Atlas Shrugged – Day 056 – pp. 619-628
Dagny’s in awe. And in horror. Horrified awe? Awesome horror?
In any case, I don’t think she still fully gets it. The part about “inaction” actually being action (in this instance.)
She sees things as they are because they (her, Francisco, Hank et al) didn’t work hard enough. Francisco is trying to tell her it’s because they worked too hard. (And didn’t charge enough.)
I think this is where a lot of objection to Rand’s philosophy comes in. That her idea of “chasing money” is her moral end in itself. It’s not. . .
In fact, Francisco says those actual words, “. . .we worked too hard — and charged too little.”
But he (Rand) goes on to make two key points that are probably often overlooked – missed – ignored . . . probably simply not understood with today’s fiat money world.
To digress and ascend my soapbox for just one second. . .
The reserve banking system today was established in 1913 with the modern day Fed. The gold standard has been gone since 1971. Today you pretty much have to be over 60 (70?) to have any recollection of a time when money wasn’t just paper. When there was some sort of store of value that backed its “lighter, more portable” substitute.
Today all we know is “money.” And further to that – credit. All the troubles in the world today are a result of too much borrowing. (That’s a simplified explanation, but I’ll leave it at that for the time being.)
Today we think in terms of how much money we have or earn. Not how much value we provide. We live with the idea that money IS wealth, that somehow money is inherently valuable.
Rand’s reality is the more you give, the more you get.
What Rand writes blast’s that notion. . .
“We kept mankind alive, yet we allowed men to despise us and to worship our destroyers. . . . You do not have to depend on any material possessions, they depend on you, you create them, you own the one and only tool of production.”
Material things (value) depend on people creating it – and I think people today simply don’t get it.
Same thing as in his previous speech at Jim’s wedding. Money is the root of all good. Because money REPRESENTS (and only represents) value. Our minds create goods and services of value to people and society. And their worth is measured in money. Money isn’t an end, only a yardstick.
This group of industrialists don’t own wealth as the world collectively thinks, they CREATE it – which the world does not understand. This is the lesson Francisco (and Rand) are trying to hammer home.
I don’t know whether things would have been perceived differently in the 50s. Maybe. Credit certainly wasn’t an issue back then. Twenty percent down payments were required to buy a house. (Hell, my dad bought our house in 1963 when he was 41, and the bank wouldn’t give him a 30 year mortgage because he was too old!)
But maybe the idea of possessing the means of purchasing, of owning is actually a more universal and ancient concept.
The idea of materialist picture just naturally follows from today’s mis-understanding of real economics.
Anyway, down off my soapbox and back to the story.
Dagny seems to be getting what Francisco is telling her when their talk is interrupted by a news flash on the radio.
“. . .we interrupt this broadcast to bring you a special new bulletin. The greatest disaster in railroad history occurred in the early hours of the morning on the main line of Taggart Trans, at Winston, CO demolishing the famous Taggart Tunnel.”
The announcer describes the incident. Overcome by fumes, panicked passengers pulled the emergency brake. Unable to restart the engine the train became stuck in the tunnel while an Army express carrying a trainload of explosives hurtled into the tunnel full speed. The collision between the trains leveled the tunnel. Only the fireman escaped.
Dagny jumped to her feet and ran to her car. Francisco yelling for her not to go.
This is an interesting character flaw (flaw?) Rand presents. Dagny’s torn between her understanding of what Francisco is telling her and some kind of visceral, uncontrollable need to DO. Her understanding tells her to sit still, she knows ideas can’t be killed – but she’s not able to.
So to digress yet again (this belongs on my other blog) who the hell is Dagny? I mean who does she represent. If the book is a morality tale, you’ve got the creators vs the looters. What’s this middle-ground of Dagny and Hank who understand one, and are incapable of taking action to deal with the others? (The necessary action runs counter to their first moral standard. — Conflicting moral standards?)
I doubt this book would influence any welfare-minded types. And the G would decry her as “materialistic” – which I guess they do. Anyone on board with Rand certainly understands the point she’s making. So who the hell is Dagny? Merely a dramatic literary tool? (This may require some thought over a beer later. . .)
In any case, when she goes back, she’s armed with some new insight.
Back to the office.
Jim is sitting at his desk with his resignation in front of him. Unsigned.
“The letter, he felt, was a form of protection; but he had not signed it yet, and that was his protection against the protection.”
That’s about typical.
He goes into Eddie’s office and demands to know where Dagny is. Eddie ain’t talking. In fact, he stands up in Jim’s face and tells him to go ahead and throw him in jail. The last hangers on have finally had it.
When suddenly the door burst open. Dagny’s back!
Jim’s balls evidently unshriveled a bit and he starts in on her — it’s her fault yadda yadda yadda. . .
She called Eddie into her office. Get all these guys on the phone. — They’re all gone. Resigned.
What’s been done so far? — Nothing.
Nothing? — Anyone could have stepped up to do the job. No one wants the responsibility.
Dagny eats responsibility and craps results. (That’s a pretty bad analogy.)
But in any event, she’s on the case. . .