# Atlas Shrugged Part I **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 17, 2011, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722 "2011-04-17T13:41:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/141 "2011-04-26T16:42:58Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > … if you regard Rand as economical in her writing, there’s just a chasm between our opinions that we shall not be able to bridge. Well, I meant that in one case she introduced several themes in short order. Certainly most of the story is loooooong, so long and so detailed, it’s hard to imagine a modern teen reading it, much less having a life changing effect on anyone. And it’s not just the length that makes it difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/142 "2011-04-26T23:07:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That you, or anyone else, feels the need to say that, it perhaps illustrates part of “the difficulty” I mentioned. While Iron Man comics and Superman comics abound, (as well as movies now), and have been around for longer than Rand, nobody feels the need to point out to teenagers that they are fictions. > > _Atlas Shrugged_ on the other hand, it has, even now, some sort of power that envelops the young mind, and even with it’s extreme length, and archaic prose, people still read the book. _Atlas Shrugged_ caught my attention by it’s rejection of the notion that you have to do business with people/companies because they need the work, and need help or otherwise how could they hope to compete? It’s only being fair! It’s a bullshit attitude that I hate with a passion. I used to work for the Department of Defense. Contracts under $3mil we had to let out to small/disadvantaged businesses, so they could get the expertise in their jobs. “It’s only fair,” we were told. “Otherwise they wouldn’t get any business, and how else could they compete? We’re only giving them a chance.” Trouble is, they weren’t qualified to do the work, and you got a shitty end product that took longer to produce and at a higher cost than if you’d simply put the contract out to bid to anyone. And if the contractor didn’t follow the plans or specs, you could forget getting the contract enforced. “They’re trying so hard, you’re not being fair. They have to learn somehow.” An inspector that was filing a non-compliance letter a day with the contracting office was rewarded by being removed from the job for ‘harassing the contractor.’ Personally, I wanted insulation in the building exterior walls, but hey, it’s all about ‘being fair.’ It wasn’t just at my location. I talked with dozens of other engineers at different bases. The attitude that you had to do everything you could to help the contractor was endemic. And the contractors knew it, and pressed it to every advantage they could. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > And it’s not an easy book to read. It’s difficult. It’s long for one thing. With lots of words. For that reason I much prefer the abridged audio book read by Edward Hermann. I listen to it once or twice a year. It makes for a much better story. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/143 "2011-04-27T11:30:19Z")
I thought that whining and blaming others for your problems were contemptible “moocher” traits in Objectivist philosophy, but apparently not: > [@](#): > > [Atlas Shrugged’ producer: “Critics, you won.” He’s going 'on strike.](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/04/atlas-shrugged-producer-critics-you-won-hes-going-on-strike.html) > > Twelve days after opening “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film. > > “Critics, you won,” said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” which covers the first third of Rand’s dystopian novel. “I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2.”… ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/144 "2011-04-27T14:20:28Z")
> [@Patch](#): > > Trouble is, they weren’t qualified to do the work, and you got a shitty end product that took longer to produce and at a higher cost than if you’d simply put the contract out to bid to anyone. Interesting. Sounds terribly frustrating, and I have had a similar experience on a research grant project. However, I’m curious about what data you have on this. Numerically, what proportion of small/disadvantaged contractors failed to successfully complete their work, and how did this compare to the rate of success for larger ones. Additionally, how many of the smaller contractors ultimately grew over time into large contractors, and how did their success rate change, if at all? Otherwise, you’re relying on your anecdotal recall, which will be biased by your own prejudices. If you acknowledge listening to Atlas Shrugged twice a year, I’m speculating that you might have some fairly significant biases. Of course, we all do; I for instance have never picked up the book after reading it the first time. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/145 "2011-04-27T14:59:17Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I thought that whining and blaming others for your problems were contemptible “moocher” traits in Objectivist philosophy, but apparently not: Well, the free market spoke and it said “meh.” Anyway, I think it’s pretty apparent that the main reason he made this movie was simply to retain the film rights to the book (which were about to expire). I would not be at all surprised if he never intended to go through with the sequels. One thing’s for sure, he did a really shitty job of marketing the movie. I can’t recall seeing a single ad for it, and only knew it was coming out because I happened to see Ebert’s review for it. Also the story you linked to mentioned he’s a professional poker player. I’d be curious to hear from others who are more knowledgeable on the subject about that would fit into objectivist philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/146 "2011-04-27T17:39:40Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Anyway, I think it’s pretty apparent that the main reason he made this movie was simply to retain the film rights to the book (which were about to expire). If he just wanted to hold the rights, he could have cranked something out without dragging innocent theater owners down with him. That approach was good enough for [Roger Corman](http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/The_Fantastic_Four_1993.aspx). ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/147 "2011-04-27T22:13:16Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > One thing’s for sure, he did a really shitty job of marketing the movie. I can’t recall seeing a single ad for it, and only knew it was coming out because I happened to see Ebert’s review for it. Advertising is expensive, especially media spots, and would easily match the cost of the film itself to reach the saturation point necessary to make people even slightly aware of it. He probably was counting on favorable word-of-mouth as well as crossing his fingers on the critical reaction. Unfortunately, neither was going to be enough to sell a film that was already an uphill battle. ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/148 "2011-04-28T04:41:21Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Interesting. Sounds terribly frustrating, and I have had a similar experience on a research grant project. > > However, I’m curious about what data you have on this. Numerically, what proportion of small/disadvantaged contractors failed to successfully complete their work, and how did this compare to the rate of success for larger ones. > > Additionally, how many of the smaller contractors ultimately grew over time into large contractors, and how did their success rate change, if at all? > > Otherwise, you’re relying on your anecdotal recall, which will be biased by your own prejudices. If you acknowledge listening to Atlas Shrugged twice a year, I’m speculating that you might have some fairly significant biases. Of course, we all do; I for instance have never picked up the book after reading it the first time. Of course I have a limited data set. I’m one engineer going off his own experiences. But we saw contractors getting big enough to no longer be eligible for the small/disadvantages limit, close XYZ Construction and start ZYX Construction, and there they were again. Of course not every contractor was bad, but the efficient railroad repair contract is countered by the guy who replaced airfield slabs that crumbled after a few months (the contracting officer refused to put in a warranty call and it never got fixed), or the guy who epoxy coated a hangar floor that peeled up when the first wheel hit it (wasn’t fixed either). On it went. I didn’t enter that job expecting any of that. I started off fresh from college all excited that I was working with the military. The government quashed all of that. My hatred towards that “you have to give them a _chaaaance_” whiny bullshit was created by that job. I wouldn’t hire someone who had never worked on a car before to replace my transmission, so why should I spend $2,000,000 of your tax dollars so a contractor who’s never done pavement work before can work on an airfield? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/149 "2011-04-28T11:31:01Z")
> [@Patch](#): > > Of course I have a limited data set. I’m one engineer going off his own experiences. But we saw contractors getting big enough to no longer be eligible for the small/disadvantages limit, close XYZ Construction and start ZYX Construction, and there they were again. Of course not every contractor was bad, but the efficient railroad repair contract is countered by the guy who replaced airfield slabs that crumbled after a few months (the contracting officer refused to put in a warranty call and it never got fixed), or the guy who epoxy coated a hangar floor that peeled up when the first wheel hit it (wasn’t fixed either). On it went. > > I didn’t enter that job expecting any of that. I started off fresh from college all excited that I was working with the military. The government quashed all of that. My hatred towards that “you have to give them a _chaaaance_” whiny bullshit was created by that job. > > I wouldn’t hire someone who had never worked on a car before to replace my transmission, so why should I spend $2,000,000 of your tax dollars so a contractor who’s never done pavement work before can work on an airfield? I agree that your anecdotes are certainly troubling. However, they remain just anecdotes, and you didn’t answer my question. I suspect, but don’t know, that the idea is that we benefit from having a variety of contractors out there to compete for awards. I’m sure that someone can match you dollar for dollar on anecdotes about large contractors soaking the government because they could get away with it. I doubt very much that our interests are altruistic; that we just want to give undeserving people a chance. We in fact are quite self-serving, and want to get away from paying huge contractor XYZ $10,000 for a hammer. Thus, to evaluate without bias whether the idea actually works in practice, it would be important to know the proportion of circumstances that occur in the manner you describe versus those that don’t. You haven’t even given us the ability to know whether these problems occur 1%, 10% or 75% of the time. Without that, you’re just on a biased rant. Of course, again, the circumstances you do identify are outrageous, but you haven’t told us about one time that things went right. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/150 "2011-04-28T13:15:02Z")
