Atlas Shrugged

The New York magazine article is quite interesting actually. It's written by an ex-objectivist so it's more balanced than the first one.

For a satirical look at Ayn Rand's social circle I would recommend Murray Rothbard's play Mozart was a Red.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Having heard about this book through the odd mention I was interested, until I read this summary.

It sounds like the conversation in one of those 1950's capitalist propaganda videos.

No wonder Greenspan is interested in it. I think the wikipedia founder is a hardcore Rand-ist too.

I'm going to have to read the book anyway, even if it is as crazy as that short summary makes it out to be. Based off that explanation it seems Rand is denouncing communism in a Nietzschean manner, needless to say she experienced the perversion known as communism on the ground in Russia that Emma Goldman documented so well in her book, so it's understandable that she'd take this view but I can see how this idea of hers could be used to provide the moral justification, so sorely needed, for a free market ideology.

I also recommend Civil Disbedience, a great essay.

donegalfella wrote: »

In other words, the hundred-plus "distressed" faculty were unhappy because the Institute might attract even more non-left economists to a university that, in their view, already had an uncomfortable history of dissenting from their preferred left-wing academic orthodoxy. Signatories to the petition included professors of art history, gender studies, theology, Mexican studies, cinema and media studies, English and evolutionary biology—hardly people who would be au fait with research in economics. I'd be surprised if many of them had ever even read a single page of Milton Friedman's work. They simply wished to shut down avenues of academic inquiry with which they disagreed from a distance—research into free-market economics being one.

Nobody benefits from groupthink. Nobody gains when faculty bind together in a mob in an effort to shut down research on certain, perfectly legitimate topics. But until people can be more tolerant of intellectual pluralism, until left-wing faculty refrain from trying to maintain their ideological fiefdom, and until the Milton Friedman Institute can exist uncontroversially alongside U. Chicago's Center for Gender Studies and the Center for the Study of Race, Politics, and Culture, this left-right divide will persist..

What I think is brilliant about this hilariously misleading statement is that you neglected to mention the outcome of the exploration of Friedman economics.

What did Friedman's brand of economics do to Chile? How many people died under the might of the force required to continue implementing this horrible ideology?

How much did bread cost for the average citizen under the Chicago Boys run with Friedmanite economics?

It was hardly a 'miracle', as history shows us.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seriously? You think Allede's democratically elected governance was just a basket case?

In 1970, Salvadore Allende became the first Marxist to be democratically elected president in the Western hemisphere. In the course of his sweeping socialist reforms, he nationalized not only the copper mines but banks and other foreign-owned assets as well. Along with the redistribution of land under land reform, these actions deeply antagonized Chile's business community and right wing. It is now a matter of historical record that the CIA helped organize their opposition to Allende. A massive campaign of strikes, social unrest and other political subversion followed. In September 1973, the CIA helped General Pinochet launch a military coup in which Allende was killed. The Pinochet government claimed he committed suicide; his supporters claimed he was murdered.

The new government immediately began privatizing the businesses that Allende had seized, as well as reversing his other socialist reforms. But Pinochet did not have an economic plan of his own, and by 1975 inflation would run as high as 341 percent. Into this crisis stepped a group of economists known as "the Chicago boys."

Just to counteract the lie that Chile was a Marxist basketcase, it was on the way to providing for it's historically neglected citizens, democratically. It was under the Christian Democrat Eduardo Montavla before Allende. After Allende was murdered & Pinochet's force-based rule drove inflation up Friedmanite economics were introduced, the beautiful consequences of this move I'll illustrate below.

The Chicago boys were a group of 30 Chileans who had studied economics at the University of Chicago between 1955 and 1963. During the course of their postgraduate studies they had become disciples of Milton Friedman, and had returned to Chile completely indoctrinated in free market theory. By the end of 1974, they had risen to positions of power in the Pinochet regime, controlling most of its offices for economic planning.

