View Full Version : Atlas Shrugged
NousDefionsDoc
12-24-2005, 08:14
Ok RL, I finished it. Thanks. Now explain it to me.
Roguish Lawyer
12-24-2005, 10:48
Ok RL, I finished it. Thanks. Now explain it to me.
LMAO! Where's D-9?
BMT (RIP)
12-24-2005, 14:15
I think I read this more years ago than I would like to remember. Still trying to understand any of these books.
BMT
Jack Moroney (RIP)
12-24-2005, 20:19
Ok RL, I finished it. Thanks. Now explain it to me.
I think the most disturbing thing is not that you are among just about everyone else who ever read it that wants someone to explain it but that you actually took the time to read it. You are a better person than am I, but then of course you knew that because you are a medic:D
Jack Moroney-pondering not the meaning of existence but the value of the 10-2-1 or 3-5-2 systems for messing with railroad bureaucrates.
NousDefionsDoc
12-24-2005, 21:24
LOL - we'll wait for D9 and Jimbo I guess. I was actually hoping for a discussion. I have my own thoughts on it, colored as they are by my own mores and morals, etc.
Other than the chick stuff, I actually liked it.
LOL, yeppers a early 70's book
CPTAUSRET
12-24-2005, 23:31
Ayn Rand.
I read the book many years ago, didn't get much out of it, figured I wasn't intellectually up to the book, then I figured the book just wasn't that good.
I asked nancy about it a few years ago, she wasn't impressed either.
Now (Heinlein's) "STARSHIP TROOPERS" was a book I loved, as was "A MOTE IN GOD'S EYE" (Niven and Pournelle).
Terry
Starship Troopers must be a good book, because a lot of former/current military like it.
Peregrino
12-25-2005, 10:33
Ayn Rand.
I read the book many years ago, didn't get much out of it, figured I wasn't intellectually up to the book, then I figured the book just wasn't that good.
I asked nancy about it a few years ago, she wasn't impressed either.
Now (Heinlein's) "STARSHIP TROOPERS" was a book I loved, as was "A MOTE IN GOD'S EYE" (Niven and Pournelle).
Terry
I have to agree. I read a lot of military "scifi" as brain candy. With Pournelle and Niven Footfall, Lucifer's Hammer, and The Gripping Hand also come to mind. The memorable stuff always seems to deal with human issues as opposed to hardware spectaculars. In my opinion the best stuff appeals to all of our "duty, honor, fidelity, higher purpose" motivating triggers. New and relevant ideas can come from many sources - not just the traditional ones and the message doesn't have to be inscrutible and require interpretation by a self appointed elite to be meaningful, e.g. Ayn Rand. Check out this article in SWJ: http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/swjmag/oct05/cole.htm.
And for COL M. - I've always wanted to try the water impulse/trestle intervention but couldn't get anybody to "cough up" a target. Briefings and videos just don't inspire the confidence that "hands on" does.
Merry Christmas all! Peregrino
It's been a while since I read Atlas Shruged. As I remember, the characters seemed to be extremely stark; very much black and white, good and evil. I thought it was good book.
As you probably know, the author was born in Russia to successful parents who were eventually ensnared in the communist revolution. She wrote a book about it entitled, We The Living.
CPTAUSRET
12-25-2005, 11:12
I have to agree. I read a lot of military "scifi" as brain candy. With Pournelle and Niven Footfall, Lucifer's Hammer, and The Gripping Hand also come to mind. The memorable stuff always seems to deal with human issues as opposed to hardware spectaculars. In my opinion the best stuff appeals to all of our "duty, honor, fidelity, higher purpose" motivating triggers. New and relevant ideas can come from many sources - not just the traditional ones and the message doesn't have to be inscrutible and require interpretation by a self appointed elite to be meaningful, e.g. Ayn Rand. Check out this article in SWJ: http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/swjmag/oct05/cole.htm.
And for COL M. - I've always wanted to try the water impulse/trestle intervention but couldn't get anybody to "cough up" a target. Briefings and videos just don't inspire the confidence that "hands on" does.
