12:38 AM
"In our Christian culture, Rand’s insight that organizes human interaction into traders vs looters is an oasis in a dry desert."
Indeed.
"Kort,
“When W came into office i 2000, 33% of tax filers were not paying federal income tax. When he left last year, it 39%. It appears under O, this number will get close to 50% in short order. What happens to a society when 60% are getting a free ride? 70%?”
Eh, when the federal income tax was originally enacted, it only applied to taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000, with less than 1% of the population paying it. That means more than 99% of the population was exempt.
We prospered."
lol And $500,000 was worth a lot more, too.
"“Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand Assholes everywhere—as well as the steely loins from which they sprang.” ”
That was one high-quality rant! (I’m jealous as all get out.)"
And it may be totally misguided."Kort,
You say, “…When W came into office i 2000, 33% of tax filers were not paying federal income tax…”
But you’re falling for the slippery GOP “Not paying Federal income tax” talking point. Key slip: “income tax.” The GOP talking point (run endless in WSJ etc) aren’t including all the other non-income yet income-based taxes, like SS, Medicare etc… More people (two-thirds) pay more in Social Security taxes than income taxes…
…which is used to cover the deficit interestingly enough, ever since Reagan raised Social security taxes.
Objectivism is dead meat, why? Who’s buying all the stuff you sell Superman?"
?"i was too interested surfing (as in waves) and chasing the beach girls down in So Fl as a kid to read very much…so, i did not come across Ayn Rand until after college…i drank the kool aid (of her philosophy).
i was in a meeting once, circa 1979, while working for a major oil company that also had a bunch of coast guard guys in attendance. we were trying to get the deepwater oil bidness going, and being an ocean engineer, i was interested in designing and building the floating platforms that would provide the surface “real estate” to allow these types of projects to be realized.
there were few codified engineering practices that covered what we were trying to do since their was no precedents. there were federal rules and regulations primarily pertaining to safety of life at sea and the USCG guys were spewing off about CFR 1.2.3, and Regulations 4.3.2 section 4 pp 15 or whatever – stuff i had not even heard about, but they did this with bureaucratic, self righteous fervor.
finally, this newly converted ARA could not take it anymore, and, to the horror of the company’s regulatory affairs representative, I stood up in the meeting and said that these guys (the Coast Guard dudes) were “like leaches on the backs of productive members of society, growing like a cancer….”
…the kool aid has long since been pissed out of my system……what a flashback…..i enjoyed the send up"
So... by your own admission, there is no reason to take your comment seriously.
The reason I say this is that you've shown
by the format that you're authority and
cult inclined. So you've just gone back
to the safest cult - Democracy.
And I am by no means defending
Objectivism. However, I am saying
that you're, as I am, inclined to
follow cult trends.
"wow. now HERE is an interesting thread.
Kort wrote:
“one thing I would give Rand credit for is the notion of Productive People vs Non Productive people and, in Shrugged, the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along”
“one thing I would give Rand credit for is the notion of Productive People vs Non Productive people and, in Shrugged, the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along”
for me, that’s the crux of it – maybe you can change the word “lazy” – but it’s about what we all think are basic human rights. While most agree on shelter and food, we can’t even find a way to agree on healthcare, never mind cheap rail transport and its offshoots (Atlas Shrugged)
I am just finishing Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and it’s a remarkable time in history to be reading the book, as it seems life is imitating art. Our policy solutions to close revenue gaps feel to be largely to increase taxes on the wealthy. That’s all fine and dandy until the wealthy go John Gault and leave the system.
Now, lest someone accuse me of being some naive Rand idealist – the reason this concept hit me so hard is that I felt it before I read the book. I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked – that of giving 50%+ of my earnings to the system. So now, instead of getting a crapton of money from me in taxes, the system will get nothing. The notion that high earners have a breaking point is not just a Rand fantasy – at least for me it wasn’t."
When did it change from 30% to 50%?
Ah, who fucking knows. As if I've
been paying attention...
"Would they continue to vote for a system that rewards them and punishes the top 30-40%?
——–
Another error in logic. Why do you assume that the 30-40% are morally superior? Is that 30-40% more productive or just plain lucky?
Another error in logic. Why do you assume that the 30-40% are morally superior? Is that 30-40% more productive or just plain lucky?
Maybe a huge % of that 30-40% deserves to pay for the rest. Seems to me there is a nice % ot those who are overpaid bureaucrats. I’m not saying that all bureaucrats are unproductive, I’m just saying there’s alittle too much self-righteousness going on out there."
Which would fall right in line
with the 30-40% having
become leeches.
"“Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand Assholes everywhere—as well as the steely loins from which they sprang.”
BS. A lot of things mentioned happened in 30’s, too. I don’t think Randism was so popular back then.
Blaming Rand for today’s problems is like blaming fish for low water levels. It lacks of perspective and ignores all the reality. Not a Randian myself. Never finished a book of her, found to be too long and boring but I get the gist of it.
Blaming Rand for today’s problems is like blaming fish for low water levels. It lacks of perspective and ignores all the reality. Not a Randian myself. Never finished a book of her, found to be too long and boring but I get the gist of it.
Excellent summary, Craiggan! A+"
"Craiggan Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pmRand resonates because of these principles: 1. An individual’s life belongs to himself. 2. Physical forces is not a proper way to deal with others. 3. The proper purpose of government is to protect individuals from force or fraud. Are these the principles of “assholes” or immature undergraduates? I think not."
"Now, lest someone accuse me of being some naive Rand idealist – the reason this concept hit me so hard is that I felt it before I read the book. I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked – that of giving 50%+ of my earnings to the system. So now, instead of getting a crapton of money from me in taxes, the system will get nothing. The notion that high earners have a breaking point is not just a Rand fantasy – at least for me it wasn’t
————-
Considering that over 75-80% of America’s wealth is in the hands of the 55+, it’ll be interesting to see how the younger generation reacts when the retirees don’t want to share.
Considering that over 75-80% of America’s wealth is in the hands of the 55+, it’ll be interesting to see how the younger generation reacts when the retirees don’t want to share.
