Atlas Shrugged a Cynical Review - Page 2

@ little john, I want to destroy peoples points of view because then they can put them back together, as long as they aren't pig headed. My enemies? I have none we are all connected we are all one species and our similarities are trivial when compared to our differences, the problem is that people get so caught up in their own lives that they fail to see the big picture, fail to question themselves and their tradition, let others speak for them without actually forming an educated opinion, my only real enemy is anyone that tries to govern by anecdote and those who are maliciously manipulating the world around them for obesely disgusting amount of personal gain that they feel they owe to no one but themselves and there families, and if you think that all knowledge that we have ever gained has been only passed down by the rich and privileged that the nature and society hasn't created the world in which they have been able to excel then they fail to understand the human experience.

Hobbes: very much agreed, though I would not have used the word 'aggrandizing.' I was trying, perhaps to hard, to stay on topic (Rand). It perhaps should be a separate topic. That does not negate the fact that you seem more informed in economics than myself (not my field of expertise).

That said, Rand's philosophy is utilized in the present to justify the present drive to undo social programs originally set in place during the great depression during the Roosevelt administration including attempts to dismantle social security. It was even the basis of Romney's 47% remark.

Working in tandem with Friedman's principles, this rational is cited in order to move the country away from the economic philosophy that generated a stable economy though much of the previous century. A fundamental shift that I think we will regret.

As feeble as my understanding is, I still see the ' Reaganomics ' idea of 'trickle down' effect still being sold to the public. Except now, it is phased as 'supporting the job producers.' By support, they mean to enrich. But, in the period of greatest enrichment in some 80 some odd years, they are more enriched, but not producing jobs.

The American worker is more productive than ever, but the wages have remained stagnant. Meanwhile the highly compensated have increased their compensation 300%. Yet, their ownership (shares held) of the company's they run has decreased by an average of 65%.

Please correct me where I am misled.

@ thx are you implying that the most highly compensated are justifying their pay increase by the loss of shares in their companies? because if so the salary compensation with ceo and executive bonuses has increased well over 300% over 1000% since the 80's when Reagnomics was implemented

My deeper concern is that their compensation is no longer directly tied to the success or failure of the company. This could lead them to short term gain over long term planning.

Pickup,

Sadly the question of slavery is not Smith's best recommendation for adoption as an economic system.

He does not speak out against it as such; not in a legal sense at all, except to say that slaves tend to be lazy, and hiring labour can be cheaper in the long run because you don't have the responsibility of caring for old hired hands. (if i remember correctly).

With Rand the economy is there to serve those who will exploit it for their own benefit.
This is ultimately destructive and self defeating, except to the current generation.
For me the economy has to serve the common good, and it is in the interests of the common man to press for measures that even out the benefits for all.
In this way demand for goods and services is not polarised - this is a healthy economy.

Hobbes, I think we agree that a functioning capitalist society is to be desired, but absolute self interest is a downside.

As example, I offer a period of absolute unfettered capitalism that recently occurred: Russia after the fall of the communist party. During those months under Boris Yeltsin, the preexisting capitalist structure took over (previously known as the black market) and seriously damaged the country as self interest ran rampant. That period is the reason why Russians ran from the unrestrained free market, and opened the door for Vladimir Putin.

Thinking that we are on the same page, as it were, where do you find the restraining power that fosters the best of capitalism without the pitfalls inherent in the present modern economy?

I know this takes us off thread, but I would be very interested in your opinion.

