotta do is go to nytimes.com and copy and paste the stories for the past 4 months though, and the job would be done for you. If you don't see overwhelming socialist overtones...you don't have eyeballs.

If the NYTimes has ever written that Team Obama wishes to penalize and enslave Industry to support all of mankind to the ultimate destruction of all, it's because Maureen Dowd plagarized a freepers post.

[Androidpk]

Rich families are usually always trying to increase their wealth. The Bush family has close ties to the Rockafellers. I'm not saying GWB was doing anything for personal profit, but I wouldn't be suprised if he did.

[Khariz]

Rich families are usually always trying to increase their wealth. The Bush family has close ties to the Rockafellers. I'm not saying GWB was doing anything for personal profit, but I wouldn't be suprised if he did.

Yeah, and I'm not saying he didn't, I just want a few real examples. I don't think anyone can, with any amount of intellectual honesty, believe that his motives were for self profit.

On the other hand, can someone believe, with any intellectual honesty, that the accomplishments of the Obama administration and the ones on the horizon right now aren't socialist in nature? Please understand that I'm not using the word "socialist" as a pejorative or as a scare tactic. I'm using it as a literal label that means what it means.

[Seran]

Yeah, and I'm not saying he didn't, I just want a few real examples. I don't think anyone can, with any amount of intellectual honesty, believe that his motives were for self profit.

Let's look at the list of recipients of the list of recipients of 78B in bailout funds that were given to AIG;

Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale, Deutsche Bank, Barclays PLC, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America.. and the list goes on.

All of these secured credits of AIG which would essentially have been rubbed clean when it was found the assets they had as securities were leveraged well past their total market value. So rather than receive pennies on the dollar, roughly 11% of the total bailout benefited the bottom lines of these multi-national entities.

The same thing happened early on in Atlas Shrugged when the major antagonists in the book had invested heavily in Taggert Transcontinental stock out of imagined returns for their branch into Mexico the San Sebatian Line to the d'Anconia copper mines. When it was found the mines were a fraud, the stock of the company floored until their Shippers Union agreed to put TT's pricinipal competitor out of business to hand them uncontested access to the nations fastest growing producers.

We go on further to the example of the corporation created to run, and manage the People's States of South America which the antaonists had by and large invested into heavily knowing their chief asset was to come about by the nationalization of D'anconia Copper. When that was foiled by the intentional destruction of the D'anconia Copper, the shareholders once against were losing untold millions until they were bailed out by the United States Government through the Railroad Unification Act, the proposed Steel Unification Act.

The latter being a perfect example of the shinnagins Ayn Rand wrote about which portrayed, almost prophetically what would happen when a socialists (George Bush) and the Liberals came about with the TARP plan to bail out mortgage companies for the so called benefit of Americans. Instead, the funds have by and large went to bolster the books of banks who invested heavily in derivatives, swaps, etc..

[Khariz]

Let's look at the list of recipients of the list of recipients of 78B in bailout funds that were given to AIG;

Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale, Deutsche Bank, Barclays PLC, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America.. and the list goes on.

All of these secured credits of AIG which would essentially have been rubbed clean when it was found the assets they had as securities were leveraged well past their total market value. So rather than receive pennies on the dollar, roughly 11% of the total bailout benefited the bottom lines of these multi-national entities.

The same thing happened early on in Atlas Shrugged when the major antagonists in the book had invested heavily in Taggert Transcontinental stock out of imagined returns for their branch into Mexico the San Sebatian Line to the d'Anconia copper mines. When it was found the mines were a fraud, the stock of the company floored until their Shippers Union agreed to put TT's pricinipal competitor out of business to hand them uncontested access to the nations fastest growing producers.

We go on further to the example of the corporation created to run, and manage the People's States of South America which the antaonists had by and large invested into heavily knowing their chief asset was to come about by the nationalization of D'anconia Copper. When that was foiled by the intentional destruction of the D'anconia Copper, the shareholders once against were losing untold millions until they were bailed out by the United States Government through the Railroad Unification Act, the proposed Steel Unification Act.

