Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

The New York Times recently published an article holding up Ubers recently ousted CEO Travis Kalanick as a cautionary tale for Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are influenced by Ayn Rand. The implication is that implementing Rands ideas in managing a business will lead to disaster.

This is not the first time weve heard this kind of argument, and it serves an obvious purpose. Critics of Rand know that her popularity among businessmen is a key part of her appeal. More broadly, they sense that the achievement of capitalism in continually transforming and improving human lifeparticularly in Silicon Valley, which is famous for giving us astonishing new products at ever-lower pricesprovides a large-scale, real-world validation of key parts of her philosophy. So they have to come up with arguments, however thin, to show that Rands ideas are bad for business.

The evidence for such claims is very thin indeed. The New York Times article, for example, is ostensibly about Travis Kalanick and Uber, but it gives no real description of Kalanicks management practices, aside from Silicon Valley rumors about Uber tolerating sexist behavior from its employees. Its worth noting that Kalanick was forced out as CEO, not because of poor performance by his company, but because of a string of bad PR over the last year. Meanwhile, he spent much of the past decade shepherding Uber from a tiny startup to a company that has changed transportation in cities across the world and is worth more than $50 billion. Not exactly proof of management failure.

As I have discussed elsewhere, Uber is based on precisely the kind of disruptive business idea that Rand would have loved, particularly because it found a way to undermine irrational government regulations and break the local taxi monopolies. The company has gotten away with this because it offered so much value to so many peopleincluding the urban, upper-middle-class types who would normally support government regulations, but who dont want to give up their Ubers. I have sensed for a while now that some these customers are uncomfortable with the compromise, so they leaped at a chance to cover that gap between principles and practice by sacrificing Travis Kalanick for a reason that seems politically comfortably. Thats why you can color me skeptical about the notion that Kalanick was not a good CEO taken as a whole.

The same is true for the other examples in the article. Fast-food executive Andy Puzder is cited as an example of management failure because he was too controversial to be appointed to a cabinet post. John Mackey is cited because he had to sell Whole Foods to Amazon for nearly $14 billionthis, for a chain he co-founded as a single small store in Austin, Texas, in 1980. If only the rest of us could be so fortunate as to suffer such management failures.

Other claims have been a bit more substantive. A few years ago, some leftists were gloating that the slow-motion collapse of Sears, a venerable old retailer, was because its CEO, hedge-fund manager Eddie Lampert, was a fan of Ayn Rand who supposedly drew on her ideas for managing the company. Unfortunately for that thesis, there was in-depth reporting on how Lampert was actually running Sears. The overall theory might sound vaguely plausible at first.

Lampert runs Sears like a hedge fund portfolio, with dozens of autonomous businesses competing for his attention and money. An outspoken advocate of free-market economics and fan of the novelist Ayn Rand, he created the model because he expected the invisible hand of the market to drive better results. If the companys leaders were told to act selfishly, he argued, they would run their divisions in a rational manner, boosting overall performance.

Then you look at it in more detail and see how this theory was implemented. As I wrote at the time:

In practice, all of this ends up being less Atlas Shrugged than Game of Thrones. Its a system of constant warfare among rival fiefdoms.

Ayn Rand celebrated the freewheeling entrepreneurs who acted on their own judgment and chafed at the inertia of entrenched bureaucracies. But Lamperts system multiplies the bureaucracy. [T]here were more than 30 slots to fill at the head of each unit. Executives jostled for the roles, each eager to run his or her own multibillion-dollar business. Marketing directors interviewed with the newly appointed presidents, hoping to snag coveted chief marketing jobs.

Because Sears had to hire and promote dozens of chief financial officers and chief marketing officers, personnel expenses shot up. Meanwhile, many business unit leaders underpaid middle managers to trim costs.

The most cumbersome aspect of the new structure, former employees say, was Lamperts edict that each unit create its own board of directors. Because there were so many departments, some presidents sat on as many as five or six boards, which met once a month. Top executives were constantly mired in meetings.

As for whether anyone can make a decision and just move on it, If product divisions like tools or toys wanted to enlist the services of the IT or human resources departments, they had to write up formal agreements. So you have 30 separate divisions all trying to negotiate agreements with each other. Its a nightmare of red tape.

Philosophically, Lamperts error is childishly simple. At one point in Kimess report, a Lampert spokesman compares central management of a private company to socialism. But this drops the basic distinction between coercive government action and uncoerced private action.

The business heroes in Ayn Rands novels all have one thing in common: they take seriously the responsibility of thinking and planning and making decisions. They know that they cant pass the buck and that it is their job to set the direction for the companies they run. But Lamperts system seems to be an attempt to evade that responsibility by pretending that decisions will somehow emerge spontaneously from an imaginary internal marketplace.

One former employee summed it up nicely: Eddies Sears is not the free market, nor is it the Soviet central planning committee. It is the imperial court of Byzantium.

But our concern here is not so much the merits or demerits of any particular CEOs management style, which would depend on in-depth reporting about the companys internal decision-making and a long-term consideration of its success. Our concern is with something we can assess more definitively: what can a fan of Rands work reasonably take from Atlas Shrugged as her views on management and running a business?

This, by the way, is the biggest error in the New York Times article. It quotes a sneering philosophy professor who says that Rand never really explores how a dynamic entrepreneur actually runs a business. Did he read the same book?

Atlas Shrugged is not a book about business and management, in the same way that The Fountainhead is not a book about architecture. Yet Rand ends up having an awful lot to say about both of those topics. Business and management is not the subject or theme ofAtlas Shrugged, but it is the setting. As one of the few novelists to make a serious and sympathetic attempt to portray people who run businesses, she frequently sets up her characterization and plot points by showing us how the heroes and villains operate in the business world, how they make important decisions, and how they treat their employees.

We can look at that and derive a few basic rules for how an Ayn Rand hero does business. Call it The Management Secrets of Atlas Shrugged.' After all, weve had a string of business books over the decades giving us supposed management secrets from a whole cavalcade of unlikely sources, from Sun Tzu and Machiavelli to Winnie the Pooh (yes, really). Recently, weve even been told about management secrets from Game of Thronescorporate motto: Chaos Is a Ladderwhich seems like a really terrible idea, considering how things tend to end up in that series. At least in the Winnie the Pooh books, everybody lives.

Its time we took a look at management from the perspective of an author who actually cared about portraying the world of business and productivity. And she did not draw purely on her imagination as a writer. She had studied the history of capitalism, drawing on great American industrialists as the models for her heroesas well as the business leaders she met up close in her career in Hollywood and the publishing business, from Cecil B. DeMille to Jack Warner to Bennett Cerf. She took those observations and sought to distill them into the characters and setting of her novel.

So what can we learn from Ayn Rand about running a business? Here are the seven management secrets of Atlas Shrugged.

(Warning: In this overview, there will be plenty of spoilers, discussion of important plot points that will ruin the novels suspense for someone who does not already know how it all turns out. I dont want any reader to find himself slapping his forehead in the middle of one of these articles and thinking: if only I hadnt missed out on this experience that has now been wrecked for me. So take this spoiler warning seriously. I mean it.)

Many of Ayn Rands business heroes are self-made men who worked their way up from the bottom, starting with the lowest, grittiest entry-level jobs in their industries. Hank Rearden rose up out of the iron mines before becoming a mine owner, then the owner of multiple iron and coal mines, then a steel tycoon.

