If people minded their own business, saw to their own affairs and stopped envying the rich, they would feel much better about themselves. Having a few non-material values is not a bad idea, either. Self-respect. Not comparing themselves with others. Also helpful. Trying to 'measure up' leads to disappointment.

We need rich people. We need clever people. Without them, the rest of us wouldn't exist. You want equality? Move to the Third World. Plenty if it there - everybody except a very few, who don't use their wealth to create jobs, services etc - are all equally hard up.

I believe the article is nonsense, given nobody but nobody is even considering engineered equality outcomes! And we don't need to tax the wealthy more than Joe average, just ensure they pay tax and at the same rate as Joe average! Which ought to be around 15% given the better off can so arrange their affairs, so as not to pay more than 15%.

Finally, the better off have to stop playing the BS envy card! It's not an issue! Wealth has little to do with higher intelligence or industrious habits, but rather, the exploitation of others, their industry and talents.

The self made man is a fantasy. Like the one that goes, born in the log cabin, hewn from the wilderness with his own two bare hands.

In summation, the highest tax paid in actual cash transferred to the ATO in 2017 was just 13%. With some paying as little as 4% and up to 40% of corporations paying no tax to anybody. This needs to change and would if tax was an unavoidable flat tax set at a minimum of 15% above a generous tax free threshold.

To get costs down by around half all we need do is eliminate the paper shuffling profit demanding middleman. If China can do it?

Other than that, we need to reduce the cost of energy which at around 30% is along with cascading front loaded tax, one of the major impediments on productivity! Wages at an average of 16% are not the issue, tax and energy charges clearly are the real cost impediments!

Nobody but nobody envies crooks, shysters and conmen. Who by and large, represent the wealthy/energy and water barons etc. And too many politicians are in bed with the aforementioned!

This needs to change even if it means changing the voting habits of a lifetime! The only remedy that remains in the hands of the endlessly exploited!
Alan B.

If that's the mentality Universities encourage then I'm glad my parents couldn't afford to get me past basic Primary education !
With so many problems standing in our way daily one would think these people would look at far less frivolous subjects to spend our Tax Dollars on !

Spoken like a true communist, Alan B. You say "nobody is even considering engineered equality outcomes!" but cancel culture seeks to achieve equality outcomes by silencing people who the left disagree with. The BBC is about to employ people on the basis of their class status so that its employee makeup is more representative of the UK class divisions. For people on the left, it's all about equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
Excellent article, Steven, and Alan B's response shows just how dangerous equality of outcome attitudes are.

Obviously a lot of book & article writing academics are very envious of the very rich. Could it be they think they are more deserving.

There obviously is great satisfaction to be achieved by making a business successful. I have experienced this in a small way, & can only wonder if the feeling is greater when billions are involved, rather than thousands, but they miss so much.

Nothing compares to the first time you put an aircraft down on the deck of a carrier. First the joy at succeeding, then the realisation that you are still alive. Yes nothing quite like it, but winning the Formula one feature race at at Bathurst does come close. Knowing the car was a total wreck just 6 months ago after a 140 Miles/hour crash, & you & a mate rebuilt is also a bit special.

Then there is a special feeling when you sail your yacht into an isolated atoll, up near the equator, & the locals tell you that you are the first visitor, other than the 4 times a year copra boat, in 2 years.

Then again taking a young colt through all his breaking in & training, & have him competing successfully & occasionally winning, & knowing it is the trust you have developed in each other that makes it possible is also pretty special.

There is no way I would change my life for that of the ultra rich, in fact I feel a little sorry for them, thinking of what they have missed.

Interesting article. And I sort-of agree that equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcomes. However, if I understand Thomas Piketty (quoted in the article) correctly, he argues that global capitalism was relatively successful up until the 1980s, precisely because there was a relative equality in the system. There was a strong middle class. Since then, the system has become more unequal. The rich are growing richer and the poor are growing poorer. Piketty argues that this is bad for the economy and bad for society.

Why is this philosophy of equality limited to humans?
Is that fair that it does not extend to animals?

equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcomes.
Dr James Page,
The whole world knows that first hand !

Opportunity + Self-effort = Outcome

We all initially had the exact same opportunity, but we all use it differently, thus gain different outcomes.

The illusion of different opportunities is due to our artificial dissection of time, when we look at and consider only the latest segment of time, i.e. from our last birth till now.

Of course we all had different opportunities at the time of our birth, but we also had many earlier births in which we made so many choices that ended up affecting our current birth circumstances such as our family and its wealth, genetics, intelligence, luck, etc.

Nothing is unfair about God bringing us each our deserved fruits of our previous actions, including in previous lives: doing otherwise would in fact be unfair.

Even when our immediate prospects are poor, we then all start again from where we are at now and make renewed efforts for a better long-term outcome.

