II.
Rand's early life mirrored the experience of her most devoted readers. A bright but socially awkward woman, she harbored the suspicion early on that her intellectual gifts caused classmates to shun her. She was born Alissa Rosenbaum in 1905 in St. Petersburg. Her Russian-Jewish family faced severe state discrimination, first for being Jewish under the czars, and then for being wealthy merchants under the Bolsheviks, who stole her family's home and business for the alleged benefit of the people.
Anne C. Heller, in her skillful life of Rand, traces the roots of Rand's philosophy to an even earlier age. (Heller paints a more detailed and engaging portrait of Rand's interior life, while Burns more thoroughly analyzes her ideas.) Around the age of five, Alissa Rosenbaum's mother instructed her to put away some of her toys for a year. She offered up her favorite possessions, thinking of the joy that she would feel when she got them back after a long wait. When the year had passed, she asked her mother for the toys, only to be told she had given them away to an orphanage. Heller remarks that "this may have been Rand's first encounter with injustice masquerading as what she would later acidly call ‘altruism.’ " (The anti-government activist Grover Norquist has told a similar story from childhood, in which his father would steal bites of his ice cream cone, labelling each bite "sales tax" or "income tax." The psychological link between a certain form of childhood deprivation and extreme libertarianism awaits serious study.)
Rosenbaum dreamed of fame as a novelist and a scriptwriter, and fled to the United States in 1926, at the age of twenty-one. There she adopted her new name, for reasons that remain unclear. Rand found relatives to support her temporarily in Chicago, before making her way to Hollywood. Her timing was perfect: the industry was booming, and she happened to have a chance encounter with the director Cecil B. DeMille--who, amazingly, gave a script-reading job to the young immigrant who had not yet quite mastered the English language. Rand used her perch as a launching pad for a career as a writer for the stage and the screen.
Rand’s political philosophy remained amorphous in her early years. Aside from a revulsion at communism, her primary influence was Nietzsche, whose exaltation of the superior individual spoke to her personally. She wrote of one of the protagonists of her stories that "he does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people"; and she meant this as praise. Her political worldview began to crystallize during the New Deal, which she immediately interpreted as a straight imitation of Bolshevism. Rand threw herself into advocacy for Wendell Wilkie, the Republican presidential nominee in 1940, and after Wilkie’s defeat she bitterly predicted "a Totalitarian America, a world of slavery, of starvation, of concentration camps and of firing squads." Her campaign work brought her into closer contact with conservative intellectuals and pro-business organizations, and helped to refine her generalized anti-communist and crudely Nietzschean worldview into a moral defense of the individual will and unrestrained capitalism.
Rand expressed her philosophy primarily through two massive novels: The Fountainhead, which appeared in 1943, and Atlas Shrugged, which appeared in 1957. Both tomes, each a runaway best-seller, portrayed the struggle of a brilliant and ferociously individualistic man punished for his virtues by the weak-minded masses. It was Atlas Shrugged that Rand deemed the apogee of her life’s work and the definitive statement of her philosophy. She believed that the principle of trade governed all human relationships--that in a free market one earned money only by creating value for others. Hence, one’s value to society could be measured by his income. History largely consisted of "looters and moochers" stealing from society’s productive elements.
In essence, Rand advocated an inverted Marxism. In the Marxist analysis, workers produce all value, and capitalists merely leech off their labor. Rand posited the opposite. In Atlas Shrugged, her hero, John Galt, leads a capitalist strike, in which the brilliant business leaders who drive all progress decide that they will no longer tolerate the parasitic workers exploiting their talent, and so they withdraw from society to create their own capitalistic paradise free of the ungrateful, incompetent masses. Galt articulates Rand’s philosophy:
The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you
have damned the strong.
The bifurcated class analysis did not end the similarities between Rand’s worldview and Marxism. Rand’s Russian youth imprinted upon her a belief in the polemical influence of fiction. She once wrote to a friend that "it’s time we realize--as the Reds do--that spreading our ideas in the form of fiction is a great weapon, because it arouses the public to an emotional, as well as intellectual response to our cause." She worked both to propagate her own views and to eliminate opposing views. In 1947 she testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, arguing that the film Song of Russia, a paean to the Soviet Union made in 1944, represented communist propaganda rather than propaganda for World War II, which is what it really supported. (Rand, like most rightists of her day, opposed American entry into the war.)
In 1950, Rand wrote the influential Screen Guide for Americans, the Motion Picture Alliance’s industry guidebook for avoiding subtle communist influence in its films. The directives, which neatly summarize Rand’s worldview, included such categories as "Don’t Smear The Free Enterprise System," "Don’t Smear Industrialists" ("it is they who created the opportunities for achieving the unprecedented material wealth of the industrial age"), "Don’t Smear Wealth," and "Don’t Deify ‘The Common Man’ " ("if anyone is classified as ‘common’--he can be called ‘common’ only in regard to his personal qualities. It then means that he has no outstanding abilities, no outstanding virtues, no outstanding intelligence. Is that an object of glorification?"). Like her old idol Nietzsche, she denounced a transvaluation of values according to which the strong had been made weak and the weak were praised as the strong.
Rand’s hotly pro-capitalist novels oddly mirrored the Socialist Realist style, with two-dimensional characters serving as ideological props. Burns notes some of the horrifying implications of Atlas Shrugged. "In one scene," she reports, "[Rand] describes in careful detail the characteristics of passengers doomed to perish in a violent railroad clash, making it clear their deaths are warranted by their ideological errors." The subculture that formed around her--a cult of the personality if ever there was one--likewise came to resemble a Soviet state in miniature. Beginning with the publication of The Fountainhead, Rand began to attract worshipful followers. She cultivated these (mostly) young people interested in her work, and as her fame grew she spent less time engaged in any way with the outside world, and increasingly surrounded herself with her acolytes, who communicated in concepts and terms that the outside world could not comprehend.
Rand called her doctrine "Objectivism," and it eventually expanded well beyond politics and economics to psychology, culture, science (she considered the entire field of physics "corrupt"), and sundry other fields. Objectivism was premised on the absolute centrality of logic to all human endeavors. Emotion and taste had no place. When Rand condemned a piece of literature, art, or music (she favored Romantic Russian melodies from her youth and detested Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms), her followers adopted the judgment. Since Rand disliked facial hair, her admirers went clean-shaven. When she bought a new dining room table, several of them rushed to find the same model for themselves.
Rand’s most important acolyte was Nathan Blumenthal, who first met her as a student infatuated with The Fountainhead. Blumenthal was born in Canada in 1930. In 1949 he wrote to Rand, and began to visit her extensively, and fell under her spell. He eventually changed his name to Nathaniel Branden, signifying in the ancient manner of all converts that he had repudiated his old self and was reborn in the image of Rand, from whom he adapted his new surname. She designated Branden as her intellectual heir.
She allowed him to run the Nathaniel Branden Institute, a small society dedicated to promoting Objectivism through lectures, therapy sessions, and social activities. The courses, he later wrote, began with the premises that "Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived" and "Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world." Rand also presided over a more select circle of followers in meetings every Saturday night, invitations to which were highly coveted among the Objectivist faithful. These meetings themselves were frequently ruthless cult-like exercises, with Rand singling out members one at a time for various personality failings, subjecting them to therapy by herself or Branden, or expelling them from the charmed circle altogether.
So strong was the organization’s hold on its members that even those completely excommunicated often maintained their faith. In 1967, for example, the journalist Edith Efron was, in Heller’s account, "tried in absentia and purged, for gossiping, or lying, or refusing to lie, or flirting; surviving witnesses couldn’t agree on exactly what she did." Upon her expulsion, Efron wrote to Rand that "I fully and profoundly agree with the moral judgment you have made of me, and with the action you have taken to end social relations." One of the Institute’s therapists counseled Efron’s eighteen-year-old son, also an Objectivist, to cut all ties with his mother, and made him feel unwelcome in the group when he refused to do so. (Efron’s brother, another Objectivist, did temporarily disown her.)
Sex and romance loomed unusually large in Rand’s worldview. Objectivism taught that intellectual parity is the sole legitimate basis for romantic or sexual attraction. Coincidentally enough, this doctrine cleared the way for Rand--a woman possessed of looks that could be charitably described as unusual, along with abysmal personal hygiene and grooming habits--to seduce young men in her orbit. Rand not only persuaded Branden, who was twenty-five years her junior, to undertake a long-term sexual relationship with her, she also persuaded both her husband and Branden’s wife to consent to this arrangement. (They had no rational basis on which to object, she argued.) But she prudently instructed them to keep the affair secret from the other members of the Objectivist inner circle.
At some point, inevitably, the arrangement began to go very badly. Branden’s wife began to break down--Rand diagnosed her with "emotionalism," never imagining that her sexual adventures might have contributed to the young woman’s distraught state. Branden himself found the affair ever more burdensome and grew emotionally and sexually withdrawn from Rand. At one point Branden suggested to Rand that a second affair with another woman closer to his age might revive his lust. Alas, Rand--whose intellectual adjudications once again eerily tracked her self-interest--determined that doing so would "destroy his mind." He would have to remain with her. Eventually Branden confessed to Rand that he could no longer muster any sexual attraction for her, and later that he actually had undertaken an affair with another woman despite Rand’s denying him permission. After raging at Branden, Rand excommunicated him fully. The two agreed not to divulge their affair. Branden told his followers only that he had "betrayed the principles of Objectivism" in an "unforgiveable" manner and renounced his role within the organization.
