Plot makes no sense in modern times
Rand did not foresee the age of globalization. If the businessmen of the country wanted to flee, it wouldn't be to Colorado, it would be abroad.
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) Discussion > Plot makes no sense in modern times
The Gulch they escape to is hidden from the world due to technological means. It could be anywhere in the world. It is only Colorado because the mountains provide good cover.
shareuh, the plot made no sense when it was written either. all great companies are products of a single great mind leading them and all collapse instantly without that one guy? riiiiiight...... rand didn't understand basic business fundamentals and corporations of her own day, much less modern globalization.
or she chose to ignore reality for the sake of her story, if you want to be charitable.
(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)
[deleted]
There are quality messages within if you open your mind to them. Too many see it as a call to arms, so to speak, and a vision of how to run a country. In actuality, it's far more personal and individualized than that.
My "3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
even on a personal and individual basis, it's total fiction. her characters just don't act like human beings. due to her total lack of understanding of human nature any message she delivers is seriously flawed.
(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)
They are aspects of human beings- not the embodiment of them. I think we can all grasp that humans are complex and grey while Rand's depictions are black and white. I don't think she was shooting for complexities and convolutions.
Of course, with simplistic characters one has to wonder why it took 1300 pages to deliver a message.
But the message itself is not flawed- only perceptions of it. This is why some people think its a model for society, or that we should aspire to be John Galts while others fantasize about running away to a "Galt's Gulch". These are not the messages one is supposed to extract from the book - no more than stoning homosexuals and selling your daughters for goats is the message one is to get from the Bible - though there are those who take literature to its extremes.
My "3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
did rand ever write a complex character, or were all of her creations "aspects"? i'm not aware of any, offhand, so i assume she just wasn't capable of doing so.
that it takes her 1300 pages to get her point across, well, she's just stronger-willed than her editors. i bet a decent editor could cut half of the text and produce a better book without breaking a sweat.
the problem with burying her "message" in that many words is that the message is easily lost - or alternative messages that she didn't mean to make creep in. you've seen how many "what is the real point of the story" threads we've had here, and most of them have at least some validity.
(the ignore list: intracoastalcruiser, jsstyger, uglytheclown)
I listened to the abridged audio book. It was 12 hours long. Then I read the book a few years later. I didn't really miss anything with the abridgement.
--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/
I think Rand was concerned about being misread or unclear, prompting her to put a lot of effort into spelling out her ideas with such exactness that in the end, it feels either muddled, repetitive or patronizing.
Add to that it feels as though she took several of her essays and chained them together with a plot, making every hero in her book a pontiff of her beliefs and it reads like an obstacle course.
But getting through the course one does gain a sense of accomplishment and plenty to think about in the years that follow.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Did you read the book?
shareyes. did you?
shareSure, I read it in about 6th/7th grade. Turgid and hackneyed, rhetorical sludge, and I realized at that moment, at age 12-13, I was already light-years smarter than the dingbat author.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
I was already light-years smarter than the dingbat author.
Please list the best-selling books you have sold to prove your point. share
I agree, this movie is so shallow and cliche it's hard to even laugh at, and very sad that no matter what some people will fight to the death over its "honor".
But what's even worse is the filmmaking involved in this, the direction, dialogue, plot and production is so dead and leaden.
Rand most certainly DID forsee globalization.
sharenow *that's* a convincing argument!
shareAS is totally relevant to todays economic mess. Amazing how most everyone feels it is A-OK to pay some 25 year old ball player $30 million to play some kids game but to give some CEO $30 million to create a company that hires thousands of people obscene. She was spot on when she wrote the book and it still applies today.
shareactually, you've got that pretty much backwards.
your 25 year old ballplayer is getting paid because he has exceptional skills that millions of people are willing to pay to see.
your highly paid ceo is getting his money because he's worked the politics of his particular company til he's gotten to the top of the heap and negotiated a sweet deal for himself regardless of his company's profitability. he may well be cashing in massive stock options that have gone up in price simply because he had the good fortune to take over in the middle of a bull market. he may well be running an unprofitable company that's shedding thousands of jobs as adding them.
the companies that are adding all the jobs are most likely not the ones with the overpaid ceos - they're small to mid-sized companies that haven't hit the executive bloat plateau yet.
and your ceo sure doesn't have to worry about having his performance criticized on a daily basis in the business section like your athlete does.
you think it's more fair for the owner of the ball team to be paid those millions than the athletes themselves?