Not many people realize that our worker to dependant ratio just peaked in the last couple of years and will only go down. It’s demographics pure and simple.
So either the wealth gets even more concentrated (Banana republic) or gets redistributed (socialism).
Something tellls me the older folk are going to complain so the sharing will get ugly."
What? No thought of the kids making their own way?
"KidDynamite : ” I am just finishing Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and it’s a remarkable time in history to be reading the book, as it seems life is imitating art. Our policy solutions to close revenue gaps feel to be largely to increase taxes on the wealthy. That’s all fine and dandy until the wealthy go John Gault and leave the system.”
I agree with the kid. Seems to me that many New Yorkers are leaving the state because of high taxes;
http://www.huliq.com/8738/88168/new-yorkers-flee-states-high-taxes-poorer-newcomers-replace-themHmm...
"
U.S. States without a personal income tax
For more details on this topic, see Income taxes in the United States.
- Alaska – no personal tax, but has a state corporate income tax.
- Florida – no personal income tax, but has a corporate income tax (at a 5% rate). The state once had a tax on "intangible personal property" held on the first day of the year (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money market funds, etc.), but it was abolished at the start of 2007.
- Nevada – has no personal or corporate income tax. Nevada gets most of its revenue from gambling taxes.
- New Hampshire – has an Interest and Dividends Tax of 5%, and a Business Profits Tax of 8.5%.[6]
- South Dakota – no personal income tax, but has a state corporate income tax on financial institutions.
- Tennessee – does have tax on income (at a 6% rate) received from stocks and bonds not taxed ad valorem (Tenn Const Art II, §28). In 1932, the Tennessee Supreme Court struck down a broad-based personal income tax that had passed the General Assembly [Evans v. McCabe]. However, a number of Attorneys General have recently opined that, if properly worded, an income tax would be found constitutional by today's court. This is due to a 1971 constitutional amendment. (see Tenn. AG Op #99-217, Paul G. Summers [1])
- Texas – no personal income tax or corporate income tax. In May 2007, the legislature replaced the franchise tax with a gross margins tax on businesses (sole proprietorships and some partnerships were automatically exempt; corporations with receipts below a certain level were also exempt), which was amended in 2009 to increase the exemption level. The Texas Constitution places severe restrictions on passage of a personal income tax and use of its proceeds.
- Washington – no personal tax, but has a Business and Occupation Tax (B&O) on gross receipts, applied to "almost all businesses located or doing business in Washington." It varies from 0.138% for splitting dried peas to 1.6% for bigtime gambling.[7][8]
- Wyoming – has no personal or corporate income taxes.
"
God damn it. The only decent state is Wyoming."
Taxes
Unlike most other states, Wyoming does not levy an individual or corporate income tax. In addition, Wyoming does not assess any tax on retirement income earned and received from another state. Wyoming has a state sales tax of 4%. Counties have the option of collecting an additional 1% tax for general revenue and a 2% tax for specific purposes, if approved by voters. Food for human consumption is not subject to sales tax.[23] There also is a county lodging tax that varies from 2% to 5%. The state collects a use tax of 5% on items purchased elsewhere and brought into Wyoming. All property tax is based on the assessed value of the property and Wyoming's Department of Revenue's Ad Valorem Tax Division supports, trains, and guides local government agencies in the uniform assessment, valuation and taxation of locally assessed property. "Assessed value" means taxable value; "taxable value" means a percent of the fair market value of property in a particular class. Statutes limit property tax increases."
...."Personal property held for personal use is tax-exempt. Inventory if held for resale, pollution control equipment, cash, accounts receivable, stocks and bonds are also exempt."
Oh. ...OH! At least the tax laws have some sense to them.I've been thinking about store bathrooms
and how people tend to use them without
paying the money for them... although,
it could be said that they are paid for
by the store owner as an incentive to
buy at the store.
"
State law and government
Wyoming's Constitution established three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
The Wyoming state legislature comprises a House of Representatives with 60 members and a Senate with 30 members.
The executive branch is headed by the governor and includes a secretary of state, auditor, treasurer and superintendent of public instruction. Wyoming does not have a lieutenant governor. Instead the secretary of state stands first in the line of succession.
Wyoming's sparse population warrants it only a single at-large seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and hence only three votes in theElectoral College. Its low population renders Wyoming voters effectively more powerful in presidential elections than those in more populous states. For example, while Montana had a 2000 census population of 902,195 to Wyoming's 493,782, they both have the same number of electoral votes.
Wyoming is an alcoholic beverage control state."
" Its low population renders Wyoming voters effectively more powerful in presidential elections than those in more populous states."lol
"Wyoming is an alcoholic beverage control state."
"Alcoholic beverage control states, generally called control states, are those in the United States that have state monopoly over the wholesaling and/or retailing of some or all categories of alcoholic beverages, such as beer, wine, and distilled spirits."
Oo. Bad sign.
"At the beginning of the temperance movement in the United States, many states curtailed where and when alcohol could be sold. Before this time, most alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption were often sold just like any other item in stores or in saloons/bars. Because of heavy lobbying by temperance groups in various states, most required off-premise beverages to be sold in dedicated stores (primarily called dispensaries). To further enhance oversight of beverage sales, some states such as South Carolinaoperated state-run dispensaries."
?"States were also able to restrict the importation of "intoxicating liquors" into their territory under the provisions of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution which, while ending the Federal role in alcohol control, exempted liquor from the Constitutional rule reserving the regulation of interstate commerce to the Federal government. Thus states which wished to continue Prohibition could do so."
*groans* The poison doth spread...
