Over at Slog (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/what_should_we_do_with_this_portrait_of), Christopher Frizzelle writes of this drawing:

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/03/scaled.aynrand.jpeg (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/what_should_we_do_with_this_portrait_of)

For a long time I’ve been sitting under Dorothy and Robert and Brian, and the copyeditors have been sitting under Ayn, but today I’m moving to the office where the copyeditors used to sit and the copyeditors are moving to an office with a view of the park. Here’s my problem: I sorta don’t want Ayn Rand hanging above me.

(Frizzelle (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/what_should_we_do_with_this_portrait_of))

And so he asks what should be done with Kathryn Rathke's 30x36" drawing of Ayn Rand, and suggests the following options:

(A) We auction her off in next year’s Strangercrombie and give the proceeds to a worthy charitable cause, which would make Rand (who despised altruism) roll over in her grave.

(B) We hang it over Paul Constant’s desk, after all he’s the one who wrote in The Stranger: “If you’re over 25 and you still think her books are great, you’re (a) white and (b) an asshole.”

(C) Cut holes where her eyes are and put it over a urinal. (Paul’s idea—which really kinda makes you want to tack her up on his wall, doesn’t it?)

(D) We hold an essay contest in Slog comments under the subject: “Why This Portrait Is Rightfully Mine and No One Else’s.” No word limit.

(ibid)

Comments so far include,

• She's a witch...burn her. (Michael Strangeways, #4)

• Cut a hole where her mouth is and make her into a glory hole. (Todd, #6)

• Burn it ... It has no worth ... It creates no value. (Will in Seattle, #7)

• Auction for charity...Ayn would hate that. (Gidget, #10)

• If D, we need a word MINIMUM of no less than John Galt's speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged. (Dawgson, #11)

• Toss it into a very large crowd without any instructions or design and then obviously the person most fit to end up with it will end up with it. (Kinaidos, #16)

• No word limit? I say a 70,000 word minimum, and every noun must be modified by a minimum of three adjectives. (Postureduck, #24)

• Auction it off and use the funds to raise awareness about the relationship between Objectivism and Homosexuality .... (Oklahomo, #26)

• Ask Rathke to do a portrait of Bertolt Brecht in a similar style, then auction both off and see which one fetches a higher price. (COMTE, #42)

• I'd vote A first choice, any of the others second .... Added irony: Make anyone bidding on it buy a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and donate the proceeds from that as well. (Wolf, #47)

• Actually, hang it somewhere totally random, like the women's restroom at Cal Anderson Park, or in the parking garage at the north Broadway QFC. (NaFun, #56)

• Give it to these assholes: http://aynrand.meetup.com/164/ (Nora, #60)

• I say wrap it up, send it USPS to Greenspan, with a note: please shove this in your arse .... Or have Savage present it to Hugo Chavez so he can say, "I'm still sooo cool and ironic". (Crapitalism the Unknown Ideal, #62)

Anyway, it's easy enough to comment at Slog. Go for it. Hell, tell them what bastards they all are, if you want.
____________________

Notes:

Frizzelle, Christopher et al. "What Should We Do with this Portrait of Ayn Rand?" Slog. March 19, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/what_should_we_do_with_this_portrait_of

I think she pretty well covered (predicted) most of those responses, at least in a generic sense, in Atlas Shrugged.

By the way, who is Christopher Frizzelle?

Mr. Frizzelle is an writer for The Stranger who tends to cover the arts (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Author?oid=13509).

And every once in a while, he takes a shot at humor (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=469946). It's mandatory at The Stranger.

I think she pretty well covered (predicted) most of those responses, at least in a generic sense, in Atlas Shrugged.


Hehe

Auction her off.


(A) We auction her off in next year’s Strangercrombie and give the proceeds to a worthy charitable cause, which would make Rand (who despised altruism) roll over in her grave.

Mr. Frizzelle is an writer for The Stranger who tends to cover the arts (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Author?oid=13509).And every once in a while, he takes a shot at humor (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=469946). It's mandatory at The Stranger.Sorry. I meant 'Who is Christopher Frizelle?' as a ironic mirror of "Who is John Gault?"

I'm sorry I missed the update earlier today. Interested parties have several more minutes to get their essays in .... Um, okay. So that's no good.

Anyway, click here to see the absurd rules (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/essay_contest_it_is). The essays are in the comments at the end of the blog entry. It's a sad, sad result.

option d

They can deface it, burn it, turn it into a urinal, whatever. Ayn would support their right to do any of those things, it's their property. Of course, it's an idiotic, juvenile act of destruction. But what the hell, she had the gall to defend capitalism.

They can deface it, burn it, turn it into a urinal, whatever. Ayn would support their right to do any of those things, it's their property. Of course, it's an idiotic, juvenile act of destruction. But what the hell, she had the gall to defend capitalism.

