Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

capmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#111

Post by Ein2015 »

unalone wrote: post #64
maxharris wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit…

Steve Jobs creates beautiful products with gorgeous logic, and as a result is subjected to a lot of controversy regarding his designs. He's almost the archetypal Rand hero. Bill Gates, however, has managed to spread technology to the world. His version of it is flawed - it's nowhere near as good as Jobs's creation - but at the same time, he managed to innovate and create system that could be used to help millions of…

I'd argue that Jobs is more of a "Randian hero", by far, since it seems that Apple refuses to release hacks, only good and solid code, products, etc. It also has infinitely better customer service than Microsoft, which can be seen on Consumerist.com as well as just interacting with the company.

I also get the feeling that Gates falls more to the altruistic side of things.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#112

Post by Ein2015 »

sethg wrote: post #91
ojbyrne wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that he inherited his wealth. And pissed it away. Objectively that's what happens.

Worse, he didn't just piss away his own wealth. By running D'Anconia Copper into the ground, he violated his fiduciary responsibility to the company's investors.

The company was going to be nationalized, essentially stolen from him, anyway. Thus, investors didn't matter in his decision to give the nation nothing in return for stealing his company.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#113

Post by sethg »

Radix wrote: post #108
sethg wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse, he didn't just piss away his own wealth. By running D'Anconia Copper into the ground, he violated his fiduciary responsibility to the company's investors.

That is beside the point. He is protecting the wealth from the looters. He uses his family's fame to bring in looting investors to his mine in Mexico, then it is revealed that there isn't anything of value there. The investors were looters, so D'Anconia succeeds with his goal.

Are you saying that it's OK to violate a contract if the other party to the contract is a "looter"? Why not just avoid making contracts with "looters" in the first place? (D'Anconia, after all, could have simply cashed out all of his holdings and let his successors decide how to deal with the threat of nationalization.)

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#114

Post by sethg »

Ein2015 wrote: post #112
sethg wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse, he didn't just piss away his own wealth. By running D'Anconia Copper into the ground, he violated his fiduciary responsibility to the company's investors.

The company was going to be nationalized, essentially stolen from him, anyway. Thus, investors didn't matter in his decision to give the nation nothing in return for stealing his company.

If I tear your wallet out of your pocket and set it on fire, I can't escape prosecution for theft by saying "there was this guy coming down the street who was going to mug us anyway, so you haven't really lost anything".

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#115

Post by Radix »

sethg wrote: post #113
Radix wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is beside the point. He is protecting the wealth from the looters. He uses his family's fame to bring in looting investors to his mine in Mexico, then it is revealed that there isn't anything of value there. The investors were looters, so D'Anconia succeeds with his goal.

Are you saying that it's OK to violate a contract if the other party to the contract is a "looter"? Why not just avoid making contracts with "looters" in the first place? (D'Anconia, after all, could have simply cashed out all of his holdings and let his successors decide how to deal with the threat of nationalization.)

Hmm, in general I agree that the proper action would be to simply not do buisness with those who cannot add value (the looters), but within the logic of the book it is clear that this is not an option. As someone has pointed out, it is a given that the looters are waiting till the mine is producing to nationalize it and the railroad to it.

D'Anconia has agreed with Galt to stop carrying the looters and so he plays the spoiled playboy. Sure, he has a certain duty, but that goes both ways, and if the investors are not adding value then what duty does he have to them other than to do as he pleases? They are trusting that they can make money off of him based on his family history, nothing else. That is, there agreement amounts to: "Go make money as you always have. We would like a share, but you do the work."

I agree with the comments of unalone and guiles. They point out what I don't like about the book, but I didn't see anything wrong with this subplot within the logic of the book.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#116

Post by sethg »

Radix wrote: post #115
sethg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that it's OK to violate a contract if the other party to the contract is a "looter"? Why not just avoid making contracts with "looters" in the first place? (D'Anconia, after all, could have simply cashed out all of his holdings and let his successors decide how to deal with the threat of nationalization.)

Hmm, in general I agree that the proper action would be to simply not do buisness with those who cannot add value (the looters), but within the logic of the book it is clear that this is not an option. As someone has pointed out, it is a given that the looters are waiting till the mine is producing to nationalize it and the railroad to it. D'Anconia has agreed with Galt to stop carrying the looters and so he plays th…

The investors added value by providing D'Anconia with capital. Once D'Anconia accepts their money, his duty is to manage it in good faith. Whatever character flaws the investors have (e.g., excessive faith in D'Anconia's management skills) do not excuse him from his fiduciary duty. If he doesn't like owing a share of his profits to people who don't contribute any effort to the company, he is free to liquidate his own shares so he can start a privately-held enterprise.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#117

