Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Stossel. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
@Redfingers I agree. I've read this story twice and find Atlas shrugged to be an very enlightening story. But after watching the film, my doubts about any adaptation for film have been proven true. A truly unfilmable book.
And that's fine. Tons of people like the book. It could be that Hollywood is full of a bunch of libs, or it could just be a horrible film adaptation. It's not the first time they've made a terrible film adaptation to a great book.
The movie was an evil snuff film, a fuck you to poor people, and it deserved to be shoved to the back just for the acting. SEAN HANNITY IS A TRAITOR TO THE IRISH MOTHERFUCKERS
Seeing Hannity talk about literature makes me wretch. And what an idiot about 1984. Orwell was opposed to totalitarianism, but he was a democratic socialist.
@sniped101 Well no, democracy cannot exist in totalitarianism, the two are mutually exclusive. And socialism is used in an idealistic sense with Orwell; he just means equality, fairness, and the making of decisions as a society(closely allied to democracy). However, I would say that people aren't ready for it today, maybe never will be. What 1984 illustrates is how the path to socialism can take a nasty turn, and can end you up somewhere opposite of what you were aiming for.
you know that know-nothing know-it-all con-artist-con hannity never read atlas shrugged and he admitted he didnt see it he has no commitment to the republic
hes as big of a problem to this country and freedom as NPR and dirty o the kenyan import
1:58 - Hannity, you're an idiot. What you have in your neighborhood (what most of you rich white people have) is a Home Owner's Association, or HOA. You knew that before you bought the property, and as a resident, probably pay dues every month to help keep the HOA going (unless you weaseled out of it somehow). They get to decide about everything from trees to new roofs to the amount of cars parked in your driveway. That's NOT the government, and you know it. Move out if you don't like it.
No, it's not; it's an HOA; the government couldn't give a rat's ass about how many pink flamingos you have in your yard, but the HOA does, because it's members live in the same community as you, and don't want their property values to go down. It's a legal agreement, sure, but no city building and zoning board is going to have anything to do with enforcing it's mandates, because they're busy enough as it is. People can always move, or join the HOA and get the rules changed.
No, it's not; it's an HOA; the government couldn't give a rat's ass about how many pink flamingos you have in your yard, but the HOA does, because it's members live in the same community as you, and don't want their property values to go down. It's a legal agreement, sure, but no city building and zoning board is going to have anything to do with enforcing it's mandates, because they're busy enough as it is. People can always move, or join the HOA and get the rules changed.
Conservatives like Ayn Rand, right? Conservatives like Jesus, right. Does not compute. If consertives had to choose between Rand and Jesus, who should I bet on?
@videolung As America is apparently a Christian country all I wish to do is ask "what would Jesus say to the message of Rand?" With whom would he more readily associate, the common thief or the CEO. both are thieves, but one is a bit more honest than the other. BTW, tax is not theft, it is part of the social contract, for the benefit of the common good. If it is given away to corporations as bail out then it becomes theft.
Well, actually, the film is little short of horrendous. Regardless of its politics, its terrible acting and poor script. To do justice to the book would require far better work, and maybe then it would get further distribution.
But the film needed monetary backing to be produced to Hollywood level calibre. So, my bet is that this was 100% political. Think about it, when have you ever seen a film come out of Hollywood that glorified or even put a positive spin on capitalism and individualism. Hollywood loves to use the system of capitalism to make copious amounts of money, yet they produce movies that decry or put a negative slant on capitalism. It's the height of hypocricy.
Why Hollywood is against this film because it was horrible, great book but a TV adaption like 12 parts would do it favor if it would wanted to be made properly.
The thing is even three movies is even squeezing it in. One of the cable networks should have picked it up as a limited-run series, say 21 one hour episodes which is about a season. Set up for it they could have done it for about 25-30 million which is less than many series. And it could have been re-run a few times with DVD sets if it was a success. Still I am glad they made it.
Atlas Shrugged pulls back the curtain and shows how the sausage is made behind the scenes in politics. Hollywood is there to help hide the sausage factory. So is the media. So, of course, Hollywood would resist this story.
@mortald At the time of that book many states were already passing their food regulations.States that didn't want them, didn't have to pass them.
Without government, a private company could inspect food products and provide their own stamp of approval. Consumers could get information on their food producers from the non-profits. They can also get information on the non-profits from other organizations and news media.
Same service as the gov, but private and likely more efficient and effective.
@calicheese23 Sorry, have to call bullshit on that one... The FDA didn't exist until Teddy Roosevelt read the Jungle, and had and internal investigation to confirm it's validity. Industry without independent regulation will always put it's own self interest and profit before the safety of it's consumers. See wikipedia if you don't believe me.
@KyleClarkUSA You can't sue if you're dead from e. coli or mad cow, or salmonella in chicken/cantaloupe, or brain damage from the heavy metals is fish. You can't sue if you can't afford an attorney, nor can you if spending all your time scraping by on fast food wages. The profits of the "power elite" are as a general rule put before the safety of the masses. In the example of food safety, I invite you to examine the number of food related US deaths per year on wikipedia.
Yeah, and imagine the number of food related deaths prior to industrialization and mass production. People will die sometimes, that's a fact of life. Nothing is perfect, but no company wants to hurt of kill their customers, it's bad for business.
The safety of it's customers are in a companies self interest. Look at the current situation with Carnival cruise lines after their most recent accident in the Mediterranean. Not only has their stock value plummeted, but there is a class action lawsuit being filed that could bankrupt the company completely. This is what happens to companies who don't put the safety of their passengers as the number one priority. Most companies care very much about their customers.
@psynema Still doesn't address why they wanted to stop it from screening. If a company produces a movie and is trying to get screened, Hollywood businesses won't stop it just as long as they have the money.
Just look at all the crap movies that have hit movie theaters in the last year.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I can tell you this movie SUCKED! A low budget film that really needed more money. The acting was horrible and the plot points were stiff. "Liberals" didn't need to do a thing to it. I almost left begging for big government.
I didn't like this movie simply because it was dull and poorly-made. I have nothing against libertarianism. I share many libertarian ideas. I support Dr. Ron Paul's presidential campaign. But this film just isn't any good. That's why I don't like it, not because it has a conservative agenda.
To give an analogy: It's as if the government puts a big bag of money in the center of Time Square, and people start complaining that everyone's trying to get the money. So they ask the government to surround the money bag with officers to ensure nobody can get it.
The "bag of money" is the moral hazards (FDIC, Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac, FHA, ect), and the "Guards" are the regulations (Glass-Steagall). People are focusing on the guards when they should be focusing on the bag of money.
@EliteKiller07 I'm no defender of banks. I want them to be split up, ideally by the people. In my view. the most moral hazzard comes from the fact that 6 companies bought and merged thier way into controlling 70% of the nations deposits. There is no equal chance to succeed without equal access to capital.
Pre-1933, banks were robbed and bankers stole. The consumer always holds the bag. I don't see America with a booming economy while it's citizens go back to putting money in the mattress.
If you are an Objectivist, you believe that you "owe" nothing to the society that you take from. You believe that "other" people should fight and die to protect what you see as your entitlement. You are entitled to extract and consume and devour without refertilizing the land you take from. Where in nature does this philosophy work? It only seems to work until everyone starts doing it.
@drankin2112 - How much more can one distort this belief? You're battling a strawman. For defense, you completely ignore the forms of defense proposed. You also ignore that the best way to maintain control on resources in this system is to distribute them. Your view on the belief is in no way, shape, or form, a representation of it. This kind of distortion takes effort.
@Slipknotyk06 What forms of defense have been proposed? Objectivism has no position on how a Military would function, and in many cases the same general answer applies: We'll see when we get there. Once you've enlisted in the military, you forfit any further judgement about weather what you are doing is moral, or not. What you do is for love of country, not love of self. It's not a simple exchange for a paycheck. Narcissism is not a virtue.
@drankin2112 - The general AnCap position (objectivists to extreme ends) propose a polycentric defense where defense is purchased contractually through a sophisticated network of security firms, defense insurance companies, and some self-defense.
I was in the military myself, so I know how it is. But, you can't state that the military is somehow a pure form of altruism. Many join for the benefits, and the possibility of making their future better.
