Ayn Rand on Money

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Ayn Rand on money

From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387

To all those who love freedom and liberty, read this. I post it because she writes in a way that I can't. To all the commies, read this and tell me why she is wrong. If you don't read the whole thing don't bother debating in this thread.



Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil—and he's the typical product of money."

Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor— your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is MADE—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the LOVE of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it."

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich—will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt—and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of DISARMED victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. 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 becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while your damning its life-blood—money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves—slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers—as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a COUNTRY OF MONEY—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to MAKE money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."

Cliffnotes:
Money is NOT evil!
Money is awesome!

[MikeSC]

If you want to debate, post exactly what we're debating. That "money is awesome"? You posted a long tedious excerpt from a fiction written by a hack like Rand in support of a debate that you haven't defined.

EDIT: I may sound a bit horrible there- I don't mean to be, it wasn't intended like that. I'd just like to know what exactly the debate is (I've read most of Atlas Shrugged if it's gonna be a debate about Atlas Shrugged... I just can't respect Rand as an intellectual like I can some right-wingers, and it's certainly not applicable to anything approaching the real world)

[Hit The North]

I'm not familiar with Rand's work, but if this is a good example, it must be particularly turgid stuff.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

If you want to debate, post exactly what we're debating. That "money is awesome"? You posted a long tedious excerpt from a fiction written by a hack like Rand in support of a debate that you haven't defined.

EDIT: I may sound a bit horrible there- I don't mean to be, it wasn't intended like that. I'd just like to know what exactly the debate is (I've read most of Atlas Shrugged if it's gonna be a debate about Atlas Hrugged... I just can't respect Rand as an intellectual like I can some right-wingers, and it's certainly not applicable to anything approaching the real world)

It is long, it certainly isn't tedious. I would like to know what Communists agree or disagree with in the above excerpt and why. Then I will debate those points that others bring up.

[MikeSC]

It is long, it certainly isn't tedious. I would like to know what Communists agree or disagree with in the above excerpt and why. Then I will debate those points that others bring up.Wouldn't it be easier to define what you agree with what she's saying, and then we'll debate that a point at a time? I'll have a go and pick out a couple of points, if you like, and we can talk about that- but I'm concerned that it's a very wide and vaguely defined area of discussion to put into a single thread.

EDIT: Or maybe an essay of hers on the subject? It would be easier to debate than a page from a work of fiction, it's arguing emotionally- making unbacked up assertions. It's stating a world view in a literary way rather than justifying it theoretically. It'd be like posting a picture of a Soviet propaganda poster and just saying "discuss".

[Lynx]

As a means of exchange, money or Labour-time credits are useful inventions. But money is not used strictly as a means of exchange in modern economies. Thanks to the invention of interest, money is able to make money. Money as wealth is the source of inequality, suffering and idleness. For instance, Paris Hilton is an example of old money.

Capitalism is not a meritocratic system.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Wouldn't it be easier to define what you agree with what she's saying, and then we'll debate that a point at a time? I'll have a go and pick out a couple of points, if you like, and we can talk about that- but I'm concerned that it's a very wide and vaguely defined area of discussion to put into a single thread.

EDIT: Or maybe an essay of hers on the subject? It would be easier to debate than a page from a work of fiction, it's arguing emotionally- making unbacked up assertions. It's stating a world view in a literary way rather than justifying it theoretically. It'd be like posting a picture of a Soviet propaganda poster and just saying "discuss".

This excerpt is practically an essay, it is formatted to fit in her work of fiction.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

As a means of exchange, money or Labour-time credits are useful inventions. But money is not used strictly as a means of exchange in modern economies. Thanks to the invention of interest, money is able to make money. Money as wealth is the source of inequality, suffering and idleness. For instance, Paris Hilton is an example of old money.

Capitalism is not a meritocratic system.

When money makes money, someone is borrowing and someone is lending. When I borrow money from someone, their is a price to that. I promise to pay him back more in the future for using his money right now. This is no different then any other type of voluntary exchange.

Paris Hilton may have been born wealthy and had many advantages in life, but she has provided much value to the economy. People for some reason, god knows why, people like watching Paris Hilton, they like to look at her, they like the entertainment that she provides. She makes her own money, and I have no doubt that the would have been a successful model with or without the help of her parents.

[MikeSC]

This excerpt is practically an essay, it is formatted to fit in her work of fiction.

Yeah, I had a look on the Ayn Rand Lexicon and it's right there with the essays, just with all indication to it being dialogue removed- and the rest on the subject are pretty much the same. It still doesn't seem like an argument, it's a statement of ideology without justification- arguing against a simplistic non-point made by a straw man character she invented to be whipping-boy.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Yeah, I had a look on the Ayn Rand Lexicon and it's right there with the essays, just with all indication to it being dialogue removed- and the rest on the subject are pretty much the same. It still doesn't seem like an argument, it's a statement of ideology without justification- arguing against a simplistic non-point made by a straw man character she invented to be whipping-boy.

I guess you have never heard the term "money is the root of all evil" in real life before, I certainly have and believed it at the time. Rand shows that this is certainly not the case and explains what money truly is.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Isn't this the "core" of Miss Rand's teachings? Something like Sermon on the Mount for the Randians? I still don't get why you have posted this slab of text here.

[MikeSC]

I guess you have never heard the term "money is the root of all evil" in real life before, I certainly have and believed it at the time. Rand shows that this is certainly not the case and explains what money truly is. I've heard the term, sure. But it's a colloquialism, nothing more. A slang phrase. Rand is kind of unthinkingly pedantic here- and it's an awful example of fiction writing as well as theoretical writing.

"Hi, Bob! You know what they say: what goes around comes around!" [commence long pseudo-logical rant about why this isn't necessarily the case ;)]

[Kassad]

I tell you this with no exaggeration or sarcasm: I read Atlas Shrugged over the summer and vomited a total of seven times before I finished the John Galt speech. It is the total epitome of monetary worship, as opposed to worship of collective unity and progress. It is the primary advocate of deregulation, as opposed to sensible management. It is an example of a disregard for other human beings, as opposed to working towards the common good. We, as humans, are not separate from the Earth. We evolve along with the Earth's consistent environmental and social changes. We alter our lifestyles based on resources and human evolution has been consistent in updating the human psyche and physical attributes to meet the required social standards.

Ayn Rand is totally opposed to this collective progress and, instead, clings to her reactionary ideology which disregards human life in the name of monetary pursuit. Capitalism does not acknowledge potential, for it shines approval on those who already achieved their potential, which is potentially crippling to those who are living in poverty and minorities attempting to liberate themselves from oppression. Those who have privilege will likely hold on to it, while those without privilege will likely remain in the same social class, or worse due to the consistent innate recessions of the capitalist system.

Ayn Rand is sick, malinformed and sadistic. I mean, just read one sentence of this abhorrent and immoral monetary worship. This is what starts wars! This is what fuels international conflict! This is what fuels thousands of murders and organized crime across the world! "Hey, you! You owe me money!" Sound familiar? Rand envisions this simplistic, decadent world where currency is supreme, which places a dollar sign on everything, even human life. This monetary ideology fuels the concentration of wealth without fail. Without regulation, what happens to our environment? If all anyone cares about is profit, who's to say that those in power will not just create the lowest quality products required to satisy the people, which would in turn make more money?

That's the kicker right there. If all that is truly desirable in the world is money, people will do anything to get it. That means they will rape, kill, steal and pillage to obtain it. There's no social management of morality or barbarism, as social standards went away long ago with the destruction of regulations in this type of society. Who's to say what a regulation is? Is a law telling me I can't kill another human being a law? So in essence, this is the disregard of humanity and our collective consciousness in the pursuit of monetary gain? "The Virtue of Selfishness", she says? Well, selfishness has a lot of means to apply itself. Isn't it selfish for me to have a five-story house, while millions starve to death? Isn't it selfish for my country to invade yours, since we want your resources? Therefore, the Objectivists have now justified imperialism, which is a product of their deregulatory capitalistic exploitation. Or will the Ayn Rand cultists consistently promote their individualist superiority?

http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Philosophy/Commentary/08/09-16-08.htm
Our good friends over at the Capitalism Center, who are Randian Objectivists, would like to let Sarah Palin know that it was immoral and irresponsible for her to have a baby afflicted with mental retardation.

Isn't that about right? The Objectivists are for physical superiority, now? Doesn't that sound kind of familia- "Sieg Heil!" I mean, I distinctly recall- "Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil!" There was a country somewhere that... damn, I just can't remember who advocated the destruction of life in the interests of rooting out negative- "Sieg Heil!" genes and unwanted features or traits. I wonder.