With awful, grandiose tomes that could have been edited to include only the relevent content: "I once skimmed through some Nietzsche, I have horrible self-esteem issues, I like money and I want hunky dudes to rape me."

The rest is repetition upon those themes.

I suggest cutting eye-holes in it, making it a mask and wearing it to Halloween parties.

Paint it in many bright colors, like a cheap whore, and then place the picture next to a huge photo of Ashton Kutcher.

ummm did this Ayn Rand woman do something bad? Did she not write those books?

Yes and yes.

Yes and yes.

got an article?

If it's been abandoned in Christian's office, it's his. He should auction it off on e-bay, and keep all the money.

got an article?
She was Russian, your unannounced preference in women.

She was Russian, your unannounced preference in women.

I never announced that. :mad: And if her name is Ayn Rand she has long way left Russian culture.

The result has been announced: the winner is "Bill" (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/so_long_lady), who submitted the very first essay (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/essay_contest_it_is#c974931) in response to the contest. An excerpt (the relevant portion):

Teaching American literature at Northwestern, about twice a year I run into some otherwise smart and sensible student who has an Ayn Rand infection, that insidious intellectual disorder that substitutes egotism for empathy and selfishness for human sympathy. Her philosophy attracts them because they are the John Galts of their own little universes, as demonstrated by their admission to NU. They are unable to see past the end of their own noses to the grim reality that if writers were countries and bullshit were crude oil, Ayn Rand would be Saudi Arabia.

When this portrait arrives at Northwestern, I will place it over a dart board in my office, behind my meeting table. Any time a student brings up Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead in class or a paper or casual conversation, I will invite them to my office, where they will see this portrait skewered with several darts, one throwing knife, and a novelty scimitar letter-opener.

With this symbolic rejection of Rand behind me I will rip their intellectual pretensions into tiny little shreds. I will teach them that any philosophy which cannot differentiate between Hitler or Stalin and Mother Theresa or Jane Addams is not just a system of thought in need of tweaking and elaboration, it’s objectively in need of ridicule, rejection and righteous anger.

(Bill (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/essay_contest_it_is#c974931))

In awarding Bill the portrait, the judges at Slog had this to say:

We the judges of this contest believe Ayn Rand serves a critical purpose. She’s the ideal author for a teenager to read and be captivated by because she enshrines the primary value of teenagerdom—the idea that the self is the unquestionable center of the universe—as a kind of moral imperative. By the time you begin to outgrow that sense of self-enshrinement and recognize yourself as connected to a larger world, the stiff, fascistic humorlessness masquerading as heroism of Rand’s writing should become one of those things (maybe the first one) you realize you thought was brilliant, but only because you were young, and selfish, and WRONG. She’s a skin you shed. And essay number one is the best evidence of someone prepared to use this portrait to help future generations shed that skin. So, Bill, the portrait is hereby yours and no one else’s.

(Sean Nelson, cited in Frizzelle)

Congratulations, Bill.
____________________

Notes:

Bill. "Why This Portrait Is Rightfully Mine and No One Else's". Slog. March 20, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/essay_contest_it_is#c974931

Frizzelle, Christopher et al. "So Long, Lady". Slog. March 21, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/essay_contest_it_is#c974931

ummm did this Ayn Rand woman do something bad? Did she not write those books?

As officer Bar Brady said, "At first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of crap, I am never reading again!"

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1139/atlassyk5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

And her birth name was Alisa Rosenbaum.

I never announced that. :mad:
Clearly you did, or I wouldn't know about it!

got an article?

Wikipedia is a convenient place to start -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

I still don't get what did she do wrong to deserve all that you people have said to her. the cutting holes through eyes is...

I still don't get what did she do wrong to deserve all that you people have said to her. the cutting holes through eyes is...

Until you read her garbage you would not realize the reason for this hatred.

Until you read her garbage you would not realize the reason for this hatred.

yeah I never did read anything she wrote. What did she write about? And also if she did wrote garbage than why are there so many fans?

And also if she did wrote garbage than why are there so many fans?

coz they don't know what is garbage.

coz they don't know what is garbage.

well allright than, what makes you say so of Ayn Rand's work? What is it in her writing that displeases you?

She says, it is OK to be raped for its creativity in blossoming the sexuality;
it is OK to whip your ass to get things done.. :bawl:

She says, it is OK to be raped for its creativity in blossoming the sexuality;
it is OK to whip your ass to get things done.. :bawl:

well in a way she is right...

So you know Ayn Rand through me.. no wonder why she has so many fans..

So you know Ayn Rand through me.. no wonder why she has so many fans..

I am not saying she is fully correct thou, either...I said "in a way"

Everything is right "in a way".

