Can we get a thread about based Ayn Rand? What does /pol/ think of her?
>>72995270
Jew
jew who said goys having empathy and altruism towards each other was "bad"
>>72995270
>What does /pol/ think of her?
Ugly stupid Jew who couldn't write her way out of a wet paper bag.
>>72995270
She was right about everything. People that dislike her only feel that way because her philosophy upsets their feelings.
Tough shit, Ayn was a saint.
>>72995270
She pretty awesome. Atlas Shrugged was a great book.
>>72995322
>>72995330
>>72995344
and that's why conservashits are just reverse SJWs demanding their own gibsmedat
She's passable philosophically; politically and socially she's a bit of an outcast. That's my impression as a phil grad.
>>72995270
She has some good quotes.
>>72995270
>based (((((Ayn Rand)))))
>>72995270
>baby's first guide to individualism
That bieng said she is a good stepping stone from the collectivist and authoritarian dominated culture.
>>72995412
This. I vaguely remember something in the protocols of zion about how we can't show compassion to our enemies because they won't show it to us, so her views on empathy aren't just some jewish ploy, it's reality.
>>72995270
Cunt
Also a jew
>>72995506
Not really, very few conservatives like Ayn Rand and you can accuse her philosophy of many things but "gibsmedat" is not one of them.
More like pathological sociopathy disguised as high-minded philosophical individualism.
Also she was a Jew, and I say that as a Jew myself, don't trust Jewish "philosophers" ever, ever, EVER.
>>72995506
>go move to Galt's Gulch, autist
>>72995637
>protocols of zion
come on fag, those are not real
>>72995676
shut up autist
>>72995506
Also she was a cultist
Based Rothbard tore her to shreds in one silly play
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
>>72995757
libertarians don't get to call anyone else an autist
http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/20/being-libertarian-may-cause-au
>>72995603
Have you read Anthem?
>>72995867
shitty play version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8
>>72995867
Rothbard was an autist cultist any anyone who likes him is autistic too.
Watered down Nietzsche with a hardon for romanticizing capitalism. Everything she bitched about concerning 'parasites' perfectly encapsulate the mentality of SJW. Which, honestly, isn't really surprising since Rand disliked the feminist movement for being collectivist in nature.
Something I always find hilarious is how she accurately assets what sort of person would work best with capitalism in her journal. She once read a newspaper article about some insane guy who killed a dozen people or so. Rand basically went ''YES! This is the sort of mentality I'm looking for; someone who doesn't give a shit about anyone else and goes about their own self-interest''. Obviously that man was a psychopath and that specific part is always used against Objectivism.
>pfffttt, how can you agree with Ayn Rand, she loved a psychopath who killed people
And yet, psychopaths make for good CEO and people in management. So, in a sense, she was absolutely correct.
I find her interesting but her writing is so basic and boring. You really have to read within the lines, both in her fiction and non-fiction to find something interesting.
Her fiction and non-fiction is overall a mixed bag entirely. Atlas Shrugged was only good for about 300 pages until the end of Part 1. After that, it's just completely boring.
There's an unintentional hilarious part in Part 2 where Rearden is cheating on his wife with Dagny and some random clerk just notices that they're obviously cheating and that it's bad. Both of them just blur some random shit but can't say anything at all as to why it's wrong and I always found that part hilarious considering how later after the book was published, Nathaniel was cheating on his wife and Ayn Rand for another woman he loved. And she tried to have him completely ruined.
The Fountainhead is rather enjoyable as a novel, though the whole
>he's so perfect, I'm just feeling weird around him, WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING PERFECT AND STOIC ROARK???
gets really old fast.
>>72995330
>jew who said goys having empathy and altruism towards each other was "bad"
correct, a jew, but then maybe there are a few good ones like Bobby Fischer
she had no problem with VOLUNTARY charity, only forced charity and emotional blackmail
atlas shrugged is awesome, if a bit long winded
>>72996206
>Rothbard was an autist
well he was libertarian and jewish
>cultist
nope
Rand had kangaroo courts and "purges"
Rothbard was a nice old fogey
>anyone who likes him is autistic too
so you mean a libertarian?
http://www.autismpolicyblog.com/2012/10/libertarians-and-autism.html
>>72996407
the government providing "some" public goods and services is beneficial for society
>>72995270
There is a name for people who disagree with this woman.
Hypocrites.
That's all. Don't try to play it selfless and empathetic pol, you simply aren't, and it's a good thing that you aren't.
