Francisco's Money Speech

O

OivindJ

Gjest
"Francisco's Money Speech"
;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  


"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
The "Distribution" of Wealth

Doesn't capitalism distribute wealth unfairly?
No. Capitalism "distributes" wealth justly, i.e. to those who earned it, in proportion to how much they produced.

Whom does our "nation's wealth" belong to?
Wealth is not a "collective resource" to be distributed by some totalitarian or his cronies, but is produced by individuals. Wealth belongs to the individual who produced it. It is not an amorphous public good to be distributed by looters for the aid of moochers.

What is wealth a product of?
Fundamentally, wealth is the product of man's mind -- and belongs to each man to the extent that he created it.

In a joint venture how does one determine one's share of wealth?
If many individuals took part in that production, each deserves his share in accordance to how much of it they produced -- as mutually agreed upon amongst themselves by their own free-will. The principle in such instances being: those who produced less, receive less, those who produced more, receive more. A man can neither demand more then he deserves because he is full of "greed", or demand more then he deserves, because he feels "need." All he can demand is what the market -- the uncoerced judgment of others -- will offer him. What is the name of such a principle? It is justice -- the judge in all such cases being the marketplace.

What about "production for use"?
What those who demand "production for use" as opposed to "production for profit" mean is the forced expropriation of the production of some (who are said to have "greed") for the use of others (who are either unwilling or unable to produce it) who are said to have "need." The proper name for this is theft, or slavery.

Are there any limits to wealth?
Wealth, like its corollary knowledge, is not a static quantity, but is potentially limitless. The only limit to one's wealth, in a capitalist society, is the power of one's ability to think and produce and the ability of those around him to think and produce. If one wishes for the wealth of all men to increase only one requirement is necessary -- freedom.
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Freedom

What is freedom in a political context?
Freedom, under capitalism, has only one meaning: freedom from the initiation of force by others. In a political context, freedom means to live in a social system based on individual rights, or in practical terms, freedom has only one specific meaning -- freedom from the initiation of force by other men. By initiation I mean those who start the use of force to achieve their ends, i.e., a bank robber. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or murdered. Only through the initiation of force can a man's rights be violated.

Why does man need freedom?
To live rationally by one's reason in society, man needs only one thing from his fellow men: freedom. The freedom to live for oneself, neither sacrificing oneself to others, nor sacrificing others to oneself -- the freedom to pursue one's own happiness. It is this freedom that unleashes the creative potential of man's mind, resulting in a society of nationwide peace, continuous progress and boundless prosperity.

To live in society, man requires freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which may be revoked at any dictatorial tyrant's, or democratic mob's whim, but freedom to act as an absolute -- by right.
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
The moral justificatio of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good". It is true that capitalism does- if that catch-phrase has any meaning-but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justificatio for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man`s rational nature, that it protects man`s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.
 
A

Akle

Gjest
Linker gjør seg bedre... Forøvrig fremstår det i mine øyne som en middelvei mellom propaganda og svada, - ikke at jeg engang orket lese mer enn små fraksjoner av de større fraksjonene.

Relativt naivt: Doesn't capitalism distribute wealth unfairly?
No. Capitalism "distributes" wealth justly, i.e. to those who earned it, in proportion to how much they produced.
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Linker gjør seg bedre... Forøvrig fremstår det i mine øyne som en middelvei mellom propaganda og svada, - ikke at jeg engang orket lese mer enn små fraksjoner av de større fraksjonene.
Svada? Kan du forklare litt bedre?

Nøyaktig hvilke utsagn er feil, og hvilke feil er det i logiken?

Relativt naivt: Doesn't capitalism distribute wealth unfairly?
No. Capitalism "distributes" wealth justly, i.e. to those who earned it, in proportion to how much they produced.
Merkeligere ting har sikkert skjedd...
 

el_mariachi

Hi-Fi freak
Ble medlem
28.11.2002
Innlegg
5.636
Antall liker
397
Capitalism "distributes" wealth justly, i.e. to those who earned it, in proportion to how much they produced.
Er det ikke slik det er da?
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Forøvrig fremstår det i mine øyne som en middelvei mellom propaganda og svada, - ikke at jeg engang orket lese mer enn små fraksjoner av de større fraksjonene.
Hvordan tror du sosialistenes skriverier om "rettferdighet" ser ut i mine (og i fleres) øyne?
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Selfishness

Isn't capitalism founded upon the evil of selfishness?
Yes and no. Yes, you are correct in that capitalism enshrines self-interest. No, you are completely off the mark when you claim that to act in one's own benefit, that is to act selfishly, is evil.

What does it mean to be selfish?

