Ayn Rand, Why Do Some People Reject Capitalism?

Ayn Rand answers a few questions about the popular perception of capitalism from students at Columbia University.
Read more about Rand's life here: bit.ly/1sEAcGX

[@Jazzper79]

Brilliant. She was such a great thinker. I am so glad I have found out about Ayn Rand, and proud to say that I love her philosophy. Such a genius she was.

[@BuyTheDip627]

Jazzper79 so true

[@damastor918]

I am ashamed that I have only discovered her today.

[@Jazzper79]

@@damastor918 Be proud that you understand how great it is. You are on the right track!

[@damastor918]

@@Jazzper79 Thanks! I will!

[@brooke4627]

She was not a genius - she was a second rate philosopher who linked flawed premises with illogical conclusions.

[@tryfan2638]

I wish I had heard this kind of stuff when I was about ten. Not when I'm twenty-five.

[@AristotelianLogic]

There is still time for you. :)

[@fatman6660]

Bio shock was the hidden red pill

[@picklerix6162]

I didn’t know Ayn Rand was a woman until I was past 30. I had heard of her books but I didn’t realize her genius until I saw the movie “Atlas Shrugged”. Ayn Rand was very prophetic indeed and foresaw the rise of Obama, big government regulation, and the far left.

[@keerthikav2079]

Still better as it’s the most formative years of our lives :)

[@drstrangelove09]

I agree with the top post except I am 63.

[@LibertarianismDotOrg]

“Capitalism has been misrepresented-practically from its inception-both by its enemies and its alleged defenders, but the amount of distortion and misrepresentation which goes on today even though evidence to the contrary is available and is accumulating year by year is truly staggering. It is perhaps the single most misrepresented issue in cultural history.” - Ayn Rand

[@SanjeevSabhlok]

Can we get a complete transcript, please?

[@Chewsstudio]

Sanjeev Sabhlok Every part of this and more is in the book the virtue of selfishness

[@Jazzper79]

When you listen to Ayn Rand, you can hear a true genius. No one alive can explain the philosophy like she could!

[@ramaraksha01]

She is in a car accident - should any person stop and help her? What if they felt that they would be in danger if they did so? Get sued or maybe it was a set up? Should they keep going?

[@Jazzper79]

@@ramaraksha01 Study the objectivist ethics

[@RevoltingPeasant123]

Milton Friedman said if someone is not free to sin, nor is he free to be virtuous. People should be free to choose whether they rescue someone from a situation, whether it may endanger them or not. If the state forces people to engage in such acts of ‘virtue’ they cease to be virtuous as it’s not possible to ascertain whether their actions are from free choice or coercion. Anti discrimination laws are a perfect example of this. You don’t need to look far to find people tying themselves in knots to demonstrate how virtuous and anti-discriminatory they are, because they are not legally free to choose otherwise.

[@Jazzper79]

@jeep23862 I think it requires a long answer, and she did answer that in the objectivist ethics I think under "life boat emergencies". A lot of people don't think objectivists are nice persons, but that is because they don't understand to apply selfishness in the right way. I give you some of it from the book here: "It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save . . . . The principle that one should help men in an emergency cannot be extended to regard all human suffering as an emergency and to turn the misfortune of some into a first mortgage on the lives of others. "

[@Jazzper79]

@jeep23862 You have in someway along your life lost the ability or never developed your ability to think in principles. Jeep23862, you are a pragmatist or philosophically not very well educated - and who thinks it is impossible to induct principles from life, and that is really sad. The doctors, nurses etc are not being smart or good at their jobs if they are doing it as a sacrifice. As far as I know, doctors, policemen etc are doing a lot of thinking and safety to protect their own life. They are not being stupid about their own life. They do care about humanity and they want to help people, not as a sacrifice, but because they care about fairness, about freedom, about justice, about innovation etc. - if they do their job for different reasons, then they are not good doctors or policemen, I guarantee.

[@CineSolutions]

Isn't it amazing the high quality of questions being asked of Rand? Today's journalists would have sought to insult and dismiss her statements and positions immediately. God, how far journalism has fallen.

[@gerrilevin279]

clear clean common sense---"he is willing to give total obedience to the state in exchange for saving him from the problem he dreads most--that is the problem of facing life on his own"--------------thats why there is no reasoning with such a person

[@atlasshrugs4847]

That was in a time when students, whether they disagreed with someone, still allowed them to put their point of view without shouting them down or threatening them with violence.

[@truthseeker3397]

Omg i was only luke warm on Rand. But this interview seems almost prophetic.

[@baronratfish3865]

Thanks! After that endorsement, I'm putting aside what else I was doing to pay closer attention.

[@SpaceMonkey23101]

"What they fear [about] capitalism is objectivity, rationality, and reality." Fantastic.

[@BroJo333]

If Rand thought it was very difficult to be independent in the 60s, can you imagine her analysis of todays America, especially after being off a gold standard in 71 and the devaluing of currency and increase in taxation.

