Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Atlas Shrugged Movie
Traders-Talk.com > TTHQ Directory > Sanity & Health Club
Rogerdodger
Limited release April 15th.
Trailer:
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-sh...d-movie-trailer


What a _itch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PK5Sq3bIHY
Rogerdodger
I was tring to find a Tulsa theater which might be showing this when it opens.

So I Googled "Atlas Shrugged Tulsa"

Guess what the result was...

laugh.gif

Atlas Shrugged: Chavez meets Francisco d'Anconia - Traders-Talk.com
salsabob
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Mar 30 2011, 12:14 AM) *


The producer is actually thinking about turning the last of the 3-movie set into a musical - he is trying to figure out how to deal with Galt's 90-page speech toward the end of the book; wants the audience to not be unconscious when the lights come on -
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/10-quest...glialoro/print/

Here's some suggested lyrics provided over at TBogg blog -

QUOTE
I am the very model of a modern major industrialist
You people call me selfish, but I prefer ‘objectivist”
The looters and the moochers, they try to take what is mine
To share my genius with others, I’m afraid I must decline

I’m very well acquainted, too, with things that should be taxable
But I will not pay my fair share and on this I am intractable
Push me just a bit too far and I’ll head to Gulch of Galt
Your world will start to fall apart and it will be your fault

[chorus]
Your world will start to fall apart and it will be your fault
He’s packing up his bags and he’s going to Gulch of Galt
You people are annoying and it’s harshing his gestalt

I’m very good at integral and differential calculus
Sometimes I get my numbers wrong, I think I’ll blame it on gastri-atis
You people don’t deserve me, I will not share my brain
So I’m leaving Moocherville on my private choo-choo train

[chorus]
He’s leaving Moocherville on his private choo-choo train
He does not like the likes of you, on his parade you will not rain
He’s not a social butterfly, on this he must abstain

It’s not that people don’t love me, I don’t want to be a brag-ag-art
I’ve got a bitchin’ girlfriend and her name is Dagny Tag-ag-art
We have a lot of rough sex, that girl she loves to bone
But when it comes to orgasms, she has to reach hers on her own

My philosophy is workable, they call me Libertarian
I actually have no talent so I write for Reason Hit & Run
Were I to leave for Galt Gulch, I’m not sure that I’d be missed
So in the meantime I’m a mouth piece for a wealthy industrialist

[chorus]
In the meantime he’s a mouth piece for a wealthy industrialist
It’s really not his first choice but he is a realist
Thank ******* he has a good idea whose {bleeeep} he is has to kiss

I am the very model of a modern major industrialist
You people call me selfish, but I prefer ‘objectivist”
The looters and the moochers, they try to take what’s mine
To share my genius with others, I’m afraid I must decline

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/03/04/galt-the-musical/


Also, I understand that they plan to hand out this card to parents that make the mistake of bringing their children -

QUOTE
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
OEXCHAOS
The same old smears and misrepresentations are no more funny when smuggled into into what could have been a very witty tweak (but was not).

I do like that Reason gets a mention, however.

That's a win.

If you've not read either Reason nor Atlas, I strongly recommend both.

salsabob
QUOTE (OEXCHAOS @ Mar 31 2011, 06:36 AM) *
...

If you've not read either Reason nor Atlas, I strongly recommend both.


Yes, but given their intended and, even more importantly, successful indoctrination of so many into a particular way of thinking, it would also be beneficial to dig deeper and put all the fuss into context. I would suggest the much less read journals of the author with a rather simple and cheap point of access here -

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...ks&n=507846

There, one can learn from the author's own words that here protagonists are based on a prominent figure of the day (1928), William Edward Hickman, whose credo, Ayn tells us, was "What is good for me is right." Ayn exulted over this earliest of her 'supermen' as "the best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard."

Hickman was a serial killer, on trail at the time for the kidnapping and murder of a 12 year old girl; the center of a media frenzy - a sort of OJ Simpson of his time.

Rand's further take on Hickman - "born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."

This, of course, to those who have read her fiction, will be a familiar paraphrase of at least a few places in her books.

I would suggest that for those who have read her books, maybe even more than once, to do so again, but this time within the context that you are reading the not so veiled calling to a philosophy of a sociopath's groupie.

If that is too much reading, one might instead sit down with a bag of popcorn and watch a marathon of the "Silence of the Lambs" series to get into the proper mood to take Rand in.
Rogerdodger
I'm not into the deeper philosophy of Ayn Rand but if you want to see what the fictional John Galt escaped from in reality you might find this revealing:
Detroit in ruins:
"It was a dead heat. General Motors sold 9.37 million vehicles worldwide in 2007 and lost $38.7 billion. Toyota sold 9.37 million vehicles in 2007 and made $17.1 billion."
amazing photos
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gal...054&index=0
The photographs of Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre
In downtown Detroit, the streets are lined with abandoned hotels and swimming pools, ruined movie houses and schools, all evidence of the motor city's painful decline. The photographs of Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre document what remains of a once-great city – and hint at the wider story of post-industrial America, writes Sean O'Hagan

East Berlin had to build a wall to keep the likes of John Galt from leaving.



QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Jan 4 2011, 04:31 PM) *
So I guess "Looters" and "Moochers" can eventually kill the Golden Goose?

"It was a dead heat. General Motors sold 9.37 million vehicles worldwide in 2007 and lost $38.7 billion. Toyota sold 9.37 million vehicles in 2007 and made $17.1 billion."

