What are Veeky Forums 's thoughts about this book...

Guys is Atlas Shrugged supposed to be read as "Atlas shook his shoulders and dropped the world he was carrying on his back"?

yes

yes

Yeah, the core idea of the book is that if policy punishes success too much, eventually people will stop trying to get ahead, and the core pillars of the economy will crumble. I would guess that the main reason it has remained notable is that this was a fairly prescient observation to make about the USSR at the time.

It's explained in a conversation between two characters. Basically your question should be "What if Atlas shrugged and just dropped the world"? And why don't just do something like this.

Pretty nice title tbqh
Is Atlas.........us?

Depends. Are you a net gain or drain on society? Rand divides citizens into Producers and Looters based on their tangible contributions.

Triggered?

It came out the same year as the USSR put the first satellite into orbit ever.

Especially prescient, then.

only if you provide your workforce in exchange of money.
a kid, a student, a politician or even a powerfull but useless and corrupted buisnessman dont do anything to mantain society working.
you maybe are atlas, or you may be one day. But some people do much more to keep economy going on like fair and competitive buisnessmans, scientists or investors.
the most important thing is not who Atlas is, but how do the society holds itself. Its not the muscles of the workforce or the autority of the dictators, but the knowledge and the constant evolution of the tecnology.
Without the people who got this knowledge, society falls.
the main teaching is to do not try to enslave this people for the sake of mankind, but to let them be the most free posible for the sake of mankind

Equal outcomes in terms of what? Status? Achievement? Profit? It could be anything, elaborate please.

All of it. Objectivism just says that people will get what they earn if society doesn't place obstacles in their way or actively redistribute it. She doesn't hate poor people, but she doesn't have any compassion or empathy for them either.

Like she was supposed to "earn" daddy's fortune? Funny how she ended up in welfare, and didn't say no to that eh?

I love people like you, because your argument is so easy to ignore

>implying daddy wanted his money to be buried with him
>implying she didnt payed for her own welfare

>>implying daddy wanted his money to be buried with him
I didn't imply that. It doesn't mean that she would have worked in order to earn his money, which makes her whole philosophy subjective.

It doesn't. As long as you continue to produce, you are moral in Objectivism. People voluntarily giving you money has nothing to do with that.

consider reading Francisco de Anconia speech about money to understan Rands point of view about rich and dumb people.
Also, you do as you want with your money, if you want to spend it into your son you for sure must have your own reasons. If you dont want your parents to keep the resulting fortune of your work then just give it somenoe else.
also, this subject doesnt have anything to do with objectivity

*guaranteed replies*