Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's magnus opus, is finally set to become a movie blockbuster. This follows the novel having been planned as a Hollywood movie for the last few years.

Vadim Perelman has been confirmed as the film's director, whilst Angelina Jolie will play Dagny Taggart, the railroad executive who encounters so much opposition and resistance - until she meets the protagonist, John Galt.

These exciting developments follow the 50th birthday of the ground-breaking novel, often said to be the second most infleuntial book in America - second only to the Bible. Andrew Bernstein wrote an article, 'Productivity a moral virtue' published in The Australian on October 8 this year, to commemorate the anniversary.

Atlas is set in the early 20th century, in an American society with socialistic moral values which promote altruism and collectivism, and an economy which is increasingly being crippled by market-destroying government regulations. The more Dagny tries to advance the interests of her company, the more she is opposed by Government bureaucrats who resent her abilities and despise her successes.

The major lesson from Atlas Shrugged still has great relevance today, particularly since the left today are continually questioning economic rationalism, and accusing its proponents of being "market fundamentalists", among other silly labels. Simply put, the primary message of Atlas Shrugged is this: that values which promote innovation, productivity and genius are superior to morals which do not value these traits. As a result, rational ethics will value individualism, moderate selfishness and freedom of choice above values to which many of us are more accustomed, such as self-sacrifice and substantive equality. A social system which rewards people for creating their own wealth, rather than enjoying the wealth of others, is always going to produce a wealthier and more peaceful society than one which does not provide such incentives.

Not only would I recommend that you go see this movie when its out, I would also recommend that you bring as many lefties along as possible, so that they too can witness the ultimate consequence of sympathies towards socialism and relativism.

http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2007/10/altas-shugged-to-be-screened.html

AJFA wrote: "A social system which rewards people for creating their own wealth, rather than enjoying the wealth of others, is always going to produce a wealthier and more peaceful society than one which does not provide such incentives."

Hear, hear. And the present social system rewards people for "enjoying the wealth of others" rather than "creating their own wealth"!

Under our system, the surest path to "wealth" is the ownership of assets that people CANNOT create for themselves. Such assets may be products of nature (e.g. land, minerals, the capacity of the environment to absorb pollution) or of the economic system (natural monopolies) or of the political system (statutory monopolies). Because the supply of such assets is fixed while effective demand increases due to economic growth, ownership of such assets is a means of appropriating the fruits of economic growth -- i.e. of other people's work!

Adding insult to injury, the tax system favors capital gains over earned income. The only assets that reliably yield capital gains are those that cannot be produced by private effort -- because if they could be produced by private effort, any increase in their values would induce more production until their values returned to normal.

If the social system is to give maximum encouragement to productive effort, public revenue must come from the fruits of public effort as manifested in the values of non-replicable assets, while the fruits of private effort -- including wages and salaries and the returns on privately produced assets -- must be free of tax.

When the political Right speaks of rewarding effort and penalizing idleness, it silently exempts the owners of non-replicable assets.

A social system which rewards people for creating their own wealth, rather than enjoying the wealth of others, is always going to produce a wealthier and more peaceful society than one which does not provide such incentives." (Quote:AJFA)

This tripe always amuses me.

'Creating their own wealth' eh? Now, how do they do that I wonder?
All on their ickle own some?

Those that create their 'own' wealth do so with the combined efforts of many others. The ethic you and your little film/ book espouses has NOT created 'a wealthier and more peaceful society'. Look around this orb.

Your so-called Lefties grasp this simple fact with ease; why is it so hard for you to do the same?

Actually, often 'Market Fundamentalist' is precisely the term to be applied.

As with any belief system, there is a sliding scale of belief or faith - those at the extreme end, are characterised as fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists tend to invest a great deal of faith in their preferred belief set and in their view, the virtues of the system take on an exaggerated state, while the flaws are often overlooked.

Market fundamentalists are no different. Same deal with socialists. Anyone who espouses the glory of either socialism or a completely deregulated market, is a dangerous fool.

Yes, capitalism as it stands delivers better outcomes for the vast majority of people when compared to a communist system, which tends to be unsustainable anyway.

But what we have now isn't a pure form of capitalism - but anyone who espouses market regulation is branded as a socialist.

Take the recent Amcor-Visy case. They worked against the market and it was the government that stepped in - in a truly deregulated market however, government wouldn't have the ability to step in at all.
This thread, and this movie, is having a dig at government regulation - I ask, what happens when a duopoly colludes? What if woolworths and Coles decided to do the same for our groceries, and there was no government to stop them?

Market theory dictates that a new player could emerge with more competitive prices. Market 'theory' however, doesn't take into account that powerful players won't play by the rules.

In fact, in order for this to be possible, you would need more of that hated 'government regulation.'

Thus, some regulation in the market becomes necessary, though powerful vested interests will strenuously deny that.

The real question then becomes how much - yes, it's true you can obviously over regulate. The problem becomes when people who oppose this, take it too far.

Plus, market mechanisms have a way of screwing the weakest people in society.

Pure capitalism would be a recipe for disaster. What we need, and have always had in Australia, is a marriage between capitalism and socialism.

Yes innovation, productivity and genius, and greed to a fair extent, are traits that need to be fostered. But there also must be strong mechanisms for the distribution of wealth across society. Otherwise we would end up with an elite class and a total underclass.

That’s pretty damn straightforward. So how anyone can argue the virtues of pure capitalism is beyond me.

I might also add that the prevention or mitigation of overproductivity has become one of the greatest virtues, but one which still goes practically unrecognised by anyone.

When the chase for productivity means ever-increasing rates of production, deliberately fed by the absurd notion that the economy has to be continuously increasing or else we’ll fall into recession, and that the population has to be rapidly increasing in order to provide the necessary skills and labour base, then we are in deep doo doo….which is exactly where we are, in Australia.

So while productivity can be a virtue, it can also be scourge. Similarly with innovation and greed.

The trouble with pure capitalism is that it openly fosters these traits and doesn’t work to keep them under control, as does socialism.

So again, a marriage of capitalism and socialism is the ONLY way to go.

As TRTL says; “Anyone who espouses the glory of either socialism or a completely deregulated market, is a dangerous fool.”

I look forward to seeing the movie.

Ginx wrote: "Those that create their 'own' wealth do so with the combined efforts of many others."

The opportunity to benefit from the "combined efforts of many others" is reflected in the value of the LOCATION at which the opportunity is taken. So, to account for Ginx's observation, it suffices to tax the value of the location -- not the actual "efforts" or the use of them.

LOCATION, a.k.a. land, is one of those non-replicable assets to which I referred in my earlier post.