In Ch.7 we find another person talking about who John Galt is, this time a tramp, who claims to know:
“An explorer,” said the tramp. “The greatest explorer that ever lived. The man who found the fountain of youth.”
[…]
“John Galt spent years looking for it. He crossed oceans, and he crossed deserts, and he went down into forgotten mines, miles under the earth. But he found it on the top of a mountain. It took him ten years to climb that mountain. It broke every bone in his body, it tore the skin off his hands, it made him lose his home, his name, his love. But he climbed it. He found the fountain of youth, which he wanted to bring down to men. Only he never came back.” “Why didn’t he?” she asked. “Because he found that it couldn’t be brought down.”
Also in this chapter Dr. Potter from the State Science Institute thinks that the economy is not ready for Rearden Metal. Rearden repeatedly asks him whether or not Rearden Metal is good, which is the most important thing to find out and to know in regards to judging the metal itself, in which Dr. Potter dodges, until later he blurts out after Rearden asks:
“Are you going to answer my question?”
The man shrugged. “Questions of value are relative. If Rearden Metal is not good, it’s a physical danger to the public. If it is good it’s a social danger.” “If you have anything to say to me about the physical danger of Rearden Metal, say it. Drop the rest of it. Fast. I don’t speak that language.”
“But surely questions of social welfare—”
“Drop it.”
So even if Rearden Metal is good, it’s then a ‘social danger”. In what way, exactly? Because of how good it is - because it is less expensive and better than steel. Because many products can be made out of it, instead of using steel, and last longer, and are stronger, and cost everyone less money. So how come something that is so good, be a danger? If steel is unable to compete in the marketplace with Rearden Metal, and if other goods made can’t compete with goods made with Rearden metal in price and quality, the simple fact that Rearden Metal is better than, more superior quality to, less costly than… why should Rearden Metal be punished because of that? Because it is good?
Rearden says:
“Well, then, if you think the public won’t go for it, what are you worrying about?”
“If the public doesn’t go for it, you will take a heavy loss, Mr. Rearden.” “That’s my worry, not yours.”
Exactly right.
And if people are worried about riding on a bridge made of Rearden Metal - don’t ride over it, then.
If people are worried about the safety of a rail made of Rearden Metal, then don’t ride on it.
If people are worried about products that contain Rearden Metal, then don’t buy or use them.
It’s as simple as that.
Whether the metal is good or bad, people can, by their power of not dealing with Rearden in anyway whatsoever, eventually can get Rearden Metal off the market without governmental intervention in the economy, because of Rearden‘s “heavy loss“. It’s how the market can work in that way… but… if Rearden Metal is good, why would people not want to use services and products with it in it and pay less for those services and products, ones in which last longer, are stronger and lighter than anything in the marketplace being sold then? Hey, the choice is theirs. If people know the metal is good, they still don’t have to deal with him in anyway. They can keep the steel business running, by only dealing with steel, and not with Rearden Metal. It’s how the market can work in that respect. Whatever the fate of the metal, it must be decided upon in the marketplace, by the marketplace - not by governmental intervention in the economy, is Rand’s view and point.