We need a Social Democracy, not a Democratic Socialism system, and not an ideological one a practical one,
Step One Nationalize the Fed, its a bullshit system that has the government paying interest for permission to use and have it's own currency giving the bank ultimate power financially which accounts for way too much. We need to be able to control our own money supply without having to pay back the Fed that also loans massive amounts of capitol to the coorporate sector at ridiculously low interest. Part of the reason for the debt crisis was that the fed had the prime rate set around 1%. We need to reinstate Glass Steagal, If you don't know what that is here's a summary, it allows investment banks to use private banks money to invest in the stock market, its gambling with the nations economy when you put it together. First Step Financial Regulation.
Step Two Stop fighting people and offending them on issues that matter to them, ill rip this (Atlas Shrugged) apart as much as I would rip up mein comf, but when it comes to issues like gun control we ridicule each other and make fun of each other on personal levels as well as being politically antagonistic. We need to be the better "men" and just let what someone says that is ignorant (used correctly) to current policies and are obviously less intellegent let them escalate while you stay calm, don't try to make him look stupid, you don't have to compromise on your view of the issue but no one on either side of the issue talks to the other side of the issue with anything that can be viewed as respect. You need to use tact, if your smart enough to make someone look foolish you should be smart enough to make them see the error of their ways, you need to be patient kind of like teaching special ed math or an autistic child social skills, you need to accept indoctrination as a disease and treat the disease as a legitamate disease and not the person infected as the disease, granted their ringleaders are litterally the disease but on a personal basis you need to appeal to the natural curiousity of man rather than the fucking alpha opinion debate conflict bullshit satire thing. I draw the line when it comes to genocide insiting material by total hypocrites though idk maybe that makes me a hypocrit but I have got my very conservative families to change many of there own views this way ( not the one when I go on captain cynic with my need to vent I mean metting a protester on the street, reason with them if they can't be reasoned with write down an article reference give it to them and wish them luck show them you aren't a threat to ameerika.)
Step Three Demolishing Coorporations, do this by passing laws that limit the amount of money that you can sue people for, coorporations origanlly exist to protect a company from litigation, econ 101. The are now overly powerful and are starting to attack whatever threat is made to their shareholders. These things are Monsters absolute Monsters. You need to make it so a company can grow without the need to worry about going bankrupt because of it, if you burn your tongue on hot coffe you shouldn't get a million dollars for it, frivolous law suits need to be able to be prosecuted there needs to be consequences for what I believe is at the heart of the problem, manipulative law making and legislature as well as shady private legal practices. It is mind boggling the danger to a small business that is starting to get big, it only takes one thing going wrong to one person and they destroy the entire company. The government needs to treat things like a worker dying from unsafe equipment that wasn't to code as criminal negligence, the BP oil spill as Crimminal negligence not something to be sued over, when people are accountable for there own actions and arent allowed to gamble and if they fuck up pay their way out. If you are liable to go to jail if you aren't taking the precautions in your job or industry and someone gets hurt because of your negligence than thats own you. Allow business owners a spotlight in society make owning a business something that people are proud of you for like we are proud of doctors that volunteer at free clinics, most of all reward them for it , but not with a pay thats 4000% more than there average worker but 1000% and you solve the rest of the problems, the government should control insurances of all sorts this way we insure for what we know we need in society and let outliers fall, utilitarianism. we can pay for this by....
Step Four, Increase taxes to late 60's early 70's tax rates, people should have to be apart of the social contract in a real way, An Economy is about Providing food and services to a People, reward the top earners you can scale a tax system better than the bs increments of the 60's and 70's you can scale them and split them further apart so the maximum that we tax falls to people who make over 100 milion instead of h tt p :/ / w ww.b usinessi nsider . co m/ histo ry-of-tax- rates ?op =1 these increments which is unfair to people who have earned it a person who makes 1 million should not have to pay the same abount in taxes as someone who makes 100 million thats unfair to our entrapranors (i can't spell sue me ) with a minimum starting at 14% scaling from having little to no income up to 100 million dollars, this is fair as the top 20% controls more than 2 thirds the wealth of the country and they are all in the highest taxable braket while keeping fairness among the population.
Once we finally get through fixing our financial system we can focus on the last step
Step Five, Fixing socio - economic problems such as EDUCATION and POVERTY eliminate for profit schools they are not in our interest, what is in our interest is allowing education to stay private as long as they are non profit, you can still set a high price but as long as all the money goes back into education then thats not a problem, we need to invest heavily in college education make public college education free to everyone and allow heavy subsidizing for college loans, all to students that qualify for college education, first you will need to fix highschool level and elementary level education but with a massive influx of funds and the repeal of this assinine tenure law in this country that doesn't hold teachers accountable. Have IQ tests for people who want to run for government office, the higher the office the harder the test but overal it should be relatively easy to pass, something that a dedicated community college student could pass basically, Majority rule would not work in a MENTAL INSTITUTION.
This is all opinion and this is not a research paper alot of this was of the top of my head if you need clarification on anything I have said or disagree with any part of this then please ask away and I will make the effort to provide credablity to my claims. This is how I see it if you have a better Idea please let me know because I LOVE BEING WRONG so prove me wrong please. and hobbes thanks for clarifying adam smiths position on slave labor and wage labor I wasn't sure and didnt check I am just glad I wasn't that far off I read it, that section, in highschool. I haven't edited this much so grammar Nazis fire away. I had to chop up the link because they won't let me post it as I am a noob