Good-by Atlas!
OEXCHAOS

Salsa, do you know how do ANYTHING but smear?

You seriously either don't have a clue about what you're talking about or you're philosophically bankrupt.

I'm an objectivist. A real, live, living person who lives his day to day existence in a manner that is consistent with the philosophy created/discovered/articulated by Ayn Rand. Objectivism is the most important philosophy of the last 60 years. It's a very serious, life-affirming, happiness engendering philosophy. That's because it embraces reason and derives its stances from the facts of reality. You should try that some time.

tongue.gif


QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 31 2011, 09:15 AM) *
QUOTE (OEXCHAOS @ Mar 31 2011, 06:36 AM) *
...

If you've not read either Reason nor Atlas, I strongly recommend both.


Yes, but given their intended and, even more importantly, successful indoctrination of so many into a particular way of thinking, it would also be beneficial to dig deeper and put all the fuss into context. I would suggest the much less read journals of the author with a rather simple and cheap point of access here -

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...ks&n=507846

There, one can learn from the author's own words that here protagonists are based on a prominent figure of the day (1928), William Edward Hickman, whose credo, Ayn tells us, was "What is good for me is right." Ayn exulted over this earliest of her 'supermen' as "the best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard."

Hickman was a serial killer, on trail at the time for the kidnapping and murder of a 12 year old girl; the center of a media frenzy - a sort of OJ Simpson of his time.

Rand's further take on Hickman - "born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."

This, of course, to those who have read her fiction, will be a familiar paraphrase of at least a few places in her books.

I would suggest that for those who have read her books, maybe even more than once, to do so again, but this time within the context that you are reading the not so veiled calling to a philosophy of a sociopath's groupie.

If that is too much reading, one might instead sit down with a bag of popcorn and watch a marathon of the "Silence of the Lambs" series to get into the proper mood to take Rand in.
Rogerdodger
It's kind of funny that those who think of themselves as "progressive" really detest truly liberated women. wink.gif

How timely and prescient Rand's novel is.
Here's the latest clip released:

Dagny Taggart confronts the Union:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MVFoiw-dw

One of the producers of the movie was on the radio today and discussed making the movie.
True to the principles in the novel, they choose to use the most talented people available and rather than looking for a state which offered "incentives."
They felt their best production capabilities and people would be found in Hollywood, where it was made.

The John Galt theme music with a slide show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2mULGktiw&NR=1


Rogerdodger
Looking a whole like the closed businesses in Detroit wink.gif , here's a scene where they find clues to John Galt's marvelous invention.
(Just as I had imagined it!)
Rogerdodger
The world's most valuable bracelet.
Soon to be Dangy's.
OEXCHAOS

Roger, you might like this nice article.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/08/atla...ovie/singlepage

Mark
Rogerdodger
QUOTE
no one involved in the film project is arguing that the movie is going to jump-start a renaissance of reason.


There is almost no critical thinking anymore, much less reason.
Emotion and pop culture rule the day. huh.gif
Rogerdodger
Is it in your town?
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/theaters
It is in T Town! biggrin.gif
OEXCHAOS
Yes it is.

I am John Galt...and so's my wife!

laugh.gif

M
Rogerdodger
It's 2016: Dow's at 4000, gas prices sky-high: 'ATLAS SHRUGGED' hits the screen...

QUOTE
In "Atlas Shrugged," it's 2016 America. The Dow has fallen below 4,000, gasoline prices are through the roof and infrastructure is falling apart. High-speed rail looks like the future. Government denounces selfish corporate interests and concerns itself mainly with dividing the dwindling wealth.
This isn't loony-bin stuff: Attention must be paid.

Though a bit stiff in the joints and acted by an undistinguished cast amid TV-movie trappings, this low-budget adaptation of Ayn Rand's novel nevertheless contains a fire and a fury that makes it more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item.
The subjects the film deals with are fascinating, important -- and almost completely ignored at the movies. Even "The Social Network," the most acclaimed business movie of last year, placed the building of one of the world's most valuable companies in the background of a personality dispute and some whining about club membership. "Atlas Shrugged" wants to start an argument with you, to force you to (in Rand's often-repeated words) "check your premises."

It would be easier to do no such thing, to laugh off the stilted dialogue and stern, unironic hectoring, so that's what most viewers will do.
Rogerdodger
1959 Ayn Rand interviewed by Mike Wallace.
Economic catastrophe predicted for the U.S. if collectivist trend is followed.
Go to 7 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0...feature=related

(See Detroit)
Rogerdodger
I just saw the movie and all I can say is ...


OMG!


It was 1,000 times better than I had expected!


Out of curiosity, I stationed my self at the exit after it was over and asked those exiting if they liked it and if they had read the book.
All liked it and none had read the book.

I felt that they really captured the spirit of the book, and Dagney is hot! biggrin.gif
Rogerdodger
It seems that the majority of people who went to see Atlas Shrugged have not read the book.
At 1300 pages who can blame them.
Maybe they could come out with Atlas Tweets.
So I'm not surprised to see this today:
Atlas Shrugged Movie Boosts Book to #4 on Amazon Bestseller List

PS: Don't be misled by the "haters" such as Roger Ebert, et al.
They were depicted in the book as part of the problem.
And they are.
Of course they might give a thumbs up to Jackass Atlas, but to not something this profound.
diogenes227
smile.gif


BOX OFFICE MOJO
Dex
The trailer looks good.

