I see that this worthless thread is still moving along .... Why hasn't it been closed? How does this relate to machining??

If nothing else, thanks for the link of the most influential books. At least I'll know for sure which books I don't want to read and could care less what they had to say.

I've got a nice big copy of that book. Never have opened it.....yet.

I've been wondering the same thing.

You may want to put it in the outhouse for when you run out of TP.

Seems you either love it, or hate it I guess. I don't even know how I came to own it. Maybe my whacko ex-wife bought it....who knows ?

Why, of course you are, stan! You are a professional everything! It amazes me the lengths that a supposed educator will go to, to prevent people from reading a classic. It should have all the proper elements to attract a leftie quackademian. It's been banned at some times and places, which puts it right up there with the works of hitler and stalin. It challenges the establishment, so throw in John Lennon and the rest of the dregs. Only problem there seems to be is Rand actually believed that man can, as an individual, accomplish great things on his own instead of as a part of the collective. Moreover, she and a lot of those who believe the same things have actually proven it!

When you have written a book that has inspired millions to move beyond the conventions of group-think and act independently to better themselves, throw it out there and I'll read it, too. Until then, it's childish to chuck rocks at your betters.

You can sit there in your little rural institution and pretend you are fit to demean eagles, but most of us recognise a starling when we see one.

Unless you want to claim another doctorate in theology, don't dream of lecturing me on religion. If you want to try and prove that by rejecting government as "master" one is also rejecting God, go right ahead. I think differently...Joe

On edit;
Your list of books certainly does not come from a source anybody would take at face value. If I were looking for a list of worthwhile poetry, I might compare his tastes to mine, but he certainly would not be considered the ultimate authority, nor would collection of people who corresponded with him. Once again,Show me a man on the left who has improved as many lives as Ayn Rand and I'll read him. I know for certain that man will not be you...Joe

Fact is Joe you were caught in an open-faced lie. The “survey” is nothing but BS. Face it and take your licks.

On your religion point, if you do not want to be lectured on religion, then do not bring it up. You’re the one who broached the subject in your post #39.

You wish! You can always find a leftie who will agree with you, but nobody has ever heard of them. Find me a thinking man who has never heard of Ayn Rand....Stan.......You are a starling throwing rocks at eagles.....Joe

"Thinking man?" Does that mean programmed at the factory? ;-)

an eagle! Now that's an ego

Actually I'll retract this quip. I deal with enough crackpots at work already on similar subjects. Somehow it's always about politics and religion. Let's work on problems we can actually solve ... SUCH AS MACHINING. Besides, we only have until 2012 to have any more fun (with any luck ... we have certainly earned it).

I'm unsubscribing ...

This coming from a poster who is about as predictable as anyone who posts on the internet and who appears far more in lock-step with 'group think' as anyone I've read!
I would say, 'go figure' but 'it figures' would be much more realistic!

A keen observation.

Jeff

Actually, Stan, that # 2 position has been pretty consistant for a lot of years. I had not seen the particular little poll you linked to before, but it's consistant. I am not refering tomyself as an eagle, but Rand.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/atlas/faq.html

"
No one knows exactly how influential Atlas Shrugged is, because there has never been a proper study done to check. The "second most influential" claim comes from a Survey of Lifetime Reading Habits conducted in 1991 by the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress. Printed surveys were sent to members of the Club, asking them what books had most influenced their own lives. A little over 2,000 responses were received. The Bible ranked first, and Atlas Shrugged ranked a distant second. Because the survey targeted an audience of book lovers (members of the Club) and an active effort was required to mail in a response, it is likely that the results were skewed towards people who were influenced especially strongly by a particular book. Such a result cannot be reliably interpreted as reflecting the entire US population, although enthusiastic promoters of the novel sometimes make such claims. (The survey is also often inaccurately described as a "poll" or "study," and various incorrect sources are cited for it.)

Similar concerns affect a more recent list to an even greater degree. In 1998, book publisher Random House ran an online vote asking readers to name the "best" English-language novels of the 20th century. Atlas Shrugged placed first in this vote, with Rand's other novels placing high on the list as well. However, there was a considerable amount of campaigning by special-interest groups to promote particular authors and books. There were also only limited controls to prevent repeat voting and other "ballot stuffing" techniques. In the end, the results probably reflected the intensity of feeling among the most highly motived voters as much or more than the breadth of support for any of the top vote-getters.