Do you see what you become when you worship this sick, sadistic woman? Prioritize money over people. Randians prove that they are totally simplistic, narrow-minded and belligerent on economics when they don't acknowledge that putting profit over people belittles the quality of products in the pursuit of monetary gain. So who's to say we can't use lead paint to make toys and who is going to tell us, the deregulated corporate sector, that we can't use the lowest quality meat we can find? Who's to stop us from monopolizing and forming trusts that Rockefeller and Carnegie did before they were regulated? Oh man, the Randians hate that example. Deregulation was leading to monopolies before anti-trust legislation was enacted, but that's just a technicality, right? The exception that makes the rule?

So now that we see the Objectivists for who they truly are: racist, selfish and completely illogical slugs, it's safe to say that I'll continue to fight so that money is unnecessary and only the continuation of human dignity and human evolution in the form of collective progress and social unity is required. Instead, the Objectivists will put a price tag on my food, my water, my clothes and my home. Pretty soon, it will cost money just to have a child in a safe environment. Oh wait! It already costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills to have a child in a safe, sanitary hospital. What the fuck will they think of next?

Don't bother responding. I've heard arguments from National Socialists, Republicans, Christian Fundamentalists, racists, homophobes and xenophobes, but Objectivists top the list. You are the epitome of all things wrong and disgusting and your theories are the justification for selfishness and manipulation through consistent disregard of life and humanity. Don't breed.

[коровьев]

Isn't this the "core" of Miss Rand's teachings? Something like Sermon on the Mount for the Randians? I still don't get why you have posted this slab of text here.
because the things which Ayn Rand says pretty much destroy arguments for communism/socialism/any other form of slavery

[Invader Zim]

I'm not familiar with Rand's work, but if this is a good example, it must be particularly turgid stuff.

It is, it is a 1,300+ page book which could easily be compressed into about 250 pages.

[Plagueround]

I find it a tad ethnocentric that she feels the only option besides money is the rule of the gun. Last I checked, there were plenty of fairly advanced societies (for their time) that did just fine with little to no currency or conception of private property. You know what ended those societies? People looking for ways to make money and using guns to get it. Still, if we must have money or another form of currency, she makes a good case for cutting all the unnecessary middle men and leeches at the top out of the system and keeping money in the hands of those who produced it. ;)

The only other thing I'll really say (since Kassad basically said everything else) is obviously money is just a tool. However, the uses that are attributed to a tool can make a situation good or bad. Chainsaw on tree to build a chair? Good. Chainsaw on human flesh to build a chair? Serial Killer. She basically built a series of straw men and wrote a book around knocking them down, and the writing was rather bland.

[Demogorgon]

The whole thing is a load of silly crap based upon utter lack of knowledge of the history of money and how it works, but the funniest thing is her oh so touching belief that money is the reward for innovation, it isn't. Innovators are generally employees like everyone else. The beneficiary of profit is the investor, not the person who did the actual work. The investor is able to invest as a result of having money already. In short the state of having enough money to invest lets you make more money off of the work of others without working yourself. That somehow goes against Rand's general claim.

To put it more clearly: "Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it?" No, it is made by the capitalist at the expense of the man who invented to motor as a general rule. That is her gaping hole, so to speak. She likes to claim that her philosophy is all about rewarding the thinkers, it isn't. Capitalism has nothing to do with that. It is all about who owns and is able to direct the capital. A thinking capitalist might very well be able to make a lot of money, but so can an unthinking capitalist. An unthinking person with no access to capital might not make much money, but neither, likely, is a thinking person with no access to capital, though they are likely to make an unthinking capitalist plenty of it.

Also, all her crap about "making" money just shows how ignorant she was. Do you really think America was the first country to focus on wealth creation? Did she? Did she think that the phrase actually meant making new money? In common parlance it means accumulating money already out there, which isn't the same thing. The sort of thing she is driving at is the development of new wealth (which is quite distinct from money) and that has happened for as long as human history.

Rand knew her audience. She knew that she was mostly writing for starry eyed teenagers who wanted to be told they were special. So she conjured up some pseudo-intellectual cod-philosophy to tell them that morality was always about rewarding rational, thinking individuals (the definition of which being whoever happened to agree with her). But in reality her political views were all about backing policies that simply reward people who are already well off while failing everybody else. And indeed she opposed every single policy that might have made it easier for somebody from a poor background to become successful. Under her ideal system, the only way a "thinking" poor person could see their ideas realised would be to sign over the rights to it to an investor.

[Trystan]

Tl;dr.

Though I did read the first few paragraphs. As I expected, her fiction is as awful as her non-fiction.

[коровьев]

have fun ITT ragnar

[GracchusBabeuf]

because the things which Ayn Rand says pretty much destroy arguments for communism/socialism/any other form of slaveryWhat? Wait, I thought she was the most disgusting apologist for wage slavery!:D

[коровьев]

There is no such thing as "voluntary" slavery.

[Dean]

What disgusting trash.

[Lynx]

When money makes money, someone is borrowing and someone is lending. When I borrow money from someone, their is a price to that. I promise to pay him back more in the future for using his money right now. This is no different then any other type of voluntary exchange.
It is different in that the borrower is being productive while the lender is not. The lender is engaged in rent seeking. You cannot build a society or maintain an economy where too many people are unproductive rent seekers.


Paris Hilton may have been born wealthy and had many advantages in life, but she has provided much value to the economy. People for some reason, god knows why, people like watching Paris Hilton, they like to look at her, they like the entertainment that she provides. She makes her own money, and I have no doubt that the would have been a successful model with or without the help of her parents.
Being an heiress, Paris Hilton has the option of leading a life of leisure and being more or less unproductive. If enough people had this option, it would be unsustainable.

[коровьев]

and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.This is really key and is compeltely ignored by the communists


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 becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'This is also pretty good


Atlas shrugged is pretty good, but it kind of reads as two books. The one about classical liberalism is pretty good, the one about rand's crazy philosophy and stuff like "sanctity of the victim" is pretty bad.

[Plagueround]

This is really key and is compeltely ignored by the communists

On the contrary, it's one of our main points. We just don't stop at rich businessmen when we're talking about it.

[Demogorgon]

What exactly does the notion that the mind is at the route of all production have to do with anything? Obviously the mental aspects of work are an essential part of the process of making things and at the centre of R&D, but how you get from that to a justification of capitalism, I don't know. The capitalist and the innovator are not the same thing, to say the least.

[коровьев]

On the contrary, it's one of our main points. We just don't stop at rich businessmen when we're talking about it.
If you accept that a people's minds are the reason why we have so much wealth, then you admit that manual and low skilled labor are not worth much reward.

[коровьев]

What exactly does the notion that the mind is at the route of all production have to do with anything?
To see what is responsible for the creation of wealth.


Obviously the mental aspects of work are an essential part of the process of making things and at the centre of R&D, but how you get from that to a justification of capitalism, I don't know.

Was anyone try to justify capitalism? Why does capitalism need to be justified?


The capitalist and the innovator are not the same thing, to say the least.

Just about all of the innovation and new wealth created around you is the result of capitalism and people seeking to make a profit by satisfying the desires of others.

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

It is different in that the borrower is being productive while the lender is not. The lender is engaged in rent seeking. You cannot build a society or maintain an economy where too many people are unproductive rent seekers.


Exactly, instead of resting on his laurels, the capitalist is lending his money out to those who can be more productive with it then he can. He is contributing production by moving money to those who can produce the most with it.

The economy will decide for itself if their are too many unproductive rent seekers, as the unproductive ones will not continue to lend out money. Much like are current banking system today. It is pretty clear the lending out to those who had bad credit and "needed" a home with subprime mortgages (encouraged highly by the government with subsidies, and institutions like FreddieMac was very, very unproductive. As a result this lending has decreased now to a more productive level.

[Plagueround]

If you accept that a people's minds are the reason why we have so much wealth, then you admit that manual and low skilled labor are not worth much reward.

Not at all. Without people to bring about the realization of humankind's innovations we would be nowhere. Yes, the human minds that come up with these things should be rewarded, but the minds that subject themselves day in and day out to the results of these innovations are just as crucial. It reminds me of the Atlas Shrugged 2 comic where all the rich people realize they forgot to bring people who actually worked for a living.

