The Great Gatsby
discussion
The Great Gatsby vs Atlas Shrugged vs The Grapes of Wrath
Well done Monty. I've been looking for meaty discussion lately and this well satisfies me.For my response in full--first, I ask you to take a gander at a pithy discussion which just flared up between myself and another Goodreader, here on this Charles Dickens book page:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
It happens to be exactly the sort of thing you're raising here. This guy is a fervent advocate of Rand.
Next:
Monty J wrote: "World War II ended the Depression and was followed by another period of moral chaos..."
In the immediate aftermath of WWII, Americans were struggling with sort of malaise, a miasma which looked pretty bad on its own; even before international agreements fell apart. Remember that for a few years the Russians were still considered our allies. But you can see the problems displayed in the movies labeled 'film noir' (by the French). Those were dark times; and they were all our own. American-made. It was a benighted country.
Shortly afterward, I'd say a kind of schizophrenic, artificially-lit way of life took hold: the 'nothing is wrong' 1950s. What prevented the early 1950s from being a repeat of the early 1920s? There were similarly, droves of discontented war vets. Perhaps the new order of the day: 'high manufacturing & production' was the difference? Whereas the 1930s was still agrarian?
In any case, many historians would say that regardless of the unquiet and 'disturbed sleep' of our citizens, we were in fact at our apogee. The height of our peace and prosperity; and beloved by our neighbors around the globe.
But back to your original, top-level question:
Monty J wrote: "Am I the only one who sees the similarities between Atlas Shrugged and The Great Gatsby? ..."
I think there's an obvious and readily-discernible similarity. You needn't worry that the rest of us don't see it. We do.
Your question should be extended: admit outright that the two philosophies are conjoined...what's the conclusion we then ought to draw?
Capitalism is heinously selfish and self-centered? Naturally so. I thought that was already admitted to openly by everyone. Who denies it? Conservatives have never been shy about professing the 'sink or swim' ethic to the masses (though they themselves, never take this advice).
Personally, I don't really see a direct connection, other than of course the fact that both novels engage with the issue of capitalism in America.By my reading, Gatsby is a critique of the decadence and moral decay caused by unchecked capitalism. Atlas Shrugged is a critique of socialism and the growth of the welfare state -- essentially an argument for unchecked capitalism. So, yes, I suppose they are connected, but they make opposing arguments.
In the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand portrayed her capitalists as "doers": entrepreneurs and producers whose leadership (not labor!) results in goods or infrastructure (railroads, metals, buildings) that used by the "takers" (politicians, publishers, etc). The capitalists are immensely proud of their achievements, and scorn as non-persons or non-individuals those who do not have achievements of similar scale -- even those who worked for and with them to achieve.Fitzgerald portrayed his capitalists as idle dilettantes. If they have achievements, we don't know about them.
I suppose that the situation in The Great Gatsby could be construed as the outcome of Atlas Shrugged, in the sense that the characters in Gatsby could be the children (or grandchildren) of the characters in Atlas.
That's one of the many flaws in Ayn Rand's philosophy: the wealthy are not by definition "doers", and in fact are often (not always!) the very "takers" that she views with such disgust.
As novels, I remember enjoying The Fountainhead, but finding Atlas Shrugged too long and didactic. As for Ayn Rand's political arguments....eh. I wonder: does anyone know of a good novel that outlines a more humane/sustainable political philosophy? Is there an Ayn Rand of the Left?
Eremi wrote: "Personally, I don't really see a direct connection, other than of course the fact that both novels engage with the issue of capitalism in America.By my reading, Gatsby is a critique of the decade..."
More importantly, one shows the consequences of the other and is therefore a forewarning.
Eremi wrote: "Is there an Ayn Rand of the Left?"It doesn't necessarily have to be from "the left."
When I was in college, before the politics of Randism infected the reasoning even of economists, Economics was taught from a perspective that government controls were necessary to prevent the destructive market distortion and exploitation by capitalist cartels such as what HL Hunt and some Saudi princes did in the '70s by cornering the silver market.
Either a Harvard degree in Economics isn't worth the paper it's printed on or powerful econonmists were actually culpable in the Bush-era Great Recession.
But as for a novel demonstrating this, I suspect several are in the works.
Eremi wrote: "I wonder: does anyone know of a good novel that outlines a more humane/sustainable political philosophy? Is there an Ayn Rand of the Left?..."
