A question regarding Atlas Shrugged

Lord of Planar said:

Your answer might be in post #2.

Click to expand...

Whatshisname actually implied that it was okay for individuals to go on strike. Must've been someone who didn't post in the thread.

Implying that the relationship between employers and employees is the same as the relationship between businesses and the government is a ridiculous notion.

Glen Contrarian said:

Guy, we ALL depend upon subsidies...or haven't you eaten any bread lately, since we share the benefit of low prices thanks to the subsidies we pay wheat farmers?

Click to expand...

I am on record as needed to stop such subsidies if they exist. I know of corn subsidies, I wasn't aware wheat needed any subsidies.

I say, get rid of them. So what, maybe we pay a little more for bread.

Glen Contrarian said:

If anybody who got subsidies couldn't vote, most of our farmers couldn't vote.

Click to expand...

Well, we should stop the subsidies, right?

Glen Contrarian said:

Most of our elderly couldn't vote (Medicare/Medicaid).

Click to expand...

Medicare is paid for by employees as part of an insurance, and not the type of subsidy I refer to.

Glen Contrarian said:

Anybody whose children got reduced-cost lunches at school couldn't vote.

Click to expand...

Rightly so. Dependance on subsidies make a person vote to keep such subsidies.

Glen Contrarian said:

Anybody who went on unemployment because they were laid off after their company went out of business couldn't vote...which means you're disenfranchising people because their employers didn't know how to run a business properly.

Click to expand...

False.

Unemployment benefits are paid for with a business unemployment insurance tax. It is an employee insurance. Don't consider such things a subsidy.

Glen Contrarian said:

And then there's the taxpayer-supported state colleges - the students pay lower prices thanks to those tax dollars, so I guess they couldn't vote, either. And then there's those who serve in the military - we got lower prices at the commissary, free housing, and so forth. Sure, you might try to label those as 'benefits' - but in reality, they're subsidies.

Click to expand...

Going a bit overboard aren't you?

Maybe you should look up the definition of "subsidy" before you continue of such false statements.

Military... That's part of their benefits package. Commissary prices aren't subsidized. There simply is less profit involved. No profit actually.

Glen Contrarian said:

And then there's the victims of disasters - they couldn't vote, either.

Click to expand...

I would exclude such things as those are unique events rather than what can be classed as a lifestyle.

Glen Contrarian said:

And women who were stuck with the children and had to go on public assistance because their husbands decided to leave couldn't vote, either.

Click to expand...

If such is the case of the case, then child support fills in just fine.

Glen Contrarian said:

In other words, guy, what you're proposing is a can of worms that you really don't want to open.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

I do want to open that can of worms. I get even more severe than that because I am intolerant of irresponsibility that requires the use of tax dollars to subsidize with. One of the biggest problems I see is women getting pregnant with no ability to pay for the costs. It has even become financially preferred to have a baby every three years to retain the highest level of benefits. My solution is this. If someone conceives a child when they are in no position to support the child, then if they want government benefits, both parents must get their tubes tied. This is a preventative measure to insure that neither parent can burden the system a second time for the same type of irresponsibility.

Now contemplate that idea for a bit...

Lord of Planar said:

If it's OK for workers to strike when they are unfairly treated by business, then is it OK for businesses to strike when unfairly treated by government?

I didn't read the book, and only saw the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies, but in both, major corporations just shut down, on strike, when the government kept pushing them.

I thought about this idea after seeing the Walmart strike thread.

Click to expand...

Any theories as to why this has never happened? I voted 'yes' in the poll. Of course it's ok unless it's a public company. Even then it would be ok as long as the shareholders were on board.

Lord of Planar said:

You mean like the several that did in Atlas Shrugged?

Click to expand...

That was a book. For some reason this has never happened in reality. The mentality of most business owner's is to close their business when it is no longer profitable, keep their business open when it is profitable or move their business when it is profitable elsewhere. Throwing a temper tantrum isn't really consistent with the mindset of an entrepreneur.

If they were going to close their business they would just close it. They wouldn't whine or make demands.

vasuderatorrent said:

That was a book. For some reason this has never happened in reality. The mentality of most business owner's is to close their business when it is no longer profitable, keep their business open when it is profitable or move their business when it is profitable elsewhere. Throwing a temper tantrum isn't really consistent with the mindset of an entrepreneur.

If they were going to close their business they would just close it. They wouldn't whine or make demands.

Click to expand...

They didn't just close their businesses in the book. They were recruited for their skills and continued to work and develop the valley that they all moved to. They chose to give the benefits of their skill and success to other like-minded people who valued the same drive. So they moved their businesses. No temper tantrum.

Lord of Planar said:

If it's OK for workers to strike when they are unfairly treated by business, then is it OK for businesses to strike when unfairly treated by government?

I didn't read the book, and only saw the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies, but in both, major corporations just shut down, on strike, when the government kept pushing them.