Rand’s inner circle turned quickly and viciously on their former superior. Alan Greenspan, a cherished Rand confidant, signed a letter eschewing any future contact with Branden or his wife. Objectivist students were forced to sign loyalty oaths, which included the promise never to contact Branden, or to buy his forthcoming book or any future books that he might write. Rand’s loyalists expelled those who refused these orders, and also expelled anyone who complained about the tactics used against dissidents. Some of the expelled students, desperate to retain their lifeline to their guru, used pseudonyms to re-enroll in the courses or re-subscribe to her newsletter. But many just drifted away, and over time the Rand cult dwindled to a hardened few.
III.
Ultimately the Objectivist movement failed for the same reason that communism failed: it tried to make its people live by the dictates of a totalizing ideology that failed to honor the realities of human existence. Rand’s movement devolved into a corrupt and cruel parody of itself. She herself never won sustained personal influence within mainstream conservatism or the Republican Party. Her ideological purity and her unstable personality prevented her from forming lasting coalitions with anybody who disagreed with any element of her catechism.
Moreover, her fierce attacks on religion--she derided Christianity, again in a Nietzschean manner, as a religion celebrating victimhood--made her politically radioactive on the right. The Goldwater campaign in 1964 echoed distinctly Randian themes--"profits," the candidate proclaimed, "are the surest sign of responsible behavior"--but he ignored Rand’s overtures to serve as his intellectual guru. He was troubled by her atheism. In an essay in National Review ten years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged, M. Stanton Evans summarized the conservative view on Rand. She "has an excellent grasp of the way capitalism is supposed to work, the efficiencies of free enterprise, the central role of private property and the profit motive, the social and political costs of welfare schemes which seek to compel a false benevolence," he wrote, but unfortunately she rejects "the Christian culture which has given birth to all our freedoms."
The idiosyncracies of Objectivism never extended beyond the Rand cult, though it was a large cult with influential members--and yet her central contribution to right-wing thought has retained enormous influence. That contribution was to express the opposition to economic redistribution in moral terms, as a moral depravity. A long and deep strand of classical liberal thought, stretching back to Locke, placed the individual in sole possession of his own economic destiny. The political scientist C. B. MacPherson called this idea "possessive individualism," or "making the individual the sole proprietor of his own person and capacities, owing nothing to society for them." The theory of possessive individualism came under attack in the Marxist tradition, but until the era of the New Deal it was generally accepted as a more or less accurate depiction of the actual social and economic order. But beginning in the mid-1930s, and continuing into the postwar years, American society saw widespread transfers of wealth from the rich to the poor and the middle class. In this context, the theory of possessive individualism could easily evolve into a complaint against the exploitation of the rich. Rand pioneered this leap of logic--the ideological pity of the rich for the oppression that they suffer as a class.
There was more to Rand’s appeal. In the wake of a depression that undermined the prestige of business, and then a postwar economy that was characterized by the impersonal corporation, her revival of the capitalist as a romantic hero, even a superhuman figure, naturally flattered the business elite. Here was a woman saying what so many of them understood instinctively. "For twenty-five years," gushed a steel executive to Rand, "I have been yelling my head off about the little-realized fact that eggheads, socialists, communists, professors, and so-called liberals do not understand how goods are produced. Even the men who work at the machines do not understand it." Rand, finally, restored the boss to his rightful mythic place.
On top of all these philosophical compliments to success and business, Rand tapped into a latent elitism that had fallen into political disrepute but never disappeared from the economic right. Ludwig von Mises once enthused to Rand, "You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your condition which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." Rand articulated the terror that conservatives felt at the rapid leveling of incomes in that era--their sense of being singled out by a raging mob. She depicted the world in apocalyptic terms. Even slow encroachments of the welfare state, such as the minimum wage or public housing, struck her as totalitarian. She lashed out at John Kennedy in a polemical nonfiction tome entitled The Fascist New Frontier, anticipating by several decades Jonah Goldberg’s equally wild Liberal Fascism.
Rand’s most enduring accomplishment was to infuse laissez-faire economics with the sort of moralistic passion that had once been found only on the left. Prior to Rand’s time, two theories undergirded economic conservatism. The first was Social Darwinism, the notion that the advancement of the human race, like other natural species, relied on the propagation of successful traits from one generation to the next, and that the free market served as the equivalent of natural selection, in which government interference would retard progress. The second was neoclassical economics, which, in its most simplistic form, described the marketplace as a perfectly self-correcting
instrument. These two theories had in common a practical quality. They described a laissez-faire system that worked to the benefit of all, and warned that intervention would bring harmful consequences. But Rand, by contrast, argued for laissez-faire capitalism as an ethical system. She did believe that the rich pulled forward society for the benefit of one and all, but beyond that, she portrayed the act of taxing the rich to aid the poor as a moral offense.
Countless conservatives and libertarians have adopted this premise as an ideological foundation for the promotion of their own interests. They may believe the consequentialist arguments against redistribution--that Bill Clinton’s move to render the tax code slightly more progressive would induce economic calamity, or that George W. Bush’s making the tax code somewhat less progressive would usher in a boom; but the utter failure of those predictions to come to pass provoked no re-thinking whatever on the economic right. For it harbored a deeper belief in the immorality of redistribution, a righteous sense that the federal tax code and budget represent a form of organized looting aimed at society’s most virtuous--and this sense, which remains unshakeable, was owed in good measure to Ayn Rand.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (38)
Ayn Rand and the Invincible Cult of Selfishness on the American Right by J. Chait
"Her political worldview began to crystallize during the New Deal, which she immediately interpreted as a straight imitation of Bolshevism. Rand threw herself into advocacy for Wendell Wilkie, the Republican presidential nominee in 1940, and after Wilkie’s defeat she bitterly predicted "a Totalitarian America, a world of slavery, of starvation, of concentration camps and of firing squads."
Ms. Rand compares FDR's New Deal to "a straight imitation of Bolshevism." Wilkie's defeat as ushering in the new dark ages: slavery, starvation, concentration camps and firing squads. Will the wonders of abstract political ... view full comment
Ayn Rand and the Invincible Cult of Selfishness on the American Right by J. Chait
"Her political worldview began to crystallize during the New Deal, which she immediately interpreted as a straight imitation of Bolshevism. Rand threw herself into advocacy for Wendell Wilkie, the Republican presidential nominee in 1940, and after Wilkie’s defeat she bitterly predicted "a Totalitarian America, a world of slavery, of starvation, of concentration camps and of firing squads."
Ms. Rand compares FDR's New Deal to "a straight imitation of Bolshevism." Wilkie's defeat as ushering in the new dark ages: slavery, starvation, concentration camps and firing squads. Will the wonders of abstract political analysis ever cease.
I would characterize Ms. Rand as "educated beyond her means and courageous in her confusion." From Ms. Rand's devoted circle we received the dutiful Alan Greenspan and his theory of the perfect market.
Let us assign Ms. Rand's works to the supplemental reading lists of American Fiction.
While I agree overall with the point of the article, the analysis of Rand's depiction of of class struggle is overly simplistic. In fact, most of the wealthy in Atlas Shrugged are presented as clearly undeserving of their wealth, and exploit their political connections in order to maintain their social positions when confronted by those with talent who threaten their positions. These weak rich are the ones who steal from the hard-working individuals, not the workers. The workers are merely pawns, symbols, exploited by the incompetent inheritors of wealth.
Unfortunately for many Rand readers, they see themselves as Reardon the steel producer – who clearly is superior in his ability to ... view full comment
While I agree overall with the point of the article, the analysis of Rand's depiction of of class struggle is overly simplistic. In fact, most of the wealthy in Atlas Shrugged are presented as clearly undeserving of their wealth, and exploit their political connections in order to maintain their social positions when confronted by those with talent who threaten their positions. These weak rich are the ones who steal from the hard-working individuals, not the workers. The workers are merely pawns, symbols, exploited by the incompetent inheritors of wealth.
Unfortunately for many Rand readers, they see themselves as Reardon the steel producer – who clearly is superior in his ability to be productive and self-reliant and it requires concerted effort by the government to hold him back – but in fact they are the undeserving. Reardon wouldn’t waste time with political concerns when there is clearly no threat to his well-being – we don’t live in an authoritarian communist state, and liberals don’t aspire to create one (hence the term liberal, or free). Rand disciples, on the other hand, face the constant daily imaginary threat that explains why they are not as successful as they believe they ought to be given their over-estimation of their own abilities.
I went to Yale, and there were some really, really weird people in the Party of the Right. There's something to be said about conservatives being five degrees off top dead center.
I went to Yale, and there were some really, really weird people in the Party of the Right. There's something to be said about conservatives being five degrees off top dead center.
Rand wasn't the guardian of market capitalism, she was the guardian of metaphysical market capitalism. She preached the particularly virulent strain of authoritarianism that True Believers are ever drawn to: the objective truth. Their truth.
For them, capitalism is beyond mere moral and political truths. It is an epistemological truth which the Ayndroids preach no less fervently than the most fierce sectarian religous groups preach the gospel according to God. Their God.
Reason as God.
A more down to earth demagoguery, true. But no less illusory.
