On Mar 31, 7:41=A0am, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> John Galt:
>
> <forbisga...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:9a55f20c-c4b7-460d-8dd7-ada991336791@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 29, 9:24 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > But, having said all of that, to some, I am considered a greedy
> > capitalist.
>
> > Let them think what they wish.
>
> I based my early opinion upon your taking the name of a
> fictional character from "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand.
>
> [JG] "Atlas Shrugged", actually.
Thanks. My Ayn Rand phase was in the '70s. My memory isn't
as good as it should be.
> Ayn Rand has wrongly promoted the notion that greed is good.
>
> [JG] Greed is one of many extrinsic motivators. Few individuals are
> motivated by intrinsic factors, which is the desire to achieve or attain
> simply because one desires to succeed or attain. Far more indivdiuals
are
> motivated by extrinsic factors, such as the desire to gain weath, the
desi=
re
> to gain power, the respect of their family and peers, the desire to care
f=
or
> one's family properly, and the fear of failure. From that list, it's
clear=
> that extrinsic motivators obviously can be moral, amoral, or immoral;
> however, the real issue is that we need all of them in play for the
purpos=
es
> of efficient capital formation. If there was a way to pull all the
> greed-motivated actors from business, production would tank just as
surely=
> as if you pulled all the "care for one's family"-motivated actors from
> business. So, we must acknowlege the existence of multiple motivations,
> accept them all, and do what we can to control those being driven by the
> immoral ones from any mischeif. (The solution is not, as the previous
bubb=
a
> has suggested, to pain them all with the same "greed" brush.)
Concerning greed motivated individuals and the tanking of
production...
Even if production tanked the removal (or rather frustration)
of greed motivatated individuals would result in a better life
for everyone else. This is because greedy indivuals take more
production than they produce. There's no greed in keeping what
one produces or trading one's production fairly for the production
of others as long as the resources used in the production do not
deny others with more pressing need for them. If I use resources
for self actualization that others need and can use for survival
then I'm being greedy.
-- There's a strange situation where I can take resources
-- and turn them into products faster than others who need
-- the products for survival and can do it with less wastage.
-- While I am under no obligation to produce the products
-- there may be situations where I gain more by producing
-- the products and retaining the excess resources the less
-- productive would have wasted. Still there are times I
-- feel ire towards those who are inefficient to the point
-- of recieving help procreating and thereby introducing more
-- poeple to be sup****ted into the sytem.
> A search of the web has found she is being rehabilitated on
> this point by she cannot be separated from Laissez-Faire
> Capitalism. =A0We do not come to the market with eaqual power.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out what obligations I have taken
> on by being the member of a society but I already know that
> Ayn had it wrong.
>
> [JG] As I expressed before, my respect is not towards Rand
philosopically,=
> but the Galt character himself.
>
> [JG] Galt is simply a reminder that one has no business (morally
speaking)=
> depending on goverment unless they first depend on themselves to the
exten=
t
> that they are able; that efficiency, productivity, and capital formation
c=
an
> and will go on strike if the demands put on the efficient and productive
> individuals become abusive; and that civil society is ultimately
dependent=
> on the most efficient and productive people driving large organizations
> (usually cor****ations) who employ those that are less efficient and less
> productive, enabling them to live good lives.
In my experience the large organizations either have
built-in effeciencies, are under the care of their
originators, or are in decline due to less efficient
management who have obtained their position for reasons
other than their efficiency. For the most part companies
prefer to hire individuals with larger financial obligations
because they say this implies "stability" (and it does).
What is not said is that this "stability" puts poeple
in positions of lower power because their need is greater
than another who can step out of the situation with a
greater buffer until another situation is found. This
doesn't mean that the more stable are less productive
or efficient. Likewise the skewing of the market towards
these individuals makes those who might be a greater
threat of competition less compensated, thereby reducing
their threat. God, how many companies providing health
care provide an equal compensation to single and married
employees?
> There are some raving leftist lunatics hiding someplace who would
disagree=
> with all that, but for the most part, both political parties agree on
the
> general outline, which is one of the reasons why the presidential
selectio=
n
> every four years isn't as im****tant as most make it out to be.
There are big trends under Democratic and Republican administration
that leads me to favor Democratic administrations as long as control
of both House and Senate aren't use to promote the extreme ideas
of the party. There's not much change of that in the near future
give the situation the Republicans have left us. As this gets
straightened out I'll move more into the Democratic Administration/
Small Republican majority Congress position.
|