CEOs of publicly-owned corporations most certainly DO have to worry about performance. If the shareholders get angry enough, he's out of a job. And those shareholders indirectly approve executive compensation through the Board.
And the business executive community knows who is doing well and who isn't.
So do business journalists, financial analysts and alert shareholders.
The owners of a ball team are risking their own capital. The players risk NOTHING. They get a steady paycheck no matter what. Owners deserve to maximize the return on their investment.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
ummm...you're almost completely wrong.
for instance, carly fiorina failed spectacularly at hewlett packard. her punishment? a severance package of over $20 million...and possibly as high as $40 million. but her career is over, right? not so! she's since joined the board of directors for at least three companies, and several universities. and this sort of thing isn't unusual. what's she worried about?
the owners of ball teams (i'm talking major league level - mlb, nfl, nba, nhl) have significant risk, do they? the orioles just broke a 14 year streak of losing seasons, most of which they were barely competitive, yet the team turned a profit every single year. similar situation with the washington redskins - perennial losers yet one of the most profitable and valuable franchises in sports. some risk! name a single owner that's gone out of business because their sports team was losing money in the last 50 years or so, who didn't end up turning a profit on the sale. (yes, i know there have been owners who've had to sell...but all because the rest of their business empires failed, divorce or similar non-sports reasons.) any risk they have is merely theoretical.
and players risk nothing? nfl players (average career length: 3.5 years) often suffer permanent physical injuries - brain damage, screwed up knees, arthritis, chronic pain and tend to die young. most baseball players never reach the majors and the big paydays, and most nba hopefuls never make a team. permanent injuries and the occasional death are a risk in any sport.
and don't forget that the people are paying to see the players play. nobody pays a penny to see the owner own, and fans all hate when the owner focuses on "maximizing the return on their investment" instead of fielding the best team possible.
folks There is a little thing called Suspension of disbelief.
That said, Colorado, Like Alaska, Like New Hampshire, could serve as the bulwark of an Objectivist strong hold.
It's essentially saying, "Yeah, even we know this story is pure BS that flunks the laugh test, but please go along with it anyway just for the sake of argument." Good writers make us believe the story works.
shareYou have a point. For me a story with well drawn characters, which I think As has, makes up for a lot.
shareThey're all caricatures derived from Ayn's flawed interpretation of economics in general compliments of the psychological trauma inflicted upon her by the Communist Revolution.
shareOh yeah. How does Power drunk Dr Floyd ferris and his torture ray relate to that.
No shock in Siberia as far as i know. Pure sci fi.
He's essentially unemployable by the age of 40, and even that assumes no career-ending injuries before then. Further, the ballplayer's mistakes don't wind up costing everybody their jobs--look up a man named Paul Gudonis in relation to a company called Genuity sometime.
share[deleted]
Nobody deserves to earn 30 million in one year. We are all given the same amount of hours in the day.
It's not the hours, but the accomplishments IN those hours that counts. I think the person who heals people with a newly developed medicine certainly has earned 30 million dollars. Not so much the person who has mastered "The Legend of Zelda".
I think when people are willing to pay a person 30 million dollars, that pretty much indicates they deserve it- even when their values don't mesh with yours.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it. share
if you were talking about an open system where compensation was arrived at somewhat democratically, i'd agree with you.
with the current incestuous corporate oligopoly we currently have, no.
having top execs sit around and say, "ok, i think you're worth...oh...30 million. what do you think i'm worth?" isn't a good basis for setting pay rates. everybody in that discussion has incentive to make the pay as high as possible. the system is seriously broken.
i find it interesting that you believe everyone is paid exactly what they deserve.
having top execs sit around and say, "ok, i think you're worth...oh...30 million. what do you think i'm worth?" isn't a good basis for setting pay rates. everybody in that discussion has incentive to make the pay as high as possible. the system is seriously broken.
Sounds like congress.
i find it interesting that you believe everyone is paid exactly what they deserve.
Now, i didn't say that. Nor would I. There are many people not fairly compensated and/or bringing in less than they deserve.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it. share
so what makes you so sure that if somebody's paid $30 mil they're worth that much, but somebody paid less is potentially underpaid? that doesn't fit with your previous comments that if that $30 mil ceo can minimize the pay of his employees, then good for him.
congress is dealing with chicken feed compared to the corporate world - $174k a year vs tens of millions, and they do have the voters to somewhat pay attention to. most stockholders are pension plans or mutual funds instead of individuals, and really aren't that knowledgeable or interested in voting against the incumbent execs.
