Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 69 of total 69 in this topic |
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 13, 2009 - 01:50pm PT
|
Throughout Atlas Shrugged, many characters agree something is wrong with the world, but they focus on their well being rather than dwell on the problems of the world. The first person to become vocal on the subject is John Galt. John Galt is fed up that the non-productive members of society use laws and guilt to leech off the productive members of society and their hard work. He believes coerced self-sacrifice causes any society to self-destruct because it empowers unproductive people.
John Galt vows to 'change' the world and subsequently the productive class goes on Strike...
The productive members of society refuse to contribute their writing, art, inventions, business skills, research, or other new ideas with the rest of the world because they believe that society hampers them with unnecessary regulations and confiscates their profits they have rightfully earned.
Though it is evident society had been far more prosperous by encouraging and rewarding self-reliance and individual achievement, still John Galt and the strikers must continually fight against the "looters" and "moochers" of society--who attempt play Robin Hood with the wealth and success of others
The "looters" are those who confiscate others' earnings because they are government officials and have the law on their side.
The "moochers" are those who demand others' earnings because they claim to be needy and unable to earn themselves. Although the moochers seem benign, they serve as useful idiots for the "looters" to create more laws to further redistribute the wealth.
The question "Who is John Galt?" is a question often asked in Atlas Shrugged; by answering the question indirectly, Author Ayn Rand argues that self-reliance and individual achievement enable society to survive and prosper. But a society will stagnate when the productive achievers begin to be socially demonized or punished for their accomplishments. A nation that sanctions coerced self-sacrifice only empowers the unproductive and is detrimental to the motivation of the productive class…
GObama!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 01:51pm PT
|
Another religious thread....
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:03pm PT
|
Yes, yes, I know - and Marxism was anti-religion too. As was Nazism. They simply substituted their own belief systems, whether or not they called it religion, and said all the others are wrong or at least inferior. Based on supposedly rational grounds, e.g. dialectical materialism. But their rituals and dogma were all religious in nature.
If it walks like a religion/belief system, and quacks like one...
Randism is no different. A belief system that is supposedly areligious, but which also seeks to replace religion, and which has an intellectual substructure based on non-falsifiable beliefs. It has its acolytes and priesthood, though not under those names - although the John Birch Society might pass for it. Also its dogma and rituals.
Ultimately, they're all founded on beliefs that can't be falsified, whether about deities or human nature/behaviour or both. They all purport to provide the "one true message", and to replace all previous prophets. The clever modern ones pretend not to be religions or cults, but they are.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:11pm PT
|
"Also its dogma and rituals."
Bingo.
I'm tired of pro-free market dogma. While capitalism is a valuable tool for a productive society, it is not the end-all/be-all or silver bullet that its die-hard adherents make it out to be. We do need a certain amount of government regulation in some areas to keep it in check.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:22pm PT
|
We do need a certain amount of government regulation in some areas to keep it in check.
Very true, but we also need to regulate the "moochers" and welfare cases who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves like the rest of us do.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:24pm PT
|
Any absolutist ideology, whether left or right, religious or irreligious, is bound to harm. All ideologies must be tempered with common sense, kindness and empathy. The tough love of Ayn Rand, libertarians and conservatives is just that, tough. When common kindness is subordinated to ideological or religious absolutism disaster follows.
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:29pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^
One of the best posts I've seen regarding these matters.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:32pm PT
|
I think this about the quality of my posts.
HOW DARE YOU!?
yes, I'm avoiding work.
hahahaha
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:42pm PT
|
My education and life philosophy are incomplete... a LOT of ideas expressed in Atlas Shrugged resonated very strongly with me. And yet, there are many cases where society at large would be better served by helping folks in need so they can again become useful members of society, rather than leaving them on a downward spiral.
The tough thing is, how to make a system that can efficiently and effectively decide who is worth helping and who is not? Perhaps the answer is an ugly patchwork with a million one-off solutions, but for my intellectual peace of mind, I'd like to have a simple framework for deciding.
I'm not against being compassionate or empathetic, but I've worked hard enough in my life, doing miserable things to make miserable money, that I struggle to feel compassionate for the street-beggar by my freeway exit who has been there for a decade and always has clean clothes and a beverage in his hand.
edit: "who is worth helping and who is not" is perhaps a poor choice of words. Maybe better to say "who should be helped to increase the productivity of society," but this implies that the goal of society at large is to be productive. The deeper question is: "What should be the goal of a society or civilization?"
Is it to be freely loving and compassionate to all with no conditions? Perhaps returning to life as packs of wild animals is the consequence of this system because of how other folks take advantage of this system. Maybe that's OK if the goal is to just be loving and compassionate. But then again, is it a loving and compassionate society when it breaks down and leaves more children raised in appalling conditions?
I don't think there are easy answers, and some kind of active debate and swinging back and forth based on group inputs is more effective than rigidly following any dogma.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:43pm PT
|
Paul, I agree with you for the most part. It's common sense really, especially in terms of political ideology and systems of governance.
I would also say that Rand had many ideas that ring true for me.
Edit: That's kinda what I was saying above, Nutjob, about 'regulating' the needy. I'm sure you're aware of the saying about giving a man a fish or showing him how to fish. There's a lot of truth in that.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:48pm PT
|
The problem with Atlas Shrugged is not the underlying idea, it's the tedious and self-important style in which it is written. Seriously, that book sux.
Fountainhead (racy sex) and We the Living (her first book, which is a raw account of Russia under the relatively new communist regime) are better, but still mediocre at best by any objective standard of literature.