Rosa Luxemburg was the leading socialist thinker of her day; and articulated a better conception of socialism than the flawed model Lenin awkwardly arrived at. Her ideas still shine; though she did not write novels.
Let me consider some other candidates to satisfy your question.
I saw this thread and I had to weight in:For starters, I read "Gatsby" and I just can't get into the style. F. Scott Fitzgerald, as great a writer as he was, didn't really catch my fancy with this work. Granted, it is an excoriating commentary of the 1920s in America, but so are most of Dickens' works a commentary of the Gilded Age.
Now Rand is an entirely different matter. Brilliant as she may be linguistically, her books come across as a twisted morality play - extolling the virtues of producers over consumers, and declaring that all but the most privileged are little more than mindless drones. Where I believe she fails miserably is in her ability to humanize her characters - they all come off as people who should be loved because they are hated. Her own personal trauma shines through in her work - remember this is a person who fled the Communist Russia and has a visceral hatred of government in general.
If there is anything Gatsby and Atlas have anything in common about, it's the way they approach unchecked capitalism from different starting points, but prove the same thing - unchecked capitalism, like unchecked communism, are ideals but ultimately yield to the human character flaws of greed and avarice.
Not sure I can get behind the idea that Atlas Shrugged has better writing than The Great Gatsby, but hey, to each their own.
I never said it was better writing, just that I couldn't get in F. Scott Fitzgerald's style. They are actually about the same in terms of quality.
Aie! Ayn Rand and F. Scott Fitzgerald the same in terms of quality? I disagree! Fitzgerald is a lovely writer; Ayn Rand can tell a good story, but her prose?....eh. But yes, of course, to each his own....
I read her back in my teens and recall that her character development was weak.
Holy good shit, contrasting Atlas with Gastby? Why?
Aaron wrote: "Holy good shit, contrasting Atlas with Gastby? Why?"Your question should be answered in the first two posts. Gatsby satirizes Atlas by showing what happens when Rand's unbridled capitalism runs amok. The Grapes of Wrath and Butterfield 8 show the consequences.
Wasn't Ayn Rand's writing twenty or thirty years later?
Mkfs wrote: "Wasn't Ayn Rand's writing twenty or thirty years later?"Yes. She probably used Gatsby as research material. (I used the term "peek," but "preview" is what I meant. Changed the wording accordingly.)
Monty: "Rand's rational self-interest is just a code-phrase for greed and hedonism."I could care less to get into a political debate about who is right or wrong, but the above statement is a horrific misstatement of Rand's philosophy and to not call it as so is intellectually dishonest.
As mentioned above, Rand's philosophy is about doers and takers. Hedonism and decadence is pretty exclusive of real doing in the Rand sense. Her characters are brazenly hard working, focused, intelligent if not privileged. Nowhere in the stories is there anything to ascribe the decadent lifestyle of doers. In fact, she is trying to ascribe the takers as the lazy and decadent denizens.
I don't take issue per se with the greed adjective, that is how you see it, only the latter.
You mentioned that you haven't finished it. I suggest looking up the 65 page speech and reading that for starters. I think that sufficiently covers the main theme.
JoshuaJust keep in mind that it's the drone bees that keep the queen swarthed in indolent luxury.
I think it is a symbiotic relationship that we have. Without the drones the Queen would have to do everything themselves and they wouldn't be very productive. Without the Queen the drones would be clueless and doomed.
There are always drones that could fill the Queen's role.Without the drones the Queen wouldn't get anything done. She'd be too used to her luxurious lifestyle to get off her fat fanny and do any work.
Joshua wrote: "Without the Queen the drones would be clueless and doomed."It's a poor metaphor. A queen can do only three thing: eat, lay eggs, and kill other queens. (She mates only once; you can count that if you wish.) The first thing a queen does upon hatching is kill every other queen she can smell.
The drones do all the work, providing security, food and shelter. They communicate and cooperate. The only thing they need a queen for is to lay eggs, a brood mare on steroids, if you will.
The doer-taker concept exists nowhere in nature. It is a figment of Rand's imagination--a toxic construct designed to weaken democracy by appealing to narcissists. When people cooperate, mountains can be moved, pyramids raised, rivers rerouted, dams built. Screw them over and they will rightfully revolt.
Put any group of people together and they will eventually elect a qualified leader and get things done. This includes killing a narcissist or two if necessary.
