PDA

View Full Version : Atlas Shrugged: Francisco's Money Speech



spursncowboys
11-24-2009, 01:32 PM
"Francisco's Money Speech"
by Ayn Rand (August 30, 2002)

The following is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand. It is reprinted with permission from the Estate of Ayn Rand.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."

The above is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand. It is reprinted with permission from the Estate of Ayn Rand.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826

Duff McCartney
11-24-2009, 01:38 PM
Ayn Rand is a fucking nut.

panic giraffe
11-24-2009, 01:40 PM
stupid failed playwriter.
the right will find anyone to worship.

spursncowboys
11-24-2009, 01:41 PM
stupid failed playwriter.
the right will find anyone to worship.

Ayn Rand was not the right.

ElNono
11-24-2009, 01:41 PM
Isn't that a work of fiction? I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of objectivism.

panic giraffe
11-24-2009, 01:42 PM
Ayn Rand was not the right.

no. but most modern "conservatives" and neo-cons worship her. where did i say what she was? i said crazies worship the crazy failed playwriter.

spursncowboys
11-24-2009, 01:45 PM
Isn't that a work of fiction? I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of objectivism.

Yeah. Over 1000 pages. Really good for anyone.

Winehole23
11-24-2009, 01:50 PM
Yeah. Over 1000 pages. Really good for anyone....who needs a soporific.

spursncowboys
11-24-2009, 01:54 PM
no. but most modern "conservatives" and neo-cons worship her. where did i say what she was? i said crazies worship the crazy failed playwriter.

So because the smart ones like her, you think she's crazy? WHat do you object about what she wrote (through her main character)?

spursncowboys
11-24-2009, 01:57 PM
...who needs a soporific.

Yeah that's how all books are for me. The sentences are really damn wordy.

Winehole23
11-24-2009, 02:02 PM
Yeah that's how all books are for me. The sentences are really damn wordy.That I don't mind so much. It's the preachy, long-winded harangues that wear me out.

ElNono
11-24-2009, 02:02 PM
Yeah. Over 1000 pages. Really good for anyone.

Including not big fans of objectivism?

Marcus Bryant
11-24-2009, 02:07 PM
Whittaker Chambers on Atlas Shrugged. (http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp)

While conservatives are enthralled by her defense of laissez faire and general enmity towards state experimentation in private life, they seem to ignore her disdain for certain traditions, like say, charity. Or, they embrace her notion that there should be a finite amount to which individuals are responsible to the state and ignore her argument that individuals have no moral responsibility at all for the well-being of other individuals. As much as conservatives believe that the state taking over formerly private, social activities is unnatural to humanity, so is the exclusion of charity, be it through private organizations or through, oh, let's say, the family to those in need. Considering Rand as a fellow traveler and being comfortable with her philosophy without considering its flaws is not a good thing for those in favor of limited government. In a nutshell, a better parody of conservatism, classical liberalism, or libertarianism could not have been created than that of "objectivism."

clambake
11-24-2009, 02:31 PM
So because the smart ones like her, you think she's crazy?

:lmao

TheProfessor
11-24-2009, 02:32 PM
That I don't mind so much. It's the preachy, long-winded harangues that wear me out.
Got through Fountainhead and half of Atlas Shrugged in high school before I came to a similar conclusion.

panic giraffe
11-24-2009, 02:33 PM
So because the smart ones like her, you think she's crazy? WHat do you object about what she wrote (through her main character)?

name a smart one? i wasn't insulting people's intelligence, just saying that i thought she was crazy and for the most part she is appreciated by crazy people.

i object to the overall idea that a work of fiction should be analyzed to the point that its seen as academia.

i had a ethics prof, tara smith, who gets a freggin' grant to study rand and her works of fiction. retarded. find the ethics of real life before you study fictitious characters that could be biased one way or another on the author's whims. its like bad theology. what's next a class on the ethics of the twilight characters? same shit. well i take that back. dan brown is widely read and the movies based on his books sell, also widely panned by critics or anyone with a decent taste for literature. his work is also deemed "controversial" by some, so i guess, if 50 years from now, neo-neo-con's adopt him as their second bible then i will say that the right will follow anyone.

