Part One, Chapters I–II (1 - 2)

[President Camacho]

I get the same feeling Giselle. Her winners don't seem to lose. They just win.

Sal, companies campaign that way (I feel) in order to get business. People want to know that they're in good hands - it's a business decision for both parties concerned.

Take BP for instance. I don't shop at BP because of what they did to the ocean. I feel the company should be out of business. Because BP failed to protect the environment, they lost a customer.

Take Chic'fil A or however it's spelled - they lost a lot of homo customers because of a comment.

A company has an intere$t in looking out for the environment and its customers. It's good business. That's something the book kind of denies.

[Suzanne]

Just thought I'd throw in a sketchy backgrounder on Atlas. So, who in this book 'holds up the celestial sphere', or is that too literal a way to interpret the title? In the first chapter we have a couple candidates. Or maybe its John Galt? Is Rand constructing the perfect awesome man, god figure (who just happens to be an individualist and capitalist)?

I feel that is a question that is moving this book ahead. Who is Atlas? Who is John Galt? Us readers are asking one question, the characters in the book are asking the other. Is there a connection? Another question to ask is what would happen to society if the clestial sphere was to tilt, or topple, or shrug?

Will there be some type of revolution? And if so, who starts it, and why. And when the celestial sphere shrugs, who will suffer and who will benifit?

I have more questions than answers. But I think you may be right giselle, Atlas equals John Galt. But, who is John Galt?

Having an understanding of Objectivism and Rand's philosophy would benifit the reader a bit answering some of these questions. I think I need to do a bit of research on Objectivism.

[sal10e]

Hi Pres, I agree in general that a company in today's society has an interest in looking out for its customers, what I get annoyed with is that companies feel they have to tell us how good they are. If the are doing things because they are truly just the right thing today why do they have to have a press conference to tell us and publicize it, and show it on commercials etc, etc. I can find out for myself I don't need them to tell me how good they are. It appears rather hypocritical. It reminds me of the Pharisees (spelling?) in the Bible who shout on the corner about how good they are and that they are praying and want everybody to know but they condemn Jesus for helping the poor and the sick and are suspicious of him. I think some companies push their good image too much and this is because of our media if companies did not have cameras in their faces all the time or reporters checking on them I don't think they would be as concerned about some of their decisions and their outcomes.

BP made a business decision, it wasn't the right one, but I don't hold it against them. Granted I wasn't a customer before the BP spill either.

[President Camacho]

When business decisions hurt people - Firestone - it's up to society to throw down the hammer. If there were no penalties associated with the death of people and the destruction of the environment, it would affect how business got done. Monetary consequence is the only way to curb unwanted business practices. If such a disaster meant the financial ruin of a company, a company would take precaution to avoid it.

Regulation aside, ill feeling among the public hurts a company financially.

I agree with what you're saying about actions speaking louder than propaganda. I agree... but!!! There is still money to be had through tricking the public into believing you are 'good'. It may even be cheaper than actually being good... so it may be a bargain and a wise business decision on the whole even though a small minority of people see through the scheming.

[giselle]

I get the same feeling Giselle. Her winners don't seem to lose. They just win.

Sal, companies campaign that way (I feel) in order to get business. People want to know that they're in good hands - it's a business decision for both parties concerned.

Take BP for instance. I don't shop at BP because of what they did to the ocean. I feel the company should be out of business. Because BP failed to protect the environment, they lost a customer.

Take Chic'fil A or however it's spelled - they lost a lot of homo customers because of a comment.

A company has an intere$t in looking out for the environment and its customers. It's good business. That's something the book kind of denies.

Yes, Rand has stacked the odds right from the get go. Dagny is not only decisive, she makes the right decisions, so she wins. She is prepared to take the risk, she is confident, the star. Her brother is the opposite, indecisive, risk averse, baffoonish. So Rand wants us to bet on a horse, the horse who represents her favoured philosophy, at least in part, and ridicules the alternate philosophy using the person of James Taggart.

Certainly consumers do vote with their feet and their wallets and that makes sense. But I have difficulty with 'corporate responsibility' in some respects because it is difficult to ascribe a human face or human life to a corporation in any meaningful way, IMO. We use expressions like 'corporate responsibility' or 'corporate behavior' as if these entities are people when they are not ... they are assembled capital, first and foremost, and secondly they are representative of a collectivity of interests, some of which may be people and others may be other corporations. But they also represent non-owner interests, at least in the public eye, like interests of their employees. So really, 'Who' is Taggart Continental?

Just thought I'd throw in a sketchy backgrounder on Atlas. So, who in this book 'holds up the celestial sphere', or is that too literal a way to interpret the title? In the first chapter we have a couple candidates. Or maybe its John Galt? Is Rand constructing the perfect awesome man, god figure (who just happens to be an individualist and capitalist)?

I feel that is a question that is moving this book ahead. Who is Atlas? Who is John Galt? Us readers are asking one question, the characters in the book are asking the other. Is there a connection? Another question to ask is what would happen to society if the clestial sphere was to tilt, or topple, or shrug?

