Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

prosperity

Regulars
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by prosperity

  1. Thanks Snerd. Interesting read. It is nice to see financiers stand up for themselves. Finally, these are words I've been waiting for management to say proudly. I noticed that Oppenheimer is also standing up for themselves.
  2. Something which is not being stressed, I think, is the fact that an alleged range of the moment version of "value" or "self-interest" may in fact not be a value at all. Values have to be considered within the context of an individual's life, not just 3 days or 3 months or 3 years. What is your expected lifespan? What are the other values in your life, and will attaining one alleged "value" negate or destroy others? That is what you have to take into consideration when evaluating whether something is in your best interest. Assuming one's life is a value, then no. Edit: for clarity.
  3. Maybe they're realizing that they've sheered this sheep to the point where the wool ain't growing back. ...maybe this is "buy and hold" gone mad. The more I hear this guy speak, the more I start to think that he's just a copycat. Has he come up with anything original, or are all his policies basically a ripoff of his favorite predecessors? Bondholders are supposed to come first. But then, Government has been doing a good job of breaking up contracts...so I guess this is another notch in the belt. ...hmmm a "green hummer"?
  4. Unfortunately, I don't think he got a fair shake on that show. That guy let that Linda lady spew nonsense about Capitalism without Brook being able to put her in her place and explain what Capitalism really is.
  5. I agree with you. There are so many. One of my new favorites is by Cole Porter: De-lovely. I think it's charming, playful, plus I challenge anyone to listen to it and try to resist smiling at least once during the song. It's been redone so many times, but Alanis Morissette I think did a decent job. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na2zm7uayqA&NR=1
  6. My grandfather was telling me about this guy who designed and built a spacecraft that left the Earth's orbit and then came back down to Earth again, with no heat shield. It was basically a shuttlecock shaped kind of thing that spun like those little "helicopter" seeds that fall off those tipu trees and was able to "float" back to Earth rather slowly. Not sure where he got this info from, but I'd love to see something like that. From what I understand, it cost a LOT less than the space shuttles that NASA has built for them.
  7. Dealing with the IRS in almost any capacity is about the most frustrating thing you will ever go through. I know this from first hand experience. I also know a businessman who was audited once, but the way they did it was they raided the business, and the agents came in "guns a blazin'" (guns drawn actually) and kept everyone hostage in the building. A family member had died that day, and they were not even allowed to go to the funeral until the IRS had all the paperwork. Edit: they actually missed the funeral due to the IRS not allowing them to leave the building. In the end, it was discovered that the IRS had made a mistake, the business had done nothing wrong. They (the IRS) didn't even give so much as an apology. If you decide to go it alone, good luck. These people do not give a rat's a** about you is my understanding. I second K's recommendation.
  8. I think what I'm getting at seems to be getting lost. The Argument from the other person essentially was this: "Look, Canada has a nationalized health insurance system where everyone is taken care of, blah blah blah...and it's not killing them as a country". Now, I agree that all of this is theft, but the debt is being paid down and if Canada has a surplus, then it has a surplus. But, we know that Socialism doesn't work. So...I guess, what am I missing. Has Canada become more capitalistic than the USA? Because, you know that if liberals can point to an alleged instance of Socialism working and being beneficial for people, they will. Zip, you brought up something I hadn't realized. 40% of your taxes are spent on health insurance? That seems like a lot.
  9. I'm not saying that you, specifically, represent the hatred of man. I'm just saying that the argument you seem to be hinting at would suggest that man is somehow lesser than other animals because he isn't allowed to "get away with" shirking his moral responsibility that results from having a volitional consciousness while animals - in your own words - aren't to be held to the same standards as humans. It just seems like that argument actually is advocating that animals be allowed to have volition and do whatever they want and forget about the consequences. I mean if they really can choose one act over another, then why aren't we holding them accountable for their actions?
  10. So...the argument you've presented goes something like this: "Animals have volition. So do humans. But, human beings are to adhere to reality and be held accountable for their volitional acts, and animals are not." This is, in essential terms, the hatred of man. THIS is part of why Objectivism is against environmentalism. The constant calls for humans to be treated as less than animals. In fact, humans are really being asked to be treated as less than dirt.