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 02:55pm PT
|
scaredtodeath, I must admit to being with you on the self-important style; I quit the book after 800+ pages the first time when I hit "the speech". A few years later I had to start from the beginning to remember it, and pushed through with less issues. I heard that the publishers wanted to chop out that section, and she refused to budge at all on that part. Take it all or don't take it.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:12pm PT
|
Right wing nut jobs are always good for a laugh.
Obama is a socialist, haha! I love how they can take someone a little left of center and paint them as a communist to justify their own selfishness, brainwashing, and fear mongering.
What we need of course is balance. Communism/socialism sucks, you need to be rewarded for your efforts or no one makes an effort. Pure capitalism sucks, you would eventually have 1 giant monopoly running everything and making huge profits while 99.9% of people suffer.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:27pm PT
|
"the "looters" and "moochers" of society--who attempt play Robin Hood with the wealth and success of others"
The question is who are the looters and moochers, and who created wealth and achieved success?
In Ayn Rand's world, is Madoff and his type creaters of real wealth, or looters and moochers?
The Wall Street Journal web site just ran an opinion piece on Atlas Shrugged on its front page. 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Yearshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It's written by a John Galt worshipping Obama-hater.
This had me questioning whether he lived in the same universe as the rest of us:
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."
This completely ignores the fact that the bankers were coming to the Government asking for handouts to save their failing businesses. Business which were failing due to their short-sightedness and incompetence.
These people don't want to have to pay any taxes or be subject to any rules. But when they are failing they expect a government to be there to give them free handouts using funds from the "little people."
Is this the John Galt philosophy? What would the real Any Rand have to say about this?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:32pm PT
|
"Pure capitalism sucks, you would eventually have 1 giant monopoly running everything and making huge profits while 99.9% of people suffer."
What kind of goofball makes statements like this.
Capitalism ends up with "1 giant monopoly?"
What the hell does he think Communism/Socialism is all about?
Capitalism by definition is all about "Competition."
I think he is referring to pure laissez faire polices, not pure capitalism.
It is a paradox. Capitalists want to make money and competition is their worst enemy. Every capitalist eliminates competition as much as he can, by buying out or partnering with competitors. Without government regulation preventing this, you end up with monopolies and cartels.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:38pm PT
|
Skipt I just couldn't believe that the government was being shown as "seizing" a percentage of their businesses when they needed the government to bail them out. Any private company coming and would have demanded much more.
If the government was going to help it should have done so only if there was no other option (including just letting them fail, which may have been best in the long run.) And then it should have received more then it did. After things stablized, the government's stake could be auctioned off and the proceeds applied towards the debt incurred by the government in effecting the bailout. (The government would still only receive pennies on the dollar.)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:43pm PT
|
"While pure "laissez faire" capitalism has never been seen in the world I think it safe to say the "monopolies" exist to a great extent in many parts of the world already.
Mostly in those countries that practice government intervention."
Yes, everyone in charge of running a business (whether a private enterprise or government "business") would prefer not to have competition. This is true everywhere. In a "pure" communist country, everything is just a government monopoly by definition. In capitalist countries, businesses try to build monopolies on their own.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:47pm PT
|
Communism is the exploitation of man by man, while capitalism is exactly the reverse.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 03:54pm PT
|
Ghost,
What do you mean by this...
"Communism is the exploitation of man by man, while capitalism is exactly the reverse."
Curious,
thx,
M
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:08pm PT
|
Hi Munge
Just my way of suggesting that those (of whatever political/economic/religious bent) who shout really loudly about how perfect their system is and how evil the other system is should maybe look in the mirror.
I can never decide whether these "You're wrong." "No, you're wrong." "Oh yeah? Well you're an as#@&%e!" "NO! It's you that's an as#@&%e" threads are really funny or really obnoxious.
Done any good munge climbing lately?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:27pm PT
|
"There is not so much difference between the ideologies of capitalism and communism, you know. The difference is simple. Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, and communism is the reverse."
– John Gardner, The Man from Barbarossa
Other apposite comments at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Communism
Randism is like all the other isms. There is probably some truth to it, but it's not the complete truth. All preachers are trying to sell you something, usually something that doesn't correspond with the world as it is.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
 H.L. Mencken
And yes, Ayn Rand was an appallingly bad writer. As was Karl Marx.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:41pm PT
|
"We do need a certain amount of government regulation in some areas to keep it in check.
Very true, but we also need to regulate the "moochers" and welfare cases who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves like the rest of us do. "
It's nice to have boogymen but a realistic look at society shows that corporations are far bigger mooches on taxpayers and society than some underclass than needs welfare.
You don't even need to cite the trillion dollar plus bailout moneys to get there. Wars, infrastructure and tax breaks so that companies like Microsoft don't pay income tax.
If there are any great moochers in society, it's the CEOs that Rand glorifies that make 1000x their employees pay, while running their companies into the ground and squirreling their bonus money away in offshore trusts. Nobody is worth 1000x somebody else and these big businesses owe their success to the employees whose sweat and tears make the product as much as to the idiot who decides they should build a 12 mile per gallon SUV.
Truth on all sides but the demonization of society and glorification of rich business follks in Atlas Shrugged doesn't match what we really see, which is that Genius Start-up Mavericks are shut down by the 800 pound gorillas of established business and the bias that their bought and paid for government has already bought for them.