"Reasons for doing this vary; for example, the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control states that:
The purpose of control is to make liquor available to those adults who choose to drink responsibly - but not to promote the sale of liquor. By keeping liquor out of the private marketplace, no economic incentives are created to maximize sales, open more liquor stores or sell to underage persons. Instead, all policy incentives to promote moderation and to enforce existing liquor laws is [sic] enhanced.[1]"
I wonder what North Car... meh. Whatever. ...'ny way, back to
"I agree with the kid. Seems to me that many New Yorkers are leaving the state because of high taxes;
I would assume this is also happening in California, Chicago, etc. Forgive the kid and I if we tire of working harder simply to see more of our monies being taxed and then given to those that do not. And the earlier comment from Kort about the fact that soon 50% (of INCOME TAX FILERS – NOT children, etc.) will not be paying INCOME TAXES (yes, not FICA, etc.) means that you have an increasing number of people that are DEPENDENT on the system and a fewer number of people that are CONTRIBUTING TO the system. This does not seem to be a difficult problem to grasp. And quite frankly, if this is what Ms. Rand was saying and bitchin about, then I would have to agree with her."
Yep. Except, instead of prodding people to pay more taxes, how's about
getting rid of taxes?
"I’m hoping this entire post is some sort of joke. Honestly I just lost a lot of respect for you Barry.
Worst of all, Rand’s Objectivism has become the rationale for all manner of morally repugnant behaviour. However, I did take one personal lesson from Atlas Shrugged to heart: Anytime I see a parked car with a John Galt bumper sticker, I like to knock off one of the sideview mirrors, and leave it on the hood. I include a note stating my selfish, random act made me feel good, and therefore should be a perfectly fine act in their world.
I assume the recipients miss the irony . . .
Could you explain the irony for those of us that are too dense? Because to me the above makes me wonder if you have even read Atlas Shrugged. Like many others you appear to be simply reacting to the loaded word “selfish”.
~~~
BR: 1) Dont be so literal;
2) The reaction isn’t to Rand’s words, it is to the people who so blindly embraced those words"
lolWell, that's different, then.
"Kid Dynamite writes: “I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked – that of giving 50%+ of my earnings to the system. So now, instead of getting a crapton of money from me in taxes, the system will get nothing. The notion that high earners have a breaking point is not just a Rand fantasy – at least for me it wasn’t.”
Dear Kid: Enjoy your sabbatical. I doubt that the world has missed your contributions. If you were performing a useful function I’m sure there will be someone who feels less wronged and will step in to fill your shoes. Ultimately you are like me and others who read and commemt on this blog. You’re only labor. You’re replaceable."
Nods. We have no John Galts,
do we?
"To me, Ayn Rand’s writing represents a continuation of Nietzche’s ideal of the enlightened individual breaking free of the restraints placed on him by society and achieving the ultimate freedom of being able to shape his own environment in whatever way he chooses. Finding meaning in this world then becomes up to the individual and not restricted to what’s acceptable to society. This is both freeing and disconcerting because it implies that there is no common “touchstone” from which everyone will necessarily agree upon, e.g religion, etc. and find common values. Rand’s ideas support the very core philosophy of individualism we see today in this country. Like all good ideas, they are very easily misinterpreted by their followers or taken too far.
~~~
BR: The difference being that Nietzche is relatively readable . . ."
"The bottom 90% of the income distribution may be currently engaged — unknowingly — in a version of ” going Galt ” , as they cut up their credit cards and refuse to continue working two or three jobs to eke out some degraded counterfeit of ‘ The American Dream’ , and instead resign themselves to the fate Rand would say they’ve deserved all along — subsistence living. No electronic gadgets , vacations , health insurance , restaurant meals , just the basics. Thus trashing the U.S. economy.
It would be poetic justice if the working class decimated the Randian’s huge accumulations of wealth by using her own techniques , even if they didn’t realize it."
Not poetic justice, but her being wrong about people wanting to change things.
It may be too late.
"I’m in full agreement with the Kid as well. I will add that if tax rates go above 50%, I have an incentive to take not only my productive labor out of the system, I will pull my borrowed capital as well. Here’s a perfect example: the proposed limitation on mortgage interest deductability. If Mr O decides that the “wealthy” don’t deserve a full deduction of their interest, then that raises my after-tax cost substantially, particularly in the 50%+ tax rate world. My response? If and when, I plan to sell US stocks from my savings accounts and pay off the mortgage. This isn’t me being an Ayn Randian jerk – it’s me looking at the numbers and seeing a disincentive to be invested in America when the hurdle rate just rose. So the bank gets its money back (reduced multiplier) and stocks are sold (less capital in the system). On the margin, my decision means little. But if more people start to think this way…."
Anti-school on large-scale, huh?"
"
Let 'em. Lindsay tried it and got a shitload of stress. And then left to save her own
sanity. Although, I'm not sure I want to
bring that example in...
"
- danm Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pmAlthough I know that people are tax averse and will walk away in the name of tax arbitrage there is still an irrefutable fact out there…
75-80% of the wealth is owned by 55+.
So either the concentration of welath increases and the US goes Banana republic or the wealth gets redistributed and the US goes more sociali*t.
I know the 55+ will do lots of complaining but it will be interesting if they catch on when young do lots of walking away.
danm Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pmWhat I am saying is that for most of you, whatever happens you’re not going to like it. You can run, you can hide, whatever you do there is going to be a redistribution of wealth.
Anf if there isn’t you’re going Banana Republic.
"
What's "Banana Republic"?
"Banana republic is a pejorative term for a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique."
Oh.
"Where does this antedeluvian shit resurface from? Ayn Rand? Read it just before college; anyone who talked it after sophomore year hadn’t taken a break from speed since freshman orientation. Also never thought I’d see anti-Darwinianism. Or the most wonderous and common corrupted take on the Constitution. Yes yes of course Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton were Born again. Riiiiight. It would be a great use to our American way of life if people read books, That is books–plural. Not one, not the Fox News Cliff Notes version. Read people. Like the Constitution; it takes about 7 minutes at a 4th grade reading level. Don’t say nothing about free markets, abortion. Christ (christ!).
Back to Rant (sic). If the old USA really operated like an Ayn Rant novel (see the movie version of The Fountaindead) life in this country would be like… I don’t know… Like the Soviet Union. That’s it."
Keep those who use force and pretend to be doing it righteously in check -
and it won't.