Yuyutsu- Yes equality between humans and animals. Most people don't understand how their ideas are anthropo-fascist and micro-aggressive to animals.

Jordan Peterson talks about equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity. Affirmative action quota programs are an example of policies for equality of outcome.

I see the growing wealth inequality as a function of globalization- and it's creeping prevalence. Human's don't seem to be well adapted to societies of 10 Billion people- in the eighties Australia had a population of 14 Million people- in 8 months the world will have 8 Billion people.

Some principle needs to control the power invested at each level of the hierarchy of society- otherwise power will creep to the top. Power takes three forms- force, knowledge, money- society takes several levels- the forms and the levels need to be divided appropriately.

Nations need to be responsible for their own populations and management.

Some global companies need to become national companies (not nationalized)- because of cultural toxicity.

Thanks Hasbeen for your experience. Atlas Shrugged talked about putting pleasure before productivity in contradiction to nature (and Aristotle- effect before cause). Striving has rewards. Kudos.

Joseph Stiglitz' paper on Inefficient Markets was interesting but I suspect I'd be less enthusiastic about his new material

Only those who exploit the less privileged would argue that I spoke like communist. Communism is about state ownership and state control! And not even remotely relating to my comment.

I believe those that earn the wealth should be the ones who own it and those folk are the ones whose bent backs and intelligence creates all our wealth.

Just because some individual has a large bank balance, does not imply he earned it via his own endevour any more than the white shoe brigade, earned any of their ill gotten gains. Any more than Trump did!

I believe in capitalism, just not the extreme capitalism of the average rogue employer.

But rather, cooperative capitalism the heart and soul of all co-ops.

Co-ops were the only private enterprise, free market business model to survive the Great Depression largely intact. And mostly because they were the most cost effective and efficient. And because their profits remain in the local community kept on working until exhausted.

And due to the usual economic flow on factors, made one dollar do the work of seven! And the very economic template we need to employ to guarantee a very robust recovery.

A few very ignorant folk might see that as communism just as they see buddhism or a kabutz or collective as communism!

What the real problem for those who exploit others, is that all the above deals them out just as factory direct sales do! And given all the above eliminate the profit demanding, paper shuffling middleman.

They also halve the cost of living and doing business! Just look at the oil barons and the way they corner the oil spot market to create artificial scarcity to see and understand, these totally unproductive buy and sell parasites, need eliminating!

If that rattles a few cages, allows the morons to go ballistic? I don't give a rats!
Alan B.

Dear Canem Malum,

Yes the underlying problem is population numbers: no amount of tinkering around the ages, economically, politically and/or environmentally is going to make a dent in that.
For any real improvement, human population on this planet ought to be brought back down to around 100-200 million people.

«Atlas Shrugged talked about putting pleasure before productivity in contradiction to nature»

I read the book and cannot recall where it does so.
Can you please point me to it?

The book certainly speaks of principles-before-productivity, dignity-before-productivity and independence-before-productivity, but pleasure too?

Alan B - you wrote "nobody is even considering engineered equality outcomes" but that's exactly what the currently dominant political forces in the western world are demanding. BLM, Extinction Rebellion, Cancel Culture, aspects of the LBGQI+ movement - they all want their preferred outcomes without the effort of using the opportunities that exist in our largely free planet. Even Biden and his crew in the USA are relying on MMT to engineer a monetary outcome that is largely responsible for the current high inflation.

I believe in capitalism, just not the extreme capitalism of the average rogue employer.
Alan B,
That extreme is the most destructive decease in the history & future of this world. Most of the super wealthy suffer from that alongside the massive hordes of public service bureaucrats.
I don't know the scientific term of this decease but the common term is GREED !
The Academic elite's agenda is to promote this non-contributing sector of society as vital by pretending to be part of the learned, useful & desirable professional circles. This con has enabled this crowd to worm itself in the taxpayer funded very comfortable "middle class" for literally nothing in return !

Yuyutsu-

It's satisfying that you see the population problem- there are several wise visionaries on OLO that see the problem- but sadly many on the outside don't.

In answer to your question. Thanks for your question- It's a bit rough and I haven't been able to find the quote- but the following demonstrates the point I believe.

http://www.azquotes.com/author/524-Aristotle/tag/self-esteem
Happiness does not consist in pastimes and amusements but in virtuous activities- Aristotle

Ayn Rand on Self Esteem
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-esteem.html

From Galt's Speech- "Every act of man’s life has to be willed; the mere act of obtaining or eating his food implies that the person he preserves is worthy of being preserved; every pleasure he seeks to enjoy implies that the person who seeks it is worthy of finding enjoyment. He has no choice about his need of self-esteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality."