>>72995867
>Also she was a cultist
Ehhh, yes and no. She never considered herself a part of a cult but she sucked basically the energy out of the room whenever she was present. She felt intellectually superior to everyone else and actually completely calmed down to everyone.
It has a cult feeling to her group the same way people are drawn to others for intellectual answers. You find this sort of realization with youtube personalities and fans who listen to everything a commentator says as truth.
Rand hated that she was seen as a cult leader and that Objectivism was dogmatic (though it can be correctly asserted that Objectivist have this bourgeois smug condescending attitude towards others which Rand did a lot to others). I would further argue that Marx's criticism of the bourgeois class of not caring for others is basically a criticism that can be brought down to the individualist level towards Objevtivist.
>PLAYBOY
>If widely accepted, couldn’t Objectivism harden into a dogma?
>RAND
>No. I have found that Objectivism is its own protection against people who might attempt to use it as a dogma. Since Objectivism requires the use of one’s mind, those who attempt to take broad principles and apply them unthinkingly and indiscriminately to the concretes of their own existence find that it cannot be done. They are then compelled either to reject Objectivism or to apply it. When I say apply, I mean that they have to use their own mind, their own thinking, in order to know how to apply Objectivist principles to the specific problems of their own lives.
>think for yourself you idiots
>>72996768
what does this have to do with my post?
>>72997009
she had kangaroo courts and purges
it really was some bizarre cult
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ayn_Rand_Cult
>>72996956
autismal
>>72997185
there's nothing wrong with the government paying for "some" things
>>72995270
I only read Anthem, it was poorly written and the setting barely made sense.
>woman philosopher
>jew philosopher
>american philosopher
lel
oh and
>believes in free will
>>72997267
governments don't have any money of their own, it's all the peoples money that they take through the threat of force
>>72995520
Communism is a political ideology, socialism is an economic model
She was obviously a jew retard worshipped by retard neocons
>>72997582
>>believes in free will
She somewhat flip flops with free will. She basically goes the Nietzsche route that we have no free will but doesn't want to sound deterministic since it destroys individualism (we're all animals) plus she was a romanticist which views that man should try and to overcome nature with volition.
>>72996314
Fountainhead was better because she still considering editing important. Later books she thought every word she wrote was a pearl of knowledge so her ability to edit was comprised. That said, Howard Roark would have been more interesting if she left the Vesta Dunning character in the book.
>>72997593
yes they do
they literally "create" the money supply and can print money at any time
the only reason money has value is because the government says you need to pay taxes.
>>72995412
>>72995447
>>72995549
>>72995603
Rand is Nietzsche for shabbos goys and highschool kids. Just like satanism, I guess. Funny that's it was Jews in both cases.
Hmmm...
>>72995270
A great writer. Flawed, yes, but everyone is to some degree.
Later in life she essentially devolved into a cult leader, so far as personal life goes. Quite sad that.
Fuck this bitch, and fuck you OP
Anthem is literally the only book you will EVER need to read by her and it is like 100 pages long, thank god.
P.s. it is one of my favorite books, he other books such chode
>>72995270
Absolutely based.
>>72995270
Everything she got right was derived directly from Nietzsche and Stirner. She's important in the sense that she (re)popularized a lot of preexisting ideas and slapped a more modern, approachable face onto them.
>>72998006
The other books suck chode***
>>72997208
Well the purges came basically after Rand found out about Nathaniel cheating on her and his wife with another woman.
It was really weird. Rand was trying not to act irrationally and kept forcing people to write contracts and sign them to never talk to people and shit.
It's really as if capitalism went full dystopian and tried to control social life.
ALSO!
Brave New World = 1984 = Anthem
These are all the same fucking book.
>>72998089
A woman stole and regurgitated mens ideas? What a shock
>>72998235
FORGOT TO ADD THE GIVER TO THIS
>>72997978
>great writer
Ehhhh. Some parts were great but sometimes she just goes overboard.
>Just like satanism,
Funny story, the guy who started satanism basically says that he ''plagiarized Objectivism and just added satan''.
Evola is better
She's the idol of sociopaths who lack the brains to milk the system to achieve their goals so they bore everyone to death with their pointless verbal diarrhea which will never gain traction with majority of normal people.
Guess what, most people don't like extreme individualism or extreme collectivism. It goes against human nature. It's ignoring societal evolution.
>>72998271
>A woman
A JEW stole and regurgitated GENTILE mens ideas.