...I just realized the irony of my statement.
"Wow Barry, I am an avid reader of this blog but I just lost a lot of respect for you. You have managed to lump yourself in with the rest of the reactionary Left who bastardizes the concepts of Capitalism and the Objectivism of Ayn Rand in order to equate them with fraud, theft, dishonesty, and generally parasitic behavior when the entire substance of the aforementioned theories are based on the opposite; Objectivism is based on virtue, honesty, respect for yourself and others, property rights, and reward for contribution. Furthermore, to link Objectivism to this crisis is laughable when the epicenter of the entire crisis is a Central Bank and fiat money regime that is the antithesis of what Rand advocated for. From The Virtue of Selfishness:
“There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).
If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.”
~~~
BR: Blah blah blah . . . Its just so much nonsensical blather, blessedly data free, only loosely connected to reality.
One of the things I have learned in the many years of writing this blog is to consider and anticipate how things will be misinterpreted. Clearly, that’s something Rand might have given some thought to.
But the bottom line is I found the world Rand created to have little correlation to way actual Human Beings think and feel and behave in the real world. . ."
Nods."The real story is that the usa tax code is already pretty close to a flat tax. When everything is taken into consideration the effective tax rate of vast majority of people in usa is about 20%. this includes income tax, SS tax, Sales tax. This does not really change much even with huge differences in marginal rates. The whole tax debate is usually silly. Do you know how many bets I have won when I challenge a friend that tells me they pay near 50%. Break out the tax return and win a bet. Effective rates are very reasonable in usa. And it is very similar across all income groups.
Of course if one is smart, one can set ones life accordingly and pay a very small rate of effective rate. Real Estate and manufacturing and farming come to mind. People that say they pay 50% taxes are delusional. It is very rare."
Nods."bergsten Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 7:46 pmOK. I really should have the sense to steer clear of this one. So, right off — if you agree with me, then I’m “me.” If you don’t, then blame this comment on that CNBCS guy.
I also just happened to read “the two” Ann Rynd (”Rand” is the corporation) novels quite recently. I had no preconceived notions — I was book-deprived and a friend just happened to lent me the books in exchange for some I already read and lent to him (no loss of revenue here, Barry, I’ve only lent your book once, to a neighbor).
I read the shorter book in its entirety. I read the longer one and skipped the 60-page radio speech) (which, as best as I could tell took nothing away from the “story”). So, here’s my Ann Rynd FAQ:
Was it the best fiction ever written? Not by a long shot. Was it the worst? Not by a long shot. Let’s see you sit down and write 1,800 odd pages of fiction. Without a computer. Having said that, the stories could have been told in 1/3 the number of pages…
Was the topic original and clever? “I” thought so — I’ll get to that in a bit– I’ve read thousands of books, and never saw these ideas made into a story before.
Was it dated? Sure — people flew their own planes for personal transport — everybody smoked — you had to queue up for “the long distance telephone” and so forth. But, less dated than, say Beowulf.
Is it fit for high school or college kids to read? Of course not. Neither is history — sorry, but kids haven’t lived enough to have enough experience to put this stuff into context.
So, should one take the opinions of anyone who “read this as a kid 30 years ago”? Let’s leave that one for the reader to decide.
Did these works inspire a Philosophy and perhaps a Religion? Sigh. Sure seems that way. On the other hand, so did L. Ron Hubbard’s Science Fiction. For all I know, so will Steven King’s in a few decades.
Was there any real reason to? Not as far as I can tell.
So, what’s all the fuss about? Got me, boss. Seems like, every time somebody puts forward a novel or “original” idea (good or otherwise) a bunch of people start following them around, their ego (and income) grows by leaps and bounds, they take themselves all kinds of serious, and before you know it, they and their group are all doing phenomenally stupid things (just to tribe-up and stand apart), and the author gets all the blame.
OK. Was there any ideas in the books worth considering?
Well, here things get tricky — so tricky in fact, that we had to start a whole new paragraph. Remember the Blind Men and the Elephant (if not, go look it up)? It appears that everyone who reads this stuff comes away what they think is “the central idea” but you have to figure that at 1,800 pages, there are many central ideas and each will appeal to different readers.
Do you realize, by the way, she did the plot of The Producers in a paragraph? And used the phrase “fear and loathing” decades before Hunter Thompson? And that, you can take virtually any incredibly dumb statement in the book and find some company somewhere whose HR department issued almost exactly the same thing as a new policy/procedure.
These books had an ax to grind, and it was mostly against Stalin’s neck. As a reaction to her and others’ unbelievably awful treatment in the USSR, she postulated the idea the everybody should only be responsible for themselves, thereby eliminating the overhead of “freeloaders.” This, of course, is simplistic, and gets anyone with a heart (or a primate-based social brain) upset, as not everyone has the capacity at all times to take care of themselves.
I can certainly see that, if this is all one got out of the reading, one could be tempted to blame all selfish behavior on Ann Rynd. Somehow, though, I suspect that selfish behavior (or the rationale for it) didn’t begin in 1953, so you can all kinds of upset at Rynd if you like, but that’s a bit simplistic and unreasonable too.
Here is what “I” felt was new and unique about her stories:
Both books illustrate how crappy society treats those who actually create/produce something — not the wealthy, or the upper classes, or the “royalty,” or the celebrities — the producers of stuff. The problem is that creative people are driven and motivated by the desire and result of creation not necessarily by financial gain, consequently they can be treated like shit because they will continue to create anyway — what choice do they have? This is why we have so many “starving artists.”
Ann had a clever and unique idea. What would happen to society if these “producers” just stopped producing? This hasn’t ever happened (a union strike is the closest thing we’ve seen to this, but that is kind of a different cohort), and for the reason above, probably never will (though you see more and more of this passive resistance attitude of individuals or groups indulging in nonviolent civil disobedience in things like Dilbert and The Simpsons).
