The funny thing about this whole discussion is that the main female character in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny, ended up in Galt’s Gulch where she took the job of… housekeeper.
I only need to show that I consider it, a secular prosperity ministry.
She’s against charity and for allowing the rich to keep their money. I take from that that her followers think that both groups deserve where they’re at.
Please feel free to enlighten me.
Being the shortest?
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
As opposed to the intarweb knight in shining armor protecting the virtue of St. Rand?
[/QUOTE]
It’s a good thing no one fits that bill…well, no one but that strawman I see you building.
So, instead of addressing what folks have actually written and, perhaps engaging in a discussion with them, you figure your role is to make up silly little displays such as the above to…well, do whatever it is you do for whatever the reasons you do it for.
Yes…and it’s surprising she wore black shoes so much and cut her hair the way she did as well. Hmmm…
Now, getting back to the actual thread.
Certainly. You can make all the off the wall comments about little meaningless tangential points all you like. And I can ask you if that’s all you got. See, works out nicely.
Sure we can…good idea, since it’s an easy one. All the workers in the Gulch were paided in gold coins (maybe silver too, though I don’t recall it being mentioned) minted at Mulligans bank (IIRC). Since what they had there in the Gulch was and exchange for services using gold coins (and barter) as their exchange, a person who had the idea that trash hauling would and could make money would build a business model along those lines and set up a process to do it…then start out doing it himself (there were several examples of exactly this trajectory happening in other businesses in the Gulch). Eventually, if he was doing good enough job, he’d be able to attract workers (paying them in gold coins) and even further expand his business. If someone else had the same idea and /or thought they could do it better, cheaper, more efficient etc then they would do so.
Seems simple enough to me within the context of the book. Would all of her philosophy work in the real world? No, probably not. But this part seems solid enough to me as long as you through out the erroneous baggage that the goal is for everyone to become rich/wealthy and that all poor people are to be looked down on and are lazy or worthless moochers and all rich people are good, hardworking paragons deserving of their wealthy
It wasn’t a logical fallacy. You didn’t understand the conversation. I did say 500k in 1980’s dollars. But that was due to the structure of the post I was replying to. I assumed you were upset because you went off half-cocked.
Sure, but it’s not a sign of well managed money.
Hardly. I posed a cite for 800k. Is that misinformation?
First off, she most certainly advocated indifference to the poor.
And did she die rich?
Don’t be silly. I laugh at her specific hypocrisy and failure by her own terms because she was an evil cunt.
I wouldn’t judge you by your bottom line at death, or anyone else. I know that how much you have is mostly circumstance. Her followers are the ones who think money is all ability and hard work.
I’m gonna bow out at this point. I do agree this tangent has gone on too far. Also, I’ve gotten little work done.
<3
Why would there ever be any problem? Galt is a visionary master of high energy physics, make Heisenberg look like a dunce. The real Heisenberg, the physicist with the ambivalently existential cat. Not the meth cooker.
Anyway, guy like that, whip up a few thousand menial job robots, nothing to it.
Moving the goal posts is a logical fallacy. You started out saying the average house was $500K. Then you changed it to “two houses”. Then you changed it to “two houses on the west coast”.
I see that you’re “bowing out”, which is probably for the best. Your arguments, such as they are, are laughably wrong. You don’t understand what Rand’s philosophy is (she does not equate monitory wealth with moral value), you have repeatedly, and incorrectly, equated an estate with the total lifetime earnings of a person, and you’ve repeatedly called someone “not rich” who was, by any objective (pun intended) definition of the term was rich.
Now, we all understand that you don’t like Ayn Rand. And that’s a very sympathetic position on this MB. I can understand your indignation at being challenged for posting bullshit about her, since most people who post here agree with your overall assessment of her. But just because you think AR = bad, that does not mean that anything you post about her is beyond criticism since, who cares if it’s true or not-- she’s bad!!
That was Schrödinger, with the cat. 
