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