The controversy is not going away

[Younggun]

Preach! I've made 2 payrolls in my new company. I haven't been paid yet.

If I fail I will wipe out my savings & still be in debt.

It's a fun feeling.



That's what surprised me about Orwell. He was still dumb enough to think there is a right way to do socialism.

Just like every other socialist out there, lol.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldag]

When you read Atlas Shrugged and read what her liberal characters say, it is almost scary that today's liberals say almost the exact same things. I think her book is fairly prophetic.

Don't agree that she was down on "workers".

 

[TX OMFS]

I’m still wondering how raising my taxes fixes the supposed problem...

You need some time in room 101.

 

[diesel1959]

I found Objectivism and Rand's overall philosophy to be bland and insulting to workers. She wanted only creators and owners to have anything and everyone else should put their head down and do as they're told. No, if you give a shit about the capitalist free market you read Milton Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom, Free to Choose, Why Government is the Problem to name a FEW,) Thomas Sowell, or Adam Smith.

I get it Rand grew up for like 15 years in the USSR, she hated communism, but she also was an idiot who thought herself a genius.

Rand was a cultist who wanted people to worship her and have sex with her and it comes through her writing pretty damnably. The Fountain AND Atlas Shrugged were awful books and terrible to read.

The idea that you are "worth what you produce", is lost on some folks. To me, it's sort of like your grandfather's favorite saying of, "a workman being worthy of his hire". It didn't matter if you're working the line or designing, or inventing--DO SOMETHING! (and do it well.)

 

[pronstar]

The idea that you are "worth what you produce", is lost on some folks. To me, it's sort of like your grandfather's favorite saying of, "a workman being worthy of his hire". It didn't matter if you're working the line or designing, or inventing--DO SOMETHING! (and do it well.)

It’s akin to folks saying “I’m with more than what I’m getting paid”.

Ummm...no.

The value of anything is precisely what someone else is willing to pay.
And not a penny more.

It’s a harsh reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Big Green]

Potions and tonics are still sold. GNC & many others makes a good living at it.

Yep, and many as much BS now as those were then. There’s a sucker born every minute, right? These days that timeline may be a little off.

 

[cdb]

I found Objectivism and Rand's overall philosophy to be bland and insulting to workers. She wanted only creators and owners to have anything and everyone else should put their head down and do as they're told. No, if you give a shit about the capitalist free market you read Milton Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom, Free to Choose, Why Government is the Problem to name a FEW,) Thomas Sowell, or Adam Smith.

I get it Rand grew up for like 15 years in the USSR, she hated communism, but she also was an idiot who thought herself a genius.

Rand was a cultist who wanted people to worship her and have sex with her and it comes through her writing pretty damnably. The Fountain AND Atlas Shrugged were awful books and terrible to read.

Her epistemology was pretty awful and I won't comment on her personal life, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find much of her economic analysis that was at odds with the Austrian school theorists. Her better works focused more on the economics and less on the philosophy, it's been a long time since read it but I think AS did pretty well in that regard.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Her epistemology was pretty awful and I won't comment on her personal life, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find much of her economic analysis that was at odds with the Austrian school theorists. Her better works focused more on the economics and less on the philosophy, it's been a long time since read it but I think AS did pretty well in that regard.

Except she totally missed the point of economics where labor is a good that is affected by the same theories of supply and demand as any other good. That the price elasticity of labor is not perfectly inelastic. She also doesn't take into account that labor has no substitute goods in its market. Her dismissive attitude towards the elasticity of labor was insulting to the component of production known as workers.

Pop quiz hotshot (speed quote not a shot at you) : Why is labor the most expensive part of running a business? Is it government regulation? NO. Is it greediness of workers? NO. It's because labor is (or was until modern robotics and AI) a HIGHLY elastic supply demand curve.

F*** Ayn Rand and F*** her shitty writing. She was a disservice to economics. Even to the Austrian school that went out of style in the early 1900s to 1920s. Most of us worth a crap subscribe to the Chicago School or Neoclassical NOT Austrian.

The individual is great but without a purpose greater than itself it's useless. If you're an Objectivist you might as well be a Satanist (not a Luciferian which is what most of you consider Satanism.)

 

[oldag]

Except she totally missed the point of economics where labor is a good that is affected by the same theories of supply and demand as any other good. That the price elasticity of labor is not perfectly inelastic. She also doesn't take into account that labor has no substitute goods in it's market. Her dismissive attitude towards the elasticity of labor was insulting to the component of production known as workers.

Pop quiz hotshot (speed quote not a shot at you) : Why is labor the most expensive part of running a business? Is it government regulation? NO. Is it greediness of workers? NO. It's because labor is (or was until modern robotics and AI) a HIGHLY elastic supply demand curve.

F*** Ayn Rand and F*** her shitty writing. She was a disservice to economics. Even to the Austrian school that went out of style in the early 1900s to 1920s. Most of us worth a crap subscribe to the Chicago School or Neoclassical NOT Austrian.

