8 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

Somewhere along the way, Atlas Shrugged has been re-discovered.

http://www.amazon.co...hrsr_b_1_4_last

[mss]

A great book for all to read. Written then, applies today. mss

[Rogerdodger]

I bought the audio version from Amazon. I just listened to Francisco d'Anconia's "money" speech at James Taggart's wedding party. AWESOME! How refreshing.

[Rogerdodger]

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:D6gT6jKMGp41UM::img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/celebdatabase/charlizetheron/charlize_theron1_300_400.jpg.[img]http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:Y4DDF6z7T4ZC6M:http://style.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/angelina-jolie5.jpg[/img]
Dagny, is that you?
You've never looked more beautiful.


With 'ATLAS SHRUGGED,' Hollywood may have its first anti-bailout movie...
April 2, 2009

Hollywood could soon be going Objectivist. After decades in development hell, Ayn Rand's capitalism-minded "Atlas Shrugged" is taking new steps toward the big screen — with one of the film world's most prominent money men potentially at its center.

Ryan Kavanaugh's Relativity Media is circling the Baldwin Entertainment project and could come aboard to finance with Lionsgate, which got involved several years ago.

Rand's popular but polarizing book — it's derided by many literary critics but has a huge public following — tells the story of Dagny Taggart, a railroad executive trying to keep her corporation competitive in the face of what she perceives as a lack of innovation and individual responsibility.

A number of stars have expressed serious interest in playing the lead role of Taggart. Angelina Jolie previously had been reported as a candidate to play the strong female character, but the list is growing and now includes Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts and Anne Hathaway.

Although it was written a half-century ago, producers say that the book's themes of individualism resonate in the era of Obama, government bailouts and stimulus packages -- making this the perfect moment to bring the 1,100-page novel to the big screen.

"This couldn't be more timely," said Karen Baldwin, who along with husband Howard is producing, with film industry consultant John Logigian advising on the project. "It's uncanny what Rand was able to predict — about the only things she didn't anticipate are cell phones and the Internet." Baldwin may be on to something -- love it or hate it, "Shrugged" is seeing a resurgence, with book sales spiking as debates rage in Washington and around the country about the government's role in a faltering free-market economy.

The author's final novel offers an embattled railroad company as a metaphor for a society that Taggart (and Rand) sees as succumbing to socialism at the expense of individual creativity. Its backbone is a 50-page speech by the mysterious but major character John Galt in which he lays out the Rand principles of Objectivism, which argues for an aggressive free market and against government activism. Let's just say it's probably not on the president's nightstand.
With all the long speeches and with plot points often a Trojan Horse for Rand's ideas, it's not an easy writing or directing gig, but producers believe they've got the man who could do it. Randall Wallace, the writer on other crisis-era, politically themed works such as "Braveheart" and "Pearl Harbor," has written the latest draft of the screenplay and is also interested in coming on to direct.(He would follow in the steps of "House of Sand and Fog" director Vadim Perelman, who had been attached to direct and fell off; we like Perelman, but would have been quite the transition for him.)

The project would likely land in the $50 million-budget range but could go higher depending on talent.

Producers are looking to shoot next year, driven in part by the timeliness, as well as by a clause in the option. A high net-worth individual with whom the Baldwins have partnered controls the option, but that option would revert to the Rand estate if production doesn't begin by the end of 2010.

An "Atlas Shrugged" movie has gone through endless development fits and starts. Faye Dunaway and Clint Eastwood had been attached to earlier versions -- if that doesn't give you an idea of how far back it goes, we don't know what will -- but with both Rand and the Rand estate very particular about how the story was handled, those iterations didn't get traction.

This decade, Howard Baldwin and Philip Anschutz were on board to produce at their Crusader Entertainment banner, but that effort didn't take flight. The Baldwins took the project with them when the "Ray" producers split from Anschutz several years ago and pacted with the high net-worth figure, who is said to especially like the timeliness of the book's message.

Producers also say that while Relativity and Lionsgate are in the pole position to finance and distribute, other studio and financier suitors could yet materialize.

Still, Karen Baldwin praised Lionsgate and Michael Burns, who has championed the project at the studio, and also said Kavanaugh would be an appropriate partner. "The subject of the book would seem to fit with the kind of people who are willing to step up and take big chances," she said.


The Rand involvement on earlier versions -- along with the verbiage-heavy sections -- is probably why there hasn't been a Rand project on the big screen in 60 years, not since Gary Cooper played Howard Roark in Warner Bros.' "The Fountainhead." With some big-time entrepeneurs potentially coming board, there now may be a lot less shrugging and a lot more shooting.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 02 April 2009 - 09:18 AM.