i object to the idea that john galt is dismissed by his peers for not conforming and then seen as a hero to those who now espouse conform conform conform, no to immigration, no to reform of a process that has been the same, no change, nothing new, but they hold non-conformist up high, i just don't get it. and you see more of that in the fountainhead. its really sad, kind of like chanting "be yourself as long as you're just like me"

Oh, Gee!!
11-24-2009, 02:41 PM
She relies too heavily on the supposition that those with ill-gotten gains have the capacity for remorse.

101A
11-24-2009, 04:23 PM
She relies too heavily on the supposition that those with ill-gotten gains have the capacity for remorse.


You obviously have NOT read Atlas Shrugged.

Pretty much remorseless society; all sides.

Long read - could be tedious; liked the cool technologies she dreamed up (the metal, the static electricity engine, etc...)

Was pretty silly, the devolved into batshit crazy when the capitalists went all Rambo there at the end.

Wild Cobra
11-24-2009, 04:35 PM
Still, money is just a currency. It is not the "root of evil," it just allows payment of evil endeavors.

Oh, Gee!!
11-24-2009, 04:43 PM
You obviously have NOT read Atlas Shrugged.

Pretty much remorseless society; all sides.

Long read - could be tedious; liked the cool technologies she dreamed up (the metal, the static electricity engine, etc...)

Was pretty silly, the devolved into batshit crazy when the capitalists went all Rambo there at the end.


the point being that she supposes only those who get money the "right way" can and will enjoy their riches, and those that get money the "wrong way" will lose it or not be able to enjoy it.

EmptyMan
11-24-2009, 05:57 PM
The strong survive and flourish.

Life is simple enough.

mogrovejo
11-24-2009, 06:23 PM
The argument that there's no place for charity in the objectivist worldview is faulty. The premise may be different: it doesn't arise from a moral responsibility towards others that leads to self-sacrifice, as the traditional concept of charity; but as long as one feels that practising charity is good for his self ( say, one thinks that being charitable produces positive externalities: a better local community, less crime, etc.; or it simply makes one feel good), then there's no problem with it. This is a common misconception - that there's no place to other feelings besides selfishness (as commonly understood) in objectivism. It isn't so.

That said, I too find Rand boring and uninteresting (and objectivism an uninspiring understanding of human life). Her inability to properly understand another thinkers, therefore often misrepresenting their theories, irks me. I was a big fan of her during my high-school years though.

And The Fountainhead is a great movie.

Zc7oZ9yWqO4

Marcus Bryant
11-24-2009, 06:44 PM
Rubbish. Charity which carries the non-producers is most certainly ruled out of that bogus "philosophy." Rand saw charity as a limiting demand on the creativity and productive power of her capitalist superheroes. That individuals, even ones who otherwise fit her definition of perfected man, would have concern and sympathy for others, and would even perhaps derive some pleasure out of seeing the less fortunate aided, has no place in her made-up philosophy which continues to sucker fools.

spursncowboys
11-24-2009, 06:59 PM
Rubbish. Charity which carries the non-producers is most certainly ruled out of that bogus "philosophy." Rand saw charity as a limiting demand on the creativity and productive power of her capitalist superheroes. That individuals, even ones who otherwise fit her definition of perfected man, would have concern and sympathy for others, and would even perhaps derive some pleasure out of seeing the less fortunate aided, has no place in her made-up philosophy which continues to sucker fools.
What philosophy is not made up?
Her perfect man was John Galt. In her wirte up of Atlas Shrugged, she had another character-Hank Rearden's priest. He was a good moral character, but was conflicted with Galt. Your idea of help is different than her idea of help. Neither of your ideas have any finite measurement.

