Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nate

Regulars
  • Posts

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nate

  1. ... just to make sure the amount owed matches what the IRS is telling you you owe. Unfortunately, the IRS is probably right.

    No. The IRS number isn't right. As it has already been stated numerous times, the IRS bases their figure on only your sells. Its up to you to deduct your purchase price (cost basis) for those sells. The figure he was given is based on a cost basis of ZERO. Certainly, he paid SOMETHING for those shares? Isn't it great when people give advice about things they don't know about?

  2. Thanks, that's exactly what happened. I reported income on interest, but I didn't realize my investment income was taxable too. In hindsight, that was pretty dumb, but I just started investing and didn't realize it. I'm going to visit H&R Block tomorrow.

    Well, first off. Do not panic. I have been audited and handled it myself. Part of my audit included a large number of securities transactions. They disputed the information that I submitted and did exactly the same thing they have now done to you: gave me a ridiculous bill based on a 0 cost basis. Now that you are being audited, the first thing I would do is ask the IRS for a copy of your "information returns" or "IRMF." These are the reports that sNerd is talking about. This way you know what the IRS knows and you can be certain that you don't miss anything that will get you in trouble. After that, create and give the auditor an amended return along with proof (brokerage statements or whatever) and simply tell the auditor you made an honest mistake. Shouldn't end up costing you that much, depending on the amount involved. Even if you hire H&R Block to create this amended return, I would still ask for the information returns (edit: before you go to H&R, obviously.). Good luck.

  3. Just UO for me. I studied the material, not just listened, including multiple listens to selected material and extensive notes. I didn't always fully complete the homework, but I did at least think it over for a bit before continuing.

    Cost is definitely a factor. I also prefer book format, but not so much that I won't buy the courses. I'm hoping I get the opportunity to borrow some of the lectures. My next listen is probably Advanced Seminars on OPAR. I'm interested in most of the major lecture courses, though.

    I think they are critical for my understanding of Objectivism, but some (but probably not many) may be able to get along without them.

  4. Against:

    "Why act on principle?" By Leonard Peikoff available free to registered users of ARI

    If you are struggling with this issue, then I strongly recommend giving this lecture a listen. It runs about an hour. Hopefully, you will be able to see Peikoff's truck hurtling toward you in time to step out of the way.

  5. http://www.emusic.com/album/10968/10968342.html

    There are apparently multiple versions of this song.

    alternately: http://www.rhapsody.com/-search?query=requ...ype=RhapKeyword

    A quick google search (example terms: name that tune) indicates that there are a number of websites aimed at solving this problem (of unknown songs). One of the results was midomi.com ... I'm not sure how well these sites work, but I suppose its worth a shot. I imagine that the more obscure the music is the less likely it is to work.

    Ironically, I found a youtube video featuring the song with AS art in the background!

  6. I think Dr. Brook does an excellent job in his appearances. He is able to communicate something meaningful at least. He also never lets his opponents interrupt his opportunity to speak while at the same time not interrupting them unless it is absolutely necessary, such as if they are eating up all the time, even though they don't extend the same opportunity to him. I do think Yaron would have been more forceful here, particularly when the host and co-guest interrupted him two or three sentences into his opening remarks. The host addresses the co-guest three times during the clip. Each time he is given plenty of time to respond. Binswanger is only addressed twice: once interrupted and once when only a few seconds remained after which the co-guest butted in again.

    That said, in this case I think the setup was so bad that nothing much could have been done with it anyway.

    This also happens to be the first time I have seen Dr. Binswanger on television.

    Also, given the number of appearance by ARI on this program, I find it annoying that they don't pronounce "Ayn" correctly. Apparently Dr. Binswanger feels the same way.

  7. Welcome to the forum!

    "The Objectivist Ethics" only covers ... well ... ethics.

    There are five branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

    I would think that OPAR would be pretty good for a foundation. You could also read the more specialized books on the other branches if you are so inclined. (epistemology: ITOE, ethics: "The Virtue of Selfishness", politics: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", aesthetics: "The Romantic Manifesto")

    You might also replace the word "rationalism" above with "rationality" in the future. Look in the Wiki to learn why:

    http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page

    There is a good introductory video here:

    http://www.aynrandnovels.com/ARIdeas.php?p...me=intro_course

    Also, don't be afraid to ask why certain things aren't compatible with Objectivism, but try the search button first!

  8. I received an alert from ARI stating that Yaron Brook was going to be on CNBC to speak against mortgage regulation ... but didn't read it until after the program. I was somewhat frustrated since I keep missing out. After poking around for a while, I found the talk on the CNBC website. Anyone who would like to see it can go here:

    http://search.cnbc.com/main.do?keywords=Ya...mp;target=video

    You can also view some of his previous talks with a paid subscription. A free trial is available.

  9. First, welcome to the forum. I see you've found the search button, so I'll skip that rant.

    Ok, that was more than enough for me to say... at least to start and see how you pick any of it apart and have me respond to it

    If you insist!

    In that those that pay you derive entertainment or fulfill a desire in doing so, whether through TV or not, those that end up giving you money voluntarily did so. I will admit poker IS a zero-sum game.

    I've taken to the idea mentioned earlier in the thread that poker players are essentially entertainers.

    As far as them "giving" you money voluntarily, I don't think that alone is enough to consider a profession moral, not to imply that that was your intended meaning. I.E. selling nukes to North Korea could be done voluntarily.

    learning to understand people and why they act and live as they do, increasing your ability to react better when quick decisions must be made, learning how to get as much value out of a situation (in business this can be very useful) as possible

    I agree that I've gotten a lot of added value from the game as well.

    As far as people not knowing the odds, I don't think this is necessarily delusional. People playing strictly for entertainment simply might not be interested.

    As an aside, I'm no longer playing. When I was it was because my primary source of income was unavailable to me. (gov't bs, long story) Ultimately, I just didn't find poker to be a fulfilling career. The money sort of dried up for me too when the new anti-gaming legislation was passed and many of the deposit bonuses became unavailable to US players. (The gov't strikes again!) I played mostly online and the various deposit bonuses were a large part of my income.

  10. First of all, I never said, “labor bad, leisure good.” It would be akin to saying, “sleep bad, eating good.” I never suggested that leisure uniformly has the same value for every person – regardless of context. Imagine a man stranded in the desert. He can only live a limited number of hours on the water he has left in his canteen. It would be suicidal for him to sit and play solitaire all day instead of trying to walk back to civilization. On the other hand, Warren Buffet has enough resources to permit him considerable leisure time. There is no logical contradiction in the fact that two different people in different circumstances place different values on leisure. In fact, it’s a perfect example of why individualism is important in philosophy.

    So what do you mean by context? How does it differ from a concrete?

    They are not the same thing.

×
×
  • Create New...