To be selfish means to look out for one's own interests, i.e. one's own life. To eat to support your life is selfish. To make love to the woman you love is selfish. To have pride in ones accomplishments and character is selfish. To use one's mind in the pursuit of ones own happiness is selfish. By what standard can one judge these selfish things as evil? Only by an irrational one.

By what standard does one judge the good from the evil?  
Man's life is the standard of value. All that supports a man's life is good, and all that destroys man's life is evil.  

Is selfishness good or evil?  
If evil is that which destroys man's life -- and to look after one's self interest -- is to support one's life, then how can selfishness be rationally held to be evil? It cannot.
 
A

Akle

Gjest
Hullete resonementer for å underbygge kapitalisme på grensen til facisme. Om penger er resultat av produktivitet, hvorfor får den mexikanske industriarbeideren mindre penger enn den amerikanske om vi antar at de er like produktive? Er kanskje ikke sammenhengen så direkte likevel?

Capitalism "distributes" wealth justly, i.e. to those who earned it, in proportion to how much they produced.

Resten er like ille... I alle fall det lille jeg har lest.
 
A

Akle

Gjest
Det henger rett og slett ikke på greip og mangler alt av nyanser...
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Hullete resonementer for å underbygge kapitalisme på grensen til facisme. Om penger er resultat av produktivitet, hvorfor får den mexikanske industriarbeideren mindre penger enn den amerikanske om vi antar at de er like produktive? Er kanskje ikke sammenhengen så direkte likevel?

Capitalism "distributes" wealth justly, i.e. to those who earned it, in proportion to how much they produced.  

Resten er like ille... I alle fall det lille jeg har lest.
Hullete resonementer ? Trodde sosialistene hadde monopol på dette jeg..  ;D

Og nok en gang settes det "erlikhets"-tegn imellom kapitalisme og kriminalitet/korrupsjon.
 
A

Akle

Gjest
Hullete resonementer ? Trodde sosialistene hadde monopol på dette jeg..  ;D

Og nok engang settes det "erlikhets"-tegn imellom kapitalisme og kriminalitet/korrupsjon.
Om du forsvarer retorikken ved å rope sosialist sosialist melder jeg meg ut forlengst ;)
 
A

Akle

Gjest
Om penger er resultat av produktivitet, hvorfor får den mexikanske industriarbeideren mindre penger enn den amerikanske om vi antar at de er like produktive?

Capitalism "distributes" wealth justly, i.e. to those who earned it, in proportion to how much they produced.  
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Det finnes mange forskjelder land imellom da.

Når fru Rand snakker om den som produserer, mener hun nok den som tenkte seg fram til hvordan en ide kan gjøres om til virkelighet. Han som lagde blueprintene/prototypene.

De industri arbeiderene som har friheten (der de har friheten) til å skape et bedre/konkurrerende produkt på egen hånd uten å gjøre det synes jeg ikke synd på i det hele tatt.
 
A

Akle

Gjest
Nettopp, og kapitalisme er et globalt fenomen. Å undergrave forskjellene i verden ved å si at det kommer av forskjeller på produksjonsevne er latterlig, og å rettferdiggjøre det på den måten er tragisk.
 
P

Parelius

Gjest
The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which
comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great
precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been
long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous,
but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of
men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the
public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to
oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many
occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.


Forfriskende han Adam gitt.
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Nettopp, og kapitalisme er et globalt fenomen. Å undergrave forskjellene i verden ved å si at det kommer av forskjeller på produksjonsevne er latterlig, og å rettferdiggjøre det på den måten er tragisk.
Forskjeldene i verden kommer av andre grunner enn den ideologien som ble klipt og limt her.

Rettferdiggjøre hva? Det å gjøre det bra for en selv, trenger en å rettferdiggjøre det for noen?
 

Pink_Panther

Æresmedlem
Ble medlem
23.03.2006
Innlegg
20.249
Antall liker
10.837
De industri arbeiderene som har friheten (der de har friheten) til å skape et bedre/konkurrerende produkt på egen hånd uten å gjøre det synes jeg ikke synd på i det hele tatt.
Det skulle ha tatt seg ut om jeg hadde begynt å tukle med produksjonen på egenhånd for å prøve å forbedre produktet vårt.
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Det skulle ha tatt seg ut om jeg hadde begynt å tukle med produksjonen på egenhånd for å prøve å forbedre produktet vårt.
Måtte sagt opp først da.. ::)
 

Gjest.

Hi-Fi freak
Ble medlem
12.09.2006
Innlegg
6.146
Antall liker
878
Har oivind vært i en industribedrift i det hele tatt? Han har sikker bare sett en på TV!
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Har oivind vært i en industribedrift i det hele tatt? Han har sikker bare sett en på TV!
Poenget ditt?

