Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

prosperity

Regulars
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by prosperity

  1. Hmm, I've stayed away from industries that are related to my specialty (software). Do you think it's a good idea to invest in companies with products I personally like?

    Sure. Investing in what you know is the ideal. Now...it's a two edged sword because you want to know a lot but not "too much".... "too much" being a term that is completely arbitrary.

    ------>

    ...Why would you not make an investment on things which you were more rather then less knowledgeable about?

    In a word, "insider trading".

    Let's say you are very knowledgeable about a company or product. You know pretty much everything there is to know. You know the manager of a company or whatever. Or, like David, not only do you know about the industry, you work in it. You buy a bunch of stock from a company that you personally have worked with or for in some capacity in your life. The laws that make up "insider trading" are ambiguous and could potentially do you in if someone in the DA's office is feeling ambitious. The argument goes like this:

    Since you have access to information that regular investors don't have (i.e. you know more about software companies because you are a software engineer, work with software companies, know managers, etc.), then you have an unfair advantage over everyone else.

    I mean, how many small time investor's get nipped for insider trading? I have no idea, you might never get caught, but the scenario I described above can be made to fall under those laws. To me, it's almost like going 5 or 10 miles over the speed limit. Is it illegal? Yep. Will you get caught and pulled over? *shrugs* Maybe, but probably not. If you were going 20 miles over the speed limit, then yeah probably. I mean, the laws on insider trading are much more open ended than the laws on speeding, but I hope you get my analogy....basically, if it's hard to prove that you had an unfair advantage, or it's not obvious that you traded on inside information, you might be able to do what you want and make money. If you make it obvious that you are trading on inside information or have information that the market doesn't know yet (which, by the way, is how you really make any money in the market; even index funds or passive investing rely on the after-effects of trading on "inside" or "privileged" information) then there's a good chance you could end up like Martha Stewart.

    ...ironically, the best investments are ones in which you pretty much know with a great deal of accuracy and certainty that you are going to make money. Getting the information and using it to profit under that scenario, however, just happens to be illegal.

  2. I see that little has changed since I was a customer of theirs in California, 20+ years ago. They didn't bilk me but they were an unholy pain in the ass to deal with. (For instance--if you went there during lunch, there was one teller, because they all took their lunch at 12:00 also. It never occured to any of them to stagger their tellers' lunch hours. So the line would be out the door, with one teller and 12 stations.)

    I actually had an easier time dealing with my Colorado credit union--from California--than dealing with *either* B of A or the credit union I had in California, and this was in the days before e-mail and the internet.

    I will agree that B of A has a lot of bad business practices as far as practices that make it attractive to do business with them. I do not agree that they are doing anything morally wrong in terms of how they run their business. It is, after all, theirs to do with what they want.

  3. This is really not a problem at all. What we want -- as human beings -- is real goods and services. If what we own are real goods and services, then we can exchange these for real goods and services. The fact that there has to be a short duration during which they are in cash is not important unless we're talking Zimbabwean/German-Post-WW1 price-increases. If one is going to keep wealth in real assets (i.e. claims to real assets) then it is better -- in the long haul -- to keep it in a specific type of real assets that have a special characteristic: they create more real assets. Of course, this assumes that one is investing as opposed to speculating.

    I think you misunderstood me. I did not say the problem was with the real assets. I said the problem was with what they were tied to in terms of valuation. I agree that the hyperinflation will make those real assets not very attractive (unless they are tied to some other medium of exchange), but even the slow burn can make them unattractive if the inflation rises faster than the rate at which real assets are able to produce more real assets. I hope that makes sense.

  4. I'm really angry. This letter I wrote to Bank of America's customer service via an online form pretty much sums it up.

    A $200 check I wrote literally cleared the same day it was deposited by my roommate. There's three day gap in which none of the purchases I made apparently happened, then on the fourth day, they all came through. On the same day as that check was deposited and cleared. Rearranged in order from greatest to least. $200 went first, then a $45 transaction for gas, then a $17 dollar transaction, then a $10 one, which put me in the negative. Then six more transactions all between $1 and $3, still ordered from greatest to least amount.

    Like I said, charge me the overdraft fee I deserve for letting myself hit negative. Don't dishonestly rearrange my transactions to extort an extra $210 from me. I'm flipping pissed. Bank of America is going to lose a customer over this if this isn't fixed. And by letting you guys know about this, potentially more than just one if some agreement isn't reached.

