"Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826

by Anon84 • 17 years ago

107 129 17 years ago

unalone12• 17 years ago

This is one of my favorite speeches from that book. It doesn't make false assumptions like many of the other speeches and plots do - it stays focused on debunking the idea of money as bad, and as such while a lot of the rest of the book seems slightly ridiculous, this speech remains quite powerful.

maxharris6• 17 years ago

What about the rest of the book seems ridiculous to you? The first time I read it, I thought that everything in Atlas Shrugged was perfect. Even with repeated readings, I never once thought anything was ridiculous. Be specific in your answer.

jacoblyles10• 17 years ago

Ayn Rand often overstates her case for the sake of art (her evil characters, for example, are mostly shallow caricatures). I find that people who don't share her views often mock her works and call her "ridiculous" because she treats some ideas that they hold completely without nuance or sympathy.

I can see why they do this, but I think Ayn's detractors overstate their case. She is valuable because she is the only major author that writes from her point of view. I read many books in high school with a feminist or socialist moral, I read many literary triumphs that exposed the "failure" of capitalism, only Ayn dared to be different. I think every teenager should have a run-in with Rand, if only to begin the process of developing critical thinking.

However, I do think her complete philosophical system has many more flaws then she would care to admit (the one laid out in the "BFS", "Big Frackin' Speech", at the end of Atlas Shrugged). She tries to lay out a case for the absolute, unassailable truth of her ethics, but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world.

captainobvious• 17 years ago

Externalities ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality ), positive or negative, don't seem to get much consideration throughout.

unalone12• 17 years ago

Other people have responded in other ways, so I won't respond regarding her philosophy. I'll respond in a purer way that nobody else has: she writes bad prose. Her sentences are ugly, overlong, and lack concise flow. So by the definition of literature as the beauties of language, her work is imperfect and, in the case of Atlas Shrugged, actively bad.

I daresay I've read Atlas Shrugged more times than you have. Furthermore, though I could be wrong, I would argue that I've memorized more of the central concepts and analyzed them more thoroughly than you have. Judging from how you've written on this thread, you're still operating from a very shallow interpretation of her works, which is antithetical to her own ideas.

The central flaw of Atlas Shrugged is that it denies external possibility. Given her own hypothetical world, it follows impressive logic. However, it ignores the fact that people are not so easily judged. A former girlfriend of mine was an Objectivist and simultaneously an irrationalist. She believed in man as an end unto himself, but also that everything was subjective, there was no absolute truth - and she was a believing Christian on the side. The problem with Ayn Rand's writing is that the two are not necessarily incompatible. You can believe in what she writes and still think that things are subjective, and that truth is difficult to find, and while she would argue that that is a corruption of her ideas, and it is, Atlas Shrugged does not define itself well enough.

Part of the problem is the nature of language, which is subjective. If I tell you that I'm nice, it could mean that I am "kind" or that I am "accurate". If I call my friend a "motherfucker" it means something different to him than it does to Oedipus. Similar, "objectivity" does not have an objective interpretation. Neither does "selfishness". People will never agree over these definitions. Objectivists don't agree over them in their entirety. By that nature, yes, everything is subjective.

But that's beside the point. To give a quick summary of other flaws, I'd say that her writing is preachy, her characters are one-sided, there's no observation of physical stimuli (which is to say, the nature of bad things happening to good people on grounds other than human interference, which leads to questions of philosophy that she neatly ignores), and her book is about three hundred pages too long, drags in the opening, in the latter half of the second part, and John Galt's speech is wholly unnecessary as part of the work. Feel free to respond.

benzim• 17 years ago

I liked Atlas Shrugged quite a lot, but there were a few parts that seemed ridiculous. Specifically the idea that everything was about money. In the model society near the end the banker loans Dagny a car and says that it isn't free he's charging her for it. As he shows Dagny around he explains how they charge each other for everything. Even husbands and wives pay each other one way or another. I wouldn't want to live in a society like that. Making personal or even business relationships primarily about money causes all sorts of problems. People need to be paid fairly, but focusing too much on money destroys intrinsic motivation. I'll fix my parents computer for free because I want to help them, but I wouldn't do the same thing just for money. Even trying to keep track of how many favors I've done for my friends would cause too many problems. I help them when they need it and they help me, but no one expects that things be exactly equal.