I always thought "The Fountainhead" better represents what is happening/happened in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead#Plot_summary

Ellsworth M. Toohey, author of a popular architecture column in the Banner, is an outspoken socialist who is covertly rising to power by shaping public opinion through his column and his circle of influential associates. Toohey sets out to destroy Roark through a smear campaign he spearheads. As the first step, Toohey convinces a weak-minded businessman named Hopton Stoddard to hire Roark as the designer for a temple dedicated to the human spirit. Given full freedom to design it as he sees fit, Roark incorporates into it a naked statue of Dominique, which creates a public outcry. Toohey manipulates Stoddard into suing Roark for general incompetence and fraud. At the trial, every prominent architect in New York (including Keating but not including Guy Francon, who refuses to testify as he did not believe that they were "acting as gentlemen") testifies that Roark's style is unorthodox and illegitimate. Dominique defends Roark, but Stoddard wins the case and Roark loses his business again.
diogenes227
QUOTE (Dex @ Apr 18 2011, 10:13 AM) *
The trailer looks good.

I always thought "The Fountainhead" better represents what is happening/happened in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead#Plot_summary

Ellsworth M. Toohey, author of a popular architecture column in the Banner, is an outspoken socialist who is covertly rising to power by shaping public opinion through his column and his circle of influential associates. Toohey sets out to destroy Roark through a smear campaign he spearheads. As the first step, Toohey convinces a weak-minded businessman named Hopton Stoddard to hire Roark as the designer for a temple dedicated to the human spirit. Given full freedom to design it as he sees fit, Roark incorporates into it a naked statue of Dominique, which creates a public outcry. Toohey manipulates Stoddard into suing Roark for general incompetence and fraud. At the trial, every prominent architect in New York (including Keating but not including Guy Francon, who refuses to testify as he did not believe that they were "acting as gentlemen") testifies that Roark's style is unorthodox and illegitimate. Dominique defends Roark, but Stoddard wins the case and Roark loses his business again.


I always thought "The Godfather" better represented what is happening/happened in the USA myself. wink.gif
Rogerdodger
QUOTE
The best word to describe Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is … surprising. It’s surprisingly well-paced, surprisingly intelligent, surprisingly well-acted, and surprisingly entertaining. Perhaps most surprising of all, it has me thinking about re-reading the novel again. I would highly recommend it to friends and their families.

Also, according to Box Office Mojo, the limited release seems to be paying dividends. The film had the third highest per-screen average on Friday night of the films at the box office. The trick will be to move it up from 300 screens to somewhere over 1000, if possible. With a budget of only $10 million, it won’t take long for the film to recoup its costs.


Review: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/17/film...atlas-shrugged/
Rogerdodger
It is becoming more and more difficult to separate fact from the fiction in Atlas.
Some of this stuff even Ayn Rand couldn't have imagined:

GE PROFITS JUMP 77%
TAX FREE?


GE has a team of 975 gilded tax-avoidance professionals.
U.S. corporate rates are chasing profits offshore, and the only jobs created are for tax lawyers.
While Jeff Immelt has been compared to some unsavory crony capitalists in the book (see Orren Boyle), when it comes to taxes, it seems like he must do business in Galt's gulch.

QUOTE
Since the advent of capitalism, businessmen have been denounced for the corrupt actions of a few political profiteers. To help understand that there is a distinction, consider two characters in Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel “Atlas Shrugged.” In the book, Rand describes two opposite kinds of businessmen – those she calls the “producers” and those she calls the “looters.”
The producers, such as Hank Rearden, inventor of a new metal stronger and cheaper than steel, work tirelessly to create products that improve human life. The looters are basically pseudobusinessmen, like the incompetent steel executive Orren Boyle, who get unearned riches by getting special favors from politicians. Their business isn’t business, but political pull.
It is the producers who make life possible: who keep grocery shelves stocked; who discover new lifesaving drugs; who make computers faster, buildings taller, and airplanes safer.
The looters, on the other hand, leech off the wealth created by producers.
The novel rejects the widespread notion that both the producer Reardens and the looter Boyles are fundamentally united by a desire for profit. Only the Reardens, she argues, deserve to be called profit-seekers, because they earn rewards through productive effort; the Boyles are antieffort parasites seeking unearned loot.
But it’s not only unearned wealth the looters want. In “Atlas Shrugged,” Boyle uses his influence to throttle Rearden with progressively harsher government controls and regulations, because he can’t survive except by hindering the competition.
Producers, however, don’t need special favors, only freedom: the freedom to produce, to trade voluntarily, and, if they succeed, to keep the profits. As a country becomes less free, it creates and unleashes more and more Boyles, who succeed at the expense of the Reardens.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-l...ions-crony.html
Trendy
I haven't read Atlas but I have listened to Rand's book "Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal". It was only 14 hours of listening while gardening, walking, driving, etc. Its a collection of her essays on many subjects and was very good. It even has 3 essays by Greenspan of which one is the necessity of a gold standard.
OEXCHAOS
I don't know if I actually said this, but SEE THE MOVIE. It was quite good and I found myself deeply moved and eager to see the next two--and I know how it ends.

Cinematography was very good, too.

Mark
Rogerdodger
May not be a part 2.
I think it made the Looters and Moochers uneasy.

Eddie Willers looked away. He had never liked the sight...
It disturbed him, in a manner he could not explain or define.
The feeling seemed to blend in with his sense of uneasiness;...


NYT wouldn't even review it.
Overall, the weekend's take was a scant $879,000 -- a whopping 48 percent drop despite adding 166 locations. Which certainly suggest they're running out of audience quick.

