The Golden Truth: Atlas Shrugged (and Ayn Rand and George Orwell Chuckle)

Friday, October 22, 2010

Atlas Shrugged (and Ayn Rand and George Orwell Chuckle)

This graph is self-explanatory. Obamanomics is defined as borrowing money that becomes the debt obligation of the taxpaying middle class - and is catastrophically unpayable - to enable the Government to hire 100's of thousands of people and put them to work doing either unnecessary or unaffordable tasks. This is a massive transfer of wealth out of the pockets of honest, privately employed citizens. In that it guarantees more votes and political support from unions and public employees for those in power, this is right out of the playbook of Ayn Rand and George Orwell.

10 comments:

AnonymousFriday, 22 October, 2010
To put George Orwell in the same sentence as Ayn Rand could cause George to roll over in his grave so fast that it might cause a black hole.

It's like comparing William Shakespeare to Groucho Marx.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Dave in DenverFriday, 22 October, 2010
ROFLMAO. A lot of people feel the way you do about Ayn Rand. I don't see the comparison between her and Orwell quite as extreme as that between Shakespeare and Groucho lol.

I definitely agree that the plot construction in Atlas Shrugged is inordinately sophomoric. But some of the key speeches are outright brilliant. The pontification about money by Francisco is epic, as is the long speech over the radio by John Galt. The ending was definitely lame.
ReplyDelete
Replies
SatyaPranavaFriday, 22 October, 2010
i'd be curious to see a decades view of this chart. govt spending is no more out of today as it was before obama took office. tarp had still guaranteed some 23.7 Trillion even before he took office.

given, he's a fraud and a liar, and doeasn't have a vertebra in his back, nor do any of his economic "advisers" who were part of the very reason we're in thie financial/economic/currency un-kosher dill pickle in the first place.

but it disappoints me to read you use a term like "obamanomics" when we both know that both parties are the cause of this. terms like that give many the idea that they just have to choose the other party, which is what has gotten us into this mess for over 150 years since Lincoln helped knock out the Whigs with the Republican party (a far cry from the values of Republican politicians from today).

would it be possible to talk about debt policies on the whole, of both administrations? so that people can see that both parties are lying and helping to defraud them/us?

thanks for the consideration.

satya
ReplyDelete
Replies
Dave in DenverSaturday, 23 October, 2010
Actually, the budget deficit and the debt as % of real, real inflation-adjusted GDP are both even more out of control under Obama than they were under Bush. Granted, Obama jumped on a moving freight train without any working breaks on it. HOWEVER, Obama rode into office on clear, articulated, fancy speech-making promises of CHANGING the course of Government and our country. Remember that? Not only is he NOT changing a god damn thing, his policies are making everything WORSE. And I'm not saying that it would have been any different under ANY other candidate OTHER THAN RON PAUL. But that's why RP only gets 5% of the vote. That's about the % of the population which understands the problems and understands what it will take to confront the TRUTH and to really CHANGE the course of this country.

Barring that, it is fait accompli that we will eventually collapse. The rest is just noise.
ReplyDelete
Replies
SatyaPranavaSaturday, 23 October, 2010
yeah, dave, i don't doubt that this has gotten worse under the obama regime; what i'm positing is that presidents are not in control. many of us who know washington and know the insiders obama was rubbing shoulders with even more than a year before the election, as well as his advisors, nearly ALL of them were those who had helped precipitate these various crises in the first place.

in other words, bush, obama, etc., don't matter unless the oligopoly and ruling financial elite and disparity in wealth issues are solved, and these are ultimately monetary issues built into our system.

ron paul does get this stuff, but i'm not sure he's the guy either. but his description of the problem is pretty accurate. though i tend to differentiate DEscription adn PREscription and always dissociate one from the other when analyzing a particular theory's merit.

though to make my position clear: the situation is getting worse because those who run things in NYC, London, Washington, Switzerland, and the like, are either losing control of this moving freight train, or they're guiding it in this fashion. I can make good arguments both ways...so I prefer to wait and see the outcome, which usually answers those questions.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousThursday, 08 December, 2011
Wow, you've missed the biggest point of Orwell. That TOTALITARIAN governments (whether communist or capitalist) are inherently evil. Totalitarian governments want to control every aspect of your private and public life...what you say and do in your own home as well as in public...and power is concentrated within a small group of political elite... - No you cannot have an abortion, you cannot have sex with another man, you cannot worship the god of your choice, you may not marry who you choose. You may not live where you want, etc.

It has nothing to do with CORPORATE freedom. Ayn Rand on the other hand takes more of a libertarian tac, in that people AND corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if your actions oppress others....selfishness is the rule. Me first.

No, they shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Orwell is a genius, Ayn Rand a hypocrite who spoke vehemently against Government benefits, but collected social security in her old age. She also despised anyone who wasn't rich. She believed in "the privilege of the wealthy and demonized not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well."

No, they should not be mentioned in the same sentence.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Why Gold?

Gold is the world's oldest currency. You exchange your fiat currency (dollars, euros, yen, yuan) into gold as an insurance policy against catastrophic Central Bank and Government policies which serve to destroy the value of fiat currencies and destroy democracy.

Gold can ONLY be considered an investment to the extent that it remains significantly and historically undervalued in relation to the fiat currencies against which its value is measured. Otherwise it remains the world's oldest currency and is completely free from the counterparty risk associated with currency by Government fiat (i.e. fiat currencies rely on a Government's "full faith and credit.")

Quote Of The Month Courtesy of "Jesse"

Unfortunately for Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, and their friends at the BIS, they have not yet figured out how to print physical gold, silver, and other essential commodities, and the world is reaching the point where it might simply start ignoring the New York based markets with respect to essential commodities such as basic materials, oil, foodstuffs, and the like, as they become increasingly irrelevant, fraudulent, and Orwellian. And then where will the financial engineers be, except with no more excuses and no place to hide?

Here is the link to his entire commentary, well worth a read:

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/07/gold-daily-chart-shock-and-awe-for.html

Great Quote From Jim Rogers On Govt CPI Reporting

JR: I mean, we have inflation now. If you go to the shop, whether it’s groceries, or education or insurance or health care, prices are going up for everything. The government lies about it in the US. Some countries lie, many countries don’t: Australia, China, India and Norway. Many countries don’t lie about it and acknowledge that we have inflation. Others lie about it, the UK and the US, but if you go shopping you know prices are up.

Q: Are you saying that the American Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is a lie?

JR: In my opinion, yes, of course it is. Have you looked at it? They’ve changed their accounting several times in the past few decades. When housing was 20% to 25% of the CPI and housing was going up, they didn’t count it, saying rents weren’t going up, and then when home prices started going down, they counted it. It’s the same with many things. It’s staggering some of the tortuous reasoning that the BLS has used over the past 25 or 30 years. When the price of gasoline goes up, they say it’s not really going up because it’s better gasoline, better quality, therefore you’re getting more for your money. I mean, it’s endless, the stuff that they say and for some reason people sit there, although more and more people are catching on, and accept what the government says.

source: www.clusterstock.com

Quote of the Week

"The primary function of a Central Bank is to engage in the massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy elite. The Federal Reserve was set up to do this with the blessing and support of Congress." - Dave in Denver

If you refuse to believe the above, please read "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin and then explain to me why the Senate voted down the Vitter Amendment and Congress refuses to pass a law requiring a full audit of the Fed, even though the Fed is using taxpayer-backed money to bailout Wall Street and Europe.