Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ninth Doctor

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Ninth Doctor

  1. A fairly recent upload.  The one I heard about had Hitchens flying solo on the socialist side.  Here he has a (weak) colleague, so this is probably not the debate in question.  Hitchens is worth listening to, as always.  He commits the fallacy of composition (family unit to national).  In later years he was later able to speak knowledgeably about Rand, here no.  I suspect he studied and upped his game for a later debate. 

    There's a part where a questioner insults Binswanger, leading him to refuse to answer any question from that person (as Rand did in one of her Donahue appearances).  For some reason that was the most memorable moment for me.  

  2. Thanks for bumping this thread.

    On 12/20/2020 at 10:37 AM, Ninth Doctor said:

    I'm putting in a limit order a bit below the current price with the after tax amount I pocketed in November.  I did really well with this one, at least in terms of IRR.

    I put in for 300,000 shares at .0052, which executed on Monday.  So last night I put in to sell once it hit .0102.  That happened today.  I (nearly) doubled my money in one day...again! 

    BTW I've made my share of investing blunders.  No genius here.  This was luck. 

    By way of payback, a tip: look at EQD.U.  It's an SPAC associated with Sam Zell.  They haven't announced what they're acquiring, so the stock has been in bed.  3 months, no movement.  Sam Zell is a legend in distressed real estate, and COVID lockdowns ought to turn out well for that strategy.  I know a lot more about real estate than the value of back pain therapy patents.


  3. It was between .031 and .033 back in late August when you first posted about it.  Now it's about one fifth that price.  Hope you didn't lose too much on it.  

    In bankruptcy the common shares are typically wiped out, so it's no surprise that the new investors are getting compensated via share dilution.  The debtors had to be paid too.  Authorized isn't the same thing as issued, BTW.  

    I'm putting in a limit order a bit below the current price with the after tax amount I pocketed in November.  I did really well with this one, at least in terms of IRR. 

    On 8/30/2020 at 10:41 AM, Ninth Doctor said:

    Personally, I've never gotten a penny stock tip that turned into anything but a loss.

    And I believe in self-fulfilling prophecies.

  4. 8 hours ago, happiness said:

    This is an embarrassment. It turned out to be a pump and dump. I got excited by the initial hype, solely because I knew of their product's medical legitimacy, but as the days went on I realized the narrative around the stock was totally irrational and got out. It's been an interesting episode to follow. I've been publicly predicting that the stock would crash for the three months, and it just did. I credit Objectivist epistemology for allowing me to spot he scam. 

    Here's a book recommendation:


    The co-author is a big Rand fan.  Nassim Taleb highly recommends this book. 

    Penny stocks are very volatile.  This one has had some wild swings.  You can make money but only if you have a sell discipline.  And not mind paying short term capital gains tax.

    At year end people sell just to lock in losses to offset gains made elsewhere.  The price capitulation you're seeing now might be a buy signal.  This company is out of bankruptcy (hence the Q being removed from the ticker), and that's a really good sign.  But don't go "all in" on anything, even Amazon (which is my biggest holding). 

    Full disclosure: I put this on my watch list back when you first posted about it.  I had a limit order that executed on 11/17, then I immediately put in a sell order that executed on 11/18.  Doubled my money in one day.  Mind you only about $2K, play money.  Turns out this coincided with the announcement that they'd emerged from bankruptcy. 

    Now I see it's at .00635.   Glad I got out, but now I feel like I have house money to play with. 

    BTW, I don't see what Objectivist Epistemology has to do with this.  This company seems to not be a scam at all, it's just very speculative.  If you follow investment discussion forums (I assume that's where you encountered hype around this stock) then you have to be mindful that everyone posting there has an agenda.  Some have Options such that they profit if the stock moves (up or down) within a certain timeframe.  They have no fiduciary duty to you.  They can lie with no consequences.  They're anonymous.  Trust no one. 

  5. 5 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

    I’m still looking for reasoning, not the conclusion that you prefer. I want to know why you like your conclusion and not mine.


