tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post7648714422209123828..comments2023-12-23T16:59:19.185+00:00Comments on Western Rifle Shooters Association: Francisco's Money SpeechUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-69974108014098721912010-09-11T09:31:55.910+01:002010-09-11T09:31:55.910+01:00And just like to correct some economic errors here...And just like to correct some economic errors here. Decreasing MARGINAL utility, does not mean that striving to increase one's money would result in ultimately less satisfaction but rather that the more money one has the less extra utility is derived from the addition of one more unit of money. All this means is that a dollar is more significant to a homeless man than a millionaire. Not to say the rest of your argument is valid, because although there are probably dozens of reference points that could be taken as answering the initial question, I believe it's best explained directly after it. Money is a medium of exchange used to avoid the barter system and the necessity for a double coincidence of wants. And a medium of exchange is only needed when there are goods of production to be exchanged.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-24811136849880015202010-08-12T18:02:47.511+01:002010-08-12T18:02:47.511+01:00Anon:
Are you the IPR holder or her agent/designa...Anon:<br /><br />Are you the IPR holder or her agent/designate?Concerned Americanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05257709418390025182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-66889986202631855262010-08-12T17:45:01.975+01:002010-08-12T17:45:01.975+01:00Please remove the bulk of this from here.
You DO...Please remove the bulk of this from here. <br /><br />You DO NOT have permission to post it here.<br /><br />Please respect INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS and COPYRIGHTS as you do not appear to be a LEFTIST.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-79794653497781155512009-04-07T00:05:00.000+01:002009-04-07T00:05:00.000+01:00"Common misquotation of First Timothy, Chapter 6, ..."Common misquotation of First Timothy, Chapter 6, verse 10."<BR/><BR/> Rand knew that. That's why she continued to say:<BR/><BR/>"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.Joe Mauronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07598213543612872498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-75494323221309166952009-04-06T21:34:00.000+01:002009-04-06T21:34:00.000+01:00In that entire verbose monologue, she never answer...<I>In that entire verbose monologue, she never answered her rhetorical question, so I will.</I><BR/><BR/>"What is the root of money?" <BR/><BR/>True, she doesn't come right out and say what it is in that particular passage - but for the less obtuse among us it is fairly clear that she is saying the "root of money" as well as the root of production is man's mind. Though it has been quite some time since I've read much of her work, I seem to recall that Rand said expressly that, either in other passages in Atlas Shrugged or in other of her writings.<BR/><BR/>Uh, no - you have not answered the question either. The root of money is not "dissatisfaction." Dissatisfaction with one's present state of affairs <I>is</I>, usually, the motive behind the desire to acquire money or to produce goods for barter - but only if there is actually something for which to exchange them. If there is nothing to buy, why would anyone want money - or more money? Furthermore, no one freely trades money, or any other commodity, unless one perceives a gain in value. Those barter commodities one accumulates (or produces) may very well have less and less "marginal utility" the more of them one accumulates, but unless one can trade them for that which has greater value, I don't think most would bother. For that matter, no one would produce anything at all unless one's mind came to the conclusion that doing so would alleviate one's "dissatisfaction."<BR/><BR/>sasobsmartass sobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-48069746743169178532009-04-06T20:42:00.000+01:002009-04-06T20:42:00.000+01:00Anoymous #2:Just to be clear, Rand wasn't misquoti...Anoymous #2:<BR/><BR/>Just to be clear, Rand <I>wasn't</I> misquoting the biblical phrase; she was--instead--accurately quoting/phrasing the common sophism about "money being the root of all evil".<BR/><BR/>It is the sophism that is the misquote of the biblical text, not Rand's use of it in this context.<BR/><BR/>You'll note that Jesus threw the money-lenders from <I>the temple</I>, not the street, and (taken in biblical context) *that* action was justifiable based on <B>property rights</B>. The money-lenders were still perfectly free to ply their trade elsewhere.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511808062334334190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-58975288923741865132009-04-06T20:26:00.000+01:002009-04-06T20:26:00.000+01:00Malthus (or anonymous...whichever....)You parse Ra...Malthus (or anonymous...whichever....)<BR/><BR/>You parse Rand's point with all the skill of a cell-phone addled motorist.<BR/><BR/>Or you evade it with much better skill. <BR/><BR/>Your choice, but one of the two is true...and maybe both.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511808062334334190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-45078356365677209122009-04-06T19:20:00.000+01:002009-04-06T19:20:00.000+01:00"In that entire verbose monologue, she never answe..."In that entire verbose monologue, she never answered her rhetorical question, so I will."<BR/><BR/>You can't possibly have missed the explanation. You must just not like the explanation given, which is a shame because, having dealt with the essentials of money and having integrated them with self-esteem, morality, and politics, it's much better than yours.<BR/><BR/>"Common misquotation..." is pretty well covered by: "Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature..." The speech is actually better for this two-pronged approach, since D'Anconia refutes the garbage he overhears, then corrects it for the audience, and refutes it that way too. Just so no one hearing him can back out on a technicality.LukeMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-80728411319446385802009-04-06T18:46:00.000+01:002009-04-06T18:46:00.000+01:00You didn't read the whole thing, did you?-- Anon #...You didn't read the whole thing, did you?<BR/><BR/>-- Anon #2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-30093147847942339472009-04-06T17:45:00.000+01:002009-04-06T17:45:00.000+01:00"Common misquotation of First Timothy, Chapter 6, ...<I>"Common misquotation of First Timothy, Chapter 6, verse 10."</I><BR/><BR/>Please read the book. Francisco's speech begins at page 387 of the Signet Books paperback edition (the only one I have handy right now). Other editions will be in a similar ballpark.<BR/><BR/>Francisco's very first line -- the interrogative -- is, indeed, a "commmon misquotation": it's the popular vulgarism of the Bible verse. Francisco's point is to take this mindless premise at its words.<BR/><BR/>Two pages later, he corrects the misquotation from I Timothy, and then deals with <I>that</I>, too.Billy Beckhttp://www.two--four.net/weblog.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-78548466300085284042009-04-06T00:33:00.000+01:002009-04-06T00:33:00.000+01:00"So you think that money is the root of all evil?"..."So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia.<BR/><BR/>Common misquotation of First Timothy, Chapter 6, verse 10.<BR/><BR/>"For <B>the love of money is the root of all evil</B>: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."<BR/><BR/>Money itself is no more evil than a rifle...or a pistol...or any inanimate thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2469109905542911409.post-4135985298600673872009-04-05T13:50:00.000+01:002009-04-05T13:50:00.000+01:00"Have you ever asked what is the root of money?"In..."Have you ever asked what is the root of money?"<BR/><BR/>In that entire verbose monologue, she never answered her rhetorical question, so I will.<BR/><BR/>The root of money is dissatisfaction. <BR/><BR/>Men wish to escape their present, less-preferred state of affairs for a better one, thus they engage in economic exchange.<BR/><BR/>Money of recognized worth (eg., gold, silver, copper, lead, tobacco, pins, wampum) has superior utility to barter.<BR/><BR/>The greater the supply of these commodities, the less marginal utility each additional monetary unit possesses. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, the more you have, the less satisfaction it brings. <BR/><BR/>If your goal in acquiring money was to remedy your dissatisfaction, why would you strive to be rich if the end result is less satisfaction? <BR/><BR/>It is all vanity and vexation of spirit, as the "Preacher" shrewdly noted.<BR/><BR/>Mises' opinion of Ayn Rand was right: She was a silly little Jewish girl.<BR/><BR/>MALTHUSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com