    A principled approach to budgeting will solve that problem. I don't want to come off as mean, but your victim mentality is the problem, not the bank charging fees or rearranging the clearing of your checks. Spending less than you make is the solution.

  5. I'm guessing Buffett was not proposing cash as an alternative. Knowing him, his choice would be: productive real assets.

    The problem with real assets is that they are all valued in terms of dollars. So, when you cash out to move onto the next investment or if you want to use that asset you have....tada....dollars.

    It's a gamble if the currency is being inflated. However, if you think that the dollar will return to a gold standard or NOT be inflated out of existence, then you would naturally push ahead with dollar based investments. However, no fiat currency has ever survived. You cannot separate money from value.

    As to David's investment strategy, David, I think K-mac provided some good broad-based, general advice. As to your specific stock investments, the first thing you need to determine is actually if it is worth your time. I wrote a blog post about this just recently:

    http://www.twintierfinancial.com/the_uncom...-your-time.html

    If you determine that it is worth your time, you then need to determine whether you want to speculate in the stock market or whether you want to invest in it. There is a big difference.

    If you want to speculate, or even if you want to invest, you really should pick up a few books by Benjamin Graham. For starters, "The Intelligent Investor". I have it sitting on my shelf, and I think pretty much anyone doing their own investing should have it on their shelves as well. If you want to speculate, you will need to start hob nobbing with industry insiders (the industries you want to invest in) and get to know them, and their business (and be careful that you don't cross the gray line of "insider trading"). Learning how to pick stocks is a skill. You need to know how to do it, then you need experience doing it.

    Real Estate is really a whole 'nuther ball of wax. I almost don't think of it as an investment as much as a business-unless you are buying a REIT. The fundamentals that drive Real Estate are a lot different than what drives securities.

  6. I've seen no proof of this. If one looks at very recent data, this appears to be the case, but all stocks got hit and bounced back. So, the recent (short-term) experience appears to be more a result of the fact that stocks dropped and bounced back relative to gold, rather than anything to do with mining companies.

    I'm not familiar with mining firms, but I checked IVN, ABX and AU, and I find that all three of them have underperformed gold significantly over the last two years or more. Gold rose, and so did they, but they did not keep pace.

    Anyone who thinks gold is really going up and who is thinking of a time horizon of upto two years would be far better advised being in options.

    Except that most options contracts expire after 3 months, and longer ones expire after 6, unless you are buying LEAPS. And, if you are not careful with options, and accidentally write an options contract instead of buying one, you face unlimited loss potential. They're not for amateurs, IMO.

    As for the mining companies, I said it wasn't EXACTLY the same. But, the right mining company will move a few paces ahead of gold. At least, it's happened before, though as I said, it doesn't happen as a rule of thumb, or because it has to happen that way. They can trail the metal for various reasons. One of the big reasons has to do with how they sell the gold. Do they lock in a set price for "x" number of years, or do they sell at the current rate? That can make a huge difference between the stock staying ahead of gold or languishing. And, they go in cycles. So, you may only hold the company during the times of the year when production is up. When it's out of season, you sell, or lose money as the stock price retreats for the year. And, are they doing business in foreign countries that have a record of nationalizing businesses? That's not going to do wonders for you as a shareholder.

    Lastly, as a counter to your example, may I present Iamgold, Coeur D’Alene Mines, and New Gold?

  7. It's some of both

    Nope, it's not. I promise. It's not an investment, it's simply a way to preserve the value of your fiat currency (at this point in time). I say simply, though that does not imply that it is somehow inferior to an alternative. Gold really only functions as a savings vehicle at this point and hopefully at some point, it will be restored to its rightful place as money.

    Certainly the big spike in 1980 cannot be put down solely to the dollar losing 5/8ths of its value in just a few months.... and then regaining it.

    Yes you're right. It didn't "all of the sudden" lose value. However, when people recognize the value is what changes, or can change, quickly. A rise in gold would typically indicate the first wave of investors or savers (or institutions) recognizing a weakness in the dollar. Let's say that money is being printed at a rate which effectively doubles the money in circulation. I'm sure you don't need too much of an imagination for this...as soon as people realize this, they head towards commodities that offer stability - i.e. gold. The fact of the matter is that the currency has already lost its value with the printing of the money - de facto. This is what happened in 1979 after an average rate of inflation of maybe 3% prior to that. In fact the FED's San Fransisco branch reports that inflation in '79 alone skyrocketed to over 10% (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2004/el2004-35.html). But, prior to that, there was a steady, albeit "low", inflation of the money supply.

