Amero? - AnabolicMinds.com - Page 2

Amero?

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. Advanced Member
    jonesboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    44
    Posts
    616
    Rep Power
    421

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    If that were true, don't you think they'd be teaching an American history that was not anti-business/pro big government. The rich get no benefit from a welfare state in which there vilified. They stand to gain the most in a free market system that lacks government regulation. Kids are taught in school that this system is evil and to blame for all society's ills.
    Remember you have to give a little to take a lot. Yes they talk about the Rockefellers and the JP Morgans monopolies. But then they stop.

    They don't talk about the Rockefeller foundation that has 5% of stock in each of the companies before the break up. That he still maintained major interest in all the companies. And that he still owned out right many of them. lol then shall we move on to the banks and the FED. Bank of America is the bank of the Rockefellers and one of the founding member banks of the FED. The current names of standard oil companies. Exxon, Chevron, Mobil and Amocco.

    Shall we dig deeper into there influence and power?

    But i digress, what many history books are not teaching anymore is the rights of the workers. When they do, it is ancient history, like we have moved so far from that. Unions are looked at as an evil entity.

    What is being taught is socialism. If you are the people who control the money do you really care what the people with no power, no money or influence say? It really doesn't matter who is in power in the government because you control the money.

    Mayer Amschel Rothschild, quotes about Rothschild:
    "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

    I know you always talk about the poor or the bottom 20%. The government and the elite want poor people. They need people to do the jobs that no one else will do.

    As far as the media and the elite, read this.

    The Media Moguls, the Bankers, and the CFR
    While browsing an online forum I came across a very interesting thread where the posters had done some research on the media.

    What the posters have found is that in the board of directors of some of the 6 corporations that own most of the media, some names appear over and over again; some of them also appear in the board of directors of some very large banks and other financial institutions; some are on the boards of large oil companies, and have relationships with some of the highest people in government, and some are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

  2. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by jonesboy View Post
    Remember you have to give a little to take a lot. Yes they talk about the Rockefellers and the JP Morgans monopolies. But then they stop.
    You have got to be kidding me. It goes much deeper than that. Big Government is consistently glorified while limited government is ridiculed. Businessman are written off as greedy, while the politicians that abuse them are glorified as selfless heroes. I'm a history major I suffered through 4 years of studying the "evils of private enterprise". I'll find you a bunch of quick examples of revisionist history if you want.

    They don't talk about the Rockefeller foundation that has 5% of stock in each of the companies before the break up. That he still maintained major interest in all the companies. And that he still owned out right many of them. lol then shall we move on to the banks and the FED. Bank of America is the bank of the Rockefellers and one of the founding member banks of the FED. The current names of standard oil companies. Exxon, Chevron, Mobil and Amocco.
    What you're not acknowledging is that without Rockefeller, Exxon, Chevron, Mobil and Amoco would not exist. Its somehow a conspiracy if Rockefeller gets to keep the wealth he created?

    But i digress, what many history books are not teaching anymore is the rights of the workers. When they do, it is ancient history, like we have moved so far from that. Unions are looked at as an evil entity.
    Unions are an evil entity. No good comes from them. They are organizations built on thuggish tactics to muscle the businesses that grant them an existence.

    What is being taught is socialism. If you are the people who control the money do you really care what the people with no power, no money or influence say? It really doesn't matter who is in power in the government because you control the money.
    I agree Socialism is being taught.....excuse me, taught is a misleading word. Socialism is being indoctrinated in the youth. They do have influence. They can vote. Its not about money, as CDB said earlier.....if it were, Ron Paul would have been the Republican nominee. You need more votes than the other guy.

    I know you always talk about the poor or the bottom 20%. The government and the elite want poor people. They need people to do the jobs that no one else will do.
    You misread what I have been saying. The poor in the United States DO NOT WORK, they get free money from Big Brother. You need a tinfoil hat if you think Obama, the Democratic Congress, and big business are on the same page.
  3. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    While production is important, it is the man who creates the opportunity to work that drives capitalism, not the man who fills the role the producer created.
    What good is the one without the other? And the man who creates the opportunity is not always the same man who saved and made the funds available to pursue the opportunity. So the situation is very complex and in reality no one person or class is responsible for the economy.

    As I said before. I cannot fault a businessman for exhausting every legal pathway to make money and create advantages over their competitors. I can fault the politician who abuses his position as a public servant to take "donations" from lobbyists.
    Those lobbyists are hired by businessmen to change the law in their favor, often to everyone else's detriment.