[@billlupin8345]

Income tax and capital gains tax were both substantially lower, both now, and at the time of this post. Gold standard advocates have a fundamental misunderstanding of how economy works. What gives a currency value isn't gold; it's value. Gold is, like money, just another representation of value. A gold standard places limits on the size of a nation's economy, and opens the economy up to currency manipulation. There's no real benefit, and a number of downsides.

[@silvanabaralha8665]

@@billlupin8345 no because NOBODY values state currency except when governments force people to do so and forbids any other means of exchange. There is absolutely no value in printed paper UNLESS governments confirm it is BACKED by what people actually value, which is silver, gold, and a few more commodities. That is why it is called FIAT money: people TRUST that those little pieces of paper CORRESPOND to its stated value in the commodities, meaning that they can withdraw the commodity in exchange for the piece of paper. After Nixon the little pieces of paper are no longer backed by any value, so they will be worth less and less- even just backed up by the trust in the state- as governments print more and more of it, while the wealth they represent does no expand in accordance. This is why those that believe in simple trust are wrong, and those that believe that nobody should be able to make more representations of wealth without being backed by what people ACTUALLY value, which is some form of wealth, are right.

[@billlupin8345]

@@silvanabaralha8665 Not really. US money is backed by basically any good or service you can buy with it. Again, what gives money value is value. Yes, its value is derived from the trust that someone else will take it, just like gold. Yes, unlike gold, you can print too much money. The money represents value, printing more money doesn't mean more value, it means more money that value is divided into. Inflation, basically. Thing is, let's say a society can produce more value, via services, processing materials into goods, etc, more value than its gold can pay for. When that happens, all the value of the gold is in the economy, but production is held back; further production would take more gold to pay for, which you don't have. Thus, fiat currency allows for faster economic growth, provided you print money at about the rate at which the economy grows.

[@silvanabaralha8665]

@@billlupin8345 remember that when goods and services start inflating due to money printing. Then you will realize that paper money, imposed on people, is not the same thing that as goods and services it is given in an exchange for! Having to pay more printed money in exchange for goods and services proves that. Fiat money is fraudulent money, and it is even worse when it has nothing "backing" it up. It is just backed by trust in politicians. All exchanges should be value for value, to the extent that those that are doing that trade agree upon. Paper money is worth nothing! Nobody would have ever accepted it, were it not for it being backed by some value, in this case, gold. It all as been a fraud since Breton Woods!

[@retardationnation869]

@@billlupin8345 I'm not well educated on the effects of fiat vs gold standard. But I will add the side effects of inflation as u already stated(just gonna take it as fact for this). Inflation devalues savings and is put on people by the will of the powers that be. This makes it wholly unjust.

[@legendre007]

Thank you for posting this. Illuminating! ^_^ --Stuart K. Hayashi

[@swmorgan515]

"Capitalism is incompatible with the morality of altruism". She's absolutely correct.

[@jassybee]

I know someone who read Atlas Shrugged and was completely unconvinced. She was raised as a liberal and remains one. Stunning.

[@ramaraksha01]

1. Just read a piece in a magazine about how elderly care-giving enterprises are closing their doors because they can't find enough people. It has led to the children of these elderly to take them in and care for them. 1 sibling out of 4 is taking care of his father while the other 3 don't bother to even chip in for his health care or needs much less volunteering to take care of him Now is Ayn Rand saying that the other 3 are doing the right thing - it is the 1 sibling who is taking care of his father/mother the fool? 2. Countries declare war - why should I go out and fight? Isn't it a better strategy to pull a Trump? Trick knee - oh my God I am ineligible to fight! Certainly if Trump had gone to fight, maybe he might have died or sustained serious damage - look how great he is right now! So, the moral is to find a way to avoid service? What if more people had felt that way when the 2nd world war took place?

[@zeusssonfire]