SapphireSun2• 17 years ago

Ironically, I'm in the middle of writing an ethics paper on Aristotle. We will be considering Ayn Rand's position starting next class.

On point, there is a flaw in her speech. Many people produce money for themselves at the expense of other things of value. The problem is that money is not valued as a medium of exchange, but as an end in itself.

For people that not only say, but act, in the proper way, Ayn Rand is right. In the real world, it falls apart. Not everyone is a philosopher, and they will be tricked by hollow artifacts of social acceptance and material wealth.

I like pg's position where people produce because they like to build and solve problems using their reason ( A position much like Aristotle's I'm finding. ) Material things lose their fun after enough time and you have interacted with the static object enough. People are interesting because they can be dynamic because of their reason.

grandalf2• 17 years ago

If money is valued as an end in itself, it is only valued that way in abstract, because money itself is worthless, but it is a reliable substitute for other things... things one may wish to exchange it for at some point in the future.

So money is fine as an abstract end, because it allows the end to be "time shifted" nicely.

olavk2• 17 years ago

If this is supposed to be a rebuttal to the quote from the new testament, then it's a major strawman. The quote from Timothy 6:10 is "the love of money is the root of all evil." (my italics)

twoz• 17 years ago

The "love of money" is also dealt with in the article:

"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."

To see men perform the most immoral of acts for money, it becomes easy to believe money to be a wretched thing.

Thus, it's not a far leap to consider the love (or insane lust) of money as evil.

Hence, the quote from the bible is there to protect men from performing acts of evil in the search for or in the name of money.

Eliezer• 17 years ago

"No True Scotsman" fallacy, "the love of money" has a standard meaning quite apart from "the love of traditional capitalist values".

quantumhobbit• 17 years ago

Note that the quote isn't "the love of money is evil", but that it is "the root of all evil". A small but important distinction.

jerf• 17 years ago

The quote from Timothy 6:10 is actually something like "ριζα γαρ παντων των κακων εστιν η φιλαργυρια ης τινες ορεγομενοι απεπλανηθησαν απο της πιστεως και εαυτους περιεπειραν οδυναις πολλαις", if you're going to get technical.

The New American Standard Bible renders the relevant piece of that quote as "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil".

In context (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/1_timothy/6.htm), it is clearly being shown as dangerous because it can distract you from God, and in the full context of Jesus' similar quote it is even more explicit that way (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/luke/16.htm).

Please note this is by way of information. If a thing is to be damned or praised, let it be damned or praised for what it truly is, not for what is left after a three-level Telephone game. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game)

gaius• 17 years ago

Note that the heroes of Atlas Shrugged all voluntarily give up their monetary fortunes. The book's central theme is the reason that would cause them to do that.

thaumaturgy3• 17 years ago

There is nothing inherently wrong with the love of money, morally or otherwise. If you were to make an argument against money, perhaps the best you could do would be to criticize what a person _chooses to do_ with money. Do they choose to impoverish others, or do they choose to move society forward?

Besides, I do not think that religion has a pedestal to stand upon when criticizing the love of money. What clothes does the pope wear? Are cathedrals built for free by those who want them, and then donated to their community? Are statues, and relics, and other icons made and distributed for free?

There are very few religious centers -- either individual or geographical -- that do not bundle themselves up in the comforts of wealth.

sgharms2• 17 years ago

I read _AS_ when I was 18 and I've thought about this quotation a lot through the last 20 months, as Reddit frothed about Ron Paul, Gold Standard, Banking collapse, etc.