@Slipknotyk06 I believe there is historical precedent that discredits a comprehensive system of privatized defense. During the Renaissance, for example, Italian city states tried to defend themselves primarily or solely with mercenary condottieri and they usually ended up getting slapped around by Spain, France, and the Ottoman Empire.
Of course, there are always alternative interpretations in the highly imperfect laboratory that is history.
How do you prevent gross conflicts of interest in a Laissez-faire system? Is it OK for Merck to buy out Aetna so they can bill themselves? I know that people will steal therefore companies will steal. To me, I haven't seen one ligitimate argument that justifies the idea that laws for people are necessary, but laws for companies are anti-capitalist. We need to keep all regulations that protect people and scrap the ones that only limit fair competition.
You keep the same laws as you have for people. Don't steal, don't kill, and don't commit fraud. And to your point on Glass-Steagall; the only reason Glass-Steagall was created was to counter-act the FDIC. Once we had Federal insured deposits, banks could act extremely risky because the government would bailout the deposits up to a certain amount. What we should've done was repeal both FDIC and Glass-Steagall, which would have solved the problem
@EliteKiller07 ..."What we should've done was repeal both FDIC and Glass-Steagall, which would have solved the problem"...
I guess that depends on what problem you are trying to solve. How much of your money would you let B of A hold w/o deposit insurance? Can you see a society being coerced into electronic payments when they aren't comfortable even depositing thier money into a bank? Do you trust private insurance like AIG here or are you advocating and end to deposit insurance?
Personally I don't care if people choose to have deposit insurance or not. Without the FDIC, people would definitely pay more attention to the things their banks are doing; and I'm sure there would be much more independent analysis of banks than there is now. Banks would also have to be much more careful because it would be THEM on the line if they lose their customers' deposits, not the tax payer.
It's the government creating moral hazards which is the problem.
@Riellysdad No one said she was an anarchist, that would imply the absense of law. We were talking about antitrust regulations, organizational conflicts of interest, and monopolies. You came back 20 minutes later just to take a condescending shot at me? When you do that, you're admitting that you can't form an argument so you'll substitute it with fallacious nonsense.
@drankin2112 ...Those points re antitrust regulations, organizational conflicts of interest, and monopolies were already long done and dusted by Rand in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. If you had read that instead of shooting your keyboard off in such an ignorant manner I would not have taken you to task.
Again, you use insult to try to establish fact. You have a rediculously low standard of proof. 10-20% of the population are narcissists. That's the "minority" that would see's Rand's ramblings as proof of something. Laissez faire is a fantasy. Name any example of where it has worked. Better yet, name any movement of any kind that chased purity as a means to prosperity, that has worked.
You and I both only know one America. It is a mixed society of capitalism and socialism. I love the America that I have grown up in. In fact, I did two tours defending that America, not your fantasy. You are the one that doesn't love your childhood America, not me. You want to change it to something that it has never been, not me. Again, I ask for any example of a quest for purism that has worked.
When capitalism goes unchecked the natural result is wage suppression and exploitation. That story has played out in history time and time again. It is real, not a fantasy. It relagates the lives of the majority to working rediclous hours in the pursuit of survival, not happiness. By setting minimum standards for social accountability to the nations employers, America has acheived the greatest society the world has ever known.
Does it need to be kept in check? Sure it does. Here's the logic that is rediculous. Some government regulations are bad so deregulate everything. Sorry, but some goverment regulation is good. Can you admit ANY situation where government oversight is necessary? Toxic waste disposal? Food handling requirements? Fire codes? Anything?
Laissez faire does not provide exceptions for these things. It promotes self regulation by consumers only. Should consumers investigate the contents of every product they buy? Ayn Rand, nor the original proponents of laissez faire, had any practical concept of economies of scale. To scale economies, consumer confidence is required. It's not your fault if your daughter eats lead, it's the product manufacturer's. People shouldn't be a lab experiment in the quest for profit.
What about outsourcing? Laissez faire doesn't account for when disconnected markets partially interact and companies start injecting free market dollars into unfree markets. Outsourcing has torn a hemorrage in the US economy. It is an example of how companies will create an unfair competitive advantage when no boundries are enforced. The money pours out instead of recycling and it must either be closed through taxation, or be opened further to a wholly globalized economy.
Sorry, but I advocate increasing taxes on companies that outsource. An economy is an ecosystem that stops working when it can't recycle it's money pool. Globalization has given companies the ability to cheat the US economy by using unfree markets to influence the behavior of a free market. It's not free market capitalism because they are seperate markets. In Laissez faire, the theory is that people would stop using companies that cheat in this way, but they don't.
Laissez faire puts too much regulatory burden on a society's people. The worst corruption has several degrees of seperation from the consumer. How can the public regulate a company that uses child sweat shops to make nuts and bolts? They can't just stop using nuts and bolts. Without oversight, it just goes on and on.
Laissez-faire also condemns socialized schooling. That's the ultimate class warfare proposition and probably the most compelling argument against it. The heart of Laissez-faire is that it promises an equal chance for all people to succeed, but no guarantees. How can a system promise equal chance to succeed without promising an equal chance to become educated? Your chances in life become more and more tied to your parent's success, not yours.
I know the military is the ultimate form of Collectivism. You look, dress, and behave like everyone else. Individualism is rooted out like poison. Your life is dedicated to sacrafice for and service to others. You become a part of something much bigger than yourself. Military service is altruistic and can't be confused with charity. How can it be that Objectivism depends on others who "can't" participate in thier moral philosophy to defend thier privilege to practice it?
@adrianro1001 Unfortunately, Rand left legions of people thinking that Capitalism and Objectivism are the same thing. Capitalism is an economic philosophy only, not a system of morality. Her own pathological narcissism led her to believe she could intertwine the two into a unified moral basis for narcissism as a virtue. BTW, sociopaths do know they are different than others, narcissists don't.
@drankin2112 "Capitalism is an economic philosophy only, not a system of morality. "
If you would ask me what are the most valued moral laws by the capitalist system, I would tell you: the non-agression principle and the property rights. These are also the most valued by objectivist.
@adrianro1001 Isn't a law basically the same thing as a regulation? In a bankruptcy, depositors aren't guaranteed anything. That's the problem that FDIC solved.
.."the education system is becoming more expensive with each day"..
these are for-profit schools. what wrong with that? In Randian world, poor people aren't entitled to education.
@adrianro1001 Pre 1933, there was no guarantee to the integrity of US bank deposits. Banks were robbed and bankers stole. There was no FDIC. In a Randian world, how is confidence in banking sustained? Who guarantees the people's bank deposits? Who enforces that guarantee? Who defends fraud against that guarantee? In a laissez-faire capitalist system, who guards the capitalists capital?
@drankin2112 - The FDIC initially only protected 2% of up to $20,000. Now, it protects ALL of up to $100,000. This allows banking companies to take extraordinary risks with the money that is given to them by depositors. In this way, the FDIC is not guaranteeing deposits, but subsidizing risky ventures. In the Laissez-faire system, individual insurance firms would provide the service, and charge risk-based premiums to deter risky ventures.
.."In the Laissez-faire system, individual insurance firms would provide the service, and charge risk-based premiums to deter risky ventures."..
That's not comforting to me at all. Insurance is only as good as the source. It's not a guarantee. If AIG had been insuring bank deposits in 2008, how would that have been better? What leverage would an insurance carrier have over a banker?
@drankin2112 - First, AIG is a red herring, if re-insurance is allowed. Second, the leverage an insurance firm would have is that they would threaten to disclose how risky the actions of the banking firm really are. This would deter other insurance companies from insuring them, making all risk incurred by the firm borne upon themselves. The incentive would be to insure, but moderate risk, in order to remain competitive.
In 1999, a Glass-Steagall provision was repealed after 70 yrs of preventing the same holding company from controlling both a commercial bank and an investment bank. This restored an unethical point of leverage whereby the granting of credit, and the use of credit, can be managed by the same entity. Now, we have the derivatives market and 750 trillion in unregulated credit default swaps. With these inventions, banks can gamble without any capital requirments.
@drankin2112 - What is worth noting here is bank failures. The universal banks previous to Glass-Steagall failed at a much smaller rate than either pure commercial, or pure investment banks. This continues as of present.
