Let me first say that I love the book and I completely agree on the over cumbersome government, with it's 70K regulations, it's suppressing of individual liberties, its infringing on property rights. Pretty much, I agree with Francisco's Money Speech, when a government begins to make you get a license to sell your own wares, when it makes you get permission to do something on your own property, we're in trouble. When our money is no longer backed by anything of value. These things are bad.
My issue with Ayn Rand is that she makes the CEO's the movers and shakers of the world. Yes, I know, she mentions actresses and musicians, she mentions inventors as well. What about exceptional workers? The men and women who know the value of their service and request to be paid according to their worth. You can be the greatest CEO in the world, if you're workers don't know how to run the machines, if they don't know how to pour the metal, if they don't know how to lay the track, if they don't know how to run the train, you're company is still going to fail. All great companies have succeeded because of the great workers they hired in the process. Henry Ford was the first to realize that if you paid an employee a good wage, they worked better for you, and if you paid them according to their worth, you could get the best employees.
Steve Jobs might be a visionary, but there were many people responsible for the creation of the Ipod, from the factory worker who assembled it to the truck driver that delivered it to the stores, to the men and women who came out with advertisements. Without workers the ipod may have never been. Rand understood these things in her characters speeches but fails to include these workers in her list of great movers of people that should be disappearing. Capitalism is the only system that truly engenders the best form of cooperation. A cooperation where both people get exactly what they want from any given situation. Capitalism is the only system where there can be two winners in any transaction. In Socialism, one man is subjugated for another, in Fascism and in Communism all are subjugated to the state.
Capitalism is a system for which a man who opens a restaurant, wants to get a great staff, other chefs, and some capital to do it with, and all of these workers are movers. It is a system for which Finance, Innovation, Management, and Work force come together to create a beautiful mosaic of accomplishment. Each supposed to be paid according to their worth in the market place. If your worth becomes of greater value, than you should be able to approach your employer and two rational people can talk about a higher pay for a greater value, if they are unable to come to an agreement, than they should part company on good grounds, and the person should seek a place where his perceived value can be recognized.
My question is, why isn't the therapist who does her job better than most others, the machinist for whom does his, the firefighter who keeps his crew safe while rescuing people, the teacher who teaches the unteachable or revolutionizes a way to approach students with a topic, included in the list of great movers.
She left out the major aspect of capitalism, which is cooperation, she mentions it in her philosophy and its important in her philosophy, the money speech being the best example, each person works with or for another by agreement. But she, like Republicans, insults these people by not including them in her list of great movers. A man who knows his worth and is willing to work for the value of his servie is a mover of society, not just the man that gives the job, not just the person that invents the equipment. Those who work with deliberate intent to a certain and specific goal are a success in this world.
It is still a great book and I still enjoyed it and I enjoyed the movie version. I still highly recommend it. I just want people to realize that great minds are not just CEO's, Inventors, or Financiers, but also, men for whom know the value of their service and are willing to work for it, for whom without, the CEO would be useless, the inventor would never get his products out to the vast amount of people he would want, and the financier would have little to finance.