Merry Christmas all! Peregrino
Peregrino:
Merry Christmas!
"ONCE AN EAGLE' by Anton Myrer is one you should read if you have not already done so.
Terry
Roguish Lawyer
12-25-2005, 21:26
I'm happy to discuss it, NDD. Just didn't have time before.
I'd like to read your initial thoughts first, however.
Goggles Pizano
12-26-2005, 00:24
Peregrino:
Merry Christmas!
"ONCE AN EAGLE' by Anton Myrer is one you should read if you have not already done so.
Terry
THAT is an outstanding read Sir! Glad you mentioned it!
NousDefionsDoc
12-26-2005, 08:33
"Existence exists"?
I thought it had a lot of chick stuff trying to keep the reader's interests.
The message I got from it was there are producers and leeches - not necessarily a revelation. Big government is dangerous - again, no revelation.
I saw a lot of parallels between the "need driven" social conscience and the lib philosophies of today.
The helplessness in adversity by the average citizen - even more prevelant today and evidenced by events such as NOLA.
I also thought there was an underlying tone of anti-corporationism.
And a stinging indictment of the NYSE-method of value estimation.
I've read the book more than once and took it as a warning regarding the socialist ideas of the time (50'S).... Capitalism breeds motivation and innovation kind of stuff, without it we are dead in the water. Try "Anthem".
.
And a stinging indictment of the NYSE-method of value estimation.
Yep, again non-producers in the loop messing it up for the producers.
Roguish Lawyer
12-26-2005, 10:51
"Existence exists"?
I thought it had a lot of chick stuff trying to keep the reader's interests.
The message I got from it was there are producers and leeches - not necessarily a revelation. Big government is dangerous - again, no revelation.
I saw a lot of parallels between the "need driven" social conscience and the lib philosophies of today.
The helplessness in adversity by the average citizen - even more prevelant today and evidenced by events such as NOLA.
I also thought there was an underlying tone of anti-corporationism.
And a stinging indictment of the NYSE-method of value estimation.
I don't understand your last two points.
I haven't read it for a long time, but I think the basic points are that you should admire and support merit and ability, not need; that you should do things for yourself and those who benefit you in whatever way you like; and that leeches suck.
I'm sure D-9 will have a lot to say on the subject.
NousDefionsDoc
12-26-2005, 10:58
You don't understand the last two points?
I was thinking about Reardon Metal's competition, the steel guy that was tied in with the pols, among others.
No real value produced, just perception. Much like the stock market method of evaluating company worth.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
12-26-2005, 12:53
No real value produced, just perception. Much like the stock market method of evaluating company worth.
Sweet Baby Jesus, do you realize that you just left yourself open to a FS barrage and everyother member of the MBA community. :D
NousDefionsDoc
12-26-2005, 12:57
Sweet Baby Jesus, do you realize that you just left yourself open to a FS barrage and everyother member of the MBA community. :D
LOL - In the immortal words of the CinC - Bring it on!
I eat MBAs for breakfast Sir.:lifter
And a stinging indictment of the NYSE-method of value estimation.
This methodology is direct cause of wholesale layoffs, etc. Give a guy a job one day and then decide you need to cut overhead to meat your numbers the next day, and everyone has to go. At the end of the day, is the company a better company? I think the whole thing stinks.
Every decision is based on what the market will say. I spent 10 years advising folks on their businesses, only to realize in the end, I did not know their businesses like they did.
I eat MBAs for breakfast Sir.
That requires lots of ketchup doesn't it? :D
NousDefionsDoc
12-26-2005, 14:50
My main question upon reading NDD's comment was, "What would be a better way?"
How about real evaluation of real assets and debits? How about instead of "trading at ten times earnings" we talk about "providing an excellent product for a stable market for the last 200 years."? How about that?
How about before you get paid, you actually have to produce something?
NDD, the method you take exception with is the "multiples" method; i.e., how many times revenue, ebitda, earnings, etc. a stock is trading at. It is wildly inaccurate and naive.
