The" job creators" all think they are John Galt.
Adam Smith wouldn't approve of the "job creator" myth.
I feel like a kid with a brand new hero. John Paul Rollert explains where the term originates and guess who is in the cast of characters: Andrew Carnegie and Ayn Rand. I've been wondering about this "system" I've seen mentioned by the big Romney donors. It's pure Ayn Rand, and it's her term. They all think they are John Galt.
My god, how have I missed this all too obvious thing? I'm sure someone else has posted this, but doing it again can only let new eyes see this.
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/guest-post-what-would-adam-smith-think-of-the-idea-of-job-creators/
"If the contrast Smith makes is not necessarily marked by cultural sensitivity, it underscores his broader point about who makes capitalism work. Not the all-powerful king, however wise and mighty, but “the assistance and co-operation of many thousands.” The butcher, the baker, and the brewer, the countless men and women who support and extend the division the labor — these are the people who ensure the increasing efficiency, growing complexity, and continued development of society. They are the base of the economic pyramid, and their actions ensure the bounty of the Invisible Hand.
So what happened to Smith’s account? Consider Andrew Carnegie’s perspective on who makes capitalism work in his essay “The Gospel of Wealth.” Writing a century after Smith’s death, the steel magnate describes the decisive moment when human beings began to favor a model of free competition that saw the separation of “the drones from the bees,” a process that allowed for the “accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it.” Carnegie says of such people (who happen to look a lot like him) that they are so essential to society’s development that those who object to the inequalities of a free market system might as well “urge the destruction of the highest existing type of man.”
In the same spirit, roughly 75 years later, Ayn Rand, in her aptly titled “What Is Capitalism?,” focuses on the “the innovators” who promote a society’s development. They are an “exceptional minority,” she says, “who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements.” What does everyone else contribute? On Rand’s account — nothing. “The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him,” she says, “but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contribute nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.”
This is a striking alternative to Smith’s vision. Instead of “the assistance and co-operation of many thousands,” it is an elite caste that provides the vision, brains, and organizational savvy that ensure a thriving economy. They are the Visible Hand of capitalism, and for Carnegie, Rand, and others like them, if you want to know who makes capitalism work, simply stand at the base of the economic pyramid and look up. You’ll find the ‘job creators’ at the very top."
And more here.
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/who-makes-capitalism-work-adam-smith-would-disagree-today-s-conservatives
And Alan Grayson...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/job-creators-luntz-strike_b_985134.html
"Here are some more Luntzisms that I just made up:
Vampires are "blood recyclers."
Space aliens are the "differently specied."
Plagues are "immune system strengtheners."
Cancer is "internal genetic diversity."
Death is "spiritual-corporeal differentiation."
And nuclear war is "1000 points of light."
But here's the really sad thing about Luntz's propaganda. Like most propaganda, it's just not true.
FACT: In the last ten years, the population of the United States has grown by 27 million people.
FACT: There are one million fewer private sector jobs in America today than there were ten years ago.
So much for job creation. In fact, judging by employment, if the private sector were an employee, we'd have to fire him. For incompetence."
= new reply since forum marked as read