The problem with the derivatives market is not with Glass-Steagall, but the government guarantee of Mortgage-backed securities, in addition to GSEs purchasing the vast majority of bad mortgages. Again, this is all government intervention.
AIG is not a red herring because it doesn't distract from the point, private insurance. We can go back and forth on this all day but in the end, all your arguments are speculative. I "know" that any private company that insured deposits would colude with the bank, if the bank made them more profitable. It's about confidence. Have you ever seen an insurance company cover everything they insure? Would you use it? That's the only question.
@drankin2112 - The point is that, if allowed to reinsure, the entire problem with AIG would have never happened. AIG had been looking to reinsure globally, but wasn't allowed to within the United States.
Yes, the insurance company would work with the bank to make themselves more profitable. Increased risk makes them LESS profitable, unless they can charge a radically higher premium. Yes, I've had good experiences with private insurance companies, and I would use them.
Question: Currently, Medical Providers and Pharmacies bill Medical Insurance Companies for products offered by Pharmaceutical Companies. Forget the fact that consumers are detatched and cannot effect pricing in this model, do you believe that if there were no regulations preventing it, single entities wouldn't own all three types of companies and just fix prices and bill themselves?
Wow, this runs on a lot of assumptions. If a health insurance company could produce their own medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, they would not need to bill themselves, as their interests would be merged. The argument that they would *have* to bill themselves is just a colossal failure of logic. There is no collusion of price-fixing. This would actually even benefit the consumer in cheaper prices of care.
@Slipknotyk06 Wow. You can't see conflict of interest there? Just out of curiosity, do you believe that conflict of interest is an actual phenomenon? Can you think of any example? Sorry, but I have to ask.
@drankin2112 ...Rand was not an anarchist..so was not against all Government regulation. She said Governments was necessary to protect individual rights...which is its soul moral and non contradictory function. What she opposed was Government involving itself in any thing else not within its rights protection brief...because it does it badly and most importantly it becomes a rights violator itself because its actions must create winners and losers among its citizens...leading to conflicts.
My position isn't that the govt is good. It's that self-preservation through self interest as a purist belief system is ficticious. There is no society in the history of antiquity that has proven Rand's assertions to be true. People who argue for it present these ideas as absolute facts, and they are not.
..."What is worth noting here is bank failures. The universal banks previous to Glass-Steagall failed at a much smaller rate than either pure commercial, or pure investment banks."...
I never implied that Glass-Steagall was preventing universal bank failures. Then, like now, universal banks put money from their left pocket into their right. GS broke them up because it's unethical, not risky. BTW. I'm not advocating bailouts.
The problem with Rand's position is that it all government regulation is bad. To be against Objectivism, one only has to prove that some regulation is good, not all. Purist ideologies over-simplify problems and historically fall apart. Most Americans want our mixed capitalist/socialist society. The only disagreement among the majority is about proportions. Name any purist society in history that has thived.
@adrianro1001 (3) What would you do if your power company decided to charge you $2500.00 next month for your electricity bill? Could you move to a competitor? What keeps them from raising your bill and your rates? Do you know?
@adrianro1001 FYI, that doesn't even come close to how gas pricing works. Global demand and hedge fund speculation moves gas prices, not consumer sales. If Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz, gas will skyrocket even if you sell your car.
@adrianro1001 You said that monopolies can only occur one way. I gave you 3 examples of other ways that monopolies are formed. You tried to find a way to discredit each of them even though they are valid. I was only trying to help you see the other side. You goal isn't to incorporate information into your thinking, it is only to validate yourself and to try to never be wrong. Instead, google "subprime mortgage crisis" and learn about leveraging. Good luck.
so I'm supposed to be all upset that ceo's who's only goal is to perpetually make money to the detriment of society and civilization around it can't do that. any rand was a complete sociopathic pig.
Interesting points, Orwell: Agnostic Rand: VERY Athiest, Hannity treats people with that point of view like DIRT when they are on his show, if he had been in the job he is now, when they were writting, he would have been a pain in their ass.
It's not a question of ideological purity. Captialism is about one thing, leverage. Corporations will always use leverage over thier competitors, the public, and thier employees to the maximum extent they can get away with legally. That includes factoring weather or not a penalty is actually a deterrent to imposing thier leverage. When the public gets over-leveraged, socialism gets introduced. We are a mixed society. That's why all capitalist societies in the world are mixed.
@adrianro1001 (1) ..."A monopoly in a free market happens only because you provide better service than your competitors"..
1) Monopolies occur through merger and acquisition. You buy your competitors, colude, and price fix.
2) Monopolies occur because of infrastructure limitations. How many power, cable, telecomm, etc.. companies can service your home? How many satallite frequencies can be split?
3) Monopolies occur because of cost to entry barrier. i.e) putting a satellite in space.
Hollywood passed on Atlas Shrugged because they are capitalists who saw no audience for the movie. Period. It isn't any more complicated than that. The consertavite financeers passed on it too. This is just an invented story designed to perpetuate divisiveness and hatred amonst Americans.
Oh, such stupid comments by lefties. How does one disagree with voluntary cooperation amongst free people? How does one ignore the prosperity that emerges from freedom?
The truth is that their brains are a big knot of unconnected false ideas, and they use force against others to put it into reality for the detriment of everyone involved.
My life is mine. My property is mine. My time is mine. You can't have it. There is no collective good that results from the denial of these statements.
The only thing Rand accomplished was to leave legions of people thinking that Capitalism and Objectivism are the same thing. Capitalism is an economic philosophy only, not a system of morality. Her pathological narcissism led her to believe she could intertwine the two into a single universal moral justification for everything. FYI, sociopaths know they are different but narcissists don't.
The military is the ultimate form of Collectivism. You look, dress, and behave like everyone else. Individualism is rooted out like poison. Your life is dedicated to sacrafice and service of others. You become a part of something much bigger than yourself. Military service is altruistic and can't be confused with charity. How can it be that one depends on others who "can't" participate in thier philosophy to defend thier privilege to practice it?
If you are an Objectivist, you believe that you "owe" nothing to the society that you take from. You believe that "other" people should fight and die to protect what you see as your entitlement. You are entitled to extract and consume and devour without refertilizing the land you take from. Where in nature does this philosophy work? It breaks down if everyone starts doing it.
You can't apply a moral standard to a society when it stops working if everyone applies it. You want to be an Objectivist when you start or run a business, true enough. But, you don't "really" want a staff of Objectivists. How many self absorbed, what's in it for me, narcissistic and thoroughly unloyal employees do you want working for you? You want others to value hard work and sacrafice. You want them to value altruism and to put your interests above thier own.
Rand's claim that monopolies can't exist in an unbridled capitalist system can't be proven because the world has never created a system that demonstrates that outcome. She describes a cause and effect that is ficticious. She requires me to have "faith" that her assertions are true. To accept what my experience and my reasoning mind tells me is false. This defies the most important aspect of Objectivism. You have to "want" to agree with her for things to fall into place.
I dunno...I've read the book and watched the movie and I didn't really enjoy it as a movie. It felt hollow like the characters were blow-up dolls. The movie kind of fails at communicating the message of the novel. It felt to me like they were trying to fit in too much dialog instead of just filming powerful scenes that communicated that message. In short, fair to bad movie. Could it have been more successful with a major studio's backing? Possibly.
@Tacotruck1166 A corporation does not hold political power in a free market. If that's the case, then it isn't a free market and therefore isn't capitalism. How is this so hard to understand?
@NoNameC68 The thing is, the wealthy will *always* use their wealth to buy political power. This is why a free market can only work in the context of small and limited government. If government begins to be a significant part of the economy, free markets will quickly turn into a taxpayer money grab, and you end up with what the US has - an absurdly corrupt government that exists soley to benefit the wealthy and politically connected.
That was a good explanation of why limited constitutional government is required to end the corruption of the "mixed" phoney system we currently have. This is something I tirelessly express to every leftist liberal I can.
@eventhisidistaken and that's the reason why the founding fathers didn't want a big government. They only wanted the government for national defense.
@NoNameC68 Corporations get their power from the government (through charters).
Limited liability powers and the ability to take over other companies (thus eliminating competition) by buying up large portions of shares would not exist in a free market.
@mentalphysicalism What does it mean to say "corporations have the power?"