[stocks]

Other People's Money (1991)
Starring: Danny DeVito, Gregory Peck


Gregory Peck is an idealistic, passionate, and paternal entrepreneur who is about to lose a business that he and many who work for him put their lives and spirit into. Danny Davido is a corporate raider but not portrayed as a Gordon Gekko. His reason for taking over Peck's business is not so much slaughter than it is economics.

The crescendo to the movie comes in the two speeches before the company shareholders. The speeches punctuate what is more the reality in today's world. Corporate take-overs and liquidations are not simply a bunch of greedy business people enriching themselves at everyone else's expense. From an economic point of view New England Wire and Cable should be shut down. It's in a business that is outmoded by new technologies and its assets are worth more sold off for some other purpose. Rationally it makes no economic sense to continue such a business. The money from selling this failing business can be invested in a business that is viable and growing - this will help create new jobs and add growth to the economy. Of course the people that have worked at New England wire and cable will lose their jobs and Peck will lose his business.

What's refreshing about the movie is the writer didn't set up a straw man to argue either point view. Both sides present intelligent arguments from believable characters. The movie challenges us that what is rational is not always what feels good. An efficient and productive economy is one that has the ability to change, but there are costs - people get displaced.

Where the script fell short and where many in our society lose perspective is that while businesses may die out people are flexible. One's skills can be revamped and applied to more productive pursuits. Instead, however, the scriptwriters concoct a not so believable happy ending. Still, though Other People's Money is probably one of the most honest movies to come out of Hollywood on the topic of capitalism.


http://www.amazon.co...f=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

[Rogerdodger]

Somewhere along the way, Atlas Shrugged has been re-discovered.

A generational push/pull?

Chavez: 'Capitalism needs to go down'...
TEHRAN, Iran – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ridiculed the G-20 summit's attempts to deal with the global financial meltdown, saying that the "values of capitalism are in crisis" and capitalism "has to end."
Speaking to Venezuelan state television late Thursday, Chavez said the United States and Britain are "the most guilty" for the financial crisis sweeping the globe because of the financial model "they've been imposing for years."
"It's impossible that capitalism can regulate the monster that is the world financial system, it's impossible," Chavez said. "Capitalism needs to go down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new model that we call socialism."
Chavez's own economic program to institute socialism in Venezuela has seen inflation soar above 30 percent, eroding Venezuelans' salaries. In his decade in power, Chavez has boosted state control over the economy and spent heavily on social programs meant to increase his popularity.


BROWN: 'New world order' emerging...
Mr Brown — who, like movie villain Dr Evil had demanded a vast sum to avert world catastrophe — said: "These actions give us confidence that the global economy can return to trend growth even faster than the IMF is predicting."
The $1trillion deal — equal to £700billion and intended to bring the world out of recession next year — will see a huge injection of cash from rich countries into the International Monetary Fund.
They will then offer one-off, no-strings-attached loans at super-low interest rates to emerging countries from eastern Europe, Africa and Asia.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 03 April 2009 - 10:29 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

One of the best discussions of the "Evil of Money" I've ever heard:

"Francisco's Money Speech", Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."

[Rogerdodger]

Well I finally finished the book Atlas Shrugged.
(Or more accurately, I finished the 50 cd audio version.)
In the end, the lights go out in New York City.

Then today I see this headline:

The Tax Capital of the World: New York is No. 1...

BLOOMBERG: JOB CUTS NEEDED TO STOP BANKRUPTCY...



If I could substitute one name in the news story, we would have the book:

Mr. Thompson (Silver) says of the coming tax hikes: "We've done it before. There hasn't been a catastrophe."
Oh, really? According to Census Bureau data, over the past decade 1.97 million New Yorkers left the state for greener pastures -- the biggest exodus of any state. New York City has lost more than 75,000 jobs since last August, and many industrial areas upstate are as rundown as Detroit. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently said New York had the worst economic outlook of all 50 states, including Michigan. And that analysis was done before these $4 billion in new taxes. How does Mr. Thompson (Silver) define "catastrophe"?

40,000 taxpayers already pay 100% of the tax burden for 4 million in NYC!

Edited by Rogerdodger, 11 April 2009 - 09:32 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

TEA PARTY: CELLPHONE TAXES IN NY HIT 20% OF BILL...

"Most people never read the phone-bill fine print -- they just pay up."
That's exactly how elected officials like it, said Scott Mackey, an economist who tracks taxes for several cellphone companies and aided The Post's analysis.
"There's a tendency to feel no one is going to notice this little tax," Mackey said. "They can do this without a lot of pushback from their constituents."

How far will they go before there is a pushback?
Or will people just continue to quietly disappear from NYC?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 13 April 2009 - 10:36 AM.