The arrangement was a new one in the history of governments. Although Pinochet was a dictator, he turned the economy over to the Chicago boys, and his only role was to suppress political and labor opposition to their policies. This arrangement was presented to the Chilean people as the removal of politicians and politics from the nation's affairs. Instead, technocrats with Ph.D.'s would run the economy according to the best theory available. Those theories, of course, were the "neoliberal" theories of Milton Friedman.

...

Shortly after the 1975 conference, the Chilean government initiated the Economic Recovery Program (ERP). The first phase of shock therapy was reducing the money supply and government spending, which succeeded in cutting inflation to acceptable levels. However, it also caused unemployment to rise from 9.1 to 18.7 percent between 1974 and 1975, a figure on par with the U.S. Great Depression. Output fell 12.9 percent — making this Chile's worst recession since the 1930s.

...


Meanwhile, to prevent the political consequences of such a shock, the Pinochet regime began cracking down on potential opposition leaders. Many just "disappeared." The human rights violations of the Pinochet regime will be reviewed below, but, suffice to say, workers "accepted" this austerity program at gunpoint.

By mid-1976, the economy began recovering, and from 1978 to 1981 it achieved what the Chicago boys called the "Economic Miracle." During this period the economy grew 6.6 percent a year.

Just to set the scene. After ousting a democratically elected government that was on the path to providing for it's citizens that had ups and downs Pinochet's rule destroyed the economy until the Chicago brand of economics was invited to solve the horrible problems Pinochet had created.

During a recession, actual productivity drops as millions of workers are laid off and factories sit idle. But all the potential productivity is still there. During a recovery, actual productivity climbs closer to its potential, as millions of laid-off workers return to empty factories. This gives the appearance of growth — and we should note that this type of growth is relatively quick and easy to achieve. But what happens when all the workers have returned? Then any further growth will have to involve potential growth — that is, the construction of factories and the birth of new workers. As you might imagine, this type of growth is considerably more difficult to achieve.

So this is all that happened that during Chile's "Economic Miracle" — laid-off workers returned to their old jobs. When you take both the recession and recovery into account, Chile actually had the second worst rate of growth in Latin America between 1975 and 1980. Only Argentina did worse.

And even then, much of Chile's growth was artificial or fictitious. Between 1977 and 1981, 80 percent of Chile's growth was in the unproductive sectors of the economy, like marketing and financial services. Much of this was speculation attracted to Chile's phenomenally high interest rates, which, at 51 percent in 1977, were the highest in the world.

Chile's integration into the world market would leave it vulnerable to world market forces. The international recession that struck in 1982 hit Chile especially hard, harder than any other Latin American country. Not only did foreign capital and markets dry up, but Chile had to pay out stratospheric interest rates on its orgy of loans. Most analysts attribute the disaster both to external shocks and Chile's own deeply flawed economic policies. By 1983, Chile's economy was devastated, with unemployment soaring at one point to 34.6 percent — far worse than the U.S. Great Depression. Manufacturing production plunged 28 percent. (8) The country's biggest financial groups were in free fall, and would have collapsed completely without a massive bail-out by the state. (9) The Chicago boys resisted this measure until the situation became so critical they could not possibly avoid it.

The IMF offered loans to help Chile out of its desperate situation, but on strict conditions. Chile had to guarantee her entire foreign debt — an astounding sum of US$7.7 billion. The total bailout would cost 3 percent of Chile's GNP for each of three years. These costs were passed on to the taxpayers. It is interesting to note that when the economy was booming, profitable firms were privatized; when those firms failed, the costs of bailing them were socialized. In both cases, the rich were served.

That last part is particularly interesting.

After the IMF loans came through, the Chilean economy began recovering in 1984. Again, it saw exceptionally high growth, averaging about 7.7 percent a year between 1986 and 1989. (11) But like the previous cycle, this was mostly due to actual growth, not potential growth. By 1989, the GDP per capita was still 6.1 percent below its 1981 level. (12)

So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And defenders of the Chicago plan call this an "economic miracle!"

