#randism

[maruko-palace]

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders - What would you tell him?" "I…don't know. What…could he do? What would you tell him?" "To shrug.”

Atlas Shrugged

[there-is-a-hole-in-your-mind]

I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'it belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'it belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'it belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture. A city where the artist would not fear the censor; where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality; where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.

Andrew Ryan

[redflagflying-blog]

On Planet Rand, each individual pursues his or her own rational self-interest. That is the definition of morality. It excludes altruism, which is posited as a negative, guilt-driven trait that should be avoided at all costs. Yes, this sounds selfish, but that’s a good thing on Planet Rand, because acting in your own rational self-interest leads to improvement, success, fulfillment and happiness. That’s how you can become a “maker” instead of a spineless moocher. (When I hear all this talk about the “makers,” the Yiddish word macher always comes to mind — a word used to describe an ambitious, puffed-up schemer.)

[villagers-with-torches]

John Galt's REAL STRIKE Chapter Three - Malaise in American Defense

Never mind the FAA grounding 100% of Boeing 787's last night.

Pentagon reports major defects in all F-35 variants

The Pentagon’s Office of Operational Test and Evaluation asserted that all three variants of the JSF contained major flaws. In a report submitted to Congress, Defense Undersecretary Michael Gilmore said the F-35 was being hampered by design and production defects that emerged in 2012.

An F-35A fighter plane arrives at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. /Lockheed Martin

“The lag in accomplishing the intended 2012 flight testing content defers testing to following years, and in the meantime, will contribute to the program delivering less capability in production aircraft in the near term,” the report said.

The report, slated for release on Jan. 15, was submitted to Congress amid the refusal by NATO members to order JSF. On Jan. 11, Turkey announced that it was delaying plans to procure its first two F-35As. So far, Israel, whose procurement of 19 aircraft was financed by Washington, has been the only foreign client that followed through on its initial order.

The Pentagon report said the F-35 was found to be vulnerable to an outbreak of fire. Gilmore said the removal of protection systems from JSF in 2008 increased vulnerability to a Polyalphaolefin, or PAO, blaze by 25 percent.

“The program’s most recent vulnerability assessment showed that the removal of fueldraulic fuses, the PAO shutoff valve, and the dry bay fire suppression, also removed in 2008, results in the F-35 not meeting the Operational Requirements Document requirement to have a vulnerability posture better than analogous legacy aircraft,” the 17-page report, titled “FY2012 Operational Test & Evaluation,” said.

The report cited a halt in testing of the F-35B short-takeoff and vertical landing variant, sought by the U.S. Marine Corps. The Pentagon said the tests were suspended in December 2012 when multiple cracks were found on the underside of the fuselage. Other F-35 were said to have developed cracks in their wings.

Other tests were canceled in 2012 because of aircraft limitations that prevented the extended use of the afterburner. Other factors included higher than expected loads on weapon bay doors and deficiencies in the air-refueling system.

There's plenty more

Oh and because of that:

As delays plague F-35, Lockheed Martin maintains F-16 production

Production of Lockheed Martin's F-16 combat aircraft will likely continue at least until 2016 because of ongoing technical problems and delays associated with the much-anticipated fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter F-35.

As a result, the demand for the F-16 has spiked.

In December, Lockheed Martin's then-chief executive, Robert Stevens, said that if the trend continued, demand for the F-16 would keep assembly lines busy into 2016. At that time, the F-35's problems would presumably be solved and worldwide sales begin.

Since 1975, more than 4,500 F-16s have been sold to 26 countries.

A major boost for the current demand for the F-16s came from Taiwan. In 2011, President Barack Obama declined to sell Taiwan 60 of the newer F-16 C/D aircraft in order to appease Mainland China. Instead, the Obama administration decided to upgrade Taiwan's existing fleet of 145 F-16A/Bs.

But Taiwan is still pushing for the newer model F-16s and there are increasingly more members of Congress sympathetic to Taiwan's request.

Currently, F-16s are being manufactured for Egypt, Jordan and other Mideast countries. In December 2012, Obama told Congress that he was willing to sell 18 F-16s to Iraq. 

The F-16 was designed beginning int he late 50's, entered prototype and test in the late 60's, and production began in the 70's. This is 2013.