Because of the limitations of these surveys, some critics attack them as "invalid" or "unscientific," but that isn't entirely accurate. The survey results are legitimate as long as one understands their biases and limitations. They reflect the strength of influence that the books listed have had on the specific groups involved in the surveys. What is invalid and unscientific is to attempt to generalize the findings beyond those groups without accounting for the skewed participation."

So there you have it. Two "imperfect studies", no doubt. Garbled by campaigning and bias, also no doubt. Trouble is, on a national basis, the results keep coming back the same, and have for a lot of years. So well known and popular that even you use her name as an insult. Nobody 40 years from now will ever refer to a lefitie as a "stanian".

Am I predictable? I certainly hope so. I operate on a set of principles. We all do.

On the other hand, I'm getting a kick out of watching everybody on the left praise Obama for doing the same stupid things Bush did that upset them only more so. Wondering what principle that is?

On the road this morning. Have fun....Joe

Is it safe to assume from this answer that you are indeed a 'mind-number robot'?

Everybody on the left? It must be nice to live in your own little imaginary world.
Define 'everybody'.
Just a few links to anyone here who praised Obama for doing the same STUPID things you FINALLY admit Bush did would suffice.
Any credibility you have left here depends on your answer.

Thanks Peddler.

The reality is that Joe, like other wing nuts, is not consistent in his belief system. Consequently, he is unable to defend it and simply attacks anyone who questions his “ultimate authority” especially someone with any sort of credentials. They believe if they can shout down someone who disagrees with them, they have “won”. When confronted with facts, such as the illegitimacy of his “survey”, they go just off on a rant. Joe’s response is a perfect example.

The current economic crisis is the best example of the failure of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and its followers such as George W. Bush. This belief system can simply be described as ultimate self-interest or even more simply, greed. This has been the mantra of the conservatives and the business schools for several decades (so much for liberals in academia). It is completely devoid of any moral or ethical standards and as such is best described as amoral. The marriage between the social and economic conservatives has finally demonstrated its fallacies in the failed presidency of GW Bush. We will be paying for his immoral and illegal actions for generations.

Stan

"Is it safe to assume from this answer that you are indeed a 'mind-number robot'?"

No, it's safe to say that certain principles apply to most problems when government is involved. If a certain action by government falls outside the powers enumerated in the constitution, then chances are that those actions are unwise. I'm talking, in this instance, about things like bailing out private institutions, taking them over, telling them how much they can pay their execs, etc. Principles like this apply across the board. I only need to consider very briefly whether any given day is a good one or any given problem is a big enough one to desert those principles which have made us the greatest nation in the history of the world.

These things were stupid when Bush did them ( I said so at the time) and are four times as stupid now that Obama is doing them, because he is doing roughly four times a much of them. You cursed Bush for his "borrow and spend" policies, and remain silent while Obama makes him look like Dave Ramsey by comparison. Plenty of other areas where Bush's policies are being carried on by Obama meet praise in the press and silence here.

Stan, if you think that Bush is a follower of Rand, you know nothing about either one of them. This country has NEVER lived under her form of capatalism, at least since the industrial revolution. The link to the small study about Rand's book was yours. I showed you two more larger ones, and the percentage has remained pretty constant for a lot of years. If you want to assert that Rand is an unknown and nobody reads or apreciates her books, go right ahead. You won't do that, though. It wolud be an obvious lie. You never seem to assert much of anything, just nibble around the edges, as has been prointed out to you on many occasions. You catagorically refuse to state any philosopy, person, theory of government, or representative of same that you look up to. Hide behind your desk and snipe at those who are willing to put their beliefs out in the open.

Afraid David Horrowitz will come and tattle to the student's parents? Hey, my positions have cost me plenty of money, and I don't hide behind any excuses. Life is as comfortable in this country for reds as it is likely to get, so you may as well sneak out of the closet. Just look! We are getting ready for some Stalin style show trials of bush's lawyers! Better jump a train to Washington and carry somebody's clipboard for him before all the positions are full-up....Joe

Machining and manufacturing have been devastated by the tax revolution that has taken place in this nation. The change in taxation has been the single biggest impact on the decline of U.S. manufacturing. But which tax shift is what the news media never tells you about:

Federal Receipts As Percentage Of GDP

1945..........20.4%
1950..........14.4
1955..........16.6
1960..........17.9
1965..........17.0
1970..........19.0
1975..........17.9
1980..........19.0
1985..........17.7
1990..........18.0
1995..........18.5
2000..........20.9
2007..........18.5

As you can see, the level of Federal taxation hasn't changed that greatly since WW II.