Many of these jobs that you would see as menial and low skilled also require a lot more thought and organization than you would think. I used to work for a phone company stringing cable, and it was always fun when we would get one of the bosses spoiled little sons coming along with us. They would sit there and ramble on about all the classes they were taking in college and how important it all was and how it was much better than these "low skill" jobs, then get themselves wrapped in cable, find themselves unable to use basic hand tools, nearly kill themselves because they were too scared to ever step on a ladder up until that point, whine at the prospect of getting into a crawlspace under houses, etc. Many of the workers in these types of jobs have figured out techniques and finesse to these jobs that their employers don't often appreciate because they see them as another bothersome wage they have to pay (as a side note, if you ever want to see some hardcore people, check out forklift drivers at apple packing plants. Those guys zoom around on those things at full speed and I find it baffling they never run into each other. They load and unload trucks like clockwork and they do it in all kinds of weather. These people are fucking awesome, and they deserve a hell of a lot more than they're given).

And that's really the underlying philosophy behind this Ayn Rand ultra cappie type of thought. It doesn't actually matter how hard a job is or isn't, it's how much the capitalist can drop a wage before they can no longer find people desperate enough to do a job, and what kind of cushy jobs they can overinflate the importance of to justify their own grotesque excesses.

The employee does not deserve to be treated like dirt, because without them, the employer would be living in the street. More glaringly important to me however, is that we are capable of transforming our society so no one has to live in the street.

[коровьев]

Without people to bring about the realization of humankind's innovations we would be nowhere. Come on this is irrelevant. What does this have to do with anything? So far you agreed with me that human mind is the reason for all the wealth around us.


Yes, the human minds that come up with these things should be rewarded, but the minds that subject themselves day in and day out to the results of these innovations are just as crucial. Crucial?? What does minds being subjects to their environment and nature have to do with anything?


It reminds me of the Atlas Shrugged 2 comic where all the rich people realize they forgot to bring people who actually worked for a living. What reminds you? In the real world there is extreme overabundance of cheap labor. People are beginning for sweatshops to come to their areas so they would have a chance to be shielded from the sun.



Many of these jobs that you would see as menial and low skilled also require a lot more thought and organization than you would think. This is irrelevant. You already agreed with me that human mind is the reason why we have so much wealth. These low skilled jobs still produce miniscule amounts of wealth and thus are rewarded with tiny pay.


I used to work for a phone company stringing cable, and it was always fun when we would get one of the bosses spoiled little sons coming along with us. They would sit there and ramble on about all the classes they were taking in college and how important it all was and how it was much better than these "low skill" jobs, then get themselves wrapped in cable, find themselves unable to use basic hand tools, nearly kill themselves because they were too scared to ever step on a ladder up until that point, whine at the prospect of getting into a crawlspace under houses, etc. Many of the workers in these types of jobs have figured out techniques and finesse to these jobs that their employers don't often appreciate (as a side note, if you ever want to see some hardcore people, check out forklift drivers at apple packing plants. Those guys zoom around on those things at full speed and I find it baffling they never run into each other. They load and unload trucks like clockwork and they do it in all kinds of weather. These people are fucking awesome, and they deserve a hell of a lot more than they're given). It is irrelevant that they are awesome. They do not generate any real wealth.


It doesn't actually matter how hard a job is or isn't Yes, all that is matter is how much wealth is generated.

[Plagueround]

Come on this is irrelevant. What does this have to do with anything? So far you agreed with me that human mind is the reason for all the wealth around us.


Then I withdraw my agreement because your narrow interpretation of the vastness of the human mind and it's contributions irritates me. It should be obvious that I did not agree with your misanthropic and elitist view of human progress. The fact that you fail to see how the jobs you consider below you are the real generators of human wealth is disturbing.

I'm intrigued to know what jobs you've ever worked. I did a bit of sharing, perhaps you can enlighten us on your personal experiences that brought about this perspective?

[коровьев]

The fact that you fail to see how the jobs you consider below you are the real generators of human wealth is disturbing.

This whole argument started with you saying that COMMUNISTS agree with AYN RAND. When it turns out you do not agree with her at all.... So maybe you should try to understand better what you are agreeing and disagreeing with.

[Demogorgon]

To see what is responsible for the creation of wealth.

Tell you what, you try setting up some kind of controlled experiment where you have one economy composed entirely of "mental" workers and another composed entirely of "physical" workers and see which one lasts longer. You need the innovators to move forward but without people to actually put their ideas into practice, they are like a computer programme without a Computer to run on.

Trying to isolate creation of wealth down to any single contributory to the production process is ridiculous. Anything that goes into producing a good that is necessary (i.e. hasn't just been a useless addition) is part of the process of creating wealth.


Was anyone try to justify capitalism? Why does capitalism need to be justified?

This is Rand we are talking about.

At any rate, she has given us some (poor) reasons to see innovators as the most deserving of reward, but goes on to back a system that gives the rewards to the owners of capital rather than to the innovators. That is a fundamentally broken argument.


Just about all of the innovation and new wealth created around you is the result of capitalism and people seeking to make a profit by satisfying the desires of others.You are contradicting yourself here. Satisfying the desires of others is not the same as innovation as people tend to desire what they know of. If I want a pint of beer, the market can supply me one easily enough, but no innovation is needed, we already know how to make beer. {Moreover the production of the beer isn't being done by people seeking to satisfy my desire, it is done by people who are being paid a wage by somebody else profiting from satisfying my desires. The capitalist, or in other words, the unnecessary middleman).

On the other hand, if an innovator has got a new product, a genuinely new one, not a refinement on an existing product, she doesn't yet know whether she is going to be satisfying a desire or not, she simply has to forge ahead without market forces to guide her. Once her product is available she has to hope that seeing it will awake new desires in people, so that they then buy it. Of course at this point her success is going to come down heavily to how much advertising she can afford. Advertisers are able to manipulate people's desires and get them to demand things they previously had no interest in. You could make a legitimate argument that one of the driving forces in the market is in fact advertisers (Galbraith did just this for instance). If this is true, the primary creator of the wealth will actually be the advertiser as it is him that brings demand up to such a level where the innovators product can be produced at substantial levels.

I am not arguing here that this means advertisers are somehow deserving of more reward or recognition as a result, merely poking holes in this shoddy view that wealth is coming from one category of person.

[griffjam]

The Abridged Atlas Shrugged

"It sure is hard to find good men now-a-days. I wonder what the hell is going on," Dagny smirked to herself as she entered the towering monolith to capitalism that was the headquarters of Taggart Transcontinental. "There are so few men like Hank Rearden, the man who single handedly invented a new greenish tint metal that is far stronger than steel," she said bursting in on her brother. "There are too many like you, Jim," she mocked.

"Well, if that's the case, you so-not-a-woman-and-I-can't-believe-a-woman-wrote-this, why don't you go redeem yourself by sleeping with him. By being his servile little mistress you'll serve the cause of capitalism far better than you have," Jim mocked.

Dagny smirked in her mocking way. Yes, she thought, she had tried that with another man, and it seemed so right until he, gasp, went to the other side. He became a slacker. Hank. Hank, Hank, Hank. Don't you know you're all I dream about though I don't actually do anything about it until page five-hundred? "I know what I want Jim, but what do you want?"

"Who is John Galt?"

"Don't say that! It's people asking that question that leads me to believe something sinister is happening in society. I think he's the destroyer." She mocked herself silently inside. How could a grown woman think such a thing? Oh, who was she kidding? She knew that women weren't much better than children anyway. Everyone knew that. It was a fluke she had any position in the railroad at all.

"It is I, Francisco d'Anconia, of the oldest most wealthy copper fortune this side of the Atlantic, and don't I want you to know that I'm pissing it all away for a grand reason that I won't tell you!" His perfect physique burst through the door in a mocking manner few could achieve but which he achieved perfectly. He had seen someone do the act before and fail and, after a single try at six months old, he was better at mockingly bursting through doors than anyone on the planet.

"Slacker," Dagny screamed with indignation and a pointed finger.

"Yes Dagny, you silly silly woman, I may seem a slacker to you, but after ten pages of explanation you will know that it is you who slack and it is I who serve a higher cause which will not be explained for another seven hundred pages. Remember, I am a d'Anconia which goes without saying that I know what I am doing," he mocked. He was so perfect at mocking. No man mocked like Francisco. How she wanted to be back in his arms. Were it not for... no! He was a slacker! The very embodiment of slack yet... yet he slacked with purpose. Even that was perfect. No man slacked like Francisco.

"What in capitalism's name is going on here," Hank yelled with bursting anger from the bottom of his manly lungs as he lunged through the door. It wasn't as perfect as Francisco's mockery, no man could touch that, but it was with the kind of power only a capitalist could muster. Dagny fluttered with lust.

"What the hell are you all doing in my office," Jim demanded weekly, the only way a socialist could demand.

"Hank, we must talk," Francisco said in a softly mocking way. Hank's heart fluttered with love he suddenly felt for the man. Even if he was a slacker, could my heart be wrong, Hank asked himself. He reached for Francisco's hand, wanting to hold him close.

