by Newfie » Wed 27 Apr 2016, 22:46:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '
')
Channeling Ayn Rand Cog?
Actually, I really liked that book. I thought she got the economics about right, all her raving about idiot bureaucrats and who the really smart folks were responsible for keeping them in power.
I read it as a call for revolt against the bureaucrats. Of course the movers and shakers were too busy being in cahoots with the bureaucrats to take responsible charge.
Did we read the same book?
The movers and shakers (the folks who ended up founding Galt's Gulch -- the ones who actually knew how to do industrial processes) sure didn't seem that way to me.
If you're talking about the ones who WERE the bureaucrats, that's different. Or if you're talking the clowns who just got in the way (and yes, they were suck-ups) like James Taggert, etc. -- they weren't the movers and shakers -- they were part of the problem the heroes of the story rebelled against.
Hank Reardon was guilty of having "his man" in Washington (a lobbyist, apparently) since he wanted to focus on running his metals business, but that was to do the minimum required with the "chief assh*les in charge), which I wouldn't call sucking up.
Like me paying my income taxes, partly to stay out of jail, does NOT mean I fully support and endorse the current income taxation system, where people like Mitt Romney pay a much lower effective tax rate than a head of household with the median income.
Same book. By "mover and shaker" I meant Taggert et all. I guess I'd call the Gault Gulch crowd the Atlas of the title.
So, I read it as a call for revolt by the Gaults Gulch crowd. She did not want to eliminate the middle men (movers and shakers) or the bureaucrats, but she wanted the Gaults to take responsibility for the use of their inventions.
It's a fantasy surely, but it is a way of communicating her ideas about how the world works, and I think she had a lot of it right.