These are interesting questions. I'll do my best to answer them. 1. Objectivism isn't barbaric selfishness, it is merely a healthy/natural self interest tempered by reason. As Ayn Rand says: it is the *I* in "I love you." There must be an I. It is a pursuit of that which you deem morally valuable via reason. You cherish the values of others, and "trade" your values so you can benefit from theirs. For example, you might value integrity, nurturing and tenderness. Therefore, if you were raised in a healthy environment your parent would have enormous value to you and you would ensure they were taken care of - because their virtue (value acted out via habit) signals their value to you. If you were raised in an abusive household you might choose to leave your parent to their own suffering. You would not be motivated by a collectivist sense of "duty" - but rather you would objectively analyze the situation via reason to decide for yourself what is moral. Because we live in a time dominated by socialism and Abrahamic religion, the idea of not supporting your mother and father might be met with revulsion. On the contrary, children of parents with Cluster B personality disorders (like myself) know that this issue is much more difficult than society at large would like to make it. An objectivist would want to pursue justice so they would consult a variety of sources and people before making their decision, of their own volition. 2. In a free society, men only volunteer for the army if they believe the country is worth fighting for and the cause is just. Unfortunately, in Trump's case and in the case of WW2, the United States enacted draft measures, which are an enormous violation of personal liberty. They remove a man's right to choose: a) if he values his country enough to defend it and b) if the reason for war is just. Conscription treats men as slaves, and forces them to fight against their free will. This is totally immoral. So through that lens, Trump's draft-dodging was not immoral in the slightest. However, let's assume that military service was voluntary and the USA was invaded by China. If Trump didn't enlist, but voted to send men to fight on his behalf, his actions would be morally reprehensible.If a regular man didn't choose to fight because he felt he could be of more use to the country through his economic output, that would be a moral decision. However, if a man refused to enlist when the enemy was on his doorstep for no other reason than cowardice, he is behaving immorally - but, most importantly, that does *not* give you the right to force him to fight. In essence, objectivism is the application of ethics and Aristotelian logic to the everyday issues of man's existence in the pursuit of justice and a noble character. Some questions are cut and dry, others are more difficult. Abortion, for example, is something that even objectivists would disagree on. I hope that helped you understand objectivism better!

[@ramaraksha01]

@William Sheppard That's not the point - the point is whether Ayn Rand is right or wrong in her views If I am reading her right - the son or daughter taking care of her father is the fool while the others are the ones to be admired & of course Trump way is the right way - after all people who chose to serve their country some never come back or are seriously injured, get hooked on pain killers etc I think she got mislead by "survival of the fittest" when now most researchers realize it is co-operation that leads to success

[@ramaraksha01]

@@zeusssonfire 1. Abrahamic values? Excuse me? Are these the same values that condemn me , a Hindu or an Atheist to hell for not believing in the "right" God? A pedophile priest gets heaven but an Atheist who tries to save the little boy gets hell? Those values? Parents have kicked out their own sons and daughters because they didn't believe in God -those values? Abraham was ready to kill his own son because his Master ordered him to - amazing that even highly educated people can't see that Abrahamic religions are Master/Slave religions - God made in the image of the Master - King/Dictator/Stronman - men who must be obeyed without question You see values being taught here? Which societies teach valuing their parents? Asian or Western? 2. Your 2nd point shows you have no clue about war - that is why soldiers hate to talk to civilians about war. Being in the Army is not a democracy - it was never meant to be To risk your life is not about having a choice - it needs to be done - you can't have a choice here Your way even the siblings who didn't want to take care of their parent could say telling me to take care of them is pressure, taking away a choice, therefore I chose not to You are giving an out to cowards and the weak Life doesn't work that way Are you not under pressure to work? To get good grades in school? This is how life works - remember Diamonds are made under pressure What Trump did was totally immoral - if you have enough people to fight as we do that is why you are blind to the consequences - but imagine a scenario where able-bodied men like Trump take the easy way out and on the other side is a man like Hitler - who then proceeds to occupy your land and then starts killing and raping This is why you don't get a choice when facing war - because you are sacrificing yourself for the greater good Running away and saying that's a choice will only be a temporary respite as the occupying army will kill you anyway and now you have died a useless death It is quite obvious that you have never faced an enemy - you are lucky - you didn't have to deal with the consequences of running away

[@atlasshrugs4847]

@@zeusssonfire Excellent!

[@hermittraveler2163]

I'm tucking myself to bed while listening to this.

[@JamesFenkner]

Excellent audio. The language is dated but the concepts timeless. Would Libertarianism.org please include the date in which this original recording was made?

[@Biologist19681]

I believe that these Colombia University series was made in the late 1960s.

[@RuslanKrylev]

Please, TURN ON subtitles! Thanks )

[@BinanceUSD]

Wow

[@fireball0762]

if you are someone that achieves a high level in business, and make that your first concern, THEN you give to charity that YOU want to give to, i think you can do more for people. It isn't because you are told you MUST , but because you really want to give to one group or another.

[@monkeyishi]

why not just create more jobs?

[@drstrangelove09]

I agree with Rand but I also think that there is something to the question at 12:27.

[@ironsmith9769]

26:00 as true then as it is today, u.b.i was no more the answer to the personal computer as it is to artificial intelligence.

[@moribundmurdoch]

What would An Rand think of charity popularisation? Could capitalists have a more of an explicit altruistic focus in order to preclude any nanny state? I love her opposition to stagnation. I do agree that capitalism is necessary to thwart stagnation, but methinks we individuals within such system should start more explicit eleemosynary projects and whatnot.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Charity can and should be viewed as a selfish activity. You selfishly view humanity as a value you want to minimize suffering for.