"No," Dagny screamed with indignation and a pointed finger. "Please, I want him to take me and show me what a weak little girl I really am! That's what all women want!" Hank looked torn.

"Hey everybody," said a quiet voice from behind Hank. Hank took up most of the doorway with his manly capitalistic bulk. The crowd parted like the sea and a well groomed handsome man with a shock of boyish blond hair stood at the foot of it.

"John, you're not supposed to show up for eight-hundred more pages," Francisco said mockingly.

"Well, I got bored with the wait and figured what the hell. So... who wants to know what this is all about?" John smiled and every man's heart in the room melted. Dagny felt the overwhelming urge to become his servant and to clean up after him. That's what all women wanted after all, she figured.

"I do," Rearden capitalisticly demanded.

"Well, I couldn't deal with any government intervention in business and think that any kind of socialist tendency is kind of a bad idea, so me and my buddies, who all just happen to be the rich, powerful, and industrial, went on strike to bring the world to its knees." John said as he tossed back his blond hair with a light twitch of his head.

"For what purpose," Jim nearly cried. Socialists are such babies, thought John mockingly.

"Well, I don't like having to pay taxes or think about anything other than business. And, because I'm such an inexplicably charismatic guy, I figured I'd just get my industrialist buddies to back me," John said with a hint of mockery.

"Look," Jim sobbed. "The world is crumbling without you guys!"

"Well, once it's toast, we'll get to work but until then, who's up for some skiing in Colorado?"

[коровьев]

Tell you what, you try setting up some kind of controlled experiment where you have one economy composed entirely of "mental" workers and another composed entirely of "physical" workers and see which one lasts longer.What will this weird experiment accomplish?



You need the innovators to move forward but without people to actually put their ideas into practice, they are like a computer programme without a Computer to run on.People who put ideas into practice are interchangeable. There are billions of them and all they know is how to put someone else ideas into practice. Those who can put their mind to create new ideas which will generate new wealth are few.


Trying to isolate creation of wealth down to any single contributory to the production process is ridiculous.No it is not.



Anything that goes into producing a good that is necessary (i.e. hasn't just been a useless addition) is part of the process of creating wealth.Some parts are more important than others. Like human ingenuity.



she has given us some (poor) reasons to see innovators as the most deserving of reward, but goes on to back a system that gives the rewards to the owners of capital rather than to the innovators. That is a fundamentally broken argument.that is not her argument. Her argument is that those who create wealth deserve it. Since wealth is mostly the creation of human mind, it should become obvious that those who use their mind to generate more wealth deserve bigger reward than those who apply physical labor and generate little wealth.




You are contradicting yourself here. Satisfying the desires of others is not the same as innovation as people tend to desire what they know of.What? Why does that matter?



. If I want a pint of beer, the market can supply me one easily enough, but no innovation is needed, we already know how to make beer.What about better or cheaper beer?


{Moreover the production of the beer isn't being done by people seeking to satisfy my desire, it is done by people who are being paid a wage by somebody else profiting from satisfying my desires. The capitalist, or in other words, the unnecessary middleman).No he is not the unnecessary middle man. The market has ruled that he is necessary. People working for him ruled that he is necessary. He is the one with the brains and ideas to get the whole thing going. He is making an investment and risking his resources. If people do not like the beer he is selling, he will lose a lot of money.


, if an innovator has got a new product, a genuinely new one, not a refinement on an existing product, she doesn't yet know whether she is going to be satisfying a desire or not, she simply has to forge ahead without market forces to guide herInnovations are made in order to improve the product, make it better and add more value onto it. The fact that there is nothing to guide her does not matter, she is still trying to create something which people will value.



Of course at this point her success is going to come down heavily to how much advertising she can afford.No it depends how much people will want to buy her product. If people value advertising than they will buy product with the best advertising. There is nothing wrong with that.


Advertisers are able to manipulate people's desires and get them to demand things they previously had no interest in.Advertising things that people do not want to buy is a sure way to go bankrupt.



You could make a legitimate argument that one of the driving forces in the market is in fact advertisers no you can't

[GracchusBabeuf]

There is no such thing as "voluntary" slavery.I assume this is a reply to my comment. Please read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)and get back to me.

[Demogorgon]

What will this weird experiment accomplish?


People who put ideas into practice are interchangeable. There are billions of them and all they know is how to put someone else ideas into practice. Those who can put their mind to create new ideas which will generate new wealth are few.

No it is not.
Your creepy elitism notwithstanding, you seem to have a pretty absurd view of the production process. Around fifty five trillion dollars worth of goods and services are produced in the world each year. Take away even a fraction of the workforce and it would be impossible to match this.

Again though, you are displaying typical Randroid misanthropy again. Put anybody in a capacity where they have the opportunity to come up with new ideas and they will. It is part of how the human mind works. If we are set a problem, we work out how to get around it.


Some parts are more important than others. Like human ingenuity.
Okay how about this. Isolate the value of "human ingenuity" and tell me how much of the fifty five trillion dollars of production it is responsible for.


that is not her argument. Her argument is that those who create wealth deserve it. Since wealth is mostly the creation of human mind, it should become obvious that those who use their mind to generate more wealth deserve bigger reward than those who apply physical labor and generate little wealth.

Well again, the whole notion of an intellectual master race was to appeal to her teenage groupies who are meant to believe they are part of this master race and as a result buy more of her books. But yet again you are dancing around the problem. She claims that innovators deserve rewards and then goes on to support a system where it is someone else entirely who gets the rewards.


What? Why does that matter?
Because if the generation of wealth is the production of goods and services to match the desires of the consumers, then innovation cannot be the main drive in the creation of wealth as consumers are generally looking for more of pre-existing products. I do not yet desire a product that will not be available for twenty years, I do desire products that are available now and if the market is going to follow my desires it will continue to produce those.

Indeed markets are notoriously bad at encouraging innovation. Typically Governments have to finance new research and development because corporations neglect it. In countries where the corporations tend to be at the cutting edge of development, Japan is a good example, they are in partnership with the Government to receive plenty of funding in order to do so.


No he is not the unnecessary middle man. The market has ruled that he is necessary. People working for him ruled that he is necessary. He is the one with the brains and ideas to get the whole thing going. He is making an investment and risking his resources. If people do not like the beer he is selling, he will lose a lot of money.The market is not a mystical or omnipotent force that shapes society as it sees fit, it is simply the economic activity of a society and is based upon the social realities in that society. The capitalist is "necessary" because he owns the capital and nothing can be accomplished if he refuses to play. But were he not to own the capital, were the capital to be collectively owned, there would be no ned for him at all. He exist only because he is able to monopolise needed resources.


Innovations are made in order to improve the product, make it better and add more value onto it. The fact that there is nothing to guide her does not matter, she is still trying to create something which people will value.

No it depends how much people will want to buy her product. If people value advertising than they will buy product with the best advertising. There is nothing wrong with that.

Advertising things that people do not want to buy is a sure way to go bankrupt.

Think about what you are saying before you say it, please. If advertising can not change what people want, why would they bother? To make people aware of the product? That is only necessary for a while. To take an example, I, along with everybody else in the Western World, is perfectly aware of the existence of the iphone and what it does. So why are we still hit with so much advertisement? It is an effort to change the priorities of those of us who have not yet bought one. I don't have one because there are thousands, probably millions, of things I want more. By advertising, it is hoped that my desires will change and I will now demand an iphone over what I previously wanted more.

It won't work on me, I simply do not want one full stop, but it will work on millions of others. As a result, they will pour their money into the product leading to greater production of it and also to less demand for the products people sacrifice in order to buy iphones. This will change the balance of the economy. One product and company will benefit, others will lose out and future production and development will alter as a result. This has happened because of the power of the advertiser.

[Lord Testicles]

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

I'll just leave this here.

[коровьев]

you seem to have a pretty absurd view of the production process. Around fifty five trillion dollars worth of goods and services are produced in the world each year. Take away even a fraction of the workforce and it would be impossible to match this. So what? Again, workforce is cheap and abundant. The less a job pays, the less skill it requires, the more people can do it, the less value it can produce to the rest of the people .


Put anybody in a capacity where they have the opportunity to come up with new ideas and they will. It is part of how the human mind works. If we are set a problem, we work out how to get around it. Ideas are different. Some are a lot better than other’s.


Isolate the value of "human ingenuity" and tell me how much of the fifty five trillion dollars of production it is responsible for. Just about all of it? Manual human labor adds very little additional value to products which people desire.


the whole notion of an intellectual master race was to appeal to her teenage groupies who are meant to believe they are part of this master race and as a result buy more of her books. No. It just explains why some people earn more than others. They do more for the rest of us.