But at any rate, the OP offers a silly proposition, based on a false assumption that everyone in GG was a high powered multi-millionaire genius who would never stoop so low as to collect garbage. The key to being accepted into GG had nothing to with personal wealth, status or any other superficial measure of societal worth. If you agreed with the philosophy, it didn’t matter if you were a house keeper or a hot shot banker.
So, no gotcha here. And one does not need to be a “Randian” to understand the premise of the book, whether one agrees with it or not. It is, after all, a work of fiction. A stylized representation of reality. It’s not meant to be a documentary. I mean, do we quibble over how Ahab could have possibly found that same white whale? Or how the Prince really could have been mistaken for the Pauper?
I did finish the work I was going to do, so I’ll answer you, but not further delve into the particulars, since I’ve established what I meant to say, and you aren’t likely to accept it.
Please stop describing that incorrectly. It’s the result of not reading carefully.
What I said was that she wasn’t rich.
To that there was a response:
“In what world is a person worth $500,000 not rich? Particularly in 1982 dollars?”
To that I responded:
*“A world where an average house costs around that?”
*
Now, by that, did I mean Earth? No, I meant a world, where that’s a reasonable house. Manhattan, where she lived. Or Malibu. Or Seattle. Or San Francisco. Or any number of nice places in good neighborhoods.
Got it?
Okay, then I got questioned by XT:
“Whoa…you think that in 1982 the average cost of a house was $500k?? Good grief, where do you live?”
To which I responded:
“He phrased it in present tense at first. The particularly part was in 1982 dollars. Two houses if you want it in modern dollars. One for each best selling novel. Say one has a swimming pool, and the other has a spacious yard. Perfect for a dog.”
And then you got on the train, having not understood what we were talking about and made your silly objection. You’re not being accurate, please stop it.
Anywho, the goalposts haven’t been moved, because I never varied from the idea that 500k was a trivial sum for a creature who advocated greed her whole life.
Was she? Ending her life with 800k, including her home and car, and furnishings, sounds like a fading starlet. Especially seeing that she joined Medicare when it was obvious her remaining money couldn’t pay for her treatment.
True, she was an evil woman and made the world a much worse place.
That isn’t my stance at all. And I’d appreciate that you not say it is. I’ve said specifically that she started a secular prosperity cult, which is certainly a reasonable thing to say, given the actions of her followers. I’ve said that she was indifferent to the poor…
… I’ve said she had less money than I’d think a person dedicated to greed would have at death.
None of those things are bullshit. Except perhaps for the prosperity cult, but it’s hardly a stretch.
Now forrealsies, I gots to sleep. <3
I just wanted to second what XT said here and in the rest of this post. I haven’t read it in a long time myself, and I appreciate that asking to read it is a major undertaking as it’s what, 1,200 or some odd pages long, but you are losing a lot in the translation. A lot of the wealthy characters in her books in general and Atlas Shrugged in particular were undeservedly wealthy having made their fortunes as a result of political graft and connections rather than free enterprise and actual ability. She didn’t consider the possession of wealth on its own to be a virtue, nor did she consider poverty or a lack of wealth on its own to be a vice. She also did not see things as a dynamic between owners like Reardon being wholly responsible for making steel and the workers failing to appreciate that they owed everything to Reardon. The dynamic was more between those of ability in actually making things that worked and those whose abilities were in governmental corruption and graft and insisting that those such as Reardon owed them or society the fruit of their labor.
It actually was a pretty good read as well.
Lobohan: When someone says “in 1982 dollars”, they mean adjusted for inflation if you are projected onto today. So using the raw 1982 numbers is not responding accurately. And the questions was “what world”, not “what neighborhood” and you statement was “a house”, not “2 houses”. I don’t think there is a football field big enough to contain that mobile goalpost.
And now you’re moving yet another goalpost-- “not rich” is now “a fading starlet”.
Now, consider your statement:
You’ve not cited how much she made during her life. You keep clinging to the worth of her estate, which only shows that she probably wasn’t a good investor. In fact, if you had read your cite for the $800K figure, that’s pretty much what the author says.