  11. I think you should think about what your statement(s) imply. Like, applying justice to the immoral. By your line of thinking, shouldn't we be rounding up that ape that nearly killed that woman who was keeping her as a pet and bringing him to justice? We should also put the "owner" on trial for having a slave since slavery was abolished some time ago in this country. In fact, we need to round up ALL of those animals "in the wild" acting immorally by catching them and putting them on trial for theft, assault, and murder. I think they still have the death penalty in TX. :dough: :dough:
  12. OK, so someone challenged me the other day about Canada being in better shape financially than the U.S. They pointed to the alleged "fact" that Canadians pay less in taxes, have no deficits and no debt to speak of. Naturally, I was intrigued by these statements because I don't know of a debt-free nation these days that is also relatively high up on the ladder of civilization. So, what I found out where a few things that were untrue (no surprise) and then a few issues which seem puzzling. It appears as though Canada's tax rates are similar (income tax rates) to the U.S., not lower. Their debt, though, seems much smaller in comparison coming in at just under a trillion dollars and falling compared to our $11 trillion or so and rising. I guess I never really thought of Canada as being financially better off than America. What are the Canadians doing? Dramatically rationing their health care and all of their other social services? Are they receiving financial aid on a massive scale from other countries? I feel like I'm missing some piece of this puzzle? Their taxes are about the same, maybe a little less, their population is smaller than America's but their debt seems to be falling, not rising. What gives?
  13. Ahhhh I see... ...yeah. I mean, so is it the portrayal of the women or the artist's skill level? What you mentioned sounds like the skill level of the artist (i.e. breasts too far apart) The paintings don't do it for me either, I am just wondering.
  14. Well, it depends. Does the evaluation of the nudity in that piece differ from this piece? Or this? (this has always been a favorite of mine): Change the medium. What is your evaluation of the Statue of David? Is it different from the two paintings above? If it is, then the next question would be....why?
  15. I follow you. Actually SNerd hit on what I was thinking. It's not that I think M2M is inherently bad. But, I think the market should decide which accounting standard to use...and in the insurance and banking industry the M2M coupled with legal reserve requirements has - I think - caused a huge problem. I agree that you probably can't just start yanking regulations out left and right though. I think a nice transition would be first to lower the legal reserve limit and then allow banks and insurance companies to move away from mandatory risk-based capital requirements.
  16. ??? How so. He's listed #1 for the term "miserable failure". I thought it was funny.
  17. Maybe this is gaming the system by internet marketers, but I'd call it savvy. Obama now ranks #1 for the search term "miserable failure". I think that's appropriate. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=miserable%20failure
  18. It's called a unilateral contract. They're not new. One party must adhere to the terms of the contract while the other party may adhere to the terms of the contract. The difference is that one party can break or alter the contract with no adverse legal effects while the other party cannot. Both parties agree to those terms beforehand though. Is that what you are upset about? All insurance contracts are unilateral contracts, but unilateral in the other way. But no one bitches when the shoe is on the other foot. Sheesh.
  19. I am familiar with how bonds work, but I'm talking about bonds where the value is dependent on the future, like zero coupon bonds. They don't pay interest. They mature. These are the types of assets insurance companies love BTW because of exactly what you began to hint at. It gives the institution a way to mitigate interest rate risk for assets that they know they will have to pay out on (i.e. insurance policies). My question remains...if M2M demands current market value, then how does mark to market accurately account for these types of assets that may be held by large financial institutions? These companies may end up looking financially distressed when in reality, they are not. If this "distress" causes them to fall below the legal reserve limit, then the Government has effectively caused a problem here, haven't they?
  20. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't M2M say that you must provide a current value for your assets? If that is the case, then isn't that going to cause a ridiculous amount of trouble for just about any bank or insurance company whose assets have maturity dates and so their current market value should be less (sometimes far less) than what it will be at maturity? I'm not trying to discredit the accounting method, just wondering if this is something appropriate for some business models and inappropriate for others. So, for example, let's say you have an asset that will be worth $1,000 20 years from now. Today, it is only worth $250. If that brings you below mandatory reserve requirements, then the Government just caused you to go bankrupt or forced you into a liquidity problem (of which, if you are large enough, they will bail you out of). ...or do I have something wrong?
  21. Ahhh yes, New York's "anti fraud statutes" AKA the Martin Act. They trap you with that one because you either comply with the initial subpoena/request for whatever documents they want and subject yourself to the near dictatorial power granted to the Governor via that Act, or you go to jail for ignoring the subpoena. I remember when the first outrage over AIG holding a conference to encourage producers to continue selling products came about. I actually was called by one of AIG's PR people about an article I wrote about AIG. They ousted Greenberg and installed incompetent management - incompetent for running an insurance company.
