Ben Archer

So I guess that's the answer then. They've already bought securities, and now they're stuck. Then China also tried the US stock market and failed miserably. Now their intention seems to be: buy gold, lots of it. They're the largest importer and producer at the moment. Their intention is clear, they did this before with silver. Back then they were abused by the US, Russia, Britain, Japan. But now it's a different story; they're a much different country. And there's a lot of evidence that they're cornering the gold market.

China holds dollars in part to manage the value of their currency to the dollar, there is little doubt of that. But China and the rest of the BRICs have been fighting the US dollar regime for a number of years, because holding the reserve currency brings a certain power which the US has not been shy in using (printing money to fuel our economy). If the US loses that power (from China failing to buy enough of our bonds), it spells disaster. It's the same as a default, and printing more money won't help. In fact they're very worried about the $ 1.3 trillion exposure to US debt they have. As for what they're doing with the dollars, besides buying up all our assets (and famous NYC buildings), they've been mostly storing them up. I know they're trying to diversify, buying real estate in Europe. They're mostly storing the dollars to strengthen the yuan. I've no idea what the exact policy is, but their spoken intention is to "de-americanize the world." And that's what I've been more worried about: the signs that they have every intention of phasing out the dollar as the Reserve currency. They're buying massive amounts of gold, and some think this would be to even replace the dollar with the yuan (backed in gold). The Chinese are quite aware of the track record for fiat currencies. They all fail. Every single fiat currency that ever existed has eventually devolved into extinction. 100% batting average. Why we believe it won't happen to the dollar, is beyond me. Actually, many of the Chinese public may not know what the deal is, but the Chinese government knows for sure that the dollar is doomed...which is why they are buying all the phyzz they can so that they can be the next reserve currency. They do not need war to become the strongest economic power in the world. They need gold...and they are getting it.(they just bought another 5k tons) Regardless of Chinese policy, the dollar is doomed, and our economy is only able to survive because we are the world's reserve currency.

I was saying that countries like China and S. Korea, and China and Russia, as well as the other countries above, are making efforts to exchange without using dollars at all. As far as what they'll do...China simply accumulates the dollars. It's FX reserve is over 3.6 trillion (way, way more than anyone else). We know they're manipulating their currency ...they disguise a lot of their bond purchases with the help of SOEs.

What I see is, like most Americans, you don't believe the US dollar could ever lose its spot as the world's reserve currency, or understand what it would mean if we did. I agree that "The World" is aware. In fact steps are already being taken to phase out the dollar. With rising levels of US debt, many countries are questioning the US dollar's position as the reserve currency. Consider the agreement between China and S. Korea recently, that allows firms to settle deals in either the yuan or the won instead of the US dollar. "The agreement is part of a push amount emerging countries to internationalize local currencies after the global financial crises" --Bloomberg "Fed up with what it sees as Washington's malign neglect of the dollar, China is busily promoting the cross-border use of its own currency, the yuan. Displacing the dollar, Beijing says, will reduce volatility in oil and commodity prices and belatedly erode the ‘exorbitant privilege' the United States enjoys as the issuer of the reserve currency at the heart of a post-war international financial architecture it now sees as hopelessly outmoded." --Alan Wheatley, Reuters In the past few years China has signed currency agreements with Germany, Russia, India Brazil, Australia, Japan, Chile, Arabs, & South Africa. Japan and India just made a similar deal, lessening dependence on the dollar. Started a few years ago when the big players got together for a secret meeting the US wasn't privy to. Of course the US denied this. But if history tells us anything, it's that the best way to know when a currency is being devalued, is to wait for the head of the central bank goes on TV and says that any such transaction would never occur. Now we have the IMF talking about replacing the US currency with SDRs, and US bonds with SDR bonds. The could also be used to buy commodities like gold and oil.

Well like it or not, ACLU numbers or not, many states agree on the "incalculable costs" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/02/supreme-court-california-10000-prisoners-release/2613283/ This is because many states are going bankrupt. Theres 27 or so that are actually allowed to declare bankruptcy/insolvency...I think you'd see a lot more of this if they all could. Along with early-prison release, they're also shutting off street lights to save money in certain places (rockford, Illinois, Sante Fe). I know Christie is trying to reduce government pensions in NJ. As ridiculous as it is, it's something they're forced to do, because states can't just print more money, like the Fed.

