Philosophy to think about
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” -- think about it
Trending Content
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
June 30, 2024
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
you just like that philosophy because it means you wouldnt have to contribute anything
This philosophy has no place in America.
I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. Ayn Rand
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back into the same box.
OP's been reading Ayn Rand I see...
Now get that socialist faggotry oudda heeya!!!
So have you looking at your SN, Mulligan is not as cool as Dagny, Hank, Francisco or John Galt.
Yeah, I am sorry. Communism failed. The day comes where I work my ass off to support someone else is the day I stop working and let you support me. Hence the domino effect.
I work hard to reward myself and those close to me. If you don't want material things then you can not work as hard. No one forces anyone to do more than they want.
Communism work in small circles. In a large society it fails.
The people who always promote this shit tend to be the people who have nothing.
I think you might be lost Ric, Cuba is off the coast of Florida. Go live there and tell me how wonderful shit is.
Living in FL one notices how wonderful communism is with Cuba only 90 miles away. It is so wonderful that people get into rickety rafts to try and cross the florida strait at great risk to their lives. Cubans love capitalism. They love exchanging their labor for compensation. They love being able to spend as they see fit.
Double post.
Am positive about 'Merkelised Europe'.. If one is betting high on currencies, the person would agree with me, i feel...
Atlas Shrugged is the greatest and most relevant book to contemporary time. I loved every line of the thousand page journey.
I'm on page 770, the only reason I put it down was to take care of some urgent business. Ayn Rand is amazing, her prose are only more incredible by recognizing that English is her second language. I agree with her, those of us who work the hardest shouldn't have to provide for those who don't. If you liked Atlas Shrugged, Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick is a great read and a powerful argument for minarchy, the minimalist state.
While I am certainly against communism I think it could work in the (very distant) future.
Imagine it, everything becomes automatized (even more so than now). Cars, street cleaners, farming machinery run by computers. Accountants replaced by programs that track every transaction. Cashiers are already being replaced at supermarkets. Everything running so efficiently that there is actually a lack of work to do (there will still be some things, but not much). When society is being provided with everything it needs while barley having to do anything for it, is there still going to be complete capitalism? Those who don't own the machines, land, or firms will have no income because there won't be any jobs available. Taxes will become much higher spreading the wealth around, but no one will care very much because there will be more than enough to go around.
You're joking, right? Betrand Russell wrote an essay on this in 1935 called In Praise of Idleness where he suggested that we had reached a point like this. He thought the world could get by with everyone doing 4 hours of work each day and using the rest of their time to pursue their interests. This was precisely because of the automation of factories, etc. What happened instead? More people got laid off and people higher up got richer.
I could see a huge push for communism of the sort of world you're describing, but I don't believe it will "work" as you suggest. After all, there's already "more than enough to go around" in the world and people still aren't cool with downgrading so their neighbor can have a little more. (Side note, are you throwing "conditions of scarcity" to the wind? because if so, doesn't economics as a "science" disappear?)
Ayn Rand in my opinion falters in many respects. Her writing, IMO, is pretty shitty and her characters are unrealistic because they are simply vehicles for her ideology (compare this with Camus' execution of the Stranger or Sartre's Nausea, though admittedly its somewhat ridiculous to "do philosophy" in a novel.) Interestingly, Rand disliked Libertarians because she believed they had developed a political philosophy which was inadequate without an underlying metaphysics, epistemology, etc. Hence objectivism, an all encompassing theory or system.
The way I see it though, I'd rather have a strong political philsophy than a system that is weakened by a shitty epistemology and metaphysics that simply takes too much as given. There are a lot of problems with her philosophy, such as her belief in an objective world, which is harder to justify than one would think, and even if it exists we don't have access/it woudln't likely have any meaning for human life. Not to mention that the days of expansive systems and world views are over for philsophy; people don't system build anymore. My biggets problem I guess is the jump from E/M to her ethics which is the main thrust of her philosophy and the core of her tedious books.
Already recommended above, for those with a Liberatarian bent, is Anarchy State and Utopiaby Nozick. This is a much more challenging read though because its actually philosophy and intended as a response to Rawls' Theory of Justice. I personally am not a Rand fan, but I am a big believer in people doing basically whatever the fuck they want (so I'm an anarchist in an ideal world.)
marx > ayn rand.
His ideas don't work in the real world. Libertarianism and Objectivism do. If you believe in Marxism, why are you in investment banking?
I am starting to think you are a troll dude. I am glad that you are embracing the freedoms in America which give you the right to have counter opinions. Thats being said, coming onto an obviously free market, capitalistic forum and espousing your communist beliefs aren't going to get you far.
Communism is only a benefit for those who do not produce above the average. It is becoming apparent to me that you represent the bottom half of society. I hope you are proud.
"To each according to his contribution" - a characteristic of society directly following the transition to socialism, but preceding the final step to communism.