My conclusions:
1. Give the poor dead woman a break — ad hominem attacks don’t even cut it against the deceased.
2. Maybe, instead of everybody bitching about how some B-Team 50’s novelist destroyed American society, we ought to be thinking about treating our creative people better before they all turn into Homer and Wally?
OK. You try being profound in a little input rectangle.
p.s. I don’t have a Rynd sticker, I’ve never joined anything, and my rearview mirror is already bashed off."
Daamn! What a comment!"Barry Ritholtz Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pmAwesome comment, bergsten
~~~
Reality check: As bad as things have gotten in this nation over the past decade, its still damned fine for the elite. The US tax rate is cheaper than most of the industrialized world. I find the whining of the wealthy (ARAs especially) to be self-serving and lacking in all gratitude for their situation."
Gratitude to whom? You mean grateful
that they aren't being stolen from More?
"The top 1% of this country have it pretty damned good — they own multiple homes, plenty of high end toys, and have the most important luxury of all: time. The smarter ones easily provide for their family’s safety, health and well being.
The top one tenth of that top 1% live like Kings. There is nothing they can imagine they cannot possess, own or experience.
Like Mae West said: “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor — rich is much better.”"
So we should bring them down to
size and make them miserable like
the rest of us? Why not everyone
try and be like them? ... well, that
sounds like encouraging sameness...
"Like somebody said above, Rand is warmed-over Nietzche, only a sucky unreadable version. Message to all you self-styled ubermenschen out there: you and everyone you love are one drunk driver away from a wheelchair. Get over yourselves. Even Bill Bennett finally came around and acknowledged the role of birth lottery."
That drunk driver is consistent with her explanation. The system that you are
talking about self-perpetuates and
causes the need for the very thing it
says it needs.
"Blah blah blah is quite an intelligent response- I’m starting to think that your 15 minutes of fame may already be up.
Who is saying that Rand would celebrate those in the top 1% and condemn those in the bottom 1%? Her views are all about merit, and there is clearly less merit in sucking money from wealth producers via Government Sachs than there is in working 40 hrs a week as a janitor. Rand’s views were clearly anti-Elitist and pro-innovator.
As far as your phallic reference, I think Objectivists are fairly secure in both their own abilities and the ability of their fellow man to add value. It is Collectivists: Communists, Socialists, Fascists, etc. who use the power of government to coerce citizens to support the narrow interests of the few. I look at Collectivists on both the Left and the Right as generally insecure people who need to be needed."
And there is also cross-over... like with Alan. Though, I know nothing about it, so I'm basically
speaking out of my ass.
"Your analysis of Ayn Rand and her philosophy couldn’t be more off in many respects. Asserting that you think knocking off someone’s rear view mirror in the guise of ’selfishness” without penalty or fines is somehow consistent with her philosphy reveals how little you really know. Too bad. While her philosphy is definitely flawed, so is our semi-capitalistic based economic system. Greenspan as Fed Chairman, heck even having a fed chairman would have been an anathema to Rand. So would unregulated or unchecked markets as well as the bailouts ad naseum.
The tryanny of the majority Rand preached about is running rampant through Obamanomics. Life is indeed mimicking art and we are reminded of it everyday as the Messiah and his minions through Pelosi and Co. have press conference after press conference. Your fail to see the “big picture” here at all. So sad."
Nods."Oh yeah, as for Ayn Rand’s (yes, I know the “y” is in the first name — you can’t EDIT in the little input rectangle either) Objectivism Philosophy…
In My Humble Opinion — Philosophy is for the idle rich and the idle poor. The rest of us just don’t have the time for such foolishness.
So, I got no opinion on it whatsoever (other than it makes for a great insomnia cure)."
Obama bless you and your hard work for Society :-)"CSPAN Booknotes had the authors of two recent Rand books on, neither of whom wielded hatchets no worshipped at the feet of Goddess of the Market.
Both authors and books spoke to the powerful political DNA that Rand has and is contributing, from her involvent with the failed Wendell Willkie campaign through Goldwater and Reagan, National Review and WSJ editorial page.
There are many superior talents in the libetartarian vein like economists and political philosophical but both authors gathered from their research that due to Rand’s reach and popularity she is easily the Big Fish spawning much of what still courses through stream today. It is a good program, worth watching whatever’s one’s view or leanings."
75min
At around 42 minutes or so I got an idea:
Why not walk a few miles in State shoes?
I wanted to see what high school looked
like - I saw it. I wanted to see what
college looked like - I saw it.
Why not government and taxes?
Why not adopt the opposing view to
see if it does indeed do what it proposes
to do? It would be an excellent proof
against anarchy.
It was at about 41:20 when the pause
occurred between the speakers, I'm
guessing.
"They spoke of Rand and her movement flailing through the 40’s into the 50’s until the genius of grafting on the altruism motivation, the avenue to a higher moral ground that seems necessary for traction and appeal for isms,
whether con/liber-tar-al/enviro/soc/com/naz etc, the mitochondria that retains devotees and lends passion to the proselytizing necessary to win converts and lobs artillery across all battlegrounds.
A NYT Book Review of Gladwell’s WHAT THE DOG SAW, a critique piece, Stephen Pinker.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html?_r=1Wow. His face/head does not match his apparel.
It's like seeing an Einstein head on a jail boy or
Johnny kid. Is that the stripes doing that, or
simply the frame of his body? Both?
...and, referencing back to the quote,
I don't see why it was referenced...
I don't see why it was referenced...
"CSPAN Booknotes had the authors of two recent Rand books on, neither of whom wielded hatchets no worshipped at the feet of Goddess of the Market.
Indeed. It kind of reminded me of when Both authors and books spoke to the powerful political DNA that Rand has and is contributing, from her involvent with the failed Wendell Willkie campaign through Goldwater and Reagan, National Review and WSJ editorial page.
There are many superior talents in the libetartarian vein like economists and political philosophical but both authors gathered from their research that due to Rand’s reach and popularity she is easily the Big Fish spawning much of what still courses through stream today. It is a good program, worth watching whatever’s one’s view or leanings."I filmed John and the others talking about
the JFK assassination.