She claims that innovators deserve rewards and then goes on to support a system where it is someone else entirely who gets the rewards. No one deserves anything. If the people like someone’s improvement to a product they will start purchasing that product.


if the generation of wealth is the production of goods and services to match the desires of the consumers, then innovation cannot be the main drive in the creation of wealth as consumers are generally looking for more of pre-existing products. I do not yet desire a product that will not be available for twenty years, So? They are still looking for a way to create a product which consumers will value more. Some innovations are valued a lot more than others.


I do desire products that are available now and if the market is going to follow my desires it will continue to produce those. You desire the best possible product that you can get for your buck. If you do not, then it does not matter, because the rest of us are not dumb and will do it for you anyway. (get you close to the best possible price for the best possible product you desire)

Typically Governments have to finance new research and development because corporations neglect it. … no


Japan is a good example, they are in partnership with the Government to receive plenty of funding in order to do so. Do you want me to list you the examples of all the innovations that have absolutely nothing to do with governments?




The capitalist is "necessary" because he owns the capital and nothing can be accomplished if he refuses to play.. A lot of capitalists own capital. Not all of them put it to good use. Those who put it to good use - get more of it. Those who put it to bad use - get less of it.


The capitalist is "necessary" because he owns the capital and nothing can be accomplished if he refuses to play Plenty of people have resources. Only a few people can put them to good use. Moreover, not a lot of people are willing to risk their own resources to see if they can be put to a better use or not.



But were he not to own the capital, were the capital to be collectively owned, there would be no ned for him at all. So what has stopped people from collectively owning things all these years? There is nothing wrong with voluntary forms of cooperatives. Right now they are very popular in some places. Historically though, they do not last very long.


He exist only because he is able to monopolise needed resources. It is impossible to monopolize the resources needed to produce tings. It can only be done by force.


If advertising can not change what people want, why would they bother? To spread information about the product?


So why are we still hit with so much advertisement? It To remind people that it is a good product?


It is an effort to change the priorities of those of us who have not yet bought one. And there is nothing wrong with that.


It won't work on me, I simply do not want one full stop, but it will work on millions of others. Yes, millions of others happen to think iphone is a good product. Some of them were probably persuaded by advertisements. So what?


As a result, they will pour their money into the product leading to greater production of it and also to less demand for the products people sacrifice in order to buy iphones. This will change the balance of the economy. Yes, people seem to really value iphone’s. Why does that bother you?


This has happened because of the power of the advertiser. Or the power of the iphone and apple.

[MikeSC]

Let's get this straight- the central idea is that people wouldn't invent new things if the capitalist didn't pay them to invent new things? Because as you're well aware- the capitalist doesn't do the inventing. S/he pays someone with the aptitude to do it on their behalf.

This is plainly false- inventors throughout history have, more often than not, gained not a single thing from their breakthroughs. They have either been old money and find their lifestyles unchanged by their inventions (yet they keep inventing), or they remain unthanked til they're long dead, and in poverty- yet they keep inventing, they keep writing, they keep contributing.

The capitalist is nothing more than the Dragon's Den style "inventor". They take inventions and pay for them to be mass-made, and take that money and pay for more things. Money that originated in the seizing of natural resources by the state, is put into business, more is accumulated, then is put into business again, more is accumulated. Money is merely the handling of stolen goods. The inventor will invent as long as s/he has the resources to do so- whether that comes from a capitalist or not is a matter of indifference.

Capitalism, as a way to regulate which products and inventions get what resources is inefficient, realistically. The capitalist way encourages populist inventing over breakthrough inventing. A capitalist will sooner churn out a dozen High School Musicals than attempt any radical, risky breakthrough. You say it's their choice what to put resources into? Morally, it is not. Morally it is the collectives- who held all land and all resources in common until the state forcefully claimed those resources, distributed it as they chose, and entered them into the market- nothing more than theft.

In the same way that currently a capitalist owns the means of production, and "invents" by putting the means of production into the custody of those who actually invent, all the while retaining ownership of the means of production- so too a collective society can do the same.

[Demogorgon]

So what? Again, workforce is cheap and abundant. The less a job pays, the less skill it requires, the more people can do it, the less value it can produce to the rest of the people .

Ideas are different. Some are a lot better than other’s.

Just about all of it? Manual human labor adds very little additional value to products which people desire. I would just love to see the economic calculations you used to work that out. Are you really saying that minus all manuel work, the world would still be able to produce close to fifty five trillion dollars worth of goods and services each year?

Come on, show us the sums!


No. It just explains why some people earn more than others. They do more for the rest of us. But these are not the people that earn the most, the highest earners are the capitalists, not the innovators. An innovator can generally expect a white collar salary. That won't take them to the lap o

So? They are still looking for a way to create a product which consumers will value more. Some innovations are valued a lot more than others.

You desire the best possible product that you can get for your buck. If you do not, then it does not matter, because the rest of us are not dumb and will do it for you anyway. (get you close to the best possible price for the best possible product you desire)Naturally I want to get the most for my money, but that does not guarantee innovation, because the costs of R&D will be passed onto me, the consumer. Innovation can only happen when the company can be confident the money required will be less than the long term savings, which given the uncertain costs of development it cannot always be. Moreover any cost of development, if development takes a long time will be passed onto the consumer before any innovation comes about. It can actually raise the costs, not lower them. As a result major R&D will typically require Government funding.


Do you want me to list you the examples of all the innovations that have absolutely nothing to do with governments?
No because I will get a big long list of innovations which were carried out with Government involvement where you simply didn't know what happened. You haven't shown an overwhelming tendency to be well informed so far, so I am not expecting you to suddenly become well informed now.

Suffice to say, Government funding is a big factor in development and in the case of the far east, one of the most innovative places in the world it is involved in everything.


A lot of capitalists own capital. Not all of them put it to good use. Those who put it to good use - get more of it. Those who put it to bad use - get less of it.You still aren't explaining why it should be held predominantly in the hands of the few


Plenty of people have resources. Only a few people can put them to good use. Moreover, not a lot of people are willing to risk their own resources to see if they can be put to a better use or not.Typically those with resources will put it into investments in people they believe can put it to good use, not try to develop it themselves. If and when the rewards come, such people reap the rewards for things they did no work in achieving.


So what has stopped people from collectively owning things all these years? There is nothing wrong with voluntary forms of cooperatives. Right now they are very popular in some places. Historically though, they do not last very long. Co-operatives have a history of greater success than conventional firms. To quote from my own writing:

Critics are however entitle to a fuller argument than this, so to those who say that co-operatives can not be successful, we will offer the simple rejoinder that the empirical evidence entirely refutes them. Virtually every study conducted regarding this issue has found that worker-run firms have an equal or superior success rate compared to conventional capitalist firms. In 1973, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare found that “in no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in a long-term decline in productivity” .

In 1982 Derek Jones and Jan Svejnar found that “there is apparently consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods.” Further, in 1990 David Levine and Laura Tyson found that “participation usually leads to small, short-run improvements in performance, and sometimes leads to significant long lasting improvements… There is almost never a negative effect.”

The empirical evidence is clear. Most tellingly, I have been unable to find any study showing the opposite. No matter what time period or market that is studied, worker-run firms are always shown to be superior on average to conventional firms. In short, in the economy, as in society, democracy works.
The reason it does not happen more is the aformentioned problem of a small class of people-bourgeoisie in Marxian terminology-controlling the vast majority of the resources.


It is impossible to monopolize the resources needed to produce tings. It can only be done by force. And given that capitalism is based upon force, what exactly is this going to prove?


To spread information about the product?

To remind people that it is a good product?

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes, millions of others happen to think iphone is a good product. Some of them were probably persuaded by advertisements. So what?

Yes, people seem to really value iphone’s. Why does that bother you?

Or the power of the iphone and apple.
Did you read a word I wrote? It doesn't "bother me" that people buy iphones as opposed to whatever else, I was pointing out a good example of advertisement completely changing consumer preferences. It happens all the time. To move away from iphones, there are plenty of cases of a better and cheaper alternative to a popular product existing but not selling nearly so well because of the superior advertising power of the producer of the inferior product. Advertisers thus have the power to drive consumer demand and prevent demand for the best product.

The whole subject of the power of advertisers is addressed very well and in very readable form by JK Galbraith in "The affluent society", I suggest you read it and broaden your horizons a little more than the crap you currently draw on.

Galbraith incidentally is no Marxist, and criticises Marxism quite a lot, so you need not fear getting contaminated.

[MikeSC]

Another good book- very recent, if you're interested. I can't post links yet, it's called "Who Owns You?: The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes"


It details the strangle-hold capitalism has over medical research in a specific setting. They pay people to discover new genes, and then patent them. They do nothing with this patent- they don't do any costly further research themselves. They use it to make a profit out of and stifle the research of others.