Socialism is comin this way y'all... bucckle up!
I'll cling to my guns and religion, thank you very much. Washington has run amok. I may not be a fan of Clinton, however he was much more of a pragmatic centrist than Obama. We need to elect individuals with a libertarian bent.
do you guys suggest I read atlas Shrugged after I take adderall?
I cant really read more than 20 pages without my mind wandering off
The first hundred or so pages blew, after that it was good.
lol i just finished atlas shrugged last week. that book really belabors this theme, but i guess it is rather absurd, no?
lol marx and rand pass as philosophy? maybe the former, but the latter...shrugs
nice trolling, rico
i don't think i'll dignify your post with a real response
Get that socialistic crap out of here. Want to come to my house and cook me some eggs? I need them, you have the ability to cook them, do it.
I love the sophomoric Ayn Rand-quoting, Galt-fellating idiocy prevalent on this site from college kids and junior rainmakers with banking tunnel vision. Ayn Rand is now the pinnacle of philosophy?
I love how no one mentioned her as the "pinnacle of philosophy", but you're just enough of a douche to try and sound superior to others on an online forum. No one is discussing her as the end-all, be-all in philosophy, we merely think she wrote a masterpiece in Atlas Shrugged. Go ahead and take your "adult" comments about us "kids" elsewhere. I shudder to imagine the "adult" that comes on online forums to feel superior.
Yeah Genesis is a big pussy, he made the same exact comment in another thread. Somehow I doubt he'll elaborate on his opinion given that there are more than a few people on this forum who would probably have a field day tearing it to shreads.
Ayn Rand isn't the only philosopher to believe in capitalism and private property as being the highest goals of a society, Nozick and Locke also said that. Locke is the man who gave a philosophical justification to America's split from Britain. He wrote of "the pursuit of happiness" which is understood to mean the pursuit of property. An uneven distribution of wealth spurs innovation. Affordable cars, laptops, televisions and books are all due to that sort of innovation. It was the profit motive that made Henry Ford make cars, he wasn't doing it for the "good" of the common man. Rational self interest is not an obscene idea, Henry Ford used when he paid three times the going rate to decrease turnover. It cost him less to pay more than to deal with the turnover issue, the same is true regarding the was he priced the cars. It wasn't him being charitable but instead he acted in his own rational self interest and tried to make as much money as he could.
50 Cent has more philosophical value than Ayn Rand.
Fiddy is a free market capitalist and rational objectivist.
I am not a Marxist. I am not a communist. However, if I come off as one, I'm only doing it because I want to contribute some fresh perspective to an intelligent discussion.
Atlas Shrugged is ok. I read it last summer and thought it was an exciting book, and yes, it makes some compelling arguments. I think her philosophy is flawed because it is highly impractical. Does anyone remember the part of the book where Galt 'rents' a car from another character by giving him a piece of gold? This is highly absurd... these characters are so engrossed in this philosophy that they cannot even borrow a car from a friend for a few hours. In fact, they are so devoted to 'living rationally' they make this their new religion (the characters worship rational thought to the point where it is no longer rational, but instead becomes an emotional attachment, which is antithesis to the philosophy that they endorse!!!!).
Rand's argument is that we should all be rational beings, always acting in our own rational self-interest. Marx makes a similar statement, just instead of acting in our own self-interest, we acting in society's rational best interest. This is a completely rational argument. Marx advocates that we should, collectively as a group, act in the best interests of that group as a whole. This is completely consistent with Utilitarian philosophy, since an action in a utilitarian ethical framework must benefit society as a whole the most. In fact, if a society wanted to adopt a utilitarian ethical framework, Marx's political philosophy would be a natural political framework to encourage that ethical construct.
Thus, Marx is not 'wrong'. He just approaches a fundamental human issue differently. Instead of the individual having freedom to own property, freedom to act as he wishes, freedom to say what he wants and to think what he thinks, Marx instead advocates the idea that the individual should have no power, but should instead consider himself part of a group. The philosophies are similar, though, because both are grounded in the idea that we should act in the rational best interest of some entity (in capitalism, the individual, and in socialism, society as a whole).
Obviously, this is a big difference. I would choose individual freedom over a collectivist mindset any day. All I am saying is that both Rand and Marx make a similar argument when they advocate rational actions as a means to prosperity. The difference, of course, is the individual vs collectivist mindset, which obviously makes their arguments different, but they are premised upon similar logic.
I don't think a Marxist framework would necessarily be consistent with Utiliatarian ends and definitely not a "natural political framework" for promoting those ends. Do you believe that the greatest total of human happiness (in some sort of "pleasure" units) is best achieved by Marxist political programmes? Theoretically, maybe, but empirically this has not been the case (Russia, Cuba, China, etc.)
I could get pedantic about this last part, but I'll limit myself to saying that these two poltical theories aren't "premised upon similar logic."
what about the categorical imperative -- thoughts on kant's rule?