The individual is great but without a purpose greater than itself it's useless. If you're an Objectivist you might as well be a Satanist (not a Luciferian which is what most of you consider Satanism.)

You can nitpick details, but the big picture she presented is accurate and has been (is being) played out on the world stage.

 

[cdb]

Except she totally missed the point of economics where labor is a good that is affected by the same theories of supply and demand as any other good. That the price elasticity of labor is not perfectly inelastic. She also doesn't take into account that labor has no substitute goods in its market. Her dismissive attitude towards the elasticity of labor was insulting to the component of production known as workers.

Pop quiz hotshot (speed quote not a shot at you) : Why is labor the most expensive part of running a business? Is it government regulation? NO. Is it greediness of workers? NO. It's because labor is (or was until modern robotics and AI) a HIGHLY elastic supply demand curve.

F*** Ayn Rand and F*** her shitty writing. She was a disservice to economics. Even to the Austrian school that went out of style in the early 1900s to 1920s. Most of us worth a crap subscribe to the Chicago School or Neoclassical NOT Austrian.

The individual is great but without a purpose greater than itself it's useless. If you're an Objectivist you might as well be a Satanist (not a Luciferian which is what most of you consider Satanism.)

Admittedly it's been quite a long time since I read AS, but I'm failing to recall evidence that she considered labor to be inelastic. For the sake of argument let's assume she botched it that badly. Does being wrong on that count make her deserving of that kind of rhetoric?

I expect you'd agree that it's good for people to be shown that free markets are morally superior to socialism. Irrespective of her philosophical and personal faults, her writing has surely influenced tens of thousands towards that conclusion. Simply dismissing the good she's done seems like missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Kar98]

The sad thing is, one has to argue and explain the differences between socialism and benevolent capitalism with supporters of "socialism" as much as with opponents of it.

THE deciding point whether an economy is socialist or not is government ownership and direction of the majority of industry.

A country using taxpayers' money to pay for police, military, schools, healthcare, infrastructure and the public welfare isn't socialist as long as companies are owned and controlled by private ownership and market force, and as long as individuals are free to decide where they live, what education they get, where they want to work and can negotiate their remuneration, and companies are free to decide what products or services they want to offer and at what price, safety and environmental regulations etc. notwithstanding.

 

[Bithabus]

The sad thing is, one has to argue and explain the differences between socialism and benevolent capitalism with supporters of "socialism" as much as with opponents of it.

THE deciding point whether an economy is socialist or not is government ownership and direction of the majority of industry.

A country using taxpayers' money to pay for police, military, schools, healthcare, infrastructure and the public welfare isn't socialist as long as companies are owned and controlled by private ownership and market force, and as long as individuals are free to decide where they live, what education they get, where they want to work and can negotiate their remuneration, and companies are free to decide what products or services they want to offer and at what price, safety and environmental regulations etc. notwithstanding.

Socialism is a spectrum.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Admittedly it's been quite a long time since I read AS, but I'm failing to recall evidence that she considered labor to be inelastic. For the sake of argument let's assume she botched it that badly. Does being wrong on that count make her deserving of that kind of rhetoric?

I expect you'd agree that it's good for people to be shown that free markets are morally superior to socialism. Irrespective of her philosophical and personal faults, her writing has surely influenced tens of thousands towards that conclusion. Simply dismissing the good she's done seems like missing the forest for the trees.

Because REPEATEDLY In the book her characters SHAME workers for WANTING A JOB. Geez a productive society needs workers. She made it out to be that people thought they deserved a job, I think people wanted to provide for their families. I dunno, the book left a bad taste in my mouth and it's just an example of how socialists use rhetoric by people like her to make us look bad.

 

[Kar98]

Socialism is a spectrum.

No. It's not. Either the state does own and controls most of the industry of a country, or it doesn't. It's binary, like being pregnant. Either you are, or you're not.
Autism is a spectrum. You might flip your hands around when talking to the opposite sex, or you might screech and shit your pants at the sight of a round slice of cheese.

 

[Bithabus]

No. It's not. Either the state does own and controls most of the industry of a country, or it doesn't. It's binary.

Disagree.

 

[Kar98]

Disagree.

On what grounds?

 

[diesel1959]

Disagree.

That’s like believing that socialism can actually work, but just hasn’t been done the right way yet. And, on that, I’m gonna call YUGE bullshît!

 

[Younggun]

No. It's not. Either the state does own and controls most of the industry of a country, or it doesn't. It's binary, like being pregnant. Either you are, or you're not.
Autism is a spectrum. You might flip your hands around when talking to the opposite sex, or you might screech and shit your pants at the sight of a round slice of cheese.

Sounds like communism, not socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kar98]

Sounds like communism, not socialism.

No. Communism is socialism plus "each person works according to their abilities; and is paid according to their needs".

 

[Bithabus]

On what grounds?

There can be degrees. For example, what if one state controls 60% of distribution and another controls 75%. Which is more Socialist?