My understanding was that Ayn Rand used her character to spew her political/economic ideas. Those being that government regulations are bad. Especially when you are redistributing wealth. Like Social Security does, the same kind she accepted. P.S. she was an atheist.
Like I said, 6pt font. From memory (the numbers may be a tad off), there are like 13 words per line average, and 100 lines per page. Compared to an arbitrary novel I picked up which had 9 words per line and 50 lines/page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_novels List of longest novels Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged Published 1957. Approximately 540,000 words small font, thus saving pages. 1168 pages. (15th longest in history, 7th longest in one volume) http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225072807AATwYx6 How many words in a typical softback bestseller novel? Best Answer - Chosen by Voters Around 70,000-80,000. Novels can and do vary a little bit but most publishers are VERY unwilling to publish anything shorter than 60,000. If they read a manuscript that falls short of 70,000-80,000 and they really like it so much that they feel the need to publish it then they will often ask for it to be extended. Sometimes they'll use a larger font too in order to 'extend' a short book. The reason? Thin books look bad on the bookshelves and rarely sell well. People feel like they're not getting their money's worth. Technically anything shorter than around 50,000 is a novella rather than a novel. Shorter than around 30,000 is a novelette. Shorter than 10,000 is a short story. Shorter still is flash fiction. Novellas or shorter aren't a wise decision if you're trying to write something to sell to a publisher. Some novels have been longer than 80,000 but these days; anything longer than about 110,000 is approaching the realm of the epic and is in danger of being classed TOO long. Publishers will again be unwilling to publish extremely long novels as they can intimidate the reader and many will not buy the book as it seems like too much of a challenge and a commitment.
Why shouldn't she take from Social Security, since she was forced to pay in? She quite likely got back out a lot less than she would have from a private savings plan if there were no Social Security.
LOL u mad! regardless, that is not 3k pages! My copy was about 1100 pages as well, so yeah, I did round.
Nah, when I read the book, it was a REALLY long read. I needed magnifying glasses to read it (my eyes not so good anymore since I got older). Steven King's The Dome is over 1000 pages and it's nowhere near as long a read.
Luckily, she didn't retire recently, after Bush2's terms. I've met numerous seniors whose private plans shrank so much they couldn't retire at all. I am unaware of ANY private plan that didn't take a huge hit, while SS is something you can depend on (when the government doesn't steal from the fund).
For a senior retiring this year, assuming they began working at 18, their average inflation-adjusted ROI in social security will be a little over 1.5%. If they would have put that same money all in T-Bills (just as safe), their inflation-adjusted ROI would have been over 4%. If they would have put it all in stocks, their inflation-adjusted ROI would have been over 7%. Think about the rule of 72. Take your return, and divide 72 by it. That's how long it would take your money to double. At 1.5%, your money doubles in 48 years. At 4%, it doubles in 18 years. At 7%, it doubles in 10 years, 3 months. Assuming a 47 year career, that means your Social Security has yet to double, T-Bills would have doubled 2.6 times and stocks would have doubled 4.6 times. I think I'll ditch Social Security and save and invest the money myself via a 401K or an IRA. Fuck FICA.
I'm sorry if my statement about Ayn Rand being an atheist was construed to be associated with liberty; however, I think it is a safe assumption that a majority of Ayn Rand lovers are conservatives. Conservatives also tend to be religious thanks to Cheney et al.
Again, there's not necesarily a link between social conservatism and economic conservatism. In fact, many of the evangelicals that elected George W. Bush didn't mind encroachments on liberty--as long as those encroachments supported their values. Economic conservatives want the government as much out of their business as possible. Rand's objectivism was closer to the latter than the former.
It's a great book. Of course, because I've read the book, it likely means I won't see the movie. I don't want the images in my mind to be replaced with those from someone else.
I'd say that people with a strong libertarian/anti-government bent would be the biggest fans of Rand. Belief or disbelief in religion seems like a secondary group of people, such as the "conservatives" that you paint with a very broad brush.
Just happened to see it listed in my local theater, so I figured I'd bump this. Seems to be doing really badly among the critics, but the true believers love it: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/#!reviews=all&page=2 I think the last time I saw that wide of a disparity between critics and audience ratings on a movie was maybe one of the Saw sequels. Anyway, it cost $15 mil to make and grossed $1.7 mil on opening weekend. Has the free market spoken, or is this merely a case of the government trying to crush the entrepreneurial spirit of independent film makers? You make the call.