Marcus Bryant
11-24-2009, 07:08 PM
Her idea was self-help to the extreme. Pure fantasy. It appeals to emo would-be Galts as some kind of escapist revenge on society fantasy. Claiming that because charity could be provided if it proved a good investment is not charity. Then you end up withholding food from a starving man because the payoff isn't a market rate. And any guesses as to who Rand thought was the embodiment of her "philosophy"? Last name starts with a G...

mogrovejo
11-24-2009, 07:23 PM
Well, if you define "charity" by your own terms - invoking the necessity of disinterested service, then you're right. Unfortunately, I'm always dubious of "final vocabulary", to quote Rorty. I agree with your overall appreciation of Rand and Objectivism though.

DarkReign
11-24-2009, 07:30 PM
To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return.

Well, thats bullshit...nice theory though.

Wild Cobra
11-25-2011, 08:49 PM
So, has anyone seen the movie? The book was written what... 1954?

I saw the DVD (pt. 1) in the store a week or two ago. I ordered it in Bluray and should be receiving it any day now.

baseline bum
11-25-2011, 09:01 PM
LOL, this thread died pretty quickly after MB dropped the Greenspan bomb.

Wild Cobra
11-25-2011, 09:04 PM
Yes, but I'll bet from the 1954 movie and 2002 speech, the film version is somewhat different. Anyone see it?

ChuckD
11-25-2011, 09:27 PM
Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices.

I stopped right there. WTF? There is nothing virtuous at all about producing or earning money. It's a tool, no different from a screwdriver or an edger. Would you feel proud about collecting 1,000,000 screwdrivers? No, because anything beyond maybe 10-12 for normal carpentry use is redundant. You might need a smaller set for technical computer work.

The worship of money as a "virtue" is what drives some to accumulate more money than they, or their descendants to the 4th or 5th generation can possibly spend in their cumulative lifetimes.

spursncowboys
11-25-2011, 10:06 PM
Actually Rand didn't hold Greenspan in high regards. She had a quote about him that pretty much meant he was just trying to be in the in crowd.

spursncowboys
11-25-2011, 10:10 PM
"Ayn Rand would have never advocated for the kind of policies Alan Greenspan instituted," Brook says, citing the Fed's 1% fed funds rate in the years after 9/11 as exhibit A: "By holding interest rates for two-and-a-half years below the rate of inflation, [Greenspan] encouraged the debt and credit boom we're suffering the consequence of" today -- and for the foreseeable future. - yaron brooke

spursncowboys
11-25-2011, 10:13 PM
I stopped right there. WTF? There is nothing virtuous at all about producing or earning money. It's a tool, no different from a screwdriver or an edger. Would you feel proud about collecting 1,000,000 screwdrivers? No, because anything beyond maybe 10-12 for normal carpentry use is redundant. You might need a smaller set for technical computer work.

The worship of money as a "virtue" is what drives some to accumulate more money than they, or their descendants to the 4th or 5th generation can possibly spend in their cumulative lifetimes.

She never worshipped money. I take that as producing for an amount of fair trade. She was pretty into having a true value (gold). She didn't mean the actual paper money that is the dollar.

spursncowboys
11-25-2011, 10:14 PM
Yes, but I'll bet from the 1954 movie and 2002 speech, the film version is somewhat different. Anyone see it?

I read somewhere that the Ayn Rand Institute people aren't very happy about it. I think they wanted it broke into a trilogy.

Wild Cobra
11-25-2011, 10:30 PM
I read somewhere that the Ayn Rand Institute people aren't very happy about it. I think they wanted it broke into a trilogy.
I really don't know the plot, and expect the 2011 movie will differ from the 1957 book in several ways. I've only seen the trailer and it looks good. I guess I'll find out in a few days about the movie view on corporate evils.

baseline bum
11-25-2011, 10:31 PM
Actually Rand didn't hold Greenspan in high regards. She had a quote about him that pretty much meant he was just trying to be in the in crowd.