'Atlas Shrugged' collapses at box office...

"Has anyone else been wondering why The Times- which never lets a new movie go unreviewed (even when no critics' screenings have been arranged)- has decided to break precedent with this one? My understanding is that the film's producers actually did hold a press screening but decided not to issue an invite to this paper. If so, the failure to publish a review here is a matter of pure pique and comes across as a disservice to the paper's readers. I have no personal connection to the film and nothing good to say on its behalf. My argument is that every film that opens commercially in NYC deserves to be critiqued by its paper of record. The decision not to do so is even more deplorable than that taken by the distributing company to withhold an invitation to its opening for reasons of editorial politics, operating policy or anything else. Who knows? The Times critics might have actually liked the thing... ''
OEXCHAOS
I'm saddened. I know I was "pre sold" but I really did like it.
Rogerdodger
In the novel, certain businesses made friends with the politicians and got special deals.
Those who were not "friends" were vilified.
Today GE makes record profits and pays no taxes as politicians throw larger and larger tax loopholes to such "GREEN" companies who in turn reward the politicians with "support" including free, unrelenting positive publicity through GE owned media outlets such as NBC and MSNBC.

Meanwhile BIG OIL, (which is the lifeblood of our economy) is vilified and pays huge taxes and now politicians want to yank any remaining tax benefits to them just as we suffer from record oil prices due to the lack of production capabilities due to government interference.

The US bans domestic drilling while George Soros' foregin drilling investments soar!

Yes. We are living the book.

EXXON earns nearly $11B in profit...

Paid nearly $10 billion in 2010 taxes...

Profits 'a little more than 2 cents per gallon'...


SHELL makes $8.78B...


GE sees best profit outlook in decade...

QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Apr 21 2011, 09:09 AM) *
It is becoming more and more difficult to separate fact from the fiction in Atlas.
Some of this stuff even Ayn Rand couldn't have imagined:

GE PROFITS JUMP 77%
TAX FREE?


GE has a team of 975 gilded tax-avoidance professionals.
U.S. corporate rates are chasing profits offshore, and the only jobs created are for tax lawyers.
While Jeff Immelt has been compared to some unsavory crony capitalists in the book (see Orren Boyle), when it comes to taxes, it seems like he must do business in Galt's gulch.


http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-l...ions-crony.html
Rogerdodger
Yes! We are still living "Atlas Shrugged"!
The IAM and SPEEA unions in Everett Washington, just like Rail Union in Atlas are doing all they can, along with their political friends, to stop a private company from productivity. So Boeing moved to Galt's Gulch.

Boeing finds Galt's Gulch in Charleston

Boeing 787 Charleston Decision Still Irks Unions - GLG News

The NLRB has filed a complaint, supported by the Administration.
Boeing could not have done this with the risk of strike action every few years if the entire 787 operation were housed in Everett – moving was the next best option. If the IAM and SPEEA unions aim to keep future airplane work, they’ll have to go much farther than agree to a no-strike deal for a decade.
It is clear Boeing is prepared to make big decisions away from Washington State – that alone should be enough impetus for the unionised labour force to reconsider their actions when contract renewals are discussed.
All striking will do is reinforce Boeing’s belief that the future of its airplane building operations can be set up anywhere if it feels that its employees care more about their self interests rather than that of their employer and the airlines who depend on business continuity.


“If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual ‘veto’ over business decisions,”
“Left to their own devices, the NLRB would routinely punish right-to-work states that value and promote their pro-business climates.”
Atlas is shrugging, and so should be all Americans.
diogenes227
ATLAS DVD RECALLED

laugh.gif

QUOTE
Remember Atlas Shrugged, the blink-and-you-miss-it adaptation of Ayn Rand’s unwieldy novel of ultimate evil? The film has hit DVD (which means you can attempt to watch it in your own home, where you have easy access to booze and razors), but the producers are recalling the remaining copies on store shelves (probably all of them) because of an error on the packaging.

The error is in this sentence. See if you can figure out what it is:

“AYN RAND’s timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice comes to life…”

Yes, the word ‘self-sacrifice.’ Seriously. Here’s the explanation from the official site:

“It’s embarrassing for sure and of course, regardless of how or why it happened, we’re all feeling responsible right now.” says Scott DeSapio, Atlas Productions’ COO and Communications Director “You can imagine how mortified we all were when we saw the DVD but, it was simply too late – the product was already on shelves all over the Country. It was certainly no surprise when the incredulous emails ensued. The irony is inescapable.”

DeSapio continued “Ultimately, the responsibility falls on us, Atlas Productions. We are putting policies in place now to ensure we avoid these types of unforced errors in the future.”

Harmon Kaslow, CEO of Atlas Productions and Producer of the film stated “As we all well know, the ideas brought to life in Atlas Shrugged are entirely antithetical to the idea of ‘self-sacrifice’ as a virtue. Atlas is quite literally a story about the dangers of self-sacrifice. The error was an unfortunate one and fans of Ayn Rand and Atlas have every right to be upset… and we have every intention of making it right.”

The new covers will read:

“AYN RAND’s timeless novel of rational self-interest comes to life…”

The company has a web page where you can register to get a new version of the cover. Oy.


Great gams on the current cover however. smile.gif



Rogerdodger
Rational self-interest benefits the world. (Thank you Steve Jobs and Bill Gates)
Whereas so called self-sacrifice is often performed as a selfish act of self glorification and is often detremental.
That understanding makes the co-dependents of the world very uncomfortable, as does Atlas Shrugged.