What you seem to be advocating is the discounted cash flows technique, in which the company's P&L is projected forward using scenarios, and the cash flows discounted for the time value of money. This is what smart analysts do. If the calcuated value of the equity is less than the company's market capitalization, the residual is usually ascribed to growth following the explicit forecast period. FWIW, for a healthy stock, only about 20% of the stock price is explainable by expectations of performance over the next five years.
The problem is that, even though we have the most transparent capital markets in the history of the world, investors still have a hard time evaluating the ways in which companies create or destroy value, and an even harder time estimating the real impact of a specific news item or change in strategy. Hence, the growth residual in a stock can bounce around wildly on a daily basis for reasons not demonstrably attributable to changes in underlying value.
However, it is my experience that few companies remain either grossly under- or overvalued relative to the discounted cash flows approach for very long; i.e., more than a few quarters. Public market investors either spot the arbitrage opportunity or a private equity firm takes the company private and pockets the spread.
Kind of esoteric, but it's a living! :lifter
NousDefionsDoc
12-26-2005, 22:04
What I am saying is that an entire phoney culture has been created by the middleman. And a lot of it is for the "investor" to "understand" creative accounting.
And a lot of it is people trying to make money without working.
If you asked me to invest in the HAK because you wanted to expand and I had the money, I would do so. Not because some punk ass kid that has never cut anybody said you make 10 times earnings. But because I know a good sneaky knife when I see one. And then I would help you get the word out.
A lot of "investors" don't know shit about the companies they invest in and even less about the product. They just want somebody else to make them money. I know they are giving up their own money and taking some risk. But I don't like it.
When you can change the stock price of a company - the perceived worth - in a meeting with words, something is terribly wrong.
Investors have gone from partners to leeches.
The Reaper
12-27-2005, 05:25
I understand that GM has a lot of debt. They also have a lot of assets.
How can Google, which AFAIK has potential but very few physical assets, have stock shares worth more than GM?
TR
Roguish Lawyer
12-27-2005, 11:26
I understand that GM has a lot of debt. They also have a lot of assets.
How can Google, which AFAIK has potential but very few physical assets, have stock shares worth more than GM?
TR
GM is losing money and failing to compete effectively in the marketplace. I'll bet there were some buggy whip factories with lots of physical assets available for purchase at one time . . .
The Reaper
12-27-2005, 12:32
GM is losing money and failing to compete effectively in the marketplace. I'll bet there were some buggy whip factories with lots of physical assets available for purchase at one time . . .
If you look at the dot.com collapse, a lot of other people made that same assumption.
How is Google different?
Where does its revenue come from and how does it justify the current stock price?
TR
Roguish Lawyer
12-27-2005, 13:31
If you look at the dot.com collapse, a lot of other people made that same assumption.
How is Google different?
Where does its revenue come from and how does it justify the current stock price?
TR
I don't own Google because I don't understand the current valuation. Prices for businesses really aren't any different from any other commodity in that they are what people will pay and what people will sell for -- some people are willing to pay based on valuations that make no sense to others.
Roguish Lawyer
12-27-2005, 13:31
Where is D-9? :munchin
ghuinness
12-27-2005, 14:10
If you look at the dot.com collapse, a lot of other people made that same assumption.
How is Google different?
Where does its revenue come from and how does it justify the current stock price?
TR
It isn't any different (IMHO). If I recall correctly there are about 2800 companies on the NYSE. Some are hype and some are value.
Congress enacted 409A to address some of the stock-option offers which contributed to the .com collapse.
Google's primary attraction to investors (I presume) is the potential for increased revenue from mergers (AOL is currently rumoured) and advertising revenue. They also have some shopping thing called froogle (I think).
For me that adds up to a big zero, but obviously institutions and individuals are willing to invest. Just hope these investors don't follow the class-action-lawsuit trend and complain when they lose money.
A lot of "investors" don't know shit about the companies they invest in and even less about the product. They just want somebody else to make them money. I know they are giving up their own money and taking some risk. But I don't like it.
