Posted on 07/04/2009 10:32:05 AM PDT by GoodDay
Despite a number of differences I have with Ayn Rand on issues of religion and philosophy, her 1957 magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," definitely steered me away from the leftist upbringing I had, and introduced me to the world of conservative ideas and authors: Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, Isabel Paterson, and many others.
Universally panned by literary critics of the day, "Atlas" was, nevertheless, a bestseller in 1957, and continued to sell about 100,000 copies a year for 51 consecutive years. 52 years later -- just after the inauguration of zerobama -- "Atlas" has apparently tripled its sales and has been flying off the shelves at bookstores.
For those who have never read it, "Atlas Shrugged" -- originally titled in its draft form "The Strike" -- is about a mixed-economy United States falling rapidly into full-fledged socialism. As it does so, all the highly competent people of individual accomplishment -- in business, science, and the arts -- mysteriously start to resign their positions, quit their jobs...and disappear. Naturally, the disappearance of these achievers -- these "Atlases" whose productivity carries the rest of the world -- causes the crash of the economy and society in general to occur ever more rapidly. Why these people are disappearing and where they are going is the core of the plot...which I certainly won't give away. Love her style of writing or hate it, "Atlas Shrugged" is relevant and essential reading today.
I read it twice in rapid succession in high school, lo these many years, and am now rereading it in light of the aggressive attempts at a socialist coup in our country. There's a passage toward the beginning of the novel that flabbergasted me, since it predicts with great accuracy the "bailout mentality" started by Bush and continued and augmented under zerobama. The passage also describes how industry is complicit with government in its own regulation and what it expects to gain from it (i.e., protection from competition).
The scene has to do with attempts to regulate the railroads, an industry that plays a starring dramatic role in the novel, as well as being an effective visual metaphor for goal-oriented achievement in general.
Here is an excerpt of Miss Rand's description of the regulation from "Atlas Shrugged":
__________________________________________________
"The proposal which they passed was known as the 'Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule.' When they voted for it, the members of the National Alliance of Railroads sat in a large hall in the deepending twilight of a late autumn evening and did not look at one another . . .
. . . No railroad was mentioned by name in the speeches that preceded the voting. The speeches dealt only with the public welfare. It was said that while the public welfare was threatened by shortages of transportation, railroads were destroying one another through vicious competition, on 'the brutal policy of dog-eat-dog.' While there existed blighted areas where rail service had been discontinued, there existed at the same time, large regions where two or more railroads were competing for a traffic barely sufficient for one. It was said that there were great opportunities for younger railroads in the blighted areas. While it was true that such areas offered little economic incentive at present, a public-spirited railroad, it was said, would undertake to provide transportation for the struggling inhabitants, since the prime purpose of a railroad was public service, not profit.
Then it was said that large, established railroad systems were essential to the public welfare; and that the collapse of one of them would be a national catastrophe; and that if one such system had happened to sustain a crushing loss in a public-spirited attempt to contribute to international good will, it was entitled to public support to help it survive the blow . . .
. . . The Anti-dog-eat-dog-Rule was described as a measure of 'voluntary self-regulation' intended 'the better to enforce' the laws long since passed by the country's Legislature. The Rule provided that the members of the National Alliance of Railroads were forbidden to engage in practices defined as 'destructive competition'; that in regions declared to be restricted, no more than one railroad would be permitted to operate; that in such regions, seniority belonged to the oldest railroad now operating there, and that the newcomers, who had encroached unfairly upon its territory, would suspend operations within nine months after being so ordered; that the Executive Board of the National Alliance of Railroads was empowered to decide, at its sole discretion, which regions were to be restricted . . ."
Not so fast grasshopper!
Crony cap implies two actors. One is the capitalist. You have now established that the businessman will avail himself of an unfair advantage. So lets take a businessman who will avail himself of unfairness as our starting point. Lets put him into a manufacturing business. Do you think he will produce a dangerous product if he can make a slew of money before the lawsuits hit? He can take his money out in the form of salary so that it is safe from the lawsuit and leave the company and the victims holding the bag.
Parsy, who is expecting some thought here.
Sorry, I missed this big reply.
The upshot of minimum wage laws then is, must be, and has always been, an increase in unemployment. A number of empirical studies back this up but you don’t need empirical studies to understand why this must be so.
No. Empirical studies do not back it up any more than they backup trickle down economics. Google it some and read some non-von miser, stuff. Paying workers who have a higher MPC actually leads to increased demand. Your theory of savings is kaa-kaa.
parsy, who wadeth back into battle.
google should be your LAST resort for anything!
They’ll probably be the basis for the real “BIG BROTHER”, I kid you not.
I don’t believe everything I read on net, but there is a lot of info out there from all sides. The same chance for false info as the library, IMHO.
parsy, who reads
“How do you set a price if a doctor doesn’t do a caesarian soon enough and the child is born with brain damage.”