What has changed radically is WHO pays it:

U.S. TARIFF HISTORY 1821-2000

YEARS……………..AVERAGE EFFECTIVE TARIFF (% tax on all imports)
1821-1830………….46.6%
1831-1840………….24.9%
1841-1850………….24.0%
1851-186……………20.8%
1861-1870………….36.2%
1871-1880………….31.3%
1881-1890………….30.1%
1891-1900………….23.7%

1821-1900………….29.7%

1901-1910………….25.0%
1911-1920………….11.8%
1921-1930………….13.8%
1931-1940………….16.8%
1941-1950………….9.0%

1901-1950………….15.3%

1951-1960………….5.9%
1961-1970………….7.3%
1971-1980………….4.0%
1981-1990………….3.5%
1991-2000………….2.5%

The income tax was created in 1913, just in time to be around to fund WW I :

YEAR.....INOME TAX REVENUE.....TARIFF REVENUE
1916............$173,387,000.........$213,185,000
1917............$675,250,000.........$225,962,000


Up until 1916, the tariff was the largest single Federal revenue source.

1917 was the first time in U.S. history that the income tax surpassed the tariff and we've never looked back since then.


YEAR----------TARIFF % (TARIFF REVENUE/TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE x 100%)
1789------------99.5%
1800------------83.7%
1825------------92.0%
1850------------90.9%
1875------------54.6%
1900------------41.1%
1925------------15.0%
1950------------1.0%
1975------------1.3%
2000------------N/A*

*1997 was the last year that the U.S. Statistical Abstract published duty revenues. It has been conveniently censored from 1998 on to the present.


2007 IMPORTS AND TARIFF REVENUES

IMPORTS = $2,345.983 billion
(source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/09s1260.pdf )

TARIFFS = $26.010 billion of which $1.339 billion came from trust fund revenues.
(source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf Table 2.5 p.50 of 342)

$26.010 - $1.339 = $24.671 billion

$24.671 / $2,345.983 x 100% = 1.0% EFFECTIVE TAX RATE

U.S GDP = $13,841 billion
(source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/09s0645.pdf )

Imports as a percent of U.S. GDP are now a staggering 16.9% of GDP yet only pay 1.0% effective tax rate.


In 2002, 49% of all Federal revenue came from the personal income tax.

The entire U.S. economy now suffers under a 30% effective tax rate.


By comparison, India (16% of the worlds' population) as late as 2002, had a tariff rate of 32%.


Steve

You are some piece of work. Since you do not seem to like the way things are run in the US I recommend you leave for a country that better suits your beliefs. Somalia or the tribal region of Pakistan would fit you quite well. You obviously do not like to live in anything resembling a democracy.

At least I know we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. The rule of law v mob rule, which we have now. This administration is randomly sticking the proverbial wet finger to the wind and going after the weekly target of opportunity. When public opionion changes in the midst of battle, so does the weekly enemy. He's setting up the stalin style show trials, but letting the public vote on who the defendant will be, thorugh focus groups or polls or something. Frankly I don't know WHO is pulling his strings.

Having won office by a modest margin, he thinks he now has the blessing of the whole country to overturn the rule of law and the constitution and gratify the emotional needs of his supporters to the detriment of the country's future. Do I at LAST hear an assertion from you? Are you endorsing Obama's policies? Is the vote stronger than the constitution?

Now that Obama is in charge, is it your position that private property no longer exists and that a fascist regime that controls all business is now in order? Is your "democracy" that strong?

If so, then it's time to allow the "will of the people" to prevail in ALL things. First, we must put troops on the southern border and stop traffic dead. Then we must outlaw and punish all partial birth abortion. Then we must stop all attempts to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. These are all things the vast majority of people in this country want. If the vote is stronger than the constitutionh, we should have them.

On the other hand, if the constitution is stronger than the vote, we should stop violating it by behaving like fascists. Leave business to fail or prosper on it's own. Stop pretending that being a neighborhood organiser qualifies one to run General Motors.

It's not me that needs to leave the country. I believe in the constitution, not mob rule. The constitution is taking a beating right now, though. We are seeing where mob rule will take us, and you are one of the few who seem to be liking it Glad to finally know where you stand....Joe