[@BlissfulMisanthrope]

Damn! Her answers are scary cos they are true; atleast to my time. It’s shockingly precise

[@Fundamentals_Of_Life]

Capitalism has been called a system of greed - yet it is the system that raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist system has ever begun to equal, and no tribal gang can conceive of. - Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)

[@PiedFifer]

This lecture is an absolute repudiation of Libertarianism which is the desire to misdefine political liberty as the freedom to do whatever one feels, to indulge unbridled whims. Rand eloquently demonstrates why whim-worship is death-worship.

[@gamezswinger]

I don't agree with everything that Ayn Rand says (I often wonder what her views are about the disabled), but some things like libertarianism (freedom from outside pressure), atheism, objectivity, rationality and reality I am on board with. 👍

[@no_namematrix8630]

@3:00 Rand begins the NPC meme

[@JuanmaBarale]

Impeccable -up until the part where she says machines couldn't ever run themselves. The exponential rise of computer power is disproving this (see Moore's Law).

[@morbidbushido]

Did she ever define capitalism the way she understood it because i just watched a video explaining the different models of Capitalism practiced today.

[@mikeb5372]

Yes. She wrote a book named Capitalism, the unknown ideal

[@nancymohass4891]

Altruism is often seen as a form of consequentialism, as it indicates that an action is ethically right if it brings good consequences to others.so the capitalist do not care about others, right?

[@jiadizhang4107]

Right, and there is no problem with that.

[@JenniferSmith-uu4wf]

Rand NAILS The Democratic (Statism) Party Squarely !!! Brilliant !!!

[@JenniferSmith-uu4wf]

jeep23862 "Self destructive death" ??? Rand died of heart failure on March 6, 1982, at her home in New York City. - Guess you don't know who Ayn Rand is. She also had lung Cancer. - IDIOT

[@JenniferSmith-uu4wf]

jeep23862 Modern Liberal Nation or Classical liberal Nation? 😜😜😜😜

[@JenniferSmith-uu4wf]

jeep23862 typical Communist Deceit ... spin THE story you want to tell, ignore the facts. Your opinion is just that. Mine is based on written FACTS. SEE - Ayn Rand and the World She Made is a 2009 biography of Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand by Anne C. Heller.

[@JenniferSmith-uu4wf]

jeep23862 So People Relying on The Government is bad??? Guess, YOU are the Hypocrite 😜😜😜

[@JenniferSmith-uu4wf]

jeep23862 Kinda of Like a Communist living in America enjoying all the benefits of Capitalism while preaching Soviet and Chinese Socialism

[@georgeeinstein781]

The powers that be make sure to misrepresent Capitalism and Love. Divide and conquer.

[@troyalcorn1184]

This has happened now. She warned us and our older counterparts dismissed her warnings I guess? :( IDK I do know one thing. We were told to watch for this and now we have AOC and her friends. We are where we are because we decided to ignore the "crazy ones" and embrace love and togetherness and and and and ......... God loved and I love. Does respect and dignity and love of love have a place in our world today? Why isn't love of God love of God? If it is true and proper, then Christians and Jews and Muslims would all unite in the love of God. Same for Jews and Muslims and Christians. Same for Muslims and Jews and Christians. True love isn't capable of being tainted or misguided. Love is love. Respect is respect. Dignity is dignity. Right and wrong is just that, right and wrong or wrong and right. I don't care what sequence it is in. Someone said, "It depends on your defintition of what is, is". IDK who said it. Please take care and be good to each other. :)

[@mickeylara2111]

Some people just have a passion to create things, they don't like the money angle of a business they like the fantasy of creating what they imagine. Some of this people were stone out hippies who created computers, hardware and software. Greed leads to jealousy fear and anger. It's passion that creates great products.

[@ToIsleOfView]

The #1 human nature is self preservation and then procreation. The fear of failing is what drives many children to live with their parents as long as possible. This fear is what creates the nanny state & denies full capitalism. When this is understood we can plan the weaning of the baby from the mothers tit. We must incrementally introduce solid food or in a capitalist culture we need work that beginners can accomplish. How do we, as a culture of capitalists, provide jobs like this without turning to government subsidies? Its done with republican rules of individual conduct that prevents monopolies and global economies of scale. A capitalist business ownership must be limited to a defined geographical location such as a State or a County. Corporations have grown to Global proportions and can own dozens of other corporations so that the need for duplicated labor (jobs) positions is eliminated. That economy of scale can make products cheaper but just as often leads to less work competition and monopoly pricing.

[@IoanaNoemyToma]

Not agree. We are in the same time common and unique. We need balance of solidarity and solitarity, in our uniplural, mirable and finite Cosmos.

[@krispittman215]

The only thing she is wrong about is automation...

[@mikeb5372]

She isn't wrong about it. Whenever creative invention increases production as well as quality but eliminates the need for some of those workers it opens up new opportunities. Think if all digging were still done by men with hand shovels or farming using an ox and single bottom plow. The population has grown immensely since those days and yet as many if not more of a percentage have had job opportunities. Its a never ending process

[@katherinekelly6432]

To understand her support of Capitalism it is necessary to understand her concept of man. Capitalism works when it is worked by the type of man she describes. It is the imperfection of man that create the disparities in Capitalism and Socialism. It is not an economic problem but a moral problem. Socialism and Capitalism tries to address this (albeit in differing ways) but it is implemented by immoral men, so must fail.