I’m not a lawyer, but from what little I understand you start with the total of medical bills, you estimate the cost of future care, add in inflation and then move on to punitive.
The doctor also faces scrutiny from safety boards and their employer as far as their license and future responsibilities.
How does one define “soon enough”? Well - in some cases it may be very clear - and in other cases more murky.
Under Obamacare there will be pressure to lower cost by avoiding c-sections.
You will see this scenario more often under socialized medicine than you will under the present system.
“Plus, there are caps of a sort on punis.”
This is news to me.
“. Some malpractice is caused by MDs scheduling too many surgeries in one day and rushing thru them. This is inexcusable. “
This may be true. Then again - sometimes bad things happen regardless of all precautions taken. It’s called “risk”, and it is always present in the OR.
“Many MDs are are very OCD and perfectionistic and don’t like to accept responsibility for their screw ups.”
Well - that may be so as well - OR - they are being advised by THEIR lawyers to not admit to a durn thing considering the millions of dollars they are being sued for?
MY BIL is the opposite - he is always questioning what he could have done differently or how he could have improved on something.
“If not ordering a test falls within acceptable medical standards there should be nothing to worry about.”
Depending on WHOSE opinion? Whose definition?
So...in order to eliminate as much risk of lawsuit as possible - the tests get ordered regardless.
SW - LOL - who does not remember that particular Bushism, but find herself missing him alot these days despite her previous ambivalence towards him.
But, Bob Cheapo, the employer, only pays $7 per hour and leaves Hardworking harry, about $800 short on that. So Harry doesn’t get health insurance and car insurance. Who picks up the difference? Taxpayers and whoever he hits in his car.
Why is it Bob Cheapo's responsibility (or the responsibility of anyone else for that matter) to make sure Harry is taken care of? As capable adults in a free society, aren't we responsible for taking care of ourselves?
Put yourself in Bob's shoes. You are an employer. There are certain small tasks that could be done to improve your business. The work is nothing too difficult- any person could do it, really - it's just that you don't have the time to take care of it yourself. You carefully calculate that getting these tasks done will add about $1200 each month to your business. But you also believe a person can not live decently on less than $2000 a month.
What is the most that it would make sense for you to pay to the person you hire? Probably something close to $1200...after all, you started this business primarily as a way to make money. Pay any more than $1200 and you are actually losing money by hiring someone. If you pay a "living wage" you would be paying out $800 more each month than you are taking in, all things equal.
In effect, by paying a "living wage" in this situation you are effectively giving the person a charitable donation. Charity is nice, but is that something we should force on other people?
And if charity should be a legal obligation, how should it be imposed? What you are proposing is that whenever an employer hires someone, the employer should be shouldered with that obligation because it is the employer who must then pay enough to support this person.
But why place that burden exclusively on the unfortunate employer, just because some job applicant thought his business would be a nice place to work? It's not Bob's fault that this employee has bills to pay! If we really believe that people have a right to have all their basic needs met by some third person, shouldn't that burden be shared equally across society in the form of taxation, rather than shared unequally by making some employers the de facto parents of society's less productive members?
Lastly, supposing that we really do have a "right" to a "living wage" and that the proper way to protect this right is by forcing employers to pay those wages...what do you think the real world result of a living wage law would be? If businesses were faced with losing money by hiring less productive people, do you think they would be more or less willing to create new employment opportunities? If workers at any job were guaranteed enough to live comfortably as long as they stayed employed, do you think starting workers and members of the underclass would be more or less productive? Would kids be more or less likely to study hard in school?
Yes it does. Now think really hard Parsy. Who or what is the second actor?
Lurker thinks Parsy can do it if he really, really tries.
What????
“It’s not Bob’s fault that this employee has bills to pay! If we really believe that people have a right to have all their basic needs met by some third person, shouldn’t that burden be shared equally across society in the form of taxation, rather than shared unequally by making some employers the de facto parents of society’s less productive members?”
Now you have finally hit the nail on the head. It costs something for the basics of human life. Lets assume $2,000 minimum a month for purposes of this argument. If the employer does not meet that amount, the taxpayers will pick it up, because most of us don’t want people sleeping on park benches, starving to death, and going untreated for medical problems.
There is a whole class of the poor called the “working poor.” A lot of these people work for companies who could pay more, but choose not to and let the rest of us pick up the tab. It wasn’t always this way. Min wage used to be livable and our country wasn’t doing so bad. Then we let it slide.
Gov’t has no business setting all wages for all people. But setting a lower limit, is just good sense. As an accountant in a former life, the costs are there whether you make the journal entry or not.