Aggregate statistics are somewhat better. Between 1970 and 1989, Chile's total GDP grew a lackluster 1.8 to 2.0 percent a year. That was slower than most other Latin American countries, and slower than its own record in the 60s. (16)

Just so everyone can see how the lack of facts on your part served your purpose, it's a shame when we bring in the historical record :rolleyes:

Chile's income inequality also became the worst on the continent. In 1980, the richest 10 percent took in 36.5 percent of the national income. By 1989, this had risen to 46.8 percent. By contrast, the bottom 50 percent of income earners saw their share fall from 20.4 to 16.8 percent over the same period.

This is stability?

Need I continue? I haven't even reached the part explaining the horrendous crimes against humanity & supression Pinochet implemented to scare the people out of resisting this craziness.

A third defense is that the experiment was not a failure at all, but a rousing success. Usually these sort of apologetics are based on manipulative interpretations of the business cycle. The most common is to look to the incredible booms of the late 70s and late 80s — while ignoring the events responsible for them, namely, the deep depressions that happened prior.

I wonder would this be your defense, in light of the details I've provided?

As for Friedman advocating violence, I've never read of this. I've only read of his arguments for removing seatbelts & using the equivalent of brainwashing techniques to coax manufacturers into providing them, and his dealing's with/praise for Pinochet.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm sorry, I was trying to let the record speak for itself so that you don't think I'm just spouting my opinion with nothing to back it up. The coloured parts were just my emphasis, I hope you read them.

Allende was democratically elected, provided better working standards and employment for his people & constantly struggled with ups and downs with the economy - in favour of his people. How is 4% unemployment a basket case economy? Also, he didn't have to murder nearly 3000 people (the official no. anyway) & instill fear in his population in order to continue his policies.

Allende didn't up unemployment to 30% (he got it down to 4% in 1972) , cause 2 recessions in his time in office, cut social services in order to cut the consumer price index, drop family allowances 70% or cut public education, health and housing by 20%. He wasn't perfect, and I don't claim he was, but his people had democratically chosen him.

Milton Friedman has the audacity to claim that Chile was eventually a success after it removed it's dictatorship and was replaced by a democratic society.

In other words, after democratically electing Allende who increased living standards & employment etc... without thousands dying, a dictatorship comes to power, uses the Chicago brand of economics to bring in 2 recessions, increase unemployment, and eventually use public funds to bail the country out of their mess after some fine economics, & that's success? The success of a country is measured in more than GDP, is the quality of life is irrelevant?

donegalfella wrote: »

Eh? Source, please, for the seat belt and brainwashing claims? And can you document Friedman's dealings with and praise for Pinochet?

Sorry, I should have been clearer - he dealt with Pinochet in that meeting yes, he offered political advice to that same dictator who had murdered plenty of people in such spectacles as The Carnival of Death and many others, after ousting the previously democratically elected president - against the public will I might add.

His praise for Pinochet, well;

Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story. In 1982, Milton Friedman enthusiastically praised General Pinochet (the Chilean dictator) because he "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle."

his own words are enough. I don't understand why the wikipedia article has him backtracking slightly, I wonder why :rolleyes:

As for the seatbelt thing, it's on the youtube O'Donahue interview on youtube, here.
His argument is that if you don't have a degree in physics, engineering & be a mechanic then tough luck because if you don't understand the damage that can be done when you crash a car & you choose to drive without a seatbelt then you have chosen to die. It's in your own self interest to acquire all of these seperate views of the world before you get into a car.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well it's good to know that you aren't reading any of my sources because all of the coloured text came from the original source in my first post. I felt the need to quote them because I knew you hadn't read them, it was simply a means of emphasis, to get you to acknowlegde the specifics of the article - which I've heard no comment on.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Alright, I see the emphasis is on slurs and insinuations that Marxism has something to do with Chile's bad economy towards the end of Allende's governance.