But not every way is a way to true happiness.

well allright than, what makes you say so of Ayn Rand's work? What is it in her writing that displeases you?
Read The Fountainhead. It's a great book, and a nice introduction to her. Her most famous work is Atlas Shrugged. Also a great book, but a bit intimidating for a first time read.

She's one of my favorite authors. The Left loves to hate her. She created the philosophy called Objectivism, basically a philosophical basis for captitalism.

i, a wild eyed lefty loon, love ayn rand
how dare you imply otherwise
how dare you, sir!

moderator!!

/inflamed

i, a wild eyed lefty loon, love ayn rand
how dare you imply otherwise
how dare you, sir!
If that's the case, my sincere apologies. You must admit, however, that you don't find many fans of Ayn Rand on the Left.

They can deface it, burn it, turn it into a urinal, whatever. Ayn would support their right to do any of those things, it's their property. Of course, it's an idiotic, juvenile act of destruction. But what the hell, she had the gall to defend capitalism.

Indeed.

With awful, grandiose tomes that could have been edited to include only the relevent content: "I once skimmed through some Nietzsche, I have horrible self-esteem issues, I like money and I want hunky dudes to rape me."

The rest is repetition upon those themes.

Really? That's it. Nothing else? You seem to have over-simplified all her books, which is the usual tactic of uninformed partisans.

I suggest cutting eye-holes in it, making it a mask and wearing it to Halloween parties.

Because that would accomplish something.

I never announced that. :mad: And if her name is Ayn Rand she has long way left Russian culture.

From what I recall: She emmigrated to the USA and chose the name "Ayn" (a relettering of the word "ein" which is German for "one") and "Rand" (the name of the typewriter she used). Her original name was: Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg Russia to Jewish parents.

yeah I never did read anything she wrote. What did she write about? And also if she did wrote garbage than why are there so many fans?

Even if you don't agree with the overall philosophy of books, they are still monumental works and immensely entertaining. That, in the end, is all that we can really demand from an author.

~String

Her villains are either self-conscious untalented conspiracists who get together like high school cliques to unfairly deny glory to the hero, or parents.

There are no children.

The European Jewish ethnic origin is interesting, in the line of a heroic characters with great abilities held down by the demands of mediocrities or undermined by their moms/dads - compare Chaim Potok's protagonists ( better written books), the authors of much superhero comic book and cartoon stuff, or the comment Joseph Heller once made: that everyone in his (European Jewish immigrant) neighborhood knew - knew - that Superman was Jewish.

It is almost a comfort to me that I've never read Ayn Rand. It's kind of like not reading/seeing the English Patient.

I mean, in an age where most modern philosophers are not only unloved but unthought-about, your average beret-wearing libertine can always have an argument with your average gun-collecting moral constructivist about some dead lady who sounds like she's got a "rugged individualists having their way with the goodly earth" fixation.

Perhaps I am wrong, but then - Oh Apathy! - I find myself unable to care. About the drawing I must follow David Hume's advice (for this specific case):

Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Burn thou that sucker, that I may not have to hear about Ayn Rand again.

It is almost a comfort to me that I've never read Ayn Rand.

Well, aren't you lucky!

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1139/atlassyk5.gif

A few things:

1. This was kinda funny.
2. But, it would appear that the funny guy who made this never actually read the book. I believe it was super banker that ran the diner in Galtville. Might have been super tobacco exec guy...
3. I wonder if anyone realizes the hidden sentiment of utter contempt for the 'underclassses' that this comic portrays. After all, cooks, servants, farmers, etc can't excel at their jobs, can they? They're just poor, poor victims who have to be helped through their lives by their betters. Right?
Man, people need to examine their ideals a little better. That's just sick. Pretty indicative of America's situation though. Perhaps the world?


Anyway.
Rand's philosophy has many problems. Being oversimplistic being the largest.
Her writing has many problems. Being repetitive being the largest.

But, much of her philosophy and her writing is simple common sense.
I think Atlas Shrugged could have used a long intimate session with a heartless editor, but I consider it a good read and would recommend it to anyone.


As to Hume:
Originally Posted by DHume2003
Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion

I always found this ironic. A touch of sour grapes perhaps.
Hume was, after all, dealing with Human Understanding which is about as abstruse as it gets.
It seemed to me he was railing against how other philosophers were being eaten up like candy by the public while he was getting a big fat nothing.
Poor David. Doomed to abstraction.

I think its a good thing for Ayn Rand that the relatives who took her in when she first moved to the US and the guy who gave her a break from the odd jobs she was doing in Hollywood to give her a position as an extra and later, a script reader, were not followers of her "no altruism" theory.

One more note, and this from Slog's Paul Constant. Your choice: either click the link or don't (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/its_going_to_make_us_look_like_a_rinkydi).