You're confusing value with worth.
A CEO making $30 mil makes that on the perceived value that they have established to the stockholders. They are not only making them money (on a good day), but they are a rare commodity on the market.(value)
A cashier making minimum wage also has a perceived value, but it is far less. Why? Because the market is saturated with them. This doesn't mean their work doesn't deserve a higher compensation (worth).
Let's say a company lays off 10 cashiers. This indicates the remaining ten cashiers more valuable to the company. But they also have to pick up the slack of the laid off cashiers. Now they're working twice as hard for the same pay. Can those cashiers demand more money because they have a demonstrated value? They can try. but the truth is that they are not worth more. Why not? Because right now there are ten out-of-work cashiers who would be more than willing to take twice the workload for the same price.
If there were a shortage of high-performing cashiers, their worth would be commensurate with their value.
There is a shortage of high-performing CEOs out there and their worth is (usually) commensurate with their value.
Just like anything on the showroom floor, the question comes down to who's paying and how much are they willing to pay?
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
A CEO making $30 mil makes that on the perceived value that they have established to the stockholders. They are not only making them money (on a good day), but they are a rare commodity on the market.(value)Can you explain what makes them so rare without relying on circular reasoning arguments like "They're the only person who can do this job" or "If they weren't worth that much, then they wouldn't have received that salary"?
What, specifically, was Carly Fiorina doing that no person making under $5 million per year would be capable of? share
Perceived value to the stockholders. Fiorina may be no more valuable than a trained chimpanzee. It's the perceived value that makes the difference. Competence, attractiveness, rarity... just like any collectible on the market.
Perceived value.
Why is Action Comics #1 worth $2,000,000 and another worth a nickel?
Perceived value.
Yet, in a post-nuclear wasteland that comic book will be worth less than a can of tuna.
To a starving man in Ethiopia today, that comic book, like Carly Fiorina, is worth less than a can of tuna. But to the stockholders they apparently find her worth a lot of their money.
And so is Action Comics #1 to they guy who paid $2,000,000 for it.
...for a stupid, goddamned comic book.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
the stockholders had precisely zero input on carly fiorina's bonanza - that was set by the compensation committee of the board of directors. the stockholders also had precisely zero input on whether she was hired in the first place, that was also handled by the board of directors.
shareYou said that CEOs are a "rare commodity on the market."
I'm asking you what, specifically, makes them so rare.
Why is Action Comics #1 worth $2,000,000 and another worth a nickel?
A comic book is rare because it's a collectible. DC only printed a finite number of issues, and the vast majority of issues were lost or destroyed, and the issue has extraordinary historical significance?
What makes a CEO a rarity? share
there are a finite number of people qualified and experienced in doing what they do. Just like nuclear physicists, rocket scientists and brain surgeons. There is a small pool of CEOs with qualifications and demonstrable track records in performance that makes some of them more sought after than others. I mean, anyone with a business in the corporate structure can be a CEO. Hell, I've technically been a CEO. CEO's in and of themselves are not a rare commodity. There are plenty of failed CEOs out there. It's what they have accomplished that generally warrants the higher price tag.
Like Action Comics #1. Any old comic book won't fetch that price. The first comic book that introduced Spider-Man or Archie and Jughead won't fetch that price.
If they wanted, the Board of Directors could pull some chimp off the streets and give him the title of "CEO" and get by with paying him minimum wage. And he'll probably fail miserably at it. It's not about the job title. It's about perceived value: What will this person accomplish for us and our stockholders? Will they foster growth and expansion or drive our company into the dirt and bail like an Enron executive?
A comic book is rare because it's a collectible. DC only printed a finite number of issues, and the vast majority of issues were lost or destroyed, and the issue has extraordinary historical significance?
Exactly. A perceived value. That value changes depending on supply and demand. There's far less demand for a Little Lulu #1. It is less significant and less collectible. Even if it were the only one in existence it's highly doubtful it would fetch a $2,000,000 price.
Would you rather have Superman or Little Lulu as your company's CEO?
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it. share
there are a finite number of people qualified and experienced in doing what they do. Just like nuclear physicists, rocket scientists and brain surgeons.Nuclear physicists and rocket scientists prove their worth by taking exams and writing research papers. Very few people can pass those tests, very few people can contribute original peer reviewed research.
What exactly does a CEO do that most people can't?