Corporations are just financial liabilities dispersed among a wide group of people.
These financial liabilities profit by selling their goods in competition with others, providing work, and competing for the labor of the people. The Church and the monarchies were complete monopolies, so it's hardly comparable to a modern corporate environment.
@crumbtrey Um, I think you're doing something that too many people do and that's throw libertarian leaning Republicans in with socially conservative Republicans. Christians love to hate on Ayn Rand. If you don't believe me, type in the words "Ayn Rand Christian" and see what comes up.
The film-making organizations in Hollywood are just after money like any other company. If they don't think Atlas Shrugged will sell, they won't make it. Hollywood is really only interested in making sequels and rehashes. Original screenplays or even adaptations of famous books usually aren't as successful (in terms of profit) as the easy-to-make garbage they shell out now.
Whatever, more Fox News garbage. Nothing can be expected from this phony news source.
Producers had trouble getting it made because it had a piss poor script, zero actors of any note who had expressed real interest in it and had a $20 million dollar budget. Hollywood is a business. Most of the studios believed Atlas Shrugged to be a lousy product, and they were absolutely correct.
Isn't it ironic that the when ordinary people don't succeed that objectivists/libertarians are so quick to call them lazy and unproductive but when their own product can't get financed and (continued)
It is the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Aristotle that made our Nation Great, with the destruction of property rights by the use and thinking of Altruism that we have institutions like the IRS etc that destroy our property rights, bill of rights and the destruction of our nation by this kind of failed logic and thinking. Sad that so many are so blind to what is so obvious.
@1963danno Its actually individuals greed that gives corporations power, the selfishness that Rand Talks about is that a man actually has a right to the values he creates, by what Right would you deny a man his property and why?
@1963danno if you actually bothered to watch the movie (or better yet read the book), youd realize that corporations rely on government to advance their agenda.
@1963danno so you won't try to provide a counterpoint? just "Yeah right"? individuals control the free market because they comprise it. go read more about austrian school economics if you are completely clueless.
What the hell does Sean Hannity know about freedom? He doesn't want me to be free to choose what substances I can put in my body. He probably doesn't like people being able to do things like produce and consume pornography, etc. Statist conservatives do not believe in freedom.
@markefaldad: Then the system we have today in the Western world is not capitalism. Large corporations routinely ask for, and get, special privileges to make their businesses more profitable, such as import restrictions, government regulations that selectively favour large corporations and punish small competitors, government contracts to rebuild the infrastructure in recently conquered nations, and so on.
Ayn Rand wasn't even her real name. There is a video here on youtube called--the truth about GOP hero ayn rand--- I suggest that if you like her, you should see what she has in common with Paul Ryan and the GOP in their own words.
This movie didn't get made for a long time because Hollywood thought it wouldn't make any profits (they were very right). Stossel and Hannity thought it didn't get made for a long time because Hollywood doesn't like capitalism. What irony.
guess what, people? i live in Europe and you want to know in how many cinemas this movie went on? ZERO.
feastguy101 1 day ago
Hollywood is like the GOP, they worship money.
raspberrymuffin 5 days ago
Hannity didn't even know how to pronounce Ayn Rand!!
PacifistPigeon 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wages in the US have been exploding for decades. Economists don't measure the gains from product improvement. This video shows a simple equation that will win the debate for Stossel. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
IlirMr 1 week ago
it's really weird to see hannity on board with a libertarian idea. He seems like a normal person here rather than an idiot like he normally is.
urwholefamilydied 1 week ago
Hannity is a whining idiot talking head with a neocon hand up his ass...
noponat666 1 week ago
Hannity is such a piece of shit. The reason why people are talking about the debt now is because of Ron Paul; The guy who he keeps calling a nut.
Fuck you Hannity you two-faced piece of shit.
nywhitemikeny 1 week ago
Netflix has it listed under Sci-Fi & Fantasy...
Truthsabre777 1 week ago 2
Maybe it was just a shitty film adaptation, did you think of that?
The reviews for the movie on Rottentomatoes are literally worse than the Larry the Cable Guy film. Yeah, that bad.
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
@Redfingers I agree. I've read this story twice and find Atlas shrugged to be an very enlightening story. But after watching the film, my doubts about any adaptation for film have been proven true. A truly unfilmable book.
hankrearden20 6 days ago
@hankrearden20
And that's fine. Tons of people like the book. It could be that Hollywood is full of a bunch of libs, or it could just be a horrible film adaptation. It's not the first time they've made a terrible film adaptation to a great book.
Redfingers 6 days ago
@Redfingers My thoughts exactly.
hankrearden20 5 days ago
The movie was an evil snuff film, a fuck you to poor people, and it deserved to be shoved to the back just for the acting. SEAN HANNITY IS A TRAITOR TO THE IRISH MOTHERFUCKERS
MrMaldoror666 2 weeks ago
Seeing Hannity talk about literature makes me wretch. And what an idiot about 1984. Orwell was opposed to totalitarianism, but he was a democratic socialist.
tidalwavedave305 2 weeks ago 3
@tidalwavedave305 isn't a democratic socialist pretty much the way to get to totalitarianism?
sniped101 2 weeks ago
@sniped101 Well no, democracy cannot exist in totalitarianism, the two are mutually exclusive. And socialism is used in an idealistic sense with Orwell; he just means equality, fairness, and the making of decisions as a society(closely allied to democracy). However, I would say that people aren't ready for it today, maybe never will be. What 1984 illustrates is how the path to socialism can take a nasty turn, and can end you up somewhere opposite of what you were aiming for.
tidalwavedave305 2 weeks ago
you know that know-nothing know-it-all con-artist-con hannity never read atlas shrugged and he admitted he didnt see it he has no commitment to the republic
hes as big of a problem to this country and freedom as NPR and dirty o the kenyan import
zrocks2001 2 weeks ago
1:58 - Hannity, you're an idiot. What you have in your neighborhood (what most of you rich white people have) is a Home Owner's Association, or HOA. You knew that before you bought the property, and as a resident, probably pay dues every month to help keep the HOA going (unless you weaseled out of it somehow). They get to decide about everything from trees to new roofs to the amount of cars parked in your driveway. That's NOT the government, and you know it. Move out if you don't like it.
jerico641 3 weeks ago
@jerico641 it's a certain type of government.
sniped101 2 weeks ago
@sniped101
No, it's not; it's an HOA; the government couldn't give a rat's ass about how many pink flamingos you have in your yard, but the HOA does, because it's members live in the same community as you, and don't want their property values to go down. It's a legal agreement, sure, but no city building and zoning board is going to have anything to do with enforcing it's mandates, because they're busy enough as it is. People can always move, or join the HOA and get the rules changed.
jerico641 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sniped101
No, it's not; it's an HOA; the government couldn't give a rat's ass about how many pink flamingos you have in your yard, but the HOA does, because it's members live in the same community as you, and don't want their property values to go down. It's a legal agreement, sure, but no city building and zoning board is going to have anything to do with enforcing it's mandates, because they're busy enough as it is. People can always move, or join the HOA and get the rules changed.
jerico641 2 weeks ago
My only goal is to make money, too.
And I will say it.
SupriseSexify 3 weeks ago
Libertarianism has no rational basis? Read about the non-agression principle, praxeology and negative liberty.
JulianTheeApostate 3 weeks ago
Luke 12:15 Then he said, “Beware! Guard against every kind of greed. Life is not measured by how much you own.”
vygotsky17 3 weeks ago
Conservatives like Ayn Rand, right? Conservatives like Jesus, right. Does not compute. If consertives had to choose between Rand and Jesus, who should I bet on?
vygotsky17 3 weeks ago
@vygotsky17
Why not start by avoiding theft? It's wrong to steal, even if you call it "taxation".
videolung 3 weeks ago
@videolung As America is apparently a Christian country all I wish to do is ask "what would Jesus say to the message of Rand?" With whom would he more readily associate, the common thief or the CEO. both are thieves, but one is a bit more honest than the other. BTW, tax is not theft, it is part of the social contract, for the benefit of the common good. If it is given away to corporations as bail out then it becomes theft.
vygotsky17 3 weeks ago
Ayn Rand caused homage to greed....