:lol What revisionist bullshit.

baseline bum
11-25-2011, 10:38 PM
LOL, Rand called Greenspan her disciple and her man in Washington when he went to go work for President Ford.

scott
11-26-2011, 02:03 AM
As a big fan of Rand I find it especially funny how people cherry pick her beliefs, as though they aren't all based on the same logic. A Christian boasting Randian philosophy is hilariously ironic.

ChuckD
11-26-2011, 10:59 AM
As a big fan of Rand I find it especially funny how people cherry pick her beliefs, as though they aren't all based on the same logic. A Christian boasting Randian philosophy is hilariously ironic.

Was that the logic that excoriates programs like Social Security, yet still allows her to collect it in her dotage? That seems at least as "hilariously ironic" as the Christians espousing her views.

scott
11-26-2011, 12:45 PM
Was that the logic that excoriates programs like Social Security, yet still allows her to collect it in her dotage? That seems at least as "hilariously ironic" as the Christians espousing her views.

She was an unabashed hypocrite is all I could tell you. I'm a fan of some of her ideas, but I'm also quite aware of her (rather consistent) flaws. I also think it's hilariously ironic that some people treat her "doctrines" as religion.

DarkReign
11-27-2011, 09:53 AM
I never understood the fascination with Rand. Is it because her mantra was well worded and fiction that it should stand apart from so many other works? Is it because she gave her POV a name, thus is should last this long?

Her philosophy is nothing more than "The strong survive and procreate; money edition"

scott
11-27-2011, 12:29 PM
To me, the appeal isn't so much in her economic philosophies but rather her general philosophies (some of which can be applied to economics).

Her axioms of existence, identity and consciousness were mind-shattering for me as a 16-year-old beginning my own philosophical journey and the idea that we are all driven by our own selfishness, but that isn't inherently a bad thing, is a simple yet important one.

I'm not a huge fan of her fictional works, to be quite honest, but I do like her non-fictional philosophical writings. Her fiction is far too verbose so much to the point that I disagree that it is well-worded. I think the message gets lost in highly ineffective writing. I mean, we don't need an 1,100 page book about a chick with a railroad who starts screwing the steel manufacturer and the battle between the doers and the moochers. Atlas Shrugged could have been a 300 page book.

scott
11-27-2011, 12:45 PM
Another criticism I have of Rand is that because her works were so verbose, the nuance of it is often lost on simpletons who try to extract from it what they want to hear.

Someone will read Atlas Shrugged and take away from it a confirmation of pure laissez-faire approach but ignoring the make up of the characters in the book and the importance of them in the context of the philosophy proposed. Rand's "doer" class wasn't made up of God-fearing "let them eat cake" elitists. It was made up by societies best & brightest minds who could use logic to navigate their way through the issues facing a society. In contrast, the moochers offered absolutely no value to the doer class, and thus led to their "disappearance."

It's an exaggerated tale that is too often purported to accurate reflect real life. Within the context of her philosophies overall, I think she'd be appalled at the praise received from folks like Beck and Limbaugh because it cherry picks things to fit their bias, while ignoring all the rest.

With that said, like all philosophies, Rand leaves quite a bit to be lacking. I often times equate her to Sir Thomas More in that both of their seminal works relied on unrealistic (to the point of fantasy) value characteristics in the actors that the message becomes overly detached from reality. More, at least, had the wherewithal to acknowledge how unrealistic his work was right in the title of it.

EVAY
11-27-2011, 01:43 PM
As a big fan of Rand I find it especially funny how people cherry pick her beliefs, as though they aren't all based on the same logic. A Christian boasting Randian philosophy is hilariously ironic.

Sort of in the same way that many Christians cherry-pick biblical quotations to support whatever point they are trying to make.

Winehole23
11-27-2011, 02:43 PM
Everyone cherry-picks, but there are degrees of craft and inartfulness.

Winehole23
11-27-2011, 03:35 PM
As a fifteen year old I was genuinely moved by the moment of first person singular recognition in Anthem, but also thought it a little clunky and improbable: a society that had expunged the first person singular from all lit and all usage.

scott
11-27-2011, 03:37 PM
As a fifteen year old I was genuinely moved by the moment of first person singular recognition in Anthem, but also thought it a little clunky and improbable: a society that had expunged the first person singular from all lit and all usage.