[@baronratfish3865]

Capitolism needs to be tempered with benevolence, Liberalism with logic. Both, equally unlikely.

[@silvanabaralha8665]

No, because capitalism is not a system, is not an ideology, but statism and socialism are. Therefore capitalism is just the freedom to trade and to keep the whole of your transactions. There are no goals in capitalism, nothing to aim at a social level- except what people are willing to do voluntarily. It is socialism that has claims and goals to justify objecting to freedom. The fact that we have named freedom other than just freedom is very telling! It is simply a way to try to corner it and destroy it! Placing capitalism and socialism on the same ground is absurd for these reasons alone.

[@caligulapontifex5759]

You’ll have winner and losers in any system due to differences in intelligence, grit and sometimes luck. At least with capitalism you have a rising tide that more or less raises most boats. In contrast, socialism/communism the vast majority will be impoverished except for the few ruling elites. I saw it first hand growing up in the ex-Soviet Union.

[@MichaelRussell3000]

Rand keeps using the term 'capitalism', but I don't think she knows what it means. She never defines her premises. She uses the term 'capitalism' to represent the idea of a fair-open-market, instead of the concept that wealth can be stored and invested to produce more wealth. Wealth is only the product of human labor. Capital is a store of wealth. Thus natural resources, commodities, that were never created, invented, or built by human labor, are not and can never be capital. The way we speak of 'capitalism' in the 21st Century is not what Rand had in mind. Today's contemporary capitalists are just frauds who manipulate markets and steal wealth from those who ave asymmetric information. Reality is not created by consciousness, the opposite. Facts matter, on this Rand and I agree. Thus, without defining her terms, she ignored the facts.

[@robertromero8692]

“Rand keeps using the term 'capitalism', but I don't think she knows what it means.” She knew exactly what it means. It is the political manifestation of this principle expressed in Atlas Shrugged: “Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others.” Capitalism is the ONLY economic system that adheres to this principle. “Wealth is only the product of human labor.” This sounds suspiciously like the Marxist labor theory of value. The value of a product is NOT determined by the amount of labor that goes into it. It is inherently ridiculous. No one would say, for example, that a cockroach pie is worth more than an apple pie if more labor was used to produce it, or that a ditch dug over the course of a year that no one has any use for is more valuable than a smart phone. “Capital is a store of wealth. Thus natural resources, commodities, that were never created, invented, or built by human labor, are not and can never be capital.” Capital are the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer's needs. They are certainly derived from natural resources. “The way we speak of 'capitalism' in the 21st Century is not what Rand had in mind.” Only to the extent that certain people use political means to obtain their wealth instead of voluntary production and exchange, ie the economic means. An example of the political means is demanding tariffs to boost profits instead of free competition.

[@silvanabaralha8665]

@@robertromero8692 Well done!

[@robertromero8692]

@@silvanabaralha8665 Thank you. :)

[@froybetterbrands]

A very useful contribution and observation

[@reasonableobjectivist3271]

In Rand's answer to the very first question, we can hear Rand resorting to ad hominem attacks, and "psychologizing" critics of capitalism. Ad hominem attacks and psychologizing are not rational responses, in an intellectual argument. Let me be more specific. At around the 2 minute mark, in talking about critics of capitalism, she starts talking about " . . . what are peoples' [critics'] REAL reasons, when people are blind to the truth--obviously blind--when the issue is NOT merely an error of knowledge, it's not a matter of ignorance, but of psychological vested interest . . .". Those are merely ad hominem attacks, not rational argument. She goes on to accuse critics of capitalism of possessing a "fear of independence", a "fear of rationality", and "an anti-rational mentality" which "is necessary to be anti-capitalist." She then labels all this as "psychological evil". This is a paradigmatic example of the fallacy of psychologizing one's opponent(s). Even if there are *some* critics who question capitalism for these reasons, i.e., whose arguments against capitalism are not in good faith, it is absurd to imply that *all* critics (who are not merely suffering from ignorance or an "error of knowledge") are guilty of "psychological evil". It is absurd to imply that all knowledgeable, well-informed critics of capitalism are arguing in bad faith. We've heard Rand's style of psychologizing, before. We hear it when a theist, a Christian apologist, argues that no knowledgeable, well-informed atheist can possibly "reject God" in good faith. My overall point, is that Rand, in her response to the very first question, is using the very same rhetorical strategy that some Christian apologists use: it amounts to: Any knowledgeable person who rejects capitalism (or: the existence of God) is is guilty of "psychological evil". Proponents of capitalism can and should do better than what Rand does, here.

[@gosugosu1280]

Please demonstrate rejecting a free market society without being psychological evil, that is. demonstrate that some =/= all and that the subset you speak about even exists by giving at least one concrete example.

