- 02-19-2009, 11:46 PM
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.
- 02-20-2009, 08:34 AM
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.
02-20-2009, 09:23 AM
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.
I believe individuals are incidental.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.
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.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.
I'm sure the free land rights made a 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.
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.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.
02-20-2009, 08:03 PM
02-20-2009, 08:36 PM
02-20-2009, 10:33 PM
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.
02-21-2009, 04:12 AM
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!
Council on foreign relations
Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum
Read, Watch, Learn....take action!
02-21-2009, 08:36 PM
02-22-2009, 04:35 PM
02-22-2009, 10:50 PM
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.
02-23-2009, 12:40 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By anabolicrhino in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 07-07-2007, 10:28 AM