As for her being “indifferent to the poor”, you also said “She’s against charity” and the bit from her that you quoted disproves that flat out.
BTW-- I’ll happy call you errors simply “errors” instead of bullshit if that will make you feel better. Consider it an act of charity.
In her later years, Rand did a lot of speed (and was unapologetic about it). She also published some pretty bizarre rantings and had a love/hate relationship with Phil Donahue (he’s a liberal and a commie! He put me on his show and I got attention!) I’ll try to find the cite for these claims.
Anyway, I think Galt Gulch would have done just fine collecting the garbage. Entrepreneurs a la Waste Management would have devised a way to extract natural gas from garbage and used it to power their trucks, selling the surplus, paying large dividends on their stock and having the money to pay top dollar for dedicated workers.
Then Galt’s electrostatic motor would have come along and no one would give a damn about natural gas anymore. Garbage company goes belly up, yer own yer own, but hey that’s Capitalism.
What’s the price of a loaf of bread in Galt’s Gulch? Or in other words, what with almost everyone getting paid well because they are able-bodied and inventive entrepreneurs, how is the problem of inflation handled? Are there price freezes(thus denying Bob the Baker the right to grow his business), or can Bob the Baker raises his prices to what the market can pay…which will naturally be higher in Galt’s Gulch than it will be in the outside world?
Let me ask a simpler question than my OP may remove all my confusion (or add to it). How do people end up in Galt’s Gulch? My understanding, and I may be completely wrong, is that Galt’s Gulch is magically hidden away, secret enclave of “producers” to live in harmony. So my understanding is that it just isn’t a matter of saying, “Hey we are paying three bars of gold an hour to pick up trash to anyone who wants to come do it!” It seems to me that there wold be a tremendous shortage of labor and labor costs would skyrocket, unless they had some way to allow folks to come in freely and fill the shortage. It is basic supply and demand.
Which leads to the more interesting question, who pays the garbage collectors? Is it like a paper route where each household pays the trash collectors individually? And what if one person on the block decides not to pay and their trash stacks up, impacting the entire neighborhood?
Not sure if you saw my earlier post, but again, they would solve the garbage problem like they solved the security/concealment problem: a science-fictional infinite supply of energy (Galt’s electrostatic generator). It’s very telling that Rand basically admits that her own libertarian utopia requires magic to be real.
I don’t think she ever fleshed out this aspect of the story, so it would be speculation. Out of curiosity, why would prices naturally be higher in Galt’s Gulch than in the outside world? IIRC, there were farmers and ranchers in the Gulch (and competition between the various types for market share), so presumably there would be bakers and cooks able to go to the best supplier for grain to bake their bread…and an incentive for them to either make a superior product for the value add or be cheaper to gain market share that way (or possibly both).
As has already been stated multiple times in this thread alone, not everyone in the Gulch was an inventive entrepreneur. I don’t know if everyone was or wasn’t well paid either, though again that aspect of the book wasn’t really fleshed out with a spread sheet.
Everyone, Lobohan, XT et alia…
Y’all will STOP with the personal comments and sniping or, to quote Mr. Worf, I will become … irritated with you.
Such comments have no place in Great Debates and each of you should know that. The Pit is just a few fora down if you feel you must make it personal.
People were invited to the Gulch, though some were folks (farmers and ranchers and the like IIRC) who already lived there. Since they had been working at this for years (like 20, again, from memory from when Galt walks out of the auto plant and starts his crusade), and had been scouring the country for men (and women) of ability (from the lowliest jobs to the highest), I don’t think there would be a labor shortage, especially since most of the people there only lived there part time, living back in the real world for the majority of their time. At the end of the book they were planning on having everyone move themselves and their families to the Gulch full time and sealing the borders as the world outside was falling apart, but up to that point it wasn’t a closed system…and we don’t know how things played out when they finally DID make it a closed system.
Again, seriously…read the book. A lot of this stuff you are asking is in there, and simply reading it would answer most if not all of the questions in this thread (aside from the nitpicks and attempts to make a fictional book operate as if it were reality).