Will there be some type of revolution? And if so, who starts it, and why. And when the celestial sphere shrugs, who will suffer and who will benifit?

I have more questions than answers. But I think you may be right giselle, Atlas equals John Galt. But, who is John Galt?

Having an understanding of Objectivism and Rand's philosophy would benifit the reader a bit answering some of these questions. I think I need to do a bit of research on Objectivism.

I'd be interested in finding out more about Objectivism as well. I'm thinking about the 'Shrug' - why 'Shrug'? A shrug is normally an indication of indifference, a way of saying, well I really don't care about the outcome. So the title suggests to me that Rand wants us to perceive a world where a key player or a key philosophy might act in an indifferent way, and what then? where would the celestial sphere be then?

In chapter 1, it appears that the characters are searching for John Galt, that this search is occurring on a different plane in that the questions about John Galt are non-sequiters, suggesting to me that this search is subconscious. Also interesting that when this question is asked it does not enter the narrative, its just there, suggesting that the question is addressed to the reader by the author and is external to the characters. So if John Galt is Rand's Atlas, I would think that Rand is asking us if an 'Atlas' is needed in this narrative reality she has created and will at some point provide us with John Galt to fill that need. Meantime, she really wants us to think about her question, who is John Galt.

[LanDroid]

Good questions about Atlas! Also, what would happen to the planet if indeed Atlas Shrugged while carrying the weight of The World on his shoulders? And what would cause Atlas to become indifferent to that fate?

Suzanne asked Will there be some type of revolution? And if so, who starts it, and why.

I believe that revolution has already started. Hence the mysterious questions about John Galt. In the images of decline and decay, we are already seeing signs of the effects of that revolution.

[sal10e]

Thanks Giselle and LanDroid for the points about the question "Who is John Galt?" I had thought of this as mysterious and foreshadowing but had not taken it as far as Giselle's subconscious search and the possibility of revolution.

[Robert Tulip]

'Atlas Shrugged' means that if private investment sneezes, social expenditure catches a cold. Free enterprise creates wealth, and if free enterprise is destroyed there is no activity to tax. Distribution of wealth depends on creation of wealth. Rand's argument is that the chatterati do not comprehend the economic basis of society, replacing it with a politically correct fantasy that treats business as a golden goose. Capitalism is like Atlas, the titan holding the earth on his shoulders. When Atlas is weakened he slips, causing upheaval for everything he carries. That is why Europe is in such difficulty, because they have made the government too big a proportion of the economy, displacing productive investment.

Rand emphasises how society depends on the economy, so argues for small government restricted to protection of rule of law, and leaving running of enterprises to the free market. Libertarians argue that any role for government beyond strict limits is parasitic. Competition drives efficiency, but government lacks incentives to deliver competitive products except in the context of pure public good, and even then the incentives are often weak.

Rand does a good job explaining why a vibrant society depends on a strong economy, but does not take the next step to see how the economy depends on the ecology. Capitalism depends on sustainability of natural resources of the earth. If you like, Atlas is standing on Gaia, rather like the Indian image of the elephants standing on the turtle. If the turtle slips, Atlas will do far more than shrug, and the earth will fall. But right now, the elephant is force feeding the turtle with CO2. Not good.

[lindad_amato]

One of the problems that I find with Rand's fiction is that she does "stack the deck", as someone else said, and her expression of her philosophy through her characters is very black and white. In her writing, as in her life, there is no room for gray areas. She twists and turns everything so that it fits within her beliefs no matter what.
Rand actually convinced her husband and her lovers wife to condone an adulterous affair. She rationalized it as the meeting of two genius minds and bodies and that the spouses should be Objectivists and approve. She never admitted that she contributed to the destruction of two marriages and several long term and very caring relationships.

[giselle]

'Atlas Shrugged' means that if private investment sneezes, social expenditure catches a cold. Free enterprise creates wealth, and if free enterprise is destroyed there is no activity to tax. Distribution of wealth depends on creation of wealth. Rand's argument is that the chatterati do not comprehend the economic basis of society, replacing it with a politically correct fantasy that treats business as a golden goose. Capitalism is like Atlas, the titan holding the earth on his shoulders. When Atlas is weakened he slips, causing upheaval for everything he carries. That is why Europe is in such difficulty, because they have made the government too big a proportion of the economy, displacing productive investment.

Its such a tiresome and elitist argument that the failure to understand the economic basis of society is responsible for supposed misconceptions about the role of business. This is just a cute way to assume the high ground and put all others on the defensive.

The scene when Hank Rearden comes home and faces the cynicism and bitterness of his family was really painful to read. I felt sorry for him but at the same time, in the real world of real people, beyond the ivory towers, people who are close to you will believe they have a claim on you for a whole lot more than money. I think Rand's depiction of the pressures Rearden is subjected to is quite realistic and happens every day in real life.