    Wage earners do not create stuff, wage earners use existing processes to manufacture stuff. The production is built on the brains of the creators. Could you really give credit to an assembly line worker for producing an automobile and not Henry Ford?
    Yes, because automobiles were produced before Ford and the assembly line, and despite Ford's genius without the workers the plant would have run a lot slower.

    The beauty of the process that Ford created is that basically anyone can step in and learn their piece of the pie in a relatively short amount of time. The wage earners are not driving the train they're passengers.
    Actually as the division of labor become more complex and specialization proceeds apace the 'wage earner' as you call him becomes more indispensable to the economy.

    Well said, everything you said about savings is entirely true. However, at this point in America, most Americans who are not rich and even some that are are extremely leveraged and have an abysmal rate of savings. The average savings rate is -2% in this country. Credit card debt is the norm in this country. The Fed's easy money has made saving an anachronism in this country.
    True, but like you say that's an after effect of the Fed's policy. Why save what's being devalued?

    I think she has solid plots, but her book's dialogues often read like sandpaper.
    Reread The Fountainhead. She's lucky when she actually correctly identifies capitalism.
    •   
       

  4. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    If that were true, don't you think they'd be teaching an American history that was not anti-business/pro big government. The rich get no benefit from a welfare state in which there vilified. They stand to gain the most in a free market system that lacks government regulation. Kids are taught in school that this system is evil and to blame for all society's ills.
    Quite the contrary. It is the union of throne and altar that businessmen want. Remember The Fed was pushed through to supposedly 'restrain' greedy bankers and their desire to inflate the currency. The real purpose was to create coherent inflation so no one bank brought another down and, after FDIC was put in, to get a true lender of last resort in place. Those bankers who supported the legislation were called 'enlightened'. According to the press at the time, they saw past their own greed for profits and put the greater good of the nation before their own. And they got exactly what they wanted. The same went for the Sherman Anti Trust Act. It was never designed to do anything but give failing businesses a legal lever to put political pressure on succeeding firms. But that's not how it was sold to the public. Even though the 'trusts' had lowered prices and increased production faster than any other businesses they were villified and the businesses who supported the legislation were once more called 'enlightened'.

    In other words the history of much legislation and almost all so called progressive legislation is anti business / class warfare propoganda cloaking legislation designed to enable businesses, to manage the market, to grant monopoly, etc. That's what I think you are missing; businesses don't want to compete on an open market. They lobby nonstop for market management and legislation that favors them above all their competitors, that keeps out new market entrants, etc., and they always do this under the guise of legislation that is supposedly for 'the public good'. The ICC is another great example, supposedly pushed through to stop railroads from setting high rates, and when it was installed the first thing they did was outlaw secret price cutting. This did the public no good, but it sure as hell made it harder for maverick firms to bust cartel agreements. The railroads are also the primary player in another so called public good legislative coup, preservation. It was the railroads that funded much of, and probably still do fund, the conservation movement west of the mississippi. Why? Well when you own land out there and you get the government to outlaw building on what's left, you can charge through the ass for development of the land you have, usually received as a government grant too. Again, rhetoric about preserving America's treasured landscape cloaks legislation that was really just aimed at driving up land prices for those who already had holdings in the west.

    Most businessmen are anti business. They want government market management. In their favor of course.
  5. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    What good is the one without the other? And the man who creates the opportunity is not always the same man who saved and made the funds available to pursue the opportunity. So the situation is very complex and in reality no one person or class is responsible for the economy.
    Agreed.

    Those lobbyists are hired by businessmen to change the law in their favor, often to everyone else's detriment.
    Lobbyist are useless without politicians to change the laws. Lobbyists are the byproduct of the problem, which is crooked politicians.

    Yes, because automobiles were produced before Ford and the assembly line, and despite Ford's genius without the workers the plant would have run a lot slower.
    Ford's genius enabled the 'common man' to be able to afford the automobile, which enabled him to hire many more employees. Ford paid better than competing unionized companies in order to retain his best people and reward excellence. I agree the employees are important, but the employees aren't even employees without Ford, so I value Ford more than his workers.

    Actually as the division of labor become more complex and specialization proceeds apace the 'wage earner' as you call him becomes more indispensable to the economy.
    I guess.

    True, but like you say that's an after effect of the Fed's policy. Why save what's being devalued?
    You're absolutely right.