Between 1939 and 1945 the USA produced 5 new fighter types from Republic aviation, 4 from Grumman, 2 from Lockheed, 3 from North American, and at LEAST one from Vought (not even counting variants which were not selected for the Air Force and Navy and Marines  Since the F-15 and F-16 in the mid 70's, we have produced the F-22 (186 active) and the F-35 which, as you see above, well....

The list of Soviet, then Russian, Chinese, and Chinese-Pakistani (yes, that's right) fighter development is incredible next to this. I'll do it some other time.

Next, we'll take a look at Naval development..

These things are happening because the system now denies the rewards to individual achievement. This is just ONE area. Real invention, engineering and production ... 

The Kelly Johnson's are GONE from America.

[bleedingwit]

food for thought #342229078

People live like they are never going to die. Seriously. Will your credit rating matter when you are dead? What about your university education? No. No it will not.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Last September, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan spoke at the Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center, a Washington, D.C. arm of the conservative institution that was founded under the leadership of Supreme Court spouse Virginia Thomas. The speech was delivered in commemoration of Constitution Day, and it provides a fairly substantial window into how he understands America’s most important document. Unfortunately, the speech also raises very real doubts about whether Mr. Ryan can distinguish the founders’ vision from his own. Ryan’s speech does not simply defend his laissez faire vision for the country, it suggests that this austere vision is mandated by the Constitution itself:

We can strengthen our defense of liberty if we remember to keep in mind those who are struggling to make ends meet. What makes our Constitution such an extraordinary document is that, in making the United States the freest civilization in history, the Founders guaranteed that it would become the most prosperous as well. The American system of limited government, low taxes, sound money, and the rule of law has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.

Similarly, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about “low taxes,” despite Ryan’s suggestion that his preferred tax policy is blessed by the Founders. The original Constitution placed no limits on the amount of federal taxes, although it did require “direct taxes” to be “apportioned among the several states.” The Sixteenth Amendment expanded this power even further, providing that the United States “shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes.” America can have a high income tax or a low income tax, and it can tax the people most able to afford it at a higher rate than the poor and the middle class. This choice is made by the American people’s representatives, not by the Constitution.

The most disturbing aspect of Ryan’s speech, however, is a seemingly innocuous claim that the “the enforcement of contracts” is protected by the “constitutional cornerstone of our free society.” The Constitution actually has very little to say about the subject of contracts. Although it provides fairly robust limits against state governments rescinding contracts between the government and a private party, the Constitution is mute on federal laws that impair contracts between private parties.

The reason for this should be obvious. Worker protection laws limit the kind of contractual arrangements employers can force upon their workers — a minimum wage law forbids contracts that pay workers less than a certain amount. Consumer protection laws limit the kind of contracts merchants and manufacturers can enter into with their customers — a product safety law might forbid companies from selling dangerous products. If the Constitution actually did shield contracts in the way Ryan suggests, nearly all laws protecting workers and consumers would be unconstitutional.

But, of course, there was a very dark period in American history when the Supreme Court did embrace an entirely fabricated “right to contract” of the sort that Ryan seems to embrace. During this long-discredited era, laws protecting the rights of workers were treated as constitutionally suspect and frequently struck down. Ryan’s suggestions that the Constitution embodies his favorite economic theory raises very real concerns that he would return America to this unfortunate era — an era that culminated in the Great Depression — if given the opportunity to do so.

h/t: Ian Millhiser at Think Progress Justice

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Below are 12 things you should know about Ryan and his policies:

1. Embraces extreme individualism. Ryanheaped praise on Ayn Rand, a 20th-century libertarian novelist best known for her philosophy that centered on the idea that selfishness is “virtue.” Rand described altruism as “evil,” condemned Christianity for advocating compassion for the poor, viewed the feminist movement as “phony,” and called Arabs “almost totally primitive savages. Though he publicly rejected “her philosophy” in 2012, Ryan had professed himself a strong devotee. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he said at a D.C. gathering honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.” 

2. Raises taxes on the middle class, cuts them for millionaires. Paul Ryan’s infamous budget — which Romney embraced — replaces “the current tax structure with two brackets — 25 percent and 10 percent — and cut the top rate from 35 percent.” Federal tax collections would fall “by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade” as a result and to avoid increasing the national debt, the budget proposes massive cuts in social programs and “special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code.” But 62 percent of the savings would come from programs that benefit the lower- and middle-classes, who would also experience a tax increase. That’s because while Ryan “would extend the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of this year, he would not extend President Obama’s tax cuts for those with the lowest incomes, which will expire at the same time.” Households “earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.”