One example is cancer research- the researchers have to search for and test a multitude of genes- which is resource-heavy anyway, but with each one patented by various capitalists it becomes even more so. The capitalist drives up the cost of cancer research to as high as s/he can- extorting as much as possible out of hospitals and labs- which the hospital/laboratory has to pay if they want to do the research. And they have to pay every time they do something in relation to that gene.

The capitalist grows richer at the expense of charities, the taxpayer, the patients- doing nothing, having never done anything except be lucky enough to start off with enough money to fund someone elses preliminary research. And where did this funding come from originally? Seizure by the state of natural resources owned collectively, as in all early civilisation.

EDIT: Note, the original researcher doesn't get any of this extorted cash, as if that would make it okay anyway- in exactly the same way that a worker doesn't share in the profit of the produce s/he makes. The capitalist/researcher relationship is actually a textbook example of Marx's ideas in the first volume of Capital.

[griffjam]

I assume this is a reply to my comment. Please read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)and get back to me.

Wage slavery isn't voluntary. The only difference between it and chattel slavery is that people are treated as raw material instead of capital.

[GracchusBabeuf]

http://www.angryflower.com/objectiv.gif

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

And the award for best use of Strawman goes to......... Socialist

YAY!!!

[коровьев]

Are you really saying that minus all manuel work, the world would still be able to produce close to fifty five trillion dollars worth of goods and services each year? No, I am saying that manual labor plays a tiny part in the creation of fifty five trillion dollars of goods and services. Each of those goods and services produced is an attempt to satisfy the desire of someone who needs that good or service. Without people seeking to make a profit, it would be impossible for people create so much wealth, as they would have no way to tell which products and goods are able to satisfy the desires of others. They would not invest their resources in an attempt create more wealth and satisfy the desires of others. As a result the creation of new wealth would stop and we would all become much more poor, very fast.



ut these are not the people that earn the most, the highest earners are the capitalists, not the innovators. An innovator can generally expect a white collar salary. That won't take them to the lap o The highest earners are those who are able to satisfy the desire’s of people better than all the rest. If a person innovated a product, but has no way to make his innovation reach the people, his innovation is useless. Luckily now people who innovate are sought out and rewarded greatly for their creative genius.


Naturally I want to get the most for my money, but that does not guarantee innovation, because the costs of R&D will be passed onto me, the consumer. Innovation can only happen when the company can be confident the money required will be less than the long term savings, which given the uncertain costs of development it cannot always be. So if you pay for all the costs of innovation, why wouldn’t the company innovate? People seeking to make more profit in the future, invest $ in their own business all the time. Spending money on research and development is also an investment, which might allow you to create better products and capture bigger market share in the future.


any cost of development, if development takes a long time will be passed onto the consumer before any innovation comes about. It can actually raise the costs, not lower them And when some sort of innovation happens, the costs get reduced significantly.


o because I will get a big long list of innovations which were carried out with Government involvement where you simply didn't know what happened. That list would be minuscule compared to mine.


You still aren't explaining why it should be held predominantly in the hands of the few Because it belongs to them fair and square.


Typically those with resources will put it into investments in people they believe can put it to good use, not try to develop it themselves. If and when the rewards come, such people reap the rewards for things they did no work in achieving. So what is wrong with that? Are you forgetting that if they put their investment in people who put it to bad use, they will lose their resources? Each time they make an investment they risk losing all of their money.



Co-operatives have a history of greater success than conventional firms No


so to those who say that co-operatives can not be successful, we will offer the simple rejoinder that the empirical evidence entirely refutes them. Yes cooperatives can be successful. Historically they are not successful for long.


small class of people-bourgeoisie in Marxian terminology-controlling the vast majority of the resources. Often times when workers pool their resources together they have more than enough to start a business together. Yet they almost always opt for someone else to start a business and take all the risks of running it. There is a reason for that.


capitalism is based upon force, Capitalism is based exclusively on voluntary relationships and cooperation.


I was pointing out a good example of advertisement completely changing consumer preferences. What is wrong with that? That is the goal of advertisement, to present a consumer with new and relevant information about the product which might make him purchase it.


there are plenty of cases of a better and cheaper alternative to a popular product existing but not selling nearly so well because of the superior advertising power of the producer of the inferior product. So? People value other things in product besides it being cheap and more efficient. That’s still does not matter, because those cheaper and efficient alternatives, ensure that iphone will not get too costly and will work properly.


Advertisers thus have the power to drive consumer demand and prevent demand for the best product. Or they have the power to make consumer to change his mind about what they seek in the best product. What is wrong with that?

[Demogorgon]

You are getting ridiculous here. All you can offer is grand statements and an arrogant attitude. If your knowledge of the subject is too limited to address me properly then say so. If you do have the necessary knowledge, answer me instead of avoiding my questions.
No, I am saying that manual labor plays a tiny part in the creation of fifty five trillion dollars of goods and services. Each of those goods and services produced is an attempt to satisfy the desire of someone who needs that good or service. Without people seeking to make a profit, it would be impossible for people create so much wealth, as they would have no way to tell which products and goods are able to satisfy the desires of others. They would not invest their resources in an attempt create more wealth and satisfy the desires of others. As a result the creation of new wealth would stop and we would all become much more poor, very fast.Let me make this very clear. You have told us that manual labour makes up a miniscule amount of the fifty five trillion dollars worth of goods and services produced annually. I am asking you to prove it. That does not mean assertions, that means you provide me with the marginal value of labour-or as close an approximation as you can manage-in terms of number of dollars it is responsible for. Show us how you got to that figure. Until you can do that, your statements are no more than baseless assertions not worth anybody's time


The highest earners are those who are able to satisfy the desire’s of people better than all the rest. If a person innovated a product, but has no way to make his innovation reach the people, his innovation is useless. Luckily now people who innovate are sought out and rewarded greatly for their creative genius.And get paid white collar salaries. We established that. Generally in order to get something produced you have to sign over the rights to it to somebody who did none of the work.

And incidentally I might add. Innovation is not generally speaking, a case of great leaps forward being made by a few genius's. It is a slow burning process made step by step by a lot of people. Each time software developers write new programmes they are innovating. each time author's write new books, they are innovating and so on. But they do not make the profits from this.


So if you pay for all the costs of innovation, why wouldn’t the company innovate? People seeking to make more profit in the future, invest $ in their own business all the time. Spending money on research and development is also an investment, which might allow you to create better products and capture bigger market share in the future.I take it economics is not your strongpoint? If the cost of innovation is passed onto the consumer, prices go up and the consumers demand less. Potentially a lot less depending on the elasticity of their demand. Companies generally do not like to alienate their customer base like this, and besides if people buy less, potentially they still won't have the revenue needed for the research.


That list would be minuscule compared to mine.I think you need to get your eyes checked. I did not say I would give you a list, I said the list you would give me would be full of innovations achieved with Government involvement.


Because it belongs to them fair and square.Oh really? Is all the force and violence that has happened, and continues to happen, to achieve the current distribution of goods just my imagination then?


So what is wrong with that? Are you forgetting that if they put their investment in people who put it to bad use, they will lose their resources? Each time they make an investment they risk losing all of their money.
And? It is perfectly possible to give alternative models for investment. The collective return on investment is greater than the total amount invested in any given economy. By socialising investment, rather than having it carried out on an unorganised basis, we can get around the whole problem here. You will have a job explaining why that is less desirable, without turning to your book of catechisms.


No

Yes cooperatives can be successful. Historically they are not successful for long.The passage I gave you quoted a multitude of sources backing my claim. You have provided nothing at all. What reason should we have to take you seriously?


Capitalism is based exclusively on voluntary relationships and cooperation.Pull the other one pal. One can only imagine you have not yet experienced much in the way of participation in the capitalist system if you can come up with that.


What is wrong with that? That is the goal of advertisement, to present a consumer with new and relevant information about the product which might make him purchase it.

So? People value other things in product besides it being cheap and more efficient. That’s still does not matter, because those cheaper and efficient alternatives, ensure that iphone will not get too costly and will work properly.What is it that people are valuing more exactly? The reason people generally don't by the superior and cheaper products is generally either that they have not heard of them (lack of perfect information throws off capitalist calculations) or else they have been affected by advertising in such a way as to behave in a non-rational manner.


Or they have the power to make consumer to change his mind about what they seek in the best product. What is wrong with that?
The point is to emphasise the power they hold. Advertising leads consumers to make non-rational decisions. There is a plethora of documentation to prove this. Given that the whole basis of conventional capitalist economics is to assume rational actors, that presents a problem, doesn't it?