"Codependency is unhealthy love and a tendency to behave in overly passive or excessively caretaking ways that negatively impact one's relationships and quality of life. It also often involves placing a lower priority on one's own needs, while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others. Codependency can occur in any type of relationship, including in families, at work, in friendships, and also in romantic, peer or community relationships. Codependency may also be characterized by denial, low self-esteem, excessive compliance, or control patterns. Narcissists are considered to be natural magnets for the codependent."
salsabob
Rand, and her husband, did not make enough money in their careers to support themselves in their elder years; they had to turn to both Social Security and Medicare. She provided the excuse that she had been forced by the government to pay into these programs and therefore it was not hypocritical to lap at the government trough.

However, if one looks at it 'objectively,' it is clear that she did not pay into the programs as much as she got out of them. And what little she did pay in would have more than likely been squandered away with the rest of her wealth by a lifestyle aimed at giving the appearance of success that, in fact, she could not afford.

She represents perhaps the epitome of what the programs were set up to achieve - providing for those in their elder years that perhaps did not make the best decisions or were unlucky or were self-deluded about how the real world actually works. The programs provide for such people in a way that is least burdensome and intrusive to the rest of us.

You can point these realities out to folks, but I have found it makes little difference in their thinking - they still ill believe in magic ponies --- whether "objectively" or not. rolleyes.gif
Rogerdodger
I don't know about Rand, but after being raped for years by the Ponzi Scheme of Social Security, many folks find it's all they have left.

If you consider it just or moral to take from one person under the threat, and give that money to another, so be it.
And maybe you can take a little yourself as a "finder's fee."
Today it seems that a majority demand such an involuntary "re-distribution" without regard for the morality of it.
In doing so they turn a self-sufficient nation into a nation of dependents.
Actions have moral consequences.
Bankers can take risk without worry.
Nations and individuals can live beyond their means, knowing there will be a "safety net" to catch them...until there isn't.

Too bad we Serfs can't legally enroll in the Galveston, Texas retirement plan.
It was so successful the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.
The politicians hated seeing all that money they they couldn't get at to "re-distribute" for votes. dry.gif


http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
  • Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
  • Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
  • Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
  • Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
  • Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

Rogerdodger
QUOTE
Rand, and her husband, did not make enough money in their careers to support themselves in their elder years; they had to turn to both Social Security and Medicare. She provided the excuse that she had been forced by the government to pay into these programs and therefore it was not hypocritical to lap at the government trough.


AMEN! I'm going to get on every government program that I can, along with everyone else.
It used to be that parents cared for their children then children cared for their aged parents.
Now the government cares for everybody, cradle to grave.

My question is:
"Does it create a "moral hazard" to imply to individuals (or banks, or Solyndra, or GM) that they don't have to worry about the future because someone else will carry THEIR BURDEN?
Dex
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 13 2011, 02:08 PM) *
AMEN! I'm going to get on every government program that I can, along with everyone else.
It used to be that parents cared for their children then children cared for their aged parents.
Now the government cares for everybody, cradle to grave.

My question is:
"Does it create a "moral hazard" to imply to individuals (or banks, or Solyndra, or GM) that they don't have to worry about the future because someone else will carry THEIR BURDEN?


Amen!+1 I'm going to get when I can.

I feel like a fool when I have to pay for things that are now free for some people these days - cell phones, DSL, full price for food. I've never collected one day of unemployment insurance. I've always paid my bills, taxes and SS.

There is nothing to be gained by not taking SS. Give it away if you want but don't leave it on the table.
Rogerdodger
QUOTE
Pay full price for food...


There is a grocery store here in Tulsa in an area devastated by government projects and policy.
(It was the setting for "Spatula City" at 6207 S. Peoria in Weird Al's movie UHF.)

I went in there recently and was shocked by the high price of their groceries.
Personally I look for bargains and often shop at ALDI.
I was also shocked to see that the shoppers there had little concern for the price, since in reality I was paying for their food via government programs.

My EBT: I just swipe my EBT.
Dex
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 13 2011, 11:06 PM) *
QUOTE
Pay full price for food...


There is a grocery store here in Tulsa in an area devastated by government projects and policy.
(It was the setting for "Spatula City" at 6207 S. Peoria in Weird Al's movie UHF.)

I went in there recently and was shocked by the high price of their groceries.
Personally I look for bargains and often shop at ALDI.
I was also shocked to see that the shoppers there had little concern for the price, since in reality I was paying for their food via government programs.

My EBT: I just swipe my EBT.


Good links. I shop at Walmart - maybe that is why I was able to retire early.

I was working in a supermarket in the 70s when food inflation was happening. One of my jobs was to change the prices of the products - spray with hair spray to remove the old price and stamp a new one on. Now they just change it in the computer and put a new shelf label on.

Johnny Carson made a joke that there was going to be a toilet paper shortage one night - the next day there was a run on toilet paper that cleared out all the stock.
OEXCHAOS
QUOTE (salsabob @ Nov 12 2011, 07:55 PM) *
Rand, and her husband, did not make enough money in their careers to support themselves in their elder years; they had to turn to both Social Security and Medicare. She provided the excuse that she had been forced by the government to pay into these programs and therefore it was not hypocritical to lap at the government trough.

