Yankee White

I have always thought that a strong response or retaliation for 9.11, if not carried out along rational egoistic lines, will come about in the form of a holy war against Islam by a bunch of Christians, and probably against the wrong target (Islam, as opposed to militant Islam). I have to say, for some strange reason, I'd be interested to see this guy become president, although I'd still prefer someone like Guiliani to win, because I know what I'm getting.

The reason is I am stuck on this is the following: "Can you truly make an objective value judgment that somebody is shy?" And from there it goes, if you cannot, then does shyness even matter? Let alone exist? What brings rise to this question is my observation of 'shyness'. You cannot literally observe it. You cannot observe a trait called shyness, you're really observing other traits and then you pop out some silly blanket, un objective abstract concept like shyness. For instance, I think that every single human being, even the most confident, feels intimidated by a query in which they have to state their reasons for example, "But why did you do X?". I know it sounds counter-intuitive, as us Objectivists love reason, and I personally love to explain my reasons. But focusing on the human communication and that moment a query is posed at you, you feel intimidated, at least subconsciously. That's my theory, I think such intimidation is not based on false premises, but just human to human communication and probably genetics. Especially to strangers. Observe a monkey has to smell another monkey before he feels safe to hug that monkey. It's the same underlying force. I hope I'm not going off topic here, to intimidation, and I am probably the most bubbly person around, but it had to be said. You can impact this 'momentary intimidation response' through your premises and practice, but you cannot completely eliminate it. Most people cannot talk about this stuff explicitly, so please be candid as I have. Or maybe I'm wrong about all this and shyness is a socially objective abstraction.

Does shyness really rest on bad premises, i.e. that one may be afraid of being hurt, or that one may not feel important?

Here's an interesting page on rights. http://lfc.silentcow.com/live/Rights.shtml This page helps anyone who cannot properly evaluate, or are having trouble evaluating whether or not North Korea has the right to a nuclear weapons program. #edit: more specifically it helps integrate 'rights' with Objectivist ethics and thus politics as such

I've heard drips and drabs about the Islamic Republic of Iran planning for a summer attack against the United States in Iraq. Dick Cheney took a visit two weeks ago to Saudi and friends to tell them Bush is intent on doing something about Iran by 2009, I've read from one site that the intelligence briefings almost daily are coming out "Iran Iran Iran" like a pragmatic imperative glazing "do something" daily. Bush knows the Syrians and Iranians are stuffing around, the problem is he feels he has to ring the UN about it (re: remember the G8 summit a year ago and the off-mic comments?). What we do know is that the United States strategy is to split Iraq into three autonomous regions, Kurdistan, Sunni west, Shia south west/east (in relation to Baghdad). That's the esoteric strategy, where we've seen it in the news is in the US military trying to stop a fourth province coming into existence (Anbar, i.e.: an Al Qaeda autonomous region [i.e.: ohh my this can't possibly happen, etc]). Cheney told Saudi Arabia that in August the United States will make an announcement and shortly after there will probably be an extremely fast withdrawal, with only a few coalition forces left in southern Iraq. My sources are memory from snippets on Debka, Foxnews, CNN, Reuters, Overseas Security Advisory Council and some other random places. I try to verify incoming facts as best as I can. My prediction is that there will be a major attack on US soil before September. The desired reaction will bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to do X, and I have no idea what X is. But I think Iran cannot do much without some tactical asymmetrical warfare (remember Iran and Iraq, the border didn't really change much lol).

You know I predicted this would happen, I knew it, I KNEW IT! No, its not ESP, no its not mystical revelations, but I'm informed and I really did make this educated guess.. When the USS John C Stennis left the gulf as the Nimitz was arriving at the Suez Canal a few weeks ago, I must be some awesome predictor, because when this happened this is what I was thinking... "My strategy, and actually, I reckon Cheney will do this, would be to turn that around and have it enter the Gulf with the USS Nimitz at the same time. With the Boxer Strike group leaving, I bet that when the Nimitz moves into the Persian Gulf, it will come in with something better than the Boxer Strike Group. As for the USS Stennis, there's no way Bush is going to let that thing make its way to Guam, there's too much at stake." Anyway back to the facts. This news just out. Navy Assembles 9 Warships Off Iranian Coast in Surprise Show of Force in Gulf http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274955,00.html Nine US military ships enter Persian Gulf Wednesday, assembling off Iran’s coast in largest American naval move since 2003 http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4224 Lets hope this ends up better than a CIA coup that props up a dictator (which is like asking for the 1979 hostage crisis).

What an awesome thread. I'm going to wake up at 5am tomorrow and stretch for 5 minutes and then go for a walk or half jog in some areas for 20. I'm a sloth right now and its about time I rid of it. However I fear the "I'm going to do X..." and come tomorrow I press the snooze on my alarm clock, wake up strolling to the kitchen in search of coffee, and too lazy to make any good food so I put a pie in the microwave and end up feeling like I'm on 20% for the rest of the day. I guess I should focus on the day after tomorrow, I think this will be the hardest, to make it a habit... Sure you can wake up at 5AM after 5-7 hours sleep and go for a jog feeling like a drunk, but its the next day that's harder and I should focus on tomorrow as a given, that I'm going to do what I say. By the way there's a reason to all this, I don't exercise outside of working at a supermarket and I've had 2 weeks off with the chicken pox, I figured all this lazing around makes me feel out of sync and I just want to be a morning person long term anyway (I've always been 2am-11am sleeper/etc). #edit: I think this initial activity should make me productive all day, it tends to do that with me, and 5am is like a magic number for productivity -- maybe it's those fibonaccis.