Now as to cheapo, I have more sympathy then you think. If he is a one man show, minwage could indeed affect him more than say, Walmart. But if all had to live by the same rules, there would be more demand (>MPC)and Cheapo would probably have more demand for his product.
parsy, who has to stop in a minute to finish read Superman vs. Spiderman from 1976
Uhmmmmm. I’m squeezing my brain... grunt. grunt. drooool...its its its other businessmen, no nonono, thats too simple, wrong answer, its its its ITS GOVERNMENT!!!! isn’t it?? I got it right! I just know I did. Now my mommy will be proud of me...
So, full of myself, all we have to do is get rid of all gov’t and everything will work out ok.
parsy, who feels like a big boy now.
Or, we could try casting the FedGov back into the Constitutional prison designed for it by our Founders. There's a whole bunch of stuff about that on the Free Republic Home Page. You might want to drop by there and actually read it sometime.
Lurker, who thinks Parsy is really only into his political adolescence no matter how grown up he thinks he is.
My mom was married to an MD. So was I. You hear a lot of tales about the things I referred to. Nonetheless there are a lot of obstacles to a successful malpractice suit. In Arkansas, you even have to have an expert to prepare an affidavit prior to filing the suit.
Have you seen Sicko, yet?
parsy, who thinks it could be done, but it will require some commitment.
All I can really say (because this issue exasperates me) is that no matter who is charge - capitalists - communists - or even a royal family - there is always going to be an underclass. As far as I can tell - they cannot be convinced to live otherwise.
That post needs to be placed on some sort of "FR wall of general conservative wisdom".
This is a good recap from answers.com. The whole article is instructive. The point is, that even deregulation brings its dangers. Best answer is sensible regulation.
The 1980s and 1990s saw further Deregulation. Consumers as well as business have benefited from this trend, but there have been notable failures. Deregulation of the savings and loan industry led to a series of bank failures in the late 1980s that cost the federal government more than $1 trillion. In 2001, deregulation of California’s power industry created electricity shortages, raised wholesale and retail prices, and forced two of that states largest utility companies to declare bankruptcy. The energy trading company, Enron, along with other energy brokers, which were all created because of deregulation, has been accused of conspiring to manipulate California’s power supply and creating the state’s energy crisis.
In December 2001 Enron became the center of another scandal when its bankruptcy, the largest to date in the nation’s history, revealed that the company had used deceptive accounting practices to inflate its earning reports and stock price. This was the first in a series of corporate bankruptcies to involve fraudulent bookkeeping that shook an already weak stock market in 2002. To restore investor confidence, the federal government exercised its regulatory authority to promote greater scrutiny of the securities, accounting, and power utility industries.
The accounting scandals of the early twenty-first century recall the business scandals of the late 1800s and early 1900s when antagonism between business and government regulators became ingrained. Despite this antipathy, the two sides have, in fact, benefited from each other. Government regulations ensuring the enforceability of contracts and property rights are such basics that business in the United States could not function properly without them. Likewise, without the economic growth created by private business, the U.S. government could not sustain itself. Although the current system of federal and state regulations may sometimes be self-contradictory, and, in addition, confusing to the business community, it is a relatively loose one, leaving the United States as one of the nations whose business welfare depends most on the decisions of private entrepreneurs.
Bibliography
Laffont, Jean-Jacques, and Jean Tirole. Competition in Telecommunications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.
Lai, Loi Lei, ed. Power System Restructuring and Deregulation. New York: Wiley, 2001.
Macey, Jonathan R., Geoffrey P. Miller, and Richard Scott Carnell. Banking Law and Regulation. 3d ed. Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Publishers, 2000.
Peritz, Rudolph J. R. Competition Policy in America, 1888–1992: History, Rhetoric, Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Singer, Jonathan W., and Keneth E. Montague, eds. Broken Trusts: The Texas Attorney General Versus the Oil Industry, 1889–1909. Vol. 12, Oil and Business History Series. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002.
Viscusi, W. Kip, John M. Vernon, and Joseph E. Harrington Jr. Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, 3d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.
parsy, who agrees our gov’t is way too big
Agreed. There are some people who will work harder to not work then they would work, working.
parsy, who is leaving for a while.
Yea, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Pelosi, and Reid have such a good track record of being 'sensible'.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis.
Lurker, who really likes Parsy. I just think he's more than a bit naive.
I know. I don’t buy it. The History channel? The evidence is inconclusive is what I read. Homosexuals and liberals will not rest until every historical figure is described as “gay”.
A few years ago I read a bio of a Prussian prince. The set up of the Prussian military was such that Prussian officers devoted themselves to their fellow officers in a way that excluded family, even wives and children, and friends not among the officer corp. It was a very close knit, conhesive group. From what I read, I doubt Von Steuben was homosexual, more likely a typical member of the Prussian officer class.
I collect American Civil War era cdv’s. Often when a cdv of two men is listed on eBay it will have the tag “gay interest”.
I agree with you gays are not happy so they try to legitimize their perversion by smearing others with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.