If Andre is talking about 'wealth' in the sense of economic success on the micro level, I largely agree with him. 

Andre follows up by saying: But the dismal, weak, lame, uptight, inbred, sissified, feckless, rather-pathetic world of today's Objectivism evidently doesn't have Clue One what they're talking about. And again, these Objectivists have virtually no prospects of ever acquiring one. Such is todays' sad failed world of conservative, timid, limited, uptight, repressed, lame, weak, cultesque Objectivism.

I would like to thank Andre for his subtle, nuanced and philosophical response.

Now folks, many of you will assume that Andre is being rude or sarcastic. Others will attribute to him an intent that is far worse than that, they will say that it is malice that motivates him. Personally, I believe that what motivates him is best summed up with the below quote:

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. – Nick Diamos

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/02, 8:18am)

Andre, the best that can be said for your argument is that you know your way around a thesaurus. You’re not actually saying anything substantial between your adjectives.

Most Objectivists are fully aware of the intellectual leftist disdain for the “ordinary man.” It’s evident in their beloved post-modern art and philosophy that they have no respect for the mind; it’s evident in their politics that they do respect or trust man’s efficacy. The leftist misanthropy you ascribe to doesn’t take a particularly fine mind to understand. It has been thought about “clearly” … and rejected. A deep-thinking mind finds virtue in the “ordinary,” hard-working, “middle” American in spite of the cultural left’s pretentious and unwarranted elitism.

You make a case for the “struggling artist” and “struggling intellectual.” I put it to you that, today, the standards in art and the standards in intellectualism are so low, that it’s only right that the “ordinary man” (and Objectivist) is suspicious of them. The beauty of business is that there still remains an objective standard for success (contemporary “management studies” courses, notwithstanding): profit. As a consequence, while everyone here agrees that wealth does not prove virtue or vice, it’s a fair generalization to say that a person who has created wealth is more likely to have applied himself, identified and integrated reality, set goals, achieved them, dealt with the world honestly, etc. And as wealth creation, in general, requires this, the poor person is less likely to undertake these, and is more likely to sit in his cheap apartment, wring his hands, and wonder why his half-baked ideas, or meaningless daubs, go unappreciated.

The original quote was, “Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think.” It really is uncontroversial. And while we can’t say that wealth proves virtue or vice, we can say that if you have obtained wealth, it follows you must have applied some degree of thought, planning, goal-orientation, focus, productivity, identification of opportunities for trade, etc. If you refuse to apply thought and focus, you will not create wealth.

Jennifer, I guess my point is that in general, on the whole, your average middle American works hard, deals with people squarely, has dreams and aspirations, has a degree of common sense, deals with reality, is optimistic, listens to reason, etc. Now these are virtues, and I think that in general, on the whole the virtues of “ordinary” people outweigh their vices. Granted, these aren’t exceptional virtues, but your choice isn’t a false alternative between hero-worship and disdain. There’s a whole range in between, including the average, which for me, is a benevolent willingness to trade values.

The irony of the left is that they have a very dim view of humanity. If they don’t believe man’s inherently evil, they believe he’s inherently helpless, and their philosophy, their politics and their art reflect this. Objectivists, as I understand it, believe that man has the capacity for greatness and that man, in the abstract, is great. This abstraction should naturally lead to a positive view of people, in the specific, until specific cases prove otherwise. There are some great SOLO articles on this idea here and here.

Authenticity, integrity, and an openness to insight and experience are necessary virtues of artistic production.  I have no objection to the virtues Rand lists in Galt's speech, but they focus much on the Lockean-Hobbesian questions of health and wealth, and do less justice to passion and beauty.

As for discipline, that depends what you mean.  If you mean rational planning, I agree.  If you mean restraint and repression of emotions, authenticity, or expressivity, I disagree.

As for delayed gratification, it's only logical value can be towards a superior gratification that is not delayed. 

Holding "delayed" gratification is of value in itself is exactly as rational as revering "delayed" creation because one can'r produce well without intelligently planning meals and a night's sleep.  The value of delayed gratification for delayed gratification's sake is nonsense, a way for the bourgeois version of altruism to dodge the fact that it's actually gratification- enjoyment, pleasure, happiness- that the Protestant Ethic fears and despises.

What we need is the rational planning of gratification- the intelligent living of a life that is both a continuous, structured pursuit of joy and the shameless congruent indulgence in the pleasures of the moment that are part of the good life.  I have no admiration for mindless grabbing of any pleasure in sight at the cost of a ruined life, but I have not the slightest bit more respect for the mindless postponement of every pleasure in sight, which also leads to the ruin of life.  The bourgeois moralists can hollar all they want to this isn't want they mean- but their actually reflex of hatred to any present enjoyment that admits openly that it is enjoyment (instead of sublimating joy into a moral virtue such as 'achievement') speaks volumes otherwise.  Altruists pretend they aren't against personal happiness too, but the fact they try to kill it on reflex proves their real motives as well.

The 'virtue' of "delayed gratification" means exactly what is says: it is good in itself to put off pleasure.  This is evil, and I do not hesitate from applying that label those Objectivists (the Objectivist Center comes to mind) who dare call their philosophy a program for human happiness and yet support bourgeois culture without selectivity or criticism.