> [@Infovore](#): > > For the most part I agree with you about this–as it’s depicted in Atlas Shrugged, Objectivism would have a hard time surviving in its pure form in the real world. I have no illusions about the fact that most (all?) people are far more shades-of-gray than the characters in AS. But I see no harm in trying to live up to its better principles: treating each other with respect, dealing with them as traders (however you want to define this–in a lot of cases it has nothing to do with money) and living your life according to your own highest values (within the context of recognizing that your rights don’t extend to impinging on other people’s rights). In my mind, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with looking out for one’s own self interest in a rational way–if you don’t, who will? But what a lot of Rand detractors don’t realize is that “self interest” doesn’t necessarily mean just “self.” It means “what you, personally, value.” I see nothing particularly moral about making sacrifices that you don’t want to make in order to benefit someone who means nothing to you. On the other hand, making sacrifices to benefit another person whom you value (for example, a spouse or a child) or a cause that you consider important, is perfectly moral to an Objectivist. I don’t get why people have such trouble with this. Do people genuinely _want_ to sacrifice their own values to others’ ‘needs’? That seems like one of two things is happening: either they’re getting something out of it (in which case it’s kind of a value in itself) or something pathological is going on. Infovore-You do understand that people “look out” for the people they value by \*\*MAKING ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FOR THEM!\*\* And you can sacrifice for causes ONLY WHEN you have the to live! In regard to sacrificing for people who “mean nothing to you”, what about soldiers, fire fighters, police officers? There’s nothing wrong in admitting the truth, in fact, it’s quite liberating. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/151 "2011-04-28T13:22:21Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Advertising is expensive, especially media spots, and would easily match the cost of the film itself to reach the saturation point necessary to make people even slightly aware of it. He probably was counting on favorable word-of-mouth as well as crossing his fingers on the critical reaction. Unfortunately, neither was going to be enough to sell a film that was already an uphill battle. Well obviously a Transformers-like, saturate the airwaves campaign was out of the question. But you’re telling me he couldn’t have bought a couple of ads on Fox News, or even ads on conservative Web sites? The fact that he failed to do even that, says to me he wasn’t serious about creating a great movie, or for that matter trying to sell it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/152 "2011-04-28T15:02:38Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Well obviously a Transformers-like, saturate the airwaves campaign was out of the question. But you’re telling me he couldn’t have bought a couple of ads on Fox News, or even ads on conservative Web sites? The fact that he failed to do even that, says to me he wasn’t serious about creating a great movie, or for that matter trying to sell it. I suspect that he was counting on the True Believers watching multiple times. The steep falloff from their already low sales suggests that this isn’t working out for him. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/153 "2011-04-28T16:13:09Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I suspect that he was counting on the True Believers watching multiple times. The steep falloff from their already low sales suggests that this isn’t working out for him. And even then, the True Believers are still hanging their hat on DVD sales (_vide supra_, **Sam Stone** ). This is obviously a winning strategy for getting more movie sequels in the theatres, as evidenced by the continuing deluge of _Left Behind_ movies in cineplexes around the country, propelled by nothing more than bulk DVD purchases by Bible study groups. ---
**Author:** ![Infovore](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infovore/32/420_2.png) [@Infovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Infovore)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/154 "2011-04-28T16:30:41Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > In regard to sacrificing for people who “mean nothing to you”, what about soldiers, fire fighters, police officers? There’s nothing wrong in admitting the truth, in fact, it’s quite liberating. Don’t be condescending. It amazes me how many people just don’t get it–can’t you conceive that there are plenty of people out there who value their country and/or their community enough that they would choose to serve in the military, the police or fire department, or a job with low pay because they want to protect weaker citizens, give something back to the country that gave them opportunities, teach the next generation…_none_ of these are anti-Objectivist! The Objectivist would object to the draft, because it forces people to risk their most precious possession–their life–without choosing to do so. They would object to a person’s being forced to enter a dangerous, low-paying, or otherwise undesirable (to that individual person) profession “for the greater good.” But if a person chooses, according to their own values, to enter such a profession or make such a “sacrifice” (which, to them, isn’t necessarily a sacrifice) then that’s what Objectivism is all about, Charlie Brown. Living according to your own values. There may be a lot of things about Objectivism that people object to or dislike, and that’s their right, of course. But at least if you’re going to dismiss it, get it right first. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/155 "2011-04-28T16:39:29Z")
Infovore, sincere ? here about Objectivism: Did Rand believe it was people’s “free will” (and I absolutely agree people shouldn’t be placed in harms way against their wishes) to say:“I don’t give a horses ass about you, and you shouldn’t give an ass about me.” ---