What is the single biggest export in Chile?
What was the main source of income for Chile?

Copper.

Export income fell due to a hard hit copper industry: the price of copper on international markets fell by almost a third, and post-nationalization copper production fell as well. Copper is Chile's single most important export (more than half of Chile's export receipts were from this sole commodity[29]). The price of copper fell from a peak of $66 per ton in 1970 to only $48–9 in 1971 and 1972.[30] Chile was already dependent on food imports, and this decline in export earnings coincided with declines in domestic food production following Allende's agrarian reforms.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

(that actually has to be read in order to understand the preceeding stateent)

Now, before this, in 1970 the U.S. pressured the IMF & World bank to reduce Chile's aid from $400 Million to $13 Million in 1972, also the U.S. put $7 Million into Allende's opposition. There was plenty to deal with in Chile and still Allende remained popular, I don't think your slurs explain why an economy that had been getting better in many respects ran into problems.

donegalfella wrote: »

Sorry, I missed that part. Can you indicate, please, where Friedman offered political advice to Pinochet?

For the record, are you trying to argue that when economists from the World Bank and the IMF issue advice to countries such as Zimbabwe, those economists are then complicit with the human rights atrocities in those countries?

I'm arguing that Friedman offering advice, political or economical, (to a man who had killed thousands of people) that enabled his hold over the people of Chile's lives is atrocious. The Chicago brand of economics needed enforcement under dictatorial rule. The Chilean university had previously rejected offers from the Chicago school on hearing the policies, it was a Christian school that accepted the Friedmanites pre-1973, a Christian school with no economics program, i.e. no awareness of how crass a policy theirs was. Democratically the people refused these policies, under Pinochet they flourished. What does that say about these idea? Nevermind all the evidence I've given regarding their failures...

It examines in depth how large U.S corporations, faced with losing firms and mines in places like Chile, offered funding to the University of Chile to study under Friedman in Chicago- it was resoundingly rejected. However the Catholic University of Chile took the offer and soon 100 Chilean students at any one time would be studying and graduating from the ‘Chicago-school’ of puritanical Free Market economic liberalism. They then returned home to teach free-market economics at the Chilean institute in an attempt to convert the countries thinkers. Thankfully their ideas registed nothing on the political spectrum, and in democratic votes the Latin America bloc seemed to more even further to the left and Chile’s copper mines were to be nationalised out of American private hands.
http://keithobrien.ie/blog/?p=138

As regards political advice, how is offering an economic plan designed to save the country Pinochet had economically neglected in his quest of murder and power not aiding Pinochet politically? How is that not explicitly aiding him? How is lauding Pinochet with the highest praise not supporting him? Friedman's ideas offered Pinochet the perfect economic plan, Pinochet could not use democratic means to govern a country in which fear & murder frightened the populace too much to rebel.

In March 1975, the Chicago boys held an economic seminar that received national media attention. Here they proposed a radical austerity program — "shock treatment," they called it — to solve Chile's economic woes. They invited some of the world's top economists to speak at the conference, among them Chicago professors Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger. Unsurprisingly, they gave the proposal their highest praise. The plan called for a drastic reduction in the money supply and government spending, the privatization of government services, massive deregulation of the market, and the liberalization of international trade.

This was not solely the Chicago boys' plan. It was also formulated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, who made the program a precondition for future loans to Chile. The IMF and World Bank would make similar conditions of other developing nations around the world, but none would implement their program as thoroughly and completely as Chile. Interestingly, the World Bank now holds Chile up as an example to be emulated by the rest of the Third World. Considering Chile's huge debt and interest payments to the World Bank, it is not difficult to see why. The debt, devastation, inequality and exploitation that the IMF and World Bank bring to Third World countries in the name of "neoliberal development" is another story in itself. Brazil and Peru are two other notable examples — but Chile remains the worst.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

donegalfella wrote: »

You've referred above to Friedman's "arguments for removing seat belts." In fact, Friedman argued that people should be free to choose for themselves whether or not to wear seat belts, rather than having the state make that decision for them. That's quite a different thing.