Whew, Monty that was too much of a novel thought but then Marie Antoinette got her blade and the Romanov's their firing squad.The problem with revolutions of course are that so many eat their own initiators. The French Revolution, the Iranian, the Cuban, the Mexican-each ended up destroying so many of those that started it.
It's not so much an appeal to narcissism but to greed. Why if I am exploitive enough, shrewed enough, driven enough and amass a fortune for myself, why shouldn't I keep it all? Why shouldn't my taxes be lowered, after all I am providing the masses with work.
What is tragic is that so many people who will never amass wealth think that this is acceptable.These same people don't value their own work significantly. And they refuse to acknowledge that the 15% tax rate inexorably falls heavier on a person earning $50,000 than one earning 5 million.
Geoffrey wrote: "It's not so much an appeal to narcissism but to greed. Why if I am exploitive enough, shrewed enough, driven enough and amass a fortune for myself, why shouldn't I keep it all? Why shouldn't my taxes be lowered, after all I am providing the masses with work."Greed in and of itself, is not bad; it's a matter of degree and excess and megalomania and collusion. From Bejing to Timbuktu, its been proven time and again that these people collude to rig the system in their favor.
Why if I am exploitive enough, shrewed enough, driven enough and amass a fortune for myself, why shouldn't I keep it all? Why shouldn't my taxes be lowered, after all I am providing the masses with work.
They can and have been. Many corporations don't pay taxes at all. The problem is when these same people expect the little guy to lay his life down to preserve and protect his largesse during war. And there will be war. Because his counterparts in other countries are just as greedy. All the little guy has to do is refuse to fight.
The America that our forefathers built and fought to preserve no longer exists. Where we are headed is hardly worth fighting for. It's only a matter of time until a critical mass wakes up to this fact.
What is tragic is that so many people who will never amass wealth think that this is acceptable.These same people don't value their own work significantly. And they refuse to acknowledge that the 15% tax rate inexorably falls heavier on a person earning $50,000 than one earning 5 million.
I don't think these people think much. I think they vote based on identity, not intellect. As long as the GOP/Bircher-types can manipulate them with WASP fear and the four Gs (God, Guns, Gays, and Gynecology), they will vote accordingly. Anything blacks are for, they are against. Same with gays, guns and abortion.
No, Monty, you are right but I think you miss my point that there are many people out there who believe the wealthy need greater tax breaks because, after all, they are successful and that is a viable perk of the affluent. I was a bit surprised to learn how many people actually believe that when I went to party which consisted of only republicans, all of whom were middle class.
Geoffrey wrote: "No, Monty, you are right but I think you miss my point that there are many people out there who believe the wealthy need greater tax breaks because, after all, they are successful and that is a via..."Yes, I know those people. I used to be one of them. I came to California in '78 as a staunch Reagan Republican with those same views, even after Watergate. Rush Limbaugh got his start in Sacramento, my home town in 1981-86. I thought he was funny as hell.
Then I grew up.
Republicans can add and subtract. Deficit = revenue (taxes) minus spending. Reduce revenue while increasing spending (a la wars) and you get a gargantuan national debt that reflects either a brainwashed disassociation of cause and effect or a deliberate plan to bankrupt the nation so the wealthy can have free reign. Fascism.
I suggest that that Atlas is the Bircher/fascist's bible, a toxic Koolaid drunk by three generations of Lord of the Flies' Jack Merridews bent on getting theirs and to hell with the rest. The national debt is the result.
Now this is a topic worth getting excited about. And I'm very glad you introduced it Monty. Especially in today's toxic political climate where Rand is cited by every two-bit charlatan who may or may not have even read it, I feel like an honest appraisal of her thought, an examination of the very notion of the American Dream, and some proper historical context to the debate is necessary!Speaking of which, I do like the way you're noting putting Rand and Fitzgerald's thought into context. The Roaring Twenties, not unlike Victorian England and the Wild West, were periods in history that only looked good from the front. The criticism that emerged was not unlike that which was made in the 1990s, another time when the economy was said to be robust, but the gap between rich and poor, underemployment, and the dwindling power of organized labor said otherwise. This too culminated in an economic crash brought on by irresponsibility and deregulation.