[@RandFanOne]

Rand is speaking in general terms about how critics of Capitalism arrive at their conclusions. Some people may be naive, others ignorant or grossly misinformed, but for many it is psychological weakness on the order of what she is talking about. Anybody who has ever talked to a liberal would know this. For her or anybody else to ignore these motives would be dishonest.

[@mrbluejello]

@26:58 "...because the idea that work will become unnecessary is only proof of the total ignorance of what constitues a complex industrial economy. The idea that machines will run themselves, uh, proves that whoever makes such claims has never looked uh at uh industry and never done a days work. Obviously the higher industrial development, the more complex the machine, the more that is required of the workers. The accusation that automation threatens incomes, or will throw people out of work was made at every turning point of the Industrial Revolution." The foundation of her outdated ideas regarding working are lost in her pre-Information Age thinking and her thinking before the age of outsourcing. The rate of worker efficiency is skyrocketing. The increase in computer and information assisted worker productivity is far outpacing the growth in demand for goods in the Western world. Machine operators were replaced by computers with fewer technicians to run them. Computers with technicians were replaced by machines that no longer required technicians. These machines were then moved overseas eliminating the cost of the manual labor that it took to feed the machines materials. That's what happened to the Industrial economy -- it got automated to the point of requiring little technical maintenance, then it fled for cheaper shores and people with more desperate need. The Information Age is characterized by fewer people controlling the distribution of those goods and services through highly efficient networks -- the scalable Internet, and our extremely efficient transportation networks (international box shipping, FedEx, UPS, etc.). Information systems do the work, and the Internet makes it extremely cheap to take manual processes and automate them with bits and electrons. Jobs are constantly being eliminated through efficiency gains. Ayn Rand's assertion that automation does not threaten income is false. While half the USA isn't working, the country continues to function. This country isn't in need of more workers -- all the work we need is currently being done. Government continues to operate. Factories produce goods. Offices send letters, greet customers and answer telephones. Shared infrastructure continues to be built and maintained at the rate government permits. The people who are lucky enough to have jobs continue to get all the goods and services they expect. However, there's half of the country that need jobs invented simply for no other reason than to facilitate a source of income. The United States is in need of more people with an income, not in need of more work. This is nothing that Ayn Rand imagined. In her time (industrial times), this held true, but looking to the past isn't always a good indicator of what's to come, especially in our post-industrial, information age. When society pivots, conventional wisdom of the past has little value, as does Ms. Rand's dated ideas.

[@EGarrett01]

mrbluejello Work is still necessary.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

People always want more. People didn't know they needed a car, until it was made. The idea that there's a fixed number of work to be done is always the result of technocratic/socialist view of economics.

[@mrbluejello]

People do always want more, but it won't be humans providing it, it will be networked robots delivering those goods and services, not humans. It's not that there's a fixed amount of work to be done, it's that the growth rate of work which is automated exceeds the growth rate in which we need new things made, eroding the market for human labor in manufacturing and services. The need for labor shrinks in this environment, it does not maintain or increase. I would venture to guess that it takes one or two orders of magnitude less human activity for Elon Musk to produce a Tesla vehicle than it did for Henry Ford to produce his Model Ts. How many cars does one need? There's also the demand destruction brought about by the new sharing economy. Uber means that some people don't even need one. Transportation is a huge employment sector, even Uber is about to see the destruction of human jobs to self-driving technology. Commercial trucking fleets are now flirting with the idea of self-driving fleets. More services are rendered, more goods delivered, fewer people are employed. Fewer people paid to afford to consume goods. The first step in our automated future has been technology augmenting human labor, allowing each worker to magnify their productivity. The next step (happening now), is replacing the workforce with robotic labor Even when that new thing that everybody needs to have comes along, our robot overlords will likely be building it, not us. We will be the designers, but we won't be putting it in the boxes and into the trucks. We will need professionals to control the robots until they can control themselves. This work is not for everybody though, probably not even most. This is one professional technician maintaining a fleet of robots that replaces a hundred or more workers who previously would have been employed if it were not for technology stepping in. One robot working at capacity for 3 shifts in a factory may exceed the productivity of 6 or more workers. 2 employees x 3 shifts = 1 fast, efficient robot who doesn't need a lunch hour, break, or calls in sick. One or two technicians maintaining 20 of these machines in a factory kills 180+ human jobs. Our population growth rate and desire to acquire additional goods and services will not approach the level of human job destruction that will be seen in some industries, leading to permanently increased unemployment. Job seekers will have to lower their expectations and all compete for the remaining lower-paying jobs or jobs resistant to automation. We will have a society of haves, and permanent have-nots, eroding human dignity and ultimately leading to social unrest. Trump's victory, largely credited to the unhappiness and unemployment of working class middle America is the first sign of worse things to come. it won't necessarily be caused by him, but his election is the result of this transformation. The jobs these people had no longer exist, at least not in this hemisphere. When they come back to the US when the cost of labor increases in foreign lands or the cost of transportation increases, they will be done in new factories needing far fewer humans to maintain the robots doing the work.