There are still a few shining examples. Brett Easton Ellis comes to mind.

Anthem I found lacking the "oomph" that could really make that story shine. Same with Fountainhead to be quite honest. Then again, I have already said I'm a bigger fan of Rand's philosophy than her fiction.

Winehole23
11-27-2011, 03:42 PM
For me it's been hard to separate Ayn Rand from her fandom. In that respect she superficially resembles the Grateful Dead: the fandom somewhat ruined it for me.

Unlike Ayn Rand, the Dead I've revisited with pleasure and appreciation.

Nothing I've read by Ayn Rand yet has moved me from my initial judgments, and indeed, over time, my view seems to be getting harsher. But admittedly, it's been awhile...

scott
11-27-2011, 03:46 PM
For me it's been hard to separate Ayn Rand from her fandom. In that respect she superficially resembles the Grateful Dead for me: the fandom somewhat ruined it.

Unlike Ayn Rand however, with the Dead I've revisited with pleasure and appreciation. Nothing I've read by Ayn yet has moved me from my initial judgments, and indeed, over time, my judgment seems to be getting harsher. But admittedly, it's been awhile...

I'd agreed with that on both levels. I don't share the same beliefs as her more recently discovered fans and I in fact probably have a far different interpretation of her works. In addition, my interest in her work has waned greatly with time.

Winehole23
11-27-2011, 04:35 PM
Bright Lights, Big City was written in the first person plural as I recall....Wrong. Was written in the second person.

Winehole23
11-27-2011, 04:39 PM
...

spursncowboys
11-27-2011, 04:49 PM
As a big fan of Rand I find it especially funny how people cherry pick her beliefs, as though they aren't all based on the same logic. A Christian boasting Randian philosophy is hilariously ironic.
lol. I find it hilariously how narrow minded you are. I am not a robot or a worshipper of men. I never said I was a big fan of her. I respect her work and like her ideas on economics. I respect Thomas Aquenouis but don't believe in alot of Catholicism. Also its objectivism, not Randian.

spursncowboys
11-27-2011, 04:57 PM
Alan Greenspan vs. Ayn Rand and Freedom
7 November 2008Harry Binswanger
The connection of Alan Greenspan to Ayn Rand, decades ago, is being used dishonestly to blacken her name and her ideas.
The connection of Alan Greenspan to Ayn Rand, decades ago, is being used to blacken her name and her ideas.

This from the Leftist "Mother Jones" publication is one of the milder expressions:
"In a historic moment, former Fed chair Alan Greenspan acknowledged he had been wrong for years to assume that government regulation was bad for markets. Whoops--there goes decades of Ayn Rand down the drain."
Rightist publications are joining in the smear: Forbes magazine's online blog states:
"Greenspan, protege of Ayn Rand and the driving mind behind the notion that risk can be contained by having ever growing numbers of market players taking pieces of that risk, has now admitted that 'Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief.' [...] "The whole concept of self-regulation through self-interest is now dead,"
In response, I posted this comment on the Forbes site:
The lesson people have drawn from Greenspan's failure is exactly backwards. Greenspan, "the maestro," and his dream-team staff, couldn't figure out how to run the economy. It was the Fed's expansion of the money supply (1% interest rates!) that created the bubbles. So interventionism has failed, as it always does. Can anyone seriously say, "an even smarter version of Greenspan will get it right next time"?

The article says self-regulation is now dead. Okay, what's the alternative? Regulation by the state--i.e., by new Greenspans? Forbes, above all publications, should be clear that the alternative to self-regulation is state dictation, the command economy.

Deregulation? There were 51,000 NEW regulations added over the last 12 years. Banking, housing, and insurance are the most regulated areas of the economy. They are strangled by regulations. This is the failure of the regulatory state.