To her credit though, Rand rejected both coercion and violence as a means to achieve her supremely rational end. But Objectivism is now bascially red ... view full comment
Rand wasn't the guardian of market capitalism, she was the guardian of metaphysical market capitalism. She preached the particularly virulent strain of authoritarianism that True Believers are ever drawn to: the objective truth. Their truth.
For them, capitalism is beyond mere moral and political truths. It is an epistemological truth which the Ayndroids preach no less fervently than the most fierce sectarian religous groups preach the gospel according to God. Their God.
Reason as God.
A more down to earth demagoguery, true. But no less illusory.
To her credit though, Rand rejected both coercion and violence as a means to achieve her supremely rational end. But Objectivism is now bascially reduced to a cult [and an ATM machine for the ARI] and the only member of the original "collective" who ever got close to the real world was Alan Greespan.
And did not the economic crisis present him with a real crisis of faith?
george
george walton
This proves something that I've always believed -- objectivism is the philosophy of rich, spoiled, narcissistic children.
This proves something that I've always believed -- objectivism is the philosophy of rich, spoiled, narcissistic children.
I love this nonsensical quote: She "has an excellent grasp of the way capitalism is supposed to work, the efficiencies of free enterprise, the central role of private property and the profit motive, the social and political costs of welfare schemes which seek to compel a false benevolence," he wrote, but unfortunately she rejects "the Christian culture which has given birth to all our freedoms."
Amazing how Evans reduced Christianity to nothing more than an acquired culture built up over time, as opposed to what it is, a radical theology which is an utter refutation of Ayn Rand and her beliefs, a belief in the value of the other above and beyond how we should value ourselves. For Christians i ... view full comment
I love this nonsensical quote: She "has an excellent grasp of the way capitalism is supposed to work, the efficiencies of free enterprise, the central role of private property and the profit motive, the social and political costs of welfare schemes which seek to compel a false benevolence," he wrote, but unfortunately she rejects "the Christian culture which has given birth to all our freedoms."
Amazing how Evans reduced Christianity to nothing more than an acquired culture built up over time, as opposed to what it is, a radical theology which is an utter refutation of Ayn Rand and her beliefs, a belief in the value of the other above and beyond how we should value ourselves. For Christians it is God, family, and Country above oneself. She was completely delusional if she could ever imagine the masses would be willing to fight and die against external threats so that the elite "supermen" could exalt themselves over the "common" man.
One of the more interesting things to watch is the battle between Randians and fundies in the Republican party, it was, after all, who coined the term "club for greed" in place of "club for growth."
I will comment, "but first"...
?? Where is the 'Print this' or similar link?
Tom
I will comment, "but first"...
?? Where is the 'Print this' or similar link?
Tom
Blackton, at their roots, Christianity and capitalism are two completely incompatiable philosophies.
Perhaps it's that very schizophrenia that will rip the GOP asunder.
Blackton, at their roots, Christianity and capitalism are two completely incompatiable philosophies.
Perhaps it's that very schizophrenia that will rip the GOP asunder.
zar:
Blackton, at their roots, Christianity and capitalism are two completely incompatiable philosophies.
george:
Yes, it's true that if you read the Bible and the Rand oeuvre you will find little in the way of philosophical compatability.
Ah, but psychologically they are just two different renditions of the same timeless defense mechanism.
After all, are they not both metaphysical rationalizations of The Whole Truth down to the bone?
That the epistemology of the Bible starts and ends in the mind of God is just another way of saying that the epistemlogy of capitalism starts and ends in the mind of Ayn Rand.
Yes, God is a fairy tale and Rand was a flesh and blood human being who grounded her episte ... view full comment
zar:
Blackton, at their roots, Christianity and capitalism are two completely incompatiable philosophies.
george:
Yes, it's true that if you read the Bible and the Rand oeuvre you will find little in the way of philosophical compatability.
Ah, but psychologically they are just two different renditions of the same timeless defense mechanism.
After all, are they not both metaphysical rationalizations of The Whole Truth down to the bone?
That the epistemology of the Bible starts and ends in the mind of God is just another way of saying that the epistemlogy of capitalism starts and ends in the mind of Ayn Rand.
Yes, God is a fairy tale and Rand was a flesh and blood human being who grounded her epistemology in the actual material relationships she observed all around her. But in the end both are packaged to sell as The Way.
In fact, when you think about it Objectivists are all the more embarassing because, having abandoned the crutch that is religion, they snuck it all in the back door, recalibrated it as Reason and worshipped it all the more.
george walton
d/a
Jonathan misses some very key points which make it easy for others to dismiss:
1. The objective is not to re-distribute income, but rather wealth (and if you don't understand the huge difference stop reading). If you compare the Ginni coefficient of US to other nations one finds that wealth is less concentrated here than in most of world. Wealth creation has nothing to do with public sector/Gov
2. Basic labor market force of skills/education and scarcity predict income, not luck or virtue. Just do the math (a regression in this case) I know this is basic econ but author leaves himself open to riducule by not examining reality. For real wealth, you usually have to take on risk as well ... view full comment
Jonathan misses some very key points which make it easy for others to dismiss:
1. The objective is not to re-distribute income, but rather wealth (and if you don't understand the huge difference stop reading). If you compare the Ginni coefficient of US to other nations one finds that wealth is less concentrated here than in most of world. Wealth creation has nothing to do with public sector/Gov
2. Basic labor market force of skills/education and scarcity predict income, not luck or virtue. Just do the math (a regression in this case) I know this is basic econ but author leaves himself open to riducule by not examining reality. For real wealth, you usually have to take on risk as well (e.g., start a business).
3. The private sector pays for the public sector. All of it. Public sector exists for private sector benefit. Just a reminder
4. Not selfish for a wealthy citizen to want the same opportunity he/she had for others. Quite the opposite. It is called the American dream. And while everyone is a drama queen these days -- dramatically increasing public sector does not help anyone in long term (if objective is wealth and true financial health)
5. No capitalist ever said markets are perfect (only journalists) Well functioning markets merely incorporate all available information.
I sometimes wish I could be a journalist where I can be provacative and slightly plausible but never ever accurate
zardoz67, I don't think Christianity and Capitalism are incompatible, until the age of 30 Jesus himself was a Capitalist (unless he did his carpentry work for free). It is the wanton accumulation of obscene wealth, and outright greed, that is incompatible with Christianity. I hope you are right about the GOP, by the way.
Mr.rationale, I think you have a very limited notion of what wealth means and how it is created. 3. The private sector pays for the public sector. All of it. Public sector exists for private sector benefit. Just a reminder.
But this is wrong, to give one example have you ever heard of the Hoover Dam? It has helped create huge wealth for the benefit of the people and it w ... view full comment
zardoz67, I don't think Christianity and Capitalism are incompatible, until the age of 30 Jesus himself was a Capitalist (unless he did his carpentry work for free). It is the wanton accumulation of obscene wealth, and outright greed, that is incompatible with Christianity. I hope you are right about the GOP, by the way.
Mr.rationale, I think you have a very limited notion of what wealth means and how it is created. 3. The private sector pays for the public sector. All of it. Public sector exists for private sector benefit. Just a reminder.
But this is wrong, to give one example have you ever heard of the Hoover Dam? It has helped create huge wealth for the benefit of the people and it was a Government project. 2. Basic labor market force of skills/education and scarcity predict income is also way too simplistic. Public sector jobs (which are a huge chunk of our economy) and their wages aren't predicted by that alone, all teachers in the US have to be certified, but pay structure is very different throughout America, so many factors go into wages. And it is naive to pretend that skills alone determine jobs in the private sector. Hell connections have been so much a part of it that some companies have even been forced to devise anti-nepotism clauses in their corporate by laws. One of the things I advise University students is if you want to get a job at company X, get to know some people at company X so they can be used as a reference. A lot of students even take unpaid internships (which works only for those students who can afford to do so, ie that have wealthy families) to get that leg up.
4. depends on how you define the American dream, for most people it is simply to have a family and a home and a decent job that pays enough to provide for your family. most Americans are grounded in reality, don't confuse the American dream with the American daydream.
"dramatically increasing public sector does not help anyone in long term (if objective is wealth and true financial health)" Of course it can, see US Great Depression. I mean, really.
blackton, I agree with you. The incompatibility is between Christianity and capitalism as it is currently practiced.
The Bible says many things about how to conduct business, most of which are anathema to modern capitalists.
Unfortunately, so many "Christians" have drunk the free market kool-aid, that they can't even see the difference anymore.
blackton, I agree with you. The incompatibility is between Christianity and capitalism as it is currently practiced.
The Bible says many things about how to conduct business, most of which are anathema to modern capitalists.
Unfortunately, so many "Christians" have drunk the free market kool-aid, that they can't even see the difference anymore.
mr_rationale: "If you compare the Ginni coefficient of US to other nations one finds that wealth is less concentrated here than in most of world."
Only if you compare the US Gini coefficient to that in places like Brazil or Colombia. It's higher than any other Western nation and comparable to countries like Russia and Burkina Faso - neither of which provide really good models of either social or economic development. The USA also exhibits less social mobility than other Western countries at this point.
"Basic labor market force of skills/education and scarcity predict income, not luck or virtue. "
Evidence?
"Public sector exists for private sector benefit. Just a reminder"
The public sector exist ... view full comment
mr_rationale: "If you compare the Ginni coefficient of US to other nations one finds that wealth is less concentrated here than in most of world."