"An earlier poster ‘I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked’ expressed my experience, retiring half dozen years ago pre-50 not to embrace greed and rapaciousness but to elude it. It does happen, owners have thrown the keys to the place in the face of another bureaucratic antagonist.
Another poster ‘Similarly, others will step up to take the jobs vacated by Kid and others who “have enough” to exit the system from which they’ve already profited so handsomely.’
As I recall it was dirty face and dirty jeans, hopefully clean hands after washing, and some risk to life and limb in precarious situations. It wasn’t much money, just somehow managing to spend less than earned which amounted to judiciously managed savings that grew, alot of sheer blind dumb luck, allowing present liberties. Not to prosyletize an ism but I would recommend it to anyone, the guilt for non-contibuting belongs with the cause."
Hm. Still don't get the reference."KidDynamite,
“Our policy solutions to close revenue gaps feel to be largely to increase taxes on the wealthy. That’s all fine and dandy until the wealthy go John Gault and leave the system.”
RightWing gibberish.
A) The two greatest periods of prosperity in the 20th Century were when federal income tax rates on the Rich & Corporate were either at their highest or after the federal income tax had been raised on the Rich & Corporate.
B) On Friday night, during an interview with Charlie Rose, Warren Buffett stated:
* “If we’re looking for more money, I think we ought to be looking at guys like me. I am still paying a lower rate on dividends and capital gains than my cleaning lady is in her payroll tax.”
* “I’ve worked with all kinds of systems of taxation. I’ve worked with hundreds of rich people, even in the ’50s and the ’60s when the top rate was 70% and I’ve worked with them when the capital gains rate was 39.6%, and not one of them ever said ‘It’s one o’clock, instead of working this afternoon I think I’ll go to the movies because my marginal rate is so high’. If anything, they worked harder.”
“I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked – that of giving 50%+ of my earnings to the system.”
NOBODY in America pays 50% of their income in taxes.
You’re either ignorantly adding up tax brackets (which nobody pays) instead of percentages of income, or you’re a liar."
Huh."A little off topic here, but I just read my daughter’s homework assignment, Animal Farm. I’d never read it in high school – too busy drinking beer and I wouldn’t have understood it anyway.
It seems to me that this book is as relevant to our own current society as it was to the old Soviet Union. More relevant and thought provoking than Ayn Rand."
And 1984, Brave New World, The Prisoner by Patrick McGoohan...
and myriad others. It's not just Rand that's relevant.
"In any society or organization that I’ve seen, it appears true that those at the top didn’t necessarily get there by merit and their primary concern is not in improving life for anybody but themselves. Their time is spent in solidifying and improving their own position. There certainly are a lot of Napolean the Pig types in this world. I just hope that I’m not Boxer the Horse."
Nods.
"I can’t help but shake my head at the recent stream of people disparaging Ayn Rand because Greenspan once claimed to have been influenced by her. I’m no Ayn Rand apologist by any means, but to claim Greenspan’s policies are Randian is no different than if I were to claim to be a vegan, and someone then blaming vegans for problems caused by my all-meat diet. It doesn’t matter how much lip service Greenspan paid Rand. The wealthy people in our society are not John Galts; they are James Taggarts."
Yep.
"This is @Yossarian and @Barry,
The reason that Obama has such a problem doing the necessary things to fix this economy is because if he did, if he nationalized the banks, setup a strong regulatory structure and all the other stuff you recommend, the Yossarians of the world would say he is a communist, socialist, death pannels, etc., etc. In your blog, purposefully or unpurposefully you continue to underestimate the people of this cult. The Rand cult.
And the comments you are receiving here, just show the power of this cult following.
And Yossarian, Rand’s world would exist if humans were perfectly rational and considered the long term consequences of their short term decisions. But they don’t. As Barry has pointed out many, many times, people can often be irrational for long periods of time."
Well... I suppose I'll reference Stefan Molyneux
and confederalsocialist and childhood abuse (religion
and State).
"Now, here is what you must understand Yossarian. This does not mean that we are bashing capitalism. We love capitalism."
Who is "we"?
"Now, here is what you must understand Yossarian. This does not mean that we are bashing capitalism. We love capitalism. But we understand that there needs to be rules setup for capitalism to work appropriately. Some of these rules are undeniably useful: contract enforcement. But there are others as well that are needed especially in a complex financial and globally intertwined world that we live in today. But Ayn Rand and her cult following reject all these rules and the only question I have for them is why not anarchism. I mean if all rules applied by governments to govern the behavior of men are so evil, what is wrong with anarchism?"
I quite agree! What are the other rules, though? NAP?"…the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along.
“…for me, that’s the crux of it” – Kid Dynamite
Is lazy/unproductive being defined so narrowly that every full time worker paying little or nothing in income tax would be included? Doesn’t someone have to fill these jobs? What would happen to the economy if everyone making less than $30,000 went “Galt” en masse to make a point about how undervalued their contribution really is? Isn’t higher taxes to pay for more social benefits the flip side of “productive people” using global labor arbitrage to take profits at the expense of middle class jobs?"
I'm not sure what you mean, but that
sounds like an interesting question.
"Barry writes:
“The top one tenth of that top 1% live like Kings. There is nothing they can imagine they cannot possess, own or experience.”
I believe this to be one of the greatest mis-conceptions of modern material existence. Generally speaking, these people are where they are because of a tremendous imbalance in their lives. Although they may be at the top in net worth, they probably lacking of an equal magnitude in other areas of their lives.
It seems that the truly greatest humans throughout history were almost always dirt poor."
Hm... though, this trend makes also
for the poor philosopher to get a big
head and a martyr/victim/me-against-the-
world complex...
saith I, a projector of such attitude...
But anyway, ignoring that, it's an interesting
thing that does often seem to be the case...
why might that be?
"The problem with a lot of ‘Randtards’ is that they confuse what are essentially trust fund brats and well-connected people with ‘productive people’."
Agreed! A problem with not seeing how
the system is already started the reverse.
