On Mar 31, 11:25 am, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <forbisga...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:d0a3a912-b04f-4a8a-880e-681c8170dcef@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 31, 7:41 am, "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
> > desire
> > to gain power, the respect of their family and peers, the desire to
care
> > for
> > 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
> > purposes
> > 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
> > bubba
> > 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.
>
> [JG] Too broad of a brush. A greedy individual can engage in extensive
> mischeif, doing what you say, (lets call that "Koslowskiistic" or
> "Ebbersistic" or they can engage in none. Knowing those who know the man
> personally, I can tell you that it sounds as if there are few
individuals
> more greedy and selfish than Larry Ellison, but Larry channels his greed
to
> his personal wealth and women, and realizes that the best way to feed
that
> greedy streak is to continue to run Oracle successfully and efficiently,
> profiting from the value of his stock rather than inflated compensation.
I
> would venture that he is as greedy as an Ebbers, but is disiplined
enough to
> operate within the general confines of the cor****ate structure and thus
does
> not put capital formation beneath his personal greed. Further, the
removal
> of all greedy individuals might in fact leave us with a country looking
like
> India, which is NOT a better life for everyone else. I personally
believe
> that greed is less of a factor in high business achievers than critics
> suggest, but I may be wrong. Nobody knows for sure what the impact would
be.
>
> 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.
>
> [JG] That's exactly my point in the comparison between Ebbers and
Ellison.
>
> -- 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. We 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
> > extent
> > that they are able; that efficiency, productivity, and capital
formation
> > can
> > 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.
>
> [JG] Sure. Exxon, Oracle, Motorola, to pick an example of each.
>
> 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?
>
> [JG] Well, you're delving into some pretty deep social and
organizational
> theory here. But, prima facie, I have no objection with that
observation.
> (Perhaps you're inventing a correlary to the Peter Principle.)
>
> > 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
> > selection
> > 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.
>
> [JG] Again, no strenuous objection to that position. There are starry
eyed
> leftists out there who envision a goverment where Obama is enabled by
> veto-proof majorities, but I would be willing to wager everything I own
that
> such a situaiton would result in such policy ovverreaching that you'd
have a
> GOP president back in four years. Think about the 1993 health care
debacle
> and the 1994 election -- if Clinton had to stand for reelection in 1994,
> that level of overreaching in just 1993 alone would have cost him the
> presidency in just two years.
>
> Americans are greatly dissatisfied with the economy and this presidency.
> That does not mean they are dissastified with the basic theories of free
> market capitalism and low (compared to the Eurozone) taxation.
>
> JG
its because they know no other systems, your type has demonized
anything but your own fundamentalism. if you sit the average american
down, they are ignorant of other systems, or, they believe the
demonization, yet, they know what we have is not working, nor will it
work. you are pissing into the wind. your days are numbered. you may
even have to go the pinochet route to save your beloved free market,
but it will be to no avail. once you have to use force to keep your
system going, you are doomed. and our prison system is already
bulging with economic refugee's.
i interact with europeons on a daily basis business wise. most
americans can only dream of a life like that. if you hauled every one
of the middle class conservative to western europe, they would be in
shock, and many may commit suicide over their wasted life.
most americans are broke, and they really own nothing. most europeans
are wealthy, and they really own something. plus they get to enjoy it.
|