Only if you compare the US Gini coefficient to that in places like Brazil or Colombia. It's higher than any other Western nation and comparable to countries like Russia and Burkina Faso - neither of which provide really good models of either social or economic development. The USA also exhibits less social mobility than other Western countries at this point.
"Basic labor market force of skills/education and scarcity predict income, not luck or virtue. "
Evidence?
"Public sector exists for private sector benefit. Just a reminder"
The public sector exists for the benefit of the citizenry, if things are working correctly.
Randies are as much religious fanatics as the most die-hard trotskyite or evangelist.
"After raging at Branden, Rand excommunicated him fully. The two agreed not to divulge their affair. Branden told his followers only that he had 'betrayed the principles of Objectivism' in an 'unforgiveable' manner and renounced his role within the organization."
This seems accurate only up to a point. Forty years ago I happened to be dating a true believer (whose Objectivist pamphlets, scattered about her apartment, I found more fascinating than the young lady herself) and I followed this falling out with a certain prurient interest. I recall that Branden, who had been editor of the Objectivist Newsletter and still had a list of subscribers in his possession, tired at length of the ritual d ... view full comment
"After raging at Branden, Rand excommunicated him fully. The two agreed not to divulge their affair. Branden told his followers only that he had 'betrayed the principles of Objectivism' in an 'unforgiveable' manner and renounced his role within the organization."
This seems accurate only up to a point. Forty years ago I happened to be dating a true believer (whose Objectivist pamphlets, scattered about her apartment, I found more fascinating than the young lady herself) and I followed this falling out with a certain prurient interest. I recall that Branden, who had been editor of the Objectivist Newsletter and still had a list of subscribers in his possession, tired at length of the ritual denunciations and wanted to set the record straight. So he sent out a personal message to the membership in which he revealed, with regret, the true reason for Rand's displeasure with him: the age difference of 25 years was, for him, an insuperable barrier to a romantic relationship.
Mr. R.
The objective is not to re-distribute income, but rather wealth (and if you don't understand the huge difference stop reading). If you compare the Ginni coefficient of US to other nations one finds that wealth is less concentrated here than in most of world. Wealth creation has nothing to do with public sector/Gov
george:
Neither wealth nor income is reducible down to simplistic either/or rhetorical flourishes like this.
Anyone who insists that wealth creation has nothing to do with the public sector or the government has to explain the consequences of an incestuous relationship between Washington and New York in our post Glass-Steagall; and the flagrant bailouts that took taxpayer dollar ... view full comment
Mr. R.
The objective is not to re-distribute income, but rather wealth (and if you don't understand the huge difference stop reading). If you compare the Ginni coefficient of US to other nations one finds that wealth is less concentrated here than in most of world. Wealth creation has nothing to do with public sector/Gov
george:
Neither wealth nor income is reducible down to simplistic either/or rhetorical flourishes like this.
Anyone who insists that wealth creation has nothing to do with the public sector or the government has to explain the consequences of an incestuous relationship between Washington and New York in our post Glass-Steagall; and the flagrant bailouts that took taxpayer dollars [you know, "the public"] and dumped them into the vaults on Wall Street so that more wealth can be created on route to the next bubble.
Mr. R.:
Basic labor market force of skills/education and scarcity predict income, not luck or virtue. Just do the math (a regression in this case) I know this is basic econ but author leaves himself open to riducule by not examining reality. For real wealth, you usually have to take on risk as well (e.g., start a business).
George:
Basic econ? Nothing is more basic to our crony capitalist economy [out in your real world] than the millions of dollars that change hands to make certain that the deck is vigorously stacked against labor and working people. Or are you one of the Objectivists sorts who is just down right positive that labor unions and minimum wage and social security and all the other government "transfer payments" from the private to the public sectors are Evil and Irrational. The corporations and their political enablers do everything possible to make sure the "What's the Matter With Kansas" script is all but the law of the land. Than there are the Archie Bunker Reagan Democrats [and countless white folks who still fall hard for the GOP's "Southern Strategy"] who marched on Washington Saturday to save the country from "socialism".
Mr R:
The private sector pays for the public sector. All of it. Public sector exists for private sector benefit. Just a reminder
george:
This is complete bullshit. It is a construction of reality the likes of which one would expect from characters straight out of Atlas Shrugged. Where does Project X fit into it? From surreal agriculture subsides, the military industrial complex, Wall Street bailouts, rigged tax shelters and thousands of other governmental welfare for the rich schemes the "private sector" may as well BE the "public sector" if you are talking about the government. Even the CATO hacks recognize how far removed Galt's Gultch is from the "real world" of Wall Street, K Street, the White House economic team and the power brokers in Congress.
Mr R:
Not selfish for a wealthy citizen to want the same opportunity he/she had for others. Quite the opposite. It is called the American dream. And while everyone is a drama queen these days -- dramatically increasing public sector does not help anyone in long term (if objective is wealth and true financial health)
george:
"Selfish" is a bullshit word. What in the world is "selfish" behavior? It's like the "American Dream". Who gets to say what that is? Far more crucial, of course, are the actual systemic relationships between those who wield economic and political power in America. How does THAT relationship work systemically?
But what is particularly bullshit is the fairytale in the la la land of Objectivism that we can only discuss this juncture "idealistically". It's not a stacked deck at all! It's a clash of Ideas, of Principle, of Truth, Justice and the American Way!!
These people actually believe this!!!
Mr R:
No capitalist ever said markets are perfect (only journalists) Well functioning markets merely incorporate all available information.
george:
No, but Objectivists insists we can encompass and then desribe market transactions metaphysically. We can pretend we are Aristotle and write, "The Epistemology of Ethics and Capitalism"
All available information? So, you are suggesting the information currently available is not loaded like a crooked gambler's dice? You are suggesting that Wall Street and the federal government just stand on the side and let the unloaded dice fall where they may?
You crap out or you don't based solely on education and skills?
george walton
Hard to argue with paranoid delusions. And clearly markets aren't efficient is many areas, especially where Gov involved. For exampe the first mortgage backed security (MBS) was issued by a Gov agency.
But a few corrections:
- Wealth is less concentrated here than most of the world includes favorite places like France and Sweden. It is almost impossible to create wealth in those countries and privledged families control a huge chunck of wealth. Ironic give that entrepreneur is French but very difficult to be one in France. Not about income but wealth. The income stats most folks cite don't even include investment income. Think about the last financial plan you created -- net worth m ... view full comment
Hard to argue with paranoid delusions. And clearly markets aren't efficient is many areas, especially where Gov involved. For exampe the first mortgage backed security (MBS) was issued by a Gov agency.
But a few corrections:
- Wealth is less concentrated here than most of the world includes favorite places like France and Sweden. It is almost impossible to create wealth in those countries and privledged families control a huge chunck of wealth. Ironic give that entrepreneur is French but very difficult to be one in France. Not about income but wealth. The income stats most folks cite don't even include investment income. Think about the last financial plan you created -- net worth most important right? That is wealth.
- Hoover Dam was a public works project and yes it was paid for by private sector in form of taxes and guarentee of bonds used to finance. Is the fact that private sector pays for public sector (via taxes or bond interest payments) in dispute?? My argument wasn't that Gov didn't create some value. It just doesn't create economic value on the whole. For example it is of value to have my house painted, but charging me $100K destroys economic value. Public sector sort of like a condo association, tenants pay for services but under no circumstances is the public sector the catalyst for success or wealth (assuming limited corruption).
- Suggest folks survey or take a labor economics course. Starting salaries are highly correlated to education/skills and scarcity. As a Computer Engineer my starting salary was much high than a liberal arts major whose starting salary was much higher than a high school only graduate. Is this controversial? Do a Google search on starting salaries. After starting your career other factors come into play -- ie. performance. It is not in the selfish Randy capitalists self interestes to hire someone who doesn't create value for them.
Are all of you here in public sector (or adjacent to it?)
mr_rationale, "Hoover Dam was a public works project and yes it was paid for by private sector in form of taxes and guarentee of bonds used to finance. Is the fact that private sector pays for public sector (via taxes or bond interest payments) in dispute??"
In a word, yes. The private sector pays for the public, but the public facilitates the private by issuing such things as money, creating laws, security, all essential value, this is not even mentioning public sector roads, dams, etc. without which goods and services can't move. And the public sector can exist without the private, not efficiently, etc. but it can exist. (see Soviet Union, East Germany, etc.) The private sector can't ... view full comment
mr_rationale, "Hoover Dam was a public works project and yes it was paid for by private sector in form of taxes and guarentee of bonds used to finance. Is the fact that private sector pays for public sector (via taxes or bond interest payments) in dispute??"
In a word, yes. The private sector pays for the public, but the public facilitates the private by issuing such things as money, creating laws, security, all essential value, this is not even mentioning public sector roads, dams, etc. without which goods and services can't move. And the public sector can exist without the private, not efficiently, etc. but it can exist. (see Soviet Union, East Germany, etc.) The private sector can't exist without the public, or at least in far, far smaller ways more akin to caveman living. Enough of the fetish that the only things of value are things you can physically own. Of course Government creates economic value on the whole, and I don't understand the idea that Government exists as a separate entity that leaches off the private. People who work in the public sector are people. Doctors who work in VA hospitals are just a valuable as Doctors who work in private ones (they just get paid far less but the idea of public service is abhorrent to Randians)
"Public sector sort of like a condo association, tenants pay for services but under no circumstances is the public sector the catalyst for success or wealth (assuming limited corruption)." Again, this is a vast oversimplification. I bought a condo in Shanghai, China built years ago. The government there owns the land and owns the building and I own the apartment. Of course the government was the catalyst, and of course the apartment has added wealth.