    Reread The Fountainhead. She's lucky when she actually correctly identifies capitalism.[/QUOTE]

    I've read it like 4 times. Ayn Rand lucky that she identifies capitalism? Have you read any other books by her. She wouldn't have anything else but capitalism.
  6. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Quite the contrary. It is the union of throne and altar that businessmen want. Remember The Fed was pushed through to supposedly 'restrain' greedy bankers and their desire to inflate the currency. The real purpose was to create coherent inflation so no one bank brought another down and, after FDIC was put in, to get a true lender of last resort in place. Those bankers who supported the legislation were called 'enlightened'. According to the press at the time, they saw past their own greed for profits and put the greater good of the nation before their own. And they got exactly what they wanted. The same went for the Sherman Anti Trust Act. It was never designed to do anything but give failing businesses a legal lever to put political pressure on succeeding firms. But that's not how it was sold to the public. Even though the 'trusts' had lowered prices and increased production faster than any other businesses they were villified and the businesses who supported the legislation were once more called 'enlightened'.

    In other words the history of much legislation and almost all so called progressive legislation is anti business / class warfare propoganda cloaking legislation designed to enable businesses, to manage the market, to grant monopoly, etc. That's what I think you are missing; businesses don't want to compete on an open market. They lobby nonstop for market management and legislation that favors them above all their competitors, that keeps out new market entrants, etc., and they always do this under the guise of legislation that is supposedly for 'the public good'. The ICC is another great example, supposedly pushed through to stop railroads from setting high rates, and when it was installed the first thing they did was outlaw secret price cutting. This did the public no good, but it sure as hell made it harder for maverick firms to bust cartel agreements. The railroads are also the primary player in another so called public good legislative coup, preservation. It was the railroads that funded much of, and probably still do fund, the conservation movement west of the mississippi. Why? Well when you own land out there and you get the government to outlaw building on what's left, you can charge through the ass for development of the land you have, usually received as a government grant too. Again, rhetoric about preserving America's treasured landscape cloaks legislation that was really just aimed at driving up land prices for those who already had holdings in the west.

    Most businessmen are anti business. They want government market management. In their favor of course.
    I agree with much of what you say here, however I think you logic is faulty due to the fact that you generalize businessmen.

    Burton Folsom, in the Myth of the Robber Barons defines businessmen in America into two groups: Market Entrepreneurs and Political Entrepreneurs.

    Market Entrepreneurs use cost cutting, innovative business practices, and superior products to maintain an edge over competitors. Examples of this are Vanderbilt's steamboats, Hill's railroads, Carnegie's steel, JP Morgan's steel, and Rockefeller's oil. Each of these men revolutionized their industries and brought superior products for cheaper to their customers. Each of these men was also victimized by government: Hill and Rockefeller by Sherman Anti-Trust, and Vanderbilt, Hill, Carnegie, and JP Morgan by government interference in market principles through competitor's subsidies and legal action.

    Political Entrepreneurs are the "robber barons" you're thinking of who use lobbyists and legislative influence to distribute inferior products for higher prices. Historically, Market Entrepreneurs beat the living crap out of Political Entrepreneurs, simply because the Market men focused on their business while the Political men focused on influence.

    Maybe things have changed and Political Entrepreneurs run the show now, but its not fair to forget the Market Entrepreneurs who ushered America into greatness did so despite, not because of the government.
  7. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2335

    Reputation

    We are batteries powering greed.
  8. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by somewhatgifted View Post
    We are batteries powering greed.
    Greed, aka enlightened self interest has historically been a major driving force in a America. One can whine about others having more stuff than them, or they can get off their ass and get more stuff.
  9. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Lobbyist are useless without politicians to change the laws. Lobbyists are the byproduct of the problem, which is crooked politicians.
    Here is where I think you make a slight mistake. Politicians are, in the end, the holders of the blame. But in my view that's because they're the ones with the guns who can give a final yes or no. However their crookedness is often just the result of the environment they are in and the perverse incentives they deal with. They are surrounded by the most peculiar poeople in the world, namely bureaucrats with life time appointments, other politicians at all levels, some of them powermad, others just as confused, and lobbyists. Plus they are cut off from normal informational channels you and I take for granted. Take any human being and put him in that mix and chances are they'd start behaving oddly. A Ron Paul, that is someone who sticks to principle, is a rarity.