Okay, okay, okay. Either stop reading, or don't.

Source: Charlotte Observer (http://www.charlotte.com/)
Link: http://www.charlotte.com/115/story/548877.html
Title: "Donor gave, and UNCC winced", by Pam Kelley and Christina Rexrode
Date: March 23, 2008

One wonders what Ms. Rand would think of such a charitable donation.

As a college student in Chapel Hill, John Allison stumbled across a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and was hooked by her philosophy of self-interest and limited government. As he rose over the decades to chief executive of BB&T, one of the country's leading regional banks, Rand remained his muse.

He's trying to replicate that encounter through the charitable arm of his Winston-Salem-based company, which since 1999 has awarded more than $28 million to 27 colleges to support the study of capitalism from a moral perspective.

But on at least 17 of those campuses, including UNC Charlotte, N.C. State and Johnson C. Smith University, the gifts come with an unusual stipulation: Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged," is included in a course as required reading.

The schools' agreements have drawn criticism from some faculty, who say it compromises academic integrity. In higher education, the power to decide course content is supposed to rest with professors, not donors. Debate about the gifts, which arose at UNCC this month, illustrates tensions that exist over corporate influence on college campuses.

UNCC received its $1 million gift pledge in 2005, but details about the "Atlas Shrugged" requirement came to light as the school dedicated an Ayn Rand reading room March 12.

(Kelley and Rexrode (http://www.charlotte.com/115/story/548877.html))

I think its a good thing for Ayn Rand that the relatives who took her in when she first moved to the US and the guy who gave her a break from the odd jobs she was doing in Hollywood to give her a position as an extra and later, a script reader, were not followers of her "no altruism" theory.

Do you understand what she means by altruism?

Do you understand what she means by altruism?
Obviously not.

Do you understand what she means by altruism?

Objective self interest without disregard for others. I understand. But theory is so much more simple than life. :)

Eventually you get a large gap between the haves and the have nots, because corporations are not people, just entities.

Source: New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/)
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html?em
Title: "Blindly Into the Bubble", by Paul Krugman
Date: December 21, 2007

The Cult of Rand enjoys a certain amount of success, and therefore influence. Poor cults, the ones frustrted by their own impotence, are the ones that buy their followers identical sneakers and sweatpants, and give them suicide applesauce. But rich cults don't have to follow the rules of emasculation and suicide. They can afford to buy influence. This is, of course, a reward of success, so it only follows as logical that a cult dedicated to self-centeredness should appeal to many who want to be successful. And it should not be surprising that some of those people will be exceptionally successful.

I mean, it's not like the Cult of Rand is alone in advocating megalomaniacal self-obsession. Didn't the poster child for Scientology just make that apparent a matter of weeks ago?

So the CoS has Tom Cruise. The CoR has Alan Greenspan:

So where were the regulators as one of the greatest financial disasters since the Great Depression unfolded? They were blinded by ideology.

“Fed shrugged as subprime crisis spread,” was the headline on a New York Times report on the failure of regulators to regulate. This may have been a discreet dig at Mr. Greenspan’s history as a disciple of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of unfettered capitalism known for her novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

In a 1963 essay for Ms. Rand’s newsletter, Mr. Greenspan dismissed as a “collectivist” myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, “would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings.” On the contrary, he declared, “it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.”

It’s no wonder, then, that he brushed off warnings about deceptive lending practices, including those of Edward M. Gramlich, a member of the Federal Reserve board. In Mr. Greenspan’s world, predatory lending — like attempts to sell consumers poison toys and tainted seafood — just doesn’t happen.

(Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html))

Curiously, my father was once parroted a philosophy close to that. It twisted the knife in his back, too, and then he moved out, hid himself away, and eventually reemerged as someone I could get along with.

When Enron collapsed and Wall Street was revealed as a massive fraud, the events shook him profoundly. He really didn't believe such things could ever happen. He really thought that sort of thing was a pinko myth.

And yet that irrationality, because it is so appealing to people ensconced comfortably within fright, persists and works to grow. Perhaps the best thing we might get from attempts by Rand cultists to inject her work visibly into the cultural discussion is a more common understanding of why the philosophy has so dismally failed. Or maybe it hasn't. Greenspan isn't poor. UNCC's donor isn't poor. And altruism?

No wonder Rand is on the CoS reading list. Oh, right. This time I mean the Church of Satan, not Scientology. And, yes, they are two different churches.
____________________

See Also:

Greenspan, Alan. "The Roots of the Mortgage Crisis". Wall Street Journal. December 12, 2007; page A19. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119741050259621811.html

Krugman, Paul. "Greenspan and the Bubble". New York Times. August 29, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29krugman.html

Krugman, Paul. "The infallible Greenspan". The Conscience of a Liberal. December 12, 2007. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/the-infallible-greenspan/

The Cult of Rand enjoys a certain amount of success, and therefore influence.Ayn Rand said her philosophy was immune to creating a cult as it taught the importance of thinking for oneself. Nevertheless, in the later years this didn't seem to be the case as she collected a group of followers who practically worshiped her.