    Yes, some exciting things happened when I was born. I didn't know people would make such a fuss about it...but in truth, do you think, coupled with a dramatic rise in oil prices in a very short period of time and the state of affairs in Iran at the time, this could cause people to get a little jumpy? I think so. Lots and lots of people moved to gold, causing a temporary "self-fulfilling prophecy" before the metal calmed down. But, the damage from inflation was done, which was the real cause, and you saw a dramatic real rise in the price of gold from $35/oz in 1971 to $587.50 on Jan 1, 1981. It then went into a slow downward trend after that for some time while the big "G" was cooking up another scheme to save the world. But, during the 1980s, you really didn't make any money with gold in terms of dollars, but you did preserve the value of your money from erosion. The 90's weren't all that hot for gold either, as an investment. You'd have done better with tech stocks, much better.

    So sometimes gold does go up or down based on people chasing it as a fad. Supply basically fixed, demand variable.

    I agree that some people do buy gold as a fad, sometimes.

    One thing it won't do is go to zero.

    I agree. I think it represents what Ayn Rand called a "philosophically objective value" in a broad sense. In a narrow sense, it's easy to see it as a "socially objective value", which would cover your statement about it being faddish at times.

  8. How about gold and silver coins as an investment? Does their value also go up regardless of their numismatic value? I spek of things like commemorative silver and gold coins issued by state mints. In Mexico that's possibly the easiest way to obtain gold and silver.

    As an aside, during my brief period of coin-collecting I got silver commemorative coins of the 68 Olympics and the 86 World Cup.

    Gold is not an investment, not the metal anyway. And, it's not a great way to think about a commodity. The nature of a commodity as an investment is quite peculiar. In the case of gold, it is really one of a few objective measures of value. So, if you are going to buy it, buy it to preserve your wealth, as a way to save money. Just remember that the reason the price of gold appears to "fluctuate" every day is because it is denominated in terms of fiat currencies. So, ask yourself: is it gold that's fluctuating, or is it really the value of the currency?

  9. Is there a short explanation for why one would buy the gold-miner rather than gold itself?

    Yes. The reason you would buy a mining company is if you were looking to leverage gold without buying an options contract. I mean, it's not EXACTLY the same, but the miners tend to move several times the price of gold.

    On the other hand, everything is denominated in fiat currency. So, if you want to buy real value, buy the commodity. Gold is cycling again. There are some good and bad reasons to own the metal right now. October is traditionally when gold is at its highest. Next month is when gold traditionally backs down. If that holds, then this will just be another cycle. Is the sky falling yet? I don't think so. However, I think we all know where fiat currencies eventually end up so gold isn't a terrible play.

    I use companies like Kitco and Goldmoney.com for myself and clients. It works well, and the people running those organizations are what was left of the smart guys and gals at Morgan Stanly and Chase Manhattan as well as several large mining companies.

  10. I would say that Obama is so much of a pragmatist you can easily trust what he says to be what he actually thinks. If it's the middle ground, that's probably Obama's opinion. Government providing its own plan while private plans are still available is still bad in either case... It's only marginally better than the government providing the only plan. It's just like the public school system. You pay for it whether you use it or not. You can still go to a private school.

    I guess this really depends on what he says now that I think about it. I remember him once saying that the free market was good, then saying later on that it needed to be controlled. He's constantly saying that his healthcare plan is "good for everyone". THAT is what I don't trust, or don't believe perhaps I should say.

    I think you're right from the perspective of, well, when he says he wants a universal healthcare system, I think he means it.

  11. They may or may not think they have the right to change his healthcare plan--in either case, that is not what they are expressing here. Obama repeatedly remarks that you can keep your plan if you want, because he thinks people are either forgetting that they can or are confused about the matter, and not because he is trying to express that he is doing people a favor by letting them keep their plan.

    Obama says a lot of things. Whether or not you trust what he says is another matter. I don't (trust him). I am reminded of a Penn and Teller skit:

    "I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving it to me."

  12. I honestly don't understand what the appeal of Quentin Tarantino is. His big hit Pulp Fiction is nothing more than the glorification of immoral people, but it is apparently a "classic" (gag me with something already), and every movie I've seen of his so far has failed to inspire anything in me other than weariness and a sort of exhaustion after spending two or so hours in the company of thugs, brutes and criminals.