    I'm at a loss for what further reasoning might satisfy you.  As for a write-in vs. Jorgensen, if you go for a write-in your vote won't count at all.  Some poll worker might get a chuckle out of it, depending on how creative you are.  Libertarian vote counts do get reported, and you can look them up going all the way back:


    Those numbers aren't broken out by state, so that you're in Washington is irrelevant.  If she gets 500,000 instead of 499,999, all the better.  

    If you vote for Trump and he wins, you've added to his claim to a Mandate, and worse, his bragging rights, which he'll certainly exercise to the full.

  6. On 10/25/2020 at 8:19 PM, DavidOdden said:

    I didn't raise that option because it's irrelevant in Washington. We have a non-partisan blanket primary, so ballot access is a non-issue and the 5% doesn't count. In my district, the general election is between the top two Democrats. It's mainly at the state level that there are any Republican candidates: by law, there can only be two, and it's regardless of party (except the presidential race).

    Your swing-state fact and ballot access laws are different. If you (mentally) change yourself to California (analogous to Washington), would you reach a different conclusion than I did, and more important, why?

    You wrote: "your vote has symbolic value, but not effective value" and " I was inclined to vote for Jorgensen, since she has a philosophy and while I disagree with some of it, I agree with far more of it than I do with that of Biden or Trump. Jorgensen is the only candidate that I can say anything good about, the others fall into the “at least Y is not X”  category)." 

    Putting two and two together I said you're "pretty far along" towards voting for her.  Consider yourself encouraged to do so.  She's sure to get far fewer votes than Gary Johnson (3.3M), leading the pundits to produce obituaries for consistent principled free market ideology etc. 

    It'll still count as one more vote against Biden.  Way more so, to my way of thinking.  And you won't feel tainted by having voted for the Orange Man. 

    BTW, I think he's going to win.  Trump, that is. 

  7. 57 minutes ago, merjet said:

    He did write, "I have much more in savings than I invested." 

    Common advice in cases like this is to not invest any more than you can afford to lose. 

    He (She?) also wrote "So while I’m in, I’m not sure I’m in enough. This may warrant a greater risk. If the company achieves its goal of getting relisted and returns to its pre-bankruptcy prices, I could make 100x."  The thread title asks about going "all-in".  That's what I was addressing.  Common advice, as you say. 

  8. On 8/17/2020 at 9:47 PM, Jimbean said:

    When a criminal can gain a value by brazenly breaking the law, and everyone can see it, and he gets away with it, civilization is finished.


    I have a feeling it was this:

    When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed.


  9. On 8/15/2020 at 3:40 PM, whYNOT said:

     I can't find his name or the title. Any idea, ND?


    Nope.  He worked in South Africa?  That's your beat. 

    But it does call to mind a quote from Muhammad Ali:

    "Champ, what did you think of Africa?" Ali replied, "Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat!"

    That won't score any points with the likes of Fraser. 

    Rand's essay "Racism" in The Virtue of Selfishness surely bears reviewing in this context.  Though I haven't reread it in years.

  10. On 7/30/2020 at 11:58 PM, Dupin said:

    The article alluded to in the original post is

    Biden Must Win or America is Doomed
    It quotes most of the pro-Biden speech that Brook made on his show (link in the original post).


    Mark, I think there's an error in your piece.  Peikoff urged voting Democratic in 2006, not 2004. 


    It was hotly debated at the time.  I'm not aware of an equivalent statement from 2004.  He did, however, urge voting against Bush in 1992.

    Following the election of Obama we all got a good reminder of what can happen when Democrats are in power.  Clinton was pretty bad too, but he never had a filibuster-proof majority as Obama (briefly) did. 

    Imagine the current crop of Democrats with that much power.  Do like scary movies?


  11. 16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

    What is the relevance of any of this?

    The cops were laughing so hard they forgot they had handcuffs that could be used. Actual counterfeit bills would have changed everything. And then I woke up.

    If you forget that he was black, you may have a glimpse of the fact that people are protesting against authoritarian rule in general.

    He (Timpa) was already cuffed (with legs bound too) when they started laughing. 

    The $20 bill is in the custody of the police.  Was Floyd a counterfeiter, or did he just happen to get passed a counterfeit bill and he was in turn passing it on?  Knowingly or not?  Don't know.