As to Greenspan, this is the penalty of betraying Ayn Rand's philosophy. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen's famous riposte: Dr. Greenspan, I knew Ayn Rand, and you're no Objectivist.
Let's review the record in regard to Greenspan's progressive split from Ayn Rand.

I can't say I knew Alan Greenspan, though, being an associate of Ayn Rand, I met him a few times in the 1960s. But by 1970--almost 40 years ago--I and a couple of other Objectivists in that circle already realized that Greenspan was compromising on her philosophy. Little did we know how far his anti-Rand journey would take him. As the years rolled on,

he was hailed as the man who "saved" Social Security--by extending its confiscatory power,

when Bill Clinton's State of the Union address called for socialized medicine, he rose to his feet, standing next to Hillary Clinton in giving a standing ovation to that proposal,

he became head of the mammothly anti-capitalist Federal Reserve, directing the government's manipulation of money and credit,

he provided a laudatory dust-jacket blurb for a book attacking Ayn Rand (by a woman he had "irrevocably" condemned in print in 1968). Yet he repeatedly refused to contribute to or lend his name to the Ayn Rand Institute,

he wrote, in 1995, that government central banking is a necessity: "Only a central bank, with unlimited power to create money can guarantee that such a process ["a cascading sequence of defaults"] will be thwarted before it becomes destructive." (Note that we just witnessed this "cascading sequence of defaults" despite --or, actually, caused by --our central bank.),

he wrote in his autobiography about coming to reject Objectivism: "as contradictions inherent in my new notions began to emerge . . . the fervor receded",


and now he has blamed free markets (as if we had them!) for his failures at the Fed. In conceding that his "ideology" was wrong, he was understood to be saying Ayn Rand was wrong--even though he had long ago forgotten or evaded every essential of what Ayn Rand stood for.
How much did he forget? Consider this interview with him from a year ago:
Fox Interviewer: "Now you were a great admirer, in fact an acolyte, of Ayn Rand, the great philosopher, who believed in the absolute most limited role that the government could play in people's lives. She probably wouldn't have been a fan of the Federal Reserve Board, would she?

Greenspan: "Well, uh, I don't know, because we never discussed that in particular."
He doesn't know that Ayn Rand opposed the Fed?! Every Objectivist knows it. The Fox Interviewer knew it. Anyone who can form a syllogism, and who knows Ayn Rand's major premises knew it. But Alan Greenspan doesn't, because, he claims, they never discussed that in particular. Okay, let's imagine that's true; they never discussed that in particular. But did they not discuss in all those years, the principle of individual rights? the proper functions of government? the fact that Atlas Shrugged advocates a gold standard? her famous dictum about the absolute separation of State and Economics? Did he not read the very book he published in--Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?

From "Common Fallacies About Capitalism," in that book:
"All government intervention in the economy is based on the belief that economic laws need not operate, that principles of cause and effect can be suspended, that everything in existence is 'flexible' and 'malleable,' except a bureaucrat's whim, which is omnipotent; reality, logic, and economics must not be allowed to get in the way. This was the implicit premise that led to the establishment in 1913 of the Federal Reserve System . . ."
Perhaps Greenspan would claim, absurdly, he never read that particular article. But look at his own article in CUI, "Gold and Economic Freedom":
"But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline--argued economic interventionists--why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely--it was claimed--there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913."
So his statement that "he never discussed that in particular" with Ayn Rand is either evidence of how much his evasions have automatized or is an outright lie.

For a breath of fresh air, look at this analysis of the financial crisis:
"The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the housing market--triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve tried to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by mid-2008 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed."
Pretty good summary, isn't it? Only it was written not about today but about 1929--by Alan Greenspan. I simply changed the dates, made it the housing market instead of the stock market, and inserted Greenspan's name. For the original, See his "Gold and Economic Freedom," in CUI, p. 101.