[коровьев]

You are getting ridiculous here. All you can offer is grand statements and an arrogant attitude. Come on, I am being pretty civil here. I too find a lot of your arguments offensive and not well though out. Yet, I do not try to go out my way to point this out to you every time I reply.


You have told us that manual labour makes up a miniscule amount of the fifty five trillion dollars worth of goods and services produced annually. I am asking you to prove it. I am. I am trying to make you see what goes into creation of wealth, good and services.


That does not mean assertions, But I did not give you any assertions. It is a fact that each of those good and services are created in an attempt to satisfy desires of someone else. It is also a fact that each of those goods and services produced might not be what people desire and would result in a loss and not profit. This is why those people who take on all the risks and organize people to produce things get the most reward. That is really the most important part of making things. Without people willing to risk what they have to satisfy the desires of other’s, we would not have anything.


that means you provide me with the marginal value of labour-or as close an approximation as you can manage-in terms of number of dollars it is responsible for. Ugh ok I will try to google you something soon


Until you can do that, your statements are no more than baseless assertions not worth anybody's time They are not baseless assertions, but common sense.


Generally in order to get something produced you have to sign over the rights to it to somebody who did none of the work. No you don’t. You just have to have resources to get your product to consumers.


might add. Innovation is not generally speaking, a case of great leaps forward being made by a few genius's. It is a slow burning process made step by step by a lot of people. Each time software developers write new programmes they are innovating. each time author's write new books, they are innovating and so on. But they do not make the profits from this. They get compensated for their labor.


If the cost of innovation is passed onto the consumer, prices go up and the consumers demand less. So? What is the point? There will be as much innovation as people are willing to pay for. Someone has to pay for it. If people value companies which improve their products, they will do business with those companies. They will even be willing to pay more money to express their preference.


I think you need to get your eyes checked. I did not say I would give you a list, I said the list you would give me would be full of innovations achieved with Government involvement. Currently government is everywhere in our lives. The fact that government does something right now, does not mean no one else is able to do it. Nor does it mean that having government doing it, is the best possible alternative.


Is all the force and violence that has happened, and continues to happen, to achieve the current distribution of goods just my imagination then? Those who use force do not deserve what they got. That is not what I am advocating.


And?and all things being equal, you would want to invest your money into venture that is more likely to make you money and not to lose you money.


The collective return on investment is greater than the total amount invested in any given economy. B How can collective sum be greater, if each time they make an investment, it is not a profitable investment? This type of thing is not profitable in the long run.


By socialising investment, rather than having it carried out on an unorganised basis, we can get around the whole problem here. I do not see any problems here. You just do not approve of the things which other’s buy.


The passage I gave you quoted a multitude of sources backing my claim. You have provided nothing at all. What reason should we have to take you seriously?
Quote:
The sentence I quoted after explained what the passage was supporting. I will quote It again.


so to those who say that co-operatives can not be successful, we will offer the simple rejoinder that the empirical evidence entirely refutes them. I agreed WITH that point, that in fact they can be successful, but historically they have not lasted for long. The thing you quoted does not refute my second point.


One can only imagine you have not yet experienced much in the way of participation in the capitalist system if you can come up with that. Or maybe you are just getting confused with labels and ignoring the ideas of what I am trying to say


What is it that people are valuing more exactly?. I don’t know, ask them. Could be they like doing business with Apple. Could be that they like the brand name. Could be they like the way it looks or the interface. Any number of things…





The reason people generally don't by the superior and cheaper products is generally either that they have not heard of them (lack of perfect information throws off capitalist calculations) or else they have been affected by advertising in such a way as to behave in a non-rational manner Well it is really not hard to do research on internet and find the cheapest and best product available. It takes about 10-15 minutes. Apparently many people just do not care that much about those things.


The point is to emphasise the power they hold. They hold the power to spend a lot of money on a 30 second slot on TV which would try to convince people who are watching the slot to purchase their product. If this was a sure way to make money, then it would be ridiculously easy for anyone to do it. All you would have to do is pool resources with 900 other people, invent some crap which no one needs and get as many commercials as possible. There is a reason why people do not that. Trying to trick people into buying things which they do not need is a bad gamble with your money.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Exactly, instead of resting on his laurels, the capitalist is lending his money out to those who can be more productive with it then he can. He is contributing production by moving money to those who can produce the most with it.

Useless parasites don't contribute. He could be removed without issue if all he is worth is money, and he certainly isn't more valuable than the person who created the ideas in the first place despite receiving a larger reward for it.

Theres capitalism, theres libertarianism, then theres ayn rand.
Ayn Rand claimed charity was evil, and that caring about friends and family over money was immoral. Ayn rand was batshit insane. Let us never bring up that festering insanity please?

[Demogorgon]

Come on, I am being pretty civil here. I too find a lot of your arguments offensive and not well though out. Yet, I do not try to go out my way to point this out to you every time I reply.

I am. I am trying to make you see what goes into creation of wealth, good and services.

But I did not give you any assertions. It is a fact that each of those good and services are created in an attempt to satisfy desires of someone else. It is also a fact that each of those goods and services produced might not be what people desire and would result in a loss and not profit. This is why those people who take on all the risks and organize people to produce things get the most reward. That is really the most important part of making things. Without people willing to risk what they have to satisfy the desires of other’s, we would not have anything.

Ugh ok I will try to google you something soon

They are not baseless assertions, but common sense. Still waiting for the figures. And googling for them is unlikely to get you what you want. Research and Development, using the broadest definition possible only accounts for 2 or 3% of Global GDP after all.


They get compensated for their labor. But that is less than the amount of wealth they have produced.


So? What is the point? There will be as much innovation as people are willing to pay for. Someone has to pay for it. If people value companies which improve their products, they will do business with those companies. They will even be willing to pay more money to express their preference.
You are twisting and turning here. The point I am making is that a corporation can only put substantial resources into innovation when it is sure of a quick return. That is why so much R&D is Government funded.

Currently government is everywhere in our lives. The fact that government does something right now, does not mean no one else is able to do it. Nor does it mean that having government doing it, is the best possible alternative. More attempts to try and wriggle out of this. Now you are admitting that the Government is often involved, but are trying to say it would happen anyway. If that were the case, why is there most innovation where the Government gets most involved?


Those who use force do not deserve what they got. That is not what I am advocating. Given that virtually all property can be traced back to a point where it was taken by force, that isn't going to help you much. In many cases the force was pretty recent.


How can collective sum be greater, if each time they make an investment, it is not a profitable investment? This type of thing is not profitable in the long run.Oh for heaven's sake, learn to read. I said that the entire amount invested in the economy is less than total returns on investment. That means if all investment were to come from a collective source, that sour

I agreed WITH that point, that in fact they can be successful, but historically they have not lasted for long. The thing you quoted does not refute my second point. Your second point is not valid either though. Co-operatives do have a good long term track record. If you want to prove otherwise, show us some evidence. Thus far in this thread, you have provided nothing to back up any of your points. Why don't you start now?


Well it is really not hard to do research on internet and find the cheapest and best product available. It takes about 10-15 minutes. Apparently many people just do not care that much about those things.

They hold the power to spend a lot of money on a 30 second slot on TV which would try to convince people who are watching the slot to purchase their product. If this was a sure way to make money, then it would be ridiculously easy for anyone to do it. All you would have to do is pool resources with 900 other people, invent some crap which no one needs and get as many commercials as possible. There is a reason why people do not that. Trying to trick people into buying things which they do not need is a bad gamble with your money.Much of the economy is built upon people buying things they do not need. Like I say, in the last few decades it has become increasingly clear thanks to new economic research that people do not always make rational choices and advertising is one of the principal reasons for this (again, see Galbraith). Capitalist economics has traditionally presumed rational actors, yet it is now known that capitalism itself causes people to act in a way that is not rational. That is a problem you are going to offer a better response to than pretending not to see it.

[коровьев]

Still waiting for the figures. And googling for them is unlikely to get you what you want. yeah I was gonna reply to some other post before googling. I will google soon.


Research and Development, using the broadest definition possible only accounts for 2 or 3% of Global GDP after all.huh? this has nothing to do with anything I said.


But that is less than the amount of wealth they have produced.Says who?


The point I am making is that a corporation can only put substantial resources into innovation when it is sure of a quick return. That is why so much R&D is Government funded.No it is not. and what does this have to do with anything?



More attempts to try and wriggle out of this. Now you are admitting that the Government is often involved, but are trying to say it would happen anyway. If that were the case, why is there most innovation where the Government gets most involved?because that is not true.


iven that virtually all property can be traced back to a point where it was taken by force, that isn't going to help you much. In many cases the force was pretty recent.The fact that some property was stolen from someone long time ago, does not make it's current owner illegitimate.


