Thanks for posting. I wish Atlas Shrugged were required reading. Hardly anyone in my circles has read it, and the few that have were forced to read it in high school years ago. But at that age, they didn't have much experience in the world such that they can appreciate what it means and what it has to offer. It certainly didn't sink into their memory, and if it made any impression it was often a negative one because of a knee-jerk reaction of reading something that didn't comport with the worldview in which they were raised. So I wonder if it should not be pressed on most people as early as high school (unless, of course, they were raised in an Objectivist manner). In which case, perhaps the workplace is the best way to encourage reading it. I think any employers interested in cultivating a productive work force, workers with self-esteem, should make it required reading (or incentivize it with some kind of reward).

Finally, a "prime" example of pure randism in action. My son is in banking and I taught him ethical behavior, but his new religion made him think I lacked ethics (he's changed his mind) and sees his clients as a profit-making element for him and them. I agree ATLAS SHRUGGED offers insights beyond a great story.

In a real capitalist system, BB&T would have been rewarded for practicing a better form of banking than say,...Goldman-Sachs. IMHO Goldman should have went bankrupt and their assets marked to market price to be raffled off to the banks that were enough better to not make those loans.

In a system that is true to concept there are several 2nd tier banks that should have stepped up and taken over. In our present version of Chronie capitalism system, Goldman is reprimanded, pays a fine, is forgiven, and remains top dog. Plus, the CEO can now calculate the cost of a disaster, and be even more aggressive now that he know the cost.

We wind up with more of the same, instead of an improved system. BB&T winds up realizing they are 2nd tier back benchers and have reached their own glass ceiling, as long as they choose not to play along with the buddy system in Washington.

What transpired in 2008-2009 has not been good for anyone except the government and Goldman-Sachs.

I hear you.

Oh, and banks were "forced" to provide loans to developing countries, too?
Check your premises. Where did the "money" for those loans come from? It wasn't from any investor in the banks. It was created from nothing. After years of receiving interest payments on loans created from nothing, the banks then turn the bad loans over to the taxpayer and increase the bonuses for the thieves that created the loans. This process has done repeatedly, and banks never lose a dime.
Stop blaming the sheep. The wolves propaganda is very effective.

While I commend anyone who promotes Rand's ethics, I can't respect anyone who does so while operating a state protected looter business. Banking itself as practiced under the central bank is theft of the essence of human production with the goal of unearned power and wealth.

That's where you got your confused understanding of ethical behavior.

Haven't you heard, Mama? People have a RIGHT to 100% + mortgages to pay for a townhouse that they have a RIGHT to own! And they have a RIGHT to a profit because, you know, they have RIGHTS! And when the whole mess implodes, it's the fault of those greedy, blood sucking, bastard Wall Street bankers! They must be made to pay! (Any of this sound familiar?). All I can suggest is that you cash the check. Quickly.

We are selling the townhouse our kids lived in for professional school. The people buying it have included $4000 of closing costs in the selling price, and they are getting a 100% loan. How is that possible? And what will they do when it comes time to sell it and they have no money in it but will have to pay realtors fees and closing costs? And they can't count on appreciation, as the place has lost about 6% in the last 6 years. I just don't get it.

Your Father is correct...banks don't want to be in the real estate business. However, banks were forced into the position of making 'substandard' loans by the expansion of the Community Redevelopment Act, passed under Jimmy Carter and expanded by Bill Clinton, and further expanded under the Pelosi led House and signed into law by George W. Bush. And you want to know the sad part? They've started doing it again. "But this time it's different".

My father is a banker, and he said the banks he was involved with did not do these risky loans. Historically banks lend money to people who have the 3 Cs: collateral, capacity to pay, a character to want to pay. That means the bank wouldn't lend to someone who has collateral and character but no capacity to pay, even if such lending would be profitable in the short-term. The theory is people wouldn't want to do business with a bank that finds a way to end up repossessing collateral and selling it at a profit as part of its business model. Many small banks refused to do the loans that led to the crisis.

thx for the post - just what I needed!

Agreed. Even if one were to disagree, when in a position of authority, one should at least be aware of and lend some consideration to possible negative outcomes.

Excellent article. Txs for posting. Imagine all businesses requiring the reading of AS or a primer in Objectivism in business.