When you can change the stock price of a company - the perceived worth - in a meeting with words, something is terribly wrong.
Investors have gone from partners to leeches.
I'm not sure I understand. If you are saying outside, passive investors (even disinterested and uninformed ones) are bad, I disagree. That is the basis of the corporation.
If you are saying valuation methods are out of whack, then I would agree. I worked for a startup that went under during the dot-com debacle. At the time, our sole focus was booking sales, since the market was valuing companies at multiples of revenues. It didn't matter what it cost to close the deals and how much money we would make, we just wanted to recognize revenues. All the fundamentals went out the window, and the whole shebang collapsed, deservedly so.
I understand that GM has a lot of debt. They also have a lot of assets.
How can Google, which AFAIK has potential but very few physical assets, have stock shares worth more than GM?
TR
Physical assets are one way to value a company. But they are no good if you can't use them to generate the cash flows to plug into the DCF model jatx talked about. If market capitalization falls below the liquidation value of the assets, you will have 80's-style corporate raiders swoop in and buy the company, then sell off the assets for a profit.
Google's investors are betting on the value of the projected future cash flows. Those projections may very well be based on faulty assumptions. If they are wrong, like the dot-com investors were wrong, then the market will correct.
i am not sure an analysis of Ayn Rand's work is possible without a cursory understanding of objectivism, capitalism (as defined by Adam Smith and redefined by Ayn Rand) and more whisky than i would care to drink in a weekend...i started to respond to this thread on Christmas Eve, but opted to re-read some of the posts in the Elijah Craig thread...i went to bed with a headache and had dreams i was an undergraduate (again) preparing a book report on The Fountainhead for an American Lit class i dropped around the time i met the woman that later became my wife...not only did i drop the class, but i gave up on architecture as a major...
there is nothing inherently wrong with passive investment, but when you get alot of speculative investors in a market, the price can and often does rise, not based on value, but based on the hope of getting rich without getting their hands dirty...
The Reaper
12-27-2005, 14:31
GOOG - Currently at $424.25 per share.
P/E in excess of 95.
I understand that the Market bets on future value, but I just don't get it, in this case.
TR
...but based on the hope of getting rich without getting their hands dirty...
I respectfully disagree, just like I disagree with NDD's characterization of investors as "leeches." How else would you raise the required capital to build a chip fab plant, for example? There is a difference between raising capital and running a business. In fact, in many situations you wouldn't want investors involved in running the business.
While I agree with TR that Google's valuation may very well be based on vapor, there is nothing wrong with investors bidding up a stock based on future performance. As long as companies are not duping investors into investing (breathless securities analysts notwithstanding), they should be able to raise capital. If firms try to play games to get investors to invest, we have the securities acts to nail them.
If speculators bet wrong and the market corrects, they will pay, and they should pay.
there is nothing inherently wrong with passive investment, but when you get alot of speculative investors in a market, the price can and often does rise, not based on value, but based on the hope of getting rich without getting their hands dirty...
You mean like the current housing market? :(
NousDefionsDoc
12-27-2005, 17:04
Respectfully, I disagree, but I do have one question.
I wonder what you think about Bush's proposal to privatize social security? :munchin
I favor it, but it won't work. What we will have are a bunch of dumbasses that sunk all their retirement money in some .com and we will end up having to support them anyway. I favor it because I think the gubermint is very bad at managing money and it has no right to take and take and take.
Do they still sell savings bonds? I liked that program.
NousDefionsDoc
12-27-2005, 17:05
GM is losing money and failing to compete effectively in the marketplace. I'll bet there were some buggy whip factories with lots of physical assets available for purchase at one time . . .
Unions
NousDefionsDoc
12-27-2005, 17:15
I respectfully disagree, just like I disagree with NDD's characterization of investors as "leeches." How else would you raise the required capital to build a chip fab plant, for example? There is a difference between raising capital and running a business. In fact, in many situations you wouldn't want investors involved in running the business.
