<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Way of the Mind &#187; capitalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wayofthemind.org/tag/capitalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:59:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why Bill Gates is not Hank Rearden</title>
		<link>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/08/30/why-bill-gates-is-not-hank-rearden/</link>
		<comments>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/08/30/why-bill-gates-is-not-hank-rearden/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pedro Timóteo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[honesty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[objectivism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/08/30/why-bill-gates-is-not-hank-rearden/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since I first read The Fountainhead, and later Atlas Shrugged, I&#8217;ve been a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I wouldn&#8217;t call myself an &#8220;Objectivist&#8221;, but I competely agree with Objectivism&#8217;s basic tenets, and Rand&#8217;s books and philosophy were, years ago, a huge influence in my life, especially her denunciation of &#8220;altruism&#8221; and collectivism [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since I first read <i>The Fountainhead</i>, and later <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>, I&#8217;ve been a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I wouldn&#8217;t call myself an &#8220;Objectivist&#8221;, but I competely agree with Objectivism&#8217;s basic tenets, and Rand&#8217;s books and philosophy were, years ago, a huge influence in my life, especially her denunciation of &#8220;altruism&#8221; and collectivism as anti-life, and the idea that we should see things as they <i>are</i>, not as we wish they were.</p>
<p>However, Rand&#8217;s philosophy has been completely misunderstood several times. I&#8217;ve written about <a href="http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/08/10/ayn-rand-was-not-a-conservative/">one of the ways</a> before, but there&#8217;s another which I find quite annoying, because its authors simply don&#8217;t know any better, and should learn a couple of things before putting their confused ideas in writing.</p>
<p>That error, found in many Objectivist and Libertarian magazines and web sites is this: <b>the defense of Bill Gates and Microsoft</b>. As if Gates and company were Hank Rearden-like heroic capitalists, and all the antitrust suits were simply a case of them being punished for their success &#8211; much like the collectivist government in <i>Atlas</i> throws more and more regulations in order to harm Rearden&#8217;s business while helping his incompetent &#8211; and much less successful &#8211; rival Orren Boyle.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, those Objectivist / Libertarian writers don&#8217;t work with computers a lot, or maybe they&#8217;d know.</p>
<p>To those writers:</p>
<ul>
<li>Can you imagine Rearden telling a potential customer that he wouldn&#8217;t get a single gram of Rearden Metal if they ever dared buy anything from any of his competitors?</li>
<li>Can you picture Rearden selling an inferior product, and only managing to sell it through marketing &#8211; including marketing designed to inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt in the competitors&#8217; products? <small>In the book, it was Rearden&#8217;s competitors who published a report which, without stating a single fact, suggested that Rearden Metal might be dangerous.</small></li>
<li>Would Rearden force distributors into a deal where he gets a cut of every piece of machinery sold, even if it actually includes no Rearden Metal whatsoever?</li>
<li>Would Rearden add a substance to his Metal that corroded any non-Rearden metal that touched it?</li>
<li>Would Rearden add qualities to his Metal that all the competitors&#8217; products already had for 15 years, and tout it as a &#8220;great innovation&#8221;, a lie which the ignorant media would happily repeat for him?</li>
</ul>
<p>I say he wouldn&#8217;t. Rearden was 100% honest, and his sole weapon was the quality of his product. Microsoft has little quality, and has been dishonest from the start.</p>
<p>They weren&#8217;t almost punished <small>(&#8220;almost&#8221;, because, like always, the Bush administration prevented anything good from happening)</small> for being successful, or for being rich, or because its competitors were envious, or because anyone wanted to &#8220;redistribute wealth&#8221; (a disgusting concept). No, oddly enough, the Justice Department was right. Microsoft fought in the marketplace using every trick except one: make a better product.</p>
<p>Bill Gates is no Hank Rearden. He&#8217;s more like Orren Boyle, in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro#The_Bizarro_World">Bizarro world</a> where Boyle wins.</p>
<hr/>Copyright &copy; 2012 <strong><a href="http://www.wayofthemind.org">Way of the Mind</a></strong> ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/08/30/why-bill-gates-is-not-hank-rearden/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