Rand, on the other hand, came along at a time when the relationship between labor and industry was comparatively quite positive, job security was a reality, and legislation like the New Deal, pensions, welfare, and the Bretton Woods conference had led to the greatest expansion of the middle class in history. And yet, the atmosphere was permeated by fear and hatred of all things "socialized" or socialist, and revisionist theories about the interwar period were treated seriously by academics, and only because of the atmosphere of paranoia. Could Rand have been successful herself were it not for this atmosphere?
Eremi wrote: "As novels, I remember enjoying The Fountainhead, but finding Atlas Shrugged too long and didactic. As for Ayn Rand's political arguments....eh. I wonder: does anyone know of a good novel that out..."
Try this Pacific Edge: Three Californias (Wild Shore Triptych) by Kim Stanley Robinson
Monty J wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "No, Monty, you are right but I think you miss my point that there are many people out there who believe the wealthy need greater tax breaks because, after all, they are successful ..."Extra tax breaks and perks as trophies for becoming financially successful was an idea that never appealed to me. If you are wildly successful then you have enough moneys to pay at least the same rate as everyone else. Giving additional capital to the wealthy doesn't necessarily create more jobs. It simply puts more money in the super rich's pockets and their toys get inflated in price, making yachts, precious gems, and antiques higher-priced. The vendors to the super wealthy end up with better income, which would only cause luxury services to rise in prices as well.
In today's economy the USA doesn't need increased capital formation considering that corporate profit was 1.7 trillion last year, .6 trillion more than Bush's year 2007. (2008 saw corporate profit at a dangerous low of 300 billion, nearly precipitating a depression). If anything in today's economy, the economy needs a consumer stimulus. That is why it is so necessary to raise the minimum wage, other than that minimum wage earners are working at poverty wages.
Geoffrey wrote: "That is why it is so necessary to raise the minimum wage, other than that minimum wage earners are working at poverty wages."Fat chance with this congress.
There's another solution that requires ZERO from government.
Billions are locked up in American money center financial megaliths like Citicorp and JPM/Chase, who use our consumer accounts to finance overseas investments. If 50 million Americans removed $1,000 from Wells Fargo or BofA or City or Chase and transferred it to credit unions and small local banks, the effect, using a 10% reserve ratio, is $500 billion available for job-creating domestic lending.
And a big message is sent to Wall Street.
In my case I removed all my monies from big banks around 1978 to credit unions. I couldn't stand the impersonal service of big bank employees.Get it rocking, Monty. It's a fabulous idea. But the problem is not enough capital here in the USA but a persistent lack of consumer spending if I am not mistaken. But your move would send a message to Wall Street that it must accept some governmental reforms.
That may already be in the works as some major Wall Street players are now considering having the feds split up some of the major banks. I don't recall which but it was just in the news last week.
I have been reading this debate with interest even if I wish not to get involved in a serious way. One thing though I feel I need to clarify a bit is the idea of tax breaks for the rich. I think that motivation isn't quite correct.I am a professional macro investor for a non US institution, living abroad for the last few years, although I'm american. I worked on "wall street" my whole career.
I think the idea of tax breaks for the rich became popularized in the Regan administration as the so called "trickle-down" effect to motivate large corporations that have a disproportionate affect on our economy to invest, hire and stimulate the economy. It worked on some levels but the cost/benefit is still widely debated amongst economists who themselves even at an academic level are still very politically biased.
Fast forward till today. We live in a post-globalized economy where the top 50% of the S&P 500 get nearly half their revenues overseas, (1/3 for the whole S&P). The same pattern is in nearly every other major index. Large companies are multinational, often only national in legal domicile alone. E.g. Apple's tax haven in Ireland.
The argument is not so much about courting the big corporations to invest in your economy, although there is still that, but to keep domicile in your country (and hence can continue taxation) when they can very easily incorporate in Luxembourg, Ireland, where ever. Some standardization in corporate tax is needed in the G20, or at the very least some convergence. Same goes for working conditions, safety and quality. Essentially take the arbitrage away from multinationals.
In my mind, the above is the real argument being discussed by major officials, the other is media lip service. The one exception is capital gains tax, which I would argue is part of the homogenization of the corporate tax rules. I get the concept for low capital gains. The political support came from the baby boomers who are saving for retirement (how did that work out?). However, I feel the real motivation is a bit more nefarious and in hindsight became apparent.