The latter being a perfect example of the shinnagins Ayn Rand wrote about which portrayed, almost prophetically what would happen when a socialists (George Bush) and the Liberals came about with the TARP plan to bail out mortgage companies for the so called benefit of Americans. Instead, the funds have by and large went to bolster the books of banks who invested heavily in derivatives, swaps, etc..

Okay, hold up.

I need you to spell it out for me how Bush being a fool and not vetoing a socialist program that came across his desk from Congress personally profited bush.

I think just about everything you said above is accurate (the comparison between TARP and what happened in Rand's book). But I'm still not making the Bush-Socialist connection, OR the Bush Profiting connection.

How did Bush profit from bailing out Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale, Deutsche Bank, Barclays PLC, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, etc?

Do you think it was Bush and his laws that forced these groups into the situations that got them into the messes they were/are in?

Serious questions.

At worst Bush was a complete, inobservant fool that ignored what was happening around him, lacked any sort of fiscally conservative balls, and rubber stamped just about everything that went through congress. But is he himself a socialist? Hmm. Maybe looking at the final results of his administration, he might as well be. Okay.

I'm still confused about the profiting thing though.

[Seran]

But I'm still not making the Bush-Socialist connection, OR the Bush Profiting connection.

How did Bush profit from bailing out Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale, Deutsche Bank, Barclays PLC, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, etc?


Carlyle Group.

Both of the Bush's have served in either management positions, or senior advisory positions of entire arms of the Carlyle Grough, which is one of the largest investment companies in the world. Carlyle owned directly, and indirectly shares of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and AIG.

Let us also not forget that each of the above named also have large holdings in funds ran by Carlyle and it's subsidiaries. Why would GW then veto a bill which would prop up the families vested interest in Carlyle and their vested interest in some of the largest bailout recipients.

If you're truly interested, you're welcome to look into the SEC records concerning the stock holdings. I might point you also in the direction of Henry Kissenger, and his advisement roll through Kissinger Associates with their Carlyle / Blackstone connections.

You may also want to read into the Abu Dubai stake bought into Carlyle following the debacle of the Dubai Ports seeking to gain ownership of our East Coast ports and President Bush's lobbying in support of this deal.

Regardless, the correlation between the books and both the Bush & Obama administration are solid. If you cannot see them fully, I would recommend re-reading the book and then doing some research of your own.

[Daniel]

This is classic on so many different levels.

[Khariz]

Carlyle Group.

Both of the Bush's have served in either management positions, or senior advisory positions of entire arms of the Carlyle Grough, which is one of the largest investment companies in the world. Carlyle owned directly, and indirectly shares of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and AIG.

Let us also not forget that each of the above named also have large holdings in funds ran by Carlyle and it's subsidiaries. Why would GW then veto a bill which would prop up the families vested interest in Carlyle and their vested interest in some of the largest bailout recipients.

If you're truly interested, you're welcome to look into the SEC records concerning the stock holdings. I might point you also in the direction of Henry Kissenger, and his advisement roll through Kissinger Associates with their Carlyle / Blackstone connections.

You may also want to read into the Abu Dubai stake bought into Carlyle following the debacle of the Dubai Ports seeking to gain ownership of our East Coast ports and President Bush's lobbying in support of this deal.

Regardless, the correlation between the books and both the Bush & Obama administration are solid. If you cannot see them fully, I would recommend re-reading the book and then doing some research of your own.

In all seriousness, thank you very much.

You provided enough information for me to do just that: research it on my own. I did know about the Carlyle group in general, but I wasn't aware of the intricate way that it was tied to these various firms. I'll have to look into that.

If everything is as you say, and I have no reason to think you are exaggerating, then perhaps you were right, and Bush was in the first category you mentioned. Shame that we've moved on to the second category, eh?

[Khariz]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=ar2de0RP4ebo


This year the book is selling at a faster rate than last year. Last year, sales were about 200,000, higher than any year before that, including 1957, when the book was published.