I thought about this idea after seeing the Walmart strike thread.

Click to expand...

If corporations are people, my friend, then I suppose so.

Redress said:

It is legal as far as I know, but doomed to failure. Some other business will swoop in and pick up the slack and the added profits. Atlas Shrugged was terribly naive, much like libertarianism.

Click to expand...

There's Redress with his daily partisan quip about libertarianism in a thread having nothing to do eith it. Do you, like, ever take a break?

tomkat364 said:

They didn't just close their businesses in the book. They were recruited for their skills and continued to work and develop the valley that they all moved to. They chose to give the benefits of their skill and success to other like-minded people who valued the same drive. So they moved their businesses. No temper tantrum.

Click to expand...

The movie must be different than the book (which is common). In the movie Hank Reardon addresses congress with a fiery speech and everyone cheers and gives him credit as being a hero. Dagny Taggart tells him that he won. Hank Reardon says that you can win a war when it will be fought forever and ever.

Most entrepreneurs wouldn't consider it a war in the way Hank Reardon described. Entrepreneurs are stereotypically cursed with razor sharp focus and ignore all the externals. Whining like a little girl isn't even on their radar of priorities.

It Atlas Shrugged there was a consolidated disappearance of all successful people. Even though it wasn't literally a conspiracy the message of Ayn Rand was pretty clear. "Stop striking. We can do it too." Unions are very hard to organize. They are almost non-existent today. Entrepreneurs would be even less organized than workers. If they saw a chance to break from the conspiracy to quit then they would see an opportunity for their business during the intermediary stages.

Ayn Rand's message isn't a realistic warning in the pure sense. Atlas Shrugged behavior is administered all the time but it's administered in isolated circumstances. Businesses will never organize against labor. They may leave for greener pastures but it won't be an organized effort like the book implies.

Lord of Planar said:

There may be some truth in that.

What I have seen over the last several decades, is that voters don't vote for what is best for society as much as they vote for what is best for them. I believe to protect from the lazy harming the world, we need to regulate voting. My libertarian side hates regulation until they become necessary, and I believe this may become necessary. We need to disallow voting by people who rely on subsidies. All they ever vote for are politicians and measures that give them more of other people's money.

I have been saying for years that the America I knew and grew up with is doomed to fail. My reasons are because of the "me, me, me" attitude of voters.

Click to expand...

Better give up your voting rights then.

TeleKat said:

Better give up your voting rights then.

Click to expand...

Do you know what the definition of subsidy is, or do you go by what the liberal pundits say it is?

Lord of Planar said:

If it's OK for workers to strike when they are unfairly treated by business, then is it OK for businesses to strike when unfairly treated by government?

I didn't read the book, and only saw the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies, but in both, major corporations just shut down, on strike, when the government kept pushing them.

I thought about this idea after seeing the Walmart strike thread.

Click to expand...

Of course they could strike. It would probably help things a great deal these days.

It would never happen as it would ultimately be self defeating when the company's competitors just stepped in and filled the void.

SouthernDemocrat said:

It would never happen as it would ultimately be self defeating when the company's competitors just stepped in and filled the void.

Click to expand...

The same logic would apply to striking workers although there is a bit of a difference.

Lord of Planar said:

If it's OK for workers to strike when they are unfairly treated by business, then is it OK for businesses to strike when unfairly treated by government?

I didn't read the book, and only saw the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies, but in both, major corporations just shut down, on strike, when the government kept pushing them.

I thought about this idea after seeing the Walmart strike thread.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, businesses would never strike because they pretty much own Washington with their money.

Just looking at this from a realistic point of view. :shrug:

Proud South Korean said:

The same logic would apply to striking workers although there is a bit of a difference.

Click to expand...

If a company workers go on strike, the company usually could not simply bring in alternative workers as there is a ramp up period due to training issues. Unless a company has a monopoly, if they simply go on strike one of their competitors will just fill the void with their products, thus its would always be self defeating. Which is why it doesn't happen.

SouthernDemocrat said:

If a company workers go on strike, the company usually could not simply bring in alternative workers as there is a ramp up period due to training issues. Unless a company has a monopoly, if they simply go on strike one of their competitors will just fill the void with their products, thus its would always be self defeating. Which is why it doesn't happen.

Click to expand...

I am currently writing a long post about the whole topic and I agree completely with the bolded part and think that it is the main reason why companies generally don't "strike". I generally agree with the first sentence but there are always exceptions such as in low-training jobs. It all depends on the situation and economy, specifically the number of unemployed skilled workers in the economy. Actually I finished reading Grapes of Wrath (which I think I'll write a review about here) and the situation in the book is that because there are so many starving farm workers during the Dust Bowl, the companies kept pushing prices down to the point where they were barely enough to feed themselves.

Lord of Planar said:

If it's OK for workers to strike when they are unfairly treated by business, then is it OK for businesses to strike when unfairly treated by government?