Well since that went over like a lead balloon, I think the next question you could ask is: What would happen if/when the world starts noticing how we're printing dollars at a pace of $85 billion a month? China already has, and their FX reserves are now well over 3 trillion. So what happens when the same thing that happened to British sterling happens to us? Their currency ruled the world for 200 years, and we saw the winter of discontent, starting in the 70's. If the dollar becomes devalued, the same scenario (detailed above) will happen...slowly, then all at once. And nothing will be able to stop it. Printing money stopped the 2008 crises. In a currency crises, you're screwed.

I'm sure there are many parallels, but the history of the US banking system—which you could say gained traction in '68—is a little more complex in its formation. Banking cartels probably do not employ nearly as many decent people as Goldman & Sachs, who, backed with Keynesian & Austrian economic ideas, believe they're doing the right thing, (with Quantitative Easing, and fixing interest rates) and taking the best measure to keep the US economy afloat. Like I've said though, I think if anyone believes the show of prosperity in the US, they're forgetting the lessons of the 20's.

I remember that thread. I have friendships with people who I'll speak to maybe once a month, if that, but it's still nice to catch up with them. Most of them I was closer with, at one point. Some I've never met. I think the only time I decide the a friendship is pointless, is if they're a negative influence on me. But this is usually only with people I'm in close proximity with, who've maybe taken up bad habits like drugs or excessive drinking, gossiping. I suppose if the relationship is devolving further than you'd like, and you don't value idle chit-chat, or feel like you're putting more into it than you're receiving, you can decide to end it. I tend to just let those sort of friendships fade peacefully away instead of making a firm decision, as it's good to keep that door open should you bump into each other.

My "jokes" are usually like this: Why'd the fat kid fall off his bike? Because his mom threw a refrigerator at him. This is probably why Norm Macdonald is one of my favorite comedians though...I'm obv not as funny as him but often easiest way to get my friends to laugh is just in the way you tell the story...and the timing I honestly think having ADHD can lend to humor because of non-sequiturs, silly mistakes and unique storytelling styles lol. I've thought about this a lot too. Because the same joke on paper might go from being stupid, to hilarious if delivered correctly. I think a lot of it is in the satisfaction the audience gets in connecting the dots, and understanding the implied part of a joke. Or for some jokes it's the surprise and delight at detecting something outrageous or incongruous with your expectations. I think you'd have to analyze the many types of humor. (spoof, parody, etc) individually.

I find when selling an idea, the person has to at least have some respect for the salesman. But later in the conversation within this thread I conceded that polarized views are likely and more appropriate on the internet, and in "tight circles", like Objectivist blogs and forums.

I've plenty on the negative but since the focus is on the good... They've apologized more than a few times to S. Korea, and even Abe refrains from visiting the Yasukini shrine. So there's hope (in the US) that Japan and S. Korea will mend enough to form an alliance that'll discourage China from its N. Korea holdings.

I've listened to desire a bunch of times now. I'm still trying to figure out what the ocean painting come to life symbolizes.

"Central banking" is a bit ambiguous. It's not completely nationalized but it's enough to where the bankers have the power: Fannie and Freddie essentially nationalized the mortgage market when they were put into "conservatorship." The biggest four banks control a third of the deposits. Derivatives are still in full force and even trickier than before. The Volcker rule was never actually implemented One good bit of news was Janet yellen replacing Ben, instead of Larry Summers (who was a big fan of derivatives deregulation and repealing Glass-steagall) So there are a number of things that contribute to their power but I don't think it represents a "cartel"

Though I made the point that I was surprised to find it on an Objectivist website, now that you mention it, maybe that's where polarizing would be more appropriate (and on forums like this). I guess I'd have more of a "case" if it had appeared in Time magazine or something. I see what you're saying...sort of like Peter telling Roark to relax and not be so serious with his views, that'd be the status quo. I think on the internet there's more room for "polarized" views, as I found in real life, it's much better to keep to myself, as hardly anyone can be convinced to try Objectivism without some interest first. (I have gotten a few ex–girlfriends to read Atlas Shrugged though).