    "Forget that he was black"?  The protests arising from this case (Floyd) are certainly about race, not authoritarianism in general.  It is evolving such that now there's a call to "defund the police", and that sounds anti-authoritarian I'll grant.  Are you disputing that the protests are primarily about race?   From what I've seen they are overwhelmingly so. 

  12. This story seems to be gaining traction:


    It came to my attention under the headline “White privilege didn’t save Tony Timpa”.

    Differences to the Floyd case:

    1.    The decedent was white

    2.    The cops laughed while restraining/killing him

    3.    14 minutes vs. 9 minutes

    4.    He was on coke (Floyd was on Meth & Fentanyl)

    5.    The video didn’t become available immediately

    There’s no evidence (yet) that the Minneapolis police behaved differently towards Floyd because he was black.  I’m ready to believe that the fact he was such a big guy (6’ 6”) was a factor.  

    Now imagine if #2 were true in the Floyd case. 

  13. 5 hours ago, Boydstun said:

    Born nine years after Aristotle and living five decades beyond him was Epicurus.

    Epicurus was born 18-19 years before Aristotle's death.  Nice essay.  What's the ETA on your book?

  14. How did you adjust the data for all the varying situations?  Example: you can't (shouldn't) count William Henry Harrison as a one term president, since he died in office and thus didn't have an opportunity to be a two term president.  Did you count Teddy Roosevelt as a two termer?  He was only elected once.  Truman and LBJ too. 

    Improved longevity is probably all you can take away from this.  And maybe fewer assassinations.

  15. 16 hours ago, cachi said:

    As a test, I'm wondering if it might be possible to identify just 5 individuals in the past century who were true Randians / Objectivists. A true Objectivist, in my mind, is uncompromisingly honest, productive and successful, in favour of limited government, skeptical of religion, and dedicated toward acting rationally towards one's own selfish interests.

    I believe this book was produced to answer your request:


    I must confess I have not read it. 

  16. 3 hours ago, Dupin said:

    Craig Biddle has added two new parts to his TOS article, the original article is now Part One.  Part Three is by Carl Barney except for a one sentence introduction by Biddle.

    Part Two is like Part One but there are new details in Part Three.



    Hey Mark, here’s an analogy for you: Carl Barney is the Werner von Braun of Objectivism.  This likens Scientology to Nazism and Objectivism to the NASA of the moon landing.  See the American flag here:


    You have to thank this guy:


    Sure, you have strongly negative feelings towards ARI, so you’ll object, but, there’s icing on the cake: this makes you the Tom Lehrer of Objectivism. 

    Not so bad, eh?

  17. 1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

    Or what it is about Atlas Shrugged and your current understanding of Objectivism that you're hoping to find insight on?

    For example, if you're coming to this from a religious background, in other words you're grappling with the challenge to belief in god, try Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith.  It's written from an Objectivist perspective, and is a great book. 

  18. 44 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

    Where's the fire?

    Dollars to donuts Dupin is Mark from ARI Watch.  Trying to drum up interest in his piece attacking Carl Barney.  There was some discussion of it recently on OL:


    My comment from over there:

    In earlier discussions I came out as a Barney defender, since I felt Mark's attacks had a lot of unfairness in them.  But I don't have the time or energy for a rehash.  It's out there on older threads, and it looks like Biddle is covering the rebuttals well enough.  A sample:

    First, to criticize a private college for accepting students’ funds that come from government loans and grants is almost as absurd as criticizing a private supermarket for accepting customers’ funds that come from government welfare programs.


    Note to any ARIan readers: think of this as payback for James Valliant.   Think you've got the high ground?  Review The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.


  19. 11 hours ago, happiness said:

    I only want blunt replies. For the record, I'm very keenly aware of everything I did wrong with her, I just hadn't dated in so long before this I had to learn these lessons the hard way. 

    This reads like something out of the Pick-up Artist literature.  You ought to spend some time studying it.  By rejecting her you made yourself irresistible, then when you became clingy, you were no longer a challenge for her.  Your rejection went against her self-image as an attractive woman who can get any man she wants, so she had to get you to validate herself.  After, rejecting you gets her even more self-validation, plus (maybe) a bit of payback. 

    I don’t think it’s a dynamic that will ever result in a healthy relationship, so you need to write this one off. 

  • Create New...