Some assumed the libertarian philosopher would fall from view when the Berlin Wall fell. Or that at least there would be a sense of mission accomplished. One Rand fan, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, wrote in his memoir that he regretted Rand hadn’t lived until 1989 or 1990. She’d missed the collapse of communism that she had so often predicted.

But “Atlas Shrugged” is becoming a political “Harry Potter” because Rand shone a spotlight on a problem that still exists: Not pre-1989 Soviet communism, but 2009-style state capitalism. Rand depicted government and companies colluding in the name of economic rescue at the expense of the entrepreneur. That entrepreneur is like the titan Atlas who carries the rest of the world on his shoulders -- until he doesn’t.

Back Ache

You get the feeling plenty of Atlases are shrugging these days, in part because their tax burden is getting heavier. It’s interesting to compare sales of “Atlas Shrugged,” provided by the Ayn Rand Institute, to Internal Revenue Service distribution tables.

In 1986, a year when “Atlas Shrugged” sold between 60,000 and 80,000 copies, the top 1 percent of earners paid 26 percent of the income tax. By 2000, that 1 percent was paying 37 percent, and “Atlas Shrugged” sales were at 120,000. By 2006, the top 1 percent carried 40 percent of the burden.

Yet President Barack Obama has made it clear he would like to see the rich pay a greater share. Anyone irked at that prospect can find consolation in Rand’s fantasy, in which the most valued professionals evaporate from the work place because of such demands.

Sounding Weird

The hard-money monologue of Rand’s copper king, Francisco d’Anconia, used to sound weird. Who even thought about gold in the early 1990s? Now, D’Anconia’s lecture on the unreliable dollar sounds like it could have been scripted by Zhou Xiaochuan, or some other furious Chinese central banker:

“Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’”

Other “Atlas Shrugged” characters are likewise relevant: Orren Boyle of Associated Steel, one of the corrupt businessmen, is so skilled at anticipating what government will do that he could have taught Jeff Immelt a few tricks. Wesley Mouch, the Washington fringe-character-turned-politician who unexpectedly makes his way to center stage, recalls Timothy Geithner at Treasury in his early days.

Game of Pretend

Rand knew that government tends to drive the most- productive economic figures away even as it pretends to utilize them. Today’s shortage of primary care doctors serves as an example. Various administrations, Democratic and Republican, have tried to nudge more medical students into primary care. Young doctors simply haven’t complied. That is in part because of the higher compensation of specialties. But it is also because the great charm of being a primary care doctor -- autonomy to work in a range of areas -- has been removed.

Rand foresaw this: “Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce,” says one of her characters. “It is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled.”

Long before managed-care existed, Rand was describing doctors’ frustration with it.

Most compelling is Rand’s understanding of how politicians’ lack of imagination can kill economies. Of all American governors, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is the one who most resembles Rand’s outsized characters.

Missing Gene

Yet Schwarzenegger seems to be missing the Rand gene. His policies are all pain and no growth. As the Randerati have been quick to note, California’s uncompetitive treatment of film production is driving Hollywood out of California. Yet Schwarzenegger moved disappointingly late to sign legislation that would even begin to address that problem.

Rand’s persistent heroine Dagny Taggart lectures a public official, but substitute Schwarzenegger for the official and the dialogue still makes sense:

Dagny: “Start decontrolling.”

Schwarzenegger: “Huh?”

Dagny: “Start lifting taxes and removing controls.”

Schwarzenegger: “Oh no, no, no, that’s out of the question.”

Dagny: “Out of whose question?”

In short, it’s time for all of us in policy land to tip our collective hat -- though she detested collective anythings -- to Ayn Rand. Politics today is proving dramatic enough to change even literary tastes.

[Khariz]

Stories are myriad today about the renewed popularity of the novel "Atlas Shrugged" by novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. With capitalism widely being declared dead or defunct it may seem strange to some people that masses of Americans are turning to this work of literature which celebrates laissez-faire capitalism, among other, more fundamental, themes.