    Ford's genius enabled the 'common man' to be able to afford the automobile, which enabled him to hire many more employees. Ford paid better than competing unionized companies in order to retain his best people and reward excellence. I agree the employees are important, but the employees aren't even employees without Ford, so I value Ford more than his workers.
    Here is where I think you make another small mistake. So long as human beings want for anything the opportunities for employment of resources, including labor, are endless. In other words Ford himself isn't as important as the capitalist/entrepreneurial function he happened to fulfill, and without the workers that function is useless.

    I guess.
    Try making your own shoes, then tell me how much the cobbler is really worth. Same goes for undercoaters, spot welders, the guy who wires up motorcycles, etc. As the division of labor proceeds we all essentially become specialists capable of producing a lot more in our specialization than if we had to devote our time elsewhere. Hence the increasing demand for labor in an unhampered economy.

    I've read it like 4 times. Ayn Rand lucky that she identifies capitalism? Have you read any other books by her. She wouldn't have anything else but capitalism.
    As she saw it. In the Fountainhead What's-His-Name refuses to alter his design approach for the market, correct? Capitalism/entrepreneurialism is to serve the demand in the market and to anticipate it, not double guess it. Rand's characters to me at least always seem to have this pretense of knowledge the rest of the world doesn't have. She also seems to me at least to not get some aspects of capitalism. As a system it's most profound and significant feature is the price system which is a genuinely social phenomena. It relies on input from all individual market participants but it's content always transends that of any particular individual's contribution. That's one of the reasons a pure socialist state is impossible, not just inefficient: no one mind or even group of minds can access, handle, or even conceive of the information necessary to make economizing activity possible for a modern society. Rand to me seems to shun the social aspect of the system in favor of individualism. In other words, referencing Atlas Shrugged, to her it's not the function John Galt serves that is valuable, it's Galt himself. She misses the cooperative aspect of the market or down plays it at least in favor of some mythic group of super individuals who hold the whole world up with their creativity.

    I agree with much of what you say here, however I think you logic is faulty due to the fact that you generalize businessmen.

    Maybe things have changed and Political Entrepreneurs run the show now, but its not fair to forget the Market Entrepreneurs who ushered America into greatness did so despite, not because of the government.
    Nor is it fair to forget that usually people aren't one or the other. Rockefeller wasn't above taking government grants, J.P. Morgan pushed through the Fed with Rockefeller in order to essentially steal money they couldn't get via honest loans. Both were instrumental in getting the ICC in as well if I recall correctly, which allowed rate setting on the rails. Folsom's book is a good read and it's a valid distinction, but the topic is more complex. I think even James Hill of the Great Northern Railroad had some government 'help' that he took, even though he bragged about getting little to none. As above with Rand, each of these individuals is a mixed bag, the method and function of their actions is what counts.
  10. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Here is where I think you make a slight mistake. Politicians are, in the end, the holders of the blame. But in my view that's because they're the ones with the guns who can give a final yes or no. However their crookedness is often just the result of the environment they are in and the perverse incentives they deal with. They are surrounded by the most peculiar poeople in the world, namely bureaucrats with life time appointments, other politicians at all levels, some of them powermad, others just as confused, and lobbyists. Plus they are cut off from normal informational channels you and I take for granted. Take any human being and put him in that mix and chances are they'd start behaving oddly. A Ron Paul, that is someone who sticks to principle, is a rarity.
    I see a lobbyist as the same as the miniature satan on the shoulder of cartoon tempting them. Ron Paul is a rarity, but so was a Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Just because most of the legislative branch listens to their satan on their shoulder instead of the angel, does not mean they're not culpable.

    Here is where I think you make another small mistake. So long as human beings want for anything the opportunities for employment of resources, including labor, are endless. In other words Ford himself isn't as important as the capitalist/entrepreneurial function he happened to fulfill, and without the workers that function is useless.
    This is perhaps the oldest debate by historians. If Napoleon wasn't there, would France still have taken over Europe? I believe individuals drive the world, not groups and conditions.
    Try making your own shoes, then tell me how much the cobbler is really worth. Same goes for undercoaters, spot welders, the guy who wires up motorcycles, etc. As the division of labor proceeds we all essentially become specialists capable of producing a lot more in our specialization than if we had to devote our time elsewhere. Hence the increasing demanda for labor in an unhampered economy.
    I'm not saying those people are not worthy of respect, but I'm saying the cobbler wouldn't have a job without John Shoe, the creator of shoes. Employees fill a useful role, but creators are more important.