But all that proves is that she was human, open to the same foibles as anyone else. It does not diminish the quality of her ideas or her books.

At this point (decades later), it's quite a stretch to call fans of Ayn Rand a "cult".

If that's the case, my sincere apologies. You must admit, however, that you don't find many fans of Ayn Rand on the Left.Add another. You don't have to agree with someone to acknowledge their passion.

3. I wonder if anyone realizes the hidden sentiment of utter contempt for the 'underclassses' that this comic portrays. After all, cooks, servants, farmers, etc can't excel at their jobs, can they? They're just poor, poor victims who have to be helped through their lives by their betters. Right?

I didn't get that impression from the comic; it didn't strike as a criticism of the underclasses, but more as a criticism of the work that the underclasses do.
A criticism of the burgeois, the intelligentsia who don't really grasp that one must actually work in order to eat. They contempt tilling the soil. - Which can be a metaphor for being remote from that which is crucial in life.

I once met a college teacher in computer science. He seriously didn't know how potatoes grow. He thought they grow on poles, like beans, or like wheat.
And there's plenty of children nowadays who think that grocery stores produce milk.

At this point (decades later), it's quite a stretch to call fans of Ayn Rand a "cult".

Well, I can understand why one who shares many common principles might be hesitant to see the cultish aspects.

Maybe it's not a cult but a comedy troupe. Really—

Isn't the solution to low wages minimum wage laws?
If passing minimum wage laws are the secret to raising wages, then why doesn't the government make everybody rich by setting the wage to a million dollars? Would this solve poverty in third world countries, or would this make everyone -- who produces less then the million dollar minimum wage -- unemployable? The truth is that those who don't produce enough to merit the minimum wage will become unemployed by such laws, and those who do produce more then the minimum wage don't need such laws. If a laborer -- say Michael Jordan -- is not paid enough for what he produces, then someone else will hire him an pay him more. It is competition for labor -- that produces -- that pushes wages up.

(Capitalism.org (http://capitalism.org/faq/labor.htm))

—it would be funny°—

Two months after that event the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the tree-shears-wielding agencies, moved to exempt national banks from state regulations that protect consumers against predatory lending. If, say, New York State wanted to protect its own residents — well, sorry, that wasn’t allowed.

(Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html))

—except for the fact that it's real (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783_pf.html).
____________________

Notes:

° it would be funny — Perhaps the example seems incongruous compared to the flip-side presented in the Krugman quote, but this stems in part from my experiences with Rand advocates and capitalists. To me, the "joke", as such, is using Michael Jordan as an example of labor and wages. Really, if these people would like to be any less absurd, they might be taken more seriously. That they apparently do expect to be taken seriously only lends to the image of Randism as a cult.

More appropriately, I might ask people to consider the organization's explanation of morality (http://capitalism.org/faq/morality.htm)—

Isn't capitalism immoral?
No. Capitalism is the moral system, since it is the only system that allows man to be virtuous -- to pursue the good -- by leaving him free to act by the use of his reason. Freedom to act is a precondition of morality. This is Capitalism's moral justification.

Isn't capitalism justified by the fact it serves the "public good"?
No. As a secondary effect of allowing the creators and innovators of society freedom to create and produce, laissez-faire results in a society where progress is the norm, and the standard of living continuously rises. That capitalism serves the "public good" (properly defined as the sum of the good of all individuals) is true, though this is not its moral justification but is merely an effect of its cause: freeing the individual from the mediocrity of the collective, to live his own life as an end to himself.

—except that might be a bit obscure, especially for the Randists. The discussion of antitrust laws (http://capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm) makes an even more apt juxtaposition with Krugman, but leaves itself open to the nitpicking of those who would point out that there were no monopolies in the subprime lending sector:

The philosophical foundation of the antitrust laws is the Marxist myth that a free-market will result in the formation of coercive monopolies. Eventually through 'historical necessity' they will form one big business which the 'proletariat' will take over with the establishment of communism.

Corruption among the unregulated is a myth? Laissez-faire byproducts will include the public good? I suppose we might expect such assertions from one who would use Michael Jordan as an example for explaining wages and labor.

Talk about myths.

Works Cited:

Capitalism.org. "Labor Wages under Capitalism". Viewed March 25, 2008. http://capitalism.org/faq/labor.htm

Capitalism.org. "Capitalism and Morality". Viewed March 25, 2008. http://capitalism.org/faq/morality.htm

Capitalism.org. "Antitrust is anti-competition, anti-capitalist, and anti-American". Viewed March 25, 2008. http://capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm

Krugman, Paul. "Blindly Into the Bubble". New York Times. December 21, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html

See Also:

Spitzer, Eliot. "Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime". Washington Post. February 14, 2008; page A25. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Like everyone else who contributed 0 intellectual value, she should be forgotten. That drawing is nothing more than a drawing of an okay-looking woman. Take it as that.

You could send her to a place where they will welcome her......

http://www.aynrand.org/

I didn't get that impression from the comic; it didn't strike as a criticism of the underclasses, but more as a criticism of the work that the underclasses do.


Of course you didn't. It was unintended.
But there.

Liberals are probably the snobbiest snobs that ever snobbed it up in snobtown.

Rand would be all for a cook who excels at his work.

A criticism of the burgeois, the intelligentsia who don't really grasp that one must actually work in order to eat. They contempt tilling the soil. - Which can be a metaphor for being remote from that which is crucial in life.

Well, they should have tried criticizing Rand or Atlas Shrugged. But, I guess then they'd have to read it and risk being an 'intelligentsia'.

Smells like snob.

I didn't get that impression from the comic; it didn't strike as a criticism of the underclasses, but more as a criticism of the work that the underclasses do.
A criticism of the burgeois, the intelligentsia who don't really grasp that one must actually work in order to eat. They contempt tilling the soil. - Which can be a metaphor for being remote from that which is crucial in life.

I once met a college teacher in computer science. He seriously didn't know how potatoes grow. He thought they grow on poles, like beans, or like wheat.
And there's plenty of children nowadays who think that grocery stores produce milk.

My impression was that it was showing it to be a Pyrrhic victory.

I'll freely admit to not having read all of Atlas; I made it about a third of the way through, and skipped to the end. I rapidly grew tired of her beating me over the head with how lesser men are always trying to avoid competition (ok, ok, I get it already). Xev's mention of Nietzsche resonates with me, the supermen being held back by the untermenschen.

But I'm glad I read as much as I did, because it allowed me to understand the joke when officer Barbrady denounced it on Southpark.

Well, I can understand why one who shares many common principles might be hesitant to see the cultish aspects.

Maybe it's not a cult but a comedy troupe. Really—



—it would be funny°—



—except for the fact that it's real (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783_pf.html).
____________________

Notes:

° it would be funny — Perhaps the example seems incongruous compared to the flip-side presented in the Krugman quote, but this stems in part from my experiences with Rand advocates and capitalists. To me, the "joke", as such, is using Michael Jordan as an example of labor and wages. Really, if these people would like to be any less absurd, they might be taken more seriously. That they apparently do expect to be taken seriously only lends to the image of Randism as a cult.

More appropriately, I might ask people to consider the organization's explanation of morality (http://capitalism.org/faq/morality.htm)—

Isn't capitalism immoral?
No. Capitalism is the moral system, since it is the only system that allows man to be virtuous -- to pursue the good -- by leaving him free to act by the use of his reason. Freedom to act is a precondition of morality. This is Capitalism's moral justification.

Isn't capitalism justified by the fact it serves the "public good"?
No. As a secondary effect of allowing the creators and innovators of society freedom to create and produce, laissez-faire results in a society where progress is the norm, and the standard of living continuously rises. That capitalism serves the "public good" (properly defined as the sum of the good of all individuals) is true, though this is not its moral justification but is merely an effect of its cause: freeing the individual from the mediocrity of the collective, to live his own life as an end to himself.

—except that might be a bit obscure, especially for the Randists. The discussion of antitrust laws (http://capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm) makes an even more apt juxtaposition with Krugman, but leaves itself open to the nitpicking of those who would point out that there were no monopolies in the subprime lending sector:

The philosophical foundation of the antitrust laws is the Marxist myth that a free-market will result in the formation of coercive monopolies. Eventually through 'historical necessity' they will form one big business which the 'proletariat' will take over with the establishment of communism.

Corruption among the unregulated is a myth? Laissez-faire byproducts will include the public good? I suppose we might expect such assertions from one who would use Michael Jordan as an example for explaining wages and labor.

Talk about myths.

Works Cited:

Capitalism.org. "Labor Wages under Capitalism". Viewed March 25, 2008. http://capitalism.org/faq/labor.htm

Capitalism.org. "Capitalism and Morality". Viewed March 25, 2008. http://capitalism.org/faq/morality.htm

Capitalism.org. "Antitrust is anti-competition, anti-capitalist, and anti-American". Viewed March 25, 2008. http://capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm

Krugman, Paul. "Blindly Into the Bubble". New York Times. December 21, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html

See Also:

Spitzer, Eliot. "Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime". Washington Post. February 14, 2008; page A25. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html


Could a moderator *ahem invert* make sure this buffoon keeps his woeful, ignorant economic policies out of the art forum? This isn't the place to try and teach what a supply curve looks like.

no frat boy
its about ayn rand
a capitalist pig
all things ayn rand belong in this thread
supply curves
whatnot curves

now
fuck off, you worthless piece of shit
troll

Could a moderator *ahem invert* make sure this buffoon keeps his woeful, ignorant economic policies out of the art forum? This isn't the place to try and teach what a supply curve looks like.

(chortle!) (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79246)

no frat boy
its about ayn rand
a capitalist pig
all things ayn rand belong in this thread
supply curves
whatnot curves

now
fuck off, you worthless piece of shit
troll

Oh the irony.
Tiassa's assumption is that economics should be intuitive. If he doesn't get it, he assumes that it's not true. It'd be like me claiming that medical science is all wrong, because I don't understand. Hai guyz, this heart surgery... ventricle? Pfff, don't you fools know the heart is full of bones? How else could I be so heartborken!!!!

"lol lol omg michael jordan there crazy lol" isn't really an argument.

&c.

If the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods go up, and people get fired. The simplest of logic exercises will demonstrate this to be true. Any freshman economics book you care to pick up will also be replete with graphs and studies showing how government protected industry, whether by tariff, tax, or wage law, is ultimately costly and inefficient.

i like it to be brutal. both barrels

Gustav,

I doubt Ayn Rand was much of a damsel in distress. Not sure if she would need you to rescue her.

/chortle

walk away, noob

Duh.

If the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods go up, and people get fired.

You seem to think professional basketball in the United States is the same as, say, manufacturing wall padding for high school basketball gymnasiums. The latter was part of my father's business when I was growing up, and certainly a freshman econ textbook could easily explain the most part of his numbers.

However, you're off the mark when trying to make the point about Michael Jordan. In the first place, pro sports contracts, like Hollywood contracts, are somewhat about what one thinks he can get away with. What about Liar Liar warranted a forty-million dollar payout for Jim Carrey? It certainly wasn't the "cost of labor".

Likewise, the NBA salary cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Salary_Cap) is determined not by the costs of training and maintaining a professional basketball player, but as a percentage of league revenues. Last season, the cap was $53,135,000 per team. This season, it's $55,630,000. The cap actually dropped from the '01-'02 season to '02-'03. Additionally, they have a formula whereby rookies are paid according to their place in the draft order. If we look to baseball, what, exactly, determines that Alex Rodriguez costs $28,000,000 a year? What are the factors that determine the cost of labor to be so drastically different from city to city? After all, the Yankees are spending over $209 million dollars on their opening day roster. In Detroit, ranking second on the list, it only costs a bit under $138.7 million. The Florida Marlins (Miami Gardens, Florida) are drastically less expensive. They're the cheapest opening day roster in the league at a bit over $21.8 million.

My point is that the Rand cultists at Capitalism.org are full of crap when they use professional athletes—especially a premiere name like Michael Jordan—to illustrate "Labor Wages under Capitalism (http://capitalism.org/faq/labor.htm)". In fact, I suspect you might have skipped the page in order to rush to your argument about textbook econ, because I highly doubt you would assert that most doctors are paid as much as Michael Jordan: "Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why Michael Jordan -- or a doctor -- gets paid millions of dollars more then the minimum wage."

Now, perhaps freshman econ books these days talk about demand, and how people will have bidding wars for something they want, and then turn around and try to figure out how to justify the expense. But in this case, "If the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods go up, and people get fired" is inaccurate. At best, it reflects an artificial inflation of the "cost" of labor.

It seems to me that if one wishes to demonstrate how an issue applies most commonly, one should choose examples that reflect the common application. Oh, right. Economics is supposed to be counterintuitive.

:rolleyes:

invert_nexus:
I always found this ironic. A touch of sour grapes perhaps.
Hume was, after all, dealing with Human Understanding which is about as abstruse as it gets.
It seemed to me he was railing against how other philosophers were being eaten up like candy by the public while he was getting a big fat nothing.
Poor David. Doomed to abstraction.

Pshaw, every philosopher knows their own work to be exempt from their own criticism. How would we know to burn our books if he burned his? Be realistic now.

Oh, good. This means I am not a philosopher! I have deleted and discarded most of what I wrote. It has actually been a relief.

However, you're off the mark when trying to make the point about Michael Jordan. In the first place, pro sports contracts, like Hollywood contracts, are somewhat about what one thinks he can get away with. What about Liar Liar warranted a forty-million dollar payout for Jim Carrey? It certainly wasn't the "cost of labor".

There is only one Jim Carrey. And high demand. Relatively straight forward, no?

Likewise, the NBA salary cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Salary_Cap) is determined not by the costs of training and maintaining a professional basketball player, but as a percentage of league revenues. Last season, the cap was $53,135,000 per team. This season, it's $55,630,000. The cap actually dropped from the '01-'02 season to '02-'03. Additionally, they have a formula whereby rookies are paid according to their place in the draft order. If we look to baseball, what, exactly, determines that Alex Rodriguez costs $28,000,000 a year? What are the factors that determine the cost of labor to be so drastically different from city to city? After all, the Yankees are spending over $209 million dollars on their opening day roster. In Detroit, ranking second on the list, it only costs a bit under $138.7 million. The Florida Marlins (Miami Gardens, Florida) are drastically less expensive. They're the cheapest opening day roster in the league at a bit over $21.8 million.

The fact that 1) people want to watch him play and 2) are willing to pay for it. If someone's willing to pay for it, it's definitionally worth that much.

My point is that the Rand cultists at Capitalism.org are full of crap when they use professional athletes—especially a premiere name like Michael Jordan—to illustrate "Labor Wages under Capitalism (http://capitalism.org/faq/labor.htm)". In fact, I suspect you might have skipped the page in order to rush to your argument about textbook econ, because I highly doubt you would assert that most doctors are paid as much as Michael Jordan: "Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why Michael Jordan -- or a doctor -- gets paid millions of dollars more then the minimum wage."

Nor did the Randists assert that most doctors earn as much a Michael Jordan. They claimed that a doctor and Jordan are both paid millions more than minimum wage. A simple thought experiment will show how this can be a true statement without both earning the same amount. If you have trouble, I'll try to work it out for you.

Now, perhaps freshman econ books these days talk about demand, and how people will have bidding wars for something they want, and then turn around and try to figure out how to justify the expense. But in this case, "If the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods go up, and people get fired" is inaccurate. At best, it reflects an artificial inflation of the "cost" of labor.

Demand and cost are linked. Jordan could would have never been paid the amount he did playing in, say, Europe. Over there, they pay a lot of money for soccer players.

It seems to me that if one wishes to demonstrate how an issue applies most commonly, one should choose examples that reflect the common application. Oh, right. Economics is supposed to be counterintuitive.

It's a type of argument where one... oh forget it. You enjoy being ignorant. I shouldn't try to persuade you otherwise.

There is only one Jim Carrey. And high demand. Relatively straight forward, no? ....

.... The fact that 1) people want to watch him play and 2) are willing to pay for it. If someone's willing to pay for it, it's definitionally worth that much.

And?

You seem to miss the point that what you're describing is a different process than what determines the wage of the average laborer. It's also a bit different than the basic formula you described: "If the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods go up, and people get fired."

Especially when it's an actor like Jim Carrey, or a professional sport without a salary cap.

Nor did the Randists assert that most doctors earn as much a Michael Jordan. They claimed that a doctor and Jordan are both paid millions more than minimum wage.

A doctor makes millions more? Perhaps in lifetime earnings. But that's a bit deceptive. What professional athletes and the average doctor earn aren't even in the same league.

Demand and cost are linked. Jordan could would have never been paid the amount he did playing in, say, Europe. Over there, they pay a lot of money for soccer players.

About the only thing you're proving about capitalism with that argument is its weakness. And that weakness is humanity itself. That actors and athletes are "worth" more than teachers, doctors, sanitation workers, journalists, or a host of other vital occupations is a testament to the priorities of our society.

It's a type of argument where one... oh forget it. You enjoy being ignorant. I shouldn't try to persuade you otherwise.

Ah, yes. The last resort of the desperate. It's okay, we won't ridicule you for admitting that the difference between capitalistic theory and practice is massive. We won't condemn you for finally admitting that Rand made the same mistake so many idealists make in presuming that humanity wouldn't waste its opportunities on frivolity.

There's no shame in admitting that capitalism is just as starry-eyed as any other idyllic assertion.

If the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods go up, and people get fired. The simplest of logic exercises will demonstrate this to be true. Any freshman economics book you care to pick up will also be replete with graphs and studies showing how government protected industry, whether by tariff, tax, or wage law, is ultimately costly and inefficient.

The funny thing is that minimum wage legislation was introduced in the UK quite a few years ago now. It was one of only 2 or 3 genuinely lefty things done by the neo-conservative government of Tony Blair.
Since its introduction, we have in fact required to import more labour to the UK to keep up with the demand for labour. I think that falsifies your childishly simple outlook on wages and demand.

Oh, and as for government protected industry, they all are to some extent or another, given that the gvt supplies the courts and enforces patent law and suchlike. Otherwise we end up with anarcho-capitalism, which to give her her due, Rand was not one of.