Arguing that someone needs a degree in physics to understand the safety implications of driving without a seat belt is just silly.

How is that silly? Kinetic Energy is ½mv², in other words if your driving along without a seat belt & suddenly you crash your body, by Newton's First Law will continue to move under it's own inertia and strike whatever is in front of it (steering wheel, window) not with a velocity v but a velocity v². That is a hell of a lot of difference and scary when you give it serious thought. If someone doesn't realise this implication, (which I guarantee you many drivers do not) and they choose to drive without a seatbelt why should they be allowed to unknowingly put themselves at risk with a beast whose power they vastly misunderstand?

It's in their interest to know that...

Yes, I think so anyway but the reality is many people do not appreciate math of physics, do they deserve to die on account of this? Mind, this is just one example.

I'm all for choice & freedom to choose but when your talking about safety & technical issues there has to be some compromise.

Here's a gedankenexperiment, what happens if a mother chooses to buy a car without seatbelts and then brings her children for a drive & crashes & the kids die when a seatbelt would have saved them. Now, the kids didn't choose to die, nor did they deserve to on account of the mother's ignorant choice. How can a kid be expected to choose? This is the set up Friedman is asking for, unknowingly in a manner similar to that of a persons lack of knowledge of K.E. I'll bet, yet that is the policy Friedman wants. If we introduce some law prohibiting kids from entering a non-seatbelted car then we've come into conflict with our libertarian views...

It's even more interesting if you watched that O'Donaghue video as Friedman talks about how there should be no problem unless the interests of 2 parties conflicts with those of a third party. Unless we're going to make one-person cars with no seatbelts, a 4-seater car is providing the possibility of 3 passengers intersts being conflicted with. Do we introduce cars whose driver seat has no seatbelt yet the passenger seats have them? When does the lunacy end? I could keep going

I see you've been emphasizing the word political in an attempt to
constrict it's meaning to the dictionary definition, I'm sorry that the way
I've used it requires a bit of thought so I'll hope you'll
suspend your disbelief for one moment, regardless of this little
technicality being your only lifeline.

I'll repeat what I wrote:

How is offering an economic plan designed to save the
country Pinochet had economically neglected in his
quest of murder and power not aiding Pinochet politically?

How is that not explicitly aiding him?

Friedman's ideas offered Pinochet the perfect economic plan,
Pinochet could not use democratic means to govern a country in
which fear & murder frightened the populace too much to rebel.
Seeing as he waved democracy on entering into power, attempted
his own crazy brand of governance until the country fell into chaos,
how is taking up Friedman's economic policies with Friedmans advice
not politically aiding him to stay in power?

As for your gross oversimplification & misrepresentation of Chile toward
the end of the Allende government, I thought I'd clear it up

Remember, Allende;

1: Had unemployment down to 4%, Pinochet after plenty of years
to experiment with their perfect ideology
had unemployment up to 30%.
(figures vary but around that number).

2: Was democratically elected, with his people in full knowledge
of his basketcase Marxist ideology.
He won the 1970 with a majority of 39,000 votes and seeing as there
was no majority vote the constitutional mandate for joint congress
decision picked Allende again with 153 of the 195 votes.

Note: He won this election despite plans such as
The Allessandrai Formula & The Million Dollar Offer

3: Did not need to use a school with no economics plan to get into
the country after being rejected by the countries scholars while
they had deocratic freedom to choose their economic future.
(Remember, he was voted in by his people).


4: Raised & dropped his wages many times over the course of his
run in government, (one can speculate as to whether he did this
to better the lives of his people or for some other reason,
there's probably some sick propagandizement Marx wrote in Das
Kapital that you'll let us in on )

5: Increased milk, cement, phonograph, etc.. (see below) productions higher than they had been,

6: Had followed through more thoroughally & quicker with the land reform
policies that had been promised to the Chilean people under Eduardo
Montavla's Christian Democrats, and had been on Chile's
agenda historically anyway.