While I agree with TR that Google's valuation may very well be based on vapor, there is nothing wrong with investors bidding up a stock based on future performance. As long as companies are not duping investors into investing (breathless securities analysts notwithstanding), they should be able to raise capital. If firms try to play games to get investors to invest, we have the securities acts to nail them.
If speculators bet wrong and the market corrects, they will pay, and they should pay.
How about building the chips in your garage until you make enough money selling them to get a bigger garage? How about they put all their own money into it first? How about actually making something before getting the money?
Know why Mickey Ds is a good investment? They make burgers by the billions. They have rules and a culture and they train their people. They also don't take any shit from any one. They don't promise you a Big Mac for your money, they put it in your hand and then take your money. And you know before you ever stick it in your piehole exactly how it will taste.
Look at Amway. If they were a public company, they would be a penny stock. know why? They have never pulled out of a country they've gone into. Not one. In the history of the company. They didn't pull out of Argentina when it collapsed. I spent 3 days with one of the founders' sons. They man travels five days a week (minimum) selling the concept. The founders' sons! And when you order that crap, they get it to you.
How about building the chips in your garage until you make enough money selling them to get a bigger garage? How about they put all their own money into it first? How about actually making something before getting the money?
What if the cost to make one chip is prohibitively high, and the cost to make 100,000 chips is not that much higher than the cost to make one? Does that mean we don't make chips until the chipmakers can round up the cash for a plant themselves? Are we better off?
It sounds like you are advocating the elimination of the corporation, and as a US b-school trained capitalist, I cannot agree with that.:) What is wrong with putting money up front in return for getting a larger sum back in the future? You're getting into a chicken and egg scenario, make the product first and you'll get paid, when it costs money to make the product.
If you want partners, form a partnership. Otherwise, there is a place for the corporation. Granted, most shares of the largest corporations today are owned by institutional investors (mutual funds, insurance, pensions, etc.), and Joe Schmoe Investor is the proverbial fly on the battleship.
Know why Mickey Ds is a good investment? They make burgers by the billions. They have rules and a culture and they train their people. They also don't take any shit from any one. They don't promise you a Big Mac for your money, they put it in your hand and then take your money. And you know before you ever stick it in your piehole exactly how it will taste.
It depends on what your investment goals are. Mickey D's is a steady company, but in return for that lower risk you will earn a lower return. Some people are willing to assume a greater risk for the chance of a higher return.
NousDefionsDoc
12-27-2005, 17:54
Greater risk with other people's money.
You mean like the current housing market?Ed Zachary...the house i'm in now was valued at $250K when i moved in not quite two years ago (waaaay overpriced, i thought)...now, it's valued at $375K, and while i haven't trashed the place, i doubt my presence has increased the value 50%...of course, i didn't buy at $250K...no, now i'm going to buy somewhere else...for a little (alot) more...c'est le guerre...:(
ghuinness
12-27-2005, 18:42
GOOG - Currently at $424.25 per share.
P/E in excess of 95.
I understand that the Market bets on future value, but I just don't get it, in this case.
TR
//hijack
FYI - try www.killerinfo.com - much better (no advertising). :)
//end hijack
Unions
They might just be our last line of defence from the B-school jackasses.
Investors have gone from partners to leeches.
I think what NDD is saying is that some passive investors are looking for inordinate returns on investment and they are purely speculators as opposed to partners.
In essense, what we have are brokers, traders and basically insiders making a fortune instead of looking for a decent return over the life of the company which is built on solid business principles. Not a company who makes drastic cuts etc. just so their numbers don't dissapoint wall street. One that invests in the future, not just the short term.
With overly sophisticated accounting principles which no one other then the CPA's understand, combined with the mergers of the big accounting firms with the end result that the people performing the audits are independent in form only, and the break down of coporate integrity you end up with World com and Enrons.
We have this expectation among invetors. If you don't receive a annual return of at least 20%, there's a problem. No wonder the Enrons exist. The investing public is unrealistic.
D9 (RIP)
12-27-2005, 19:53
Atlas Shrugged is my favorite novel. I consider myself an objectivist.
"Existence exists."
I thought this was a pretty mundane tautology also when I first read Atlas about 5 years ago. After reading the book and trying some amateur-hour philosophy, I undertook a more formal study of philosophical history - especially the Greeks and post-Kantians (i.e. recent modern philosophy). Then, Ayn Rand's now famous tautologies "Existence exists," and the revised Aristotelean Law of Non-Contradiction "A is A," made more sense.
Atlas Shrugged should be understood as an outline of Ayn Rand's philosophy (essentially monologued in Galt's speech). But as with all philosophies, it was articulated in response to the philosophical enviroment of its time. Here is where one must recognize that Ayn Rand's statements are direct rebuttals to formal philosophy (philosophy as a science, as it exists in unversities) in the 1950's.
Even today, go and find yourself a philosopher who is faculty in any major university and ask him if he thinks existence exists on its own, or ask him if there can be contradictions in reality. In all of my experience at least - and I have sought these people out - you will not find one who believes in objective existence or the impossibility of logical contradictions in reality. I've asked a professor whether or not we could at least agree that the desk between us was real and had the guy say he couldn't be sure. Those are the people who get to teach your kids for 4 years when they go to university.
I also finished Atlas with more questions than answers. I kept reading her non-fiction, and read a lot of the arguments of the other side as well. Over time I formed the opinion that she was right about most of the things that had originally rubbed me wrong in Atlas.
My 0.02.
NousDefionsDoc
12-27-2005, 22:51
Define objectivist.
I sure got a lot of translators and terps in this thread.
Define objectivistsee for yourself...
Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Russian-born American philosopher and author Ayn Rand. It encompasses positions in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality, that individual human beings are in contact with this reality through sensory perception, that they gain knowledge by processing the data of perception using the method of reason or "non-contradictory identification," that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness, and that the only moral social system is laissez-faire capitalism. The different branches of the philosophy, Rand claims, all hierarchically link back to its metaphysics and epistemology, and are found by establishing the logical results of its position in those two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy
D9 (RIP)
12-27-2005, 23:45
Define objectivist.
I sure got a lot of translators and terps in this thread.
Someone who thinks Ayn Rand's philosophy - Objectivism - is correct. The philosophy, of course, is well enough outlined in Galt's speech. The Wikipedia excerpt above sounds about right as a quick summary, although the longer text following the link appears to have been flagged by Wikipedia for inaccuracies. A better source for what Objectivism is about is www.aynrand.org, a site run by the Ayn Rand Institute.
Ayn Rand said herself, that if she had to describe her philosophy in one sentence, it would be:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
CPTAUSRET
12-28-2005, 10:14
D9:
You should sit down with our youngest daughter, sometime. Robin ia a professor of Philosophy (Philosophy of Science) at U Del.
Terry
bravo22b
10-30-2008, 11:11
I realize that this is an ancient thread, but I think it deserves a brief resurrection on the eve of what may be a new era of socialization in America.
I was first introduced to Ayn Rand in early high school, and then chose to read "The Fountainhead" in my junior year. It was a big mistake to give a kid like me a book like that. As soon as I read it, I knew I had encountered something I had never seen before, but it made a huge amount of sense to me. I doubt that my uncooperative teenage attitude was helped much by the experience.:D It definitely crystallized a realization for me that I saw the world a lot differently than most people around me. I would have to say it is one of my favorite books, and I have probably re-read it 15 times or more.
This led me to reading "Atlas Shrugged" in my senior year, which I also re-read last year. My feeling about Ayn Rand is that you can't take the writing too seriously; the plots and characters exist only to illustrate the philosophical points. Even when I re-read "Atlas Shrugged" last year, I found some of it a little tough to swallow; it's not very subtle, and she uses the plot like a sledgehammer to beat you over the head.
That said, the road that the country appears to be headed down brings the book into much higher relief. It seems as though a lot of the country is embracing the idea of taking away from the "haves" to give to the "have not's". I mean, really - it's your patriotic duty to pay more taxes so the less fortunate can have more?:eek:
It should be plain to anyone who considers it that you cannot force people to be more productive while simultaneously taking away their profit motive, except at the point of a gun; and that giving unearned profit, opportunity, or advantage to someone who is not inclined to use it wisely will not encourage them to suddenly work harder - exactly the opposite is true. It will only encourage them to hold out their hand even faster the next time.
I am definitely an Objectivist, and I realize that there is a lot of philosophy in both "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" other than the economic implications that could be discussed as well, but I thought this was relevant to current events.
Ayn Rand said herself, that if she had to describe her philosophy in one sentence, it would be:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Missed this thread the first time around...Indeed, this book/philosophy is very relevant considering the policital climate and forthcoming assult should O. Hussein win, IMHO.
When listening to the mantra of "Spread the Wealth," my first thoughts bring me back to when my own eyes were opened at the age of 24, while reading The Fountainhead, and then Atlas Shrugged.
Maybe if more Americans understood what will happen if the "rich" are forced to provide an existence for the "poor,":rolleyes: then O. Hussein would never even stand a chance!
(Can we bring back Hillary??? At least she was a "Patriot"...:rolleyes:)
Holly
Ayn Rand is a MUST read for the folks here. I make it a point to read her books every year. Each reading brings a new level of understanding and a view of things you missed ther first few reads. She was prescient as to her views of the dangers facing this country - not just then, but now. D9 - I think she tried to label what was inherently a "workable" definition of life into a philosophy she labelled objective realism. Not sure that it is a valid study of philosophical construct, or someone trying to get an OER bullet. I recommend everyone here read ALL her books and finish with her master-piece ATLAS SHRUGGED, to really flesh out what we, as soldiers, inherently know. We don't sit around coffee shops swilling Chai and regailing smelly, birkenstock college kids with selfish visions of our "awesomeness". We simply "serve". As best told by Ronnie Knight one day out on a ruck march when we were all smack-talking about how tough we were and how we'd change the world, he simply stated: "Don't know much about any of that shit, I'm just a soldier". Anyone knowing Ronnie would choke on that.... Opened this little boys eyes.
bluenote
10-30-2008, 17:17
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are both great books. I was thinking about them a few weeks ago while looking at the polling numbers. Who would BHO tax if Atlas shrugged after November 4th and John Gault and his friends disappeared? What happens when achievement is punished and leeching off of others is encouraged? What would happen if BHO read the books and realized he was the anti-hero? BN
...our youngest daughter...is a professor of Philosophy (Philosophy of Science) at U Del.Terry
No thanks...unless there is plenty of wine and cheese around. :D :rolleyes: :p
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Who would BHO tax if Atlas shrugged after November 4th and John Gault and his friends disappeared? What happens when achievement is punished and leeching off of others is encouraged? What would happen if BHO read the books and realized he was the anti-hero? BN
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, as well as the Fountainhead.
Mr. Galt will disappear. Back in 1975, the UK increased the tax rate to a maximum of 83% ( LINK (http://www.ifs.org.uk/ff/income.xls) ). I recall the headlines of the day - Britain experienced a "brain drain". Those with salable skills elsewhere departed. They may not go to Galt's Gulch; instead, they may choose Costa Rica. At that point, taxes will increase on the middle class, and controls on movements of people and capital may occur. In fact, as of some months ago, those who renounce U.S. citizenship and have a net worth above $600M face a substantial exit tax ( LINK (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07032008/business/the_feds_have_come_up_with_an_exit_tax__118342.htm ?ref=patrick.net&page=1) ). So the new policy would probably be broadened and strengthened. (Note: I am not advocating such renunciation; rather, I note that it is a major shift in national policy)
The term "you get what you pay for" seems applicable. Reward leeching, and you will surely get more leeching.
And if BHO read the books, he would probably find ways to strongly encourage the publishers to cease publication of something he defined as divisive.
OpForKorn
11-16-2008, 18:39
My take on Atlas Shrugged is that Rand was saying that: No one has the right to take the products of another's labor, and use it for "altruism" as she called it. The characters in the novel were all producers who got tired of being sapped by non-producers. Just my $.02