In the US we have a public-private sector symbiosis, the question then becomes how to fine tune it so the strengths of each outweigh the minuses, and how the two can best work together.
Are all of you here in public sector (or adjacent to it?)
And by the way, I worked in the Printing industry for 11 years, and in business for 15. That means nothing, unless you want to talk about makereadies and offset. But I also find it amusing you had that crack above but urged people to take an economics course. Suggest folks survey or take a labor economics course. (wait, don't economics professors work in the public sector? Or is that only for ones that work in Public Universities?)
It is remarkable how the mentality and career of Ayn Rand parallels that of Joseph Smith. Both had an insuperable belief in their own infallibility. Both were incredibly charismatic and could attract the loyalty of intelligent followers through a vicissitude of conflicting revelations. Both were incredibly dognmatic, incredibly promiscuous, and were remarkably articulate in justifying their promiscuity and dogmatism. We are fortunate that Rand was a committed atheist. Instead of attracting thousands to her half-baked philosophy, she might have attracted millions to a half-baked religion.
It is remarkable how the mentality and career of Ayn Rand parallels that of Joseph Smith. Both had an insuperable belief in their own infallibility. Both were incredibly charismatic and could attract the loyalty of intelligent followers through a vicissitude of conflicting revelations. Both were incredibly dognmatic, incredibly promiscuous, and were remarkably articulate in justifying their promiscuity and dogmatism. We are fortunate that Rand was a committed atheist. Instead of attracting thousands to her half-baked philosophy, she might have attracted millions to a half-baked religion.
mr_rationale: "- Wealth is less concentrated here than most of the world includes favorite places like France and Sweden."
Well, no, it ain't. The only way of measuring the truth of such a sweeping assertion is by looking at Gini indices (which you're now not mentioning). Increasing Gini index corresponds to increasing income inequality.
The Gini index for Sweden is 25, for France in 32.7, for the USA is 40.8. (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/147.html)
mr_rationale: "- Wealth is less concentrated here than most of the world includes favorite places like France and Sweden."
Well, no, it ain't. The only way of measuring the truth of such a sweeping assertion is by looking at Gini indices (which you're now not mentioning). Increasing Gini index corresponds to increasing income inequality.
The Gini index for Sweden is 25, for France in 32.7, for the USA is 40.8. (http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/147.html)
The right, and probably a lot of America who don't consider themselves right-wing, have no idea about the struggles poor people face, starting with the widespread skirting of well-established labor laws on the part of service and retail establishments. In addition to the lawsuits you may have heard Wal-Mart faces as a result of forced overtime without pay, it's apparently also common at McDonald's and Merry Maids franchises as well (you're just sorting rags, you're not really cleaning). And far from being lazy, many poor are rather industrious and resourceful, e. g., in the way they might create an underground economy in the housing projects bartering services (and drug dealing).
If a ... view full comment
The right, and probably a lot of America who don't consider themselves right-wing, have no idea about the struggles poor people face, starting with the widespread skirting of well-established labor laws on the part of service and retail establishments. In addition to the lawsuits you may have heard Wal-Mart faces as a result of forced overtime without pay, it's apparently also common at McDonald's and Merry Maids franchises as well (you're just sorting rags, you're not really cleaning). And far from being lazy, many poor are rather industrious and resourceful, e. g., in the way they might create an underground economy in the housing projects bartering services (and drug dealing).
If anything, Americans would prefer not to look upon the poor's bedraggled visages, keeping them out of sight and out of mind. This is shown by arresting homeless for sleeping on the street when shelters are full, or tearing down public housing without building or redirecting to enough affordable replacement units.
I was reminded by our collective disdain for the poor during Obama's health care speech last week. He emphasized that health insurance problems aren't only reserved for the poor. It's a good thing he mentioned it because we tend to think of poor as somehow drawing bad luck, so whatever happens to them can't happen to us.
Let them eat cake! say the viennoiserie class.
mr_rationale writes:
This is nonsense. Starting salaries are NOT highly correlated to education/skills. mr_rationale may believe that t ... view full comment
mr_rationale writes:
This is nonsense. Starting salaries are NOT highly correlated to education/skills. mr_rationale may believe that the average first-year lawyer or banker is much more skilled than the average computer science graduate but I very much doubt it to be true - if anything it is the opposite.
It is particularly naive to claim this when we are in the death throws of a financial bubble caused by rent-seeking bankers each claiming some rent from the same finite pool of money. In fact, "selfish Randy capitalists" often do hire less able people - relatives. Perhaps the Randy believe that Rupert Murdoch's children are the best people in the world to run the public company known as News International.
SMacEachern2: You illustrate my point. The Ginni index you cite is for income not wealth. Not sure anyone here understands the difference so I wont bother explaining.
blackton: I think you are agreeing with fact that private sector does pay for public sector but emphasizing that private sector gets some value in return. You term it symbiotic. I wish it were so.
- Yes, the Public / Private relationship is symbiotic. But to a very small degree. Applies to small portion of public sector expenditure (e.g., safety, law enforcement) the rare public works project like the Hoover dam.
- Majority of Public / Private relationship is parasitic. Public sector (or those close to public sector) ... view full comment
SMacEachern2: You illustrate my point. The Ginni index you cite is for income not wealth. Not sure anyone here understands the difference so I wont bother explaining.
blackton: I think you are agreeing with fact that private sector does pay for public sector but emphasizing that private sector gets some value in return. You term it symbiotic. I wish it were so.
- Yes, the Public / Private relationship is symbiotic. But to a very small degree. Applies to small portion of public sector expenditure (e.g., safety, law enforcement) the rare public works project like the Hoover dam.
- Majority of Public / Private relationship is parasitic. Public sector (or those close to public sector) feeds off private sector largesse and then they cause harm. Look in CA., defense contractors, etc.....
-Remainder of Public / Private relationship is merely customer / provider. I pay for a ticket on Amtrak and they provide transportation. While that is clearly of value, the issue is that without the subsidies the ticket would not be anywhere close to a competitive price. That destroys economic value. Or I pay tuition for course at public university. Merely customer / provider. Private sector pays for subsidizes that keep public sector services pricing somewhat competitive.
Interesting tidbit -- when a leading market reasearch company surveyed population about Gov attitudes a common thread was found across both left and right voters above a certain income/wealth level, something to effect of 'don't rely on Gov to solve your problems'. I agree.
ndmackenzie:
As a Computer Engineer undergrad I agree that I am more skilled than a lawyer -- for Computer Engineering tasks. However, scarcity comes into it. The limited supply of top law firm grads will earn more and I guess they do have 3 more years of education.
If you don't believe, do a search on Monster.com or Indeed.com -- salaries are higher for folks with higher educational attainmment and more skills. Call a recruiter. Ask a guidance counselor. Speak to anyone who hires people. Reality check time.
Am I missing something here -- why are folks are arguing with very basic facts?
We live in a market based economy -- important that you understand how it works -- for your own good a ... view full comment
ndmackenzie:
As a Computer Engineer undergrad I agree that I am more skilled than a lawyer -- for Computer Engineering tasks. However, scarcity comes into it. The limited supply of top law firm grads will earn more and I guess they do have 3 more years of education.
If you don't believe, do a search on Monster.com or Indeed.com -- salaries are higher for folks with higher educational attainmment and more skills. Call a recruiter. Ask a guidance counselor. Speak to anyone who hires people. Reality check time.
Am I missing something here -- why are folks are arguing with very basic facts?
We live in a market based economy -- important that you understand how it works -- for your own good and that of your kids.
- Majority of Public / Private relationship is parasitic. Public sector (or those close to public sector) feeds off private sector largesse and then they cause harm.
Again, you are not acknowledging a simple, basic, and incontravertible fact that without the Public sector, the private sector can not exist (outside of a caveman or desert island scenerio). the majority in fact is far from parasitic, it is essential. Civilization would crumble without the public sector.
I honestly don't understand your resistance to something as basic as this.
Look, I have no problem with your arguing that we should lessen government involvement in the marketplace to that of a referree. I have no problem wi ... view full comment
- Majority of Public / Private relationship is parasitic. Public sector (or those close to public sector) feeds off private sector largesse and then they cause harm.
Again, you are not acknowledging a simple, basic, and incontravertible fact that without the Public sector, the private sector can not exist (outside of a caveman or desert island scenerio). the majority in fact is far from parasitic, it is essential. Civilization would crumble without the public sector.
I honestly don't understand your resistance to something as basic as this.
Look, I have no problem with your arguing that we should lessen government involvement in the marketplace to that of a referree. I have no problem with the argument that the government should not involve itself in profit making endevours (would Republicans felt the same way about farm price supports), that is not as efficient or as productive as the private sector can be. But this anti-gov. fetish is just silly. Do you honestly imagine mankind (or Americans) could or would have gone to the moon via the private sector? Part of the reason why the internet was designed was as a Pentagon war time strategy. And for most of history, most inventors were agents of the state in which they lived. It was only when a state achieved so much wealth and power that the private sector could afford to subsidize innovation.
Name one enduring Empire in history that did not have a robust public sector. The Roman empire would have been nothing without the Roman army corps of engineers.