As I've thought more and more about it, something seems off about Francisco's speech, namely: Money is _no longer_ the representation of value in green paper; no, it is the representation of transferrable obligation, i.e. debt.

http://bit.ly/14idwP

Rand's philosophical position, expressed through D'Anconia, is that money is an expression of _value_, created by a man through his labor and that through its exchange, a rational process, a rational means for motivating and directing men's labor exists, "their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

I don't think this works quite as cleanly if you start consider that you're selling tokens of servitude, or indebtedness.

neilk2• 17 years ago

I got about 20 minutes into that "Money as Debt" video -- that's when he starts departing from, let's say, generally accepted theories of money. I don't have time to watch the whole thing, but I gather from other descriptions of the video that he advocates a policy of fiat money and repayment of debt via deliberate inflation, which is exactly the theory of the old Social Credit movement in Western Canada. That self-destructed.

He's correct that banks create money through loans. He's totally wrong when he says that money represents servitude.

He's ignoring that the purpose of debt is to create value, specifically to be able to do things today that make us all wealthier in the future. Yes, banks create money from nothing. That's because things of value - real wealth - are being created all the time, "from nothing", or at least, from nothing that is represented in the economy. They're mined out of the ground or grown from the sun, soil, and rain, or some complex permutation of all the above. Which is why we allow banks to grow the amount of money to represent it. When we take out a loan, we are saying something like "I'm pretty sure I can mine some copper out of that hill. So give me some capital now because I need to get a shovel." Rather than say money is debt you might as well say that money is certitude of present or future wealth.

By the way, this is the hidden truism of Paul Graham's mantra, "make something people want". Because "something people want" is another name for "wealth", and "wealth" is, under normal circumstances, easy to turn into money. So someone who says "make something people want and you'll make money" is expressing a near-tautology. (One that escapes most people, so it is good that he says it.)

I'm not totally in favor of our current systems, but that's another topic. And you have to know how the system works now to change it.

sgharms2• 17 years ago

I agree, and I should have said this, “Money as Debt” takes a conspiracy turn at about halfway. I'm a reminded of Adam Savage's "Do you mean Tesla the inventor of AC power, the genius or Tesla the nut-job?".

I very much liked your explanation in the third paragraph, but under this model what does interest represent? If I step through your logic here.....

1. I believe there is copper in that hill which has a value ( say of 60K ).

2. I ask the bank for 10K to get started

3. Thus 10K has been added to the economy, recognizing that raw materials will be brought to the economy and growing the pie of wealth

4. I go into them thar hills, mine out the copper for 60K.

5. I pay back the bank, who now has 10K actual cash in their reserves, against which they may lend. I have also put 50K of my sale of this copper in their bank, giving them 60K against which to lend.

6. At this point, I think we're balanced in terms of what's been added to the value pie.

7. OK, so what does interest represent? The opportunity cost on the hope that I would find the copper? And, alternatively, say I found nothing in those hills, what happens to that 10K that was created? Shouldn't that be destroyed?

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm trying to understand your model better.

jfarmer• 17 years ago

Ayn Rand was opposed to the labor theory of value, which is a central tenant of Marxism.

ojbyrne5• 17 years ago

While I'm not a marxist, I think she goes too far in her opposition to this. All of the protagonists are capitalists (mostly with inherited money) and those who actually work to advance the cause of the "great men" - i.e. Eddie Willers - are given short shrift, and little chance to advance. Instead we have great men with inherited fortunes, doing very little actual work, preferring whining about "looters" and in one case (Hank Rearden) spending a month flying a plane over the Rockies looking for another great person.

turkishrevenge• 17 years ago

I would like to see how she would explain commodity valorization. If she does not subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value, how is that extra value imparted, if not from the labor (variable) acting on constant capital? It's a mistake to attribute it all to money. Even she say money is an expression of this value.

thras• 17 years ago

Wow. Are people impressed by that article because of the sonorous prose? Because the content definitely isn't impressive.

Rand's first mistake is not realizing that the love of money quote speaks to individuals and not to societies. An individual who loves the material world more than the spiritual world (not god necessarily, maybe just the world inside his own head), is pitiable.

The saddest thing I've ever heard was from a friend who told me that his main goal in life was making money -- he wanted that more than anything. I asked him if I wanted the money for anything in particular, and he couldn't answer me.

jacoblyles10• 17 years ago

There is some cleverness in there, and, I believe, some truth. Here is a quote that I liked:

"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."