However, if one looks at it 'objectively,' it is clear that she did not pay into the programs as much as she got out of them. And what little she did pay in would have more than likely been squandered away with the rest of her wealth by a lifestyle aimed at giving the appearance of success that, in fact, she could not afford.

She represents perhaps the epitome of what the programs were set up to achieve - providing for those in their elder years that perhaps did not make the best decisions or were unlucky or were self-deluded about how the real world actually works. The programs provide for such people in a way that is least burdensome and intrusive to the rest of us.

You can point these realities out to folks, but I have found it makes little difference in their thinking - they still ill believe in magic ponies --- whether "objectively" or not. rolleyes.gif


Take as much as they offer you and thus hasten the inevitable failure. That is moral, good, and proper.

M
salsabob
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 13 2011, 01:49 PM) *
I don't know about Rand, but after being raped for years by the Ponzi Scheme of Social Security, many folks find it's all they have left.

If you consider it just or moral to take from one person under the threat, and give that money to another, so be it.
And maybe you can take a little yourself as a "finder's fee."
Today it seems that a majority demand such an involuntary "re-distribution" without regard for the morality of it.
In doing so they turn a self-sufficient nation into a nation of dependents.
Actions have moral consequences.
Bankers can take risk without worry.
Nations and individuals can live beyond their means, knowing there will be a "safety net" to catch them...until there isn't.

Too bad we Serfs can't legally enroll in the Galveston, Texas retirement plan.
It was so successful the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.
The politicians hated seeing all that money they they couldn't get at to "re-distribute" for votes. dry.gif


http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
  • Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
  • Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
  • Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
  • Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
  • Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.


This is something H. Cain has been trying to get away with for awhile now. Here is a pretty good analysis of all the BS -

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...on-retirement-/

Essentially, the initial study comparing the programs was done in 1999 and showed that about 1/2 would do better under one plan and 1/2 would do better under the other. An update to the study was done in 2005 and showed, with the markets (on which the pension relies) doing less well from 1999 to 2005 than they did in the 90s when the first study was undertaken, that more than 1/2 of the people would have done better under SS. The comparison has not since been done since the markets melted down in 2008/09 and have yet to fully recover - one might suspect little interest in conducting such a comparison due to the likely results. rolleyes.gif

Putting aside the actual comparison of endpoints, a clear sign of financial ignorance is someone attempting to make a point by comparing essentially a pension program run by a non-federal entity to a federal govt social safety net program like Social Security (SS).

Casting aside all the baloney of Trust Funds, FICA taxes, Ponzi schemes, yadda, yadda, yadda, SS is a federal program run by a monetarily sovereign nation that alone has a monopoly on issuing dollars - that entity and any of its programs can never go insolvent and can never run out the money that they alone can issue. That certainty is why financial planners put SS at the foundation level in diagramming one's retirement plans - it is the most certain element.

Now this is where people's heads explode and they start stammering about projections of Trust Fund depletion and only enough workers' for enough FICA taxes to provide only 78% of projected benefits in the 2030s (which, by the way, is
125% of what today's retirees get in constant dollars, but that is another story). It simply is all BS.

FICA taxes can (and should) be completely eliminated and it would have no impact on the ability of the money issuer to pay all SS benefits as far into the future as you want to go. The federal govt doesn't save dollars - you give the feds cash when you pay your taxes, it goes into the shredder. Same thing happens at the electron level where most dollars are: when you pay your taxes, your bank sends electrons to the Fed where they go back into the ether from which they came when the govt spent them into the economy.

And the feds borrowing? For every dollar they borrow, they first injected that dollar into the economy. It runs around the economy several times (8-10x) making businesses and people wealthier, but ALWAYS winds up being lent back to the govt. The federal govt can NEVER not be able to borrow back the money it issues. That is not an opinion that is an accounting identity.

Comparing the federal govt financing to a county or state government, an individual, a household, a business, or to non-monetarily sovereign nations like Greece, Italy or even Germany (but not the ECB) is like comparing a campfire to the sun. Suggesting that the federal govt has to balance its budget like any non-monetarily sovereign entity is like suggesting the sun needs air to burn. Even if you don't know anything about nuclear fusion, you should be smart enough to figure out that something different goes on with the sun - same think with the financing of a monetarily sovereign entity like our federal govt. Have you every really stopped, but aside all the preconceptions and really really think about it?

The vast majority of people don't get it. And it is not a matter of intelligence; it is about being wedded to a mythology and relying on mass cognitive dissonance to defend it. It is the primary source of nearly all economic problems in the world today or at least their resolution. Grasping it leads to a much deeper understanding of the world today..... and it can be very very profitable.

It also makes what most people have to say in heated SS arguments, whether supporters or detractors, simply laughable.
salsabob
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 13 2011, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE
Rand, and her husband, did not make enough money in their careers to support themselves in their elder years; they had to turn to both Social Security and Medicare. She provided the excuse that she had been forced by the government to pay into these programs and therefore it was not hypocritical to lap at the government trough.


AMEN! I'm going to get on every government program that I can, along with everyone else.
It used to be that parents cared for their children then children cared for their aged parents.
Now the government cares for everybody, cradle to grave.


Good for you and good for the economy. Spend it and help give someone else income, increase our GDP. Save it, it not only makes its way back to the govt but on the way, it is lent out 8-10 times more making us all more wealthy. Two thumbs up! You are a patriot!

QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 13 2011, 02:08 PM) *
My question is:
"Does it create a "moral hazard" to imply to individuals (or banks, or Solyndra, or GM) that they don't have to worry about the future because someone else will carry THEIR BURDEN?
I agree. I can't tell you how many MFers that need to be perp walked.