Syntheticxox 3 weeks ago
Well, actually, the film is little short of horrendous. Regardless of its politics, its terrible acting and poor script. To do justice to the book would require far better work, and maybe then it would get further distribution.
fche626 4 weeks ago
@fche626
But the film needed monetary backing to be produced to Hollywood level calibre. So, my bet is that this was 100% political. Think about it, when have you ever seen a film come out of Hollywood that glorified or even put a positive spin on capitalism and individualism. Hollywood loves to use the system of capitalism to make copious amounts of money, yet they produce movies that decry or put a negative slant on capitalism. It's the height of hypocricy.
myhipsi 3 weeks ago
@myhipsi "hypocrisy" is so apt for Hollywood
mathematicsisgreat 3 weeks ago
Why Hollywood is against this film because it was horrible, great book but a TV adaption like 12 parts would do it favor if it would wanted to be made properly.
KyleClarkUSA 1 month ago
The thing is even three movies is even squeezing it in. One of the cable networks should have picked it up as a limited-run series, say 21 one hour episodes which is about a season. Set up for it they could have done it for about 25-30 million which is less than many series. And it could have been re-run a few times with DVD sets if it was a success. Still I am glad they made it.
Srd1126 1 month ago
I've read the book, and I love the movie.
swinginmad 1 month ago
@swinginmad Same here!
LOVESHOTLOVESHOT 1 month ago
Atlas Shrugged pulls back the curtain and shows how the sausage is made behind the scenes in politics. Hollywood is there to help hide the sausage factory. So is the media. So, of course, Hollywood would resist this story.
ghostclownprophet 1 month ago
@ghostclownprophet There's another book, it's called The Jungle. It factually shows how sausage is made without regulation.
mortald 1 month ago
@mortald At the time of that book many states were already passing their food regulations.States that didn't want them, didn't have to pass them.
Without government, a private company could inspect food products and provide their own stamp of approval. Consumers could get information on their food producers from the non-profits. They can also get information on the non-profits from other organizations and news media.
Same service as the gov, but private and likely more efficient and effective.
calicheese23 1 month ago
@calicheese23 Sorry, have to call bullshit on that one... The FDA didn't exist until Teddy Roosevelt read the Jungle, and had and internal investigation to confirm it's validity. Industry without independent regulation will always put it's own self interest and profit before the safety of it's consumers. See wikipedia if you don't believe me.
mortald 1 month ago
@mortald If I buy tatented meet and get sick I can sue and get compensation thats my protection.
KyleClarkUSA 1 month ago
@KyleClarkUSA You can't sue if you're dead from e. coli or mad cow, or salmonella in chicken/cantaloupe, or brain damage from the heavy metals is fish. You can't sue if you can't afford an attorney, nor can you if spending all your time scraping by on fast food wages. The profits of the "power elite" are as a general rule put before the safety of the masses. In the example of food safety, I invite you to examine the number of food related US deaths per year on wikipedia.
mortald 1 month ago
@mortald
Yeah, and imagine the number of food related deaths prior to industrialization and mass production. People will die sometimes, that's a fact of life. Nothing is perfect, but no company wants to hurt of kill their customers, it's bad for business.
myhipsi 3 weeks ago
@mortald
lol
the government is always looking for excuses to interfere
adhocrat1 3 weeks ago
@mortald
The safety of it's customers are in a companies self interest. Look at the current situation with Carnival cruise lines after their most recent accident in the Mediterranean. Not only has their stock value plummeted, but there is a class action lawsuit being filed that could bankrupt the company completely. This is what happens to companies who don't put the safety of their passengers as the number one priority. Most companies care very much about their customers.
myhipsi 3 weeks ago
Because it sucked
psynema 1 month ago
@psynema Still doesn't address why they wanted to stop it from screening. If a company produces a movie and is trying to get screened, Hollywood businesses won't stop it just as long as they have the money.
Just look at all the crap movies that have hit movie theaters in the last year.
calicheese23 1 month ago
I saw the film...it just wasn't very good.
DrSho 1 month ago
It's about time this book was made into a movie. And it makes sense to split it into 3 parts, just as there are 3 parts to the book.
jadedmastermind 1 month ago
Who is John Galt?
jadedmastermind 1 month ago
Why were they against it? Perhaps because the film was garbage.
Bjpeg42 1 month ago
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I can tell you this movie SUCKED! A low budget film that really needed more money. The acting was horrible and the plot points were stiff. "Liberals" didn't need to do a thing to it. I almost left begging for big government.
gino3d 1 month ago
I didn't like this movie simply because it was dull and poorly-made. I have nothing against libertarianism. I share many libertarian ideas. I support Dr. Ron Paul's presidential campaign. But this film just isn't any good. That's why I don't like it, not because it has a conservative agenda.
CuriousGeorgeMonkey9 1 month ago
(cont)
To give an analogy: It's as if the government puts a big bag of money in the center of Time Square, and people start complaining that everyone's trying to get the money. So they ask the government to surround the money bag with officers to ensure nobody can get it.
The "bag of money" is the moral hazards (FDIC, Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac, FHA, ect), and the "Guards" are the regulations (Glass-Steagall). People are focusing on the guards when they should be focusing on the bag of money.
EliteKiller07 1 month ago
@EliteKiller07 I'm no defender of banks. I want them to be split up, ideally by the people. In my view. the most moral hazzard comes from the fact that 6 companies bought and merged thier way into controlling 70% of the nations deposits. There is no equal chance to succeed without equal access to capital.
Pre-1933, banks were robbed and bankers stole. The consumer always holds the bag. I don't see America with a booming economy while it's citizens go back to putting money in the mattress.
drankin2112 1 month ago
You shouldn't be in business just to make money
MaddDogg81 1 month ago
@MaddDogg81 ...Why not...? What else should a businessman be doing?
Riellysdad 1 month ago
John Stossel...? Who gives a fuck? Go talk shit to some wrestlers again asshole.
aluisious 1 month ago
(2)
If you are an Objectivist, you believe that you "owe" nothing to the society that you take from. You believe that "other" people should fight and die to protect what you see as your entitlement. You are entitled to extract and consume and devour without refertilizing the land you take from. Where in nature does this philosophy work? It only seems to work until everyone starts doing it.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 - How much more can one distort this belief? You're battling a strawman. For defense, you completely ignore the forms of defense proposed. You also ignore that the best way to maintain control on resources in this system is to distribute them. Your view on the belief is in no way, shape, or form, a representation of it. This kind of distortion takes effort.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@Slipknotyk06 What forms of defense have been proposed? Objectivism has no position on how a Military would function, and in many cases the same general answer applies: We'll see when we get there. Once you've enlisted in the military, you forfit any further judgement about weather what you are doing is moral, or not. What you do is for love of country, not love of self. It's not a simple exchange for a paycheck. Narcissism is not a virtue.
PS. I'm on my way out w/ Slipknot up loud.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 - The general AnCap position (objectivists to extreme ends) propose a polycentric defense where defense is purchased contractually through a sophisticated network of security firms, defense insurance companies, and some self-defense.
I was in the military myself, so I know how it is. But, you can't state that the military is somehow a pure form of altruism. Many join for the benefits, and the possibility of making their future better.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@Slipknotyk06 I believe there is historical precedent that discredits a comprehensive system of privatized defense. During the Renaissance, for example, Italian city states tried to defend themselves primarily or solely with mercenary condottieri and they usually ended up getting slapped around by Spain, France, and the Ottoman Empire.
Of course, there are always alternative interpretations in the highly imperfect laboratory that is history.
LexPhilogus 1 month ago
@LexPhilogus (3)
How do you prevent gross conflicts of interest in a Laissez-faire system? Is it OK for Merck to buy out Aetna so they can bill themselves? I know that people will steal therefore companies will steal. To me, I haven't seen one ligitimate argument that justifies the idea that laws for people are necessary, but laws for companies are anti-capitalist. We need to keep all regulations that protect people and scrap the ones that only limit fair competition.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 I'm not sure which of my posts your responding to, but I don't advocate laissez faire. I basically agree with your comment here.