>>72997978
>A great writer
Come on, she was a terrible writer.
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged for its plot and I believe it was very prophetic as it pretty much describes what is happening to America right now.
But her writing was so wooden and heavy, no wonder most people who try and read it fail to finish it. It's worth it if you do though.
>>72998454
I would argue that she created a system in which men would merge better with capitalism rather than with society.
It's like every step of her thinking process she was thinking
>how can doing this make Capitalism better both for the state and the individual
>>72995867
I thought Rothbard would love her.
>>72998350
>Ehhhh. Some parts were great but sometimes she just goes overboard.
I think you could say the same for any great writer. I tend to like the earlier stuff better personally, 'we the living' and 'anthem' were great. By Atlas Shrugged, she had gotten rather ponderous for my taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbkSGB6Nnjs
>>72997947
That pic you posted is interesting because it suggests that self-sacrifice can't ultimately benefit the self.
Every action we take is a self sacrifice on the physical level because we need to expend energy to do it, what matters is the payoff. Supporting your family has a good payoff for the individual, the family's support of the town has a good payoff for the family and thus the individual, the town's support of the state is beneficial to the town, family, individual etc...
The fact that Rand considered all self-sacrifice illogical is a complete contradiction to reality. Every action is self-sacrificial, what matters is how greatly one can benefit directly from the sacrifice.
That's one of the reasons why I don't like Rand or Objectivism, everything she attempts to extend beyond the realms of Nietzsche is wrong. It is dogmatic, regardless of what she claims about the matter.
>>72997946
>they literally "create" the money supply and can print money at any time
the federal reserve is a private institution
in addition it states in your constitution that only gold and silver can be money
Though pop literature rather than an attempt at political philosophy, Jennifer Government is basically the anti Atlas Shrugged. Just like Randy used strawmen to show socialism run amuck, Max Barry does the same for capitalism. If nothing else, it's a much shorter and easier read than most of Rand's novels.
>>72998380
He wrote about many more subjects than her, and more eloquently, from climbing to tantric sex, but Rand is pretty much babby's first read for americans.
>>72998872
>Every action is self-sacrificial, what matters is how greatly one can benefit directly from the sacrifice.
you could just as easily say that every action is in some way selfish
>>72998929
>If nothing else, it's a much shorter and easier read
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
holy shit your fucking dumb
>>72997620
She managed to entertain other intellects from her time and held a group of her esteemed colleagues. Can you say the same?
STUPID CUNT !
>>72999137
Is the irony international?
>>72998929
The in between book between Atlas Shrugged (based) and Jennifer Government (cucked) is Snow Crash. It shows a closer approximation of what the type of tribes, enclaves, and philes humans will adopt after the fall of the super powers due to untraceable wealth.
>>72999231
>tl;dr neocuckservative circlejerk
>>72998886
>the federal reserve is a private institution
>The Federal Reserve System—also known as the Federal Reserve or simply as the Fed—is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act,
The FED was created by an act of congress. It's not private it's run by people appointed by the senate and the president
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors
>in addition it states in your constitution that only gold and silver can be money
kek
got a source?
>>72998872
>The fact that Rand considered all self-sacrifice illogical is a complete contradiction to reality.
Rand never promoted that one should cut themselves off completely from others or not care about family members or the community. If it gives you happiness, which was the main goal of life in her view, then all the power to you. What she bitched about was owing your community and family and becoming dependent on them rather than further yourself career wise or in other ways.
Every action is self-serving to an extent to another and there's nothing wrong with being around others so long as you aren't sacrificing yourself without any gain
Like doing community work in a school you don't care about and don't know for your community because a friend of your mother asked you to.
>>72998089
Her ideas are nothing like Nietzsche's. Where do people get this from? Just about the only things they agree on was that christianity sucks. Nietzsche thought passion had priority over reason, too, which is why Rand didn't even like him.
And she wasn't really like Stirner either because Stirner wasn't an idiot who thought some ancap utopia could be a thing, and instead went straight for individualist anarchy while admitting it might be horrible and barbaric.
>>72999322
Self driving cars will make the roadways in Snow Crash a reality.
>>72998872
I see that you're trying to pull a tu quoque out of that quote, to portray GLR as a hypocrite, and Rand as correct because the logic of her position is inescapable (I spent a lot of time being an Objectivist, which is oddly a lot like talking to orthodox marxists the way they twist language and rig premises in their favor).
It's worth it to read the entire GLR speech. He was drawing a contrast with Communism, and arguing for tribalism; in modern terms, he was arguing for kin selection principles in genetics.
>Civilization is based on self sacrifice. On the willingness of men to go out and die for what they believe in. When you get rid of that self sacrifice, you get anarchy. Civilization built because I am willing to give up something for my family and the family is willing to give up something in order to have the town succeed. And the town is willing to give up something so the state can be in business. And the state is willing to give up something so the nation can succeed. Self sacrifice is the first principle in civilization. communism has got the fanaticism to destroy you and it's doing it. And unless you can build up a counter fanaticism for something you believe in, positively, you will be destroyed. You are being Recently there was a report out that among new babies that were born, this happened last year, minorities were now the majority. That whites were officially the minority. And they're boasting about it...
>... the white race [needs to] understand that they're worthy of protecting themselves.
>That they don't have to keep humbling and downgrading themselves while other races are standing up and saying look at us how great we are. We keep saying we're ashamed of ourselves for being."
Would Rand ever speak out against white genocide/democide? No, because that requires a willingness to die for an abstract kin/race/nation group that isn't directly resulting in personal reward; unless you're arguing about "selfish genes".
>>72999805
Rand copied Nietzsche's idea of a "superman" that is totally better than everyone else and made main characters "perfect" and idealized the "perfect independent individual" in people like John Galt.
>>72999753
The leaf speaks the truth. A misconception of her philosophy is that people should be selfish cunts and not care about anybody. What she advocated was always acting in your rational self interest. A lot of people get happiness out of doing things for others so making people happy is in their rational self interest.
>>72999753
>Every action is self-serving to an extent to another and there's nothing wrong with being around others so long as you aren't sacrificing yourself without any gain
Which is obvious, it was obvious when Nietzsche said it, it was obvious when Stirner said it, the only thing Rand brings to the table is her calling you an idiot for not stealing from your grandmother's purse when you had the chance because she personally sees it as a net positive action. Her philosophy is only really useful for providing people a bridge to superior philosophers.
>>72999946
>I spent a lot of time being an Objectivist
Being an ex libertarian sucks because you can see all bad arguments you used to make and cringe at them.
>>72996314
I mostly agree, but if you want to read some of her writing that's actually entertaining (Because AS is boring as shit and I still don't "get" The Fountain Head and Anthem was basically nothing at all) I'd recommend "Think Twice" which is a short muder mystery play she wrote, which you can find in "The Early Ayn Rand"
t. Rand faggot when he was in middle school
And believe me it's good to get that shit out of your system when you're young
>>72999322
snow crash was ok
>>72999599
yes, it IS the central bilking system, and it does have people appointed by the government, and it was created by an act.
yet none of those things prove it's OWNED by the government
you should check out mike maloney on YT, or get "the secret of Jekyll island" for how it was created
interesting how the same year the federal reserve was created, the IRS was also created? and how no one in america paid federal income tax prior to then
"The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"."
>>72999981
true, charity is fine as long as it is not coerced
>>72999981
>What she advocated was always acting in your rational self interest
But is happiness, and being an absolutist about avoiding self-sacrifice if it doesn't guarantee happiness, a rational modus operandi? It's better to study the Prisoner's Dillema and Game Theory than Ayn Rand, then maybe come back and plod through Rand if you don't boor yourself to death in the process.
The vast majority of life is unhappiness, by choice or otherwise, because most investments do not guarantee rewards, and suffering is the root of much wisdom and strength. She doesn't value that aspect of unhappiness at all. Bascially, her philosophy results in degeneracy, corroding the broader social cohesion. She's being a Jew, ultimately. They only advocate destruction.
>>72999981
It's probably a mix of the misconception of what she thought people should do and what selfishness really is.
Though to be fair, most of her characters acted like selfish stoic assholes towards everyone else.
I honest got the feeling that her main interaction view in life is
>be as stoic as you can in front of others so that they don't manipulate you, but be emotionally explosive and open in the bed
Seriously, in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny is a stuck up bitch but open her legs in bed and she'd become completely open to a weird extent.
>>72999956
>idealized the "perfect independent individual" in people like John Galt.
What the fuck was even idealized about him? Other than his speech, Galt was so fucking boring to the point where I was insulted and disappointed. You hype the guy up for your whole novel and he ends up being this vanilla as fuck guy with no personality?
I would argue that Roark was a more perfect idealization of everything she believed in much more than Galt.
You know, something I find funny that no one noticed, not even the closest friends of Rand who are still alive, is that people don't see how her husband Frank was Galt. In Atlas Shrugged, she mentions how Frank is her John Galt. Which is funny since she kept cheating on him with Nathaniel. He was smart but never intellectually talked philosophy with her which is why she was attracted to Nathaniel.
What I think is that Frank is actually Galt personality wise rather than intellectually. Frank was a kind soul who just stood and 'protected' Rand from her bad days and criticism. He was her shield. And that's what Galt was to Rand. Someone who's just a blank fuck to uphold her philosophy and protect it.
Like pretty much every other modern philosopher, you have the ones who agree with her unaware of the fact that she was an utopist, and the ones who criticize her for being too harsh, so basically children who like fairy tales.
Hell is just a word, the reality is much, much worse.
Her writings are laughable and pathetic, only attempted or half-assed intellectuals actually praise what she wrote, mainly because they have no proper philosophical background or economics knowledge.
Still, she was an interesting woman.
>>72995330
Not really, Jew who said government forcing you to have empathy is bad. Like how Germany is doing with migrants.
>>73000604
>OWNED by the government
No one owns it
it's controlled by people appointed by the president/senate
>the secret of Jekyll island
It's largely fictional exaggerated
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/26/the-story-behind-the-creature-from-jekyll-island-the-anti-fed-conspiracy-theory-bible.html
>>73000793
You should read what Rand actually thought about Galt
she idealized him.
>>73000998
empathy for people of your own race is good
empathy for people of other races has a law of diminishing returns, they will quickly overrun and kill you.
>>73000717
>They only advocate destruction.
Did you ignore all those times Rand kept emphasizing DON'T EVER EVER FUCKIGNG EVER HARM OR DO VIOLENCE parts?
Which I always never understood in the end of Atlas Shrugged, Dagny kills a guard after she tells him to make a choice between not being a parasite and opening the door or getting killed. The guard tries to bullshit by trying to get someone else to make the decision for him and Dagny just kills him. Like, what the fuck?
>But is happiness, and being an absolutist about avoiding self-sacrifice if it doesn't guarantee happiness, a rational modus operandi?
Rand would say yes but she also places survival above happiness, as your life should be the highest value you place in your life, as you only have one.
>>73000717
>because most investments do not guarantee rewards, and suffering is the root of much wisdom and strength. She doesn't value that aspect of unhappiness at all
She's not exactly taking a buddhist stance and saying you should avoid suffering. On the contrary her characters suffer much, but they suffer because they are fighting for a cause they believe in, a cause they want to give their absolute everything for.
Take Howard Roark for example (Fountainhead), he spends years in absolute poverty in New York. All he wants is to be an Architect and to do it how he wants to. He doesn't want to compromise on his work, his vision. He even has to quit for a while because nobody will hire him, he does manual labour.
But he doesn't give up on his dream.
So she's fine with the idea of suffering, if it's because you're following your own dreams.
>>72999946
I don't really give a shit about GLR I was just using that image to attempt to point out a flaw in Rand's philosophy.
>Would Rand ever speak out against white genocide/democide?
Would Rand personally? No, because she was a frigid cunt that didn't practice what she preached. But a rational, self-serving (not using that as a negative term, by the way) white person would definitely speak out against white genocide because they themselves are white and don't want to be killed. They also don't want their friends, family or children to face hardship, because they feel love for them.
Rand would just argue, in her typical frigid cuntish way, that love was irrational, then completely disregard the fact that love, even in its supposed irrationality, still serves the ego and gives a person pleasure.
>>73001139
>You should read what Rand actually thought about Galt
Yeah, she says he was her perfect whatever of her philosophy but the guy is absolutely vanilla nothing. It's really the reason I think that Galt is really the personality of her husband. It's just so weird that she idealized and gave such praise to Galt who's basically a blank state parroting her philosophy.
It's the reason I just don't understand why Dagny falls in love with Galt at the end. Rand says somewhere in her book that if you tell me your sexual preferences, she could tell you your entire philosophy and world view (basically tell me your fetishes and I'll tell you how you think).
And you can tell that Rand loooooved to be dominated and bitch slapped into sex. Which is ironic that she was always surrounded by beta people who agreed with her all the time.
But with Galt, he never treated her like shit. He was just calm, passive and zen without a care in the world. It feels so off.
>>72995270
I never read her books, and I couldn't even bother to finish the movie adaptations.
I've seen a few interviews, but I can't help but see that bitter attitude she held about everything as a result of the life experiences she inevitably had to face with a mug that just screams, "I'm a bitter cunt who hates everything about the universe," in spite of whether she ever had a less pessimistic outlook.
It's weird how your appearance can produce a personality to match merely by interacting with people.
>>73001617
>the guy is absolutely vanilla nothing.
Maybe that says more about Rand than you think
>>73001139
>No one owns it
that's what they want you to believe
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-actually-owns-the-federal-reserve-2013-10?op=1&IR=T
>The Regional Fed banks are arms of the Fed system that serve like regional versions of the NY Clearinghouse. One thing that muddies this discussion on “ownership” is the issuance of stock by the regional Fed banks to the member banks. This stock pays a fixed 6% dividend and gives the banks a claim on the Fed’s annual profits.
>It's largely fictional exaggerated
you can have your opinion
>empathy for people of other races has a law of diminishing returns, they will quickly overrun and kill you.
law of diminishing returns? are you stupid? it never brings a return
>>73001706
>I never read her books
wow, so well informed
thanks for contributing your absence of knowledge on the subject
>>73001458
>Rand would just argue, in her typical frigid cuntish way, that love was irrational, then completely disregard the fact that love, even in its supposed irrationality, still serves the ego and gives a person pleasure.
>Rand
>Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut.
>>72995270
spoiled jew
>>72995270
I'll sum up her so called philosophy for you.
>Kant bad
>A = A
>Therefore egoism
I gave some of her books an honest chance, but I think she sounds like most teenagers these days. In that way, she was truly ahead of her time.
Judgement: gas all kikes
>>73002133
I'm a Libertarian of the American Enlightenment variety.
I don't care about feelings, same as her, but I'm not trying to make a living by tipping my economic fedora.
>>73001864
Not really. Galt was unique. Roark was basically the idealized man that would work best within capitalism. Every character she's made had at least some characterization. But Galt just has nothing. It's as if she wanted to make Galt a person everyone could be (if he's everyone than he's no one) but pushed it to the point where he was so vanilla he had no personality at all.
He's basically a microphone and nothing more.
Jew
>>73001973
>This stock pays a fixed 6% dividend and gives the banks a claim on the Fed’s annual profits. But let’s keep this in the right perspective. Last year the Fed earned $90.5B. Of this, $1.6B was paid out in dividends. The remaining $88B was remitted back to the US Treasury. While the US Treasury doesn’t technically own shares in the Federal Reserve the Fed is required to remit its profits at the end of the year back to the Federal Government. As you can see, remittance often dwarfs any dividends paid back to the banks. In other words, the US Treasury is the recipient of most of the Fed’s profits.
In other words the US government owns the FED, but gives out "goodies" to the banks because the system is corrupt.
That's not the same thing you're implying (that the FED is privately run)
>>73002537
>But Galt just has nothing
Which is why Rand idealized him as perfect and flawless. It's hard to have a good character w/o flaws
>>72995270
the faggotry of idolizing ayn, seriously, you need to read more and talk to people, you have some critical part of your education or socialization missing if you are all up in her area as a fanboy. seriously, i'm not trolling you, you have an issue.
>>72995270
I enjoyed Capitalsim and The Virtue of Selfishness.
Most Ayn Rand supporters are autistic as fuck though.
>>73002628
How the fuck do you idealize nothingness? It just makes no sense. Nothingness cannot be perfect if there's nothing to be perfect about.
Or maybe I'm thinking too hard about this. If Galt just embodies Objectivism and nothing else, then it just means that she idealizes herself and him for following her philosophy entirely by being her philosophy?
Fucking hell. It still makes no sense and sounds convoluted.
>>73002934
Asperger shares some similar traits with psychopathy, so it's not surprising.
>>73003054
>idealize nothingness
Galt wasn't "nothing"
he was "independent, a genius, perfect, ruthless, etc" all the thing Rand idealized
>>73002628
>In other words the US government owns the FED, but gives out "goodies" to the banks because the system is corrupt.
hmm, PROFITS?? where do these profits come from?
who is charged, and for what?
the government doesn't hold the stock, does it, the regional feds do ... and who owns them?
>>73002810
>Clutch
Saw them in November at GrosseFreiheit 36. Pretty good but fuck their opening bands were on for nearly 3 Hours.
Played all of Psychic Warfare plus Spacegrass, Elephant Riders, and Soapmakers.
>>72997620
You seriously think Socialism is purely an economic system?
Really?