I don't know if you can speak for everyone, as there is definitely arrogance that few seem willing to acknowledge. There are some (I won't name people) who will respond in one way, if you make a logical error for example, and some who will aggressively ridicule you. In fact there's a few people who seem to only post for that purpose. Generally moderators are fairly even tempered and objective. I'm sure you've observed this. Regardless, the majority of people on this site are very helpful. I generally come to this site to try to learn. One of the nastiest spots I've found for making errors is the Ayn Rand Institute's facebook page. They actually banned me from posting for a few months, for disagreeing on something. I was wrong as I didn't see the fallacy I'd made, but I was banned after one post. As for Ayn Rand's writing, there is much of what I consider to be unnecessary acrimony. Take this from Galt's speech: "In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this word to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads." | P3C7 The tone of this doesn't' really appeal to me...just strive for your own excellence and don't concern yourself with judgements on who is "cowardly" or "ugly." Wouldn't it better serve a clear discussion by dispensing of the incendiary elements of an argument (which are often placed with a sort of coup de grâce intention)?

Yes I suppose that's true. I guess I just wasn't expecting it from an objectivist blog.I suspect Rand would have liked this cartoon as well, but then again her tone and examples I found to be a bit viscous sometimes. My preference would be for Objectivists to raise themselves to a higher standard, just because I don't see a real use for nasty arguments or harsh analogies.

Fair enough, but I doesn't address the lack of empathy towards the Knockout victims; by using it in this way. Again, why not have him fly the obamacare jet into the WTC (the US)? Do you really believe Obama's motive is nihilism?

But the cartoon is showing Obama, not Obamacare.

Well he does tie it toe the events. I truncated the article but here's the first line. (this is the blog post)

I have to agree on this. The median real after tax and after inflation wage story is just unbelievable. It’s actually been falling America, I would say, almost every year since ’74 It doesn’t work like a real economy. And the number one reason why it doesn’t work is because gains in productivity do not flow through to the workers. All those gains in productivity get high jacked by the financiers. So you see, today, in the U.S., 20% of the total net income of the S&P 500, 20%of all the net income that’s made in the country is generated by finance companies. Think about how insane that is. Interest rates are, you know, with the ten-year treasury is 2% or whatever. How can these finance companies be making up such a huge percentage of our national corporate income? You have to also look at the persistence of the current account, not just the percentage. The US Current Account deficit is 2.7% of GDP, down sharply from 5.8% in 2006. The Fed certainly fears these doom and gloom scenarios you mention. Consider the policy response to the 2008 crisis compared to the 1930s. In the 1930s, policymakers believed in laissez–faire and just sat back to let the market forces establish equilibrium. Of course then WW2 happened and we increased spending 900%, ending the depression. In 2008 however, the policy response has been entirely different. The Fed has done everything not to allow market-forces to work and establish any sort of equilibrium as they're terrified that that level of market-determined GDP would be 30–40% less than it was in 2006.

I stumbled across this cartoon today: It's comparing Obamacare to knockout: "Obamacare is, in effect, designed to knock out the American economy and way of life, in a single punch" I agree that Obamacare is brute force I've always been against it. I'm just wondering if with satire can go too far. To me this isn't empathetic to the importance of the Knockout stories and the victims' families, many who've been killed. I'd be surprised if, for example, Time magazine ran this, as the analogy is a bit crude. Also, most of the footage I've seen in the media shows black kids doing this. Obviously some people may like this, after all I found this in an objectivist blog. If a blog on Objectivism seeks to educate people using rational arguments, however, it might turn away those who are on the fence (perhaps with Obamacare). If this analogy fits, why not take it further and show him gunning down teachers and students at Columbine?

With credit/consumption (not the private sector) driving the economy, I'd say this is debatable. If regulation is what's fueling the majority of economic growth, wouldn't that point to a very bleak overall picture? How many years would you guess when you say "many"? I think 5 to 10 at most, without some huge investment by the US in competitive technologies. Medium wage is where it was at 1989, and global deflation heavily offsets domestic inflation. China has definitely boomed but they have an ageing working class, manufacturing coming to a halt, and massive debt problems. China is where the next big bubble will be. So again to me this seems very bleak.

The example of the titanic is a good one...but there we know what's going to happen. That (very well done) story really did get us more intimately involved and invested with the characters. I think I was simply surprised at my own outrage, and wondered if anyone else had experienced this, because I couldn't quite put to words why it offended me so much. Maybe because of my proximity to event that day...it cheapened it and distorted its importance in a self-serving way. I suppose there's no value in letting in bother me further though.

I like the comparisons you made. Hadn't heard either of those