Atlas Shrugged: A Veritable Prophecy

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
False. You clearly didn't read or understand the novel. The redistributions in the novel were expressly for the benefit of failing businesses owned by the wealthy, their failure, not their poverty, being esteemed as a virtue.

I assume I didn't read it, but I (wrongly) assumed that the article would be at least correct on that account.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

All of this are justified, in the article at least, through a redistributionist motive. Of course, none of these are about a systemic risk motive, which is the one invoked to justify the programs. There are many things wrong with the bailouts, but the article is completely wrong about how the current programs mirror its own description of Atlas Shrugged.

Getting back to your own statement, the current programs again do not esteem failure of the businesses as a virtue. In fact, listening to the rhetoric of certain politicians, any form of bankruptcy carries with it a systemic risk (which is obviously false) and needs to be prevented at all costs.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]The causes for the start of this crisis are at complete odds with what Rand wrote. Also, Rand's programs were about redistribution towards the poor. That's not what these bailouts are about.

Huh? In Atlas Shrugged, one of the protagonists invents a metal which is
more effective than steel (greater structural ...[text shortened]... ound (on the tax-payer's nickle) to make more crappy
business decisions?

Nemesio[/b]

Huh? (I love it when you type interjections. I imagine you must feel smug when you do. I know I did when I typed this one)

So you think that this "new metal" is a good metaphor for the current crumbling businesses? It's the opposite. The government is injecting capital in failing products, not nationalizing successful ones.

That is: the government intervened such that businesses with inferior
products didn't fail.
See above. "Government intervention" is a generic term. Intervention can take many shapes and forms. The form of intervention here is drastically different. It's funny how some people can defend or attack some generic "government intervention" without characterizing what it is.

binary is: one or the other. That's why I asked you whether you thought that the government intervention on behalf of banks (and, soon, auto makers) which made insufferably poor business choices was a move toward socialism.

Implicit in your statement, whether you see it or not, is that socialism is the end-game. You may have a more dynamic view where transitions are gradual, but the core of the argument is the same. I don't see this as a move towards "socialism" ("I can see the bogey-man from here!"), but simply a reflection of crony capitalism.

the government -- the most inefficient vehicle for anything --
Hilarious. Unless you're an anarchist, this statement makes you a hypocrite. Which one are you?

Originally posted by Palynka
I assume I didn't read it, but I (wrongly) assumed that the article would be at least correct on that account.

In the book, these relentless [b]wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These inc it a systemic risk (which is obviously false) and needs to be prevented at all costs.[/b]

You are simply very confused and out of your league. I can't be bothered to debate you further if you can't even be bothered to read the novel before assessing how accurately the article characterizes it.

Business are receiving government assistance in virtue of their failure. If you deny this, how do you account for the fact that only failing businesses are receiving enormous bailouts? Is it just coincidence that these business are receiving bailouts in common virtue of something else, but that they just happen to all be failing as a matter of chance?

Why aren't McDonald's, Starbucks, Apple, Honda, or any other prospering businesses receiving bailouts? Are they all lacking the alleged virtue that the coincidentally failing businesses share?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are simply very confused and out of your league. I can't be bothered to debate you further if you can't even be bothered to read the novel before assessing how accurately the article characterizes it.

Business are receiving government assistance in virtue of their failure. If you deny this, how do you account for the fact that only failing b ...[text shortened]... n virtue of something else, but that they just happen to all be failing as a matter of chance?

It's funny that you said that when you clearly don't even understand what systemic risk is. But it's good that you brush me aside without an actual argument. I can afford to ignore you from now on.

Originally posted by Palynka
It's funny that you said that when you clearly don't even understand what systemic risk is. But it's good that you brush me aside without an actual argument. I can afford to ignore you from now on.

No problem, that's cool. But if there ever comes a time when you start to contemplate why your house has lost half its value, nearly 10 percent of the people you know are unemployed, and failed businesses are receiving billions in unconscionable loans that even a person or business with perfect credit could not qualify for or even apply for, all while you pay a full third of your income to the government, remember that there is a speech by a character named John Galt in the novel that explains precisely how such an absurd and unnecessary state of affairs can come to be and exactly what can be done in remedy. If you can afford to ignore it and allow current trends to persist and escalate, then super for you.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No problem, that's cool. But if there ever comes a time when you start to contemplate why your house has lost half its value, nearly 10 percent of the people you know are unemployed, and failed businesses are receiving billions in unconscionable loans that even a person or business with perfect credit could not qualify for or even apply for, all w ...[text shortened]... u can afford to ignore it and allow current trends to persist and escalate, then super for you.

I know why all this happened. It's just that I don't think literary fiction trumps academic scholarship.

But it's ok, I believe in freedom of religion so feel free to preach your sad gospel and "don't be bothered to debate [me] further".

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

A very apt article in light of both current events and RWillis's latest attempt to legitimize and promote socialism via structured debate.

Read it and weep.

I read it. His "moral of the story" is most inadequate. He wouldn't get a "C" on his high school book report with that kind of synopsis.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I read it. His "moral of the story" is most inadequate. He wouldn't get a "C" on his high school book report with that kind of synopsis.

You probably never even went to high school.

Originally posted by Palynka
Huh?

I typed 'Huh?' because I was convinced that you intended to write something
different that what you wrote. Since describing Rand's programs as
'about redistribution towards the poor' does not even remotely describe
what Rand was about, I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt to
amend what you wrote because I generally don't find you to be obtuse.

Evidently, you do believe that Rand's programs are just that and,
instead of writing 'Huh?,' I should have just rubbed your obnoxious nose
in how wrong you are.

So you think that this "new metal" is a good metaphor for the current crumbling businesses? It's the opposite. The government is injecting capital in failing products, not nationalizing successful ones.

How does giving the formula to businesses which are inferior not 'injecting
capital?' One is liquid capital, the other will generate capital. You are
correct inasmuch as they aren't identical, but the basic theme is the same:
the government under the guise of 'for the public good' is giving businesses
which practice their particular business in an inferior way some sort of
economic boost using taxpayer money and without the consent of the
taxpayer.

See above. "Government intervention" is a generic term. Intervention can take many shapes and forms. The form of intervention here is drastically different. It's funny how some people can defend or attack some generic "government intervention" without characterizing what it is.

I used to work for a local pipe organ repair company. The proprietor never
turned a profit of more than 4 figures annually, and often show a loss.
Why shouldn't the government intervene to help him? Within the past
10 years, the company Pharmor (a competitor to Walmart) went out of
business and it hurt the Pittsburgh economy significantly. Where was
the government intervention?

What are the standards for intervention? When have our representatives
said to us 'This is when we will intervene, and this is how we will intervene,'
such that we can vote on whether to keep such an individual in office on
the basis of such a standard? Indeed, the Republican platform is that
government intervention is heinous (it's in their charter!). So, what
happened?

It required a bad business decision equal to nearly a billion dollars to
get them to change their mind? They won't rescue you if you are hurting
for a few hundred thousand, or a even a couple million, but if you blow
it to the tune of 700 billion, then they'll take taxpayer money and say,
'It's okay that you blew it by unprecedented proportions. We like you
and we want you to stay in business.'

That's just absurd, Palynka.

Implicit in your statement, whether you see it or not, is that socialism is the end-game. You may have a more dynamic view where transitions are gradual, but the core of the argument is the same. I don't see this as a move towards "socialism" ("I can see the bogey-man from here!"), but simply a reflection of crony capitalism.

No. That was Rand's conclusion. It's explicit in her writings. Like
you said, I don't see things in binary. Rand tended to see things more
starkly. And while it makes her conclusions doubtful -- that moving towards
socialism inexorably leads to the establishment of a socialistic state --
it doesn't make her observations invalid -- that when government intervenes
on behalf of inferior companies in order to make them better, it ceases
to act in a capitalistic manner, but instead in a socialistic one.

Hilarious. Unless you're an anarchist, this statement makes you a hypocrite. Which one are you?

Have you stopped beating your wife? What a dumb question, Palynka!
Seriously.

All my statement makes me is hyperbolic. It was an exaggeration to
make a point. The fact of the matter is, unless you're totally deluded,
the US Government is a very inefficient vehicle. If it had been a business,
it would have folded decades ago. And because of its profound inefficiency
(among other things, of course), it's highly probable that America is going
to cease being an economic superpower because the dollar is going to
be worth very little given all the debt we have acquired against it.

Given the fact that the finances of the government qua business are just
shameful by any rational standard, the notion that the government's
intervention on behalf of business is surely suspect, even before we
examine precisely what that intervention is. The fact that this particular
intervention basically informs big business that they can f*** up as
royally as they want, and the taxpayers' dollars will bail them out.

Does it derive (as you say) from crony capitalism? Sure. But it manifests
as socialism, as Rand anticipated 60 years ago.

Nemesio

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I read it. His "moral of the story" is most inadequate. He wouldn't get a "C" on his high school book report with that kind of synopsis.

Why?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Interesting.

Originally posted by Palynka
Interesting.

Must be some obscure colloquialism ... "You mean to say you didn't accept his offer? Have you stopped beating your wife?!"

Originally posted by Palynka
Interesting.

It's the quintessential unanswerable question. If you answer 'yes,'
then it implies that you used to beat your wife. If you answer 'no' then
it implies you continue to beat your wife.

Your question about whether I was either an anarchist or a hypocrite was
an example of such a question. For someone who claims to dislike binary
opposition, it was an ironically foolish question to ask, as one can very
easily have my point of view and be neither.

It is telling that of the substance of my post, you have no comment, but
you take the time to rub your chin knowingly and posit 'interesting' when
I make it clear from context that it's in response to your dumb question
(even if you are unaware that my question was referring to something you
had not heard before).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Huh?

I typed 'Huh?' because I was convinced that you intended to write something
different that what you wrote. Since describing Rand's programs as
'about redistribution towards the poor' does not even remotely describe
what Rand was about, I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt to
amend what you w ...[text shortened]... ism, as Rand anticipated 60 years ago.

Nemesio[/b]

-just a point id like to make, for i studied accounts in a fairly limited sense for running my own business,

when we give money to the government in the form of taxation, it no longer becomes our money! it is not the taxpayers money as everyone terms it, it is the governments money, we simply become a creditor to the government, and the government owes us the capital and may invest it or spend it as it sees fit, its the same with banks, we deposit our money in the bank, we become a creditor to the bank and the bank owes us the capital, it is in every sense therefore the banks money! they invest it, lend it, whatever is the nature of their business, its not ours, because we gave it to them!

although i have not read the book that you guys are referring to i really appreciate your comments - most interesting, regards robie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

we simply become a creditor to the government, and the government owes us the capital

That's certainly not the way things are in the United States.

In the basic system of double-entry accounting that I am familiar with, the transaction to account for paying taxes would be a credit to a cash account and a debit to a tax expense account.

If what you say is true, the transaction would have to involve a debit to an accounts receivable account instead. I'd be stunned if there is any American business that accounts for their tax payments in this manner, actually accumulating an accounts receivable account and listing it as an asset on the balance sheet, with the expectation that it will eventually be closed with credits in the amount of government repayments. If Scots do it that way, then they are far more optimistic or naive than Americans.