    As she saw it. In the Fountainhead What's-His-Name refuses to alter his design approach for the market, correct? Capitalism/entrepreneurialism is to serve the demand in the market and to anticipate it, not double guess it. Rand's characters to me at least always seem to have this pretense of knowledge the rest of the world doesn't have. She also seems to me at least to not get some aspects of capitalism. As a system it's most profound and significant feature is the price system which is a genuinely social phenomena. It relies on input from all individual market participants but it's content always transends that of any particular individual's contribution. That's one of the reasons a pure socialist state is impossible, not just inefficient: no one mind or even group of minds can access, handle, or even conceive of the information necessary to make economizing activity possible for a modern society. Rand to me seems to shun the social aspect of the system in favor of individualism. In other words, referencing Atlas Shrugged, to her it's not the function John Galt serves that is valuable, it's Galt himself. She misses the cooperative aspect of the market or down plays it at least in favor of some mythic group of super individuals who hold the whole world up with their creativity.
    Hank Reardon created demand by creating Reardon Steel a new and innovative alloy. Dagny Taggart tapped into existing demand by creating a rail line that was previously not there. John Galt created a perpetual motion motor that he did not give to the world, though it was perhaps the greatest value to humanity ever. Had he brought that to the world, he would of cornered the market on all energy products in a brief amount of time. These the entrepreneurs used their own innovation to create value. They are super individuals who hold the world up.

    Another example is the fact that 1% of New Yorkers pay 50% of the city's taxes. Tell me those 40,000 individuals aren't holding up that city.

    Nor is it fair to forget that usually people aren't one or the other. Rockefeller wasn't above taking government grants, J.P. Morgan pushed through the Fed with Rockefeller in order to essentially steal money they couldn't get via honest loans. Both were instrumental in getting the ICC in as well if I recall correctly, which allowed rate setting on the rails. Folsom's book is a good read and it's a valid distinction, but the topic is more complex. I think even James Hill of the Great Northern Railroad had some government 'help' that he took, even though he bragged about getting little to none. As above with Rand, each of these individuals is a mixed bag, the method and function of their actions is what counts.
    I've never read anything about Rockefeller taking government grants. Even if he did however, government handouts were not what made him successful. It was using innovative business model to globalize the oil market and compete internationally.

    I only blame government for giving money to private companies. They control the money, so they're responsible. How can you blame an entity for taking money whose sole purpose is to make money.
  11. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2335

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Greed, aka enlightened self interest has historically been a major driving force in a America. One can whine about others having more stuff than them, or they can get off their ass and get more stuff.
    Why not buy a gun and take what i want?
    OR
    Is "getting things" and harming others in the process the point of life?

    Its the screw others over to get rich piece that i was alluding to with my metaphor with the batteries.

    Im not whining or on my ass i have what i need but see many needlessly suffer because of this inately greedy system.
  12. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by somewhatgifted View Post
    Why not buy a gun and take what i want?
    OR
    Is "getting things" and harming others in the process the point of life?

    Its the screw others over to get rich piece that i was alluding to with my metaphor with the batteries.

    Im not whining or on my ass i have what i need but see many needlessly suffer because of this inately greedy system.
    Why not rob someone? Well, the most obvious reason is that you will most likely get caught and spend the next 20 years in prison. That's not greedy, that's stupid.

    I'd compare Maddoff, Enron, and Stanford to the guy robbing someone. Its not good business. One stands to gain the most long term by keeping both parties in a given transaction happy.

    Enlightened self-interest is being as greedy as possible without infringing on other people's rights to do the same thing. Its the American way.

  13. CDB
    Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2674

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I see a lobbyist as the same as the miniature satan on the shoulder of cartoon tempting them. Ron Paul is a rarity, but so was a Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Just because most of the legislative branch listens to their satan on their shoulder instead of the angel, does not mean they're not culpable.
    Jefferson sold out once in office. Generally speaking Jeffersonians are better than Jefferson himself. As for Lincoln, the guy was a ****ing monster. You actually like him? He presided over the biggest centralization of federal power to date, imprisoned people for simply disagreeing with him, gave his seal of approval to outright destruction and slaughter in the south, goaded them into war over the tarrif issue, purposefully excluded the union states and territories from the Emancipation Proclamation in what has to be the most cynical bid for international help to date, read people's mail, censored and closed down newspapers, etc., etc., etc.