LexPhilogus 1 month ago
@drankin2112
You keep the same laws as you have for people. Don't steal, don't kill, and don't commit fraud. And to your point on Glass-Steagall; the only reason Glass-Steagall was created was to counter-act the FDIC. Once we had Federal insured deposits, banks could act extremely risky because the government would bailout the deposits up to a certain amount. What we should've done was repeal both FDIC and Glass-Steagall, which would have solved the problem
EliteKiller07 1 month ago
@EliteKiller07 ..."What we should've done was repeal both FDIC and Glass-Steagall, which would have solved the problem"...
I guess that depends on what problem you are trying to solve. How much of your money would you let B of A hold w/o deposit insurance? Can you see a society being coerced into electronic payments when they aren't comfortable even depositing thier money into a bank? Do you trust private insurance like AIG here or are you advocating and end to deposit insurance?
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112
Personally I don't care if people choose to have deposit insurance or not. Without the FDIC, people would definitely pay more attention to the things their banks are doing; and I'm sure there would be much more independent analysis of banks than there is now. Banks would also have to be much more careful because it would be THEM on the line if they lose their customers' deposits, not the tax payer.
It's the government creating moral hazards which is the problem.
(cont)
EliteKiller07 1 month ago
@drankin2112 Sorry Lex. I accidentally replied to your post. That was actually the 3rd part of a multipart reply to someone else.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@LexPhilogus - It worked for Iceland for hundreds of years.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@drankin2112 ...You are ignorant of what Objectivism is really about. Come back when you have got a clue.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad No one said she was an anarchist, that would imply the absense of law. We were talking about antitrust regulations, organizational conflicts of interest, and monopolies. You came back 20 minutes later just to take a condescending shot at me? When you do that, you're admitting that you can't form an argument so you'll substitute it with fallacious nonsense.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 ...Those points re antitrust regulations, organizational conflicts of interest, and monopolies were already long done and dusted by Rand in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. If you had read that instead of shooting your keyboard off in such an ignorant manner I would not have taken you to task.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad (1)
Again, you use insult to try to establish fact. You have a rediculously low standard of proof. 10-20% of the population are narcissists. That's the "minority" that would see's Rand's ramblings as proof of something. Laissez faire is a fantasy. Name any example of where it has worked. Better yet, name any movement of any kind that chased purity as a means to prosperity, that has worked.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 ..Rather than try and debate via Youtube I would just say in reply to your confused posts tha you should look up the "
"Cafe Hayek" blog where all your questions on LF will be answered...but most of what you have said refers not to LF at all.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad (2)
You and I both only know one America. It is a mixed society of capitalism and socialism. I love the America that I have grown up in. In fact, I did two tours defending that America, not your fantasy. You are the one that doesn't love your childhood America, not me. You want to change it to something that it has never been, not me. Again, I ask for any example of a quest for purism that has worked.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@Riellysdad (3)
When capitalism goes unchecked the natural result is wage suppression and exploitation. That story has played out in history time and time again. It is real, not a fantasy. It relagates the lives of the majority to working rediclous hours in the pursuit of survival, not happiness. By setting minimum standards for social accountability to the nations employers, America has acheived the greatest society the world has ever known.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@Riellysdad (4)
Does it need to be kept in check? Sure it does. Here's the logic that is rediculous. Some government regulations are bad so deregulate everything. Sorry, but some goverment regulation is good. Can you admit ANY situation where government oversight is necessary? Toxic waste disposal? Food handling requirements? Fire codes? Anything?
drankin2112 1 month ago
Comment removed
drankin2112 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Riellysdad (5)
Laissez faire does not provide exceptions for these things. It promotes self regulation by consumers only. Should consumers investigate the contents of every product they buy? Ayn Rand, nor the original proponents of laissez faire, had any practical concept of economies of scale. To scale economies, consumer confidence is required. It's not your fault if your daughter eats lead, it's the product manufacturer's. People shouldn't be a lab experiment in the quest for profit.
drankin2112 1 month ago
Comment removed
drankin2112 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Riellysdad (6)
What about outsourcing? Laissez faire doesn't account for when disconnected markets partially interact and companies start injecting free market dollars into unfree markets. Outsourcing has torn a hemorrage in the US economy. It is an example of how companies will create an unfair competitive advantage when no boundries are enforced. The money pours out instead of recycling and it must either be closed through taxation, or be opened further to a wholly globalized economy.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@Riellysdad (7)
Sorry, but I advocate increasing taxes on companies that outsource. An economy is an ecosystem that stops working when it can't recycle it's money pool. Globalization has given companies the ability to cheat the US economy by using unfree markets to influence the behavior of a free market. It's not free market capitalism because they are seperate markets. In Laissez faire, the theory is that people would stop using companies that cheat in this way, but they don't.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@Riellysdad (8)
Laissez faire puts too much regulatory burden on a society's people. The worst corruption has several degrees of seperation from the consumer. How can the public regulate a company that uses child sweat shops to make nuts and bolts? They can't just stop using nuts and bolts. Without oversight, it just goes on and on.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@Riellysdad (9)
Laissez-faire also condemns socialized schooling. That's the ultimate class warfare proposition and probably the most compelling argument against it. The heart of Laissez-faire is that it promises an equal chance for all people to succeed, but no guarantees. How can a system promise equal chance to succeed without promising an equal chance to become educated? Your chances in life become more and more tied to your parent's success, not yours.
drankin2112 1 month ago
I know the military is the ultimate form of Collectivism. You look, dress, and behave like everyone else. Individualism is rooted out like poison. Your life is dedicated to sacrafice for and service to others. You become a part of something much bigger than yourself. Military service is altruistic and can't be confused with charity. How can it be that Objectivism depends on others who "can't" participate in thier moral philosophy to defend thier privilege to practice it?
drankin2112 1 month ago
@adrianro1001 Unfortunately, Rand left legions of people thinking that Capitalism and Objectivism are the same thing. Capitalism is an economic philosophy only, not a system of morality. Her own pathological narcissism led her to believe she could intertwine the two into a unified moral basis for narcissism as a virtue. BTW, sociopaths do know they are different than others, narcissists don't.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 "Capitalism is an economic philosophy only, not a system of morality. "
If you would ask me what are the most valued moral laws by the capitalist system, I would tell you: the non-agression principle and the property rights. These are also the most valued by objectivist.
marketanarchist2011 1 month ago
@adrianro1001 Isn't a law basically the same thing as a regulation? In a bankruptcy, depositors aren't guaranteed anything. That's the problem that FDIC solved.
.."the education system is becoming more expensive with each day"..
these are for-profit schools. what wrong with that? In Randian world, poor people aren't entitled to education.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@adrianro1001 Pre 1933, there was no guarantee to the integrity of US bank deposits. Banks were robbed and bankers stole. There was no FDIC. In a Randian world, how is confidence in banking sustained? Who guarantees the people's bank deposits? Who enforces that guarantee? Who defends fraud against that guarantee? In a laissez-faire capitalist system, who guards the capitalists capital?
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 - The FDIC initially only protected 2% of up to $20,000. Now, it protects ALL of up to $100,000. This allows banking companies to take extraordinary risks with the money that is given to them by depositors. In this way, the FDIC is not guaranteeing deposits, but subsidizing risky ventures. In the Laissez-faire system, individual insurance firms would provide the service, and charge risk-based premiums to deter risky ventures.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slipknotyk06 (1)
.."In the Laissez-faire system, individual insurance firms would provide the service, and charge risk-based premiums to deter risky ventures."..
That's not comforting to me at all. Insurance is only as good as the source. It's not a guarantee. If AIG had been insuring bank deposits in 2008, how would that have been better? What leverage would an insurance carrier have over a banker?
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 - First, AIG is a red herring, if re-insurance is allowed. Second, the leverage an insurance firm would have is that they would threaten to disclose how risky the actions of the banking firm really are. This would deter other insurance companies from insuring them, making all risk incurred by the firm borne upon themselves. The incentive would be to insure, but moderate risk, in order to remain competitive.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@Slipknotyk06 (2)
In 1999, a Glass-Steagall provision was repealed after 70 yrs of preventing the same holding company from controlling both a commercial bank and an investment bank. This restored an unethical point of leverage whereby the granting of credit, and the use of credit, can be managed by the same entity. Now, we have the derivatives market and 750 trillion in unregulated credit default swaps. With these inventions, banks can gamble without any capital requirments.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 - What is worth noting here is bank failures. The universal banks previous to Glass-Steagall failed at a much smaller rate than either pure commercial, or pure investment banks. This continues as of present.