Joshua wrote: "I have been reading this debate with interest even if I wish not to get involved in a serious way. One thing though I feel I need to clarify a bit is the idea of tax breaks for the rich. I think ..."Well observed, Joshua. And yes you are right, it WAS a Reagan-era notion that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, coupled with corporate tax breaks and deregulation that had already been passed, would stimulate the economy and create growth. But in many ways, this was just a rehashing of old ideas given new form. And as always, the political facade concealed the reality, which was that by the late 70's/early 80's, politics had changed radically from the post-war years.
Hope you don't mind, but you've gotten me interested in a little historical chit-chat. And I would appreciate the benefit of an economist's insight :)
To put a concrete example of the notion out there for discussion. Very recently France trialed the taxation of the ultra-rich (I think it might have been over 1mn/year earnings) at 75%. The result? A mass exodus of the ultra rich to Switzerland and the UK (more to the prior, but the UK officials were public about welcoming them). How much revenue did that raise France? Not much, probably a net negative effect. This is why I say what must be done is some wider (say G20) agreement on the bounds of taxation within some accepted band/range. Total equalization of taxation is not needed, just egregious differences (like Ireland right now). The legal and regulatory environments differ enough across borders to provide some costs to making the switch between domiciles, a sort of barrier to entry.
Monty J wrote: Billions are locked up in American money center financial megaliths like Citicorp and JPM/Chase, who use our consumer accounts to finance overseas investments. If 50 million Americans removed $1,000 from Wells Fargo or BofA or City or Chase and transferred it to credit unions and small local banks, the effect, using a 10% reserve ratio, is $500 billion available for job-creating domestic lending.Let me just add some this this discussion. I don't think the issue is quite so much as big banks versus regional banks, although I haven't seen a lot of hard concrete data, I am still skeptical of that. The issue you refer to is what economists call "velocity of money". Essentially it is how fast does deposits (consumer savings) get recycled into the economy through bank lending to businesses. It directly parallels another media sound bite you may have heard of called "the jobless recovery".
Banks as a whole have not done a lot of lending out to businesses, instead parking the money in reserves at the Fed earning 25bp (1/4%) per annum. The Fed has done all it can to lower long term interest rates so that the lending channel will become unclogged. However, its a two sided story, not just the bank's unwillingness to lend due to stricter regulatory environment, but astonishingly the lack of demand for loans amongst corporations.
This lack of demand stems from very strong balance sheets of corporations flush with cash after massive deleveraging post GFC and a hyper conservative outlook. Costs dropped more than revenue, but companies were very conservative in ramping back up post the crisis. If you read some of the public press conferences of major companies there has been a very cautious outlook for years now. They are investing slowly, capital expenditures has come back at a snail's pace and hiring has been conservative across most sectors of the economy. The velocity of money is slow. Global deleveraging still abounds and keeps a tight lid on inflation despite all the headlines of banks "printing money".
In the Eurozone, the ECB actually started charging banks 25bps to leave money in the reserves because it isn't working through the system. That is to say that monetary policy is neutered there. Fiscal austerity add insult to injury and economic activity is abysmal in the periphery of Europe. Italy's IP fell more than 30% in level returns and hasn't made any of it back. That is depression like statistics. Europe is headed for what Japan has experienced the last 20 years. Hell they are already there.
Joshua wrote: "To put a concrete example of the notion out there for discussion. Very recently France trialed the taxation of the ultra-rich (I think it might have been over 1mn/year earnings) at 75%. The resu..."Don't forget Gerard Depardieu leaving France for Russia to take advantage of its lower tax rates. Though I do wonder if the state of detente with Europe and Russia's floundering economy will change that. Oh, that fat, selfish, drunken bastard!
Joshua wrote: "Essentially it is how fast does deposits (consumer savings) get recycled into the economy through bank lending to businesses."With the recent and current hyper-concentration of wealth, too much money is controlled by too few people. Individuals can collectively swing that pendulum a bit. What I'm proposing moves funds away from that concentrated control, freeing it to actually be lent out for economic stimulation.
If credit unions and local banks get flooded with deposits they have a capital influx and an incentive to expand their loan portfolios, stimulating job growth via small businesses.
Forget Wall Street. They're a lost cause. They have no allegiance to America, only to profits, which means investing where taxes are lowest, labor is cheapest and protected the least and the environment can be raped at will.
Let's put Americans to work instead of expecting spineless greedy plutocrats to do something against their nature. The next step is to wrench control of America back from their clutches. That seems impossible.