**Author:** ![Infovore](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infovore/32/420_2.png) [@Infovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Infovore)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/156 "2011-04-28T18:20:07Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > Infovore, sincere ? here about Objectivism: Did Rand believe it was people’s “free will” (and I absolutely agree people shouldn’t be placed in harms way against their wishes) to say:“I don’t give a horses ass about you, and you shouldn’t give an ass about me.” Yes and no. She certainly believed that it was a person’s right not to give a damn about whatever other people they didn’t want to give a damn about. But she also understood the value of relationships with other people, and valued them. Her main issue in this regard was that people shouldn’t have to sacrifice their values for things that were lesser values, or no value at all. It’s not really all that revolutionary, and Rand was neither evil nor heartless. She’s simply saying (in an interpersonal way) that people shouldn’t have to sacrifice for things or people they don’t value. To use examples of varying degrees of triviality: you shouldn’t have to give up medicine that would help your own child to save someone else’s child (if there was only enough for one, obviously). You shouldn’t have to support your deadbeat brother who does nothing but eat your food, watch TV all day, and tell you about how much you owe him. You shouldn’t have to hand over a spot that you fairly won (say, in a university program) to a stranger because they “need” it more. You’re not required to sacrifice your own happiness in order to make someone else happy (unless that person is a high enough value to you that you don’t consider it a sacrifice–many parents make deep sacrifices for their children, but don’t begrudge it because their children are the most important thing in the world to them). Of all the Objectivist concepts, this is the one I have the hardest trouble with people not understanding, or not accepting. Everybody has a right to pursue their own values and happiness. They’re not required to live for anyone else’s sake simply because of “need.” They don’t have a right to violate the rights of others in order to pursue their values. It’s not cold and unemotional. It seems rather civil to me. I don’t think the world owes me a living. Rand isn’t saying that you shouldn’t help other people, or that it’s bad to do so. But she _is_ saying that you should do it voluntarily, because it serves your values, not because you’re supposed to, because you’re forced to, or simply because of the other person’s need. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/157 "2011-04-28T18:24:08Z")
> [@Infovore](#): > > Yes and no. She certainly believed that it was a person’s right not to give a damn about whatever other people they didn’t want to give a damn about. But she also understood the value of relationships with other people, and valued them. Her main issue in this regard was that people shouldn’t have to sacrifice their values for things that were lesser values, or no value at all. It’s not really all that revolutionary, and Rand was neither evil nor heartless. She’s simply saying (in an interpersonal way) that people shouldn’t have to sacrifice for things or people they don’t value. To use examples of varying degrees of triviality: you shouldn’t have to give up medicine that would help your own child to save someone else’s child (if there was only enough for one, obviously). You shouldn’t have to support your deadbeat brother who does nothing but eat your food, watch TV all day, and tell you about how much you owe him. You shouldn’t have to hand over a spot that you fairly won (say, in a university program) to a stranger because they “need” it more. You’re not required to sacrifice your own happiness in order to make someone else happy (unless that person is a high enough value to you that you don’t consider it a sacrifice–many parents make deep sacrifices for their children, but don’t begrudge it because their children are the most important thing in the world to them). > > Of all the Objectivist concepts, this is the one I have the hardest trouble with people not understanding, or not accepting. Everybody has a right to pursue their own values and happiness. They’re not required to live for anyone else’s sake simply because of “need.” They don’t have a right to violate the rights of others in order to pursue their values. It’s not cold and unemotional. It seems rather civil to me. I don’t think the world owes me a living. Rand isn’t saying that you shouldn’t help other people, or that it’s bad to do so. But she _is_ saying that you should do it voluntarily, because it serves your values, not because you’re supposed to, because you’re forced to, or simply because of the other person’s need. EXCELLENT explanation! Charity, BY DEFINITION, is voluntary. (or at least I assumed it was) Ignorance fought! ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/158 "2011-04-28T19:15:29Z")
Either he changed his tune or the earlier report was skewed… it ain’t over yet! > **[‘Atlas Shrugged’ Producer Promises Two Sequels Despite Terrible Reviews, Poor...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/atlas-shrugged-producer-promises-two-182714/)** > > The critics are “revitalizing me with their outrageousness,” John Aglialoro, who spent $10 million of his own money on the film, tells THR. If it were up to me, I’d get it finished even if III had to be a TV musical cartoon by Rankin-Bass! (“Where there’s a Gulch, there is a Galt!”) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/159 "2011-04-28T19:23:32Z")
It’s his money. If he wants to flush it, let him flush it. Ayn would never approve, though. It’s completely against his self interest. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722/160 "2011-04-28T20:03:50Z")
It turns out the producer of the film, John Aglialoro, had no problem leeching off the government: > [@](#): > > In awarding a $3.1 million grant to Cybex International Inc. yesterday, Gov. Deval Patrick, along with several state and local officials, praised the collaborations it took to effectively keep the exercise equipment manufacturer in Medway. > The Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion grant, first announced last month, will extend a sewer line for a new Cybex building, adjacent to the current site, that will bring 120 manufacturing jobs… > > ``Cybex had been looking to state government for several years, or frankly, it had to leave,‘’ said John Aglialoro, Cybex’s chairman and chief executive officer. [http://www.milforddailynews.com/homepage/x126630891](http://www.milforddailynews.com/homepage/x126630891) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atlas-shrugged-part-i/578722.md?page=9)