    The guy was everything people like Ron Paul are against, I find it strange you mention them in the same sentence. Lincoln was arguably the first modern fascist ever to hold the highest executive position in any country on Earth.

    This is perhaps the oldest debate by historians. If Napoleon wasn't there, would France still have taken over Europe? I believe individuals drive the world, not groups and conditions.
    I believe individuals are incidental.

    I'm not saying those people are not worthy of respect, but I'm saying the cobbler wouldn't have a job without John Shoe, the creator of shoes. Employees fill a useful role, but creators are more important.
    And should that employee be thrifty and invest his money wisely, he is a creator at that point. People like John Shoe only look to employ him because he can create, in other words because he adds to their revenue stream through productive work. There is creation of ideas, and then there is creation of actual, tangible stuff.

    Hank Reardon created demand by creating Reardon Steel a new and innovative alloy. Dagny Taggart tapped into existing demand by creating a rail line that was previously not there. John Galt created a perpetual motion motor that he did not give to the world, though it was perhaps the greatest value to humanity ever. Had he brought that to the world, he would of cornered the market on all energy products in a brief amount of time. These the entrepreneurs used their own innovation to create value. They are super individuals who hold the world up.
    And that's where Ayn Rand was wrong. All an entrepreneur is, is someone who can forecast demand better than other people. Whether it is, as in the character of Reardon, bringing a new steel product to market, or some other person seeing and moving to fulfill some other want, elimination of the individual doesn't necessarily matter. That's not to say the individual isn't important. It's perfectly possible if Reardon doesn't invent product X that no one else would. But product X serves to fulfill a demand that already exists or is perceived by Reardon to exist. Which means it is to some degree evident, and likely not only to one person. Nor is there likely only one solution to meet that demand. The fact is the myriad of nonspecific inputs available, and which are to greater and lesser degrees substitutable for one another, means there's an infinite array of production structures we might pursue.

    To apply this then to say Galt's perpetual motion machine, in the real world like you mention energy is a constant need. Individual X may meet that need one day by figuring out cold fusion. Individual Y may meet it with hot fusion. Individual Z may make a much better solar collector. But do you honestly think X, Y, and Z are the only people who see the potential and are pursuing those avenues? Who invented the phone, Bell or Meuci? If there truly is a demand for something the chances that one person and only one is tryng to meet it are near zero. However one person will in the end be remembered as the first to the gate. For that they deserve the profits they get, but in the end the demand was there and so were the various ideas about how to meet it, so it was only a matter of time.

    Another example is the fact that 1% of New Yorkers pay 50% of the city's taxes. Tell me those 40,000 individuals aren't holding up that city.
    Since the government can only consume by submitting to such a high rate of taxation they are keeping that money out of productive pursuits and ensuring society takes a net loss in actuality. They're holding up the government, not necessarily the city. There is a distinct difference.

    I've never read anything about Rockefeller taking government grants. Even if he did however, government handouts were not what made him successful. It was using innovative business model to globalize the oil market and compete internationally.
    I'm sure the free land rights made a difference.

    I only blame government for giving money to private companies. They control the money, so they're responsible. How can you blame an entity for taking money whose sole purpose is to make money.
    Because by taking money they are using the government to gain an advantage the market otherwise would not have given them. This means they get to buy resources they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford, and that means those resources are being pulled away from what the market had determined as higher valued ends. What this means in the end is that the actual demand, what people actually want, and the structure of production necessary to meet that demand, are being ignored in favor of political interests that will distort that structure to their own ends for as long as possible. When it becomes clear that the demand is not there to support their operations you get a recession and things have to readjust. Whether by inflation or direct redistribution of wealth it's a bad idea. And the businessman who takes advantage of that bad idea is basically saying, "**** all of society and their well being, I'm superior and should say where this money should go..." Until of course society gets back at his ass through the recession, at which point he doesn't just ask but begs for more money like the car companies are doing right now.
  14. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2335

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Why not rob someone? Well, the most obvious reason is that you will most likely get caught and spend the next 20 years in prison. That's not greedy, that's stupid.

    I'd compare Maddoff, Enron, and Stanford to the guy robbing someone. Its not good business. One stands to gain the most long term by keeping both parties in a given transaction happy.

    Enlightened self-interest is being as greedy as possible without infringing on other people's rights to do the same thing. Its the American way.

