About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Heidi, loved it. Succinct. To the point. Ethical Individualism serves "society" more than ANY ethical/political alternative does (and, as an added bonus, it is a morally-perfect principle for humans living on earth).

Ed

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whoa! I don't think so.

"Law, what do I care about the law? Ain't I got the power?"- Vanderbilt

 Vanderbilts and Fisks and Goulds et al make for some interesting stories (esp the Anaconda Copper one) but they were not benevolent by any stretch. Free markets? Competition? No way, they wanted the odds and the politics stacked in their favour and they made sure they were. They controlled the government and the law, cared nothing for the rights of those that got crushed between their colliding 'toy' locomotives. They were modern warlords, worthy of the Medieval term 'robber baron'. And then they had the gilded gall to attend church on a Sunday!


Nice try Morris!


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 6:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

You probably have some great points, I am not familiar enough with the history of those particular industrialists to know for sure.  Could you point to some resources on that, or perhaps give us a narrative of how these individuals exploited the government to ensure their economic power (which I have no doubt that probably did, as every large company does now)

However, I would say that Heidi certainly has a point in her theme, what you speak of is not what Vanderbilt and Astor etc are derided for, they seem to be attacked by the general populace because of the perception that they were good industrialists, or greedy capitalists, not goverment coddling power mongerers.

Michael F Dickey 


Post 3

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael -- and by extension, Heidi -- is right Rick.

The popular notion of 'evil' -- as pertaining to the 'Barrons' -- is the 'evil' of being so much better than others at producing value that you 'dominate' a market. This false notion -- this anti-conception of 'evil' -- stems from implicitly-held egalitarian premises. The true evil is as you say it is: behind-closed-doors pull-peddling. But that is not why the 'Barrons' have traditionally been derided.

Ed


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In Capitalism, Rand defends Vanderbilt's use of government power on the grounds that the government (specifically, New York State) was pushing him around.  He bribed state legislators in self-defense.  (I don't know whether Rand's version of events is historically accurate, but it's plausible.)

Also, all businesspeople would like to have government give them an edge.  Nobody wants to have to compete with the guy down the street.  Life would be a lot easier if we could just get an exclusive license -- a goose that lays golden eggs.  But fortunately for our own spiritual development, not to mention the good of the rest of society, the free market allows competition and keeps us continually trying to do better.


Post 5

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 10:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just read a horrible little book, NICKEL AND DIMED. This is a nice antidote to that.

Post 6

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good article, Heidi.

I highly recommend a textbook I used in college a LONG time ago, "A New Economic History of America" by Gerald Gunderson.  I found this book refreshing in that its author does not seem to have a political axe to grind; it's very objective.

It has an interesting section on the "Robber Barons."  The author's bottom-line is that they had a net positive effect on the economy.  He draws a distinction between "positive profits" which result from producing a better product at a lower price, and "negative profits" which come from monopoly positions or market rigging.  The author concludes that these two types of profits go hand-in-hand, but in order to enjoy a monopoly position, the innovation, efficiency, and productivity gains come first - and have to be ongoing in order to maintain the monopoly.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree that, in many cases, the Robber Barons are not given the credit they deserve. The trouble I have is extrapolating this to today's horribly mixed economy.

Microsoft does not make good software, but because of a combination of timing, dumb luck, and more recently, thuggery their technology is ubiquitous. It is even harder to pigeon-hole Bill Gates than it was to do so to Astor and Vanderbilt.

TrT

Post 8

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe -- Ah yes, Nickel and Dimed.  My wife read it a few months ago.  Another left-liberal attempt to show that, if we could just raise the minimum wage high enough, everybody would be middle class!  The woman who wrote it has a new book out that I hear is even worse.


Post 9

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay, yeah, the book is out, that's why I read Nickel and Dimed, so when the other bookstore drones rave about it, I can tell them why it sucks.
Actually, the new book reverses the spectrum and documents the woes of the white collar class. Guess the economy's bad for everyone, we really need more socialism NOW! ;P
What I find ironic is that Barnes and Noble has a publisher's display set up for the books, while at the same time, employing part time wage slaves forced into such degrading retail work. Ah, the irony. By the author's logic, after reading this book, I should go to the manager and demand pay raises for everyone and raise my fist in the air and demand a union. LOL.




Post 10

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
:"Wage slave" ? ahh - more economic ignorance...