However, do we have to be stupid about it? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Do we need thousands more out of work? Do we need to give up producing autos in this country? Do we not take risks in alternative energy development because the Chinese flood our markets with silicone chips.

Do you have any doubt that our being stupid about this is one of the big reasons China is cleaning our clocks?
salsabob
QUOTE (Dex @ Nov 13 2011, 02:56 PM) *
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 13 2011, 02:08 PM) *
AMEN! I'm going to get on every government program that I can, along with everyone else.
It used to be that parents cared for their children then children cared for their aged parents.
Now the government cares for everybody, cradle to grave.

My question is:
"Does it create a "moral hazard" to imply to individuals (or banks, or Solyndra, or GM) that they don't have to worry about the future because someone else will carry THEIR BURDEN?


Amen!+1 I'm going to get when I can.

I feel like a fool when I have to pay for things that are now free for some people these days - cell phones, DSL, full price for food. I've never collected one day of unemployment insurance. I've always paid my bills, taxes and SS.

There is nothing to be gained by not taking SS. Give it away if you want but don't leave it on the table.


Good for you! Another patriot! Keep spending, it gives others incomes, it increases GDP, it makes us all wealthier.

Now, those unemployed. If we just let them starve, there could be some jobs created by the need to produce more body bags, picking them off the streets, and cremating them. However, most of them are women and children so we wouldn't perhaps get the biggest bang for the buck.

You know, if instead they get their unemployment check, they would spend it and then they could be as patriotic as you.

Isn't that weird that your taxes haven't gone up or there's been no inflation caused by their spending? Let's see, their spending goes into the numerator and zero cost goes into the denominator. Why, that gives us a ROI of infinity. Weird how that works.

Just a thought. rolleyes.gif
salsabob
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 13 2011, 11:06 PM) *
QUOTE
Pay full price for food...


There is a grocery store here in Tulsa in an area devastated by government projects and policy.
(It was the setting for "Spatula City" at 6207 S. Peoria in Weird Al's movie UHF.)

I went in there recently and was shocked by the high price of their groceries.
Personally I look for bargains and often shop at ALDI.
I was also shocked to see that the shoppers there had little concern for the price, since in reality I was paying for their food via government programs.

My EBT: I just swipe my EBT.


Wow, no wonder my MCD stock has taken off over the last couple decades, AND my federal taxes has gone down.

Let's check my Return on Investment (ROI) -

Food stamps have made my MCD investment go up - big plus in the numerator. My taxes have gone down; big drop in the denominator. Holy cow, my ROI has gone through the roof.

And, I haven't had to step over people that have starved to death!

Gawd, I love America!
salsabob
QUOTE (OEXCHAOS @ Nov 14 2011, 12:23 PM) *
QUOTE (salsabob @ Nov 12 2011, 07:55 PM) *
Rand, and her husband, did not make enough money in their careers to support themselves in their elder years; they had to turn to both Social Security and Medicare. She provided the excuse that she had been forced by the government to pay into these programs and therefore it was not hypocritical to lap at the government trough.

However, if one looks at it 'objectively,' it is clear that she did not pay into the programs as much as she got out of them. And what little she did pay in would have more than likely been squandered away with the rest of her wealth by a lifestyle aimed at giving the appearance of success that, in fact, she could not afford.

She represents perhaps the epitome of what the programs were set up to achieve - providing for those in their elder years that perhaps did not make the best decisions or were unlucky or were self-deluded about how the real world actually works. The programs provide for such people in a way that is least burdensome and intrusive to the rest of us.

You can point these realities out to folks, but I have found it makes little difference in their thinking - they still ill believe in magic ponies --- whether "objectively" or not. rolleyes.gif


Take as much as they offer you


And thank you for being a patriot and either spending that money in the economy and creating incomes or lending it back to our government (pssst, they really don't need you to do that, but it makes everybody feel better.... because, well, most of us are ignorant about the fact that you don't really need to do that. It's a lot like young kids and Santa Claus - brings comfort to them.)

QUOTE (OEXCHAOS @ Nov 14 2011, 12:23 PM) *
....and thus hasten the inevitable failure. That is moral, good, and proper.


... and just how would that work? You do know that these programs are funded in dollars that only the federal govt can issue? I don't think they're going to run out of paper and ink and even less likely they'll run out of electrons - so how does this failure actually come about? You know your talking about a monetarily-sovereign nation that owes all its debt in the currency that it alone can issue; it's not some fantasy privately-owned rail line, right? rolleyes.gif

Believe me, I know this blows your mind and probable makes you angry. But really, have you ever really thought about it honestly with an open mind? Most all have not. In the markets, what do we generally know about being just in the crowd?
Rogerdodger
QUOTE
The vast majority of people don't get it. And it is not a matter of intelligence; it is about being wedded to a mythology and relying on mass cognitive dissonance to defend it. It is the primary source of nearly all economic problems in the world today or at least their resolution. Grasping it leads to a much deeper understanding of the world today..... and it can be very very profitable.
It also makes what most people have to say in heated SS arguments, whether supporters or detractors, simply laughable.


My mass cognitive dissonance prompted me to re-characterize my business into a sub-s corporation back in the mid 1980's.
I was able to cut payments into the Ponzi scheme of SS by taking a smaller salary and receive much of my business profits as corporate dividends which are not subject to SS.
That saved money represents my talents, my work, my skills and my life, which YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM.
HAVE YOU ever really thought about THAT honestly with an open mind?