Aristotle is associated with these...
https://academyofideas.com/2015/11/introduction-to-aristotle-knowledge-and-the-four-causes/
‘…one should have surveyed all the difficulties beforehand because people who inquire without first stating the difficulties are like those who do not know where they have to go.’
“. . .it is not insofar as he is man that he will live [a life of contemplation], but in so far as something divine is present in him. . . If intellect is divine, then, in comparison with man, the life according to it is divine in comparison with human life. But we must not follow those who advise us, being men, to think of human things, and, being mortal, of mortal things, but must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal, and strain every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us; for even if it be small in bulk, much more does it in power and worth surpass everything.” (Nicomachean Ethics)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Etymology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Search terms you could use are

Cause and Effect
Aristotle
Fun/ Self Esteem

I may have remembered the item about Aristotle from book on Objectivism, Fountainhead, commentary- but permeates Atlas Shrugged allegory. I've been unable to lay my hands on the exact quote but include it in future posts.

I've made a project of absorbing the meaning of Atlas Shrugged through many many attempts so I expect that someone who has only read it one or two times wouldn't have a thorough sense of the story.

Text of Atlas Shrugged
http://archive.org/stream/AtlasShrugged/atlas%20shrugged_djvu.txt

"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 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?

James Taggart when he dates Betty Pope and Cheryl Brooks doesn't "feel" anything but a dull sensation- he doesn't care about sex- and he seems generally bored with life- the implication is that people such as James don't feel

When James Taggart talks to Dagny Taggart about the Rio Norte line supporting critical production in Colorado- James provokes Dagny by saying "not everybody can think about engines and locomotives- you don't feel anything" Dagny says sarcastically in reply "you're right I don't feel anything". James could never understand real feeling because his existence is essentially a denial of thinking, feeling, reality and life in general.

At one of the parties perhaps either 1. Reardon's Wedding Anniversary or 2. Jame's Taggart's wedding- Dagny and Hank talk about most people ie looters and moochers- don't know how to enjoy themselves.

When Dagny and Henry are intimate the implication is that- it is right to feel strongly and engage in intimacy because they had been greatly productive together in the creation of the superlative John Galt Line. Cause and Effect.

http://www.atlassociety.org/post/the-best-within-us

A cardinal principle of the Objectivist ethics is that, in Ayn Rand’s words, “productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values.”

Eddie Willers recalls a childhood conversation with Dagny Taggart- "To hold achievement as a global value is to take satisfaction in the act of building, making, discovering, solving problems."

Fountainhead-
Finally, of course, there are people who work for the sake of achievement, who take intrinsic satisfaction in the act of producing and for whom all other rewards are secondary.
Howard Roark to Keating “You’ll get everything society can give a man. You’ll keep all the money. You’ll take any fame or honor anyone might want to grant. You’ll accept such gratitude as the tenants might feel. And I—I’ll take what nobody can give a man, except himself. I will have built Cortlandt.”

ENJOYMENT

To hold enjoyment as a global value is to operate on the principle of hedonism. This view of life is not limited to those who seek constant stimulation by food, drink, and sex. The Greek philosopher Epicurus said that we should seek enjoyment in serenity, a quiet life of moderate pleasures.

Another form of the same basic principle is represented by the adventurer, who seeks the stimulant of risk. And another form can be seen in the connoisseur, who seeks refinement in his pleasures. Thus enjoyment as a central value may take many different forms. What unites them all is the attitude that the meaning of life lies in the enjoyment, the experience, of things that are regarded as values.

Enjoyment pursued as a primary value has a hollow core.

And that is the problem with making enjoyment one’s central value. There is a passive element in enjoyment; it is a response to values. But life is action, and control over one’s life requires active engagement with the world on one’s own terms. Someone who pursues enjoyment as a central value tends to discover at some point that his life has not added up to anything, that he has drifted along without leaving a wake. Enjoyment pursued as a primary value has a hollow core, unlike the kind of enjoyment that is a response to values one has created. It is pleasing to see a beautiful garden, but there is a much deeper sort of pleasure in the sight of a garden one has designed, planted, and cultivated oneself.

http://theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/

Human life does not require human sacrifice; people can live without giving up their minds, their values, their lives; people can live without murdering, assaulting, or defrauding one another. Nor can human sacrifice promote human life or happiness; it can lead only to suffering and death. If people want to live and be happy, they must neither sacrifice themselves nor sacrifice others; rather, they must pursue life-serving values and respect the rights of others to do the same. This is the basic principle of rational egoism—and the moral foundation for a proper social system.

Dear Canem Malum,

This is a lot of information, quite overwhelming as I did not expect such a huge response. While much of it is interesting, surely you do not expect me to find the time to relate to each and every idea expressed by the characters of Atlas Shrugged.

I apologize for my vagueness making you do all this homework without good cause: there is a difference between what an author or a book is saying and what this-or-that fictional character in their book said - obviously each book has good, bad, ugly, wise and idiotic characters, each of which could say practically anything, but what out of this was the author themselves trying to say?

