shane

Only you can put yourself on the train so it is always your choice, unless of course you live under a communist regime. But this situation requires you to make judgement call in regards to the train and its functioning. Just as if you were living near a nuclear power plant. This nuclear issue is no different than the speeding limit issue, but I do understand your struggle. It is easy to apply objectivist principles to simple situations as well as more complicated situations where rational people who are free to act must be responsible for their actions. In the speed limit example that would be applicable to the owners of the roads and those they permit to drive on them. Similarly, in a free society based on individual rights and responsibility the owner has the right to run a nuclear plant and responsibility to run it safely, and most importantly be proud of that fact. But, if the government were to mandate safety regulations upon his nuclear plant, he is no longer free to safely run his plant. He is forced to comply with the mandates, it is no longer his business, and his selfish interests are subordinated to socialism, religion, fear....whatever. This is against his nature and therefore against life and a losing situation all around. The main point is that all values come from the individual seeking a selfish goal according to rational principles, and when you take that away through mandates or regulation you take away values, you take away options and you take away that mans ability to achieve life.

The situation you are referring is very unlikely to happen because nuclear reactors are extremely safe. Nonetheless, some people would still rather not live anywhere near one and that is their ultimate decision.

Sounds like a niche for a blossoming capitalist to exploit!! Most companies do everything they can to protect your information, but if you wanted to know you would have to ask, probably more than once, and get that information. If they did "broadcast" your information and you can prove it then you could bring a lawsuit against them. BTW security stocks have been hot for a while, a sign that the government doesn't need to regulate but that free markets are self regulating.

Sure, but I as the consumer can also benefit from the exacting quality and care. I could kill someone as well, but there is no reason to believe so. If there is reason to believe so (and we all know what a "reason" would consists of i.e post #4) then those charges can and should be served.

Nope! This is the responsibility of the individual owners. If someone wants to have a nuclear power plant to produce electric power and money they are responsible for its proper care and functioning. If it is ever found out that someone is harmed or could be harmed by the nuclear power plant, and the government finds this to be true, then a lawsuit and indeed criminal charges could be brought against the owners, supervisors, workers etc. What business owner would want their source of money to be in disrepair? The government regulation could make it costly to do business and therefore make it increasingly difficult to properly function a nuclear reactor, and should be avoided.

Haven't we all had a roomate like that?? Pretty funny.

He more good to us dead than free, but I see what you are saying.

There are two issues in regard to the law and material non-public information 1. Should the government have the right to protect individual investors from ignorance 2. Should the insiders have the right to trade on insider information Of course the answer to the first one is no, but the government believes it is their right to do that on the premise they are protecting the rights of the investor, an egalitarian principle. The second has nothing to do with the govt, but with the owners of the business and should be determined and chosen by each individual investor. There is no question that some insider trading is decietful and fraudulent, which is already covered by law. But the ultimate question is similar to the the altruism issue because it is a destructive outcome of it. AR said something along the lines it is not a question of whether we should or should not give a bum a dime, but whether we have the right to exist if we don't. So, it is not a question of whether insider trading is right or wrong, it is whether the government has the right to regulate it or not. The company is the property of owners and therefore should be decided how to be used by the owners. Furthermore, material non-public information is as such. Material information - information that may affect the price of a security (uggh) including dividend declaration, M&As, gain or loss in contracts, offers that involve tender offers, earnings reports, or anything else you can think of non-public - rule of thumb is the general investors must have time to react to it so this one completely escapes me because I am sure it would take some "general" investors days to respond (there are companies that specialize in disemminating this type of information like Business Wire which was just acquired by Warren Buffet) Up to now I have been discussing "insider trading" as it applies to company execs and close entities. You can also become an inside trader if you use inside information that (and this applies more to the general money managers) 1. breaches a fiduciary obligation 2. is misappropriated (stolen, recieved fraudulently, etc) 3. relates to a tender offer 4. recieved in confidence 5. an unreleased analyst recommendation

Kind of what I was avoiding when I first gave my definition of duty, but ironically and gladly educated. This post was started with duty referring to the first anti-rational definition. I would further add that I'll still avoid it. I served my "duty" in the Army, and overall I would say it was not based on reason, but a selfless "social obligation," or at least that was how it was used 99% of the time. Not being an objectivist at the time I would say it is a highly effective weapon for guilting people into doing tasks or reupping when they might not want to, which is a losing proposition for both sides. Tieing it back in with the subject, I would be very careful when choosing a dutiful money manager. Most money managers may not have such an imbittered view of duty as I do, but when making decisions managers may be reluctant to rely on their own good reasoning, which means taking specific calculated risks, because of fiduciary duty. I believe it to be getting worse as the SEC becomes more active in "dumbing down" the investment world for the sake of fiduciary duty.

Well put. Assumption in the case was that it really was a conservative investment even though his firm didn't think so, but I understand that he should fired and sued if he acted in a manner other than what his "fiduciary obligations" stated. The reason I started this post is because fiduciary duty is used widely in our society. It is applied to everyone from CEO's to financial planners. But instead of it being a guiding concept to clarify a money managers style or purpose, it is being used to shift the risk from the individual investor to the sometimes very specific money managers, making them not more responsible or liable, but less productive and objective. So I should have said "The idea of fiduciary duty seems to be a method of cowing money managers into guilt if they use their individual judgement as opposed to supporting rational and purposeful investing." Implied in the "duty" is that managers should put the clients interests before there own, and if they don't they are guilty of something if they don't. Investors need to seek selfish money managers with clear statements of purpose and proven track records, not fiduciary dutiful self-abnegating drones. You use the term duty as if it were a reason based obligation to act, which it is not, or is not how it is used today. So I avoid it.

I would consider it fair to say that. I also would say it is fair to say that the idea that a penny stock is risky is an industry wide held belief. I don't consider it a duty, but a requirement.

No I wouldn't condone the use of the word, or the concept for that matter. A better term would simply be contractual obligations (if there was a contract) or fiduciary service. And I think many money managers (of which there are more than just fund managers) get tricked into thinking that managing money is not a personal desire but a selfless duty, or some vague combination of the two. To forgoe a conversation on duty I'll just define it as a unidentified moral imperative of some higher authority as opposed to a specific reason based concept. I.E. A tech fund manager forgoes a truly good investment (a penny stock that will grow at 50 percent for the next three years) because his firm has labeled it risky (because they think penny stocks are risky) and therefore bad for his fund owners who have been identified as conservative investors. He thereby completes his fiduciary duty by putting the authority of his firm above his own.

I have seen fiduciary duty defined as loyalty and care in regard to responsibility of someone else's assets. After a closer look it implies that the fiduciary owes loyalty and care to the investor without regard to the investors role. It is the money managers job to provide a service to your client, but the specific service would be chosen by the client. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the client to find a money manager to fit their specific needs. The idea of fiduciary duty seems to be a method of cowing money managers into guilt as opposed to supporting rational and purposeful investing.

I read an interesting article that made the point that they weren't gay, but homophobes who were too macho to explore their personal desires. In other words consumed by fear. Here is the link http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011606D

I am guessing you are strictly a day and technical trader. Have you found it has become more difficult as more short-term traders enter the market?

Mod's note: I have reproduced parts of posts from the original thread as quotations, to have enough conext in this thread. - sNerd What exactly is wrong with your industry? Is it bad to be a trader? I consider Jim a trader and investor, he has stocks that he trades because he knows they are going to inflate and then he has his "charitable trust" which are his long-term trades. Then he has his short to mid-term trades where he will usually talk about some play between price targets. And he advocates discipline and research, the sounds and lights are the sideshow. A TV trader making recommendations can't inflate a stock that much, unless it is a company like taser with a low number of outstanding shares. If anyone is interested you can see his performance for the year at www.yourmoneywatch.com. If you are worried about the objectivity of this site create a simulator on investopedia and see for yourself. Cramer was suspected of pumping stocks, it was never proven. I am sure "Trading with the Enemy" is the biggest source of this criticism. Anybody can write a bitter memoir.

I tend to agree, but I don't think a profit motive subsumes a low brow ratings war. Personally I would rather pay for indepth research and coverage rather than have the government pay, and incidentally have the chance to control content. I'll have to take a look at CSM's news.

Mod's note: In a thread about news sources, someone mentioned Jim Cramer's program "Mad Money". This led to more detailed discussion, which I'm splitting into this thread. Since mentions of Cramer were mixed with other material, I am reproducing quotes from that thread here while leaving most of the posts in that original thread. Profit Motive is good. I like the BBC as well, I should watch it more. Mad Money---Definitely worth your time if you are interested in investing. Cramer is not a philosopher, he is a stock picker. He is extremely knowledgeable in every area of the market and his picks, which I follow closely, are almost always winners, but you gotta do your homework. The thing that makes him worth watching is he doesn't fake knowledge and he is an independent thinker. His outrageous style is what makes him a tv worthy personality. There are probably 100 other people that can do his job but he is on tv because of his outrageous style. I find it entertaining and worth and hour of my time everyday.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a person who is likely confused by Nike and Nikee, and if someone does unknowingly buy a knock-off without any provocation from a seller they deserve to be ripped off. If the seller does proceed to say "this is genuine Nike product" then that would be fraud: an intentional and premeditated lie intended to make money off somebody else's hard work. The knock-off isn't fraudulent, doesn't impinge on trademarks, and is a sign of a healthy and productive economy. But I do not see them as an important value because they cannot exist without something to knock off. Still, they are producing, have jobs, and are creating markets. Ultimately if they didn't have any brands to "knock-off" they would be peddling cheaper shoes or bananas or whatever. Don't see any evil in that.

Print : I read the WSJ, economist, and any other financial publication I can get my hands on (Barrons, FT, IBD) that I don't have a subscription to. I have found that Financial and business newspapers are the most respectable source of news on the whole. I am switching from reading print editions to reading things online. Television: I have CNBC on almost non-stop; my favorite show is Kudlow and Company and Mad Money. (Mod's note: Discussion on Mad Money/Cramer, split to a separate thread. - sNerd) Online: I am a subscriber to HBL, and I read the news online through CNN, Capmag, Cox and Forkum and my homepage is Tech Central Station. I am also interested in finding a website that provides some sort of streamling of headlines from multiple sources that can be sent to my email, at least the articles that go through the AP. I know individual companies offer services of those, like CNN. Moreover, Reading the news efficiently requires a methodology. When I read the news I have a sort of index that helps me sort the news in my head. For an example you can look at the beginning of The Lexicon and it shows a concept index. I have reduced that index to fit my needs and to be more general, and I also have an index based on industrial sectors and one based on geography (i stole this from the economist, it is basically US, The Americas, Europe, Africa/Middle East and Asia). Tell me what you think

Instead of killing themselves fast using their own money, they kill themselves slowly using other peoples money. I cannot believe CNN put this in their top stories on the front page.

This conversation begs the question what is more valuable----the m-16 or ak--the bmw or russian motorcycle--the bmw or the explorer? All are valuable depending on your purpose, but the more valuable productions are clear. So I agree with scott that "It's simply a matter of different priorities." Although this topic is intuitive, You can't compare the usefulness of a bmw with an explorer without first knowing its users purpose. A bmw handles better and is faster. An explorer may not handle better for that reason; it is not as much as one piece as the bmw therefore easier to take apart and fix. Apples and oranges. Maybe you could compare a bmw 3 series with a mazda rx-7 (a ford owned production)

My suggestion: Claire Forlani http://www.claireforlani.com/ She is feminine with an uncomprimising look. Then again she may be the best Dominique I can think of.

I disagree. I do not participate in objectivist circles to find John Galt, but to find the John Galt inside me. The many objectivists that you think would hate him, including the participants in this objectivist forum, only want to know him. BTW, Their fallacy will become known soon enough. Did you not know that?

Doesn't look good for the rest of the women in america!! I watch business oriented television and they tend to hate taxes and regulation, so thankfully I wouldn't know. It is interesting though how horrible dems look on a business show, since businessmen tend to be fact-getters. I would really suggest watching Kudlow and Company for some inspiring capitalistic debates.