He saw the day when he stood on a rocky ledge and felt a thread of sweat running from his temple down his neck. He was fourteen years old and it was his first day of work in the iron mines of Minnesota. He was trying to learn to breathe against the scalding pain in his chest. He stood, cursing himself, because he had made up his mind that he would not be tired. After a while, he went back to his task; he decided that pain was not a valid reason for stopping.

He saw the day when he stood at the window of his office and looked at the mines; he owned them as of that morning. He was thirty years old. What had gone on in the years between did not matter, just as pain had not mattered. He had worked in mines, in foundries, in the steel mills of the north, moving toward the purpose he had chosen.

The same goes for Ken Danagger, who is described as having started work in the coal mines at age 12this was before the era of modern child labor laws.

Even the heroes who inherited successful companies learned the ropes by starting outsometimes surreptitiouslyat low-level jobs. At age 16, railroad heiress Dagny Taggart starts a summer job as the night operator at a rural train station. Francisco DAnconia, heir to a vast copper fortune, spends his college years working at a dilapidated copper foundry, which he then buys with money he earned by speculating on stocks in his spare time. (If this strikes you as over the top, thats the whole point of Franciscos character.)

In one memorable scene, this is the bond that seals the friendship between the ultimate self-made man, Rearden, and the worlds richest heir, DAnconia: the fact that they both know an obscure and long-forgotten method for sealing a furnace breach by hand.

In the few moments which Rearden needed to grasp the sight and nature of the disaster, he saw a mans figure rising suddenly at the foot of the furnace, a figure outlined by the red glare almost as if it stood in the path of the torrent, he saw the swing of a white shirt-sleeved arm that rose and flung a black object into the source of the spurting metal. It was Francisco dAnconia, and his action belonged to an art which Rearden had not believed any man to be trained to perform any longer.

Years before, Rearden had worked in an obscure steel plant in Minnesota, where it had been his job, after a blast furnace was tapped, to close the hole by handby throwing bullets of fire clay to dam the flow of the metal. It was a dangerous job that had taken many lives; it had been abolished years earlier by the invention of the hydraulic gun; but there had been struggling, failing mills which, on their way down, had attempted to use the outworn equipment and methods of a distant past. Rearden had done the job; but in the years since, he had met no other man able to do it. In the midst of shooting jets of live steam, in the face of a crumbling blast furnace, he was now seeing the tall, slim figure of the playboy performing the task with the skill of an expert.

This is why the heroes in Atlas Shrugged are able to start up again in Galts Gulch. They have given up their large corporations and are starting over on a small scale, with relatively little capital. But they have not given up their knowledge of how a business works. They can readily downshift into the roles of foremen and mechanics, and they have no compunction about walking to work swinging a lunchbox.

The important contrast here is between Dagny and her brother, Jim. He is always demanding the impossible and the contradictory, as in the Taggart Tunnel disaster, when he demands that Kip Chalmers be given a train to get him to California on time, but also that it be done safelygoals that are mutually exclusive. He views it as his job to give vague and peremptory orders and somebody elses job to figure out how to make it work. He expects it to happen somehow, because he doesnt know or want to know the details of how his company operates. He started his career on the railroad in the PR Department, and as one of Reardens men later puts it, hes the type who is only good at running to Washington, not running his business.

All of Rands business heroes share a core of competence based on experience that keeps them in touch with the day-to-day operation of their businesses.This also earns them the admiration and support of their employees, because they know that the guy (or gal) in the executive office knows what hes doing. Which leads us to the next management secret.

In the very first scene where we meet our main protagonist, Dagny Taggart, we see her give decisive orders to solve a problem thats causing her railroads flagship passenger train to fall behind schedule. After she gives that order, one of the newer railroad workers asks someone who she is. Here is the reply: Thats who runs Taggart Transcontinental, said the engineer; the respect in his voice was genuine. And later: When she went out on the line, old railroad men, who hated Jim, said, There will always be a Taggart to run the railroad, looking at her as her father had looked.

When we first meet Hank Rearden, he is watching his workers pouring the first heat of Rearden Metal, and we get a sense of the camaraderie he shares with them: A worker saw him and grinned in understanding, like a fellow accomplice in a great celebration, who knew why that tall, blond figure had had to be present here tonight. Rearden smiled in answer: it was the only salute he had received.

Rands heroes are clearly inspirational leaders, but its not because they jet off to Davos or give TED talks about thinking outside the box or make pie-in-the-sky promises about putting a million people on Mars. Its because they earn the respect of their employees and business partners.

There is nothing worse than working for a boss who doesnt know the difference between your best work and somebody elses worst, or who constantly has to be talked out of bad ideas because he doesnt know any better. Thats what working for Jim Taggart is like, and its what Dagny feels while working her way up under one of Jims cronies.

She was defeated by loathing for the hours, the days, the nights she had to waste circumventing the interference of Jims friend who bore the title of Vice-President in Charge of Operation. The man had no policy, and any decision he made was always hers, but he made it only after he had made every effort to make it impossible.

Or consider Gerald Starnes, one of the failed heirs of the Twentieth Century Motor Company. Jeff Allen describes how, as director of production, Starnes led VIP tours of the factory and collected the magazine covers he appeared on, while being blithely unconcerned with the actual day-to-day running of the companyand how this earned him the contempt of the men on the factory floor.

Rands heroes inspire their employees because they lead from the front. They never demand that anyone give more, in terms of knowledge, work, or devotion, than they give themselves.

In another installment of this series, I described Dagny Taggart Mode, her characteristic way of dealing with a business problem: The basic pattern goes like this: somebody rushes in to report an emergency, saying, Miss Taggart, we dont know what to do. Dagny immediately assesses the situation, comes up with a solution, and starts giving orders. At some point somebody asks whos going to be responsible for giving the orders, and she says, I will.'

This is probably what stands out most about Dagnys approach to her work, and you can see how it ties in to the wider themes and conflicts of the novel. She is the kind of person who habitually takes on responsibility, and shes used to making good on it. So you can see why she keeps on believing, almost to the end, that she can single-handedly save the world.

They name their businesses after themselves as a way of stressing their responsibility, the idea that everything their company does is literally done in their name.

Similarly, when Mr. Ward of the Ward Harvester Company comes to Hank Rearden attempting to place an order for steel, he explains that Orren Boyles Associated Steel has been promising him a delivery any week nowfor a year. He then says hes come to Rearden because he is the only decentI mean, reliablesteel manufacturer left. Note the very deliberate implication that being a reliable business partner, one who honors his promises, is the same thing as being morally decent.

This is one of the reasons why the business heroes in Atlas Shrugged all have their businesses named after themRearden Steel, DAnconia Copper, Wyatt Oil, Taggart Transcontinentalwhile the villains run companies with vaguely collective names like Associated Steel. Part of the point Rand was making is that behind every productive organization there is a person who created it and keeps it going. But from the characters perspective, they name their businesses after themselves as a way of stressing their responsibility, the idea that everything their company does is literally done in their name.

(I cant help pointing out, in this context, the very different spirit of a major business figure in todays culture who likes to put his name on everything. Donald Trump is notorious for lending his name to a string of marginal and dubious ventures: failed attempts at celebrity branding (Trump water and Trump steaks), bogus real-estate investment seminars (Trump University), and overseas hotels that he doesnt run and for which he hasnt put up any capital. Trump names things after himself, not out of a sense of responsibility, but out of vanityand in a cheap attempt to cash in on his notoriety.)

The whole method of the business villains in Atlas Shrugged is to evade responsibility, constantly whining that it wasnt my fault, or I cant be blamed. We can see this most clearly in the Taggart Tunnel disaster, which happens because, with Dagny briefly gone, a whole chain of Taggart executives from Jim on down pass the buck.

Dave Mitchum was not good at understanding problems of engineering and transportation, but he understood men like Clifton Locey. He understood the kind of game the New York executives were playing and what they were now doing to him. The order did not tell him to give Mr. Chalmers a coal-burning enginejust an engine. If the time came to answer questions, wouldnt Mr. Locey gasp in shocked indignation that he had expected a division superintendent to know that only a Diesel engine could be meant in that order? The order stated that he was to send the Comet through safelywasnt a division superintendent expected to know what was safe?and without unnecessary delay. What was an unnecessary delay? If the possibility of a major disaster was involved, wouldnt a delay of a week or a month be considered necessary? The New York executives did not care, thought Mitchum; they did not care whether Mr. Chalmers reached his meeting on time, or whether an unprecedented catastrophe struck their rails; they cared only about making sure that they would not be blamed for either.

In turn, Mitchum finds a way to pass the buck all the way down to the most junior employee in the operation, with disastrous results.

This is why you will find that businessmen who are influenced by Atlas Shrugged often cite things like honesty and integrity as lessons they took from the book. Oh, what a nefarious influencebusinessmen who believe in integrity! But thats because this is the actual, practical reality of how her heroes live and run their businesses.

If Ayn Rands heroes expect a lot out of themselves, they look for the same qualities in the people they hire and do business with.

At the beginning of the novel, the basic plot idea is introduced to us in the form of Dagnys struggle to find and retain talent. One of the first things she does is to offer Owen Kellogg a promotion to replace an incompetent manager, then attempt to keep him when he says hes quitting. Why?

She knew that the superintendent of the Ohio Division was no good and that he was a friend of James Taggart. She had not insisted on throwing him out long ago only because she had no better man to put in his place. Good men were so strangely hard to find. But she would have to get rid of him, she thought, and she would give his post to Owen Kellogg, the young engineer who was doing a brilliant job as one of the assistants to the manager of the Taggart Terminal in New York; it was Owen Kellogg who ran the Terminal. She had watched his work for some time; she had always looked for sparks of competence, like a diamond prospector in an unpromising wasteland. Kellogg was still too young to be made superintendent of a division; she had wanted to give him another year, but there was no time to wait.

Later, in Galts Gulch, Dagny realizes that the foreman at Andrew Stocktons foundry is the disappeared coal tycoon Ken Danagger.

She glanced at Stockton with curiosity. Arent you training a man who could become your most dangerous competitor?

Thats the only sort of men I like to hire. Any man whos afraid of hiring the best ability he can find is a cheat whos in a business where he doesnt belong.

Or consider Midas Mulligan, the banker whose touch turns everything to gold, and how he describes the secret of his financial success.

I was born on a farm. I knew the meaning of money. I had dealt with many men in my life. I had watched them grow. I had made my fortune by being able to spot a certain kind of man. The kind who never asked you for faith, hope and charity, but offered you facts, proof and profit.

The idea of a certain kind of man, of a code of rationality and competence, runs through the worldview of Rands business heroes. The importance of men of ability, and what happens in an organization or society where they are not welcome, are not the abstract philosophical themes of the novel. Theyre a recurring concern of all the major characters. John Galt coins another metaphor for this outlook.

I went out to become a flame-spotter. I made it my job to watch for those bright flares in the growing night of savagery, which were the men of ability, the men of the mindto watch their course, their struggle and their agonyand to pull them out, when I knew that they had seen enough.

Unlike Dagny, Galt isnt trying to keep the railroad or the nations economy together. Hes trying to pull them down. But his description of his method serves as a guide for what Rands business heroes are trying to do to build up their companies.

The manager who is influenced by Atlas Shrugged is, above all else, a flame-spotter who is constantly on the lookout for talent, competence, and rationality, and hes always looking to elevate talented individuals to the highest level of work theyre capable of.

Rands business heroes are also trying to elevate their companies to a higher and higher level. They are not mere caretakers trying to administer an established organization and make sure it runs smoothly, or trying to eke out a marginal extra profit from a proven business model. They are visionaries who are looking for revolutionary new machines and the kind of innovations we would describe nowadays as disruptive.

There are two such disruptive innovations that embody this idea. Roughly the first third of the novels plot is driven by Hank Reardens invention of a revolutionary metal alloy that is strong, lighter, cheaper, and longer-lasting than steel. In fact, the plot of the novel is kicked off by two business conferences in the first chapter. In the first, Eddie Willers informs James Taggart of a freight train derailment and warns him of the disastrous state of the Taggart systems rail, particularly in the Rio Norte Line in Colorado. In the second conference, Dagny tells Jim that she has ordered new rail that will be made of Rearden Metaland dares him to cancel the order.

The metal itself is Reardens visionary idea. Using it to rebuild the Rio Norte Line is Dagnys innovative vision. She is an early adopter, pushing Taggart Transcontinental to embrace a new material that everyone else still considers risky and untested.

She is an early adopter, pushing Taggart Transcontinental to embrace a new material that everyone else still considers risky and untested.

Dagnys crucial idea is that innovation can be her companys way of surviving an economic downturn. With the nations economy in crisis, Jims reflexas usualis to hunker down, to be safe and cautious and do things in the established way. This is one of the things that makes Jim Taggart such a bad manager: his mania for wanting to make everything stand still, so he can go through the motions of running his business the way the people before him ran it, collecting all the same prestige without having to do any new thinking.

By contrast, Dagny understands that a Rio Norte Line made of Rearden Metal, serving the booming new businesses of Colorado, would generate profits that could be used to rebuild and revitalize the whole Taggart systemwhich, in turn, could help revitalize the nations entire economy. This innovative business vision drives everything in the first third of the novel. Its what motivates her to separate from Taggart Transcontinental to build the John Galt Line, its what forges her connection with Ellis Wyatt and the other business leaders of Colorado, and its what draws her and Hank Rearden together.

By the end of Part One of the novel, however, theyve proven their point. Rearden Metal is now regarded as a proven technology that is rapidly being adopted by others. In a gimlet-eyed and totally accurate view of the natural life cycle of a new technology, Rearden Metal will eventually go from being an unproven, pie-in-the-sky idea to an everyday product so thoroughly taken for granted that it is claimed by everyone as a universal entitlement and regulated by the government as a public utility. In other words, exactly the same process that is behind Net Neutrality.

Naturally, having proven one new technology, it is time for our innovators to move on to the next big thing, which is the revolutionary motor they find abandoned at the Twentieth Century Motor Company. What could be more disruptive than a motor that draws unlimited amounts of electricity from the atmosphere? The search for the motor drives the plot up through the end of Part Two and brings us into Part Three. Remember that Dagny crash-lands in the Valley because she is chasing Quentin Daniels, the researcher she hired to unravel the motors secrets.

So the business leaders search for innovation is at the heart of the novel and is the key driver of the plot.

This is a point that very few of the casual mainstream commentators get. In fact, its the opposite of what they always try to imply when they claim Rands ideas are bad for business. Because the Ayn Rand-inspired businessman is out for his own selfish gain, they assume, therefore he will naturally alienate others by seeking to profit at their expense.

If you actually read Atlas Shrugged, you notice that her heroes are very insistent on making mutually beneficial deals and never trying to get something for nothing out of the their customers or business partners. They expect the other guy to pull his weight in any business dealand they expect that they will have to provide a lot of value in return.

Consider what happens when Dagny shows Rearden the list of investors in the John Galt Line.

He reached for his fountain pen, wrote at the bottom of the list Henry Rearden, Rearden Steel, Pennsylvania$1,000,000 and tossed the list back at her.

Hank, she said quietly, I didnt want you in on this. Youve invested so much in Rearden Metal that its worse for you than for any of us. You cant afford another risk.

I never accept favors, he answered coldly.

What do you mean?

I dont ask people to take greater chances on my ventures than I take myself. If its a gamble, Ill match anybodys gambling. Didnt you say that that track was my first showcase?

She inclined her head and said gravely, All right. Thank you.

Incidentally, I dont expect to lose this money. I am aware of the conditions under which these bonds can be converted into stock at my option. I therefore expect to make an inordinate profitand youre going to earn it for me.

Rands heroes dont mind driving a hard bargainbut if they make a big profit, they expect to have earned it. You see the same pattern in her negotiations with Quentin Daniels over his work on Galts motor.

She protested, in astonishment, against the low monthly salary he quoted. Miss Taggart, he said, if theres something that I wont take, its something for nothing. I dont know how long you might have to pay me, or whether youll get anything at all in return. Ill gamble on my own mind. I wont let anybody else do it. I dont collect for an intention. But I sure do intend to collect for goods delivered. If I succeed, thats when Ill skin you alive, because what I want then is a percentage, and its going to be high, but its going to be worth your while.

When he named the percentage he wanted, she laughed. That is skinning me alive and it will be worth my while. Okay.

Likewise, when Rearden tells a reporter that I expect to skin the public to the tune of a profit of twenty-five per cent in the next few years, a reporter responds, If its true, as Ive read in your ads, that your Metal will last three times longer than any other and at half the price, wouldnt the public be getting a bargain? Rearden replies: Oh, have you noticed that?

It is the government officials and the altruistic humanitarians who keep trying to set up deals in which one side gets all the benefits and the other side takes all the losses. Thats how Jim gets Taggart Transcontinental into the San Sebastian boondoggle, which the socialist Peoples State in Mexico intends to nationalize from the very beginning. Or consider the Steel Unification Plan that Rearden is pitched toward the end of the novel, in which the revenues generated from his steel mills will be used to prop up his competitors.

Rand makes a specific point to show why these one-sided altruist set-ups have to fail. If you create a deal in which one side takes all the burdens and all the losses, you are ensuring that one of the parties to the deal will eventually be unable to fulfill its obligations and the whole thing will collapse. Heres how Rearden puts it as he considers the Steel Unification Plan.

You consider me of invaluable importance to the country? Hell, you consider me of invaluable importance even to your own necks. Yet you propose a plan to destroy me, a plan which demands, with an idiots crudeness, without loopholes, detours or escape, that I work at a lossthat I work, with every ton I pour costing me more than Ill get for itthat I feed the last of my wealth away until we all starve together.

This rule of management is codified by John Galt as the basic rule by which people should deal with one another: mutually beneficial trade. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. In her non-fiction works, she would go on to add that The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice.

That brings us to the final management lesson from Atlas Shrugged.

This is shown in Atlas Shrugged, not by the positive example of her main protagonists, but by their biggest error.

In taking heroic action intended to save the railroad and the economy, Dagny actually ends up bailing out her worthless brother, time and time again. Consider her policy toward the San Sebastian Line, in which she anticipates the Mexican nationalization and brings as many objects of value back across the border as possible, cushioning the blow to the railroad. But what is the actual effect of that action? Jim gives a triumphant speech to the board of directors taking credit for her policy, buying him a reprieve from the consequences of his own decisions.

This is even clearer in the aftermath of the Taggart Tunnel disaster. Jim is shown staring at his letter of resignation and waffling about whether to sign it. He then storms over to Dagnys office to blame Eddie Willers for her absence. When she suddenly returns and goes back to work, what does Jim do? Like a paralytic, uncertain of his muscles obedience, he gathered his strength and slipped out. But he was certain of the first thing he had to do: he hurried to his office to destroy his letter of resignation.

This isnt about claiming credit or public glory. This is about not accepting a role as the person who always bails his boss, colleagues, or business partners out of their own mistakes, putting them in the position to make more mistakes that need more bailing out in the future.

They learn not to apologize for only hiring the most competent people, for seeking to make a profit, or for outperforming competitors.

This is a principle that has actually won a certain degree of acceptance in cases involving addiction to drugs and alcohol. In the current therapeutic terminology, the person who always bails a chronic drunk out of trouble is codependent or an enabler, the person who allows the addict to keep functioning when the best thing is to allow him to hit rock bottom, in the hope that he will eventually choose to confront his own problem.

Dagnys dilemma is that she also has to let Taggart Transcontinental hit rock bottom. In a world different than the one we are shown in the novel, she might have saved her railroad by quitting and let Jims misadventures crash the Taggart stock, then swooping in to lead a hostile takeover backed by Midas Mulligan. She could have been the ultimate activist investor ousting an incompetent CEOand dont believe for a moment that she couldnt have done it. But that would be a very different novel with a very different theme. More to the point, it would require that Dagny (and many other people) had already learned the lessons that they spend most of Atlas Shrugged learning.

Hank Rearden illustrates a variation on this lesson. What he learns is never to apologize for the productive core of his business. An Ayn Rand hero would certainly apologize for a genuine mistake, and they do so at various points in the novel. But they learn not to apologize for only hiring the most competent people, for seeking to make a profit, or for outperforming competitors. Such apologies are another form of enabling. They dont appease the resentment of the novels villains; they feed it.

This is the opposite of the public relations advice a businessman is likely to get these days. Since we started by talking about Travis Kalanick and Uber, its worth noting that Uber has a history of hiring left-leaning PR experts, such as Barack Obamas former campaign manager David Plouffe, to represent it. Yet when the whispering campaign against Kalanick built up, thats the wing of the company that helped throw him under the bus. Maybe theres a lesson in there that he should have learned from Ayn Rand and didnt.

Follow this link:

7 Management Secrets From 'Atlas Shrugged' That Beat ... - The Federalist

Some welcome the new perspective to the U. A Deseret News editorial, for example, caricatured the school's economics department as being infested with Marxists who burrowed into tenure positions and spent a lifetime indoctrinating unsuspecting students with communist propaganda.

Maybe there's a little truth to that. I first read Marx in a political science class taught by a left-leaning professor with a beard and Birkenstock sandals who fit the role beautifully. But we also studied Adam Smith and David Hume and John Maynard Keynes and John Stuart Mill and a handful of others during the crash course in the masterworks of the field. It was one of the most challenging and informative classes I've ever taken.

The real problem with the Koch money isn't so much that it could warp what students learn although it certainly could do that. It's that it has been shown over and over again to undermine independence and warp the research that the departments produce.

And we don't have to look far to see examples.

For five years, Randy Simmons was the Charles G. Koch professor of political economy at Utah State University, a position that started with a relatively minor contribution. That relationship has definitely flourished, and in May the Kochs and Jon Huntsman the father of Paul Huntsman, who owns The Salt Lake Tribune and pays my salary combined to invest a whopping $50 million in the Utah State University's business school.

The Huntsman money is mostly slated for student scholarships. The Koch money will fund six new faculty positions.

Simply put, it appears Simmons had produced for the billionaire Kochs. In April 2016, academics from around the country, many funded by Koch donations, gathered in Las Vegas for The Association of Private Enterprise Education conference and, according to documents and transcripts obtained by the group UnKoch My Campus, the work of Simmons and his USU colleagues was prominently featured.

They discussed research papers by Simmons and others that, for example, contend Yellowstone National Park is horribly mismanaged, the Endangered Species Act is a failure, government policies cause wildfires, human life is overvalued in cost-benefit studies of proposed regulations and that renewable energy is inherently unreliable.

The common themes: Privatize it, deregulate it, and drill, mine or harvest it.

Attacks on renewable energy, it so happens, got Simmons in a bit of hot water in 2015 when he wrote a critique of wind power for Newsweek without disclosing his Koch financing or his role in the Property and Environment Research Center, which is funded by Koch and Exxon Mobil. Newsweek later added a disclosure to the piece.

In the USU case, contracts show the Kochs can pull funding if they don't approve of how the money is spent.

When they get information they like, they weaponize it, using the hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions over the years in a bid to reshape public policy into their own "Atlas Shrugged" vision of America.

Ralph Wilson, a co-founder and research director with UnKoch My Campus, points to an example at Troy University in Alabama, his alma mater, where the Kochs created a center in 2010 and hired a number of researchers whose aim was to "take down" the state's public retirement system, according to comments by the center's original director.

At West Virginia University, the Kochs created a center that produced research decrying coal mine safety and clean water regulations that were hurting workers in the coal industry where the Kochs had a financial stake. And there are plenty more examples out there.

"As recordings of Koch foundation officials have revealed, these programs are engineered to help achieve the very specific state and federal policy change for the Koch network," Wilson said. "The Koch network, known for buying influence over the U.S. political system, is now doubling down their investments in universities to secure long-term political change."

Maybe I'm too hard on the Kochs. After all, a spokesman for the Koch foundation said the organization believes a diversity of ideas promotes critical thinking, and really that is something for which universities should strive.

But the Kochs have also spent an awful lot of money trying to undermine education systems around the country. They have backed organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council that has attacked professor tenure and the higher education system generally.

And assuming an initiative to raise taxes to better fund education in Utah gets on the ballot, you can bet the leading group opposing it will be Americans for Prosperity's Utah chapter which is, you guessed it, bankrolled by the Kochs.

I'm not arguing the U. should have rejected the Koch money. Corporate donations always come with conflicts. Half the U. campus wouldn't exist without money attached to the Huntsman and Eccles families who have their own set of business and political interests.

It's vital, though, that the U. be vigilant about protecting the independence of the institution and the academic freedom of its faculty. Because, in academia, reputation matters, and the University of Utah shouldn't blithely sell off its hard-earned prestige for $10 million or any price.

See the rest here:

Gehrke: Billionaire Kochs may be getting a deal if they buy the U.'s reputation for $10M - Salt Lake Tribune

BIRTHDAY GAL: Actress Taylor Schilling was born in Boston on this day in 1984. This birthday gal earned a 2014 Emmy nomination and two Golden Globe nominations as Piper Chapman on "Orange Is the New Black." She also starred on the short-lived series "Mercy" and has appeared on "Drunk History." On the big screen, Schilling's film work includes "The Lucky One," "The Overnight," and "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1."

ARIES (March 21-April 19): Spin straw into gold. The least likely material could be useful. Gather information and write down interesting ideas and inspirations. Don't sweep personal problems under the rug, but face them head on with boldness.

TAURUS (April 20-May 20): Focus on friendship rather than fleeting doubts. A significant romantic relationship may move forward according to the storybook. If you are sincere and honest about your feelings there will be a happy ending.

GEMINI (May 21-June 20): Build up instead of tearing down. Gain the trust and respect of associates and loved ones by being sincere and true blue. Keep a careful eye on finances, however, and don't take a bite of any carrot dangled in your face.

CANCER (June 21-July 22): Mirages simply disappear when the distance grows smaller. Appealing romantic prospects or business deals might not hold up under scrutiny. Real friends will show their true colors in a one-on-one situation.

LEO (July 23-Aug. 22): If you wish to be given the royal treatment then act like a prince among men. Rather than being critical and finding fault set a good example for others to follow. Work related activities will run smoothly under these stars.

VIRGO (Aug. 23-Sept. 22): Be a proud participant. Unplug and become entirely engaged in the world around you. Social events don't need to be a spectator sport. Join in with group activities and make new friends who share your interests.

LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 22): Knuckle down to finishing your normal chores. You may prefer to work on your own or in privacy where you can daydream at leisure. Step up the pace because the boss is looking for results, not excuses.

SCORPIO (Oct. 23-Nov. 21): Reality isn't always rewarding. To win admiration you might let someone think you are better or more talented than you really are. Take a new relationship slowly until you know exactly where you stand.

SAGITTARIUS (Nov. 22-Dec. 21): Grow and prosper. Turn over a new leaf and face your formless fears. New friends might have interesting ideas and it is in your best interests to investigate them. Refuse to fall prey to feelings of inadequacy.

CAPRICORN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): If you lose your sense of purpose a friend, or social group, will help you find it. Your special someone might be able to fire up your enthusiasm or a trusted advisor can point you back in the right direction.

AQUARIUS (Jan. 20-Feb. 18): Test the limits or the limits will test you. It is possible that people don't look at you through rose colored glasses. They are very likely to throw up a roadblock that holds you back unless you honor your commitments.

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20): Wait for it. It is better to want something you don't have than to have something you don't want. You can make an error with your checking account book so avoid making unnecessary financial transactions.

IF JULY 27 IS YOUR BIRTHDAY: Because you have both energy and imagination you can make great progress with material success during the upcoming four to six weeks. Social activities and community events might widen your network of friends in September and could lead to a brief romance. During October and early November you can enjoy a vacation or give yourself a treat for all of your hard work. Because everything in your life is apparently running smoothly you might miss the warning signs and encounter problems in January. Make sure your bills are paid, your savings account is replenished and all your commitments are honored so that you can stand up to any potential criticism or trouble that might come your way in late December and January.

See the original post here:

Horoscopes for July 27 - Aiken Standard

Ayn Rand has been dead for 35 years, but in a way she is still very much alive, as the current "It" philosopher of hard-charging entrepreneurs and hard-right political conservatives.

Related: 10 Successful Entrepreneurs on How to Be Awesome

Ousted Uber CEO Travis Kalanick is said to be a devotee. President Trump has praised Rand as his favorite writer, and Ray Dalio, founder of the world's largest hedge fund, has commented that "her books pretty well capture the mind-set" of the president's administration. What is the mind-set to which Dalio refers? Rand herself once summed it up, telling an interviewer in a statement members of the Trump administration could admire: "Man exists for his own sake."

Rand (1905-82) was a Russian-American immigrant best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and for her moral philosophy, Objectivism, which she described as "the morality of rational self-interest." In the latter dystopian novel, especially, she imagined a fictional "strike" by society's most productive industrialists, artists and scientists meant to show that without the efforts of its most rational and productive citizens, our economy would collapse.

Fast-forward to the current day and the tech world: Some observers have pointed out that certain members of the Silicon Valley set have made headlines for all the wrong reasons, by following an Ayn Rand-style "me-first, dog-eat-dog" path. We agree with those criticisms, but would also argue that entrepreneurs can learn a lot from the important things that Rand gets wrong.

In essence, we think of her as an anti-guru.

Rand's bold boasts about the selfish nature of business capture the important truth that people are motivated by self-interest. But what all the executives out there today with Atlas Shrugged on their Kindles miss is that those interests are complex; and if you can't engage partners and employees as whole people, you are more likely to end up stoking a mass exodus from your company than a massive IPO.

In short, the people you work with are a lot more complex than the characters in a Rand novel and need to be managed that way. So, when you need to get people aligned behind a vision for your business, remember the following three anti-Rand truisms:

Randians love her simple, straight-forward view that we are all fundamentally in it for ourselves. While there's nothing wrong with getting what you want, you usually need to work with others to get it.

Kalanick was reminded of this when Apple CEO Tim Cook dressed him down in a meeting at the computer maker's headquarters. Cook had learned that Uber was using a system that identified iPhones on which the Uber app had been deleted. Because Cook believed this violated Apple's privacy policies, he hauled Kalanick into his office and said: "So, I've heard you've been breaking some of our rules."

Related: Casey Neistat's First Selection for His Book Club May Surprise You

A chastened Kalanick knew a fight with Cook would have ruinous consequences and backed off. And he clearly showed how he'd learned a principle described by Cook's predecessor, Steve Jobs, when Jobs had to make a case for partnering with Microsoft back in 1997: "Apple lives in an ecosystem, and it needs help from other partners," the late Apple co-founder said.

So, even the notoriously aggressive Jobs was willing to work with his competitors from time to time because he understood that getting ahead often requires getting along.

Innumerable websites quote Rand's famous phrase: "The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality." But it's more complicated than that: While some people are wealthy, and most less so, everybody looks for a satisfaction in working that goes far beyond wealth. As Studs Terkel put it in Working, his classic study of the stories people tell about their jobs, "Work is about a search for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash."

A well-known Silicon Valley venture capitalist once told us that most startups fail well before the money runs out. They fail when hard-working teammates no longer enjoy spending time together. Workers need to make money, but they also need to feel they are doing a good job with people they like and respect.

Overall, what did Rand get wrong? For one thing, she ignored how people are sometimes inscrutable creatures, driven by countless contradictions and unconscious desires. There is no simple answer to the question of what makes a person tick -- no "essence."

We have heard so many executives say, "You just need to get the incentives right." And while we agree that incentives are important, they are not everything. As economists say, you get what you pay for but don't always get what you want. This is where the need for inspirational leadership and vision comes in, illuminating the need to connect with the deeper impulses that keep people surging together in support of a collective purpose.

Eddie Lampert, a hedge fund manager, learned this lesson when he tried to run businesses based on narrow Randian principles, in which general managers engaged in a brutal internal competition for resources and bonuses. Lampert's results at Sears and KMart, now teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, raise serious questions about a hyper-aggressive, do-what's-best-for-me workplace culture.

Maybe Lampert should take a tip from Kalanick and start reading more widely. Kalanick was spotted in Manhattan last week carrying a copy of the Immortal Bard's Henry V. That classic tale recounts the transformation of a shallow, self-involved playboy into a leader who knows how to motivate his people. The mature king is less like The Fountainhead's Howard Roark and more like the real-world entrepreneur Richard Branson.

An entrepreneurial leader who's anything but a me-first type, Branson has no need to impose his will on others. He inspires his people. How? Notably, he says, by giving them "a chance to give something back to the community."

The problem with Ayn Rand, then, boils down to a caricatured view of motivation. In the real world, if you want to get the most out of somebody, take the time to get to know the whole person. Slow down. Pay attention to what people tell you about their experiences at work, at home and in the community. Take a wide-angle perspective on their aspirations.

Related: 8 Team-Building Mistakes Richard Branson Would Never Make

This is one of the most valuable investments you can make in your business. So, okay, go ahead and revel in Ayn Rand's inspiring celebration of individual achievement. Just remember that "to make money," you need to give people opportunities to make daily meaning as well as daily bread.

Mario Moussa and Derek Newberry are co-authors of Committed Teams: Three Steps to Inspiring Passion and Performance. Moussateaches in the Executive Programs at the Wharton School of Executive Education. Newberry is a member of the aff...

Follow this link:

The Problem With the Administration's Admiration for Ayn Rand - Entrepreneur

Theres nothing inherently wrong with making a movie about what happened on September 11, 2001 but it has to be handled with grace. Some have done it better (United 93) than others (Reign Over Me, bonkers secret 9/11 movie Remember Me). The latest to try to walk that fine line between respectful and exploitative: 9/11. Who knows? Maybe a dramatization of what happened in Lower Manhattan 16 short years ago starring Charlie Sheen, Whoopi Goldberg, Gina Gershon, and Luis Guzmn, from the director of National Lampoons Cattle Call, from the same distribution company as Atlas Shrugged: Part I, will be a tasteful look at a dark day in Americas history?

[watches the trailer]

Or maybe not.

Directed and co-written by Martin Guigui, 9/11 centers on five people who find themselves trapped in an elevator in the World Trade Centers North Tower on 9/11, according to the official premise. They work together, never giving up hope, to try to escape before the unthinkable happens. One of the people trapped in the elevator is Sheen, which is notable for two reasons: its his first movie role since 2013s Machete Kills, and hes a notorious 9/11 truther. In 2006, he told Alex Jones (yes, that Alex Jones), It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airlines and hitting 75 percent of their targets that feels like a conspiracy theory. Sheen also blamed the destruction of the towers on a controlled explosion.

9/11 (the trailer for which you can watch above; I dont know why its in Japanese, either) opens on September 8. I cant wait.

Continued here:

The Trailer For Charlie Sheen's 9/11 Movie Is Really Something - UPROXX

July 21, 2017, Leonard Robinson, Leave a comment

Ayn Rand has been gaining more attention lately in literary and academic circles. At Accuracy in Academia, we recently interviewed Professor David Kelley, Founder and CIO of the Atlas Society on the influence of Ayn Rand and her work on people, decades after her death in 1982. You can listen to the interview here.

The Cato Institute was the most recent institution to tackle the challenge of bringing the work of Ayn Rand to a vast audience of admirers, foes, and curious observers. Scenes from We the Living, published in 1936, were recreated on stage there by Cato Institute fellows and interns.

Set in 1920s Russia, We the Living is not only Rands first novel but the most autobiographical. The novel follows Kira, a young woman who descends from a once-successful family as she faces life in post-revolutionary Russia confronting societal changes due to communism. We the Living is not only a complete takedown of Marxism but also a passionate love story. Originally published in 1936, Rands novel struggled to sell and initially only brought Rand 100 dollars in royalty payments. In 1957, after publishing Atlas Shrugged, Rands publishers released a new edition of We the Living, which has since sold three million copies.

Those familiar with other works of Ayn Rand noticed a different tone in We the Living. John Jeffrey, a student at George Washington University, said, She seems to have really focused on building a strong plot with very relatable characters compared to some of her other works.

After the theatrical reading, the Cato Institute hosted a panel discussion with Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute; Sarah Skwire, Senior Fellow at the Liberty Fund and Literary Editor at FEE.org, and Cathy Young, columnist for Newsday and Reason and author of Growing Up In Moscow with moderation by Caleb O. Brown, Director of Multimedia at the Cato Institute.

In their discussion, they shared many similar viewpoints of the impact that We the Living and similar works had on painting a vivid picture of life in Soviet Russia and other Marxist-embracing nations. However, disagreement was shared on whether Rands later works such as Atlas Shrugged deserved similar praise due to their literary style and length.

Yet, despite disagreement, all agreed with Cathy Young, who reflecting on her childhood in Russia said, Rand knew that the best way to defeat communism is to paint a very detailed picture of it and that is what she did.

See the rest here:

We the Living comes alive at Cato Institute - Accuracy in Academia

Weve all heard of the idea of a general workers strike. In her tome Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand posed a provocative question. What if, in response to an increasingly overbearing regulatory state, the entrepreneurs of America decided to go on strike?

The resulting 1000 pages, if you can get through them, constitute one of the most creative, if overwrought, dystopias ever envisioned. Societys producers quietly disappear, enclosed in their own hidden capitalist utopia, while innovation grinds to a halt, intellectual property languishes, and overconfident, arrogant bureaucrats run world-class factories into the ground. When alls said and done, all that was required to liberate Americas unappreciated geniuses and creators was for them to walk away and leave society to pick up the pieces.

American Christians may find themselves in a position closer to John Galt than to Saint Benedict, with apologies to Rod Dreher.Many of the services Americans take for granted are provided by churches and Christian organizations. It is not hyperbolic to say that core areas of American life would languish or collapse without the contributions of Christian people and organizations. These enormous social contributions are frequently underappreciated, but would certainly be missed.

Perhaps the most important is health care. John Stonestreet, president of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, wrote in an article titled No Christianity, No Hospitals: Dont Take Christian Contributions for Granted:

One in six hospital beds in our country is located in a Catholic hospital. In at least thirty communities, the Catholic hospital is the only hospital in a 35-mile radius. This doesnt even take into account hospitals run by other Christian bodies such as Baptists, Methodists, and especially Seventh-Day Adventists.

Catholic hospitals are the largest single category within non-profit hospitals, which themselves account for about half of all hospitals.

Christians also run thousands of private schools that often meet or exceed the quality of public schools; a full 70 percent of all private schools are either Catholic or affiliated with another religion, generally some form of Protestantism (a much smaller percentage of these are Jewish or run by a non-Abrahamic religion).

In addition to health care and education, it is churches which minister to the neediest and most marginalized members of society. Matthew Robare reported in these pages:

According to the nonprofit Partners for Sacred Places, churches and religious buildings of all faiths continue to have an economic impact on their neighborhoods. Their research found that almost all have some sort of community-service programs, and most have at least four running concurrently. The same study estimated that in Philadelphia alone religious congregations contribute over $100 million to their community annuallyabout $144,000 per congregation. Most of that comes from measuring volunteer time as though it were paid labor, but they also provide space, staff, and direct financial support to neighborhood services. Sixty percent of churches surveyed had food pantries, and nearly as many hosted music performances and clothing donations. Over 40 percent had soup kitchens.

Churches also offer meals for the homebound, place children with foster parents, offer marriage counseling, run crisis pregnancy centers, and perform countless other ministries and social and cultural activities. And yet bureaucrats heap nothing but contempt or suspicion on orthodox Christians, and policymakers increasingly do nothing but circumscribe their rights in the public square. The reward for managing more healthcare than could ever be provided by the state? Catholic nuns compelled to provide artificial birth control. The reward for taking some weight off the broken foster care system? Being compelled to place children in same-sex households.

The utility and morality of orthodox Christian social beliefs can be debated. But according to Christian teaching, it is licit, perhaps even mandatory, to withdraw and walk awayshake the dust off your feetrather than violate ones conscience or become corrupted by the world.

At a lecture once in my college Catholic center, our priest said that if laws required Catholic agencies to place children in same-sex households, the church should suspend its adoption placements entirely. What about the children who wont get placed in homes, I asked? Can the church sacrifice real people for its own survival? Of course it can, he explained; it is more important to preserve the integrity of the church for the future, because it is the churchs moral and spiritual integrity which inspires it to do social good in the first place. That argument may not be watertight, but it is one Christians must grapple with.

Orthodox Christians in America have gotten into the habit of bemoaning their inexorably shrinking political power and the rising hostility to religious freedom. But they actually possess enormous political power: the ability to grind to a halt the health care, educational, and social services infrastructure of the United States. Will they use it?

Addison Del Mastro is Assistant Editor for The American Conservative.

Follow this link:

Jesus Shrugged | The American Conservative - The American Conservative

July 20, 2017, 2:49 p.m.

The curious story of the movie 9/11 has gotten a little more clarity. When a promotional poster first appeared earlier this month it raised more than a few eyebrows for more than a few reasons. A drama about the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, starring Charlie Sheen?

A Japanese trailer for the movie has now appeared online, providing the first glimpses of the movie. Directed and co-written by Martin Guigui, the movie is based on Patrick Carsons fact-based play Elevator and also stars Whoopi Goldberg, Gina Gershon, Luiz Guzman, Wood Harris and Jacqueline Bisset.

In the trailer, Sheen and Gershon are a married couple on the brink of divorce. They are in an elevator at the WTC when the towers are attacked and find themselves stuck with three strangers. As they figure out what is really happening, they attempt to escape. At one point, after seeming to have already helped Gershon out of the elevator car, Sheen says, The building is coming down.

Aside from the fact that seeing troubled star Sheen in any movie at all is notable at this point, his appearance in a movie specifically about 9/11 is of particular interest. Sheen has spoken often about the attacks and voiced doubts about the official version of those events.

Sheen, as a guest on the radio show of right-wing pundit Alex Jones in 2006,said, "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airlines and hitting 75% of their targets -- that feels like a conspiracy theory."

9/11 is scheduled for a U.S. theatrical release on Sept. 8 via Atlas Distribution Co., best known for putting out the three-part screen adaptation of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

Here is the original post:

First trailer for Charlie Sheen's '9/11' movie is ... well, you decide - Los Angeles Times

Weve all heard of the idea of a general workers strike. In her tome Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand posed a provocative question. What if, in response to an increasingly overbearing regulatory state, the entrepreneurs of America decided to go on strike?

The resulting 1000 pages, if you can get through them, constitute one of the most creative, if overwrought, dystopias ever envisioned. Societys producers quietly disappear, enclosed in their own hidden capitalist utopia, while innovation grinds to a halt, intellectual property languishes, and overconfident, arrogant bureaucrats run world-class factories into the ground. When alls said and done, all that was required to liberate Americas unappreciated geniuses and creators was for them to walk away and leave society to pick up the pieces.

American Christians may find themselves in a position closer to John Galt than to Saint Benedict, with apologies to Rod Dreher.Many of the services Americans take for granted are provided by churches and Christian organizations. It is not hyperbolic to say that core areas of American life would languish or collapse without the contributions of Christian people and organizations. These enormous social contributions are frequently underappreciated, but would certainly be missed.

Perhaps the most important is health care. John Stonestreet, president of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, wrote in an article titled No Christianity, No Hospitals: Dont Take Christian Contributions for Granted:

One in six hospital beds in our country is located in a Catholic hospital. In at least thirty communities, the Catholic hospital is the only hospital in a 35-mile radius. This doesnt even take into account hospitals run by other Christian bodies such as Baptists, Methodists, and especially Seventh-Day Adventists.

Catholic hospitals are the largest single category within non-profit hospitals, which themselves account for about half of all hospitals.

Christians also run thousands of private schools that often meet or exceed the quality of public schools; a full 70 percent of all private schools are either Catholic or affiliated with another religion, generally some form of Protestantism (a much smaller percentage of these are Jewish or run by a non-Abrahamic religion).

In addition to health care and education, it is churches which minister to the neediest and most marginalized members of society. Matthew Robare reported in these pages:

According to the nonprofit Partners for Sacred Places, churches and religious buildings of all faiths continue to have an economic impact on their neighborhoods. Their research found that almost all have some sort of community-service programs, and most have at least four running concurrently. The same study estimated that in Philadelphia alone religious congregations contribute over $100 million to their community annuallyabout $144,000 per congregation. Most of that comes from measuring volunteer time as though it were paid labor, but they also provide space, staff, and direct financial support to neighborhood services. Sixty percent of churches surveyed had food pantries, and nearly as many hosted music performances and clothing donations. Over 40 percent had soup kitchens.

Churches also offer meals for the homebound, place children with foster parents, offer marriage counseling, run crisis pregnancy centers, and perform countless other ministries and social and cultural activities. And yet bureaucrats heap nothing but contempt or suspicion on orthodox Christians, and policymakers increasingly do nothing but circumscribe their rights in the public square. The reward for managing more healthcare than could ever be provided by the state? Catholic nuns compelled to provide artificial birth control. The reward for taking some weight off the broken foster care system? Being compelled to place children in same-sex households.

The utility and morality of orthodox Christian social beliefs can be debated. But according to Christian teaching, it is licit, perhaps even mandatory, to withdraw and walk awayshake the dust off your feetrather than violate ones conscience or become corrupted by the world.

At a lecture once in my college Catholic center, our priest said that if laws required Catholic agencies to place children in same-sex households, the church should suspend its adoption placements entirely. What about the children who wont get placed in homes, I asked? Can the church sacrifice real people for its own survival? Of course it can, he explained; it is more important to preserve the integrity of the church for the future, because it is the churchs moral and spiritual integrity which inspires it to do social good in the first place. That argument may not be watertight, but it is one Christians must grapple with.

Orthodox Christians in America have gotten into the habit of bemoaning their inexorably shrinking political power and the rising hostility to religious freedom. But they actually possess enormous political power: the ability to grind to a halt the health care, educational, and social services infrastructure of the United States. Will they use it?

Addison Del Mastro is Assistant Editor for The American Conservative.

Read this article:

Jesus Shrugged - The American Conservative

Traditional economic theory says that the gains from technology will create as many or more jobs than the number destroyed, and statistically speaking, people like my father-in-law will be fine. The wonders of the free market and creative destruction will keep middle-aged dislocated salespeople from going hungry. That's what every economics textbook says.

But speaking statistically and speaking realistically are two different things.

Once his company transitions completely to online sales, what are the options for someone like my father-in-law?

Be a salesperson somewhere else? Every other company that could potentially hire my father-in-law is also trying to convert customers to online sales.

Get retrained for another job? Aid for retraining is restricted to employees who lose jobs because of trade, not technology. And, as research has shown, retraining is far from a foolproof solution.

Learn to be a coder? Though there isn't any data on this, the market for middle-aged, entry-level coders is probably weak.

In other words, the theory of creative destruction works when you're talking about specific companies or industries falling by the wayside because a better alternative has come along. The elimination of the typewriter wasn't an economic disaster, because typewriters gave way to a better alternative that created even more jobs. More people make their living from the production of computers than ever made their living from the production of typewriters.

However, the theory of creative destruction isn't as applicable when one of the things being destroyed is the very idea of human labor.

If economic theories like creative destruction do not provide an answer, maybe politics can.

I know I lost some of you right there.

"It's the free market," you say. "It will solve its own problems!" That's easy to say when the only way you've ever made a living hasn't disappeared. Just like there are no atheists in a foxhole, there are very few Ayn Rand followers in an unemployment line. And before you have any condescending ideas about the reading habits of people who end up in unemployment lines, it's worth remembering that bankers and CEOs also tend to misplace their copy of Atlas Shrugged whenever they need bailed out.

In fact, in the face of massive job loss, even the world's most powerful Ayn Rand fan, current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, can stop caring about what the free market wants.

But both the left and the right offer about as many helpful ideas of how to deal with the changing nature of human labor as an economics textbook does.

A tax cut from the right or an increase in the minimum wage from the left does nothing for a middle-aged, middle-class worker whose skill set (and human touch) has been permanently replaced by yet another interaction with a screen. That's one reason why politics has gotten so awful. Neither the left nor the right has any new ideas for new problems, so all they do is turn up the volume on old ideas.

So, what can be done for someone like my father-in-law and the millions of other people who will be permanently displaced by technology?

We need to begin by acknowledging the fact that we have to rethink the relationship between human beings, work, and the economy. That doesn't mean we need to adopt socialism or communism. What it means is that we need to accept the idea that we need to find a new "ism" that works in a world that none of the thinkers who came up with the old "isms" could have imagined.

Developing a new "ism" should also not be viewed as a criticism of capitalism. The parts of the world that operated under some variation of capitalism have fared better, even if the gains weren't evenly distributed. People lived longer, healthier, and more educated lives. A big reason why all of that happened is because capitalism allows people to pursue their full potential through work. If technology has evolved to the point where there aren't enough avenues for people to do that, the way we organize our society needs to evolve, too.

Letting all we've achieved wither away because we can't think of a new idea would be a tragedy. It would be a little like allowing a family to fall apart just because the kids grew up.

Except rather than a lifetime of figuring out where to spend Thanksgiving, you get to experience the real life Hunger Games (where no one looks like Katniss or Galeor even Peeta).

It is possible to create a society that can adapt to the changes ahead.

But first we need to recognize that our old ideas aren't a solution, and that a middle-class, middle-aged, technologically displaced worker won't be helped by a tax cut or a higher minimum wage.

Or a few coding lessons.

Commentary by Dustin McKissen, the founder and CEO of McKissen + Company, a strategy, marketing, and public relations firm based in St. Charles, Missouri. The firm does consulting work analyzing how politics effects the business climate for clients in the U.S., Europe, and Latin America. McKissen was named one of LinkedIn's "Top Voices" in 2015 and 2016. He holds a Bachelors degree in Public Policy, and a Masters degree in Public Administration and is currently pursuing a PhD in Organizational and Industrial Psychology. Follow him on Twitter @DMcKissen.

For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCOpinion on Twitter.

Read the original here:

My father-in-law won't become a coder, no matter what economists say - CNBC