PEace
Karl
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:50pm PT
|
"It's nice to have boogymen but a realistic look at society shows that corporations are far bigger mooches on taxpayers and society than some underclass than needs welfare."
Karl, you're seeing too much of what you want to see from my statement. I DID say "very true" to the conclusion that reasonable regulation of the economy and business was GOOD, but also that the lazier, unproductive could be better regulated also.
And it's not just from a tax/money standpoint that I pick on the "underclass". Unproductive/lazy people burden our society in other ways. Also, I do realize that there is a segment of the welfare class that is truly unable to be productive, but that number is very small IMO.
|
|
ontos
Boulder climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:06pm PT
|
Let me take you through an analysis of the problems with capitalism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
I'll begin with an aside. Rand has a small stylistic problem which prevents her from getting any serious consideration in philosophy circles, namely, her writing lacks rigor. To present a philosophy through a novel is not new and has been done to great effect by some very notably philosophers (particularly the existentialists), though in the case of our French coffee drinking novelist, the fiction which illustrated and made accessible the philosophy, was underwritten by rigorous philosophical books and essays. While Rand did publish some such works, they have been roundly criticized as sophomoric by the academy.
Stylistic quibbles aside, there are some serious problems with Rand's philosophy in general. To begin thinking about political philosophy it is necessary to think about why it is we have societies. If we subscribe to social contract theory as an explanation for the organic creation of societies, we have societies because cooperation is more survivable and comfortable than life in isolation (e.g. division of labor is efficient, groups can more effectively minimize the risk of predators or invaders, group life allows us to spread out the risk of "acts of god" so sickness or a house fire isn’t a death sentence). Another way to put this is that life in a society allows for the mitigation of risk for the individual in much the same way your car insurance company does with the risk of an auto accident. Similarly, societies mitigate the risks to future generations of members by agreeing to care for those born unable to care for themselves (e.g. orphans, the disabled etc.). From this perspective, those things that laissez faire rail against as “income redistribution” appear to be merely a different way of distributing resources.
A thought experiment: Imagine a primitive world where the largest social unit is the nuclear family. Families hunt for their own, farm for their own and are responsible for their own defense. Some humans in this world are physically strong and these strong humans go around killing and/or enslaving their neighbors and taking their stuff.
Very well, no doubt the laissez faire-set will say that it is the proper place of the government to protect people in their property against physical threats and that it would be fine for some of these weak families to band together to mitigate the risks posed by the strong and violent humans. Interestingly, in this case the strong human doesn’t feel this way, he feels like these people are weaklings and lower creatures that simply don’t work hard enough to maintain the security of their property and families and that the government has not business whatsoever taking the property he stole from these lay-a-bouts fair and square. The laissez faire-set will now likely respond that this isn’t the same, I work very hard to make my money and I do so fairly.
Very well, lets say that, instead of physically strong, our protagonist is mentally clever, a fast talker who prays on the mentally weak, sells them tonics for what ales them, though these products are not effective and he knows it, he’s now our medicine man. Surely the laissez faire-set agree that it is fair for the society to collect some monies from the constituent members to police such fraud and to protect the mentally weak among them. But again our strong man feels this is wrong, he has, through hard work and ability lifted his money off of the weak and lesser members of society who clearly deserve not whatever wealth they manage to put together. The laissez faire-set will now likely respond that this isn’t the same, I work very hard to make my money and I do so fairly.
Very well, what if our strong friend was a smart and resourceful man, who bought himself a mine and set-up a company store where his workers subsisted and slowly fell into debt until their bodies couldn’t work anymore at which point they had neither the ability to work nor the funds with which to support themselves. Surely, it would be okay for the society to impose a tax on these employees while they worked and on their bosses to ensure that when they were no longer able to work they’d have a government stipend on which to subsist. But the mine owner would scream and howl, “you cannot tax my employees, then I’ll have to pay them more and they’ll spend less and the company store, my profits are mine and the government has no business interfering; le the poor bastards die when they can no longer work.” The laissez faire-set will now likely respond that this isn’t the same, I work very hard to make my money and I do so fairly.
Or what if our strong friend was a securities broker, manufacturing and vigorously marketing credit backed derivatives getting rich selling junk paper to the less informed or uncurious?
The thing is, resources must get distributed some way and they are, to a large degree, not distributed in accordance with how valuable a person is to the society. Teachers make crap money compared to the derivatives hawking securities trader. The salesman at the car dealership often is better paid then the mechanic; and none of this is really fair. The lazy often profit off the work of their ancestors by making wise decisions and collecting passive income. None of this has anything to do with who deserves or doesn’t deserve money. In the absence of any regulation, the strong man wins, with minimal regulations the fraudster wins, with a little more regulation it’s the mine owner, and with still more regulation it’s the securities trader and the salesman and all of this is arbitrary and much to do with luck, which brings us to Rawls and his veil of ignorance which asks us to consider making decisions about how our societies ought operate from a perspective in which we don’t know if we’ll be the strong man or the weak man, or if we’ll be the fool or the con-man, or if we’ll be the mine worker or the mine owner, or if we’ll be the genius or the idiot. His contention is that from this perspective we are better able to see the degree to which the society is operating fairly and further that we’ll be inclined make decisions that maximize the possibility that all live with some degree of comfort and security.