"The problem with a lot of ‘Randtards’ is that they confuse what are essentially trust fund brats and well-connected people with ‘productive people’. Come on, how many people at say, Goldman Sachs or JPM actually produce anything? Ever see that reality TV show with music producer David Fosters’ kids? Best argument for putting in a 99% estate tax if you ask me.
Part of what’s brought on this financial crisis is the lousy corporate culture that’s become more and more prevalent over the years – one that rewards sucking up and following the herd rather than actual engenuity and creativity. Just reading ‘Conspiracy of Fools’ on how Enron was run but I’ve seen similar stuff at other companies. The people who are kinda dumb and don’t ask too many questions or value climbing the ranks and getting a fat bonus regardless of the extent it eventually destabilizes the compnay go a lot further than the clever ones who see crooked deals for what they are, lousy accounting for what it is, and incompetence in their ’superiors’ – and instead of being rewarded, they are punished.
As for ‘wealth redistribution’ – currently, it’s being taken from the middle class and given to the rich. The super-rich – billionaires, etc. often just compete with each other over who would be top dog. Taxing them out the yin yang wouldn’t change that but would certainly bring in revenue for the government.
What most people seem to miss when they complain about taxes – is that they seem to be thinking mainly of taxes on employment income. However, a lot of the uber-rich don’t ‘earn’ a lot from employment, but from passive investments, tax shelters and so forth. Also, learn the distinction between top tax rate and top m-a-r-g-i-n-a-l tax rate before spewing off hyperbole about how ’screwed’ you are going to be."
Huh."@Joe Friday:
You lose a lot of credit when you claim to know something and say it in ALL CAPS when it turns out you have no idea what you are talking about. There are A LOT of people who pay more than 50% of their income in taxes. The marginal rate in NY is pushing 60% and it’s up there in Cali too. I don’t like the NY Post, but here’s a link confirming the NY rate.
Perhaps you should do some research, because it kinda weakens you’re argument, you know… when you have no idea what you’re talking about."
Hm."Some years ago I read a brilliant essay by a sociologist on the great paradox of American life. It is: On the one hand, one is supposed to develop oneself as an “individual.” But accompanying this, one is supposed to be successful. Now in fact the main way to become successful is to play the game – do what the system says you have to do. Which of course is pretty much the opposite of becoming an “individual.” He wrote that as far as he could tell, the main way Americans resolve this paradox is to play the game and try to become an “individual” by making more money compared to other people. Most of the Rand defenders sound like they fit: people who are in reality sheep who want to be individuals."
Huh. Probably fits me a lot too."My idea of important individuals is just old-fashioned, I guess. It includes people like Newton, or Beethoven, or (in fact) Henry Ford. Many of them didn’t make a lot of money, though they had plenty of will and talent. One notes that some of them, like Newton, made remarks about how standing on the shoulders of those who went before him, as opposed to thinking they had done everything themselves somehow."
Agreed."Most of the people writing on the Rand side strike me as insignificant people who want to be someone, who confuse making money with being an important individual. But that is not surprising, because making money is much easier to do than doing something really creative."
Perhaps. However, Objectivism is pretty
explicit that money is morality and that
making money is virtuous. Does it not then
follow that making money is put forth
as being an important individual?
"OK, I have to post this comment…Did anyone else notice that the comments on the original article @ GQ.com that defended Rand were strangely written in a style similar to her own work? IE, massive, ranting paragraphs! I love it! =P"
Like attracts like. Oh, and opposites attract too."Really great commentary on this thread. Bergsten summed up exactly everything I feel about this book. It has to be considered a classic. Much like art, it is in the eye of the beholder. But a LOT of people have read it. A lot of people hate it. A lot of people abide by the philosophy in it. Personally, its ok for me. But there is no need to trash a dead novelist who was writing in the times of their existence. Instead, the focus should strictly be on those who interpret everything so damn literally.
As an aside, Robert Kiyosaki gets criticized all the time for Rich Dad Poor Dad being a bunch of make up junk that is poorly written. His response? “I may not be a best writing author, but I am a best selling author”. I think that quote fits most of the anti-Atlas Shrugged crowd."
:P"I think what Rand missed, (or overlooked) was that the heroic producers of society would eventually side with corruption, not run from it. Whatever their ethical considerations, oligarchy quickly ensued."
Yep.
"We are so special, arent we? Original insights to live by. I havent had the pleasure. Can you roll spliffs with it in the paperback or does that make you amotivational ? Rich dad Poor dad? How about we canonize George Steinbrenner? Re issue the complete Playboy philosophy in Hardcover. In this, as in many other cases you can smell the meth cooking in the kitchen. Sorry all, but the lack of punctuation should have tipped you off a long long time ago."
That...?So, I'm just over halfway through the comments.
And I'm going to take a nap. 6:50 AM :P
So, I've woken up sometime after 3 PM. It's
3:49 PM. I masturbated, half to see if the
other girl would catch the bait (as happened,
to a large extent, with Lindsay), and as per
the "express yourself" thought that Kati
and Shawn said, and then I got a call from
Lindsay asking me to go to a private place.
Turns out Kati was offended, saying that
I had "masturbated in front of everyone";
but, given that I'd masturbated in front
of her and Shawn before, it was my guess
that "everyone" consisted of when company
was over. Nonetheless, the arbitrary-ness
of the rules was confusing, and, combined
with the guilt factor of my having felt that
something was off when I was doing it,
though I had done it anyway in part because
it had worked before... I left to the 2nd
floor bathroom (which I had found to check
for laundry stuff when I was doing kitchen
stuff and had used a towel to clean something
up) and went to the bathroom. I partially
did it, too, because Shawn had said
something to the other girl (girlfriend of
that military-ish guy) and she had gone in
the direction of the bathroom, and the
toilet paper that had been there before
was gone when I went in the next time,
so it was my wondering if it was for
revenge at my having masturbated in
front of her...
As I sat in the stall, I thought of my
one entry where I said that I did desire
death, and thought of leaving a final
entry: "Why not?" which would serve
as a sort of suicide note.