I didn't read the book, and only saw the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies, but in both, major corporations just shut down, on strike, when the government kept pushing them.

I thought about this idea after seeing the Walmart strike thread.

Click to expand...

Closely held companies are private property and can do what ever they wish with their property. Public companies however have a duty to their stockholders and can't do anything on a whim. Public companies have to go through a process to do something as drastic as strike.

Proud South Korean said:

The same logic would apply to striking workers although there is a bit of a difference.

Click to expand...

That logic applies to workers and to businesses if there isn't enough support for the strike. There is always the possibility that competitors will not support the strike, but will take advantage of the situation to fill the void left by strikers.

Businesses of course have that right and there have been some cases when businesses went on "strike" on some grievances (not always government-related). However the reason why they generally haven't been successful is because unlike workers, businesses are harder to unify. To have a successful protest/strike, it is necessary to have unity, otherwise it would fail for obvious reasons. However the objective of businesses is to make a profit and to do so, they need to compete which is why it is so hard to achieve the unity necessary for a strike.

Workers can cooperate with each other (and indeed, is often within their interests to do so) for a limited amount of time and they are not always in direct competition with each other.

That's not to say companies never have nor never will "strike". There have been instances when companies united together to "strike". In addition, if a particular industry has a monopoly or a duopoly, then it becomes that much easier to have a "strike".

As with most things in politics, life, and the world, it all depends on the situation.

Dittohead not! said:

That logic applies to workers and to businesses if there isn't enough support for the strike. There is always the possibility that competitors will not support the strike, but will take advantage of the situation to fill the void left by strikers.

Click to expand...

That's why I said in my response to him that there's always a variety of possibilities. I was just pointing out that the logic applies to both sides.

Glen Contrarian said:

Guy, we ALL depend upon subsidies...or haven't you eaten any bread lately, since we share the benefit of low prices thanks to the subsidies we pay wheat farmers? If anybody who got subsidies couldn't vote, most of our farmers couldn't vote. Most of our elderly couldn't vote (Medicare/Medicaid). Anybody whose children got reduced-cost lunches at school couldn't vote. Anybody who went on unemployment because they were laid off after their company went out of business couldn't vote...which means you're disenfranchising people because their employers didn't know how to run a business properly.

And then there's the taxpayer-supported state colleges - the students pay lower prices thanks to those tax dollars, so I guess they couldn't vote, either. And then there's those who serve in the military - we got lower prices at the commissary, free housing, and so forth. Sure, you might try to label those as 'benefits' - but in reality, they're subsidies.

And then there's the victims of disasters - they couldn't vote, either. And women who were stuck with the children and had to go on public assistance because their husbands decided to leave couldn't vote, either. The list goes on and on.

In other words, guy, what you're proposing is a can of worms that you really don't want to open.

Click to expand...

I'm down with ending all subsidies. Lets open that can of worms and dump it on the floor. Farm subsidies is corporate welfare, and public assistance no matter it's form is using the government to rob people for your individual benefit. Yeah, I'm totally down with ending that. Voters need to get it through their head that the public treasury is not there to provide them their needs.

Strikes would be a costly and ineffective way for business to gett influence then they have so many other means. For example lobbying, PR, advertisment, giving donations to political parties, thinktanks and universities, hiring ex politcian and ex govermental workers. They can also sue the goverment in regular courts and in Investor-state dispute settlement. They can also threaten to leave the country or close their business or firing workers. They can also get away from paying taxes buy using tax havens and tax loopholes. This is just some of the means coperations have to influence goverment and goverment decisions.

A more intersting question is wich companies can influence goverment the most. I guess in both my country Sweden and USA it's mostly big business. For example they have more means to use tax havens and tax loopholes leading to that small business get a larger share of the tax burden.

Bergslagstroll said:

Strikes would be a costly and ineffective way for business to gett influence then they have so many other means. For example lobbying, PR, advertismentsm giving donations to political parties, thinktanks and universities, hiring ex politcian and ex govermental workers. They can also sue the goverment in regular courts and in Investor-state dispute settlement. They can also threaten to leave the country or close their business or firing workers. They can also get away from paying taxes buy using tax havens and tax loopholes. This is just some of the means coperation have to influence goverment.

A more intersting question is wich companies can influence goverment the most. I guess in both my country Sweden and USA it's mostly big business. For example they have more means to use tax havens and tax loopholes leading to that small business get a larger share of the tax burden.

Click to expand...

That's a great idea: that strikes are ineffective compared to other more tested means such as lawsuits or lobbying.

Henrin said:

I'm down with ending all subsidies. Lets open that can of worms and dump it on the floor. Farm subsidies is corporate welfare, and public assistance no matter it's form is using the government to rob people for your individual benefit. Yeah, I'm totally down with ending that. Voters need to get it through their head that the public treasury is not there to provide them their needs.

Click to expand...

And there's a whole host of third-world dictators who know exactly what you mean.