Atlas Shrugged

Topic for Book NookJust finished reading this classic by Ayn Rand. I enjoyed it even though some parts were tedious (especially some of the longer diatribes) and most of the "irrational" characters were absurdly so. Reminds me of some of Robert Heinlein's books in it's attitude toward BIG government.The main point I took away was why Capitalism works better than Communism. A system that plays toward self interests reflects the reality of being human. Our efforts must benefit ourselves or we have no incentive to "put forth the effort." Capitalism works when mutual benefit occurs or as the book puts it, "when value is exchanged for value."The book makes lots of points about ideas discussed on this forum. It's definitely worth the read whether you agree with the severe rational/logic views of the book or not.Anyone else out there read it?
PM1K

I think you hit on a very good point Crash. In Rand's book the protagonists are all out to earn what they get. They are greedy but only in regard to what they earned thru their own labor and with their own mind. In the real world, not everyone will be as "honorable" in a free market. Ah, but that is the real kicker. A product or service to provide is a must. Otherwise, it would not be Capitalism. I don't see it as a "side effect" but as the main drive in the system.thanx
PM1K

I like the way the book presents society as a non-automatic entity. For a society to exist (any type) it requires active envolvement from it's members. We often take for granted our infrastructure and don't think about the great effort it to takes to maintain it.It might not matter if tomorrow I don't show up for work but what if nobody showed up for work? Society is just an idea that we actively keep going. I'm glad to find a book that reminds me how fragile it truly is and what happens when apathy sets in.thanx
PM1K

A thief is claiming money, namely yours, for nothing. All you get in return is as you say, a window breaking service. No value is created and you certainly don't get an equal value for your money.If you take the same amount of money and buy a service or a product then you get value for value. The seller, unless he's taking a loss or selling at cost, makes a profit. The sellers profit represents a "creation" of money. He had X amount invested and has Y amount after the sale. As a buyer, you've made an exchange for something of value equal to the Y amount.Of course, the profit doesn't magically appear. The profit is created by using up the time the seller has in the product, natural resources, or even just a simple idea. The seller is gaining wealth by trading these items. But as you say: In the end, we all lose when something runs out to be sold. In Atlas Shrugged, there are individuals with influence and power to do just as you say. They gain wealth simply from changing laws and redirecting the money toward them and their friends. They are no better than the thief that breaks into your house. In the book, this causes a backlash from the folks actually doing the work to create and sustain this wealth. The "wheels eventually come off" of society and those in power are left with a mess that money just won't fix.I guess the main question is can a few powerful, influential individuals control a majority of the wealth and create a society that won't collapse? How do they keep the rest of the society, the ones actually doing the work of maintaining the wealth, from revolting?Thanx for the great response!
PM1K

Money for nothing... reminds me of a song Doesn't value act as a balance in Capitalism? Buyers demand value for their money. Sellers demand value for their product or service. If sellers aren't providing any value why would buyers provide it? Money is just an easily traded form of value.Can you go into more detail about why the ultimate goal of capitalists would be to eliminate capitalism? If a group of folks are getting money for nothing then money is being given to them. Nothing would mean no effort on their part. How long could that last? What happens when this select group of folks have all the money?If money (value) is only following one way eventually one side is left with none. No jobs would exist. No stores or markets would exist. In the end, would the money have any value? Bread and circuses cost something to produce. Someone has to raise the wheat, grind it, bake it, and distribute it. Circuses need preformers, grounds, upkeep, etc. That's hardly zero effort. Even bread and circuses represent value.Does the American enterainment industry really represent "bread and circuses"? If a movie or video game doesn't provide value it doesn't sale well and the producers take a loss. I am missing something or isn't that text book Capitalism?thanx
PM1K

These contractors are being given money? They don't return any value for it?Curiously
PM1K

Allow me a rambling example...If I run a drink stand and make profits from the drinks I sell I am automatically distributing any wealth and value I create.I may have to pay rent for drink stand. Landlord gets part of my sales.
I have to buy cups. Cup supplier gets part of my sales.
I have to buy drink mix. Kraft gets part of my sales.
etc.
etc.What do I do with my profits? If I buy a new bike. Trek gets a nice sale they wouldn't have gotten save for my drink stand creating value.Creation of wealth adds to the economy as a whole. Upon creation it's like Prego (in there).If I was a baron of old collecting arbitrary taxes from serfs then that is redistribution without any creation of value. Simply the serfs have less and I have more.thanx
PM1K

Quick response for now while I'm still online.
(this is thread is turning into a lot of fun) The system has ceased to be Capitalism when a purchase becomes mandatory. Down with the kleptocractic cable companies, phone companies, internet providers, and water, sewer, and electric providers... Why do we keep paying them since we already have those things!More Later Crash
PM1K

Nope, this was total "arbitrary". Just on my whim. Capitalism certainly isn't the only system capable of increasing it's own wealth. The example was a rambling way to say if wealth is created in the system it's automatically in the pipe for distribution.PM1K

Call me dense (no, really go ahead ) but I didn't realize that was your main point.Is this cessation a given flaw in Capitalism or can it be avoided? Or could you say that like all social systems Capitalism wanes and waxes?Do more successful capitalist societies degrade faster or is the rate of change into another type of system steady? Why not? When the IBM iSeries servers have problems where I work, IBM is right on it. Our company doesn't own the OS we do just as you describe, we renew it yearly. Service is top notch. The machines themselves alert of you impending problems and will even call out to IBM if the situation is severe enough.Software subscription isn't new. Perhaps just new in the private sector.PM1K

I'm sure a barony was a lot of upkeep and the baron did a lot of work. My example may have been historical incorrect if a baron was unable to demand more money on a whim and completely arbitrarily. How was the fixed proportion determined? What options did the serfs have if they disagreed with the fixed proportion?In what manner can a modern worker keep what he produces? Do I wish to take home a fixed proportion of my source code at the end of the month instead of receiving money for it?Don't all employers that use persons in my field really determine what salary I recieve? If my employer determines that programming is only worth minimum wage but other employers determine that it's worth 20 times more how long to do I stay in my current job? What kind of programmers will my company be able to hire by paying such a rate?PM1K

I suppose you're talking OS here because not everone gets a Dell, dude Does MS control the desktop OS market now because of a superior product with outstanding service and reliablility? I'd answer no, what about you? Why they control the market is a worth a good thread in it's own right. Is it low price, high aggression, being first to reach mass market and riding on the price drops, or something else? MS is among the competition in this arena as well and their server OSes are just as fun as their desktop flavors. Shouldn't they eliminate server comp just as they have desktop?PM1K

Can you point me toward some consultants that will sign these contracts? That'd be great!Such ownership rights end if the code doesn't relate to a project the programmer is working on for said employer. If the contract states otherwise, sign it not! To pull a line a from Atlas Shrugged, the needs of an employee should not dictate how that employee is paid. If you're not getting a fair wage for your work no one forces you to work there. Regardless of your situation, you always have the option to quit. Quiting could result in financial devastation or personal loss but the option remains.Even if you can't take advantage of mobility or market force they still play a part in what your salary is likely to be.PM1K

How did they accumulate such wealth without first controlling that market?PM1K edited to correct a spelling blooper.This message has been edited by portmaster1000, 02-17-2005 22:38 AM

My situation is similar to Percy's "at will" definition. In the future, I'll certainly be on the look out for "work for hire" as I don't like it's implications. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.PM1K