There is a small pool of CEOs with qualifications and demonstrable track records in performance that makes some of them more sought after than others.So again, circular reasoning.
If I pass all my exams as a nuclear physicist, I have a reasonably good chance at becoming successful in the industry. What's the equivalent of that in the world of CEOs?
There are plenty of failed CEOs out there. It's what they have accomplished that generally warrants the higher price tag.That's how it should work in theory. In reality, failure CEOs still command a very high price tag. because they have a record that is worth a lot of money for reasons unknown. share
That's a good question. What ARE those CEOs doing that warrants their price tag? Are they managing a company to extreme profitability? Expansion? Political influence? I would guess that would all depend on the CEO and the expectations of those who would hire him/her. Having not surrounded myself with the $25m/year golden-parachute crowd I can really only guess as to the reasoning behind their salaries which I take to be vision, knowledge and a proven track record of making the decisions that garner a profit that's worthy of that high salary. Hell, for all I know they're all Freemasons or mafia...(those would probably be the failures who still command ridiculous salary contracts)
But not everyone has the vision, knowledge and track record that would take a multi-billion company to the next level in the next decade. I'm sure many people would like to think they do and they can, but that's not usually the case. i've seen many supervisors and managers who thought they had what it took to rise in a company only to be miserable failures in that capacity. ANd just because someone CAN do the job doesn't mean they WILL do the job or will remain sane for very long doing it.
I sure as hell would 'lose it' if I had to lay off 6000 workers just to eke out a few more pennies per share. Others have what it takes to do that because those few pennies are important as hell to them.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
while you assume vision, knowledge and a proven track record of profitable decisions, my experience has been otherwise.
i see ambition, a knack for self promotion, and networking skills (aka schmoozing) as the primary ways to get ahead. at least that's how it's been at the 'n' and 'n+1' and '(n+1)+1' levels...and given my comp sci background i assume that goes all the way up.
nepotism is also extremely effective.
Ambition- Check.
Self-Promotion - Check
Schmoozing - Check.
But that also requires the ability to be IN that network in order to schmooze. There aren't any data-entry workers rubbing elbows with the elite. You actually have to have "arrived" in order to move in with the ambition, self-promotion and schmoozing. There's no bag-boys at the cocktail parties.
And I think I mentioned nepotism before. If not, I apologize for the oversight. I may have thought it was too blatantly obvious that it needed no mention.
But one has to ask what puts Mr. Moneybags on the Board's "radar"? I can't imagine it's simply because Cousin Timmy needs a job. Those guys are usually put into middle management where they make life a living hell for the employees who actually KNOW what the hell they're doing (as has been MY experience). Those who run the show are typically really good at it- or at least have been according to what I've experienced.
of course, if they weren't that good at it, I was probably let go before I ever found out how bad they were.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
well, you don't see the execs hanging around asking even the most visionary bag boys for advice either - they're just too many rungs apart on the corporate ladder.
what puts mr moneybags on the radar? he's climbed to the top of the corporate ladder and is waving desperately for attention, usually. maybe the board knows him, maybe not. often he's somebody from outside the organization who looks good on paper, interviews well...and then treats the company like his own personal playground when he gets the job. as long as he doesn't drive the company totally into the ditch, he gets rewarded handsomely. and why not, since so many of the board members have done the same thing....
or the peter principle comes into play and competent people are promoted out of their competence range. i see that all the time - excellent programmers have to become managers in order to advance, and they just don't have the people skills or temperament for the job. maybe mr moneybags is a great division chief or vp but totally a fish out of water as the top dog...but gets paid like they're already a proven success.
Definitely have seen my fair share of these examples- the "Peter Principle" in particular. It's hailed to be a good style of management to "consistently challenge one's workers". But often it's supervisory or management positions getting in the way of advancement- and often results in a person getting fired or demoted (or sadly just quits) from that new position due to their inability to perform it.
That's why, when I've been offered promotion into management, I've made my demands ridiculously high. If they take my offer, great. If they don't, no sweat. I would imagine the top dogs operate under the same philosophy.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Speaking on behalf of the Freemasons, very few of us are CEOs. In fact, very few of us are in government anymore. Seriously. A large number were involved in creating this country, but we don't seem to be in politics anymore. Maybe because there are no statesmen in government anymore either, I don't know.
I deplore the fact that CEOs earn a lot more than they seem to be worth. I don't think it's the market setting their salaries, I think it is an insider's game. But something far worse would be a real-world equivalent of Directive 10-289. So, if letting government get involved is not the answer, what is?