Post 11

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert :"Wage slave" ? ahh - more economic ignorance...


Yes, she's obviously on the socialist end of the spectrum. Her project was to see how women who were taken off welfare survived on minimum wage jobs by living as one of them (in real life she's a writer.) She makes the argument that it's not possible and argues against "evil" retailers like WalMart and such. We're supposed to read the author's experiences as absolute proof that free markets don't work, while the working class, even when down, show true signs of compassion by sharing sandwiches and such.

The flaw in her approach is that she takes the POV of the least among them, those who do not try to improve their lot, those who have either given up, too lazy or scared to leave, or those who are simply criminals. She does point to some hypocrisies among the "better" people, but even those point back to herself. When someone does try, they are beaten down by the system, especially if they aren't white. It's all Wal-Mart's fault, you know. They do drug screenings and show crappy motivational videos. (She does make one valid point, that the managers often impede the motivation of employees and stifle initiative when said managers are more motivated by authority than progress. Rand even acknowledged this, "That's not how we do things here!". And in one example, the author decides to leave a job, and discovers "that she could," that the doors weren't locked and no one would stop her." But she never considers the possibility that something better could happen, no yachts named " I DO" for the working class; the doors may open, but the shackles remain for the "wage slave." She's right, the shackles exist; however, she fails to note that the shackles are in the sanction of the victim.


"And how am I to face the odds
of man's bedevilments and gods?
I, a stranger and afraid,
alone, in a world I never made."

Why didn't she?


(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/14, 12:39pm)


Post 12

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay,
Also, all businesspeople would like to have government give them an edge.  Nobody wants to have to compete with the guy down the street.
All?  That's simply not true.  A few are aggressive in lobbying for government favors.  Most businessmen want government out of their way and nothing more.  Some will rationalize accepting benefits from government because the tax and regulatory burden they have to operate under.  Many will do the opposite because they do not want the additional obligations the government typically tacks onto its "help".

As for competition, why do you think people participate in sports and contests?  Because the don't like competition or because they thrive on it.  The idea that going into business makes a person shy away from competition is absurd.  Most good businessmen love competition.

Andy


Post 13

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy -- Yes, "all" was certainly an exaggeration.  My point was really that it's human nature to prefer an easier time over a harder time.  Not by any stretch do I believe that most, or even a large percentage of, businessmen aggressively lobby for favors. 

Whether most businessmen simply want government to get out of their way, I just don't know.  I think most would say that, with sincerity, but would all the same be unwilling to give up whatever goodies they currently get.  Likewise, I think most would say that they like competition, but when push comes to shove, they only like it insofar as they're confident they'll beat their competitors.

More generally, I think that the number one motivation of most businessmen is to stay in business.  Unless they're doing extraordinarily well, they'll look for an edge wherever they can get it without undue risk.  And that's the way it should be.  It's not businessmen's incentives but the presence of government rents that is the problem.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 1:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thank you for a great article, Heidi.

Post 15

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Heidi,

Good article. Don't let the comments about dirty pool take away from it.

These barons built and their names endure because of what they built, not because of the dirty pool they played on the side. Lot's of people have played dirty pool throughout history and made gazillions and nobody has a clue as to who they are. But the robber barons are remembered for the dirty pool they did play because it makes their stories more colorful and it is great for making movies.

Sort of like pepper on the steak to make it taste better.

Michael


Post 16

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 3:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interestingly, I read an implied criticism of the market in The Fountainhead. Howard Roark refuses to bow to the whim of his market, and refuses commissions as a result. Gail Wynand is the ultimate market chaser, which makes his business empire successful. Rand implied that satisfying the market was a road of second handers.

Post 17

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fraser, now that's an interesting observation there...you may have provided me inadvertently with a clue to something else related to Rand criticism.
In his book LISTENING TO THE FUTURE, Marxist Bill Martin discusses the history of progressive rock and the various artist's ideas about utopianism. He touches on Rush and their Randian influence (negatively, of course) and says about Howard Roark's quote that he "does not build in order to have clients" but "has clients in order to build", that, while admirable, Roark is not a true capitalist.
Says Martin: "No real capitalist could stand by such a statement; imagine a CEO of General Motors saying, 'We do not build cars in order to to have car buyers, we have car buyers in order to build cars." Of course this CEO could say this, just as corporations constantly flood the airwaves with advertisements about how much they 'care'; the point is, this idealistic outlook, more befitting an artist, could not be the guiding philosophy of a capitalist, who must pursue profit first of all, and only 'build' that which might lead to the generation of profit."
While I think the author is a bit of a wank, and originally thought that he simply did not understand Rand, it's interesting to hear an Objectivist point out the same thing.
But I have to say that, on the surface, at least, it does seem that there is a conflict between the artist and the capitalist system in the Fountainhead.