Besides, wealth is often demonized by egalitarians. They see its distribution as a random function of the universe, and not as a function of the productive efforts of the earners. For one person to have more money than another is considered unjust. We hear so much about how the wealthy are evil, it is nice for a different point of view to be aired every now and then.

>"The saddest thing I've ever heard was from a friend who told me that his main goal in life was making money"

It would not be so sad if he said that his goal was producing something of value, which often results in making money. As Ayn says, "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".

> "Are people impressed by that article because of the sonorous prose?"

Yes, I do think the prose is quite nice. When Ayn hits a good stride, she reaches a style that is all her own. I think her talents are often under-appreciated because the literary establishment is very much opposed to her political views.

andreyf5• 17 years ago

It would not be so sad if he said that his goal was producing something of value, which often results in making money.

If one's goal is to maximize the value humanity creates, she should probably become an elementary school teacher. If one's goal is to make money, she should get an MBA or financial degree.

The former, to me, is significantly nobler.

MaysonL2• 17 years ago

Best argument for the inheritance tax I've seen lately.

radu_floricica4• 17 years ago

We are on Hacker News, aren't we? Most people here value the material world more then the spiritual world. This doesn't mean they completely ignore the latter, of course. But between discussing spirituality and creating something, I'd say most would choose creating.

As for making money, this is how our success is measured. Yes, you can do things for your soul, of for your friends, or for your family or for the society at large, but to be an entrepreneur means to accept to be judged, indeed, to judge yourself by your material success: money. It is not an easy thing to do. Money does not lie to you, does not tell you you're ok as you are now, that things will be better or that it will love you no matter what. Failure is clear to see, and so is success.

I probably needn't say it, but all this is worthless if you do not apply complete honesty to your work. Money is not an end in itself, it is the measure of your skill. To steal or cheat in any way makes it useless for this purpose.

abstractbill• 17 years ago

Most people here value the material world more then the spiritual world ... between discussing spirituality and creating something, I'd say most would choose creating.

The urge to create things is very spiritual for me, just fwiw. It doesn't have to be material things either - these days it's mostly software and occasionally robots, and in the past it's been mathematics and music. But I must create things - it's a fundamental part of the person I am.

old-gregg• 17 years ago

We are on Hacker News, aren't we? ... [skipped] ... As for making money, this is how our success is measured.

No it is not. I love HN, but most people here accept the distorted definition of a hacker.

Hacker culture had nothing to do with money, only lately, and PG is partially guilty of this, "hacker" started to associate with "21 year old internet millionaire" in the minds of many.

thaumaturgy3• 17 years ago

| An individual who loves the material world more than the spiritual world (not god necessarily, maybe just the world inside his own head), is pitiable.

Then pity me, though I wish you wouldn't. I do not find that I can believe in any world other than the material world, at least enough to sacrifice my efforts in this world.

If I am going to make a difference, I want to make a difference in the material world, not a spiritual one. If I am going to become wealthy, I want to do so in the material world. If I am going to produce art, I would do so in the material world.

Any spirituality that I do have, exists in the material world. I work in this world, I trade in this world, I appreciate in this world, I love in this world.

So what's so wrong with that?

And if my goals in this world demand that I create money, and if I pursue that goal aggressively, why would you pity me?

Your friend wants able means. Even if he doesn't know now what he would do with those means, it is enough for him to know that he wants them. He is already leagues ahead of the aimless majority that do not know at all what they want. If he wants money, then he should pursue that, and once he has it, he can decide what to do with it ... but at least he will have pursued and attained a goal, which is a claim shared by too few.

I think your pity is misplaced.

Ardit20• 17 years ago

"If I am going to produce art, I would do so in the material world."

Great works of art make one feel beauty. Is feeling beauty a spiritual event?

I do not know what one may mean by spirituality. Perhaps they regard spirituality in the religious sense, such as a belief in a god and that he will take care of them. However I consider spirituality to be something intrinsic in all human being and quite detached from religion.