The fight for the American worker is analogous to Ghandi's struggle against British subjugation of the people of India. When things get bad enough, maybe American workers will ditch the flat-screen propaganda pipeline, stop shopping at Walmart and Gap, get out the sewing machine and start making their own clothes again out of personal pride and patriotism, rather than pay tribute to faceless plutocrats who have no allegiance to America.
JoshuaSo would a possible conceivably viable solution be to change the rate for loans made outside of the USA to corporations not based here, on the Federal Reserve system or would that be in violation of IMF regulations. In other words, if Wells Fargo or Chemical loaned moneys
to Renault, that dollar amount would be configured into a more disadvantageous Fed rate? ie. For example, if hypothetically WF had loaned Renault 10 billion out of its 60 billion deposits, its rate would ascend to let's say 6% to the Feds? I hope this is making sense. Or that there would be a different corporate tax rate for loans made to non US corporations?
I'm having a bit of a hard time with your question, so let me take a step back at give a tiny bit of background. Small companies typically borrow directly from usually regional banks, often with collateral (like their capital) for better rates. Large corporations that have more clear and solid credit ratings, typically go to the market directly. How this actually works is they get an investment bank, e.g. Goldman Sachs to help them underwrite the bonds and then sell into the market. All available market participants who want can buy the bonds, essentially they become the lender instead of a bank. The Federal reserve rate is more of a benchmark rate, a token rate, a boogie of sorts. Its what other bonds/loans/rates get set in relation to. So for the bond issuing large company, if the Fed lowers the overnight interest rate and/or the reserve rate, the bond might price in the open market at a lower rate too.
Tax rates and borrowing rates are very different things, so I am not sure how to answer. Also if WF loans Renault 10bn, it really doesn't have anything to do with the Fed other than if it violates its reserve ratio requirement, that is to say the Fed says all banks must have, say 10bn, in reserves with the Fed to lend out 90bn, then that is a 10% reserve ratio requirement. The Federal reserve rate is the rate that the Federal banks pay to the other banks for the reserves they are required to keep with the Fed.
The issue of borrowing money to invest abroad is trickier. Best practice typically (but absolutely not always) has the borrower issue the bonds in the country for which the assets or obligations are located (minimize currency risk between revenue and costs). Thus if I am an american company with good credit rating and I want to buy a piece of Renault (French) by issuing bonds (leveraged buy), I might issue Euro denominated bonds. The investment in Renault would be treated as French under French tax rules (I am not taxpert here). If WF wanted to loan money to Renault directly, it should be treated as a French investment and I believe they would be required to keep some reserves with the ECB, but I am not 100% sure about that. Probably why large IBs often underwrite bonds rather than loan directly, although as part of the underwriters agreement they usually guarantee a minimum placement, meaning they buy a portion of the bonds if they don't sell in the market.
Did I partly answer your question?
Also, foreign investing of major banks is NOT why lending in the US is stagnant as I mentioned earlier. Demand for loans has been tepid. And, the current equity market place is rewarding companies that are more domestically focused as the US economy is the best major economy in the world right now. Basel III (you can google it) is placing pretty steep demands on the ways that major banks do business and it is having huge effects on the business models of banks, the lack of liquidity in the marketplace, and the type of lending banks are doing. This is a deeper more OT subject. The introduction of these regulations now are basically the opposite of Keynesian economics (there are quite austere).
JoshuaI will have to read your comments several times to get a better understanding. This is why I find it so difficult to fully understand the ECONOMIST when I read it, I simply am not savvy to the trickier means of investment.
No, I am not raising the question of lending in the US as being so stagnant. I knew that had been the case as until 2011 but did not realize it was still a persistent problem. The issue I see is that American corporations investing in foreign enterprises are not penalized for their ¨betrayal of the American economy¨. I am reaching for something other than what Monty J. is concerned about.
thank you very much for your patient explanation. I only wish I better understood international banking and its multifaceted means. For most of my lifetime I have not been interested in economics but for the past decade, have been. I only wish I had studied it more back in college.
Geoffrey,I understand the lack of interest. I studied statistics, math and later "financial engineering". I hated my literature courses and tried to read as few books as possible when I was young. I liked science and math because there was truth in it, instead of some pompous teacher's highly biased opinions and understanding of what the book is suppose to be about. I didn't have good english teachers. Its only in the last five years that I've read all the "classics" like those listed here. I really enjoy them for myself without the brow-beating mentality.
I am not classically trained in economics, but I've practiced it for my whole career and work with ex IMF, World Bank, BOE economists. I have more of a practical working knowledge, but have read a lot of the academic literature.
Econ 101/102 Micro/Macro really doesn't prepare one to read the Economist in totality. There is a whole language and schools of thought that one wouldn't be aware of without reading about it or talking with economists.
I don't share your sentiments about the "betrayal of the American economy". From my perspective this is borderline xenophobic. I think all human kind has the right to work and prosper. Are poor chinese any less human or less worthy of opportunity than American blue collar workers? Thus I think globalization is a natural and even beneficial aspect of economic evolution. It in part supercedes nationalistic and political thinking.
The part where I take issue is in corporate abuse of an arising system. Taking advantage of marginalized workers, deplorable working conditions, etc. I think global companies need to be ruled by some global standards of fair play rather than just exploiting opportunities for personal gain. What is needed is some kind of multi-national consortium that rules on acceptable global business practices, minimum working conditions, etc. This is in part where I think the evolution comes than makes economics rise above the singular national interest. This would, in my mind, need to include taxation as well so that corporations can't simply arbitrage the tax systems.
Joshua wrote: "Geoffrey,I understand the lack of interest. I studied statistics, math and later "financial engineering". I hated my literature courses and tried to read as few books as possible when I was yo..."
Now hold on, in defense of Geoffrey, there has been plenty of "betrayal" that could be said to be equally betraying to foreign workers and national economies. The argument, when it comes to outsourcing and globalization, has traditionally been that it is a good thing, bringing manufacturing to developing nations, and improving the global economy by removing tariff barriers and artificial constraints.
This is true to a point. However, the removal of manufacturing and service jobs in developed nations and relocating them overseas was not done in the first place to benefit developing nations. It was done to take advantage of the fact that in the developing world, labor was cheaper, standards of living lower, and things like unions, minimum wages, child labor laws, and other legal protections didn't exist or at least not to the same extent.
It also was a cost-cutting measure that ensures higher profits at a time when the fortune 500 companies - who all justified themselves by saying outsourcing and downsizing were necessary because of the "state of the economy" - were posting record profits in the billions. So really, there is ample reason to question the logic and justifications behind it.
That being said, I think that in the long run, something like this needs to happen. Much like the industrial revolution itself, which initially produced much in the way of shocks and painful changes for the world as a whole, ultimately - and even without intending for it - it did lead to the overall increase of wealth and a more even distribution of it.
Much like what is happening today, the initial decision to take advantage of developing nations willingness to work for less has (perhaps unintentionally) created new segments of society in China, India, South America and Sub-Saharan Africa, that are monied and demanding services which is leading to economic growth and expansion. This in turn has created more jobs and more industry, leading to a general upward trend.
All the same, those who pushed for globalization between the 1980's and early 2000's can hardly be credited with having a "vision". Much like the industrialists of old who demanded their workers toil for 14 hours a day for subsistence pay, I'd say it was a matter of the benefits inherent in the machine process that maximized the production of wealth outweighing the individual greed of those who owned them.
Matthew,Wholly agree. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, I am trying to be somewhat brief. I think fighting globalization is a lost cause, as it will likely happen one way or the other like industrialization. This is sometimes coined the Balassa Samuelson effect.
However, my argument is for oversight within the GXX, so that it isn't primarily motivated by cost-cutting/greed/exploitation/tax loops etc. Then in a controlled manner the natural convergence will happen in a more mutually beneficial way.
No, Josh, I'm perturbed by American corporations vying to relocate their HQs so they can dump the onus of having to pay into IRS. The issue of globalization is moot. I agree. Globalization is here to stay and living in a ODC country, I welcome American and foreign investment. I wish there was more of it.I was particularly annoyed by the very hubris you noted among university Literature professors and sought to get out of the program halfway through. Yes, so many of them were so full of themselves and their own ideas. I went to a school that had a particularly good reputation for an English department as so many of them had published extensively but there was little room for discussion or argument. Students simply sat, took notes and regurgitated. There simply was absolutely no room for dissent. I distinctly recall one professor, an expert in Stephen Cranes's RED BADGE OF COURAGE, denigrate in class a student paper because the student had written that she had likened the protagonist to Christlike dimensions in the chapter beginning with him on the battlefield lined with corpses.I distinctly recall after class his musing that there were 20 American scholars on the university level, experts on Stephen Crane, and he knew of only one who had made the false point that the student had. I had failed to note the point myself when reading it, not particularly hard for me as I was not enthused by Crane's writing nor story, but afterwards read the passage again and was firmly convinced that the student had made a valuable point. The student still received an A- on the paper, which the prof had noted to make clear that despite disagreement, the paper was well-written and researched, just to show how fair he was.
Had I to do it over, I would have majored in Political Science but for the life of me had no interest in working for government, not realizing then that there was any need for that major among non-profits or think tanks.
I did take the one basic Economics course and it stuck with me for so many years afterwards, unlike my math or science courses. Recently I've tried to review basic Economics but then again, living in a foreign non english speaking country, it is difficult to get info at libraries. My mastery of Spanish is limited to the reading of newspapers and everyday conversation. I would be hard pressed to understand Economics in Spanish, particularly because their nuances of common economic and political terms are so very different from American English usage.
Aaron wrote: "Holy good shit, contrasting Atlas with Gastby? Why?"Aaron, that's the first thing I thought when I saw this discussion heading. I'm reading through the comments to find out how other people relate these books to each other.
I love Atlas Shrugged. I've read it three times and it's my very favorite novel (Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose is a close second.) I've never seen Atlas Shrugged as anything more than pure entertainment. I think it's the most pretentious mess of a soap opera ever written, with bizarre scyfy elements and the most ridiculous romantic relationships topped only by those 1970s soft core porn epics (Sweet Savage Love comes to mind). Politics? Economics? I've never seen this book in any light other than entertainment.
Monty J wrote: "If The Great Gatsby showcases capitalism gone wild, isn't it a preview of the corrosive effect on society of Ayn Rand's objectivism? I've not finished Atlas Shrugged, but have read extensively ab..."
Monty, you raise some fantastic points for thought. I've never seen Atlas Shrugged as anything other than entertainment, and I try to avoid politics (and the news in general) at all costs.
Feliks wrote: "Eremi wrote: "I wonder: does anyone know of a good novel that outlines a more humane/sustainable political philosophy? Is there an Ayn Rand of the Left?..."
Rosa Luxemburg was the leading sociali..."
Just throwing out a possible name....Upton Sinclair, as a candidate. Another very underrated writer.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I've not finished Atlas Shrugged, but have read extensively about it and watched several Youtube interviews with Ayn Rand--Michael Wallace, Donahue, Snyder and others-- and parallels between Randism and the cultural breakdown of the Jazz Age are becoming apparent. Rand's rational self-interest is just a code-phrase for greed and hedonism.
The disillusionment and confusion after World War I led to the corruption of the Roaring Twenties--the "Jazz Age" iconically rendered in The Great Gatsby and further portrayed in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises.
This chaotic breakdown of cultural values paved the way for the Great Depression that Steinbeck addressed in The Grapes of Wrath. World War II ended the Depression and was followed by another period of moral chaos--the Cold War and nuclear arms buildup, with the unthinkable idea of mass annihilation.
Along comes Rand and her toxic philosophy that has been so destructive to democracy. (Perhaps not incoincidentally, she came from and was educated in a communist country.)
The glorification of greed and self-absorption ("rational self-interest") idealized by Rand in Atlas Shrugged seems hauntingly similar to the hedonism and corruption satirically exemplified by Fitzgerald in TGG with Jay Gatsby, Wolfsheim and the Buchanans.
Today, Randism has been mainstreamed in the thinking of the Republican Party and wealth has again been hyper-concentrated in a small power-hungry elite. We just came out of a Great Recession that can be directly attributed to the influence of Randism (e.g., Rand worshiper Alan Greenspan refusing to regulate derivatives and sitting on his hands while banks gorged on sub-prime mortgages.)
It has taken a while, but during this post-WWII period of Randist influence, American capitalists broke free of the protective regulations put in place after the Great Depression, rigged taxes in their favor and had the Supreme Court redefine speech to include money.
It's Capitalism Gone Wild again, just what Fitzgerald warned us about and satirized in The Great Gatsby.
Am I the only one who sees a strong connection between Atlas Shrugged and The Great Gatsby?
To take it a step or two further: The Great Gatsby satirizes Atlas by showing what happens when Rand's unbridled capitalism runs amok. The Grapes of Wrath and Butterfield 8 show the consequences.
Today we are living the next iteration of what these four books illustrate, with Right Wing extremists in firm control of Congress touting Atlas as their Bible.