Stranger still it is that Americans are flocking to this book when one considers that Rand (who died in 1982) was declared intellectually dead some fifty years ago by an influential public figure, one William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley was always loud in his declaration, but he seemed to be unsure of his conclusion. He felt the need to declare her death repeatedly over the years, as though trying to convince himself.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/105225

[Khariz]

PASADENA, CA -- (Marketwire) -- 05/21/09 -- Novelist Ayn Rand's 50-year-old masterwork "Atlas Shrugged" is drawing both converts and fire once again. Hammering government subsidies and interventions in the manufacturing and financial systems ominously similar to those occurring today, "Atlas" tells the tale of the world's productive class, the inventors and entrepreneurs, taking a time-out from taxation and nationalization. The recent Vision.org article titled, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?" asks: Can Rand's iteration of capitalism become this century's economic savior?

http://www.itbusinessnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=752763

[Khariz]

Ms. Rand's book tells how industrial and business leaders refuse to allow the government to exploit free market efforts in the name of what it identifies as the general good of the country.

. . .

At a time when all around us seems to be somewhat confusing, it is difficult to separate reality from fiction. Perhaps Rand's fictional novel will become a practical guide for true recovery

http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20090609/OPINION02/906090310/1014/OPINION

[Khariz]

The U.S. government is dictating to businesses what products they can sell, where, to whom, and for what price. It has set lower limits on the wages of some workers, and upper limits on the pay of others. It has hired and fired employees of private companies, bullied decision-makers, broken contracts and ignored bankruptcy laws. It's pumping trillions of inflated dollars into the market, for things consumers refuse to buy when the money is under their control. And more "change" is on the way.

Rest easy, though: all of this unconstitutional power has been wielded to "help business," to "grow the economy" and to "create jobs."

How could American business possibly thrive in such an anti-market environment? Maybe you've wondered, as you hear each disastrous new policy announced, What in the world are they thinking?

In a pivotal scene toward the end of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, the government has co-opted most of the critical industries "for the common good," bringing the country to the brink of total economic collapse. The bureaucrats call a meeting with steel magnate Hank Rearden to tell him they're nationalizing his industry.

Rearden wants to know how they think it can work.

"Have you anything left to loot? If you didn't see the nature of your policy before — it's not possible that you don't see it now. Look around you. All those damned People's States all over the earth have been existing only on the handouts which you squeezed for them out of this country. But you — you have no place left to sponge on or mooch from. No country on the face of the globe. This was the greatest and last. You've drained it. You've milked it dry. Of all that irretrievable splendor, I'm only one remnant, the last. What will you do, you and your People's Globe, after you've finished me? What are you hoping for? What do you see ahead — except plain, stark, animal starvation?"

They did not answer. They did not look at him. Their faces wore expressions of stubborn resentment, as if his were the plea of a liar.

Then Lawson said softly, half in reproach, half in scorn, "Well, after all, you businessmen have kept predicting disasters for years, you've cried catastrophe at every progressive measure and told us that we'll perish — but we haven't."

Rearden persists in seeking the answer to a question the central planners don't understand: "What are you counting on?"

"It's only a matter of gaining time!" cried Mouch.
"There isn't any time left to gain."
"All we need is a chance!" cried Lawson.
"There are no chances left."
"It's only until we recover!" cried Holloway.
"There is no way to recover."
"Only until our policies begin to work!" cried Dr. Ferris.
"There's no way to make the irrational work." There was no answer. "What can save you now?"
"Oh, you'll do something!" cried James Taggart.

When you peel back the layers of the onion to discover the core of this unshakeable belief in policies that have blighted entire continents, this is what you might find.

"Oh, you'll do something."

That name for this is "magical thinking." The scientist in the old cartoon has filled his blackboard with an equation. In the middle of the scrawl, in brackets, is the phrase, "Here a miracle happens."

. . .

After 900+ pages, the readers of Atlas Shrugged have learned that running a successful steel mill or railroad is far from easy. But the bureaucrats are clueless. Their faith that the selfish industrialist will (somehow) pull their bacon out of the fire once more is only possible because of their ignorance.

