Index 
Commerce Morality
An addenda to the March 12, 2012 entry for Penny, fellow RAP member at the community college (also not delivered). A few weeks ago you mentioned that Ayn Rand is against workers, and I think I replied that I thought the opposite. Well, that got me to thinking about why I replied such. I think we may find our ideas are not so far apart, and perhaps Ayn's may also be in such a similar category. She, I think, espoused that true wealth was material, and as such it is created by labor (the concept of "intellectual property" is the topic for another discussion). Therefore, and here I am not sure she follows, only wages (including royalties for intellectual property), tips, and benefits (to use our current federal tax classifications) represent the creation of wealth, as probably the closest thing we have to the measure I am after. For me, and I suspect for her, this classification excludes all "money management" (i.e. interest and capital gains) from wealth creation. She despised "leeches" who stole or wanted to steal wealth created by others. I suspect she might consider, as I think I might, interest and capital gains as such stealing, the source of "wealth" of most rich people, including most highly "paid" corporate executives (note: actual salaries are often a small part of total "compensation", where "growth" bonuses, often in stock options, are far more lucrative). Remember her villians were corporate fatcats: greedy, selfish, scheming, and living solely off the wealth of others, i.e. off interest and capital gains. Her chief villian in Atlas Shrugged was President and Chairman of the Board of a huge corporation, Dagny's brother James Taggert, living high on the interest from his inherited fortune. All his cronies were corporate fatcats and high ranking government bureaucrats raiding the wealth produced by workers. For Ayn, then, it seems, workers were king, when working and producing. Perhaps not when demanding more than the value of their labor as determined in a free market, and invested to cover retirement if a deal with their children cannot be struck. Mind you, I think Social Security is a good idea, but only as individual accounts with investment returns (government managed, as currently the case is fine, better, I think), then at retirement one can select a term of payout of the account and when gone, its gone (then perhaps another program could, or even should kick in), but if someone dies before their account is "used up", the remainder becomes part of that person's transferable and taxable estate. Anything beyond this (the other program that could kick in) is income transfer,. i.e. someone else's productive wealth, that must be justified on grounds other than "I earned it". I think it can be so justified but the current defense of pensions in amounts way beyond "contributions plus interest earned" seems to be, erroneously I think, "I earned it." Perhaps morally, but not economically that is where the well can run dry. |