If you don't like what a football player gets for a salary, stop buying football tickets. Stop letting your city government use your tax dollars to give football teams free stadiums, while you are at it. That is one small, free market step you can take.
How do we get companies to stop paying CEOs ridiculous salaries? I would wager that most of them are closer to James Taggart than Hank Rearden. So how do we reign them in, without using the government? Or should we even try?
Speaking on behalf of the Freemasons, very few of us are CEOs. In fact, very few of us are in government anymore. Seriously. A large number were involved in creating this country, but we don't seem to be in politics anymore. Maybe because there are no statesmen in government anymore either, I don't know.
I deplore the fact that CEOs earn a lot more than they seem to be worth. I don't think it's the market setting their salaries, I think it is an insider's game. But something far worse would be a real-world equivalent of Directive 10-289. So, if letting government get involved is not the answer, what is?
If you don't like what a football player gets for a salary, stop buying football tickets. Stop letting your city government use your tax dollars to give football teams free stadiums, while you are at it. That is one small, free market step you can take.
How do we get companies to stop paying CEOs ridiculous salaries? I would wager that most of them are closer to James Taggart than Hank Rearden. So how do we reign them in, without using the government? Or should we even try?
Great, let's put you in charge of Google and see how long it lasts.
shareAhh... the Leftist refrain. So how much is enough? Pray tell.
share[deleted]
I Give this remark the same intellectual weight that I've give to those that say "The bible" also predicts future events.
NONE to be exact...
Laters
Sol
The world economy was "globalized" hundreds of years ago. British East India Company ring a bell? Venice and Constantinople as rival trade centers between Europe and Asia? Learn some history.
shareOP was talking about capital flight, which is considered part of "globalization," not international trade, which isn't.
shareBut how does capital flee? I mean this as a serious question. I guess I don't understand Rand's notion of the isolated individualist -- that a capitalist could just take their stuff and...go. Rich people need others to create and maintain their wealth. The idea that they did it on their own, got it on their own, and maintain it on their own is utter nonsense. It is now, it was when pharaohs ruled ancient Egypt, and it will continue to be through the end of time. Rich people have always employed others to do the work -- whether it's cleaning their houses and taking care of their children, running their factories, or simply counting their money, it's other people (i.e., those societal leeches) who do the work and actual wealth building of said individuals. If they just took their money and ran, they would cease making money.
Just because capitalists take their money and flee, they're still going to encounter the same issues as long as they continue to be "capitalists." They still have to "manufacture" their product, sell it, and distribute it to their customers. And today, that means on an international scale. They're still going to have to work with employees, suppliers, vendors, bankers, financiers, accountants, attorneys, importers, exporters, a variety of governments, and all the attendant support occupations that deal with any of that. As such, that's still going to involve some sort of structure and regulation. That's still going to involve employing a lot of people. It's going to involve a reliance on others, no matter where on earth they flee. There's a level of societal interdependence that Rand either chooses not to see or just doesn't understand. For example, Thomas Edison may have invented the light bulb, but had he not relied upon the principles of mass production and large-scale teamwork in the "invention" process, there wouldn't have been a GE.
Ha ha, made you look.
I agree with much of what you say in terms of "isolated individualism." But there's a big gulf between Rand's fantasy and hero worshiping, and the real-life consequences of too much government interference in business.
Capital flees to where conditions are optimal. If your economy is over-regulated, the money is going to move where it can get a better deal.
Yeah, but no matter where capital flees, its still going to have to play by someone's rules.
In the U.S., government regulation actually helps business. Intellectual property, trademark, and copyright laws, import/export regulations, trade protectionism, tort and contract laws, laws against monopolies, corporations being regarded as people yet allowed to exist in perpetuity, infrastructure development, zoning laws, foreign policy that supports business interests abroad, tax breaks, subsidies and incentives, loans, grants, and contracting opportunities, shouldering the costs for research and development -- all government policies and controls which, in the long run, actually support business, rather than detract from it. If businesses operated without any of these controls, there'd be too much instability to ever generate income, much less profit. You couldn't protect your inventions and ideas, you couldn't seek redress for contract disputes and grievances, you couldn't rely on an educated populace from which to draw qualified workers and/or a good customer base, you couldn't expect to find reliable means to get your product from one location to another, you couldn't rely on police and fire to protect your assets, you couldn't rely on a stable, secure environment in which to do business. With no rules and no controls, you're vulnerable to too many possibilities that would adversely affect your business -- there'd be too many variables to interfere with your business operations. All your time and effort would be spent neutralizing the variables, rather than actually making and selling your product or service.