Post by sgharms »

neilk wrote: post #16
sgharms wrote: post #8

I read _AS_ when I was 18 and I've thought about this quotation a lot through the last 20 months, as Reddit frothed about Ron Paul, Gold Standard, Banking collapse, etc. As I've thought more and more about it, something seems off about Francisco's speech, namely: Money is _no longer_ the representation of value in green paper; no, it is the representation of transferrable obligation, i.e. debt. http://bit.ly/14idwP R…

I got about 20 minutes into that "Money as Debt" video -- that's when he starts departing from, let's say, generally accepted theories of money. I don't have time to watch the whole thing, but I gather from other descriptions of the video that he advocates a policy of fiat money and repayment of debt via deliberate inflation, which is exactly the theory of the old Social Credit movement in Western Canada. That self-d…

I agree, and I should have said this, “Money as Debt” takes a conspiracy turn at about halfway. I'm a reminded of Adam Savage's "Do you mean Tesla the inventor of AC power, the genius or Tesla the nut-job?".

I very much liked your explanation in the third paragraph, but under this model what does interest represent? If I step through your logic here.....

1. I believe there is copper in that hill which has a value ( say of 60K ).

2. I ask the bank for 10K to get started

3. Thus 10K has been added to the economy, recognizing that raw materials will be brought to the economy and growing the pie of wealth

4. I go into them thar hills, mine out the copper for 60K.

5. I pay back the bank, who now has 10K actual cash in their reserves, against which they may lend. I have also put 50K of my sale of this copper in their bank, giving them 60K against which to lend.

6. At this point, I think we're balanced in terms of what's been added to the value pie.

7. OK, so what does interest represent? The opportunity cost on the hope that I would find the copper? And, alternatively, say I found nothing in those hills, what happens to that 10K that was created? Shouldn't that be destroyed?

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm trying to understand your model better.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#118

Post by mistermann »

jacoblyles wrote: post #96
maxharris wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit…

Here's a concrete example. Many people hold the highest moral good to be the elimination of suffering. They believe that we should work to improve the material conditions of the world's least-well-off humans. Ayn believes these people are evil. However, talking to them, I do not believe these people are evil. I believe they are good people. Their instincts are human. It is human nature to be made sad by the suffering…

"Many people hold the highest moral good to be the elimination of suffering. They believe that we should work to improve the material conditions of the world's least-well-off humans. Ayn believes these people are evil. " I don't have a quote to disprove you, but I'm fairly certain you are incorrect. Ayn's problem was moreso with any moral code that obliges you to help those in need, and with any financial or political system that forces you, at the point of a gun, to do so. If you want to make it your life's work to help the underprivileged, good on you, and I would be glad to help with an extra I may have, but forcing me to do it is another story. This is a common misinterpretation of her philosophy, but she writes so harshly that it isn't surprising, to me.

You will find, in real life situations, where freedom and personal property rights are protected, that almost everyone within that society has a higher standard of living than in countries that do not protect these rights. Most humans are compassionate and generous to the less well off. But if you restrict freedoms, and force compassion, I think its fair to say that you can see the real world consequences of that.

If her philosophy was to never help anyone under any circumstances without them earning it (which I don't think it was, this is often I think unjustly presumed by people), then I would disagree with her, and history shows that in free, affluent countries, most people do.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#119

Post by mistermann »

unalone wrote: post #64
maxharris wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit…

Steve Jobs creates beautiful products with gorgeous logic, and as a result is subjected to a lot of controversy regarding his designs. He's almost the archetypal Rand hero. Bill Gates, however, has managed to spread technology to the world. His version of it is flawed - it's nowhere near as good as Jobs's creation - but at the same time, he managed to innovate and create system that could be used to help millions of…

Ayn repeatedly spoke about open competition, and how it was wrong/immoral to not be willing to compete on an even playing field. Its been way over a decade since I read Atlas Shrugged, but I know for a fact that I could pull a quote out of the book that would show she disagreed in principle with Microsoft's "anti-competitive" practices.

Re: "Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

#120

Post by mistermann »

benzim wrote: post #98
maxharris wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the rest of the book seems ridiculous to you? The first time I read it, I thought that everything in Atlas Shrugged was perfect. Even with repeated readings, I never once thought anything was ridiculous. Be specific in your answer.

I liked Atlas Shrugged quite a lot, but there were a few parts that seemed ridiculous. Specifically the idea that everything was about money. In the model society near the end the banker loans Dagny a car and says that it isn't free he's charging her for it. As he shows Dagny around he explains how they charge each other for everything. Even husbands and wives pay each other one way or another. I wouldn't want to liv…

I agree....it's this type of over the top stuff that turns me off her writing. Atlas Shrugged should be rewritten, "now with 50% less cheese!"

But actually, can you see her point? Its quite true in real life, that you are constantly being evaluated by your peers to maintain some sort of a balance between reciprocation of favors. I think what she was warning about was excessive power of the state, so that favors were distributed primarily from them, as the result can be an entire society with a dependent personality and no sense of personal responsibility. Does that remind you of anything we see currently?

Post reply on HN