7: Increased copper output amazingly, despite strikes etc... and, as I've
already pointed out, suffered dramatically as a consequence of the global
markets prices suffering in 71-72. Remember, Chile mainly depended on
Copper & they did not control the world market prices.



Now, I've tried to stick as close as possible to government sources
seeing as you've decided to try to undermine my sources.

I want to show you how much Chile was financed by outside aid before
we just blindly accept your views.

First, I want you to see how much, (and why), the U.S. had put into
Chile from 1964-1970.

This, coupled with the foreign aid I've mentioned, just shows
how in need of aid the country was as Allende tried to reform
this situation. I've already mentioned how sanctions were placed
to reduce foreign aid to Chile over Allende's governnance
and this being implemented certainly did not help things in the country.

I want to make it clear, while the U.S. did not cut off their aid to Chile,
(I believe the law that would of allowed them to do so was written with regard to sugar plantations (Cuba)), they did put heavy sanctions on
foreign aid to Chile to tighten the noose or, as Nixon put it,
"Make the economy scream".


Also, look at how much was spent in opposition to Allende by America;

robindch wrote: »

Anybody who can make it through that 3,000 word post can claim a free drink at the next A+A beers(*).

sponsoredwalk -- try to write more and quote less!

(*) Terms and conditions apply

Does that include me?

When the record is as rich as it is what's the point in offering my opinion?

I think quotes from government documents, (and nobel laureate economists if we're going to get all argumentum ad verecundiam on it), are the perfect antidote to perpetuating slanderous myths...

These things are detailed & can't be written off with single slurs if you want to be serious. There's less chance of some of the things in this song coming into play :pac:

As for Ayn Rand, there is a film about her life called A Sense of Life that would probably clear up some of the idea's in this thread about her being depressed etc... I haven't seen it yet but if anyone is interested there is that as a start, it would probably put Atlas Shrugged into greater context.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the best thing is to think about what you're saying before you slanderously use facts to defend your point of view.

I must say it's very insulting for you to chastize people on here for not having an intelligent discussion over Rand's work & then to go off labelling Chile as X,Y,Z while attempting to defend a brand of economics that promoted misery amongst people for years, eventually leaving the country far worse off than it was before...

What's worse is that you use these people (chicago school) as an example of being the brunt of leftist groupthink... It didn't take a genius to see the flaws in their shock treatment brand of thought, & now that we have the objective test it's clear to all of us what was clear to many level-minded individuals in the 60's.

As much as you like to use the evolutionary biologists etc... who signed that petition as a means to discredit it, and further some leftist conspiracy, how do you rationalize the Chilean universities abject refusal of complying with the Chicago school? I suppose the communications went on with the Chilean biology department, not the economics department :rolleyes:
In any case we have our laboratory case, (as close as history can permit), and it comes out in favour of those darned evolutionary biologists...

This is very similar to the way creationists use the controversey to get different viewpoints into the science classroom.
People criticizing these idea's doesn't automatically qualify them for disney movie style underdog support.

It's all well and good to fight for a fair conversation when it's in your interest, but on a topic that isn't, well that's a different story now :pac:

I also recommend you read Derrida's Spectre's of Marx & perhaps learn how to correctly apply the term Marxist, perhaps your misuinderstanding of the term is what confuses you & prevents you from replying to the Hegelian portion of Glas...

Dades wrote: »

Don't you mean libelous?