Probably a good dialectic answer to all this...:)

Post 18

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 6:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
T'sup?
Could you point to some resources on that, or perhaps give us a narrative of how these individuals exploited the government to ensure their economic power (which I have no doubt that probably did, as every large company does now)
Ah, could do Michael. Could do. But you'd be scrapin' the bottom'o the barrel to be getting your American history lessons from me!
 
 This was 'The Gilded Age', the 'Second Industrial Revolution'. If you need to point to a time when Objectivist politics was practised historically this is as close as you can get. The first time ever I heard Ayn Rand's voice she was saying something defending 'Robber Barrons', but from my reading she romanticised them overmuch. Nevertheless I do get the picture that there was a 'spirit of the age' where our SOLO values were second nature to the common man. I believe Ayn Rand has said that the Christmas Truce on the Western Front in 1914 was the last gasp of this spirit.
 
 Lots of wonderful stories of those times, I've never found a book on the subject but there's bound to be a dozen if there's one. Praps what Chipman suggests above. You get some of the anecdotes from the likes of 'Think And Grow Rich' and other books of that genre. One story tells of how a Rockefeller was being unthinkingly emulated by investors. He purchased, using smoke and mirrors, Anaconda Copper and then flicked it off again. When the dust had settled he'd made a tidy sum, leaving shareholders the poorer for abandoning their own judgement of a viable venture in favour of having faith in his. If that sounds like a story similar to one in Atlas Shrugged it's because it is.
However, I would say that Heidi certainly has a point in her theme
That's the most you can say for her. They didn't have halos! That's my message. They were about as benevolent as Viking Raiders, or their original namesakes, or Chinese Warlords! I think maybe Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison are more halo-worthy- if you must.


Post 19

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This is an interesting aside to this discussion.  I think what Rand was arguing for was staying true to your own desires and interests and not sacrifice them to the whims of common public demand.  Roark loved designing and building structures and used clients to accomplish that.  If Roark was only interested in making money then he would be correct to do whatever he could to make as much as possible, especially if he was using that money to further something else which he truly loved doing for himself.  Wynand wanted to make as much as possible but have control over people as well, which was certainly a form of second handedness, and I think that was part of the message Rand was trying to convey with Wynand.  Part of what precipitated his downfall was when he tried to exert that control and found it to be illusory, and he had to choice between being true to himself or true to the messy conglomeration of public opinions.

 

Where I see this dichotomy manifested is between the difference of corporations (business run by committees) and sole proprietorships, where a business is led by one voice with one ideal and one goal.  I wonder what the results are when these different types of companies go head to head?  Corporations providing a basic service do not really need an ideal motivating them and should focus all their energy on efficiency and cost.  I don’t particular care if the person who makes my toilet paper saw it as his lifelong goal to make cleaning backsides as pleasant as possible.  Still, he could probably do a better job of it then a committee.  But do I want my car made by a man or a committee?  My house?  My computer?  My clothing?  I don’t know, most of these seem to come from committees, but I don’t think that necessarily means corporations always win out of privately held companies, many corporations become so to make it easier to raise money for new projects, but in the process the original ideal of the company is muddled. 

 

Recently these psuedo companies, usually run by local governments, have popped up which charge no more than enough to cover their costs.  In my area, one providing cable internet has done surprisingly well, pays for itself, and provides a better service than the private cable companies at nearly half the price. 

 

Presumably, the CEO of General motors could not say he has buyers in order to build cars because it is his job to make as much money as possible with cars.  But could the same be said of car companies owned by individuals?  Ferrari was started and run by an individual for almost 25 years, when 50% was sold to Fiat, a number that grew to 90% by 1988.  Still, Ferrari seems to have stayed true to it’s original intent, since we don’t see any Ferrari hatchbacks that are mass produced, the increase of profit by mass production being the most profitable avenue to take. 


So while some cars are built for buyers, other people no doubt still say that they have car buyers in order to build cars.

 

Regards,

 

Michael


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.