Much as intellectual stimulation is the food of the brain so too beauty is the food of the heart and I believe it is in the heart where spirituality, as I see such term, reigns.

If spirituality is what I see it to be, then your argument seems to be flawed as you consider spirituality to be detached from the material world.

I do not see how one can distinguish easily the material world from the spiritual one. If the act of helping out a poor person is considered to be spiritual, such act is still carried out in the material world. It is a material act as you are helping him with material things. Same argument can be used when helping an old lady pass the road. So too the act of feeling beauty is experienced in the material world however the act itself is spiritual. For some even making a difference in the material world is a spiritual act and certainly love is spiritual however facilitated through the material world.

vixen99• 17 years ago

Bernard Shaw's dictum may seem a little trite but it's true nonetheless "Money is the most important thing in the world until you have enough of it". Yes! - 'enough' begs a slew of questions.

dk2• 17 years ago

Where do you (and others) get the idea that Rand is responding to the Bible? She's speaking to/of those who say that money is evil, love of money is evil, and related thoughts. This seems clear from the very first sentence of the speech: "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" Later, "But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak?", "Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil?", etc.

I would challenge you to cite the part of the speech or anything else Rand ever wrote arguing that money should be the most important thing in one's life. The statement "Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit," indicates what's more explicit elsewhere in the book, namely Rand's conviction that the material and (secular) spiritual are both of great importance in life and that neither trumps the other. Rather, one should seek to integrate them.

Having read Rand extensively when I was younger, I can't imagine she'd consider your friend's approach to life, as described, anything but sad as well.

mistermann7• 17 years ago

Rand had serious issues with religion, she wrote about it in her nonfiction. I happen to agree with her by the way.

dualogy6• 17 years ago

Actually the content is incredibly impressive. There are quite a few problems with Rand and her writing, but its not to do with content or presentation imo. It depends a lot on how the individual reader deals with it. For one, she doesn't care of her readers' definitions, concepts or connotations of words like reason, egoism/egotism, rationality, which have developed, maybe manipulated, maybe not, over generations but which she kind of redefines, trying to be as exacting and smart as possible about it but coming to definitely other (in my mind more sensible, but other) concepts/connotations/definitions than the more blurred ones people think they share. So take a quote or passage of one of her works out of the context of the book and just present it to someone who has never read her from start to finish and applies their own, learned connotations, concepts and definitions, and they will cry how in-humane and pitiable it seems.

Her heroes, herself and her argument is that there shouldn't be a conflict between the material and the spiritual in the first place --- i.e. the 'ideal spiritual being' (in her literature) is the creator and individual of independent thought, for whom money is 'merely' the 'material manifestation of their spiritual height', a spirit that is, unlike others, admittedly celebrating this-life on this-world (not an otherworldly afterlife), 'reason' (she defines it for herself and her story characters, agreeing or disagreeing with that one is a different matter) and 'rational choice'.

While we're at it, when she's advocating 'rational selfishness', she's also not advocating the 'mindless brute going over corpses or a plundering thug' but rather implies that ultimately it is in your self-interest to create, and the best and most useful you can, then trade that voluntarily. This is pretty consistent with the YC/PG idea of wealth creation where ideally in the marketplace (except maybe for crass bubble markets) you make a lot of money most likely when you create even more wealth/value for those who choose to pay you. (Whether that's freemium subscribers, advertisers or a big corp buying you is beside the point of the argument -- in the end, the principle applies regardless of that.)

So I think the 'pitiable individual' you had in mind and the one she had in mind might well be the same or very similar --- there's unthinking zealots (MBA or not ;) who strive for money not knowing what to use it for, deal in personal connections and think it's all about 'striking deals with the right buddies' --- and then there's what in the 30s were 'the great industrialists' who started from nowhere (or since the 70s started in garages) and had a grand vision of something immensely useful they wanted to see in the world, then went ahead 'against all odds' to build it. Of course, she's using the heroism rhetoric of old warrior tales immensely, and I think she just did it for fun and maybe because her heroes (in books and real life) needed that 'missionary sense of urgency' to actually do what they set out to do.