    I think the redeeming quality of pulp fiction is that it starts out glorifying criminals and then by the end, you realize that they either figure out that they shouldn't be doing what they're doing (Joules) or, they die a much deserved death (Vincent), or, they suffer the consequences of being a criminal in other various ways (mia and marceles). The small time drug dealers are also painted as the garbage they are. Though, maybe that's just the way I look at the movie???

  13. That is ridiculous, because they didn't deceive his senses. They did deceive him by setting up a fake community that knew he was on camera 24/7, but this only means that even a rational man can be deceived under appropriate circumstances. Perception doesn't give us "all knowledge" and so it is possible to deceive someone by delimiting the information given to him. Con men have known this for centuries, but they are actually relying on the evidence of the senses to present something to one in a delimited manner. Objectivism doesn't say a man cannot be deceived; though it does say that a rational man who keeps the entire context is more difficult to deceive, and that he will figure out the deception sooner or later because the deception is not fully consistent with reality. Truman did eventually figure out he was a TV personality all of the time, and took actions to turn the tide on his viewers by escaping. If they meant for The Truman Show to be a modern day Allegory of the Cave, they missed Plato's point, since Plato wasn't taking about others deceiving oneself, except insofar as those focusing on material values of the earth are deceiving those who have a higher calling. And Truman made it out of his confines to find real reality that was based upon the evidence of the senses.

    Yeah, that's what saved the movie, I think. The fact that he overcame the deception. The film festival was put on, as you may have guessed, by a college professor who taught *drum roll* - philosophy. heh.

  14. The Allegory of the Cave is supposed to represent the difference between the realm of that which is perceived and that which is the source of that which is perceived -- the realm of the Forms or Ideas. It's meant to depict that if you focus on the perceptually self-evident and reason from that in a logical and consistent manner that you will not find the Truth, because reason is set apart from that which we perceive. It is an earlier form of Kantism that says that we are blind because we have eyes, deaf because we have ears, and cannot reason because we are stuck being human (though Plato didn't quite go that far). In other words, the real world is taken not to be that world of the senses, but rather the world of the Forms or Ideas, which are more real than what we perceive. This is one thing Augustine counted on to bring about the Dark Ages whereby man is forever stuck in a damned world of the senses and practical reason instead of being brought up into the light of Christianity and Neo-Platonism which abhors the world of the senses and what can be concluded from that in a non-contradictory manner. It is rationalism writ large, or a mis-integration, to use Dr. Peikoff's new terminology. And all rationalists will tell you that they have a higher view of reality than the person who seeks evidence of the senses to confirm his conclusions.

    I went to a film festival last year and they used this in conjunction with the movie "The Truman Show" to "demonstrate" how easy it is to invalidate the senses. Sheesh.

  15. So I'd like to ask here now how people who do support and strongly see the value of Objectivism deal with - both in their thoughts/view and their actions - having intended permanent romantic partners who they have strong reason to believe will never also see the correctness and/or value of Objectivism (to you and/or them and/or human people in general.)

    This is a tough one that I've personally struggled with for many years. Do you get what you think you can out of the other person and settle into the idea that "this is the best I can find"? Or, do you keep searching, knowing full well that it could potentially lead you to a life of solitude in terms of romance. How valuable is romance in your life, and is it worth the risk?

    What I found with my past relationships is that I could only admire, or love, the other person "down to a certain point". There were always fundamental differences, usually religion. I found that I was really running up against the wall of altruism. I just could not find an Objectivist, let alone an Objectivist that would also have a personality that complemented mine. Fortunately, I don't have that problem anymore.

    I think it's perfectly OK (from a moral standpoint) to date non-Objectivists as long as you keep in mind that the probability of it becoming a long-term, deeply romantic and satisfying, relationship is nil (or pretty darn close). Kendall hit on a very good point. You have to value the other person and you have to feel valued or "visible". At some point, you have to face the very real (and likely) possibility that you will discover where their flaws are, and you'll have to make a choice about leaving (or the relationship will end) and start over again, or trying to get them interested in Oism. How do you reconcile that they'll never (or may never) see "eye to eye"? Well, you look for the best in them and focus on that. Just realize that if you are being honest with yourself, the feeling of love and admiration for this person is likely only going to go "so far" unless something happens and they decide to choose O'ism as their philosophy. I say that not because I think you should be searching out "titles", or because Objectivism is "magical", but because of what is common among people who choose Objectivism as their philosophy. I think the philosophy brings out the best in a person, helps them define themselves, and gives them the tools required for genuine self-esteem. Just be mindful that you can't "convert" anyone. You can show them everything, try to convince them to get interested, but in the end, accepting the philosophy is something that has to be initiated by the individual.