  22. I hear this a lot. I'm not sure I'm convinced AIG is really the bad guy that it's being made out to be. I think that, based on what I know thus far, the problem wouldn't really be as much of a problem if: 1) The Government didn't essentially influence the mandatory use of mark to market accounting standards through the FASB - which is just another quasi Government agency funded through regulations set forth in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which altered the Securities Exchange Act of '33 to provide for this. While I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with this accounting method, it the market should determine if it's appropriate for the business involved. For example, this type of accounting does cause a unique problem for insurance companies and banks whose assets are typically long-term and their current market value at any given point (which really can't be determined until or unless the assets are sold) is going to be different (sometimes radically so) from what their assets will be upon maturity. This can have a crushing effect on these types of businesses if the economy slows down or goes through a contraction. When AIG takes a hit on some speculative investments and they have to value those assets coupled with their long-term holdings according to mark to market accounting standards, then you run into a situation where their overall assets don't look very valuable or as valuable. 2) The Government didn't impose legal reserve limits The Government requires banks and insurance companies to have a "legal reserve". The legal reserve for an insurance company though is MUCH MUCH higher than for a bank. If the company's legal reserve drops below a certain point, then the company is deemed to be "in trouble" and must raise capital to meet their reserve requirements. If they don't, they can be downgraded by rating agencies and this of course creates a lot of problems. They can also be put out of business and deemed insolvent. When you force a company that is long-term by nature to be short term in its valuations (via mark to market accounting) and you force that company to cough up cash immediately if they drop below certain reserve limits that are calculated using this accounting method, then of course you are going to have trouble. The company won't be able to sell their blocks of money in the kind of economic environment we have - which was caused by artificially low interest rates - which they need to do to replenish their capital reserve. So, they get a "loan" from the Government. Now they are having to sell off blocks of money to pay back the Government. Same essential problem, but now you have taxpayors footing the bill. And NOW, you have outrage over bonuses being paid. But is any of this really the company's fault? The speculation plays that AIG made may have been inappropriate. I'm not sure they would actually be bankrupt if this were a free market. Their subsidiary company - AIG financial products - probably would be. But their core business would be quite strong. In reality they have a strong cash position. However, according to the Government's arbitrary legal reserve requirements, the whole thing should be bankrupt. Now, if there is a scare that AIG will indeed go bankrupt, that could prompt policy holders to either cash in their policies or borrow as much as they can from them, effectively creating a "run" on the insurance company. The theory is that this would have a domino effect on the rest of the industry. AIG and others would have to liquidate their holdings to meet the requests of their policy holders. Because insurance companies are the largest buyers of corporate debt, it is thought that this would have a "freeze" effect on the bond markets. Since, savings is the real stimulus to an economy, you might see things get MUCH worse. I think it is a pretty good scare tactic, although this could be the lesson insurance companies need to stop selling universal life-type policies (which is a whole 'nuther discussion) and move towards a whole life product line which doesn't treat cash values as a quasi demand deposit account. Of course, the company could put a moratorium on policy loans and surrenders if it is in their contract. Of course, all of this would be seen as "unfair" by policy holders and we'd need more Government intervention to "stop the atrocities". What about the fact that the Government caused this whole thing to begin with.
  23. Oh. I thought you were saying it wasn't a loan, or wasn't really a loan. It is interesting the point you make, and disappointing that lack of personal responsibility forces banks to create products that they don't want to create - i.e. the mutated "line of credit" turned quasi fixed-term loan. I still say the credit card companies are the victims here, even though I suspect some people may laugh at that.
  24. I suppose you could have voluntary collection of sales tax. For example, if the business owner chose to sign up to collect a certain percent when you purchased his goods and services and send that to the Government for national or local defense. You could choose, of course, not to shop at that store. I hear this idea of contract insurance as a way to collect tax money without collecting tax money. I think it makes sense. I mean, it's like paying health insurance premiums vs paying out of pocket. You could have rated rates based on your net worth and protect-able assets. People who had something worth protecting would have the contract insurance...plus, doesn't everyone deal with others on a voluntary basis in a free society? In other words, doesn't everyone need contract insurance?
×
×
  • Create New...