Back to the Fox interview of a year ago:
"But I think she [Ayn Rand] recognized that there are lots of institutions which we would be better without, but nonetheless probably require them if indeed society as a whole decides to do that. Remember, we live in a democratic society and that compromise is the very essence of a democratic society. Because if we're all individuals with different ideas and we want to live together we have to do that."
This--about the world's most famous opponent of compromise? The woman who wrote:
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube."
(It is not a compromise to accede to the majority vote in a constitutionally limited republic. But Greenspan was not doing that, not merely acknowledging the political impossibility of abolishing the Fed, he was endorsing the Fed, running it (badly), and arguing for its necessity, as in his 1995 paper.)

The essence of Greenspan's testimony is: "a wrong ideology was to blame, not me." What ideology? Well, in the popular mind it is Ayn Rand's.

So the meaning, which certainly has been seized on by the commentators, is: Greenspan belatedly realized how foolish he has been to believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy. The ideology of freedom, as taught by Ayn Rand to Greenspan, is what caused the current financial catastrophe.

What makes this especially revolting, is that the real destroyer of the economy is Greenspan, through his inflation-generating last years at the Fed.

So a man who betrays Ayn Rand, and who wrecks the economy of the U.S. in carrying out that betrayal, then succeeds in shifting the blame onto Ayn Rand and capitalism.

Not everyone is fooled by Greenspan. Note this interview on CNBC's "Power Lunch" today with two former Federal Reserve Governors: Wayne Angell and Robert Heller.
CNBC reporter: Congress lately has been play the blame game, gentlemen. They had the hearings in the House Oversight Committee. Former Chairman Greenspan testified there. It got a little testy between him and Chairman Henry Waxman. Let's remember what they were saying to each other last week. Listen to this:
[Video: of hearings:]
Waxman: Your view of the world, your ideology was not right. It was not working.
Greenspan: Precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I've going for 40 years or more, with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
CNBC reporter: A pretty contrite Alan Greenspan there. Wayne Angell, do you blame him for the crisis we are in right now?
Angell: Yes, but not for what he says he now has repentance on. His ideology was correct. Markets do work--as long as the Federal Reserve doesn't do any harm. But his Fed, policywise, did a great deal of harm, creating an unsustainable housing bubble, and the crash of that bubble was soon to follow. And that was what was wrong, not letting markets work.
CNBC: In other words, keeping rates as low as he did for as long as he did?
Angell: That's it.
CNBC: Robert Heller, do you think so? Did he keep money too cheap for too long?
Heller: That's right. And after that, the Fed then took rates very high, kept them high again. And that really pricked the bubble.
Let's return for one final look at Greenspan's statement: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

What this means is: "I am shocked that lending institutions actually fell for the trap I set for them when I inflated the money supply." And, of course, the whole purpose of his inflating the money supply was to get them to behave just the way they did--to increase loans. So he is in shocked disbelief that faking the supply of credit actually had financial consequences.

Once again he is saying, "I didn't fail; it was you people out there who failed; you believed in the reality of the faked credit I created--where was your self-interest in doing that?"

It turns out that if you wrap bankers from head to toe in regulations, then spin them rapidly around for awhile, they then stagger around and walk into walls. Who'd have thought it? It is on this basis that Alan Greenspan finds a flaw in his ideology.

If Greenspan had set out deliberately to destroy freedom, he couldn't have done a more thorough job of destruction.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine often presents views that we do not entirely agree with, because they may still contain information of value to our readers. Excerpts are limited to 250 words, so long as the source and link are provided to the original article. Otherwise, reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

scott
11-27-2011, 05:01 PM
Were you thinking of Jay McInerney?

Bright Lights, Big City was written in the first person plural as I recall....

I've only read Model Behavior from him. Really enjoyed it.

I was going more along the lines of American Pyscho with Ellis.

Palahniuk masters the 1st person perspective for me as well.

scott
11-27-2011, 05:02 PM
lol. I find it hilariously how narrow minded you are. I am not a robot or a worshipper of men. I never said I was a big fan of her. I respect her work and like her ideas on economics. I respect Thomas Aquenouis but don't believe in alot of Catholicism. Also its objectivism, not Randian.