Kant would oppose socialism/communism as it sees people as a means to an end. Bentham might approve if you could prove it provided the most happiness.
Exactly. Kantian ethics work well with capitalism, because in a Kantian ethical framework, you act in your own rational best interest. The categorical imperative requires that we act in a way that is not irrational. Its an ethical framework that says we must think about our actions and choose them because they make sense logically (ie it is illogical to steal... you cannot justify it rationally). Utilitarianism does not work with capitalism at all. Its a socialist ethical framework where you are a slave to society.
And yes, in my prior post, I was speaking theoretically. Pragmatically, we don't have a true libertarian state, nor has a true socialist/communist (in the pure, theoretical sense), ever existed. On paper, Socialism and Capitalism both work, because on paper, and in a perfect world, everyone would act rationally all the time. Thus, each system would lead to a certain amount of prosperity (If you could quantify prosperity, I am still not sure which system works better). The problem is freedom... in a socialist state, you have zero freedom. In capitalism, you should have unlimited freedom (at least in the sense that you can will to do something so long as it does not violate the categorical imperative).
Lastly, these theories don't work because its nearly impossible to act rationally all the time. We cannot help but to make decisions that might further our rational best interests, but may fulfill are physical or emotional self interest (Rand goes into detail on these 3 aspects of our lives in the book). Thus, the theoretical framework within which capitalism and socialism are constructed upon is worthless, since its impossible to act in the rational best interest of a particular entity (in capitalism, the individual, and in socialism, society).
Kantian ethics don't work that well with capitalism. Do you think large corporations view their low-level employees as anything more that a means?
Even if you treat them "well" you are simply doing it as a means to shareholder wealth (ideally). I'm not a Kantian, I'm just saying I don't think his ethics are that consistent with capitalism.
P.s. Rand hated Kant if I'm not mistaken.
No not at all. I agree with where you are coming from. I make an argument in the thread below about large corporations being inconsistent with free market capitalism. Its a lengthy read:
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/class-warfare-when-should-it-happ…
Marx is right in an ideal world, and Rand is right in a realistic world. Marx's philosophy would work exceptionally well if there were no free rider problem, if everyone were equally capable, and if everyone devoted the same amount of time to production. However, Rand's philosophy tackles the realities of the world - that everyone is not born with equal intelligence/talent, that some work harder than others, etc. While Marx's philosophy is brilliant in an ideal world, there will never exist such a world. To reduce Rand's philosophy to a more simplistic analysis is to compare it to Darwinism. Those that are the strongest (work the hardest, invest the most, and are born with natural gifts) are the ones that survive.
I do think it's interesting that we have welfare, etc. to give to those making less than, say $30k (yes, I'm too lazy to research the actual number) so that they can buy a 27" tv instead of a 20" tv or other such unnecessary expenditures. However, families in places like Bangladesh are happy, not just content, living on $200 per month. Why are those that don't contribute entitled to receive anything from those that do, let alone anything above the bare minimum? I personally have no problem with helping those that are less privileged get shelter and food; however, why do I need to subsidize those making $70k by virtue of my higher tax payments? Is it so that they can buy a larger tv or a nicer car? Those are all luxuries, not necessities. Ignoring the healthcare argument (let's for exaggeration's sake assumes cost $20k per year for a family, leaving $50k of income, which is more than sufficient to survive on), why do poor people need my money? What is it that they are going to do with it? Beyond the money to buy ramen and a tin roof over your head, it's their own responsibility.
Vero quisquam natus est architecto voluptates. Et nihil nisi voluptatem tempora. Recusandae est occaecati omnis occaecati.
Temporibus repellendus pariatur sit cumque voluptatem. Sed qui dolorum voluptatem repellendus in optio ipsum. Unde omnis rerum error explicabo debitis. Sit dolorum eaque odit omnis quos quia. Quae illo cupiditate rerum vel consequatur in et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Perferendis animi qui laboriosam asperiores dolore. Dolorum id iste repudiandae sint. Mollitia quod cumque dolorum dolores iste soluta. Unde quasi vero architecto.
Similique tenetur cum beatae nihil. Enim omnis sint consequatur occaecati cupiditate quis inventore. Odit numquam dolorum sit quia est tenetur. In quia placeat et veniam et. Repudiandae error similique consequuntur exercitationem. Id perspiciatis quam dolores minus doloremque maiores et quis.
Eaque quo a debitis consectetur aut. Et at laboriosam fugiat perspiciatis ipsam ipsum.
Molestias autem et consequatur quia aut. Rerum incidunt molestiae delectus quo. Ducimus ut hic provident vitae exercitationem.
Dolor ex ut rem quo sequi. Nisi impedit sed quasi suscipit et quod.
Consequatur earum quia sunt expedita aliquid quas pariatur. Reprehenderit ea repudiandae minima dolorem. Repudiandae eum provident iure ad.