I think many conservative anti-regulation, anti-taxation, anti-“income redistribution” advocates actually quite like regulations that protect them and the things that taxes allow the government to buy (defense, infrastructure etc) that they use and actually like some instances of income redistribution (or perhaps there are loads of conservatives who won’t let their kids accept government education or grants). Rolling back all of the taxes or regulations doesn’t make for a fair world, which isn’t to say the current structure is fair, but this is a criticism of specific regulations and tax policies and not a criticism of taxes and regulations in general.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:12pm PT
|
Well Rand's writing lacked rigor!
Woohoo!
Your logic lacks rigor, but thanks for the explanation.
Maybe you could just read a little economics when you discuss value. You can't find that in political science, and you clearly do not understand that prices for goods and services in a free market are agreed to by two willing parties.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:15pm PT
|
What about Psychedelic Anarchism? It always worked for me.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:23pm PT
|
Adam Smith - if you actually read the Wealth of Nations - had some quite pointed things to say about human behaviour. Despite his adoption as the patron saint of capitalism, he had some pungent things to say about the subject, to the effect that no one - individuals, enterprises, governments - was to be trusted.
Plus Smith is more fun to read than Marx, Rand, and most other religious and political writing.
Which makes it grimly ironic that the corporate pitch for the last 40 years has been "Don't trust governments. Trust us." Corporations, particularly large corporations, are clearly no more, or less, trustworthy than anyone else, and certain to act in their selfish interests when they can. It's even more ironic that their sales representatives are those who claim to favour smaller government.
Ideologies of all types, religious or not, are to be distrusted. None of them has "the" complete right answer.
A lot of this is abstract in any case. The US has increasingly been a mixed economy since at least the civil war. With surges of government spending and/or regulation under Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Nixon/Reagan/Bushes. That is, the proportion of GNP devoted to government spending has steadily increased, and in total (all governments) varies between 30 and 40%, maybe a bit more in times of real crisis. And regulation has become more complex if not more effective in parallel with economic growth and complexity, and the consensus a century ago that corporations could not be trusted.
For all the noise and rhetoric, that isn't going to change.
Likewise there's no point in pretending that the U.S. isn't an imperial power. It has been in philosophy since Manifest Destiny and the subjugation of the Indians. It has been in doctrine since Monroe/Adams. And it has been militarily since the invasion of Mexico in 1846. Granted, the US empire is generally preferable to other versions - at least in theory and sometimes in reality it actually supports true democracy, human rights, and economic freedom. And it's sometimes more of an economic and cultural empire than a political/military one. But it's still an empire, and sometimes clumsy.
Obama has substantial problems bequeathed to him, not just economic and military, but also of a nation that seems unable to honestly appraise itself. He seems to be a uniter, which should help, and I hope that in his speech next week he clearly identifies the problems and his proposed solutions. Especially for the next 12 - 18 months he has considerable freedom of action. Let's hope he doesn't squander it, as did Bush.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:48pm PT
|
Skip is largely right on this one - electronic technology and services have generally gotten cheaper and improved over the last decade. Which is why we're debating it on this forum - barely imaginable a decade ago.
The industry is undoubtedly in a state of ferment, given the rapidity of change, and there are some pretty sharp practices. Starting with Microsoft. But for all the corporate predation, there has been a lot of innovation.
Although much can in turn be traced to government support for the military and aerospace industries in the 1950s and 1960s, which gave a huge boost to innovation.
If nothing else, I'd guess Obama will stress education, research, and innovation next week.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 06:42pm PT
|
This thread was a lot more interesting when it stayed on topic and hadn't devolved into flaming and derisive comments.
Thanks to those who contribute(d) in a thoughtful articulate manner.
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 06:54pm PT
|
My bad. I did not intend to de-rail the discussion. I have deleted my posts. Sorry about that.
Edit: Since Skip won't leave it alone I guess I will let him goad me into a response.
A. I never claimed that companies would be FORCED to bundle technologies into a package. I said companies claimed they would OFFER these bundles and that they would be included with the SERVICE. This was of the MANY ARGUMENTS telecomm companies made in getting the 1996 Act passed.
B. Skip You are nitpicking T-1, I don't know why but you are. I assume your T-1 line is for business. My focus was more on the GENERAL PUBLIC END USER, and not the path to him/her. This was/is the technology that should be cheaper. Competiton can't change the price of a T-1 line all that much because it is a HARDWARE that can't advance much more than it already has. But the services "piped" in through that T-1 line, the device(s) used to connect to the line, and the software used to manipulate the data that is transfered via the T-1 line can be advanced by competition, research, and developement.
C. With the ACT competition was also going to be created through T-1 VS. Coaxial VS. Satellite/Wireless. As we already know these three mediums are not created equal so there was a hang up. But for the sake of argument let's say they are. That was another arena of competition that was supposed to open up. Driving SERVICE providers to offer more options to entice customers. Again back to MORE competition.
I have no interest in getting into a technology pissing match with you over ISP, T-1, who shares with who and how much they pay. My focus is on the false notion that de-regulating an industry plants the seeed for competition. The "expected" technology at the "expected" price has not come to pass.
So my final point Skip is that we as a consumer were promised better/more technology at a cheaper price. Has that happened? Sure it has to a degree, companies wouldn't survive if they could not meet consumer demand. But IMO much of the competition that was to drive this technology boom has been negated by mergers and take overs and we should be seeing higher quality services and better products. Getting excited that I can post this with no interuptions is like being happy my car starts when I turn the key. It's supposed to happen that way, I SHOULD take it for granted just like I should take uninterrupted internet service for granted. That is what I pay for so that is what I should get. I think it's a sad statement that we are surprised and happy when something works the way it's supposed to.