So I go back to your original statement:
«Atlas Shrugged talked about putting pleasure before productivity in contradiction to nature»

Is this the view of Ayn Rand herself? I don't think so.
Was she writing in support of that idea - or more likely in order to oppose it?
But much more importantly, what is YOUR OWN view in the matter?

Well you seem to have touched on it a bit, but could you please verify whether the ideas expressed especially in your last post (Wednesday, 6 April 2022 9:50:31 PM) are indeed your own and not ascribed to Ayn Rand?

For example, "Enjoyment pursued as a primary value has a hollow core".
And if this is your personal conviction rather than Rand's, then you also need to present your own notion of "Enjoyment" because as much as it may seem clear to you, different people, believe me, can in fact understand this term ("Enjoyment") very differently.

Ayn Rand's ideas are tools in the box- but need to be taken in the appropriate context. Apart from that I believe I've answered your question Yuyutsu. I'm satisfied that you found the answer as you say "interesting". Re-read my previous answer if you are unsure- but I believe your follow-up questions are inclusive. The limitations of language.

I've included a link to the text of Atlas Shrugged if you need to check the exact wording of my quotes/ paraphrasing- you can do a search from the browser- you said that you read the book so you're somewhat familiar with the story- though you may have read it some time ago.

As I said I have been unable to find the exact or close comparable quote that I remember (the book is 1000 pages long) but I have given evidence that Ayn Rand believed it to be true "Atlas Shrugged talked about putting pleasure before productivity in contradiction to nature". As to whether you consider my evidence to be good evidence I leave to yourself and others to judge.

Dear Canem Malum,

Yes, it was quite a few decades ago when I read Atlas Shrugged (and two other of Ayn Rand's books).

«I have given evidence that Ayn Rand believed it to be true "Atlas Shrugged talked about putting pleasure before productivity in contradiction to nature»

I think that she placed intellectual satisfaction higher than any other pleasure and higher than productivity, but I doubt she placed ordinary sensual and emotional pleasures above productivity.

Yuyutsu said- "I think that she placed intellectual satisfaction higher than any other pleasure and higher than productivity, but I doubt she placed ordinary sensual and emotional pleasures above productivity. "

Answer- Possibly.

Ayn Rand said that you have to do something before you can feel good. In Atlas Shrugged- the 20th Century Motor Factory inherited by the heirs introduced "from those with the ability to those with the need". They talked of introducing many altruistic policies- a new school for the workers- expensive hand made lace curtains in the windows of every workers new cottages- but not focusing on profitable policies-inevitably closure occurred- owners pointed the finger for the closure on others greed- rather than stupid policies.

In the book the moochers belief was that anybody can run a factory or business if they are just given the chance by the greedy- but when they inherited a factory they always found a way to mess it up.

Ayn Rand's point was that capable people will find a way if the government stays out of the way- and incapable people will find a way to mess it up even with a lot of help.

Incapable people will look at capable people and see the end results of all their work- the expensive and powerful new cars, the clothes, the jewelry, the women, the enormous house- and they will covet it without understanding that standing behind all these superficialities stands an empire that contributes to the livelihoods of thousands of people in a hierarchy that represents their contributions.

Ayn Rand- says through the mouth of Francisco D'Anconia that it's not enough just to get money by stealing it- because you'll just lose it again- you'll corrupt the community that you get it from- rendering your "wealth" meaningless.

She said that the source of true wealth is in the mind- and this is something that cannot- in a sense- be stolen- only given away wisely or unwisely.

The question being why would a great and wise thinker act against wisdom.

Rand gives many many examples of how you must create wealth- which involves sacrifice- before experiencing the pleasure of wealth. Of course there is some subtlety here.

Rand believed that societies infrastructure and life itself is created by the wise.

Dear Canem Malum,

«Rand believed that societies infrastructure and life itself is created by the wise.»

There is a saying: "Go to the ant, you sluggard, consider her ways and become wiser" [Proverbs 6:6]

Industrious people who are willing to make sacrifices, are certainly wiser than the lazy ones who deludedly think they can get any happiness by cutting corners. It is them who create society and its infrastructure.

But theirs is not the ultimate wisdom: the wisest are those who can distinguish between what is permanent and what is impermanent, then invest the bulk of their efforts into that which can never be lost.

Having escaped the darkness of Soviet Communism, it is clear why Ayn Rand so keenly promoted this mid-level wisdom of being industrious and creative, that kind of wisdom that grants wealth, prosperity and success.

But understanding that all wealth must come to an end and all achievements eventually forgotten, has she also promoted higher wisdom? That kind of wisdom that grants permanent, unshakable, eternal happiness? I do not recall such writings by her, but is it perhaps because I read her books that many decades ago?