    The only people who get caught stealing are the people who are small enough to fall under the law.
  15. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by somewhatgifted View Post
    The only people who get caught stealing are the people who are small enough to fall under the law.
    The examples I gave were Enron, Madoff, Stanford.....I guess those are the little fish?

    Maddoff embezzled 50 BILLION? That's more than the country is spending on infrastructure in the stimulus.
  16. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2335

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    The examples I gave were Enron, Madoff, Stanford.....I guess those are the little fish?

    Maddoff embezzled 50 BILLION? That's more than the country is spending on infrastructure in the stimulus.
    Yeah im thinkin the central bankers and FED. Im thinkin drug companies and Monsanto. Many break the law but only the blatantly reckless or elite are exempt. Let us not forget the challenging issue of incorporating ethics and profit to viable buisnesses. Many profit in very unethical ways with a "its not my problem attitude". This "enlightened self interest" perpetuates self motivated profits that will forever enslave many and have us fighting over this globe as it becomes less and less able to support us.
    The environment is one thing but all signs point towards major death of the lower classes due to this.

    The moral ground work that makes a free market work well seems to be eroding.
  17. Professional Member
    neoborn's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,406
    Rep Power
    2360

    Reputation

    If you have any faith in your .GOV you're lost man oh man. The government is basically raping your childs future for todays wealth of the greedy and "I ain't give a f*ck" politician.

    It's all conspiracy theory ......until it happens to you!

    Bilderberg Group
    Trilateral Commission
    Council on foreign relations
    Infowars
    Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum

    Read, Watch, Learn....take action!
  18. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by somewhatgifted View Post
    Yeah im thinkin the central bankers and FED. Im thinkin drug companies and Monsanto. Many break the law but only the blatantly reckless or elite are exempt. Let us not forget the challenging issue of incorporating ethics and profit to viable buisnesses. Many profit in very unethical ways with a "its not my problem attitude". This "enlightened self interest" perpetuates self motivated profits that will forever enslave many and have us fighting over this globe as it becomes less and less able to support us.
    The environment is one thing but all signs point towards major death of the lower classes due to this.


    The moral ground work that makes a free market work well seems to be eroding.
    Prior to turning the US into a welfare state through entitlement programs, the social mobility in the US was dramatically higher than it is today. The GOVERNMENT through their "social programs", not free market economics has effectively enslaved and disenfranchised the poor.
  19. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2335

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Prior to turning the US into a welfare state through entitlement programs, the social mobility in the US was dramatically higher than it is today. The GOVERNMENT through their "social programs", not free market economics has effectively enslaved and disenfranchised the poor.
    I mostly agree, as well with the current bailout BS the people are being robbed. Now consider who is benefitting from this and who is pulling the strings behind this current debauchery.
  20. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1264

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by somewhatgifted View Post
    I mostly agree, as well with the current bailout BS the people are being robbed. Now consider who is benefitting from this and who is pulling the strings behind this current debauchery.
    The "people" aren't being robbed simply because that money will never be paid back at full value. Its the fiat currency shell game.

    The banks are not the beneficiaries of the bailouts. Losing control and enlisting your corporation as a government entity is not something I'd like to undertake. The government gets to print and borrow massive amounts of capital in order to bailout banks who also have no capital. Its like Enron paying off your credit card debt.

    You give the "men behind the scenes" way too much credit. Who will benefit from all this in the long run? Nobody ultimately. We're entering a prolonged depression that will last multiple years. When the Chinese cut us off, this country's economic system will self destruct.
  21. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    2335

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    The "people" aren't being robbed simply because that money will never be paid back at full value. Its the fiat currency shell game.

    The banks are not the beneficiaries of the bailouts. Losing control and enlisting your corporation as a government entity is not something I'd like to undertake. The government gets to print and borrow massive amounts of capital in order to bailout banks who also have no capital. Its like Enron paying off your credit card debt.

    You give the "men behind the scenes" way too much credit. Who will benefit from all this in the long run? Nobody ultimately. We're entering a prolonged depression that will last multiple years. When the Chinese cut us off, this country's economic system will self destruct.
    Ultimately rob who cares about having lots of money when your rich beyond measure what the real genius of it all will be is the control the government will have over the people. When things hit the low point people will agree to things they, in their right minds, would have never otherwise agreed to. THis will happen globally potentially in different extremes a power free for all. I guess noone is really being robbed its more like creative diversion tactics.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Wtf - The Amero ???
    By anabolicrhino in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-07-2007, 10:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in