Naiveté is crucial. Karl Marx, the self-appointed champion of the worker, never set foot in an industrial plant. His present-day followers grow in places like academia, insulated from business realities and knowledge.

[Rearden] was seeing the progression of the years, the monstrous extortions, the impossible demands, the inexplicable victories of evil, the preposterous plans and unintelligible goals proclaimed in volumes of muddy philosophy, the desperate wonder of the victims who thought that some complex, malevolent wisdom was moving the powers destroying the world — and all of it had rested on one tenet behind the shifty eyes of the victors: he'll do something!

In other words, there is no need to look for a conspiracy. Human stupidity can wreck civilization all by itself.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/popp/090609

[BriarFox]

At a time when all around us seems to be somewhat confusing, it is difficult to separate reality from fiction. Perhaps Rand's fictional novel will become a practical guide for true recovery

http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20090609/OPINION02/906090310/1014/OPINION

Ann Rand as a handbook for economic recovery? That's terrifying.

[Latrinsorm]

Was it odd to anyone else to find shots alleging Marxist intellegentsia of ivory tower syndrome in an article about a 900+ page obscure philosopher's book?

[Valthissa]

Was it odd to anyone else to find shots alleging Marxist intellegentsia of ivory tower syndrome in an article about a 900+ page obscure philosopher's book?

I find your characterization that someone who sold as many books as Rand is obscure.

I always thought that Atlas Shrugged was a good book in a specific situation - in college where it provides a different point of view from the crap the professors are cramming down your throat. At least that's the way I remember it.


C/Valth

[Latrinsorm]

Alright, how many books has the esteemed Ms. Rand sold compared to Bertrand Russell, Jacques Derrida, or Daniel Dennett? Do you think if you walked down the street and asked 100 people you'd find any whose first 10 named philosophers included Ayn Rand?

[Androidpk]

I'd be more surprised if any out of that 100 random people could list 10 philosophers!

[Valthissa]

Alright, how many books has the esteemed Ms. Rand sold compared to Bertrand Russell, Jacques Derrida, or Daniel Dennett? Do you think if you walked down the street and asked 100 people you'd find any whose first 10 named philosophers included Ayn Rand?

I concede that Ms. Rand does not deserve mention alongside any of the great, near great, or even not-very-good philosopher's of the last century (Russell would be logician, no? - or is that hair splitting?).

It looks to me like Atlas Shrugged has sold well over 10 million copies.

I did not think, and still do not think, that anyone that has sold 10 million copies of a book can accurately be labeled 'obscure'. Surely when a book is selling at a rate of 250,000 annually 50 years after it's first printing we can agree on some other adjective for the author than 'obscure'.

If I have time later I will look and see if even Russell sold that many copies of the Principles of Mathematics.

Did I mention it's nice to see you back posting on the PC?

C/Valth

[Khariz]

I'd be more surprised if any out of that 100 random people could list 10 philosophers!

:yeahthat:

[Warriorbird]

Ayn Rand banged Alan Greenspan.

What other evidence do we need of batshit crazy?

I mean... Alan Greenspan.

[Khariz]

Ayn Rand banged Alan Greenspan.

What other evidence do we need of batshit crazy?

I mean... Alan Greenspan.

Maybe he was hot back in the day...

or something.

[Latrinsorm]

It looks to me like Atlas Shrugged has sold well over 10 million copies.

I did not think, and still do not think, that anyone that has sold 10 million copies of a book can accurately be labeled 'obscure'. Surely when a book is selling at a rate of 250,000 annually 50 years after it's first printing we can agree on some other adjective for the author than 'obscure'.

If I have time later I will look and see if even Russell sold that many copies of the Principles of Mathematics.The more I look at the list of people who can claim 10+ million copies sold*, the less I feel it's a worthwhile barometer of philosophical notoreity. I probably should have looked before I threw out that challenge, but such is life. I think the best way to describe Ms. Rand would be as a relatively famous author with a relatively obscure philosophy, in relatively the same literary category as an Isaac Newton or Umberto Eco.
Did I mention it's nice to see you back posting on the PC?:blush: Thanks!

*as found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books