THX.
You said"Hobbes, I think we agree that a functioning capitalist society is to be desired, but absolute self interest is a downside.

As example, I offer a period of absolute unfettered capitalism that recently occurred: Russia after the fall of the communist party. During those months under Boris Yeltsin, the preexisting capitalist structure took over (previously known as the black market) and seriously damaged the country as self interest ran rampant. That period is the reason why Russians ran from the unrestrained free market, and opened the door for Vladimir Putin.

Thinking that we are on the same page, as it were, where do you find the restraining power that fosters the best of capitalism without the pitfalls inherent in the present modern economy?

I know this takes us off thread, but I would be very interested in your opinion."

No we do not agree. I think capitalism is an unfortunate evil that humans are too plug stupid to do without.
I can give you an example of unfettered capitalism; the Roman Empire; resulting in a minority elite with all the power presiding over extreme poverty and an endemic system of slavery. That is the consequence of a financial struggle for existence.

There will always be a downwards pressure on wages; and a desire to make prices higher. These two things combined result in reducing employment, reducing demand and the polarisation of wealth to the point that there is not enough work of sufficient pay for the poor to thrive, whilst the wealth floats to the top and a lucky few born into wealth and property enjoy luxury.
That is the inevitable consequence of doing nothing.
Rome was force to provide a dole to stop the people rioting for food. They found themselves having to provide "Bread and Circuses" with the emperor providing all the largesse and taking all the credit - whilst doing no work!
That is what capitalism is. It is not a policy, it is throwing your hands up and watching society disintegrate.

My mistake. But certainly you do not think there is hope for a centralized economy do you?

I am not for the negative effects of capitalism; but I do not see it as a choice so much as what is.

What else would you suggest?

We are way off topic. I think that a new thread 'what would be the best economic model' might be in order. My guess is that would be a very active thread.

I do not see a necessary problem with a centralised economy at all. Just because it has failed in the past.
Capitalism has failed the majority of the population. In this sense it has never been a success for the majority.
With small scale societies centralised, non-monetarised economies have worked very well. In some cases for generation after generation.
It is doubtful whether or not (given the pressure of free advertising thrusting stuff onto the populace they don't need, on the one hand and abstracting value by the use of various monetary systems that mean value can be collected without a fair day's pay) an equitable economic system can be sustained. But the future is a long time, and the historical conditions we find ourselves in make it doubtful that such a thing could happen but that is not to say it is impossible.

At the moment all we can hope to do is to regulate and enforce rules that stop the sort of parasitism from repeating the last crash, whilst using progressive taxation to continually redress the tendency to wealth polarisation.
Sadly most of the population are encouraged to think less government is better, and are bought of with paltry tax breaks whilst the rich pay less and less.

Is that the best we can do?

At the moment the situation is laughable and there is no change in sight. Last year the Government gave the banks a further 14 billion pounds in the hope that they would lent more to business start-ups. Guess what? Yes. the bank actually lent out LESS money despite having more to give.
Meanwhile CEOs and board members are increasing their own take, by giving out massive weage rises to the top tens , with bonuses. So that they can cream off as much as they can before they kill off the businesses they are working for.
Banks are still paying out bonuses for nothing.
Why is this still going on?

It's injustice Hobbes Im gunna start up a new thread on this topic

Pickup did just that:

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/96657/what-economic-governmental-syte
m-works-best-and-how.htm