. I said that the entire amount invested in the economy is less than total returns on investment. That means if all investment were to come from a collective source, that sourhuh?


Your second point is not valid either though. Co-operatives do have a good long term track record. If you want to prove otherwise, show us some evidence.No they don't. That is why there is so little of them now.


Much of the economy is built upon people buying things they do not need. The fact that they bought it indicates that they did not agree with you when they made that purchase.



clear thanks to new economic research that people do not always make rational choices and advertising is one of the principal reasons for thisThere is no such thing as a"rational choice". What is rational to you, maybe not be rational to someone else

[Kassad]

And the award for best use of Strawman goes to......... Socialist

YAY!!!

And the award for most belligerent, arrogant and pretentious poster with no regard for human development or the conservation of anything the world has to offer goes to...

...Well fuck, you'll never guess who it is.

[коровьев]

ok just found something on google. Not surprisingly it is from Ayn Rand institute, but it comes with a pretty good example of CEO acumen.


"How can the work of a corporate paper-pusher be worth so many millions of dollars?" The answer is that successful CEOs are as indispensable to their companies as Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks are to their teams. They earn their rewards.
How big an influence can one man have on the fortunes of the entire corporation? Consider the impact of Jack Welch on General Electric. Before his tenure as CEO, the company was a bloated giant, floundering under its own weight. Splintered into dozens of distinct and inefficient business units, GE was scarcely making a profit. Welch turned it around. He streamlined and reorganized the company's operations and implemented a sound business strategy yielding more than $400 billion worth of shareholder wealth.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4555

[revolution inaction]

"How can the work of a corporate paper-pusher be worth so many millions of dollars?" The answer is that successful CEOs are as indispensable to their companies as Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks are to their teams. They earn their rewards.

Yes they do http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7667214.stm


Four months after leaving Royal Bank of Scotland, former chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin is under fire for the generosity of his £650,000-a-year pension.
...
Even before his departure, Sir Fred was under fire because of heavy losses and a £12bn rights issue to raise more money for RBS.

Excellent value for money dont you think? :D

[revolution inaction]

double post

[GracchusBabeuf]

And the award for most belligerent, arrogant and pretentious poster with no regard for human development or the conservation of anything the world has to offer goes to...

...Well fuck, you'll never guess who it is.Actually exchanges with Objectivists is providing some of the real motives behind the bourgeois class and its apologists. Objectivism with its brazen goal of crushing the working class by the business class is like fascism stripped of occultism because of its explicit goal for class warfare by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

[Demogorgon]

yeah I was gonna reply to some other post before googling. I will google soon. Stillwaiting for the figures.


huh? this has nothing to do with anything I said.GDP is a measure of output. If only 2 or 3% can be attributed to R&D, it means that not much of the fifty five trilion under discussion is coming from innovation at any given time.


Says who?How can the capitalist make a profit if they pay the full value of each person's work?


because that is not true.You seem to have an odd idea of what is true or not. Truth is not defined by whatever happens to suit you most. The plain fact is, the more the Government spends on R&D, the more innovation there is. That is why Japan has been so innovative for instance, the Government has spent a fortune on innovation.


The fact that some property was stolen from someone long time ago, does not make it's current owner illegitimate.How long ago does the theft have to be before the property becomes legitimate again?


huh?
Investment is not a zero-sum game. If we do it collectively, we always win.

No they don't. That is why there is so little of them now.What planet are you living on exactly? There are co-ops everywhere. In Anglo-American legal systems it is difficult for them to function, because the law actually prevents them from operating in a properly democratic manner, but in countries where the law does not hinder them, they positively thrive.


The fact that they bought it indicates that they did not agree with you when they made that purchase.

There is no such thing as a"rational choice". What is rational to you, maybe not be rational to someone else
Do you actually know any economics?

According to conventional economics, a rational consumer seeks to maximise utility. Capitalist theory is mostly predicated on the assumption that virtually all people will do this. We now know that this is not the case. Do you have any way around this?

[ZeroNowhere]

Actually exchanges with Objectivists is providing some of the real motives behind the bourgeois class and its apologists. Objectivism with its brazen goal of crushing the working class by the business class is like fascism stripped of occultism because of its explicit goal for class warfare by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.
"Her [Rand's] philosophy, Objectivism, upholds objective reality (as opposed to supernaturalism), reason as man's only means of knowledge (as opposed to faith or skepticism), free will (as opposed to determinism--by biology or environment), and an ethics of rational self-interest (as opposed to the sacrifice of oneself to others or others to self)."
-Michael S. Berliner, board member of the Ayn Rand Institute. Emphasis mine.

'Objectivism' evidently does not exist, and it would appear to be impossible for any of these 'Objectivists' to ever exist. In the end, they're basically just those neoliberals we're so fond of that are libertarian in nothing but philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)). With a little bit of ethical egoism (aka. The 'I'm a special snowflake!' philosophy), I suppose.

[synthesis]

The fact that some property was stolen from someone long time ago, does not make it's current owner illegitimate.

So what does legitimize ownership? Inheritance? Or just "getting away with it"?

[Ragnar Danneskjöld]

Useless parasites don't contribute. He could be removed without issue if all he is worth is money, and he certainly isn't more valuable than the person who created the ideas in the first place despite receiving a larger reward for it.

Theres capitalism, theres libertarianism, then theres ayn rand.
Ayn Rand claimed charity was evil, and that caring about friends and family over money was immoral. Ayn rand was batshit insane. Let us never bring up that festering insanity please?


"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?


From that essay in the OP.

[Dimentio]

Say goodbye to money (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=103). ^^

[Publius]

The fact that some property was stolen from someone long time ago, does not make it's current owner illegitimate. Yes it does. If I steal your cordless drill and sell it some guy, and he sells it to another guy, and he sells it to another guy, so on down the line, it's still YOUR drill. Everyone who buys it is purchasing stolen property which, by definition, they cannot own since they didn't procure ownership rights from the rightful owner. Crimes don't go away or stop becoming crimes just because a bunch of time passes.

[Publius]

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. So we're free to issue an estate tax on people who aren't talented enough to have made the money they are in fact getting? Thanks, Ayn!
If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. No it doesn't.
But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? No.
Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. I would have done better with Paris Hilton's money then she did. For example, I would have donated most of it to charity.
Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. But earlier you said it wasn't right to give the money to an undeserving heir. So if no deserving heir exists, what should be done with the money?
Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil? No.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hey Publius, good to see you. Perhaps your presence might improve things - standards have been slipping lately.

[Publius]

Hey Publius, good to see you. Perhaps your presence might improve things - standards have been slipping lately.

I sensed Randroids.

[Lynx]

Exactly, instead of resting on his laurels, the capitalist is lending his money out to those who can be more productive with it then he can. He is contributing production by moving money to those who can produce the most with it.
Yes, also known as investing.
When money is treated as wealth, those who possess it are considered to be investing it. When money is treated as a means of exchange, another word is used: spending

Spending is just as effective as investing, if not more so.

If Paris Hilton were to spend all her money and live from paycheck to paycheck, she would be maximizing her productivity, both personal and economic.

It is pretty clear the lending out to those who had bad credit and "needed" a home with subprime mortgages (encouraged highly by the government with subsidies, and institutions like FreddieMac was very, very unproductive. As a result this lending has decreased now to a more productive level.
If house prices had continued to rise, then such NINJA loans would have been 'productive'. Rising equity would have securitized the loans.

[Pogue]

Do the randroid, a form of dance which is similar to the robot but also involves twatting poor people as you jig about

[Jack]

Rand's ideology is so bankrupt she had to obscure it in novels because she couldn't sell it otherwise.

[Das war einmal]

When money makes money, someone is borrowing and someone is lending. When I borrow money from someone, their is a price to that. I promise to pay him back more in the future for using his money right now. This is no different then any other type of voluntary exchange.

No, its not the same. There is no production behind interest, making it a world of difference.


Paris Hilton may have been born wealthy and had many advantages in life, but she has provided much value to the economy. People for some reason, god knows why, people like watching Paris Hilton, they like to look at her, they like the entertainment that she provides. She makes her own money, and I have no doubt that the would have been a successful model with or without the help of her parents.

Another fine example why the current system (or the libertarian system you undoubtedly would like to see) is rotten to the core. Unequal chances because your parents dont have as much money as Paris Hiltons'

[Os Cangaceiros]

Where the hell is GeneCosta? I figured he'd be all over this thread, seeing as Randroids and Austrians seem to be his favorite OI sparring partners.

I don't even see the point of debating Randroids anymore. No common ground will ever be reached.

[Lynx]

I was hoping they could be lured by using meritocracy as bait.