And again, I also don't get this division between public and private, together they form a whole, and in the US both private and public are comprised of we the people.
Wow!
Nothing like Ayn Rand to start a thread that never stops. This ought to stay at the top of both the Most Viewed and Most Commented lists for weeks and weeks to come. Only the upcoming Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck wedding engagement [trust me on this---objectively] has a chance to bring it crashing down.
If nothing else, it will blow Marty Peretz and the pinched Spine threads out of the top spot indefinitely.
Now back to Mr R:
Wealth is less concentrated here than most of the world includes favorite places like France and Sweden...
George:
Maybe, but there are a few other things less concentrated there too. Like, say, homeless folks, impoverished children, hunger and poverty, families wiped ou ... view full comment
Wow!
Nothing like Ayn Rand to start a thread that never stops. This ought to stay at the top of both the Most Viewed and Most Commented lists for weeks and weeks to come. Only the upcoming Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck wedding engagement [trust me on this---objectively] has a chance to bring it crashing down.
If nothing else, it will blow Marty Peretz and the pinched Spine threads out of the top spot indefinitely.
Now back to Mr R:
Wealth is less concentrated here than most of the world includes favorite places like France and Sweden...
George:
Maybe, but there are a few other things less concentrated there too. Like, say, homeless folks, impoverished children, hunger and poverty, families wiped out from medical emergencies, infant mortality, women desparate for day care, the rampant psychological fear and crushing anxiety many over here face stepping out into the labor markets with little or no social safety nets.
In other words, this tautological game can be played [going around and around in the same circle of cliches] by both sides. What the reactionaries usually do to rationalize their own bullshit here [and yes there is bullshit rationalized by my side too] is to point out that every single man, woman and child not able to keep up with the Jones [in the market] are a bunch of fucking losers, living only to sponge off all the rest of us hardworking 9/12 project types.
Mr R:
Hoover Dam was a public works project and yes it was paid for by private sector in form of taxes and guarentee of bonds used to finance.
george:
This is about as far inside the black hole of a Randroid mind you are ever likely to venture. Any farther in and thought itself can't get out.
Again, R constructs these two tautological, epistemological fairy tale contraptions out of words. Indeed [no doubt] in the grand tradition of Dame Rand, he yanks them a priori out of the philosophical premises only the most rational minds accrue in, among other places, the ARI ivory towers.
The Private Sector and The Public Sector. The Apollonians and the Dionysians. Rand's not Nietzsche's rendition. And the one thing we can be absolutely certain about is that the relationship between them would be simply sublime if only the actual conflicting and contradictory components of the enormously complex world that we actually live in would read John Galt's state of the dysfunctional union speech in AS and make the necessary metaphysical adjustments.
The Hoover Dam.
The Hoover Dam was funded from taxes paid by all citizens. Just as it was built from the labor [the brains and the braun] of all segments of the population. It's all jumbled together inextricably and ineffably in the historical evolution of political econimy.
Then there are all those millions upon millions of folks who are not quite capitalists and not quite proletariat. Engineers, teachers, professionals, scientists. The folks who all contribute in their own way to whatever rendition of the "public good" the ideologues subscribe to. The "middle class" has always been a tricky lot for both the Marxists and the Libertarians to pin down. Yes, they too are either/or, of course...but more nuanced in ways not quite figured out yet. A more sophisticated lumpenproletariat, perhaps?
Mr R:
[I] suggest folks survey or take a labor economics course. Starting salaries are highly correlated to education/skills and scarcity.
george:
Ah, yes: "take courses".
What happens in courses? Well, professors bursting at the seams with words, assign students to read books bursting at the seams with words so that both can fling the words back and forth in order to finally determine once and for all which words and in which order reflect the only words in the only order any truly rational man or woman would embrace....religiously.
As a computer engineer, of course, the paper R chased in educating himself contained particular and precise words. Hard words that actually function empirically in a particular and precise way. Or else, we wouldn't have this technology at all would we? But R then takes the feckless, sophistic leap from the words that build computers to those that tell folks in the computer worlds built [like this one] what words we must then embrace in order to generate the most rational, moral computer software needed to go out into the world and use computers to generate the most rational and moral social, political and economic transactions in turn.
Something like that Mr. R?
george walton
d/a
However Atlas Shrugged remains a powerful dramatization of the danger of special interest groups dominating interests at the expense of the greater good. It's worth reading.
However Atlas Shrugged remains a powerful dramatization of the danger of special interest groups dominating interests at the expense of the greater good. It's worth reading.
I've always wondered if the South Africans named their currency after her, or whether it was the other way around.
Please TNR, put the "add comment" button at the bottom of the sequence of posts! Or have it open automatically with login.
All we can do is ask.
I've always wondered if the South Africans named their currency after her, or whether it was the other way around.
Please TNR, put the "add comment" button at the bottom of the sequence of posts! Or have it open automatically with login.
All we can do is ask.
mr_rationale: "The Ginni index you cite is for income not wealth."
And of course there's no relationships between wealth and income... In any case, the corresponding Gini indices calculated for wealth are Sweden: 28.3, France 33.9, the USA 42.1. So you're still wrong.
mr_rationale: "The Ginni index you cite is for income not wealth."
And of course there's no relationships between wealth and income... In any case, the corresponding Gini indices calculated for wealth are Sweden: 28.3, France 33.9, the USA 42.1. So you're still wrong.
Here is the bottom line: Arguing about Rand's economic "insights" is absurd. The basic truth about her (which her writing reveals, which no one really denies) is this; she had absolutely zero understanding of human nature. (In my decades long career in marketing, by the way, I worked with a lot of CEOs -- good, bad and ugly -- bright, creative ambitious former sons of the middle class, dense and clueless heirs, abusive, greedy and dishonest bullies, etc. -- never met anyone remotely like Rand's heroes). If you are clueless about human nature, you will certainly be clueless about human economic activity.
Rand is popular because she did one thing amazingly well -- she flattered and encouraged t ... view full comment
Here is the bottom line: Arguing about Rand's economic "insights" is absurd. The basic truth about her (which her writing reveals, which no one really denies) is this; she had absolutely zero understanding of human nature. (In my decades long career in marketing, by the way, I worked with a lot of CEOs -- good, bad and ugly -- bright, creative ambitious former sons of the middle class, dense and clueless heirs, abusive, greedy and dishonest bullies, etc. -- never met anyone remotely like Rand's heroes). If you are clueless about human nature, you will certainly be clueless about human economic activity.
Rand is popular because she did one thing amazingly well -- she flattered and encouraged the most common human trait (one she possessed, personally, in great measure); our endless capacity for self-delusion.
That the American financial community has, over the last several decades, become increasingly delusional is proven by recent events. That community's embrace of Rand may not be a cause (who really needs encouragement in self-dealing and self-delusion?) , but it certainly has provided handy justification.
I found "Atlas Shrugged" to be one the funniest books I've ever read, but in a very strange way. Ayn Rand appears to have little grasp of either engineering or science, even though her heros tend to have technical backgrounds (if you want an author who understands science on its own term, try Pynchon). The comment about her finding physics to be "corrupt" is fascinating (where can one find that quote?). Science and engineering are based heavily on the fact that one can be wrong - deeply wrong at times - in one's assumptiions. That enforces a kind of humility which is quite lacking in her books. There have been many times when I had an idea, ran through the detailed calculations (and the ... view full comment
I found "Atlas Shrugged" to be one the funniest books I've ever read, but in a very strange way. Ayn Rand appears to have little grasp of either engineering or science, even though her heros tend to have technical backgrounds (if you want an author who understands science on its own term, try Pynchon). The comment about her finding physics to be "corrupt" is fascinating (where can one find that quote?). Science and engineering are based heavily on the fact that one can be wrong - deeply wrong at times - in one's assumptiions. That enforces a kind of humility which is quite lacking in her books. There have been many times when I had an idea, ran through the detailed calculations (and they could take weeks to do), and found that my idea was rubbish. Ayn Rand's substitution of a non-testable belief over theory and experiment - and the tight tension between the two - turns her philosophy into fiction. There is precious little information in that philosophy. But, much of Russian philosophy was and is anti-science and steeped in Romanticism. She simply brought that strain to America. The idea that one can be wrong, in spite of best intentions and effort, is not easy to live with, but it is essential to the technical ethos. You do your homework, you obsess about what is missing in the analysis (both known and unkown) and you wait to find out if you are right. Sometimes that waiting can take many years and often the results are brutal. Much of science is non-intuitive, much of its structure is poorly understood. "Atlas Shrugged" reads much more like a fairy tale than an attempt to understand this world.
esmense:
Rand is popular because she did one thing amazingly well -- she flattered and encouraged the most common human trait (one she possessed, personally, in great measure); our endless capacity for self-delusion.
george:
Rand peddled the "objective individual" all her life and it never once occured to her that every single individual in Galt's Gultch could flawlessly finish each other's sentences. This never struck her in the least as conflicting or contradictory. Or totalitarian. Or authoritarian.
Forget Atlas Shrugged. Rand's masterpiece is The Fountainhead. Yes, the heros all finished each other's sentences in that [at times] hokey stacked deck too; but Howard Roark was never intent on sp ... view full comment
esmense:
Rand is popular because she did one thing amazingly well -- she flattered and encouraged the most common human trait (one she possessed, personally, in great measure); our endless capacity for self-delusion.
george:
Rand peddled the "objective individual" all her life and it never once occured to her that every single individual in Galt's Gultch could flawlessly finish each other's sentences. This never struck her in the least as conflicting or contradictory. Or totalitarian. Or authoritarian.