Vet ikke hva jeg snakker om og bla bla bla? Det var noen ganske enkle prinsipper jeg ønsket å diskutere her.
 

Pink_Panther

Æresmedlem
Ble medlem
23.03.2006
Innlegg
20.249
Antall liker
10.837
Poenget ditt?

Vet ikke hva jeg snakker om og bla bla bla? Det var noen ganske enkle prinsipper jeg ønsket å diskutere her.
Det er også noen ganske enkle prinsipper i en industribedrift. Den produserer den varen markedet vil ha, etter gitte spesifikasjoner.
Man kan ikke stå ved en sag å finne ut at ved å stille om fra 48x96 mm. til 36x96 mm. kan man øke antallet løpemeter pr. tømmerstokk.
Eller han karen på Cola-fabrikken som vil spare bedrifen for penger og halverer sukkermengden i batchen.
 
A

Akle

Gjest
Du ønsker ikke å diskutere, du håpet øvrigheten skulle bli like "blendet" som deg. Noe som i og for seg er både vel og fint, men ikke tilfellet.

Mvh
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Du ønsker ikke å diskutere, du håpet øvrigheten skulle bli like "blendet" som deg. Noe som i og for seg er både vel og fint, men ikke tilfellet.

Mvh
Jeg ønsker ikke å diskutere? Dere fortsetter jo bare å si at kapitalistene sjeler fra alle andre.

Regnet jo med protester fra dere tre da. :)
 
A

Akle

Gjest
Det hele var overforenklet og platt inntil det noe humoristiske. Det er min oppriktige mening. Er nå heller tyv enn offer, så den påstanden din har du ut i fra det blå. Skal du absolutt dele verden inn i to store grupper er jeg nok din motpol og du må gjerne kalle meg sosialist og kommunist. I min verden er jeg ingen av delene.

Mvh
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Det hele var overforenklet og platt inntil det noe humoristiske. Det er min oppriktige mening. Er nå heller tyv enn offer, så den påstanden din har du ut i fra det blå. Skal du absolutt dele verden inn i to store grupper er jeg nok din motpol og du må gjerne kalle meg sosialist og kommunist. I min verden er jeg ingen av delene.

Mvh
Prinsipper er gjerne enkle og urettferdigheter vil du alltid finne i verden, men hvorfor alltid legge all skylda på kapitalismen?

Spessielt ved å kalle all verdens kriminelle for kapitalister.
 

el_mariachi

Hi-Fi freak
Ble medlem
28.11.2002
Innlegg
5.636
Antall liker
397
Man kan ikke stå ved en sag å finne ut at ved å stille om fra 48x96 mm. til 36x96 mm. kan man øke antallet løpemeter pr. tømmerstokk.
Hva er ditt grunnlag for å undervurdere sagbruksarbeiderne på denne måten? Enhver idiot skjønner vel dette?
 

erato

Æresmedlem
Ble medlem
15.03.2003
Innlegg
20.312
Antall liker
11.266
Sted
Bergen
Torget vurderinger
1
Doesn't capitalism distribute wealth unfairly?
No. Capitalism "distributes" wealth justly, i.e. to those who earned it, in proportion to how much they produced.


så når kineserne får fyr på økonomien slik at oljeprisen går til himmels så har alle som sitter på oljekontrakter og oljeaksjer "fortjent" (earned) verdistigningen? De må gjerne tjene penger på det for meg - men at det har så mye med hva som er fortjent, velfortjent eller ikke, er jeg sterkt uenig i. Eller at noen som tjener på boligmarkedet under en boom har "fortjent" det - mange har nok bare hatt flaks, noen har vært smarte osv - men at markedene fordeler verdier etter fortjeneste er mildest talt bullshit. Eller hvordan forklarer du at Trump er mere verdt enn Jesus - hvem har bidratt mest til det menneskelige felleskap?

Dette blir for naivt fundamentalistisk.
 
O

OivindJ

Gjest
Når du har tråklet deg gjennom Atlas Shrugged må du også lese The Fountainhead. Det burde alle, ikke minst her.
joda, en vakker dag.  :) Har den hjemme.

Her kommer en liten innrømmelse, kanskje til glede for noen...:

Så stor forakt som jeg hadde for endel mennesker etter å ha lest Atlas Shrugged er ikke en bra ting i det hele tatt.

Nå er det helt sikkert endel her på forumet som liker å kalle andre for lettpåvirkelige, men etter ca 1250 sider har jo både bevistheten og underbevistheten vært i fru Rands verden en god stund.

Før jeg leser denne kan jeg vel få låne litt salt av deg Akle, eller hva? :)
 
Topp Bunn