Re: Atlas Shrugged
The problem with the movie was that much of it was common sense(serving one's self-interest, what 99% of folks do naturally) and much of it was unrealistic(government/regulation/tax screwing those who create things and folks who create things not being rewarded).
<span style="font-weight: bold">Folks who created seminal technology like "Rearden Metal" in the book/movie back in 1960s in US or today, do get richly rewarded</span> unless something like what happened to Richard Kearns in the movie "Flash of Genius" happens(based on real life story...Big 3@Detroit basically stole his invention).
You can read it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns <span style="font-weight: bold">Folks who create something that is in demand at prices demanded by the market do get richly rewarded in US today but also in countries with relatively high tax/regulation/social welfare policies like Germany and Japan.</span>
But the other side of the coin is that <span style="font-weight: bold">corporate executives don't exist to create something like the hero/heroine in the movie. They exist to SERVE THEIR SELF INTEREST. Sometimes, the self interest of executives and the firm and the stockholders are aligned.</span>
But quite often, they are not.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">It all depends on how incentives and cost and benefit are structured, not nobility of characte</span>r.
</span>
Executives focuses on short term goals and performances if their compensation packages reward them richly for short term performance. If they can get away with it, they will also waste company's resources and assets for their own use. It's human nature.
During time of early Founding(creation of US), when early Congress decided to honor government IOU/notes, government IOU/notes were being traded for fraction of their face value because common folks were not sure if they would be honored by then seminal US government or not.
When government representatives decided to honor the government IOU/notes, they sent agents all across the countryside to buy the IOU/notes for fraction of their face value, taking advantage of their position(access to early information). They then sold/redeemed it back for full value with the newly founded US government, realizing quick profit of several hundred percent.
Folks in emerging market who are used to operating in bribery/corruption rich environment will usually do away with bribery/corruption when they immigrate to Scandinavian countries because over there, they gain more w/o engaging in bribery/corruption.
<span style="font-weight: bold">But the other aspect of the coin that the movie missed is that an ideal market for companies goes against the best interest of consumers. Ideal market for companies would be like hospital(CAPTIVE MARKET, little or no choice, poorly informed consumer) where an aspirin pill can cost several dollars or more.
OTOH, ideal market for consumers would be the EXACT OPPOSITE. Well educated onsumers armed with accurate and relevant expertise in a market filled with multitude of choices in an environment with VERY LOW switching cost approaching zero.</span>
The movie would have probably done better if it came out during heyday of Communism (1960s).
FWIW, I'm familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy (Objectivism), as well as her books and her bio.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: W54/XM-388</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Part of these issues were raised to Ayn Rand while she lived and her response was that the main part of the problem is that as banks / corporations get bigger the government being corrupt and easily bribed provides corporate welfare for the big corporations and gives them favours, hand outs and lets them get away with all kinds of things. Essentially the government takes your tax dollars which they shouldn't have nearly as much of and uses it to help those that oppress you.
Take for example the huge wave of forclosures and kicking people out of their homes (true some were the result of buying what they couldn't afford but way more were people that got conned into rotten ARMs and the rate on their mortages was going up and up even as the rate the government was lending to the same banks was practically going negative).
If the government had stuck to what they should do and say you make a mess and it all comes crashing down well tough luck, next time others will watch and learn, then market forces would have intervened & banks and mortgage giants would have been scrambling to keep people in their houses even if they had to pay less so the money would keep coming in and they wouldn't go bankrupt from too many loans. As in a true capitalist society, the government would not provide help because you were too greedy and destroyed your own bank with greed & you would be forced to work with people to keep your bank afloat.
Instead the government bailed out AIG and all the banks so they could foreclose on people's homes, then go claim insurance on the loans as a loss and get paid for it by AIG or another bank (with your tax money), so they got to get paid by your tax dollars to kick you out of your home and get to have your home + your tax dollars + a huge bonus.
Also the tax code pretty much rewards grabbing all you can while you can, rather than trying to build something strong and lasting over a couple generations.
In addition, it could also be argued that Ayn Rand did perhaps have way to high of an opinion of Humanity & while a few would quite possibly try to live up to her ideals, way too many would prefer to get rich however they can, at any cost & as long as they got their mega millions, who cares how or what happened.
This however is not unique to her, pretty much every religion or political system always had high ideals of great nobility and how wonderful Man could become & all were horribly corrupted by people down the line. </div></div>