I find it hilarious how egotistical you are. I don't recall ever addressing you. Who are you?

Wild Cobra
11-27-2011, 05:21 PM
I find it hilarious how egotistical you are. I don't recall ever addressing you. Who are you?
1) This is a forum. Do you only think those yo speak to are allowed to speak back?

2) You do it as well. hypocrisy much?

scott
11-27-2011, 07:07 PM
1) This is a forum. Do you only think those yo speak to are allowed to speak back?

2) You do it as well. hypocrisy much?

1) I realize the very idea of context is much to complex for you, but it is important in instances like these. Everyone is allowed to address anyone in a form, obviously since you are still allowed to post here. If you took 10 seconds to get a feeling for context, you'd see I was addressing his specific allegations that I claimed he (she?) is something he (she?) is not, when I never addressed him (her?).

2) I do what as well? Here is another example of how your ability to understand context bites you in the ass.

DJ Mbenga
11-27-2011, 08:13 PM
http://images.wikia.com/bioshock/images/e/e1/Who_Is_Atlas.png

Winehole23
11-28-2011, 03:58 PM
I was going more along the lines of American Pyscho with Ellis.I didn't delve deeply into American Psycho, but admit being mesmerized by the minuet of brand names...

Palahniuk masters the 1st person perspective for me as well.Familiar with Fight Club as a movie. Otherwise a cypher to me.

I'd be interested to know what you mean by first person perspective. Did you mean generally, or did you have something more genre specific (e.g., transgressive lit) in mind?

scott
11-28-2011, 05:05 PM
I didn't delve deeply into American Psycho, but admit being mesmerized by the minuet of brand names...
Familiar with Fight Club as a movie. Otherwise a cypher to me.

I'd be interested to know what you mean by first person perspective. Did you mean generally, or did you have something more genre specific (e.g., transgressive lit) in mind?

We might be talking about different things, because I don't know wtf transgressive lit is :lol

I just mean "I am the character I am speaking to you hear me roar"

Winehole23
11-28-2011, 05:06 PM
gotcha

Winehole23
11-28-2011, 05:07 PM
nfbOHebiBgw

spursncowboys
11-28-2011, 05:29 PM
I find it hilarious how egotistical you are. I don't recall ever addressing you. Who are you?

I cannot argue that. I prefer the term overly confident.

Winehole23
11-28-2011, 05:42 PM
you got that down for sure:toast

scott
11-28-2011, 06:09 PM
I cannot argue that. I prefer the term overly confident.

I have no issues with that. Carry on!

admiralsnackbar
11-28-2011, 06:27 PM
nfbOHebiBgw

I realize it wasn't your intent, but this is a funny song to frame as a paean to objectivism.
("And no one heard it, no, not even Allan Greenspan")

It's the little things... :toast

Winehole23
11-28-2011, 06:57 PM
I didn't exactly frame it as a paean to objectivism, but your point is not altogether badly taken. I maybe leaned a little hard on the song title. Better choices no doubt still remain available, and better luck to me next time...

spursncowboys
11-28-2011, 07:26 PM
you got that down for sure:toast

Y-Elr5K2Vuo

admiralsnackbar
11-28-2011, 07:32 PM
I didn't exactly frame it as a paean to objectivism, but your point is not altogether badly taken. I maybe leaned a little hard on the song title. Better choices no doubt still remain available, and better luck to me next time...
Nah... I think you misunderstood me because I came from so far out of left field, man. Apologies.

I realize you were posting in response to the literary first-person business -- I was just saying it's fun to listen to "I am, I cried" as though it were a paean, the way it can be entertaining trying to shoehorn any absurd theory/vantage into a short story. E.g.: Moby Dick is really about Post-Structuralist feminism.

Winehole23
11-28-2011, 07:38 PM
E.g.: Moby Dick is really about Post-Structuralist feminism.Isn't it though?

Winehole23
11-28-2011, 07:39 PM
As a rule I never read anything written before 1968, so don't go quoting ancient history, man.