Questions for those who subscribe to the John Galt view of the world.
I have been listening to the buzz of political vocalization with one ear for the past several months because I believe that who ends up leading the country isn't a trivial issue. On the other hand, I'm a working person who has to be responsible for the well-being of my small organization and its people So I don't have a lot of time for bombast.
One of the story threads about the Republican presidential candidates has centered around the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Objectivism. I read Atlas Shrugged in college along with Kurt Vonnegut and Karl Marx and dozens of other thinkers. I liked Vonnegut.
Today I find myself thinking about the premise of Atlas Shrugged and wondering if the 'creative titan hobbled by a statist society' model is very accurate. One element of that premise that I think may be dubious is the idea that "all people who have brilliant ideas about how to make money running a particular business are noble".
Common sense and a look at the newspaper- without working too hard at it-- says the premise is absurd. The 11-22-11 Business section of my paper has an AP story under Ryan J. Foley's byline about Austin "Jack" de Coster and his egg empire. This captain of industry had a better idea for egg production- but it was less than noble. Similarly, we've just spent almost three years recovering from an economic crisis that was triggered by artificial bubbles in the financial and real estate markets. Was it the average, mom and pop business or the ordinary worker who derailed our economy?
No. We were derailed by people---captains of industry --- whose contribution to the economy was not, in the model of Ayn Rand's John Galt, a product or process that increased value to the whole of society. Their contribution was to figure out how to turn the rise and fall of market sectors into a gambling scheme which they could manage with mathematical algorithms. Producing nothing---except massive profits for themselves.
I have a friend who is the classic, Captain of Industry. A man who developed manufacturing processes that were better and more effective than those which others had done. A man who worked tirelessly to promote his products and to find new markets which could use his techniques. A man who hired people who wanted to work.
He would have been a John Galt figure. And he was, indeed, a ferocious supporter of conservative and free market politics.
But he's not the person who caused the system to collapse. He actually wanted to make products that people needed. What we have in America today is a system where greedy parasites can carry around the torch of 'free market' economics while spending their intellectual capital on ways to game the system. De Coster, the egg guy, fought tooth and nail for years against health, safety, and employment regulations. He was only stopped because his egg production led to massive cases of illness. But by that time, years had passed. If we truly live in a time of 'over regulation' stifling business, I think he would have been out of business before people got sick.
The 'oppressive regulation' claim is bogus. On many counts. This is only one. Which is not to say that there are no stupid and oppressive regulations. But it aint the villain in this story, Jack. There's a more insidious devil in the woodpile. His name's not John Galt but he may be wearing a John Galt mask.
One of the story threads about the Republican presidential candidates has centered around the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Objectivism. I read Atlas Shrugged in college along with Kurt Vonnegut and Karl Marx and dozens of other thinkers. I liked Vonnegut.
Today I find myself thinking about the premise of Atlas Shrugged and wondering if the 'creative titan hobbled by a statist society' model is very accurate. One element of that premise that I think may be dubious is the idea that "all people who have brilliant ideas about how to make money running a particular business are noble".
Common sense and a look at the newspaper- without working too hard at it-- says the premise is absurd. The 11-22-11 Business section of my paper has an AP story under Ryan J. Foley's byline about Austin "Jack" de Coster and his egg empire. This captain of industry had a better idea for egg production- but it was less than noble. Similarly, we've just spent almost three years recovering from an economic crisis that was triggered by artificial bubbles in the financial and real estate markets. Was it the average, mom and pop business or the ordinary worker who derailed our economy?
No. We were derailed by people---captains of industry --- whose contribution to the economy was not, in the model of Ayn Rand's John Galt, a product or process that increased value to the whole of society. Their contribution was to figure out how to turn the rise and fall of market sectors into a gambling scheme which they could manage with mathematical algorithms. Producing nothing---except massive profits for themselves.
I have a friend who is the classic, Captain of Industry. A man who developed manufacturing processes that were better and more effective than those which others had done. A man who worked tirelessly to promote his products and to find new markets which could use his techniques. A man who hired people who wanted to work.
He would have been a John Galt figure. And he was, indeed, a ferocious supporter of conservative and free market politics.
But he's not the person who caused the system to collapse. He actually wanted to make products that people needed. What we have in America today is a system where greedy parasites can carry around the torch of 'free market' economics while spending their intellectual capital on ways to game the system. De Coster, the egg guy, fought tooth and nail for years against health, safety, and employment regulations. He was only stopped because his egg production led to massive cases of illness. But by that time, years had passed. If we truly live in a time of 'over regulation' stifling business, I think he would have been out of business before people got sick.
The 'oppressive regulation' claim is bogus. On many counts. This is only one. Which is not to say that there are no stupid and oppressive regulations. But it aint the villain in this story, Jack. There's a more insidious devil in the woodpile. His name's not John Galt but he may be wearing a John Galt mask.
Comments