Maybe for insanely great stuff you do actually need a reality distortion field. Although in another way she was all about 'facing, not blanking out reality and seeing it in the eye all the time'. But thats physical reality and basic laws like you cannot consume more than you produce etc. I'd actually say, to ultimately disrupt and reshape reality, you need to distort it first. Some of reality is ours to reshape, but that doesnt mean wishing-will-it-so.

Hmm. Mindboggling. There was a time when I could express such thoughts less confusingly. Guess I've been working too much lately and not doing enough intellectual reading/talking/writing. Gotta take that daily bike-ride now before getting to work -- laters!

maxharris6• 17 years ago

Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book! I am very pleased to see it being quoted here.

gyeh• 17 years ago

The Economist has an article regarding the recent resurgence of "Atlas Shrugged" sales: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...

rw• 17 years ago

Could we stop believing in free will already?

thaumaturgy3• 17 years ago

I choose not to.

apstuff• 17 years ago

I read the full article, understand the point, and get its relevance to today's circumstances.

That said, I have to admit (and I'm sorry for being way off topic here) I found myself being drawn instead to the overall simplicity of the layout and ease of readability than to the actual message.

It's probably because I'm working on my own stuff and appreciate it when pages are done well (i.e. hacker news).

I looked at the style sheet and it's also very concise.

I know they're using .asp but I'm led to believe capmag.com is fairly easy to maintain.

Please continue using Hacker News to discuss Ayn Rand if you like, but as a developer I thought I'd throw a couple of pennies into the design fountain.

sridharvembu• 17 years ago

I read this last time 20 years ago as an undergraduate student in India, and I still find it inspiring after all these years.

I find it particularly relevant today, when the Federal Reserve and the government are intent on destroying the moral foundation of money. I expand on it at: http://blogs.zoho.com/general/money-as-a-moral-institution

dualogy6• 17 years ago

Wow! Using your corporate blog to dispense your opinions on economics (which I share!) is rather 'heroic' in Ayn Rand's sense of the word. I'm not sure I'd do it, but now I wonder why... ;)

mistermann7• 17 years ago

Or, you could just read what he wrote. Maybe I missed it, but was he selling something? But then I didn't spend 5 minutes looking for a conspiracy.

nazgulnarsil• 17 years ago

Private property is the foundation of peace. Without it who gets what can only be decided by force and coercion. Allowing people to keep the fruit of their labor is a necessary condition for those people to bother producing anything that they don't need immediately (consumable goods).

niv2• 17 years ago

THE STRENGTH OF THE STRONG by Jack London http://www.trussel.com/prehist/strength.htm Basically, the story tells that a tribe figured out that the basic "law" was that no man should use his strength to abuse others, so whenever one would abuse his strength, the others would kill him as to not weaken the tribe. Much later in the story, they figured out that money (among other things) also was a strength that you can use to abuse others.

This is why (more or less) I don't agree with Ayn

dualogy6• 17 years ago

How so? 'Abusing others' was certainly nothing she was advocating. Her point was that simply earning money or being good ('strong') is not at all an abuse of poorer or 'weaker' people. While one may get 'rich' by abusing 'weaker' people (i.e. robbers or slave drivers), that is exactly the kind of person she is up against. More specifically, against the kind of robber or potential slave driver who seeks to gain support and assistence of one group to rob or enslave another -- by denouncing the latters as the 'actual robbers and slave drivers' when all they did was voluntary exchanges and independent creation etc etc. Now, that I'm sure we can agree on, does exist and did happen in reality and history. Anything I'm missing?

jibiki2• 17 years ago

How do you feel about things like sweatshops and sharecropping? (Personally, I'd rather be a debt slave than starve to death, but many people see these sorts of businesses as abusive.)

nwjsmith• 17 years ago

Absolutely my favourite bit of Ayn Rand. This speech can single handedly change the way people think about money and their own worth.

gnaritas3• 17 years ago

Only if they don't think about it too much, I'm amazed people find this selfish drivel so influential.

mistermann7• 17 years ago

Feel free to point out the logical inconsistencies.

"Francisco's Money Speech" by Ayn Rand

Related Stories