The problem with the derivatives market is not with Glass-Steagall, but the government guarantee of Mortgage-backed securities, in addition to GSEs purchasing the vast majority of bad mortgages. Again, this is all government intervention.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@Slipknotyk06
(1)
AIG is not a red herring because it doesn't distract from the point, private insurance. We can go back and forth on this all day but in the end, all your arguments are speculative. I "know" that any private company that insured deposits would colude with the bank, if the bank made them more profitable. It's about confidence. Have you ever seen an insurance company cover everything they insure? Would you use it? That's the only question.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 - The point is that, if allowed to reinsure, the entire problem with AIG would have never happened. AIG had been looking to reinsure globally, but wasn't allowed to within the United States.
Yes, the insurance company would work with the bank to make themselves more profitable. Increased risk makes them LESS profitable, unless they can charge a radically higher premium. Yes, I've had good experiences with private insurance companies, and I would use them.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@Slipknotyk06 (2)
Question: Currently, Medical Providers and Pharmacies bill Medical Insurance Companies for products offered by Pharmaceutical Companies. Forget the fact that consumers are detatched and cannot effect pricing in this model, do you believe that if there were no regulations preventing it, single entities wouldn't own all three types of companies and just fix prices and bill themselves?
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112
Wow, this runs on a lot of assumptions. If a health insurance company could produce their own medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, they would not need to bill themselves, as their interests would be merged. The argument that they would *have* to bill themselves is just a colossal failure of logic. There is no collusion of price-fixing. This would actually even benefit the consumer in cheaper prices of care.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@Slipknotyk06 Wow. You can't see conflict of interest there? Just out of curiosity, do you believe that conflict of interest is an actual phenomenon? Can you think of any example? Sorry, but I have to ask.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@drankin2112 - There is no conflict of interests, because two companies have essentially become one.
Billing company interest: Serve customer (insurance company).
Insurance company interest: Serve customer (consumer)
One does not come at the expense of the other.
Yes, conflict of interests is a real phenomenon. Teachers' Unions would be an example because:
Union: Increase teachers' wages.
Government: Decrease cost of education.
One interest comes at the expense of the other.
Slipknotyk06 1 month ago
@drankin2112 ...Rand was not an anarchist..so was not against all Government regulation. She said Governments was necessary to protect individual rights...which is its soul moral and non contradictory function. What she opposed was Government involving itself in any thing else not within its rights protection brief...because it does it badly and most importantly it becomes a rights violator itself because its actions must create winners and losers among its citizens...leading to conflicts.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
Comment removed
drankin2112 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slipknotyk06 (3)
My position isn't that the govt is good. It's that self-preservation through self interest as a purist belief system is ficticious. There is no society in the history of antiquity that has proven Rand's assertions to be true. People who argue for it present these ideas as absolute facts, and they are not.
drankin2112 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slipknotyk06 (4)
..."What is worth noting here is bank failures. The universal banks previous to Glass-Steagall failed at a much smaller rate than either pure commercial, or pure investment banks."...
I never implied that Glass-Steagall was preventing universal bank failures. Then, like now, universal banks put money from their left pocket into their right. GS broke them up because it's unethical, not risky. BTW. I'm not advocating bailouts.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@Slipknotyk06 (5)
The problem with Rand's position is that it all government regulation is bad. To be against Objectivism, one only has to prove that some regulation is good, not all. Purist ideologies over-simplify problems and historically fall apart. Most Americans want our mixed capitalist/socialist society. The only disagreement among the majority is about proportions. Name any purist society in history that has thived.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@adrianro1001 (3) What would you do if your power company decided to charge you $2500.00 next month for your electricity bill? Could you move to a competitor? What keeps them from raising your bill and your rates? Do you know?
drankin2112 1 month ago
@adrianro1001 FYI, that doesn't even come close to how gas pricing works. Global demand and hedge fund speculation moves gas prices, not consumer sales. If Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz, gas will skyrocket even if you sell your car.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@adrianro1001 You said that monopolies can only occur one way. I gave you 3 examples of other ways that monopolies are formed. You tried to find a way to discredit each of them even though they are valid. I was only trying to help you see the other side. You goal isn't to incorporate information into your thinking, it is only to validate yourself and to try to never be wrong. Instead, google "subprime mortgage crisis" and learn about leveraging. Good luck.
drankin2112 1 month ago
so I'm supposed to be all upset that ceo's who's only goal is to perpetually make money to the detriment of society and civilization around it can't do that. any rand was a complete sociopathic pig.
malky2583 1 month ago
Interesting points, Orwell: Agnostic Rand: VERY Athiest, Hannity treats people with that point of view like DIRT when they are on his show, if he had been in the job he is now, when they were writting, he would have been a pain in their ass.
nikflagstar 1 month ago
@adrianro1001 (2)
It's not a question of ideological purity. Captialism is about one thing, leverage. Corporations will always use leverage over thier competitors, the public, and thier employees to the maximum extent they can get away with legally. That includes factoring weather or not a penalty is actually a deterrent to imposing thier leverage. When the public gets over-leveraged, socialism gets introduced. We are a mixed society. That's why all capitalist societies in the world are mixed.
drankin2112 1 month ago
@adrianro1001 (1) ..."A monopoly in a free market happens only because you provide better service than your competitors"..
1) Monopolies occur through merger and acquisition. You buy your competitors, colude, and price fix.
2) Monopolies occur because of infrastructure limitations. How many power, cable, telecomm, etc.. companies can service your home? How many satallite frequencies can be split?
3) Monopolies occur because of cost to entry barrier. i.e) putting a satellite in space.
drankin2112 1 month ago
Hollywood passed on Atlas Shrugged because they are capitalists who saw no audience for the movie. Period. It isn't any more complicated than that. The consertavite financeers passed on it too. This is just an invented story designed to perpetuate divisiveness and hatred amonst Americans.
drankin2112 2 months ago
Oh, such stupid comments by lefties. How does one disagree with voluntary cooperation amongst free people? How does one ignore the prosperity that emerges from freedom?
The truth is that their brains are a big knot of unconnected false ideas, and they use force against others to put it into reality for the detriment of everyone involved.
My life is mine. My property is mine. My time is mine. You can't have it. There is no collective good that results from the denial of these statements.
instantpestering 2 months ago
@instantpestering (1)
The only thing Rand accomplished was to leave legions of people thinking that Capitalism and Objectivism are the same thing. Capitalism is an economic philosophy only, not a system of morality. Her pathological narcissism led her to believe she could intertwine the two into a single universal moral justification for everything. FYI, sociopaths know they are different but narcissists don't.
drankin2112 2 months ago
@instantpestering (2)
The military is the ultimate form of Collectivism. You look, dress, and behave like everyone else. Individualism is rooted out like poison. Your life is dedicated to sacrafice and service of others. You become a part of something much bigger than yourself. Military service is altruistic and can't be confused with charity. How can it be that one depends on others who "can't" participate in thier philosophy to defend thier privilege to practice it?
drankin2112 2 months ago
@instantpestering (3)
If you are an Objectivist, you believe that you "owe" nothing to the society that you take from. You believe that "other" people should fight and die to protect what you see as your entitlement. You are entitled to extract and consume and devour without refertilizing the land you take from. Where in nature does this philosophy work? It breaks down if everyone starts doing it.
drankin2112 2 months ago
@instantpestering (4)
You can't apply a moral standard to a society when it stops working if everyone applies it. You want to be an Objectivist when you start or run a business, true enough. But, you don't "really" want a staff of Objectivists. How many self absorbed, what's in it for me, narcissistic and thoroughly unloyal employees do you want working for you? You want others to value hard work and sacrafice. You want them to value altruism and to put your interests above thier own.
drankin2112 2 months ago
@instantpestering (5)
Rand's claim that monopolies can't exist in an unbridled capitalist system can't be proven because the world has never created a system that demonstrates that outcome. She describes a cause and effect that is ficticious. She requires me to have "faith" that her assertions are true. To accept what my experience and my reasoning mind tells me is false. This defies the most important aspect of Objectivism. You have to "want" to agree with her for things to fall into place.
drankin2112 2 months ago
I dunno...I've read the book and watched the movie and I didn't really enjoy it as a movie. It felt hollow like the characters were blow-up dolls. The movie kind of fails at communicating the message of the novel. It felt to me like they were trying to fit in too much dialog instead of just filming powerful scenes that communicated that message. In short, fair to bad movie. Could it have been more successful with a major studio's backing? Possibly.
crk0726 2 months ago
Don't forget the Crony Capitalists guys, they were against it too.