Forget Atlas Shrugged. Rand's masterpiece is The Fountainhead. Yes, the heros all finished each other's sentences in that [at times] hokey stacked deck too; but Howard Roark was never intent on spending two weeks on the radio pontificating to all the inferior louts and sheep. He was never intent on pointing out to them how, deep down inside, they should revere and emulate everything he said and did.
Roark may have been a cartoon character at times but he was never a stick man. He pursued excellence on his own terms and was not in the least interested in sharing it with [or defending it against] others. Toohey: "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us." Roark: "But I don't think of you."
He was also passionaite about his work and recognized in his own way how much everything else must revolve around that. Including his most passionaite friendships and relationships.
Gail Wynand was also an intriguing character because he represented those who are both contemptuous of MassMan and yet not necessarily someone worthy of contempt himself. Except, again, on his own terms.
And Dominique Francon was able to resist typecasting in the way in which she grappled with perfection in a woefully imperfect world. The recognition that futility can become a sacrament for some people....registering [emotionally and psychologically] far beyond mere cynicism.
My own favorite character however is still Steven Mallory. And I don't even know why exactly. He just somehow seemed to smolder between wretchedness and the sublime in pusuit of his art. He was as far beyond Rand's control as any other character she had invented.
But that's my Ayn Rand in my Ayn Rand world. And unlike Ayn herself I would never suggest it ought to be your's too.
george walton
d/a
I would agree with notion that public sector plays referee, especially when it comes to markets. But it can't. It consistently fails in favor of incumbent firms with strong lobbyists. Capitalism is creative destruction. Not incumbent protection.
In terms of my comments about wealth and income, attached is link to a paper (albeit dated @ 1994) about the EU (where we seem to be headed) and US. Of interest is the comparison of Sweden to US. see http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
Fun facts below. US poor = bottom quintile. This is better than Gini co ... view full comment
I would agree with notion that public sector plays referee, especially when it comes to markets. But it can't. It consistently fails in favor of incumbent firms with strong lobbyists. Capitalism is creative destruction. Not incumbent protection.
In terms of my comments about wealth and income, attached is link to a paper (albeit dated @ 1994) about the EU (where we seem to be headed) and US. Of interest is the comparison of Sweden to US. see http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
Fun facts below. US poor = bottom quintile. This is better than Gini coefficient demonstrating the huge issues with dramatically expanding Gov intervention. We all become poor.
Percent of U.S. Poor Households Owning Washer: 65%
Percent of ALL Swedish Households Owning Washer: 72%
Percent of U.S. Poor Households Owning VCR/DVD: 78%
Percent of ALL Swedish Households With VCR/DVD: 46%
Percent of U.S. Poor Households Owning PC: 25%
Percent of ALL Swedish Households Owning PC: 29%
Percent of U.S. Poor Households With Dishwasher: 34%
Percent ALL Swedish Households With Dishwasher: 31%
Percent of U.S. Poor Households With Clothes Dryer: 56%
Percent of ALL Swedish Households With Dryer: 18%
Percent of U.S. Poor Households Owning Color TV: 97.3%
Percent of ALL Swedish Households Owning TV: 97
Note: this hasn't changed with recent economic info. Still want European style Socialism??
iambiguous:
Hard for me to follow or rebut your arguments... I failed metaphysics :)
iambiguous:
Hard for me to follow or rebut your arguments... I failed metaphysics :)
R:
Hard for me to follow or rebut your arguments... I failed metaphysics :)
george:
Sigh.
Why oh why are apologists for one or another rendition of Super Capitalism so easily cowed these days? Twenty years ago I could wage truly epic exchanges with any number of them....fascinating polemics that went on for days and days.
R, do me a favor. If you know any actual objectivists or libertarians gifted in the art of provocative debate, invite them in here. Let them be your guest, as it were. All I ask is that they be both intriguing and challenging.
Unlike, say, you.
; o )
george
Now, on with the show:
R:
I would agree with [the] notion that public sector plays referee, especially when it comes to markets ... view full comment
R:
Hard for me to follow or rebut your arguments... I failed metaphysics :)
george:
Sigh.
Why oh why are apologists for one or another rendition of Super Capitalism so easily cowed these days? Twenty years ago I could wage truly epic exchanges with any number of them....fascinating polemics that went on for days and days.
R, do me a favor. If you know any actual objectivists or libertarians gifted in the art of provocative debate, invite them in here. Let them be your guest, as it were. All I ask is that they be both intriguing and challenging.
Unlike, say, you.
; o )
george
Now, on with the show:
R:
I would agree with [the] notion that public sector plays referee, especially when it comes to markets. But it can't. It consistently fails in favor of incumbent firms with strong lobbyists. Capitalism is creative destruction. Not incumbent protection.
george:
Where is this capitalism practiced?
Look, I really mean to pin you down here. It's time to go beyond the capitalism you construct heroically out words and idealities inside your head. And this isn't a monopoly game.
Let's start with the Free State Project. Give us some specific examples of how your laissez faire comrades up in the "live free or die" state are inching towards a lobbyist free world. For example, what have they creatively destroyed of late? Anything that made headlines in the business press?
Capitalism in the 20th and 21st century is, well, crony capitalism. Sure, there are plenty of small businesses that come close [or closer] to the paragon...but they don't run the world with their pals in the Bilderberg Group, do they?
Dream on, sure. But [to cite one rather weighty example] the healthcare debate today doesn't revolve around bringing the healthcare industry within reach of the Hank Reardons or the Francisco d'Anconias. It is about self-replicating economic dinosaurs that may well soon bankrupt the system and introduce capitalism itself to a crisis of epic proportions.
Or will [giggle, giggle] the John Galts rise from the ashes and finally show us The Way?
Yeah, right. Aren't these Super Capitalists the same guys have spent the last 30 fucking years trying to bring Atlas Shrugged to the silver screen?
And comparing your demographic smorgasbord above to the demographic smorgasbords of others speaks volumns about one thing. This: Transfiguring Rands' "romantic manifesto" into a course on statistics.
Sorry, but you've got to do better.
george walton
Goddamn it, Marty has knocked us off the top spot on the "most commented" list.
I know Rand is pretty much a laughingstock these days, but she was one of the pioneers in turning political philosophy into a comic book. For that alone we owe her much.
Now go out and bring all your fucking friends and colleagues in here and start posting!! Share favorite Rand pratfalls, recipes, saturday morning cartoons. Anything, everything to get us back on top!!!
gw
Goddamn it, Marty has knocked us off the top spot on the "most commented" list.
I know Rand is pretty much a laughingstock these days, but she was one of the pioneers in turning political philosophy into a comic book. For that alone we owe her much.
Now go out and bring all your fucking friends and colleagues in here and start posting!! Share favorite Rand pratfalls, recipes, saturday morning cartoons. Anything, everything to get us back on top!!!
gw
iambiguous
Where does creative destruction capitalism exist? In a word EVERYWHERE outside the bubble that is the public sector.
- Remember the huge number of start-ups competing for internet business model superiority which a few won. That was capitalism
- Remember air travel without Southwest. Now Southwest business model rules. That was capitalism
- Remember the piece of junk american cars before japanese competition. That was capitalism before Obama rescued the failed business model that is GM
I run a technology business. You appear to live off the public sector teat. You have no idea what capitalism is about. I do. And the small and medium sized business you alluded to ... view full comment
iambiguous
Where does creative destruction capitalism exist? In a word EVERYWHERE outside the bubble that is the public sector.
- Remember the huge number of start-ups competing for internet business model superiority which a few won. That was capitalism
- Remember air travel without Southwest. Now Southwest business model rules. That was capitalism
- Remember the piece of junk american cars before japanese competition. That was capitalism before Obama rescued the failed business model that is GM
I run a technology business. You appear to live off the public sector teat. You have no idea what capitalism is about. I do. And the small and medium sized business you alluded to continue to be the ecnomic engine for the US -- this is where capitalism is strongest. Else you go out of business
Start a company, hire people, create some economic value ..... then you have the right to challenge anyone on capitalism
Mr R:
iambiguous
Where does creative destruction capitalism exist? In a word EVERYWHERE outside the bubble that is the public sector.
george:
The very nature of capitalism is to exploit everything---animal, vegtable and mineral. But especially people. It chews them up, spits them out, then hires the next batch. In other words, it's destruction really does devastate as many millions of lives as it uplifts.
And if these people have children [innocent by nature] and they get crushed, then fuck them too.
Right, Mr Tough Guy?
People like you take pride in this. Survival of the fittest!! In reality of course the biggest capitalists of them all thrive on Washington taxpayer bailouts, loopholes in the la ... view full comment
Mr R:
iambiguous
Where does creative destruction capitalism exist? In a word EVERYWHERE outside the bubble that is the public sector.
george:
The very nature of capitalism is to exploit everything---animal, vegtable and mineral. But especially people. It chews them up, spits them out, then hires the next batch. In other words, it's destruction really does devastate as many millions of lives as it uplifts.
And if these people have children [innocent by nature] and they get crushed, then fuck them too.
Right, Mr Tough Guy?
People like you take pride in this. Survival of the fittest!! In reality of course the biggest capitalists of them all thrive on Washington taxpayer bailouts, loopholes in the laws, regulatory agencies they run and generous government subsidies. Welfare to the rest of us. All made possible by campaign contributions.