So, if I leave Kati's, my options are:
Mission, home, basically.
So, that means my options are:
Home.
Funny... I was kicked from Pat's,
and now possibly from Kati's,
for domestic reasons. One for
having broken up with Lindsay,
another for masturbating.
Talk about status quo.
I thought of how people throughout
my life had continually talked to me
through other people.
Adrianne (police), Rose (Diane),
Kris (Crystal), Pat (Lindsay), and now
including Kati (Lindsay).
And now I wonder of those times
I've talked to someone through someone
else... ... nope. All that I can recall
is talking behind people's backs.
And the most recent one of that
would be talking with Reachel about
Lindsay.
I guess that's one of the benefits
of how Diane thinks, if I were to go
home. She's blunt. And right now
I'm pretty sure I would fucking
appreciate that.
It's also a good sign (for Stefan) that Stefan
Molyneux shows, such as the
YouTube video with a conference
of him and Brett and that other guy:
46:30-47:10 & 49:40-50:20
Wes. Brett, Stef, and Wes.
Though, as to why this around about
way of talking with someone...
Hm. It kind of reminds me of The State,
God, gaps, money, and animal killing.
Some links so I can reference them
later if I care to:
I quite agree. One reference I think of when
I think of this is Derren Brown and his hypnosis.
I think of this is Derren Brown and his hypnosis.
Whether or not those people were stooges,
it nonetheless occurs in reality (not deliberately
controlled for TV, if it was) all the time.
Another thing I think of is how, with Christianity,
the sinner thinks he or she is the only one
who masturbates, if s/he masturbates.
There's always some guilty sin for which
the Christian needs to be praying for or
working on. So, I think a lot of the
specificivisity of each brain is due
to the avoidance nature and fantasy
world that goes hand in hand with such
things as religion. There is a need for
both escape, but also for belonging, and
all those sorts, yet speaking is discouraged,
and so a new world is in order for being
invented, and invented they are!
21:05
And I think I've been using wirrting as a means
of self-regulation, in that this is, in a large
way, the format of my thoughts. It puts them
in concrete order so that they don't just
flutter away.
21:12And, like with that example years ago
of the "greed for the crown" at the Russian
Museum, ... well, but that was first thought,
and then later writing.
22:11
Like my putting words on paper?
48:27
And I think that's part of why
I don't take compliments well.
Self defense of developing my
mind in regard to my inability
of regulation, since that's what
I think is going partially wrong.
Fascinating video.
Huh!
39:32
I was thinking about how that my
approach, psychiatrically, has been
that of laissez-faire and quite personal.
And yes, I have been basically engaging
in a sort of psychology with people,
though I did not want to admit it,
since it was anti the profession.
There are two basic approaches to
take with it:
1. Making money by taking people
who will become dependent on you
by progressive stages (like with
those damn pills where one cures
something but causes another)
2. Making money by stopping that
which is causing people to need
care.
It is far more profitable to do the
first approach, but it makes for
an overall worse society that
is simply not enjoyable to be in.
The simple existence of the need
for a psychiatric is a red flag;
psychiatry's goal should be
to eliminate the need for it,
in the same way that you
deal with a problem, and then
don't need to think about it again.
I have now reluctantly admitted
that I am basically a psychologist,
and I fully admit and submit
that I am a pseudo-psychologist.
My intent right now is to learn,
not to heal. Healing, however,
seems to have occurred with
some of the people I met.
I have no idea how permanent it
is, and I intend to learn more.
But the most important thing
is, I think... introspection.
And not from other people.
From myself. Because, by in
large part, I have come to this
study to understand myself.
So... I wonder if this (my journal) looks like
the thoughts of a psychopath?
Although, that thought seems to be
an implant via unintended NLP
through internet trolls and the
such. As I have already put, I am
format-susceptible. As to why...
I don't know. Trying to figure
that out. It's part of why I'm
into psycho-logy. lol Maybe
that's why I have a slightly
unbalanced view of things.
Taking the extremes as the
generals. It doesn't help that
I've mostly studied the extremes.
Then again... I does make the
stuff most apparent... *wonders*
(which is to say, *doesn't wonder
and just uses that as a gap so
I can go back to listening to
the Stefan video)
Well, I kind of did that because I
wanted to complete the thought,
but, since I didn't have anything
to complete it with... oh.
So, why did I want to complete it?
As per the format of completing
my thoughts as per the format of
thinking that I'm "more complete
now" as per Jeff and Diane, perhaps?
What happens if google dies?
If one day, it's just go... No, I won't
miss these journals. I already know that.
If one day, it's just gone? was the thought.
The blank page... writer's block.
I thought of that and then thought
of the one simpson's episode I was
watching where... no, it was King
of the Hill. Where a stupid blonde
(she didn't want to deal with the
theory behind why the weather
did what it did, she just wanted
to pronounce it, and she was
blonde) has her job of weather
casting by someone from...
either Canada or Australia? who
knows the science behind it.
In attempt to destroy his career
(thereby getting her job safe)
she tries to fumble him, but it
just turns out the opposite.
She goes into a talk about
how it's so hard for her to
talk about the weather,
and what would happen if
he just Froze and blanked
out?
To which he responds with
that there's Always something
to talk about the weather,
such as blah blah blah...
Another such example is her last
attempt: she sees that his
nose is rather large, and says
that she hopes it won't
Embarrass him too much.
When he's on the set,
he turns it into a joke,
a sort of ice breaker,
effectively reversing the
intended effect.
Her last attempt to get her job back is basically
to go out "into the action",
and the result is that she
puts herself in danger,
and feels humiliated about
the entire thing, but the
news authority likes it
and puts it as a small
part of the show.
Come to think of it...
I could probably see all
of these elements replicated
in all their patterns, with
only the specifics varying.
I think I'll do that. It'll be
nice to be able to predict
exactly what I'll see in
a movie. Then again, that'll
make movies boring,
like when two players know
how tic-tac-toe works
and it's always a cats game.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
November 15th, 2009 at 6:43 pm