3. Dramatically increases Medicare costs for seniors, increases eligibility age. Ryan’s latest budget transforms the existing version of Medicare, in which government provides seniors with a guaranteed benefit, into a “premium support” system. All future retirees would receive a government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But since the premium support voucher does not keep up with increasing health care costs, the Congressional Budget Offices estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. A recent study also found that had the plan been implemented in 2009, 24 million beneficiares enrolled in the program would have paid higher premiums to maintain their choice of plan and doctors. Ryan would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67.

4. Leaves Social Security to the whims of Wall Street. In September of 2011, Ryan agreed with Rick Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” and since 2005 has advocated for privatizing the retirement benefit and investing it in stocks and bonds. Conservatives claim that this would “outperform the current formula based on wages earned and overall wage appreciation,” but the economic crisis of 2008 should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers who seek to hinge Americans’ retirement on the stock market. In fact, “a person with a private Social Security account similar to what President George W. Bush proposed in 2005″ would have lost much of their retirement savings.

9. Claimed Romneycare has led to “rationing and benefit cuts.” “I’m not a fan of [Romney's health care reform] system,” Ryan told C-SPAN in 2010. He argued that government is rationing care in the state and claimed that people are “seeing the system bursting by the seams, they’re seeing premium increases, rationing and benefit cuts.” He called the system “a fatal conceit” and “unsustainable.” 

12. Co-sponsored a personhood amendment. Ryan joined 62 other Republicans in co-sponsoring the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which declares that a fertilized egg “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” This would outlaw abortion, some forms of contraception and invitro fertilization.

h/t: Igor Volsky at Think Progress

[villagers-with-torches]

Want to know what the end of the world looks like?

CNBC-More Americans Go Abroad for Economic Opportunities

Derek Capo was living the high life. He was in his early 20s, an analyst at hedge fund Everest Capital monitoring international equities, and soaking up the weather and nightlife of his hometown of Miami.But looking ahead, as he'd been trained to do, Capo didn't like what he saw. The housing bust was starting to strangle the Florida economy, the stock market was looking increasingly erratic and he didn't want to pursue a pricey MBA in the middle of an economic crisis.

He also wanted to test his entrepreneurial muscles, by starting his own business, ideally in a locale that felt economically vibrant, with seemingly limitless possibilities. To do that, Capo left the U.S. in 2007.

He now lives in Beijing, having founded Next Step China. The firm offers Chinese-language immersion programs, and arranges opportunities for foreigners to teach, intern or volunteer in China.

  There is more entrepreneurial opportunity in a COMMUNIST NATION THAN IN THE USA?

Can this economy have been screwed up any worse?

It's a curious phenomenon that sends Americans abroad to look for work. The U.S. has traditionally skimmed the best minds from around the world in pursuit of the American Dream. Indeed, according to polling firm Gallup, which surveyed people in 135 nations around the world, the U.S. was the top desired destination of those who wanted to relocate permanently to another country.

But with unemployment  hovering around 9 percent, the use of food stamps at record highs and the recession  continuing to punish the budgets of so many families, the American economy is much less of a magnet.

To some young entrepreneurs, economic possibilities seem brighter in places like Brazil, Russia, China or Latin America. Indeed, the State Department now estimates that 6.3 million Americans are studying or working abroad, the highest number on record.

In fact, according to a survey by marketing consultants America Wave, the percentage of Americans aged 25 to 34 actively planning to relocate outside the U.S. has quintupled in just two years, from less than 1 percent to 5.1 percent.

"Those numbers have shot through the ceiling," said America Wave founder Bob Adams, who has run nine such surveys over the years. "They're very surprising, and not something I anticipated. They're looking for work because of the sluggish economy, and they've lost confidence that the U.S. is going anywhere."

Younger Americans seem even keener to look abroad, with 40 percent of those 18-24 expressing interest in foreign relocation, which is up from 15 percent two years ago.

"There's a feeling among more entrepreneurial Americans that if you really want to get anything done, you have to get out of country and away from the depressing atmosphere," said Adams, who lives in Panama. "There's a sense of lost direction, so more people are looking for locations that offer more hope about the future."

America is NOT A PLACE, IT IS AN IDEA.

AYN RAND IS SHRIEKING AT THIS NATION FROM THE GRAVE