'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#121

Post by nazgulnarsil » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 9:39 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #29

vitaminj wrote: post #22

Wow, this article has some very tenuous links between Atlas Shrugged and real life. I'm going to just pick on one: The appropriation of Rearden metal by the government in Atlas Shrugged was compared to Hank Paulson's insistence that the banks (which the government would bail out) had to hand over a percentage of their future profits back to the government. Apparently, these situations are eerily similar because in bo…

Some banks didn't want to take the government's money but were basically forced to. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2008/oct/15/banking

It's called nationalizing and any serious business concern would like to avoid it.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#122

Post by davidw » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 10:23 PM UTC

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #120

davidw wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close: solutions will most often be derived from the real world (trial and error), and real economics, which says that capitalism is the best system, albeit an imperfect one, and therefore needs some tweaking now and then. How much and what tweaking is of course a matter of ongoing debate between reasonable people, and probably depends a lot on what various communities and peoples prefer. I.e. most people in Sweden a…

homogeneous societies have an easier time of running collectivist programs without incurring wrath of the populace. no one minds if tax dollars go to other people just like them.

Sure, and there are also lots of other things that work well on lower, local levels, too, but that might not be appropriate for national-covers-everything-and-everyone style laws. But that's are not cut and dried, either. Some stuff works better at a national level.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#123

Post by mmmurf » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 10:50 PM UTC

walterk wrote: post #108

mmmurf wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: Rand doesn't care how productive someone is, only that he/she attempts to actually be productive. Obviously there is great variation in how productive (in an absolute and economic sense) that individual humans can be. The point is that some people strive to produce while some strive to take power over others.

Right, but there are also many who are simply discouraged from striving at all, possibly jaded. Rand never considers the forces behind this fact: she simply casts them as villains.

I wouldn't say that. Have you read any of Rand's books?

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#124

Post by mmmurf » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 10:59 PM UTC

aswanson wrote: post #112

mmmurf wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment suggests that you believe the world needs to be "run" by a wise planner of some sort.

I didn't get that out of the comment. I read that as neither collectivism or objectivism is a completely flawless method, and we should take from each as the situation, rather than the ideology, dictates. I also read that as capitalism seems to have been obviously more successfull than communism, so solutions most often will be derived from objective philosophy.

I think the comment does carry that implication, though it's not obvious to most people because they are looking for a messiah, benevolent dictator, wise group of elders, etc.

Your own views would be summarized as pragmatism, which I think is inevitably the way any policy gets implemented.

However the purpose of philosophy (which is what Atlas Shrugged is) is to enable the mind to think about a broad system of beliefs and their consequences logically, and to outline the purposes, goals, desired ends, etc.

The same could be said for the communist manifesto. I respect both works as solid philosophical texts, as they provide ample fuel for critical thinking about the issues.

What's interesting about the comment about "running the world" is that it does suggest a world view very biased toward central planning, and so it's hard to take any conclusion that follows from it as unbiased.

Many similar biases exist all over the place... the idea that wanting federal dollars to be spent on x implies support of x and not wanting federal dollars to be spent on it implies opposition to it is one example.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#125

Post by APLonDrugs » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 11:15 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #84

Tangurena wrote: post #49

I came across an interesting analogy about how Atlas Shrugged was the first book in a trilogy. And how Anthem was the 3rd book (the second book, "shrug harder" not having been written or released). > Then [John Galt] went further and, in a fit of offended pique, promised to "stop the motor of the world," to kill 90% or so of Earth's population by intentionally wrecking the economy. Which he then did. How? By finding…

because John Galt had carefully sabotaged the bridges and railroads John Galt destroyed nothing except a room full of his own inventions. The railroads were destroyed due to the poor management of Dagny's brother (forget his name) and interference from Washington. Also, from that link: John Galt, outraged that anybody would even suggest that he or the company he worked for owed anything to the nation that provided hi…

Agree...Also, from that link: ‘built the roads that got him to work each day’ and they built those roads without your consent like the stimulus package now, you will get it from your tax money regardless if you want it or not. How many cameras did those roads include so your government can watch you? How many $2,000 hammers? How many pay-offs to the political class were made for it to happen, behind closed doors? The argument you ‘owe society’ is false, what you owe is freedom within that society that let it happen and that is all. The greater the personal liberties are held foremost in society the greater the benefits that can be developed for your fellow man. How much good for society happened under Mao, Hitler and Stalin? The infrastructure that the Weimar Republic built centered on promising its citizens too much. This led to huge budget deficits that created inflation on a level the world had never seen before. I’d rather take my chances without everything the link says government gave me:-)

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#126

Post by mynameishere » Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 11:43 PM UTC

olefoo wrote: post #107

jerf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I mean there was the whole mortgage deal (that only happened in the largely non-socialist US) that started screwing the economy up because the US doesn't have enough legal protections in place to stop people who physically don't have the money to pay a loan to get a loan in the first place." Exactly backwards . And I mean exactly backwards. There are, in fact, laws that forced banks to give out loans to those people…

Please name the regulation that said that any bank had to give a loan to someone with No Income, No Job, No Assets? Please name the laws that are (you claim) still forcing banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers. Now I would agree that there were many failures of regulation in the mortgage industry; but if you are trying to claim that things like http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.php forced banks into maki…

“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?hp

But it's more complicated than that. The government subsidized housing speculation through tax cuts, subsidized mortgage security speculation through Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac's implicit guarantee, created artificial liquidity through the Fed that allowed the stock/commodity/housing bubble that just popped.

“Tonight, I propose a new tax cut for homeownership that says to every middle-income working family in this country, if you sell your home, you will not have to pay a capital gains tax on it ever — not ever.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19tax.html

The one regulation that they removed (and shouldn't have) dealt with leveraging requirements.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#127

Post by anewaccountname » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 12:21 AM UTC

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #116

walterk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did? In what way? (Genuinely curious.) My understanding is that, despite some of his views being at odds with her own, Rand was happy to have him in her inner circle anyway.

he expanded the money supply in 1995 and again in 2000 in order to create growth. Since you can't create growth out of thin air these bubbles eventually burst. This is blatant Keynesian economics, the opposite of the free-market.

Guess WWII never happened.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#128

Post by anewaccountname » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 12:23 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #86

eru wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then saw people singing the national anthem in Spanish, Would this be a good or a bad thing?

with the words politically modified

as though it were some sacred canon from god.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#129

Post by anewaccountname » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 12:41 AM UTC

unalone wrote: post #36

walterk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the philosopher who made burgers.

Or the physicist who worked as a low-level railroad operator. I hate that most of the detractors of Atlas Shrugged misread the message. There are things to criticize, but the ones that do get criticized (Ayn Rand is a Nazi, she ignores the common laborer, she dares include a pirate as a character) are the ones that don't really matter regarding the main theme/are entirely wrong.

I thought Rand put that physicist there to show how a society with what were in her view the wrong priorities misappropriated talent.

Re: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

#130

Post by unalone » Sun, Jan 11, 2009, 1:04 AM UTC

anewaccountname wrote: post #129

unalone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the physicist who worked as a low-level railroad operator. I hate that most of the detractors of Atlas Shrugged misread the message. There are things to criticize, but the ones that do get criticized (Ayn Rand is a Nazi, she ignores the common laborer, she dares include a pirate as a character) are the ones that don't really matter regarding the main theme/are entirely wrong.

I thought Rand put that physicist there to show how a society with what were in her view the wrong priorities misappropriated talent.

She does, yes, and it's said that it's a waste of talent for Galt, but the job itself is not considered offensive. Galt doesn't get shown much because he's in hiding, but the philosopher gets a few paragraphs describing how relieving it is, his ability to make good food. It's a sign that there are still people who take delight in what they do.