RoR: Forum

Rick,
No, the robber barons didn't have halos. Maybe the title of the article should've been "The Inadvertent Benevolence of the Robber Barons." I think the point is that when people pursue their own goals in a capitalist system, they inadvertently end up being a net benefit to society. It doesn't mean that was their goal, and that's the beauty of capitalism.

Michael,
On the "have clients in order to build" idea, I think it is more indicative of the distinction between engineering-types and marketing-types. Roark was an engineering-type; his goal was to build houses. For marketing-types, the goal is to maximize profit. Both are worthy goals, and both types exist in corporations and in sole proprietorships, although it could be that sole proprietors are more likely to be engineering-types.

Post 21

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 8:53am

Fraser,

There was no criticism of "market" from what I read. There was a criticism of a market where the intellectuals were producing poor quality ideas (remember the George Washington stamp, the article slants of Wynand's press, etc.?).

The market is neither good or bad. It just is. If poor ideas are rampant, then the quality of what people buy will reflect that. That's the real message I got.

Roark simply refused to accept the poor quality ideas in the market, thus he ultimately helped put good quality ideas in it without being a professional intellectual himself.

His market in essence, however, continued being what it was, people producing buildings and people buying them - except for the part where poor quality ideas allowed the government to step in and mess with the good quality ideas, which was rejected out of hand and blown up.

Michael

Post 22

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:31am

MFD - I get your interpretation that Rand was criticising Wynand because of his motivation for following the market, not for following the market per se. Wynand's motivation was power of other people, which was illusory.

MSK - Yes, my initial point should have been that Rand seemed to be criticising those who produced to fulfill the demands of the market, rather than criticising the market itself. As I mentioned above, MFD has suggested a stronger interpretation regarding criticism of motivation.
Presumably an individual who sees the largest circulation of a paper as an inspiring goal in itself, is prepared to chase the basest of readers in order to achieve it, and uses the best techniques of market analysis that he can muster is a different animal to Wynand, even if his business endeavours look the same. (I know I have only addressed one of your points)

(Edited by Fraser Stephen-Smith on 9/15, 9:33am)

Post 23

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:34pm

And that, Laure, was precisely what Smith was saying in his Wealth of Nations...
(Edited by robert malcom on 9/15, 5:35pm)

Post 24

Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:12am