## User Tag List

1. Let us look closer at this "objectivist" pamphletism.

The Randists claim that if you give money to the rich, the poor get money by the side.
This is mathematically impossible.

Liza and Tom are siblings. Liza has one dollar and Tommy has nine dollars.
A good Randist, is Liza. She gives her sole dollar to Tommy. Tommy has now ten dollars.
How many dollars Liza has? None.

Money is printed all the time.
That is because it is paper, and paper tends to become wasted and torn when it changes hands.
Only so much money is printed as is wasted and torn.
If you print more money than that, does the money retain its value?
It is inflated. The value of the original money stays the same.

They did print extra money in Germany in the 20s. We all know what happened.
Hitler happened.

If you give more money to the rich, there is less money for the poor.
Money does not increase when it changes hands.

Vice versa. If you give more money to the poor, there is less money for the rich.
This is why the rich vouch for Ayn Rand.

2. Originally Posted by wildcat
Let us look closer at this "objectivist" pamphletism.

The Randists claim that if you give money to the rich, the poor get money by the side.
This is mathematically impossible.

Liza and Tom are siblings. Liza has one dollar and Tommy has nine dollars.
A good Randist, is Liza. She gives her sole dollar to Tommy. Tommy has now ten dollars.
How many dollars Liza has? None.

Money is printed all the time.
That is because it is paper, and paper tends to become wasted and torn when it changes hands.
Only so much money is printed as is wasted and torn.
If you print more money than that, does the money retain its value?
It is inflated. The value of the original money stays the same.

They did print extra money in Germany in the 20s. We all know what happened.
Hitler happened.

If you give more money to the rich, there is less money for the poor.
Money does not increase when it changes hands.

Vice versa. If you give more money to the poor, there is less money for the rich.
This is why the rich vouch for Ayn Rand.

"The wads of worthless paper money were growing heavier in the pockets of the nation, but there was less and less for that money to buy. In September, a bushel of wheat had cost eleven dollars; it had cost thirty dollars in November; it had cost one hundred in December; it was now approaching the price of two hundredâ€”while the printing presses of the government treasury were running a race with starvation, and losing."

3. Originally Posted by wildcat
Let us look closer at this "objectivist" pamphletism.

The Randists claim that if you give money to the rich, the poor get money by the side.
This is mathematically impossible.

Liza and Tom are siblings. Liza has one dollar and Tommy has nine dollars.
A good Randist, is Liza. She gives her sole dollar to Tommy. Tommy has now ten dollars.
How many dollars Liza has? None.

Money is printed all the time.
That is because it is paper, and paper tends to become wasted and torn when it changes hands.
Only so much money is printed as is wasted and torn.
If you print more money than that, does the money retain its value?
It is inflated. The value of the original money stays the same.

They did print extra money in Germany in the 20s. We all know what happened.
Hitler happened.

If you give more money to the rich, there is less money for the poor.
Money does not increase when it changes hands.

Vice versa. If you give more money to the poor, there is less money for the rich.
This is why the rich vouch for Ayn Rand.
If I'm interpreting you correctly, Ayn Rand did not believe in crony capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism and limited government was her belief.

4. Originally Posted by wildcat
This is why the rich vouch for Ayn Rand.
I don't think that's the reason why. It's more than the predator thinks survival of the fittest is the universal law... position in life determines belief.

(I tried to haiku this, I have no talent. Verily, I am a cultural leech.)

5. Originally Posted by ptgatsby
I don't think that's the reason why. It's more than the predator thinks survival of the fittest is the universal law... position in life determines belief.

(I tried to haiku this, I have no talent. Verily, I am a cultural leech.)
@wildcat believes that wealth is a static quantity and that only the rules of arithmetic apply to it.

6. Originally Posted by Mal+
believes that wealth is a static quantity and that only the rules of arithmetic apply to it.
I can hardly speak (for) Wildcat, but that's an oversimplification of what he is overstating. Unfortunately, two extremes don't meet in the middle; they are like probabilities and together as an argument is farther from the truth than either alone.

(Edit: Seriously, is my sentence even parse-able? Threads like this make me wonky.)

7. Originally Posted by ptgatsby
I can hardly speak (for) Wildcat, but that's an oversimplification of what he is overstating. Unfortunately, two extremes don't meet in the middle; they are like probabilities and together as an argument is farther from the truth than either alone.

(Edit: Seriously, is my sentence even parse-able? Threads like this make me wonky.)
It was no overstatement. @wildcat simply looks at wealth in terms of distributing static quantities of cash in a society. Giving two dimes to a beggar means it didn't go to the rich guy, and so on.

8. Originally Posted by Mal+
It was no overstatement.
Over simplification is what I said; it simplifies his argument into a one-dimensional non-truth to reject it when there are elements of his argument that are valid. Assuming you interpret his poetry in a particular way, anyway.

(I am not arguing his position, my comment to Wildcat had to do with the appeal of 'the rich' towards Randian-ism.)

9. Originally Posted by ptgatsby
Over simplification is what I said; it simplifies his argument into a one-dimensional non-truth to reject it when there are elements of his argument that are valid. Assuming you interpret his poetry in a particular way, anyway.

(I am not arguing his position, my comment to Wildcat had to do with the appeal of 'the rich' towards Randian-ism.)
As far as that goes, people from all walks of life find Objectivism appealing.

10. Originally Posted by Mal+
As far as that goes, people from all walks of life find Objectivism appealing.
I have no evidence for or against this. The only demographic information I have says it is a small and isolated group that tends to have sympathizers in college (age groups).

In any case, I'm referring to a known couple of effects, not really talking about objectivists. Those that have money believe they deserve it rather than believe they were lucky/etc, and the tendency to justify this belief through a moral system the discharges any particular guilt or responsibility. It's the same for everyone, the only variation is what we are justifying.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•