    Personally, I found the process of dating non-O'ists unsatisfying and emotionally draining.

  16. Say you were dating some religious zealot. It would be pretty hard to respect that person if they thought you were a filthy sinner who deserved to burn in hell for all eternity because you didn't embrace their faith. The same goes for being too strict with objectivism.

    Firstly, this reminds me of Ayn Rand's "extremism: the art of smearing" lecture. But, I guess to have a good understanding of what you mean, you would have to explain if you are attaching a moral connotation to consistency and if so, why.

    IF you are indeed implying consistency as the vice, and advocating "shades of grey" as it were in this view, then the same absolutely does not go for being "too strict" with Objectivism. You are discounting the fact that Objectivism is based entirely on reason, while religion is based entirely on non-reason.

    To hold stubbornly onto objectivist dogma at this point would be silly.

    What dogma would this be?

    There's plenty of people who are completely happy with each other and who see the world very differently. I keep coming back to religion, but there are believers who marry aethesists, muslims who marry christians, agnostics who marry objectivists, and all other combination of relationships that would never work out on paper. The point is, no matter how tightly you embrace your personal philosophy, there's more to life than that. They're just GUIDELINES so that you can reach whatever potential you posess in a way that makes you fulfilled. That's why philosophy is relative.

    I disagree. You don't say to your lover "I love you, but I don't agree with (or don't regard as important or significant) any/most of the values that you hold important, or I don't regard them as important....but I still love you anyway for your own good or because you deserve it or because we share some non-essential values, or for no particular reason at all (except that it has nothing to do with the things you value in life or regard as important)". That sounds like a very insulting and disingenuous way to tell someone you care about them. What would you expect a man or a woman to say in response to a message, whether explicit or implicit, like this?

    It doesn't matter HOW you attain fulfillment, just that you attain it.

    So, are you saying that "the ends justify the means"?

    You're not selling out because you're with someone who doesn't think the same way you do. There's truth to the old adage "opposites attract." That's how it became and old adage :)

    I think there's more to that statement. "Opposites attract, at first. Then they repel." But, many times it doesn't work like that at all.....relationships are based on common values. The more important the values, the stronger the potential relationship. No values = no relationship. Why would you be friends with someone while explicitly or implicitly discounting or outright disagreeing with their highest values? Why would they want to be friends with you?

    There must have been instances in your relationship where the two of you were completely living in the moment, not thinking about philosophy or the future or anything but the immediate present. Philosophy didn't matter right then. Now it's about how the two of you make each other feel and whether you want to continue that or not.

    That's the illusion - that it doesn't matter. But it does matter. "Living in the moment" all the time requires context dropping. What's the context? Your life. Not 30 seconds, 30 days or 3 months into the future, but 30, 40, 50 years or more depending on your age. If you spend too much time "living in the moment" and ignore the future, you're shortchanging yourself and the other person. People need to think long range. The longer the range, the better :)

  17. To put this differently: extreme diversification makes sense when:

    • one thinks there is no way that one can do better than the market;or,
    • one thinks there is no way one can choose an advisor/manager who is better than the market

    OTOH, there are some who claim that anybody's attempt to do better than the market is a fool's game. This is a flawed view that arose from the so-called "efficient market hypothesis". See related NY Times story here.

    I totally agree sNerd. I think the passive approach really only works when a minority of investors are doing that. Without actively trading, there is no one to make the markets efficient. That was one of the issues I had listening to interviews with Rex Sinquefield - he was always saying that you couldn't beat the market but this would mean that all information is reflected in every stock at any given time, which of course can't be true. But the alternative to that - at least the popular alternative - is the CAPM, so ..... <_<

  18. What do you disagree with, Kat? We use Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) in my office, and I've been impressed. My boss used Vanguard previously, but found DFA to be superior to them. We still use Vanguard in situations where we cannot use DFA, but we're definitely ETF people with long-term investment horizons over here.

    Only problem with DFA's philosophy is that it represents an intrinsic approach to investing. Not that you can't make money at it, but the reasons are arbitrary.