Ha ha, made you look.
Sure, but then if you look at comparison between states in the US, some are more business-friendly vis-a-vis overregulation (look at auto manufacturing leaving The Midwest for The South, for example). And to a greater extent, look at South American countries. Expropriation by Hugo Chavez causes capital to flee Venezuela because businesses don't want their property confiscated.
shareYeah, I suppose you're right. Mississippi's way more developed than New York or California.
Ha ha, made you look.
Even at age 12-13, I thought, "Rand is such a dingbat she is trying to equate national economies of production and consumption to a game of Monopoly."
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
So you're going to ignore my example about the auto industry?
Pretty cowardly IMO.
Then comparing MS, of all places, to CA. At least be honest and use states of comparable size, like TX and NY, or FL and IL.
So you're going to ignore my example about the auto industry?
Pretty cowardly IMO.
Then comparing MS, of all places, to CA. At least be honest and use states of comparable size, like TX and NY, or FL and IL.
Actually, New York and Mississippi are about the same size in terms of land area. In terms of population, however, New York is 8 or 9 times larger than Mississippi. This is surprising given that Mississippi has rich, fertile land, an abundance of natural resources, access to large bodies of water, which facilitates trade and transportation, and a fairly mild climate, allowing for year-round activity. For those reasons alone, Mississippi should be MORE populous than it is, if not necessarily equal to New York. But that's not the case. Why is that, do you suppose? Do you think it has something to do with the fact that New York offers more opportunities? But how can that be? Mississippi has to be a conservative's wet dream: it's pro-business, has a low tax structure, lots of low wage workers, and offers an almost laissez faire environment that's free of government regulation and interference. Plus, it's a bastion of social conservatism, as well: Mississippians are fairly religious, they believe in the traditional framework of the family, limited government, and individual liberty over collective responsibility. Why, with all that, would it rank near the bottom of every societal indicator that signals development and a good quality of life? Why does New York trump Mississippi in almost every manner possible? It's better developed, has better infrastructure, a better educated populace, lots more money circulating, more diversity, more cultural activities, more everything. How do you account for that?
Ha ha, made you look. share
Last year I did some contract work for the HR department of a company that was trying to decide whether to open their new office in either South Carolina or Tennessee, and that decision was being based in part on the applicants themselves. The Tennessee applicants had their act together way better than the South Carolina ones, to the point where at least one South Carolina guy cited the NASCAR Technical Institute (not a joke, it really exists) as a institution of higher learning. Suffice to say that South Carolina could not only make businesses 100% tax-exempt but also pay a bonus on top of what they earn every year and it still wouldn't lure them anybody other than Walmart.
shareOh, no doubt. That's one reason at least one major Japanese automaker cited when opening a plant in Canada instead of Alabama, because the citizens were more literate and could learn how to operate more complex machinery.
The trick is finding the right middle ground between no taxes (which means no investment in your workforce or infrastructure) and taxes that are too high/cumbersome (which means businesses will look elsewhere suitable).
It made no sense at any time.
Rand was an idiot and a bungling hack as a writer.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
How does the plot make no sense while the Eurozone still exists?
You miss the point if you think the premise of the book is businessmen "fleeing".
Social welfare + high taxes + punishing the pillars of society (aka businessmen) = Atlas Shrugged
Social welfare + high taxes + punishing the pillars of society (aka businessmen) = Atlas Shrugged
That's really only part of the picture. So much that it's really not equal to "Atlas Shrugged" at all. It's really just a list of symptoms.
I see it more as, Ownership of Self = Atlas Shrugged
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it. share
That's a subjective point of view, according to Rant. ;)
sharewell sure it is! So many people walk away from it with the idea that it's praising evil corporations and rallies all the rich people to kick the nuts of those who don't have a job....after stepping on their puppies.
My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.
Still makes some sense, you have the free state projects in regards to Alaska and NH.
People are fleeing, or just stop working and having kids, lots of perfectly capable people are doing that. It's just not worth the hassle.
But you're right, many of us (high-IQ people) have already fled to Asia or are at least planning to.
"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
re: But you're right, many of us (high-IQ people) have already fled to Asia or are at least planning to.
In the words of Ricky Roma (from "G.G. Ross" by D. Mamet): HAVE A NICE TRIP!