And yes if this is news to you I think should go back to school and read over the technology articles that were being written back in the mid-90's. I think you will find that what was being sold was a vitrual electronic Utopia all stemming from the passage of this Act. I can realize that working in the industry at the time you didn't have time for far fetched notions and theory. You were probably focused on the day to day as you are now because that was and is your job. But while you were pounding the keyboard representatives of the industry were selling this to Congress, and it was being taught that this was the way of the future.
Maybe you feel that this is a personal attack on you since you are part of the industry. That I am claiming you failed at your job, or that what you have been doing for much of your life has been fruitless. Know that I am not. Technology has advanced at a super-sonic rate in the last 10 years I am sure you are one of the many that deserve credit for helping it along the way.
That being said I am standing by my statement that the intent of the Communications Act of 1996 did not produce the level of competition promised, and that if technology companies had focused more dollars on R&D, Marketing, and Promotion rather than Mergers and Acquisitions we would have advanced our current technology at far less cost to the consumer.
I know I'm banging my head into a wall but there it is.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 07:05pm PT
|
Problem is that for Objectivism or Anarchy to work well, everyone needs to start with a level playing field and have equal opportunities. This is clearly not the case, so big problem. Would GW Bush have gotten into Harvard MBA if he was poor, black, and from Detroit? It can be done obviously (see Obama), but it's alot easier if you're wealthy or have connections.
If everyone should be treated equally according to their ability and desire, what do we do about about the slacker children of the rich? Does Paris Hilton deserve what she gets?
As for good political/economic writing, Engels is better than Marx. Try Hannah Arendt "Totalitarianism". Or Thorstein Veblen "Theory of the Leisure Class". Rand is crap, self-absorbed writing, whatever one thinks about the philosophy.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 07:44pm PT
|
First of all, that was a fine post Ontos. Thanks for taking the time. It certain illustrates the danger of too much "free market"
Second, the real bottom line in how healthy a society is depends not on the system but on the heart/soul/intelligence sum of it's parts. If we were all 30% smarter, more compassionate and wise, it would hardly matter what system we had. If we were 30% stupider and more violent, the world wouldn't last long.
Peace
Karl
|
|
ontos
Boulder climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 07:46pm PT
|
Trad is good: you're clearly an f*-in genius. Wonderful response. Your mental powers are impressive. What makes you think I'm a political scientist and/or that I'm not an economist?
|
|
ontos
Boulder climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 10:47pm PT
|
Skip, my intention wasn't to discount Rand's ideas for stylistic reasons but to acknowledge that her ideas have trouble being taken seriously in philosophical circles for stylistic reasons. This wasn't intended as a judgment about their correctness but merely as an observation.
Concerning the creation of "value" by two willing persons (trad is good), I recognize that this is true, however there is a problem when there is a disparity in the level of knowledge between buyer and seller. In the example I provided the seller of the elixir knows that it's useless while the purchaser does not. This is an inefficiency which is guarded against in the U.S. through government intervention (e.g. the FDA evaluates the claims of drug companies vis-a-vis their drugs and the CPSC evaluates the claims of producers of consumer durables). If you can remedy all knowledge inequities between seller and purchaser, I'll concede the efficiency of your free market system.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 11:24pm PT
|
"If you can remedy all knowledge inequities between seller and purchaser, I'll concede the efficiency of your free market system."
I take further exception. The example I like to point out is this, Let's say there is trade where I have something you need. If I'm pointing a gun at you and I'm the sheriff, the "value" is more about your life and family than a fair price for anything. Same could be said for monopoly power. If big money can squeeze out competitors and legislate barriers to entry for others, it's no longer a free market.
and nearly every free market gravitates toward monopoly without regulation.
Certainly there is much to complain about in the wisdom of certain regulations, just as we can complain about greedy rich people, lazy welfare bums, and sport climbers. It's more human nature than any system which fails us.
Peace
Karl
Peace
Karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 11:53pm PT
|
I haven't waded through all of this, but the discussion of "free market" with respect to the internet boarders on high comedy.
The First Cause of the internet was the US Gov. essentially ARPA (Advanced Research Programs Agency) which constructed parts of this through the old Federal Telecommunication System (FTS) and various and sundry other communication lines, all copper at the time.
Even into the early 90s the USG didn't have an idea of how the internet was being paid for, and how it was constructed. There were no line items in the budget for the growing infrastructure, it was pre-commercial, and yet the universities, national laboratories, etc, where being stitched together in some way, paid for through individual grants. Not so much per grant.
There were communication companies pulling T-1 lines into these organizations, laying the back bone for the Energy Science Network (ESnet) which linked (still links) the labs from one end of the country to the other.
It was only later that the commercial application of the internet started to dominate the infrastructure expansion, not too long ago.
And all this from public funds... so to argue that the "free market" somehow sprung from whole clothe is to misunderstand the essential role of the government support for the initial innovation, an innovation responding to the need of researchers to conduct their research in a transcontinental manner. The World Wide Web was created by particle physicists, I suspect the sum of all dollars spent on all high energy research world wide is smaller than the yearly revenue of commerce on the WWW...
...those of you who decry that the government is stealing from you should do well to think more carefully about where a lot of the "free market" was created. In the US, those markets are often heavily subsidized by the USG in response to its needs (e.g. the entire electronics industry).
If you want to live as an individual outside of society you are welcome, and free, to wander off and do just that.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:11am PT
|
I am saying that the internet, as you know it, came into being as a result of research sponsored by the USG who had no idea how it was going to be used. In some sense, the USG didn't even know it was creating the internet.
At the time, the justification for doing it was pretty damn slim, and any small independent business man could have rightfully complained of wasted tax dollars and government incompetence.
And yet, here we sit, arguing over this thing... exchanging ideas, doing business, communicating, spamming & phishing, etc, etc...
Inefficient? Misguided? Irrelevant? the fact is that it has happened and has created a new market. In some sense, that is the role of government... the commercial sector pretty much missed the whole thing until well after it was established.
Not 5 years ago people were still scratching their heads about how to make money on the internet...
A NeXT Computer was used by Tim Berners-Lee (who pioneered the use of hypertext for sharing information) as the world's first Web server, and also an early Web browser, WorldWideWeb in 1990. Berners-Lee introduced it to colleagues at CERN in March 1991. Since then the development of Web browsers has been inseparably intertwined with the development of the Web itself.
that wasn't too long ago... how many of you thought that Mosaic was the shizzle back in the day? what magic, a graphical browser... Navigator was released in 1994, 15 years ago....
I'm just saying that from October 29, 1969 when the first message went out on the ARPANET to the early 90s, all of the development of this wonderful technology was driven by the USG...
and they didn't have a clue.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:12am PT
|
skipt... back in 1958 it was named ARPA, (it was in DoD)... it was renamed DARPA in 1972
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:12am PT
|
OK, I did not look this up, Ed. But pretty sure that it was DARPA first, and its funding came from the defense budget. And yup, the "Web" came from particle physics.
ontos - perfect information is an ideal to be sure. But you have FOIA, research is public, etc. Perfect information does not imply that it is all correct, simply that all market participants have nearly equal access to it.
The argument was logically flawed. You attacked the form of the thesis, rather than the thesis.
Anyway, I am wondering how many folks on this thread have actually read Atlas Shrugged, not the Cliff Notes or wikipedia.
Full Disclosure here: I have read Atlas Shrugged, We The Living, The Fountainhead, and the biography "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Brandon. Yeah, her... :-) LOL.
Carry on...
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:18am PT
|
Hmm. Just saw Ed's post..
Ed, Dartmouth invented time sharing after 1963. There may have been an ARPA before then, but the first real computer networking that was real was put together by Dartmouth College.
See John Kemeny, Thomas Kurtz, etc.
They linked up all the schools in the northeast. The guy next door to me went to Dartmouth and turned down MIT because it had better undergraduate access to computing (1971)!
http://www.truebasic.com/ (1964).
EDIT: I could have sworn Ed's post said 1963 and not 1958. But maybe it is just about the start of the agency....?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:22am PT
|
time sharing and computer networking are very different things... most time sharing systems involved stringing terminal-keyboard lines to a single central computer. The art there was how to have a multi-user system.
I believe that that was a Dartmouth product.
Having computers communicate to each other over a network similar to what we have today was first done on the ARPANET, with the idea of "servers" and that was accomplished between UCLA and SRI in 1968 or so... not to say that there weren't other ideas out there at the time.
I do believe that the basic architectural concepts that survived were those essentially laid out in the ARPANET implementation...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:24am PT
|
skipt, I used ARPAnet as an undergraduate at UCB to communicate between computer facilities at LBL and SLAC for a High Energy Physics experiment, that was in the early 70s.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:34am PT
|
"The example of someone pointing a gun at you and demanding you buy something from them is not the best example of a legitimate business transaction that I could come up with. "
Yeah, what I'm saying is that there are lots of ways that business transactions can happen that aren't legitimate, fueled by lack of regulation to monopoly power.
Everything from the dealings of the World Bank to the mob trash collectors.
PEace
Karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:38am PT
|
I don't think the government "controlled it" they didn't even know what "it" was until the 90s.
The point is that a lot of government activity looks frivolous and irrelevant at the time it is being done. I can't imagine anybody in commercial interest at the time saying that they could use such a thing. It wasn't until the mid 90s that there was even a viable "business plan" for anyone to use the internet!
Now it is obvious that a few individuals, and then individual institutions had some application in mind for the use of the internet, certainly not in the form that it is used today. And they relied on the USG's investment in advanced R&D, largely unguided, to come up with the funds to actually do it. Where did these funds come from? the revenues from taxes.
This is taking money away from one part of the society and giving to another part... no free market involved here, just ideas. As far as I know, there wasn't even the concept of "Intellectual Property" as broad as we know today... the USG got nothing on licensing internet technology... but we all benefited, and continue to benefit, in that investment.
I'm saying that you can not do away with this inefficiency, it is essential to innovation. The question is who should fund it? business cannot or will not. It is beyond the realm of the free market, in some ways, it is a pre-market entity.
Maybe TiG can educate us on where this sort of thing fits in...
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:39am PT
|
http://www.ciadvertising.org/sa/fall_04/adv391k/paroma/Spam/origin.htm DARPA (1962)
In between, real computer network set up by Dartmouth. Used public phone circuits, modems, etc. Sure you can say that there was a computer device and a data terminal device. But that difference persists today as well. Not many true peer-to-peer networks still exist, and probably the first of those were set up (1980s?) with mini-computers after the invention of ether-net invented by Xerox-PARC 1973-1975 time frame. Whoa - private industry? How did that happen?
RFC 1 (1969)
EDIT: hmm. Kemeny, Kurtz... Dartmouth. Maybe they had a government grant, or maybe they just got together and hashed it out and had Peter Kiewit contribute to it.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:50am PT
|
gotta go to bed...