  19. On a related note, my friend went to meet with a client (a church) to give them a carpet quote. She arrived for the appointment on time and was told she'd have to wait 30 minutes until church service was over. My friend politely said that'd be fine and proceeded to walk back to the lobby area to wait. The woman stopped her and said, "You don't want to sit through the rest of the service?" My friend politely said no thanks and she didn't mind waiting up front, she had a book to read. Then the woman told her, "Well, we won't be needing your carpet quote."

    Now that's ridiculous, and frankly, what bugs me about a lot of the religious folks I've run into. Not all of them...but there have been times when folks do find out I am an atheist, and their attitude towards me changes totally. They complete "forget" all of the good qualities they liked about me (if it was a situation where we had known each other for a while).

    I was a big fan of a local sushi restaurant. The quality of their sushi is excellent. They are less expensive than the competition and are (in my opinion) better.

    However, they recently printed new menus with a bible verse reference in the background of every page. It is large type and hard to miss. I was embarrassed to go there with my husband and a friend (all of us are athiests) and have the menu pushing us to pick up a bible when we just wanted food. We left without ordering anything.

    I don't recall the chapter and verse referenced, but we did eventually look it up on-line and it has to do with honesty in business dealings.

    I'd appreciate an Objectivist check of my analysis of the situation. I don't have a problem with the business owners being Christian or not. It's irrelevant to my purchase. The religious reference on the menu is the issue. That means:

    1. Bringing friends into the restaurant implies I want them to read a bible. (I don't.) So, no eating in.

    2. Ordering take-out from the restaurant would be fine because their take-out menu doesn't have the references. None of my friends will be exposed to the new menu, which means what's printed on it is a non-issue.

    Although #2 feels like I'm hiding something, my other option is spending significantly more for worse-quality sushi. I feel like I'm doing the wrong thing no matter what I do. Do forum members have any thoughts on this?

    You could put on a T-shirt that says "A = A" or "Who is John Galt?" of something when you go to the restaurant. :lol:

    Doesn't seem like something to get stressed out about. I'm sure your friends don't think you're all the sudden religious, do they?

  20. There are so many issues not addressed in arguments against some form of public funds being put toward a national health care programme that proponents of a privatized proponent just doesnt take into account.

    I live in Canada, not a perfect system by any stretch of the means, but I'd much prefer to pay an extra few dollars a year in tax dollars to know I will never go bankrupt from health crises, thus allowing me to get back to work and continue to be a contributing producer.

    I have a surgery planned for later this month, I have two pre-op appointments, a day surgery, and I won't be out of pocket on top of what I pay in taxes, which is not that much more than individuals who live in California or New York pay. Plus, in economic times like today, no one in Canada is losing a step, having to find an insurer - regardless of pre-existing condition(s).

    Plus, I actually feel somewhat good to know that our individuals here in Canada do have access to world class health care, even if they can't afford it. There are many individuals who would never receive proper treatment, therapy, etc., without the nationalized programme.

    Again, no system is perfect, but, for those that will protest what I say, I happen to also believe that access to health care is a right, in the current light for some of the following reasons:

    1. Tax dollars pay for hospital infrastructure, in a completely privatized system those without enough dollars couldn't even get in to see a doctor, i suppose.

    2. Tax dollars are used to educate doctors, etc. that work in the hospitals

    3. Tax dollars pay for research that result in better treatment, equipment and therapy

    4. Without proper health care provided to some individuals, the safety of some of the community would be in question (pandemics, mental health, etc)

    5. Although points 1- 4 are not moral issues, from a moral perspective, I lie more on the side of valuing life as a whole. In the system now, in the US or other privatized system, it will always be more expensive to treat someone once a disease appears, rather than to have preemptive and ongoing care.

    Go ahead, rip apart my points....

    You pay 40% of your tax dollars into a black hole called "health care" in Canada that doesn't offer the same quality of care as a free market system. Even the U.S. offers, all other things being equal, faster wait times (or maybe that's lower wait times).

    Your "facts" as they are, aren't really facts at all. They're simply wrong - factually. You'd pay no where near what you do in taxes and thus for health care under a free market system. A close example would be 1920s America. Of course, it's not a perfect example as there is a discrepancy in technology between then and now, but like I said, all other things being equal, your health care would be cheaper under the free market (or something closer to it that what you have). AND, your care would be better.

  21. What is evil about Ron Paul besides the selflessness? Is it his faith?

    His foreign policy would embolden the enemy and invite pretty much any State that sponsors terrorism to attack us. We are not the bad guys, but he's bought into the "blowback" cycle of violence theory.

×
×
  • Create New...