Ooh that's good

I was thinking more slanderous with the basket case comment, as it was meant in that demonic sense, but I think your word is apt to much of this discussion,
ty

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Tunnel vision at its finest. But then that's unsurprising from someone who claims that crime and social upheaval are a consequence of the emergent welfare state. Perhaps picking the Irish crime stats of the 40's/50's (a period of mass emigration and the suppression of knowledge and reporting of varied violent crime) is because pretty much any period prior to that, while providing even less in the way of state welfare support, demonstrate quantifiable higher levels of crime than is the case within our current tepid social democracy, and (has already been pointed out) those states that have a background of proper social democracy, have measurably lower crime rates.

And can we put paid to the notion that a US academic preference for the Democrats over the GOP somehow equates to 'The Left'? The ideological gap between the reality of the two parties is, in practical terms, minimal. It's about as meaningful as stating that those who contribute to FG over the PD's are part of an engrained left-wing bias.

Alright, why do you think I put facts in itallics?

I guess I should have put this ==> :rolleyes: <== smiley
next to the word facts in order to convey the meaning better,
I'm sorry the subtelty escaped you but I was alluding to the
certainty with which you
characterized Chile as a Marxist Basketcase, as you'll see I
mentioned to Dades if you don't believe me...

Now, how could I be disputing something for which I've given 2 years of background evidence to?

What kind of an argument is this?

I've given you 2 years of evidence to explain the coup,
even gone back to 1962-4 to give you more background
to avoid any possible mischaracterizations, but you like to
focus on an extremely small time frame that is the
direct result of what I've laid out for you.

From the content of your posts it seems as though you're drawing
all of your opinions from this unbelievably narrow time frame.

If only history worked that way, unfortunately it requires an
understanding of preceeding events to actually grasp the meaning
of events cogently...

At this stage I can only guess your preplexity with regards to Glas
stems from a lack of understanding of Hegel, who depends on
the entire history of philosophy in order to be understood, I can't
really argue with someone who's willing to focus on the span of
a few months & use those to bandy about marxist basketcase
characterizations to suit some personal agenda.

But what is just hilarious is your source;

He was Secretary of Labor and Social Security, and Secretary of Mining, in the cabinet of General Pinochet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era

You are using the dictators own secretary of labour as a source, seriously...

This is a guy who implemented much his work during the 78-81 Chilean miracle & then got out in 1981, just before the economic collapse in 1982.

I'm sorry but I've given plenty more evidence than the recollection of one of Pinochet's supporters to argue my case, if you'd bother to read the huge piece I wrote in defense of my views you wouldn't have asked me such childish questions.

If we're going onto comments from the Chilean government, lets get a comment from one of Jose Pinera's allies;

Back on topic

Back on topic
In one of the earlier quotes on here from Rand she says that religion was a type of sacrifice of the ideal for the non ideal; she then goes on to state this is a poor model for the modern commercial world; a businessman sacrificing himself to lesser worthwhile projects is a ultimately a waste of everyones time? It appears to me that this quote underlines her tenuous position. If this position were taken as a given by an impressionable young man the potential for corruptibility would be enormous as it encourages the 'greed is good' motto and a simultaneous loss of consciousness about the welfare of fellow human beings out of the principal that ones singlemindedness (selfishness) will ultimately strengthen society as a whole. In actual fact it occurs to me that this is currently the situation with many corporations. Far from strengthening society as a whole, many major corporations, even when they are having a mostly positive economic impact are have an enormously negative impact on the environment - a element that seems to have slipped Rands mind somewhat. BP's premium for drilling rights to Transoceanic was half a million dollars a day so the temptation to take every possible shortcut are evident with the latest estimates being that 25,000 barrels of oil a day are spilling into the ocean causing one the biggest man made disasters ever. In fact the exact same thing happens on every level of Randian behavior and thought - people suffer, get hurt, manipulated or used in order for other people to make inordinate profit. Her "comes around goes around" philosophy seems a bit wishy washy, it relies on the honesty of the very wealthy, it relies on the humanity of those in power, qualities which not encouraged to initiate the process in the first place but will ultimately arise once prosperity has been achieved? Or we are we forgetting about the destitute altogether? Either way I don't like her one bit.