That saved money was invested into real estate & rental property.
With the invested savings in just the first year, I have now received about a grand a month for 25 years already!
That's $300,000 in my pocket ALREADY, PLUS appreciation on the property, PLUS the yearly savings on SS payments.
Additionally my heirs will actually have an inheritance.

Talk to me about reality not mythology. laugh.gif

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVSSMurdock1197.html
The National Center for Health Statistics reports that black males born in 1992 can expect to live to age 65, while white males born that same year can plan to live 73.9 years. While black females born in 1992 can expect to 73.9 years of life, white females are expected to spend 79.8 years on Earth.
Since older retirees collect more benefits from those who pay into the scam, Social Security essentially transfers money from working black men and women (who die earlier) to older white women who live the longest. This quickly raises a fundamental question: Given that the retirement age will increase to 67 by the year 2027, is it fair to expect young black men to support a scheme that will not provide them with pension benefits until two years after they can expect to die?
Another factor that compounds this problem is that a lower proportion of blacks tend to enroll in college than do whites. In 1995, only 51 percent of black high school graduates advanced to college. While 63 percent of whites began their post-secondary studies. Consequently, more young blacks begin their working lives earlier than young whites, and thus start paying into Social Security sooner. Nonetheless, as the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner explains: "Because Social Security benefits are based only on the last 35 years of an individual's work history, they will receive no additional benefits despite paying taxes for more years."
salsabob
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 20 2011, 09:12 PM) *
QUOTE
The vast majority of people don't get it. And it is not a matter of intelligence; it is about being wedded to a mythology and relying on mass cognitive dissonance to defend it. It is the primary source of nearly all economic problems in the world today or at least their resolution. Grasping it leads to a much deeper understanding of the world today..... and it can be very very profitable.
It also makes what most people have to say in heated SS arguments, whether supporters or detractors, simply laughable.


My mass cognitive dissonance prompted me to re-characterize my business into a sub-s corporation back in the mid 1980's.
I was able to cut payments into the Ponzi scheme of SS by taking a smaller salary and receive much of my business profits as corporate dividends which are not subject to SS.
That saved money represents my talents, my work, my skills and my life, which YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM.
HAVE YOU ever really thought about THAT honestly with an open mind?

That saved money was invested into real estate & rental property.
With the invested savings in just the first year, I have now received about a grand a month for 25 years already!
That's $300,000 in my pocket ALREADY, PLUS appreciation on the property, PLUS the yearly savings on SS payments.
Additionally my heirs will actually have an inheritance.


Wow, you are an amazing patriot! And you haven't even mentioned how your wealth accumulation has not only provided incomes for many, many others but you've even provided shelter for either households or businesses and I'm sure at a fair price. Much to be admired here.

I would just note a couple of things -

- Who and what mechanisms enforces all your contracts, leases, deeds, mortgages, banking accounts, brokerage accounts? If you had to rely on your own guns and ammo, how long do you think you would last? Even if you could hold out, what do you think would happen to our society, economy? How valuable would your holdings be that you could hold onto? How much quality would your life have?

- You keep talking about dollars - most of that is in electrons, some of that is in paper-and-ink - who and what mechanism gives that value? What would happen to your worth if those dollars where worthless? How much would you pay to keep those dollars worth something? If keeping your wealth depended on someone making a claim on a relatively small portion of if (as well as others' wealth) would you continue to whine about it as much?

QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 20 2011, 09:12 PM) *
Talk to me about reality not mythology.


I just did - if you were paying attention. wink.gif

But lets go further down the rabbit hole if you're willing to take the "blue pill" -

QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 20 2011, 09:12 PM) *
.... Social Security essentially transfers money from working black men and women (who die earlier) to older white women who live the longest.....


How exactly does that work? Do you think the govt has some big warehouse where all the dollars (in either paper-and-ink or electrons) go to be stored after collection and then 'transferred' to someone else when the time comes? You know about the special SS Trust bonds held in a single file cabinet in some backroom of an out-of-the-way SS office in Ankron, Ohio - do you really think Timmy goes down there with the magic key and picks one of those $100 million bonds up and takes it over to big Ben to cash before sending checks out to grandma?

If you gave it some thought, you would likely conclude that this does not (and will never) actually happen. Something else is going on than a 'transfer' but folks insist on entire heated arguments based on such mythological 'transfer.' It's called cognitive disassociation. swoon.gif
Rogerdodger
"Making a claim on a relatively small portion of" anyone's life without their consent is what the slave owners thought was a good thing for the "common good."
Is it OK to own slaves if they get weekend's off? Holidays too?
I'm just wondering what portion you demand of other's lives.
salsabob
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Nov 21 2011, 11:00 AM) *
"Making a claim on a relatively small portion of" anyone's life without their consent is what the slave owners thought was a good thing for the "common good."
Is it OK to own slaves if they get weekend's off? Holidays too?
I'm just wondering what portion you demand of other's lives.


It's not slavery when you have the choice not to participate in the dollar economy.

However, if you want to use our society's currency and all that stands behind it, it comes with a price. If you use the currency and don't pay your taxes, you will go to jail. If you use the currency, pay your taxes and whine about it as slavery, that's just a little bit of hypocrisy and not jail worthy. laugh.gif

By the way, don't you find it interestng that the Federal Debt Super Committee failed and people are pouring money into federal securities the day after. How does your worldview square that? rolleyes.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.