But there was also Bell Labs - Shockley [OT] - transistor
And IBM who funded everything from gravity wave detectors to nano, and probably still does some nano.
Then there was Einstein who funded himself, at least for the most important stuff he ever did.
Then there was the Human Genome Project where the government was losing until they funded the front-runner.
Just off the top of my head here.
Hmm. What about LASER? Hughes... Gov't contract, not sure.
Penicillin?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:51am PT
|
TiG, where is the great industrial R&D houses today?
Perhaps changes to the USG tax policy made them unprofitable?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 01:06am PT
|
the "Endless Frontier" of V. Bush, a position paper commissioned by Franklin Roosevelt on the role of government funding of science after WWII was given to Truman, outlined what has become the public science policy for about 60 years now.
One of the recommendations was to give private industry a tax savings incentive to do R&D. I believe this was passed into law in the late 50s, perhaps in response to Sputnik, which was a nasty "technological surprise" that the US was unable to respond to immediately.
The whole tax code was rewritten during the 80s, I believe, and eliminated tax credits for a variety of things (books in stock, for instance, were not counted as "inventory" and thus no tax was paid on them... a change of the tax code in that time period essentially doomed the large book sellers some of us had grown up going to, they simply could not make enough to pay the tax on the books in stock)... in that time period, I believe, the tax credit for R&D activities was modified in such a way that corporations could not afford to support their R&D facilities.
Bell Labs, today, is no more. Who does that research?
Increasingly venture capital is using the research universities as a source of innovation (mostly biotech) which it encourages by supporting spin-off companies off campus which, when successful, are bought by bigger companies in a 5 to 7 year time scale.
Who supports the innovative research at the universities the VC transfers off campus? most of it is the USG, and in biotech, that would be NIH.
There is private money going to university research, which is somewhat controversial now days... but until relatively recently the USG funded much of the research, some of which actually made a profit.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 01:45am PT
|
I think if you are going to hold up Bell Labs as the example of "private industry" initiative and "free market" forces, that you have to acknowledge the USG played a big role in defining the "free market."
The idea of the 80s tax reform was to "level the playing field" which was not necessarily a good idea if you think Bell Labs was an important institution that should have been preserved. The fact is, Bell Labs, and other such industrial R&D labs, depended on a form of government subside, a tax break in this case... all things being equal (as they are now) industry did not choose to preserve the R&D. If the field was level because there were no taxes, I assert that industry would still not support R&D.
They supported it because the derived an advantage, lower taxes, from the USG. Which is precisely the intent of that particular policy as laid out in 1945. It worked wonderfully.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 02:00am PT
|
Which is worse?
A. A debate between political science geeks about Ayn Rand.
B. A debate between geeks about the origins of the internet.
C. A debate between geeks about political science.
D. A debate between political science geeks about the origins of the internet.
E. A debate between people who are neither, about both.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 02:04am PT
|
"The world bank and mob trash collectors are hardly examples of Free Enterprise."
Free enterprise has to hire security to protect their interests.
One enterprise charges WAY too much to collect the trash and the sister organization promises to break the legs of any other company collecting trash in the area.
The world bank makes the loans and then specifies how money must be used. Often coincides with multinationals sucking of the money doing big projects or privatizing resources. Then the indebted country can't pay so they have to follow orders henceforth.
Citibank just raised the interest rates on many credit card customers from 8% to 16% even as interest rates have fallen to record levels. If you can't pay off your card, you're stuck with paying twice as much. If you can't pay the new minimums, you get a default rate of almost 30%. No negotiation involved. No value changed. When a business can get you into a tight spot, they can screw you at will.
Checks and Balances are good for government and Business as well. The Board of Directors are supposed to be a check on the CEOs and COOs but too often these days they are in bed together.
Peace
Karl
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 07:37am PT
|
Hey Ed, how about linking to that map
or squeezing it down. Getting hard to
read the posts with the scroll bar.
F. Canadians LEBifying.
:-)
Karl, last I heard, you could pay off a
credit card without any advance notice.
The card company has to notify you before
they can raise the rates. Sounds like a
free market to me.
Free markets do not mean that you have
to be smart enough to do what is best, or
that even, if you are, that you do. It only
means that you have a choice and that the
information available to participants is
freely available. It does not mean that you
go get it, or read it.
Karl, unlike places like Canada, and most of
the rest of the free world, this country
has thousands of banks. You don't like Citi's
rate, go to a competitor. If you don't like any
of the rates, don't borrow. Credit cards are
not fixed rate mortgages. Everybody knows that
when they start borrowing.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 11:35am PT
|
"Which is worse?
A. A debate between political science geeks about Ayn Rand.
B. A debate between geeks about the origins of the internet.
C. A debate between geeks about political science.
D. A debate between political science geeks about the origins of the internet.
E. A debate between people who are neither, about both. "
Best post ever.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 11:49am PT
|
Dirt, maybe not the best post ever, but f*#king funny as ever!
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 11:57am PT
|
"Worse" is comparative. I think the superlative "worst" would have been correct.
Grammar geek.
|
|
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2009 - 12:01pm PT
|
I think the majority of you have missed the point of “Atlas Shrugged”, Rand is not promoting free markets, but rather examining the qualities of a person that is a productive member of society…
The question asked throughout the novel is “who is John Galt?”
Not, “What are the benefits of a free market?”…
John Galt demonstrates self-reliance, innovation, hard work, intelligence, and sound business ethics...