SanguineBullet667 2 months ago
Power is held by corporations. Corporations have much more power than individuals and it
is corporations that have the most influence on governments. 500 years ago the Catholic church
had the power, 200 years ago monarchs held the power, and today it is held by corporations.
If you can't tell who has the power by examining how things work, all you need to do is see
who has the largest buildings in cities.
mentalphysicalism 2 months ago 2
@mentalphysicalism When corporations have political power, then you no longer liver in a capitalist society, but rather a corporatist society.
NoNameC68 1 month ago
@NoNameC68 Can you even tell me what a Corporation is?
Tacotruck1166 1 month ago
@Tacotruck1166 A corporation does not hold political power in a free market. If that's the case, then it isn't a free market and therefore isn't capitalism. How is this so hard to understand?
NoNameC68 1 month ago 32
@NoNameC68 The thing is, the wealthy will *always* use their wealth to buy political power. This is why a free market can only work in the context of small and limited government. If government begins to be a significant part of the economy, free markets will quickly turn into a taxpayer money grab, and you end up with what the US has - an absurdly corrupt government that exists soley to benefit the wealthy and politically connected.
eventhisidistaken 1 month ago 33
@eventhisidistaken
That was a good explanation of why limited constitutional government is required to end the corruption of the "mixed" phoney system we currently have. This is something I tirelessly express to every leftist liberal I can.
myhipsi 3 weeks ago
@eventhisidistaken and that's the reason why the founding fathers didn't want a big government. They only wanted the government for national defense.
sniped101 2 weeks ago
@eventhisidistaken A small government can't protect the people from the corporations.
MMODoubter 4 hours ago
@NoNameC68 Corporations get their power from the government (through charters).
Limited liability powers and the ability to take over other companies (thus eliminating competition) by buying up large portions of shares would not exist in a free market.
calicheese23 1 month ago
@mentalphysicalism What does it mean to say "corporations have the power?"
Corporations are just financial liabilities dispersed among a wide group of people.
These financial liabilities profit by selling their goods in competition with others, providing work, and competing for the labor of the people. The Church and the monarchies were complete monopolies, so it's hardly comparable to a modern corporate environment.
LexPhilogus 1 month ago
@LexPhilogus Corporations have the money and use it to buy
politicians. At least when the church and monarchies ruled you
knew who was making the decisions. Modern democracies
give people the sense that they are more important in making
decisions than they are in reality.
mentalphysicalism 1 month ago
They can watch it while wearing their 'huggies'.
crumbtrey 2 months ago
I wonder if Stossel's ear is still ringing.
crumbtrey 2 months ago
Atlas Shrugged = sympathy for the Devil. Right-wing Christians love Ayn Rand even though she despised Christianity. Figure that out.
crumbtrey 2 months ago
@crumbtrey Um, I think you're doing something that too many people do and that's throw libertarian leaning Republicans in with socially conservative Republicans. Christians love to hate on Ayn Rand. If you don't believe me, type in the words "Ayn Rand Christian" and see what comes up.
crk0726 2 months ago
The film-making organizations in Hollywood are just after money like any other company. If they don't think Atlas Shrugged will sell, they won't make it. Hollywood is really only interested in making sequels and rehashes. Original screenplays or even adaptations of famous books usually aren't as successful (in terms of profit) as the easy-to-make garbage they shell out now.
Whatever, more Fox News garbage. Nothing can be expected from this phony news source.
paulbbryan 2 months ago
It'd probably have done much better if it weren't for the major god damn cliffhanger -.-
But a great movie, nonetheless, the cliffhanger kinda smacked me in the face.
Varyalover 2 months ago
miserably fails, they blame it on bias and the mean, mean studios?
TheKeith1337 2 months ago
Producers had trouble getting it made because it had a piss poor script, zero actors of any note who had expressed real interest in it and had a $20 million dollar budget. Hollywood is a business. Most of the studios believed Atlas Shrugged to be a lousy product, and they were absolutely correct.
Isn't it ironic that the when ordinary people don't succeed that objectivists/libertarians are so quick to call them lazy and unproductive but when their own product can't get financed and (continued)
TheKeith1337 2 months ago
It is the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Aristotle that made our Nation Great, with the destruction of property rights by the use and thinking of Altruism that we have institutions like the IRS etc that destroy our property rights, bill of rights and the destruction of our nation by this kind of failed logic and thinking. Sad that so many are so blind to what is so obvious.
MyITRcom 2 months ago
@MyITRcom You are so right. In Europe they call it social justice to get the money out of our pockets.
a49614 2 months ago
@1963danno epic fail. The alternative? a gun in our back and a slave to the state.
MyITRcom 2 months ago
@1963danno Its actually individuals greed that gives corporations power, the selfishness that Rand Talks about is that a man actually has a right to the values he creates, by what Right would you deny a man his property and why?
MyITRcom 2 months ago
@1963danno if you actually bothered to watch the movie (or better yet read the book), youd realize that corporations rely on government to advance their agenda.
poopguypenis2 2 months ago
@1963danno so you won't try to provide a counterpoint? just "Yeah right"? individuals control the free market because they comprise it. go read more about austrian school economics if you are completely clueless.
poopguypenis2 2 months ago
@1963danno that is pure leftist propaganda, in real capitalism the individual matters the most.
poopguypenis2 2 months ago 10
Rand had plenty of opportunity to get this film done right during her lifetime. And she blew it.
Then . . . she left her hard-earned estate to an incompetent who sold the movie rights to other incompetents. Her bad again.
Result: this gawd awful excuse for a film.
greenrate 2 months ago
The reason everyone rejected this film was because it was complete trash.
ToxicMayo9 2 months ago
John
ChasingCharles 2 months ago
What the hell does Sean Hannity know about freedom? He doesn't want me to be free to choose what substances I can put in my body. He probably doesn't like people being able to do things like produce and consume pornography, etc. Statist conservatives do not believe in freedom.
dubified89 2 months ago
Ayn Rand was a tranny whose real name was Jon Galt
Bienville25 2 months ago
I loved the book, I have great respect for Ayn Rand. The movie was ok. BUT!! these two phony, manipulative so and sos make my skin crawl.
pinstripedpants01 2 months ago
Property rights presuppose coercion. You can't enforce property rights without using coercion to prevent others from using the same property.
AncientIslander 2 months ago
@markefaldad: Then the system we have today in the Western world is not capitalism. Large corporations routinely ask for, and get, special privileges to make their businesses more profitable, such as import restrictions, government regulations that selectively favour large corporations and punish small competitors, government contracts to rebuild the infrastructure in recently conquered nations, and so on.
AncientIslander 2 months ago
Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler were perhaps the only redeeming features of this movie.
redshark618 2 months ago
Ayn Rand wasn't even her real name. There is a video here on youtube called--the truth about GOP hero ayn rand--- I suggest that if you like her, you should see what she has in common with Paul Ryan and the GOP in their own words.
33dentin 2 months ago
Preachy crap.
dubya3cdotcom 2 months ago
This movie didn't get made for a long time because Hollywood thought it wouldn't make any profits (they were very right). Stossel and Hannity thought it didn't get made for a long time because Hollywood doesn't like capitalism. What irony.
wangsta25 2 months ago
@wangsta25 It's also ironic if you're a leftist that capitalism served your interests in seeing the movie fail.
dubified89 2 months ago
NWO garbage. This conspirancy is for those who never made it
lessiv 2 months ago
Atlas Shrugged wasn't attacked by liberals or Hollywood.
Atlas Shrugged is simply a shitty book. The poor man's Orwell.
Derekrife1 2 months ago
@Derekrife1
And the obsessive paranoid schizophrenic's "Thidwick the Moose" by Dr. Seuss, obtuse, obtuse!
"I do not like it on a train I do not like a girl named Ayn I do not like it doped and drugged, I do not like it, Atlas shrugged!"
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago