Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (36.32)

Alstry's Review Of Atlas Shrugged

Recs

19

April 15, 2011 – Comments (35)

My son and I went to see the movie today.  It does a nice job following the book using a contemporary setting.

The parallels to the current environment are unsettling especially since the book was written over 50 years ago.  Gas prices skyrocketing, businesses shutting down across America, Politicians not feeling the people's pain, and moochers sucking off the producers.

It is amazing how few see what is actually happening to America.  Combine this with Inside Job, and maybe a few are learning.....but most are too scared to say anything....

Who is John Galt?  Who Is Alstry?

35 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 15, 2011 at 8:02 PM, mtf00l (49.87) wrote:

Rotten Tomatoes had it rated at zero by six "critics". When something gets a perfect negative score, that's a must see! =D

Not to mention I have a gift card for the only theater it's showing in.

Report this comment
#2) On April 15, 2011 at 8:40 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I'm going to see it, but I don't have high hopes.  It's the worst book that ever impacted my view of the world.  But I'm glad I trudged through it.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On April 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM, L0RDZ (78.57) wrote:

Alstry as fun as it is to talk,  I'm probably done talking and playing caps..

Take care....  this place  is too anal... for me

 

 

Report this comment
#4) On April 15, 2011 at 11:02 PM, alstry (36.32) wrote:

Lord,

You should have been done playing CAPs a long time ago...right about 9/09 when your freedom was taken away.

Every CAPs player should be required to watch INSIDE JOB before playing or having the right to blog.

Once you see the movie, if you have any morals or conscious, you would liquidate all investments and quit playing Wall Street's criminal game...otherwise you become a knowing participant/coconspirator to obvious criminal activity.

Report this comment
#5) On April 15, 2011 at 11:22 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

So a movie should dictate what you should do in real life?  While I read the book (and prefered "The Fountainhead" more), eventually I will see the movie thru netflix. I think it a bit silly to argue that one person's viewpoint should demand you drink the koolaid.  Sadly that has happened in the past. Think for yourself instead.

Report this comment
#6) On April 15, 2011 at 11:27 PM, alstry (36.32) wrote:

If you were going to take a movie to form an opinion, INSIDE JOB...which by the way was NOT a book and the movie I was referring to in my earlier comment as a requirement before playing CAPS....

it is a documentary simply highlighting the direct testimony of the players themselves like Geithner, Mishkin, Summers, Paulson, Bernanke, Blankenfein, and many more....in a legal sense it would be an admission against interest.....

After you hear their testimony incriminating the culprits themselves.....my guess is most reasonable people will draw the same conclusions.

Report this comment
#7) On April 15, 2011 at 11:45 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

See Alstry this is my problem with the "new" you.  You don't try to actually discuss.  You just throw out rhetoric instead of engaging in discussion.

If you took the time to actually ask, you'd be surprised as to my real views.  I've said it elsewhere.  I think a lot of people got away with highway robbery during the whole mortgage boom.  I said how shadow banks should never have been allowed into the business.  I said that the gimmick of using 1st/2nds as a way around pmi was the worse thing ever.

I still tip my hat off to Bernanke, despite his unpopularity, in that he is refusing to let the system collapse and has taken whatever steps necessary to avoid another Great Depression.  And guess what?  So far so good on that score, at least in my opinion.  Will there be inflation?  Please pick up a newspaper from the 1900s and it will be screaming the same things as today.

What I would like to see is a less disconnect the Ceos/executives/directors have with the main population.  It has become simply too obscene regarding their wage growth compared to the rest of the country.  Mulally gets 56.5 MILLION dollars for basically doing his job?  And Dimon of JPM gets 20.8 MILLION?  Tax the hell out of that please.

 

Report this comment
#8) On April 16, 2011 at 12:04 AM, ChairmanMAObama (55.73) wrote:

Maybe ask the recipiant class to pay lets say a finski to the federal leviathon before we ask those evil rich to foot even more gubment spending of OPM.

Bernyankme keeps blowing up the condom soon the reservor will blow.  Fake money like the fake tech bubble will burst.

Report this comment
#9) On April 16, 2011 at 12:13 AM, alstry (36.32) wrote:

I still tip my hat off to Bernanke, despite his unpopularity, in that he is refusing to let the system collapse and has taken whatever steps necessary to avoid another Great Depression.

You mean levering up even more an overleveraged economy is avoiding another Great Depression?  No silly goose, it is guaranteeing an EVEN GREATER DEPRESSION.

In case you havn't noticed, government is running a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit just to keep an already dead corpse of an economy on life support just so the family members can feel good.

But my guess is you were one of those guys saying how great the economy was when the banks were making fraudulent loans...because if you go by earnings and stock price, the economy was great....until we exposed the fraud.

We will ALL learn the hard way, you can't borrow your way to prosperity.....at some point, you must produce.

Report this comment
#10) On April 16, 2011 at 10:45 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I still tip my hat off to Bernanke, despite his unpopularity, in that he is refusing to let the system collapse and has taken whatever steps necessary to avoid another Great Depression.

Seriously, awallejr loses all credibility when he ignores the regularly reported evidence of where the money actually went. He'll tell you he doesn't know, but just like his love affair with Obamabush's war in Libya, he just refuses to see evidence right in front of his face. The bailout list now available thanks to the efforts of Ron Paul and the FOIA filed against the Fed are revealing the complete and utter con job that was the entire operation.  To add humor to awallejr's insanity, the Federal Reserve he worships loaned money to Gadhafi during the bailout that he claims saved us(!), loans which I'm sure came in handy during the war on the rebels that awallejr professes to support!  Hahahhahaha!

As for Atlas Shrugged, alstry, you may find this review by Robert Wenzel interesting:

It was not by accident that in her novel, The Fountainhead, Rand made the evil Ellsworth Toohey a newspaper critic.  Toohey’s power existed entirely in his ability to scribble his column and tell non-thinkers how to think. Toohey had no impact on individuals, thinkers and creators, and thus he attacked them, in a manner not different from the way reviewers have attacked Atlas Shrugged, Part 1.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#11) On April 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

I hope I get the chance to see the movie while it's in theatres.

I have been paying attention to the reviews for it on Rotten Tomatoes.  Currently it's rated 5%, and 86% for audience reviews.  David is probably correct with the Robert Wenzel review comment.  I had the same opinion before the movie came out that it would probably get bad reviews from reviewers who don't like Ayn Rand's philosophy and rate it based on that rather than the quality of the movie, and conversely it would get favourable reviews from fans of the book and Ayn Rand rather than the actual quality of the movie.

I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

As I'm in Canada it'll likely be a while before it's anywhere near me, and then hopefully I'll have the time to see it.  If I do, I'll let you know what I think.  I'm sure you're all dying to know.

Report this comment
#12) On April 16, 2011 at 3:38 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Alstry when it comes between me and you in making accurate predictions you have been crushed.  You have been so crushed that you eventually capitulated on CAPS. And when the going was good for you pointwise you never hesitated to point out your score against someone lower than you if they disagreed. Now, because your score flat out sucks it is unimportant to you.  And if you have actually followed my blogs I was constantly attacking Wall Street and their thievery.

And whereaminow, it is hardly a credibility issue since I have always been up front on this site.  I don't try to lie or be disingenuous.  I realize my viewpoint would never been embraced by someone of your ilk.  But make no mistake I am glad someone like you or Alstry never had or ever will have any real power. 

Time will ultimately tell how things will play out.  I have no delusions what Paulson and Bernanke's intentions' were.  Initially they listened to those purported pundits and Kudlow when they shouted let Lehman go bankrupt, moral hazard and all.  Feds did and what was the result?  A near total collapse of the world financial system.  A total freeze of liquidity.  GS and GE had to go beg Buffet for money.  A real chance that ATM machines would be empty and complete runs on the bank. Citibank (pre-massive dilution) selling for 97 cents a share.

So they did what they had to do.  They bailed those bastards out because the alternative was just unthinkable.  And while you two might love to rail against it all in anonymous blogs, personally I am glad that is all you guys can do.

Report this comment
#13) On April 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM, alstry (36.32) wrote:

Again...you are simply think you can borrow your way to prosperity......

don't make it too complicated.

The only place I have been wrong in my predictions is the stock market.....the stock market is corrupt and based on fraud....as main street shuts down......

you simply can't believe that because if you do.....your life will be crushed.....just like millions of lives on mainstreet have and are being destroyed.

I will not support a corrupt system, you and the Gardner Bros have chosen a different path.....

you are free to do it...and I am free to back away and inform you that the system is corrupt, just like I did to homeowners BEFORE the housing crash.

but in the end, you will learn that you can't bail out Wall Street, and destroy main street, and not expect America to implode/explode.

The only difference now is America is at stake vs. just housing in the past.

Please watch the movie INSIDE JOB before rendering any more opinions.

Report this comment
#14) On April 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

awallejr,

I don't want any power. Never have. Never will. I have always respected your honesty, I just hoped you had more offer than "Fed good. Save us." (Beat chest like caveman.)

I just find the whole thing kind of cultish, an adoration and adulation of people whose motives are probably not what they seem and whose actions never match their words. It's all bizarre to me, like the bizarre rituals of removing hats for the national anthem and crap like that. Very very religious and weird.

David in Qatar

 

Report this comment
#15) On April 16, 2011 at 7:14 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

The only place I have been wrong in my predictions is the stock market

Oh please Alstry you were predicting -60 unemployment and -60 GDP in 2009. 

And whereaminow,  tipping one's hat and adulation are two different things. 

 

Report this comment
#16) On April 16, 2011 at 7:58 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

I just got back from the movie and really enjoyed it. This was a book that I thought would never translate into a movie that well, but I was suprised with how well they did just that.

awallejr, It's very funny that you fear David and Alstry having any power when the only power that they seek is the power over themselves. It's a very telling sign of your view of prosperity. It's also fitting with your premise that the banks are evil but the Fed "had" to bail them out because the alternative is unthinkable. Following that conclusion, it would seem that after robbing our children and handing the money over to the evil banks, we would at least put some bankers in jail for getting us in this position in the first place. Instead of that though, our government is colluding with banks to distort the market and bankers are getting record bonuses. It's hard to prosecute bankers when the prosecutors share equal guilt.

 

Who is John Galt? 

Report this comment
#17) On April 17, 2011 at 3:20 AM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

I don't fear it, I am just glad they don't.  I've said it plenty of times, too many people were just let off the hook. There should have been more arrests.  It is absolutely obscene what GS did.  They played the mortgage game too.  When they got into trouble they ran to Buffett and then ran to the feds asking to be called a bank so they could grab all that interest free money.  And then what?  They gave themselves obscene bonuses.  It really is sickening.

 

Report this comment
#18) On April 17, 2011 at 1:40 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

So you need to ask yourself is it wise to be glad that the people that just want power over themselves don't have it when the people that power over them abuse it blantently?

If you support the people in power now, then you support that abuse of power.

Maybe giving more individuals power over themselves isn't such a bad idea after all. 

Report this comment
#19) On April 17, 2011 at 4:20 PM, mtf00l (49.87) wrote:

I too have now seen "Atlas Shrugged part 1".  My only introduction to the book and Ayn Rand were on these boards.  I took my wife who knew even less about it and she actually enjoyed it more than I did.  I was also surprised how many people attended.

From the entertainment perspective it was about average.  It felt like a made for TV movie.  This may have been from what I've read were time and money constraints on production.  From a practical message standpoint, I get where it was going however, having never read the book the time frame seemed a little contrived.  The reference to Atlantis, however true to the book, was a continuity problem for me.

Other than that I would recommend it.  If you see it you can draw your own conclusions as I have above... ;-)

I particularly liked the sign at the end left by the oil tycoon Ellis Wyatt.

Report this comment
#20) On April 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

So you need to ask yourself is it wise to be glad that the people that just want power over themselves don't have it when the people that power over them abuse it blantently?

If you support the people in power now, then you support that abuse of power.

Maybe giving more individuals power over themselves isn't such a bad idea after all

Being a Constitutionalist I use the voting booth.  Plenty times my vote goes to the losing person.  The problem was people were given too much power over themselves (mainly through a lack of oversight).

I could sidetrack this and start getting into discussions of morality, but will stay basic and say when unchecked the corrupt tend to become more corrupt since they are not moral people.  Constant vigilance by the moral is imperative. 

Whereaminow's views I know.  He is a professed Libertarian.  I've had some discussions with him in other threads.  Alstry is just a "chicken little."

Report this comment
#21) On April 17, 2011 at 8:19 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Banks have oversight now.

Oversight is worthless if the politicians conspire with the banks.

Giving the government too much power is just as bad as giving a business too much power.

Power corrupts, no matter who has the power. 

Report this comment
#22) On April 18, 2011 at 1:23 AM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Certainly absolute power corrupts.  But that was the main goal of "checks and balances," to offset the possiblity of any person or group from obtaining such absolute power.

Banks always had oversight.  Those overseeing just dropped the ball.  Inexcuseable that Madoff got away with what he did.  Even I attacked the SEC chairman here :

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/thank-you-chris-cox-of-the-sec/87699

Report this comment
#23) On April 18, 2011 at 9:05 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

But that was the main goal of "checks and balances," to offset the possiblity of any person or group from obtaining such absolute power.

Exactly! And one of those checks and balances should be to allow the individual to have more power.

 

Report this comment
#24) On April 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, mtf00l (49.87) wrote:

Bottom line?,...

Power is not given,...

It's taken!

Report this comment
#25) On April 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Exactly! And one of those checks and balances should be to allow the individual to have more power

I don't know but it sounds like a bit of sophistry there ;p

Report this comment
#26) On April 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Just common sense. If you want a balance of people that have power over an individual, give the individual power as well.

Report this comment
#27) On April 18, 2011 at 11:45 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Go to the voting booth. But, sadly, most don't.

Report this comment
#28) On April 19, 2011 at 3:03 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

awallejr,

And after I have voted, and they turn out to be rotten liars that leave Gitmo open, wage war on whistleblowers, and bomb another foreign country, what recourse do I have?  Must I wait 4 years to give it another college try? 

What if, during the period in-between the casting of my all powerful vote, my property is confiscated and I am cast in jail or killed?  Does voting fix this?

I find "go to the voting booth" to be nothing more than a religious ritual with all the impact of performing a rain dance. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#29) On April 19, 2011 at 4:11 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Nope, you can do plenty of things.  Protest.  Rally.  Bombard your congressmen with letters and petitions (believe me politicians are very sensitive to public polls and views).

You also can hire the all hated lawyer to protect your interests should you in fact be jailed or your property confiscated..

And while you might find voting to be nothing but a ritual, you now have much of the Middle East fighting and dying for that privilege.

Report this comment
#30) On April 19, 2011 at 4:45 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I can do those things without voting.

Nope, you can do plenty of things.  Protest.  Rally. 

Surveys of people that protest the war show no change in participation among people that have no party identification (and I presume, many of those don't vote). Among people who identify themselves as Democrat, that participation has fallen over 70%!!!

I am blaming this on the voting ritual. You've done your duty. You voted. Your job is done. 

Voting, it seems, is a detriment to a free society.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#31) On April 19, 2011 at 6:15 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

So majority rules is the best answer?

Does it stop tyranny?

Will a good lawyer help if the law is designed to infringe on my rights? What if I'm a minority? Will the majority care about my rights?

If you have a choice between being shot in the head or hung from a tree is it more just when you are allowed to vote on it?

Why must someone always have more power over me than I can have over myself?

Do they know what's better for me?

Do they care?

Whose best interest will be in mind, mine or theirs? 

 

Report this comment
#32) On April 19, 2011 at 6:21 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

I can do those things without voting.

Exactly that is why they are considered IN ADDITION to voting in response to your query must you wait another 4 years (and actually you have 2 year votes as well as 4 year).

You've done your duty. You voted. Your job is done

So say you.  But hey stay with that totalitarian regime instead. Well enough in an Alstry thread for me. Start a new one if you want to argue some more ;p

Report this comment
#33) On April 19, 2011 at 6:36 PM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Well Chris snuck in so I will respond this last time.

So majority rules is the best answer?

So far.  Tho minority rights are also protected.  People keep ingoring the Third Branch of Government (the Courts).

Give me a better realistic alternative.

Will a good lawyer help if the law is designed to infringe on my rights? What if I'm a minority? Will the majority care about my rights?

Hell yeah a good lawyer will help.  Go talk to the ACLU.  Civil rights violations?  Municipalities worry very much about those since violations have cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you have a choice between being shot in the head or hung from a tree is it more just when you are allowed to vote on it?

That is just a silly nonsequitur.

Why must someone always have more power over me than I can have over myself?

You actually do have more power over yourself than you realize.  Just view your day to day activities.

As for the bigger picture, that is where the consitution and social contract law comes in.

Do they know what's better for me?

It isn't a question of only you but of society as well, trying to engage in a balancing act, not always with success, but always cureable by the nature of the system.

Do they care?

Some do some don't.

Whose best interest will be in mind, mine or theirs? 

Sometimes theirs sometimes yours. 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#34) On April 19, 2011 at 7:10 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

People keep ingoring the Third Branch of Government (the Courts).

They share political affiliations with the government. Therefore the decisions they make are as biased as the laws they are deciding on.

Hell yeah a good lawyer will help.  Go talk to the ACLU.  Civil rights violations?  Municipalities worry very much about those since violations have cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sounds good, but I still live in a land where my town can take my property via eminent domain and hand it over to a developer (certainly a campaign contributor) building a mini-mart and I have no recourse. I can call the ACLU, but they'll tell me that the law isn't on my side. 

That is just a silly nonsequitur.

Liberal government = shot in the head.

Coservative government = hung from a tree.

You actually do have more power over yourself than you realize.  Just view your day to day activities.

I have more power over myself than most people do in part because I understand the abuses of my government and plan against those abuses. That still doesn't mean that I should be happy about those abuses.

As far as the Constitution goes, our government not only ignores the original intent of the Constitution but takes on broad powers not given to it by the Constitution. What good does it do me if they are allowed to ignore it?

It isn't a question of only you but of society as well, trying to engage in a balancing act, not always with success, but always cureable by the nature of the system. 

This suggests that those in control view society's needs above their own and has been proven wrong over and over again. Absolute power still corrupts absolutely.

I understand the Utopia you are selling but the real world demonstrations don't fall short, they prove the opposite.

Where in the constitution does it say a government can dictate my healthcare choices?

Where does it say they can influence my religous beliefs?

Where does it say it can sell my children into slavery by diluting the money supply?

Surely if you are a Constitutionalist you can point that out to me.

The Constitution was designed to protect me, but it's worthless if everyone ignores it. 

 

Report this comment
#35) On April 20, 2011 at 1:13 AM, awallejr (77.67) wrote:

Well I won't get drawn into an extremists argument but this is just not true

Sounds good, but I still live in a land where my town can take my property via eminent domain and hand it over to a developer (certainly a campaign contributor) building a mini-mart and I have no recourse

Know the law before you make false conclusions since you do have recourse. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement