« United 93 - not soon enough | Main | Don't get mad... »

April 27, 2006


I'm too stunned with horror to react

Ayn Rand's most ambitious novel may finally be brought to the bigscreen after years of false starts.

Lionsgate has picked up worldwide distribution rights to "Atlas Shrugged" from Howard and Karen Baldwin ("Ray"), who will produce with John Aglialoro.

As for stars, book provides an ideal role for an actress in lead character Dagny Taggart, so it's not a stretch to assume Rand enthusiast Angelina Jolie's name has been brought up. Brad Pitt, also a fan, is rumored to be among the names suggested for lead male character John Galt.

What? Antonio Banderas as Francisco?


Technorati: , ,

Posted by Darleen at April 27, 2006 10:58 PM


I tried reading Atlas Shrugged, but I got sick of that buccaneer capitalism the author puts out.

Got about halfway through.

Joyce Carol Oates has a new collection of short stories out.

Can't wait till it hits the library....

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at April 30, 2006 07:42 AM

"Buccaneer capitalism"? Hmmm, that's a clever way to sneer at the concept better known as "the free market." I notice that Carl W. Goss expressed not the least discomfort by the descriptions of buccaneer statism in Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged.

There is an alternative to the free market: the slave market. --Angelique Michelin

The geezer-crats expect to do fine feeding off the State's looting; when one expects one will soon have no care to buy unripe bananas, the long run in which one will be dead is no cause for concern. Boomers, though, are living in a fool's paradise. Age 75 is the new 67. (Hat tip: Amy Ridenour.) As for anyone younger, if they expect America has "enough to loot for three generations," the influx of poor, low-productivity, fully welfare-state-conditioned immigrants who are, on average, net tax consumers is going to give that third generation a huge shock!

Posted by: michael i at May 2, 2006 02:46 AM

You're all wrong, michael i.

First off, I believe in free markets, most people do.

But Rand's idea that we should shut down government and let those who possess large amounts of capital run amok and run enterprises the way they see fit, with no consideration for anyone, is just so much nonsense.

Such ruthlessness wouldn't work; has never worked.

At least not for very long.

People just won't put up with the sort of capitalism Rand advocated.

The slavery-freedom dichotomy you mention is meaningless in real-world situations.

All markets need some sort of regulation; the ideal is the greatest possible freedom of economic enterprise consistent with the public good.

You seem to be saying that there are not going to be enough resources to take care of the elderly at some point in the future.

Sure, if the economy were somehow static. But that's not the case. Economies grow over time.

You're putting out a phony Malthusian argument:

Like Malthus, you ignore the fact that people and governments have the ability to plan and make rational choices.

You also ignore the fact that the US economy has the capacity to grow along with the growth in its elderly population and that increases in economic growth provide the surplus needed for social programs.

Then you ignore the fact that people can work more years now because they are in better health and live longer.

This means more money can be put aside in public and private investment for the future.

For a longer period of time.

And finally you ignore the fact that private and public investment the stock market and other forms of investment "work" by way of compound interest to supplement things like social security.

That doesn't mean you don't reform things if necessary, but doomsaying just isn't justified.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at May 2, 2006 10:09 AM