[@robertromero8692]

“The rate of worker efficiency is skyrocketing. “ This is a good thing. You would prefer that people be less productive? If so, you advocate making people much poorer. “Ayn Rand's assertion that automation does not threaten income is false.” Automation destroys some jobs and creates others. This has always been the case. Many many jobs exist that never could have existed without automation. “While half the USA isn't working” Where the hell did you get that idea?? The unemployment rate is less than 4 percent!

[@TheAsianRepublican]

Computers, automation and artificial intelligence are tools, they don't replace work any more than an automated loom, it requires that the skills of the workers be more advanced and for knowledge to be upgraded, as she mentioned. People are needed to solve new problems not solve repetitive task already solved by others.

[@brooke4627]

Rand was never a great philosopher, she never prooved her beliefs analytically and she linked flawed premises with illogical conclusions.

[@derekofbaltimore]

see this is the problem with Rand, and Yaron Brook, and many others on many more subjects (other than economic systems) and that is that they refuse to either/and see more than one side of the story (their side) and/or they refuse to acknowledge that there are more minds in the world. There are plenty of reasons to be against capitalism AND NOT be against rationality, NOT against private property, NOT for socialism etc... When we are talking about the vast cornucopia of minds that exist in the world, attempting to break it down into black and white reasons why, especially when those black and white reasons are purely results of YOUR mind set, is always subject to failure....

[@derekofbaltimore]

Ok here is one reason but it is important to not make this reason into an argument but to accept that there ARE reasons that people hold other than the black and white ones trumpted by Rand- I feel that capitalism is not free enough. What do I mean? I believe that most if not all people are born with certain inclinations/ gifts and such. Rand would have you believe that capitalism provides the freedom for everyone to follow those inclinations. But clearly that is NOT what follows. Empirically what follows is millions, no billions of people who cannot follow there dreams either because a. their dreams aren't deemed valuable by the general population thus they can't monetize their gifts (the system of monetization of skills is inherent in capitalism) thus in order to feed their families they are forced into other occupations or b. they never even find out what their gifts are because the education system (which prepares us for a life of capitalistic work) pushes most people down preset paths toward careers that do make money. Example, ask a child what they want to be (and I mean ask them after there parents have gotten through with them) what do they want to be when they grow up and the classic answer is a doctor or a lawyer. These paths are driven into the child simply because the general population and thus the childs parents, think that those professions make a lot of money. But again, you can argue whether you agree with my reasons or not, that's not the point. The point is that I don't agree with capitalism and its not for the simple reasons of Rand

[@derekofbaltimore]

how about a few more reasons why someone may be against capitalism but not for socialism or any other system (because lets remember, we are talking about people's minds, people's reason, not some strict logical systems and thus you have to be open to the fact that some people may disagree with one thing and yet have no solution, no alternative to that thing- they simply don't like it) What about the idea of wanting people to be like you. This is very simple and yet very pervasive. This doesn't mean a desire to control others. Example, I'm a courteous person. I hold doors open for others, I wave when someone lets me in on the road, I say thank you and so on. But when I let someone else in on the road and they don't wave, I get mad. No I don't want to control this persons life but yes I do think courtesy is a good thing AND I practice it so I kinda wish others would do it as well out of their own accord, after all you can't force thankfulness. So what about volunteerism. This person doesn't expect monetary reward for labor so they may expect others to feel the same simply because they think its a good thing. What about greed. Rand would have you believe that everyone is greedy. The makers accept and promote their greed. The takers hide their greed and lust after what the makers have. What about the fact that people can actual be against greed? Not even possible according to Rand. What about people who agree that controlling others is inhuman and wrong and they see control within the system of capitalism, that means they are against that and any other system that gives control over masses.

[@derekofbaltimore]

What about the moral/philosophical problem that I find in capitalism. That a person can work 20 years in a trade. Long days and night, perfect their skills, and literally become the greatest of all time in their natural inclinated field but... the general public decides that that particular field has a salary ceiling of 30 grand. So I'm the best, most elite in my field, blood sweat and tears, late nights, and yet some outside group has basically locked my in on how much reward I can get? If you need an example say brick laying or janitorial services. No matter how good you are, no matter how much effort you put in, you can never make as much as a doctor, why the hell not? You could say well you could if you opened a business where you had employees and an advertising budget and trucks and.... I don't want to do all that! My inclination is cleaning, NOT advertising, NOT running a business. That's philosophically wrong. I don't know what the solution is but I don't like it. Or the same, you work hard 30 40 years and then the industry drys up due to some new emerging technology and now you have no means to feed you family other than giving up your love and working in whatever is available

[@jeviosoorishas181]

Derek McGowan This is why the concept of "force" is usually the most overlooked by people who criticize "Randians." Supply and Demand is what determines how much a company or business decides to pay a Janitor. If there's a huge demand for Janitors and few people want to work that job, then someone offers more money for Janitors in order to get an edge in competition and increase efficiency. It's not a matter about how good or bad a worker is, or whether one is doing what one wishes or doesn't wish, it's a matter of providing value for others and receiving value in return, based on what they think or believe is valuable to them. That's why capitalism is the only economic system that is in sync with freedom and individual rights. It empowers individuals to make decisions and reap benefits or losses based on how much reason and sense they use to create things for the society, whether it's goods or labor. The desire to reach one's ends, more so that respect the freedom of individuals and the choices they make is what is the root of totalitarianism. This is why utopianists are almost always communists or socialists, but rarely capitalists. Capitalists have to accept humans as they are, and have to accept their choices despite how much they disagree with them. Socialism and Communism allows people to screw others and disregard the rights of individuals in the name of the common good, that can never truly be defined.

[@derekofbaltimore]

That's fine, I never said that capitalism wasn't the best system that we have currently come up with. I dont even mind if you don't agree with anything I have to say, the point was that people can have a large variety of reasons why they are against capitalism. Take what I just said for example- I truly believe that capitalism IS the best possible system that has been conceived of so far and yet I still find huge problems with it. Do I want socialism, hell no, that would be worse but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied with the current system. Therefore it is problematic for Rand to say that there is only one or two reasons why someone would be against capitalism. All I'm saying is that anytime you assume that everyone can only think like you, then there is a big issue with your philosophy

[@CoolFreeHardBop]

Wow I just found out that she hated Immanuel Kant… He is one of my favorite philosophers and one of the most influential philosophers of all time… Because he rejected the idea of absolute reason… Otherwise I find her philosophy to be anti-Christian and anti-religious… So any Christian who champions rand has not read her.

[@science212]

Capitalism is reason.

[@jplattimore]

history has proven her wrong about automated machinery not taking jobs

[@ursafan40]

+jp lattimore And your proof for your conclusion is ....??????

[@jplattimore]

+ursafan40 PNC bank in New Jersey

[@quatele]

+jp lattimore Will you provide a source where she made such a prophesy?

[@ursafan40]

+jp lattimore I've been trying to think of a way to shorten my answer. It's a complicated subject. Here goes. ALL automation will cost jobs IN THE SHORT TERM. And it sucks to be one of those people. But, would you like to go back to the days before automation? Before machines made farming more efficient so now you don't have to grow your own food and there is plenty of it to go around. Or before machines were developed to fabricate metal? When every device you used made of metal had to be painstakingly made by hand? And no two were exactly alike so interchangeable parts were unheard of? You have to think LONG TERM. And history shows , the more automated we've become , the more prosperous we've become and the longer our life expectancy. The "good old days" were full of hard work, long hours, brutish conditions and shorter life spans. I don't believe I've done Ms. Rand justice. But I gave it a shot. Read her works. Her novels, yes, but especially her essays. She explains it a lot better than I can.

[@silvanabaralha8665]

The automated machines might take jobs but they provide other jobs.That is why you no longer have that many people employed in agriculture, machinery now to their jobs, and they were set free to do something else....and so on.

[@DesertPackrat]

No one is necessarily rejecting capitalism. We are rejecting the puritanical application of capitalism which we disagree works in practice. Anyone can mentally noodle the philosophical semantics of an “ism” and yet ultimately it fails due to flaws in its truths, its assumptions or how humans execute it. Typically when it fails the believers claim it was because it was not adhere to by all or applied properly, but ultimately this is a sign of its own weakness. Regulated capitalism and utilitarianism seem to function more effectively for successful societies. They saying goes that people that live in the grayness of a worldview are happier and equally a society that accepts grayness rather than radical pureness also flourishes. Sorry folks but nothing Ayn Rand says convinces me that objectivism, capitalism or self-determinism are to end all be all. Nash, the Nobel economist, espouses that the choice that serves the individual and the group is more likely to be successful and rewarded. For those that remember the movie Ayn Rand would tell you to pick the blond. she is wrong.

[@mba2ceo]

Lies told to slaves. With lack of opportunity & resources ability means NOTHING !!!

[@ixuaxuni9419]

What a bunch of crap. 😆

[@lelorenzo]

What a crazy, immoral and egotistic fool ! So it is brave and rational to reject altruism and being selfish is praised as being independant... She turns values upside down and affirms that her disgusting viewpoint is objective reality, without any plausability.

[@LucisFerre1]

I bet a thousand dollars that you can't define altruism without looking in a dictionary. The fact that you don't know the differece between "being independent" and Individualism speaks volumes. You're an idiot. If you find freedom, rationality, individual rights and the recognition that you own your own life (because, by right, no one else can), a "disgusting" idea, then you're not worth wasting more time on. You are then just another sheeple doomed to your own invented hell.