Oh, and films like American Psycho and Boiler Room show us just how fucking phillistine so many of these puffed up masters of the universe can be. Why don't you upload or download your business card. I'd love to see it.
R:
- Remember the huge number of start-ups competing for internet business model superiority which a few won. That was capitalism
george:
I remember the tech bubble. That's capitalism too. I remember Google and Yahoo bending over backwards in China so the Commies could stuff the profits up their ass. That's capitalism too.
R:
Remember air travel without Southwest. Now Southwest business model rules. That was capitalism
george:
I remember how much the airline industry is still loathed by its own customers. That's capitalism too.
R:
Remember the piece of junk american cars before japanese competition. That was capitalism before Obama rescued the failed business model that is GM
George:
I remember American automakers once calling citizens who bought Japanese cars "unamerican"---until they started selling Japanese cars themselves. That's capitalism too
Capitalism is like any other sacred screed. You can pluck parts out of it to justify practically any contradictory point of view you wish. For you alas capitalism [the novel] is a just concrete block you lug around with you whereever you go. That's why it's so easy for me to make a fool out of you. I just pick it up and drop it on your head. When, of course, you are not doing that yourself.
For example:
I run a technology business. You appear to live off the public sector teat. You have no idea what capitalism is about. I do.
george:
Yes, I live off social security disability now. I used to work in the steel mills, the shipyards and the US army. After college I settled down, got married, had [and still have] a wonderful daughter. I was a member of very radical political organizations for nearly 20 years and took pride in chewing up and spitting out folks like you for breakfast. Than I started working full time for a company that eventually saw fit to pay me nearly $80,000 a year. That's why I get the maximum monthly allotment from SSDI. No, nowhere near as much as your capaitalist friends on Wall Street got/get from the government of course but then they did nearly destroy the world economy, didn't they?
Uh, THAT is capitalism too. Isn't it? Ask Alan Greenspan.
R:
Start a company, hire people, create some economic value ..... then you have the right to challenge anyone on capitalism.
george:
I have the right to challenge you on capitalism if for no other reason I spent a year in Vietnam fighting the Commies so that folks like you can you avoid it altogether.
You DID avoid actually FIGHTING for freedom, didn't you?
By all means, let's keep this going. I will invite my friends to tune in and you can invite yours.
Oh, by the way: Welcome to hell.
george walton
d/a
@ Author: Let us begin with the premise that wealth represents a sign of personal virtue--thrift, hard work, and the rest--and poverty the lack thereof.
My Response: The author here makes the mistake of confusing an effect for a cause – which is made all the more misleading by his choice to use this as the primary basis upon which he attacks Rand’s philosophy. The effect (wealth) is stated in misalignment with the cause (personal virtue). Wealth was never the desire nor the aim of Rand’s heros, it was a secondary effect for those who chose to work in an industry which traded money for their service, and only to those who offered a superior product/service within that industry (Reard ... view full comment
@ Author: Let us begin with the premise that wealth represents a sign of personal virtue--thrift, hard work, and the rest--and poverty the lack thereof.
My Response: The author here makes the mistake of confusing an effect for a cause – which is made all the more misleading by his choice to use this as the primary basis upon which he attacks Rand’s philosophy. The effect (wealth) is stated in misalignment with the cause (personal virtue). Wealth was never the desire nor the aim of Rand’s heros, it was a secondary effect for those who chose to work in an industry which traded money for their service, and only to those who offered a superior product/service within that industry (Reardon, Francisco). Both Halley (the composer in AS) and Cameron (architect in TF) were upheld as heros within Rand’s novels, yet neither amassed a significant fortune or lived an ostentatious life as a result of their work. All the heros lived for one person and one person alone, themselves. Whether they were rewarded with money as a result of their actions was a secondary, inconsequential factor.
@ Author: Now assume that this principle were to apply not only within a profession--that a dentist earning $200,000 a year must be contributing exactly twice as much to society as a dentist earning $100,000 a year--but also between professions. Then you are left with the assertion that Donald Trump contributes more to society than a thousand teachers, nurses, or police officers.
My Response: Upon reading this paragraph I had to consider whether the author (like many of those commenting below) have actually read Atlas Shrugged or Rand’s other works. The author again falsely attributes a causal relationship of wealth to worth to Rand. Rand never indicated that one’s worth or productive capacity can be assessed by the number of zeros of said person’s paycheck. However, in a free market the individual who offers a superior service to the market can rightfully charge a greater fee for his service, and may thus make more than someone offering a lesser service. Regarding the comment about Trump, it is the author’s own assertion that he ‘contributes more to society than a thousand teachers’ and it is an assertion that is written as to mislead. One could make the assertion that, assuming a free market, the market places a thousandfold more value to the products that Trump offers than to what is offered by teachers, nurses, and police officers.
@ blackton: 4. depends on how you define the American dream, for most people it is simply to have a family and a home and a decent job that pays enough to provide for your family. most Americans are grounded in reality, don't confuse the American dream with the American daydream.
My Response: In your own words you describe the following as the American Dream: to have a family, to have a home, and to have a decent job that pays enough to provide for your family. However, what you have described are secondary effects of something more fundamental. The American Dream is (in the words of John Galt) ‘to think, to work, and to keep the results.’ The Dream is the ability/opportunity to take/make a job, do your best at it, and be rewarded for your efforts so that you can buy a house, a car, and support a family (if that is your dream) – the dream is the ability to realize such things by your own volition and hard work, not the things themselves. Rand writes:
‘Every man is free to rise as far as he’s able or willing…’
That is the Objectivist Dream, which I believe also embodies your ‘American Dream’
@ blackton: Enough of the fetish that the only things of value are things you can physically own. Of course Government creates economic value on the whole, and I don't understand the idea that Government exists as a separate entity that leaches off the private.
My Response: I don’t understand how anyone who has actually read AS or TF can make the assertion (or agree with it) that Rand in any way, shape, or form indicated that the only things of value are physical or material things. To Rand, the one and only thing to be valued was a man’s desire to reach and embody his maximum potential as a thinker and producer (one who does something with his ideas); his property and money be damned. Rand writes:
‘… the achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness—not pain or mindless self-indulgence—is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.’ and
‘[Capitalism] leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him.’
You go on to say: ‘… I don’t understand the idea that Government exists as a separate entity that leaches [sic] off the private.’ I ask then, where does the money that funds Government programs come from? The answer should be self-evident.
@ esmense: In my decades long career in marketing, by the way, I worked with a lot of CEOs -- good, bad and ugly -- bright, creative ambitious former sons of the middle class, dense and clueless heirs, abusive, greedy and dishonest bullies, etc. -- never met anyone remotely like Rand's heroes).
My Response: And why should any individuals who embody Rand’s heroes in today’s marketplace have a desire to work with you? I see a lot of people likening wealthy and financially successful individuals to the heroes described in Rand’s novels, however such assertions are incorrect. Today’s heroes (of the Rand variety) are the likes of Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates. Individuals who are self-confident, self-fueled, and whose sole actions have great impact on the lives of nearly every person in our society. Individuals who continued down their paths despite the shouts, sneers, and predicted ruin of their critics, only to eventually find great success. Withdraw two, just two, ‘Men of the Mind’ and you are left with a society without Microsoft and Apple – these are the modern day industrialists that make our world go around.
@ delaveau: Science and engineering are based heavily on the fact that one can be wrong - deeply wrong at times - in one's assumptiions. That enforces a kind of humility which is quite lacking in her books. There have been many times when I had an idea, ran through the detailed calculations (and they could take weeks to do), and found that my idea was rubbish. Ayn Rand's substitution of a non-testable belief over theory and experiment - and the tight tension between the two - turns her philosophy into fiction. There is precious little information in that philosophy. … The idea that one can be wrong, in spite of best intentions and effort, is not easy to live with, but it is essential to the technical ethos. You do your homework, you obsess about what is missing in the analysis (both known and unkown) and you wait to find out if you are right. Sometimes that waiting can take many years and often the results are brutal. Much of science is non-intuitive, much of its structure is poorly understood. "Atlas Shrugged" reads much more like a fairy tale than an attempt to understand this world.
My Response: It is apparent that you have either not read AS, or you read it with your eyes closed. Nowhere within the book does Rand indicate that individuals cannot be wrong. In fact, on numerous occasions, Rand indicates that the absolute answer is not as important as the rational process used to arrive at your most rational answer; it is the act of rational thinking, rational discussion and a willingness to change your stance when faced with logical evidence that are again at the heart of Objectivist philosophy. Rational thinking follows a logical path, and may go through many iterative cycles before a ‘best’ answer is found, just as you have described above. The following passage in John Galt’s speech addresses your comment and demonstrates (to me) that you did not read AS, or that you missed the point:
‘When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.’
@ iambiguous: The very nature of capitalism is to exploit everything---animal, vegtable and mineral. But especially people. It chews them up, spits them out, then hires the next batch. In other words, it's destruction really does devastate as many millions of lives as it uplifts.
My Response: This comment is vague and poorly developed; what source do you cite for that definition of capitalism? Merriam-Webster says: ‘an economic system characterized … by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market’. A capitalistic marketplace would seek to pay employees a wage commensurate with the value of their work – it would be irrational to pay employees more than their work was worth, don’t you agree?