Sounds exciting, thanks very much

double post, woops #by the way, I'm working on a book on business cycles, it'll probably take 15 years to finish, I know all about this stuff, I can understand how, without some of my knowledge some Austraians, Keynsians, non-Objectivists, Monetarists, etc would fall into the "Federal Reserve" = "Private" trap. So I can understand it, but it usually takes alot more research and understanding of Government funding. At Yankee White Asset Management, we have calculated the US total debt as $76.05 trillion as at March 16, 2007. In October 2006, we calculated it to be $55 trillion. In December 2006, the treasury for the first time released information on its social security and medicaid liabilities, adding the $35 trillion and using the statements in the Comptrollers report and in other Government documents, we calculated that the total US debt according to the US government was in December 2006, $53.1 trillion. Keep in mind that in October 2006, we didn't have the official accounting, so we're pretty close with this stuff. The most fascinating physical reality to observe, beside a skyscraper in my opinion is the effect of inflation on business cycles and its massive distortions in the economy -- to me it has to be the most fascinating subject matter.

What's with people saying "if tax evasion is moral, then..." Morality is not a binary state, it is a continuum and it depends entirely upon the circumstance. For instance killing is moral under certain circumstances, but you can never say "Killing is Evil" as a blanket condemnation. This thread has gone from tax avoidance to tax evasion, avoiding taxes is completely legal, tax evasion is not. For instance if I were of British domicile (income made outside of Great Britain is not taxed under certain circumstances for individuals who have worked abroad for 5 years depending on the nature of their work, etc) I could setup a company in Monaco and trade the futures markets all day long without being taxed and could never be taken to court for it. In my country, Australia, we may be taken to court, but there's a tax haven offshore called Vanuatu, it's about a 3 hour flight from where I live, there's a financial center and you can setup your business, it is the tax haven where WinMX and KazaA have setup shop, it is the only nation on Earth (with some exceptions for Bermuda) which has laws against anyone giving account information to any foreign law enforcement agency, meaning if I were taken to court for tax avoidance, no-one in Australia would be able to prove anything other than money laundering -- which is a separate charge and why you should transfer funds with someone you trust rather than alone or without a head screwed to your shoulers. Tax evasion is different however, in that its illegal, whilst tax avoidance is not, under certain circumstances in Australia with tax avoidance I could be in a courtroom where the judge rules that what I'm doing is perfectly legal, as it is (and this is why you should get a good accountant and lawyer). ---- For those confused about the Federal Reserve, videos such as Money Masters can be persuasive, yet full of errors. Bobsponge, you asked me to prove that the "Federal Reserve is a Corporation in which the US government allocates 100% of its tax revenue to pay its 'debts' off to" is an Illuminati Conspiracy theory. I googled and made sure I pressed "I'm feeling lucky"... here is what I got... (bold added) Notice the title? "Illuminati News" The Federal Reserve System is not a Private Corporation that debauches the money supply and buys treasury bonds out of thin air and then turns around and charges the US government for doing it (at, perhaps a lower interest yield?) If such were the case, the US treasury would work around the Federal Reserve System by debaunching the money supply itself and buy treasury bonds if it wanted to. Putting all this aside, the Federal Reserve was setup to serve the US government, for the same reason the treasury would need a few more resources to do the work around [of a private central bank] for such a big country, the US government needed a few more resources than the treasury to create an authority which controlled the money and credit of the United States, interest rates, etc, and regulated all the banks -- so the USA created the Federal Reserve to serve as such an authority, which as a public institution, would serve the USA, the United States created the Federal Reserve over the first world war with highly complex fiat to fractional reserve systems and member bank and international services. The Federal Reserve doesn't charge the US government, rather, it provides interest free debt, it is the monetary unit of the United States of America, most Mixed Economies today have a central bank, think of what banks do, they do quite alot, now imagine how busy a central bank would be as a regulatory and monetary public government institution One of the keen players behind the creation of the Federal Reserve was a European banker shocked at what he thought were banking problems in the early 20th century (if that banker existed today, he'd be like your average economist, focusing on everything inverted, i.e.: thinking that raising taxes increases wealth, etc). This banker I think is Paul W or something, was good intentioned. Bobsponge, you must have watched some conspiracy theorist movie such as Money Masters, as you mentioned in the first page of this thread that you'd prefer we move back to an Abraham Lincoln style Government Printed Greenback, Abraham Lincoln was an anti-capitalist who debauched the money supply to fund his war, no matter which way you look at it, the Federal Reserve system for all its differences, in essence, is doing exactly the same as Abraham Lincoln did when he created the greenback and bent all the laws of economics on the side of destruction as he debauched the money supply, one of the key reasons the US went back to a gold standard after Lincoln was that hyperinflation he caused was still being felt. There's an illuminati conspiracy theory that Abraham Lincoln was shot by a man who had ties to European Central Bankers, it's actually the same theory, because the nuthead conspiracy theorists would rather "American money" over supposedely private European control over the US money supply (like they had apparently did in Europe, when infact all their central banks always have been Public, not private). There used to be a video on Google that shot down every error in this conspiracy theory and focuses on how the Rothchilds were really mediocre losers who had virtually no power and influence over the political-economies of Europe, many of their quotes are taken out of context, for instance, one of the Rothchilds made a comment such as "give me control of a nations money and credit and I care not who writes the laws" -- the context wasn't "Rothchild controls a private central bank" but that of a remark made with academic humor at the hypothetical scenario of a private corporation or individual controlling a nations money and credit. Whilst Bobsponge prefers a Paper Fiat currency such as the Greenback, as he expressed in the first page of this thread, I prefer a Gold Standard, and one instituted and standardized by the private sector with absolutely no government interference in its creation. #edit: The only true thing about Europeans in regard to pre-1913 American monetary history is that they were so infuriated at the unprecedented economic growth of the United States because of the gold standard that they were clamoring to put a leash on the growth of the United States, and they were probably a big part indirectly in the conclusion, a conclusion they would consider successful -- a Federal Reserve. There was fear all over Europe that the United States would become the next great power, and even with a Federal Reserve -- today Europe as a whole has almost half of Americas military might and is a regional superpower with the EU and a global superpower with the EURO.

What I find disturbing throughout this whole thread is the speculating over the morality or immorality of putting ones life and limb on the line in order to avoid taxes. No-one in their arguments is demonstrating a context, the conditions or circumstances, people are simply arguing back and forth as if morality were a binary state -- rather than a continuum. Think of what the following blanket binary morality type statement implies. "Avoiding taxes is immoral because of the risk of losing life and limb, property, etc." Here's an analogy to help you out. "Killing is evil." Some here are making the assertion that avoiding taxes requires that the tax avoider is literally putting life and limb literally be on the line. Now there's a subtle difference between 'on the line' and 'risk'. When everything is on the line, everything is at a junction point where you whole life should turn south. What constitutes "life and limb are on the line" is not "it's risky to avoid taxes" but if your life and limb are really on the line. Using tax havens like Angolla for instance requires some capital, the type of people who use tax havens see it as economically feasible and worth the effort. You can never do enough research, something always can go wrong, but that's why you put some cash away or have friends who can pay bail. Good tax havens border no countries, like Vanuatu, or Bermuda. But Monaco and Angolla are still good, and if you get 'bail' you can still slip the border compared to an island nation that puts your face up all over their ports and airports. I'd like to address bobsponge, in the first page of this thread he stressed that the Federal Reserve is a private company -- that is an illuminati New World Order conspiracy theory that is absolutely false. Bobsponge also stated that 100% of the tax revenue in the United States is allocated to paying off the interest on the apparent debt the US has with the Federal Reserve [when infact the Federal Reserve somewhat provides/steals funds to provide debt free funding to the US government]. Just because the Federal Reserve is in the yellow pages under ''private does not mean it is a private company, this is the only argument that the conspiracy theorists cite which is half true and yet has faulty premises and is outright wrong in its conclusion. The Federal Reserve has its priorities in this order: -- Raise interest rates only when you can blame it on an exogenous factor, or if you do this during a rate cycle and gain confidence from the market, then you may be able to raise interest rates even if the public sees no inflation, yet are listening to your every word because of your excellent PR campaign. Keeping the 'hypnotist status' is the #1 priority of the Fed. -- Trade Treasury Bonds, specifically, the Fed is always electronically purchasing Government bonds, not 'printing' excess cash. What causes inflation is not more physical cash in an economy chasing less goods, but the fact there's less goods because the Fed by using electronic book-keeping bought Government debt, which in turn is tied to a tangible asset, the best way to think about it in your head is [[ GOVERNMENT BOND <-------------------- TANGIBLE ASSETS <-------------------- ECONOMY ]] Think of it as the assets being ripped out of the economy, not excessive money losing value chasing less goods, it's a subtle difference, but it really does matter as the former comes before the latter -- the Fed is always BUYING Government debt out of thin air, it doesn't 'print excessive cash' when interest rates are low and causes ingenuine booms as if economies when left alone move sideways rather than up. The Austrian school is completely wrong about business cycles, and so are the interpretations of market cycles and inflation 'creating' by the schools who believe the Fed is a private company, rather than what it truly is, a Government institution that buys/funds Government by buying not bonds that return interest from the US government, but by using paper to fund the US government at no interest with the help of full monetary control of the banking system. -- Managing the interbank Fed-Funds rate, -- Influencing the interbank currency FX market, trades Foreign Currencies and even trades risky equities (I've even heard of the Fed buying pinksheet over the counter stocks).

I too want to hear peoples thoughts on this book.