Are you John Galt or a Moocher?
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:19pm PT
|
JPT, you're over-simplifying, just as Rand oversimplifies. There isn't a black and white cut between Galts and Moochers. Our society over-advantages the rich and under-advantages the poor.
Again I put forth the examples of Bush and Paris Hilton. Both succeeded largely because of who their parents were, not because of any of those qualities you just mentioned. Obama is a good example of who you call a "Galt", but I bet for every poor person you perceive to be a "mooch", there's one that has the "Galt" qualities, but can't get anywhere because he or she was born in a poor part of Detroit.
Personally, I think it is valuable for society, thru govt, to take an active role in making sure that those "Galts" born in crappy circumstances get the same kind of opprtunities that Paris Hilton had.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:23pm PT
|
TIG writes
"Karl, last I heard, you could pay off a
credit card without any advance notice.
The card company has to notify you before
they can raise the rates. Sounds like a
free market to me. "
You always discredit yourself by defending what shouldn't be defended. You're probably smug from being able to pay off any variable rate loans on 30 days notice but it's obviously not easy for many folks. Once of the potential catalysts for another round of economic hell and bank failures would be if interest rates increased for ARMs triggering a new round of mortgage defaults.
It's true there is some fine print that they can raise your rates on short notice. Think how profitable it would be if they just offered 5% cards with high limits and then jacked the rates to 20% once folks under financial distress charged up their cards. Then jack the rates to 30% with late charges once they couldn't keep paying
Nothing wrong with profitable business eh?
I'd like to be your doctor. You'd sign the "you can't sue me" waiver when you came for your checkup and give you some happy drugs and sell your kidneys. You signed the paper right?
Peace
Karl
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:32pm PT
|
but I bet for every poor person you perceive to be a "mooch", there's one that has the "Galt" qualities, but can't get anywhere because he or she was born in a poor part of Detroit.
If the person had the Galt ideals, they would be able to find a way out, initially through hard work.
The Hiltons and Bushes do NOT have the Galt ideals, in fact, the lack most of them. The Galt ideals do not necessarily equate to money riches.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:44pm PT
|
Karl,
The credit card companies already do that. They're called default rates of interest. I had one client whose rate was jacked up to 41.2%! When I first started practicing law, those who charged those rates didn't rely on the legal system to collect their debts.
That said, charging and collecting are two different things. A lender would not make money charging 5% until the borrower gets in financial trouble, then jacking up the rate to, say 30%. Although the 2005 changes in the Bankruptcy Code made Chapter 7 a bit more expensive, that's still what's likely to happen to the debt.
Lenders make money loaning to borrowers who repay.
John
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:56pm PT
|
"Although the 2005 changes in the Bankruptcy Code made Chapter 7 a bit more expensive, that's still what's likely to happen to the debt. "
That law was changed specifically to cover some credit card company butt so fewer people could use Chapter 7. More middle class people have lost access to Chapter 7 now so the creditors can extract every pound of flesh.
Loaning at 5% could certainly be profitable when banks are paying tiny amounts on deposits and checking are then able to use the leverage of Fractional Reserve lending to loan out money they don't actually have on deposit.
Peace
Karl
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 01:03pm PT
|
Bluering, my point exactly about Bush and Hilton. They don't have Galt ideals, and yet they live light-years better than most of society. Does wanting to live in this Randian utopia mean we have to do something about that? If so, what? How do we create a meritocracy where intelligence and hard work get you further than having an important last name?
As hard work being all it takes, I'd disagree. You can be smart and work your ass off in a crappy school in a crappy enviroment, and still end up with the short end of the stick.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 01:07pm PT
|
I look forward to the day when credit card moguls and their lawyers are sent to reeducation camps. There they can while away the hours considering the gross sins of their business while picking brussels sprouts and weeding strawberries.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 01:54pm PT
|
Steve (I'm a Steve too), living with a Galt ideal system doesn't guarantee a successful career, only independance and an ability to support yourself, to not be a "moocher".
Success in life is defined differently to different people, but the Galt success would be self-reliance IMO. I think that was the major point of the Galt model.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 04:04pm PT
|
"They're called default rates of interest. I had one client whose rate was jacked up to 41.2%! "
yup, and beware folks. If you have a bunch of cards and you're late on one, the other ones can find out about it and put you on the insane default rate even if you've always been current with the card.
My problem with Atlas Shrugged is the creation of some imaginary larger-than-life heroic characters of a specific class and concocting an unlikely story where they are the heros. Why not just suggest that superman and batman are the models for a better society?
Peace
Karl
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 04:25pm PT
|
the creation of some imaginary larger-than-life heroic characters of a specific class and concocting an unlikely story where they are the heros.
Karl, I think you're missing the point entirely. It's the opposite of your above quote. The point is that ordinary, realistic, everyday people are quite capable of contributing to society. Even if it's a menial, unsophisticated job. It's about being self-reliant and independant and being happy with that, whether you're making just enough to live happily or make more than enough.
I haven't read the book, but based solely on what's been described here, I get the point. Maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 05:10pm PT
|
I didn't say rich, I said "specific class" which in this case was something like Superheros who can do anything without hiring others or needing infrastructure because they are just so dang smart, industrious and self righteous.
They aren't saying "it's all about the money" I didn't say that either.
peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 07:30pm PT
|
Yes I can....Feel yours too!
;-)
|
|
| Messages 1 - 69 of total 69 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!