Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dairdo

Regulars
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    CaymanIslands
  • Biography/Intro
    Picked up Atlas Shrugged 3 years ago to better understand the "bible" of all that I perceived to be evil in the world... and, like so many before me, was the thankful recipient of a cold dose of reality in the form of well reasoned arguments grounded in the sound principles of individual freedom. A recovering expatriate of the Free Peoples of Canuckistan (more commonly known as "Canada") living on a sunny beach in a financial area of the Caribbean, I consider myself a student of Objectivism and explore my life with new purpose and vigor. On the cusp of turning 30 - I'm optimistic about my future, and the future in general.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I've picked up most of Rand's material - and am particularly fond of both TVOS and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

    I re-read them often - especially the "Ethics of Emergencies" essay - as I enjoy confrontation in social circles, and always run up against some variation on that flawed form of reasoning.

    I particularly enjoy the blogroll that I've discovered - through which I can vicariously explore Objectivism as it is fleshed out in a myriad of lifestyles and activities as diverse as parenting through retiring.
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    Sergio M
  • School or University
    University of Waterloo
  • Occupation
    Finance

Dairdo's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

1

Reputation

  1. I think the fact that human life is defined by the combination of both the physiological and the psychological provides the objective basis for how a human being should live. Or, at the very least, the basis for identifying that a human life is more than simple biological existence. A slave can survive, but it cannot live within the full context of what it means to be a human being. The right to life identifies what a human being is, with respect to the above, and the right to property is a corollary to the right to life, as the former cannot be exercised without the latter.
  2. I saw this recently through another blog. To a laymen, can someone please explain the practical implications? How is this fundamentally different from existing mag-lev technology?
  3. I've read a few of the books noted above, and they're great from a modern historical perspective. If you're looking for a more anthropological review, Guns, Germs and Steel was a very entertaining and informative read. Takes a 15,000 year perspective, proposing a comprehensive theory about the factors that, in the author's opinion, contributed to the rise of modern civilization in some places, and not in others.
  4. I don't watch Fox News in general. Though, I used to have a guilty pleasure of turning on Bill O'Reilly before a soccer game so I could get angry. Yes, a 500% over 10 year run up in gold does concern me. But not that it could be a bubble. I just don't see the pieces lining up to substantiate a bubble. The rise in price alone - in the absence of the other "bubble" conditions - speaks more of a hedge against inflation. When researching the "official" inflation figures - as we've discussed - I come to very different (much higher) rates than what has been reported. Perhaps its a self-serving conclusion. Perhaps not. I'm still researching. I still have no money to invest - so its entirely academic at the moment anyway. I disagreed that it was "panic and fear" driving gold - as I interpreted that statement to mean something on par with an irrational frenzy. A hedge, like any other, is used to preserve a position (depending on the nature of the hedge) against some perceived outcome. I agree that gold is being used to hedge against inflation, and the possibility of default in the US (or other!) currencies. Remember that gold is a global market - and Americans, in general - haven't even begun to acquire the physical product when compared to their Euro or Asian counterparts. Further, while I to agree with you on the possibility for a US default being remote, the only way to avoid default given the current political climate is for the government, through the Fed, to debase the currency with substantial and continuous money printing. As see this as a high probability event and one that will kick start a much larger wave of price inflation than we've seen before. I guess the next couple of years will be very informative. I for one, hope I'm wrong - if it matters. You're absolutely right, on all points. I should probably have used the word "unsustainable" instead of "illegitimate" as I wasn't looking to make a moral evaluation. I was only suggesting that, should things improve in the US - politically - like electing Ron Paul (not perfect, but better than the alternatives) - I would expect it to be the start of a significant movement out of gold. I disagree with your comment about the 10 year rates though. Inflation adjusted - they're negative. There's a reason why the Federal Reserve has become one of the single largest buyers of US debt. Very recent 2 year and 5 year debt auctions while successful - experienced nothing close to the bid-cover ratios they've traditionally enjoyed. Moreover, precious metals have all risen considerably. I'm not sure where you were reading - but I've linked a few sources: Platinum Silver Palladium
  5. I certainly concede that gold is as susceptible to "bubble" conditions when compared to other asset classes. Anything that relies on human behaviour and perception is subject to distortion. I disagree that the current price is a panic fueled bubble. It simply isn't held by widely enough by investors, simple or sophisticated, to justify the comparison to actual bubbles that have emerged over time. When Joe Blue Collar is flipping properties with artificially cheap credit for year after year... we have a housing bubble. What is the comparison for gold? Hardly anyone I know has more than 1% of their portfolio invested in it. Check out Norway's monster $600B portfolio - not much in the way of precious metals at all really. How can the "current" price of gold be even remotely considered a bubble? It just doesn't add up in my opinion. Also, I don't believe goldbugs, or simple current gold enthusiasts hold the opinion that, like the housing myth before it, "it can't go down". That simply isn't part of the rationale the supports the acquisition of gold "right now". If the US got there shit in gear, slowly pulled themselves out of the economy, acknowledged the illegitimacy of using deficits to fund entitlement programs of any kind and moved towards a more free economy and limited government... I think you'd find the same people clamoring to get into gold would suddenly be the first ones off the ship, acknowledging that the US had restored their faith in sound money. Generally speaking - rational investors do not want to be invested in gold. They're forced to when economic conditions require it. I feel confident asserting that that concept holds true through most of modern history.
  6. The only thing that the current price of gold is evidence of - with any certainty - is that a great many people have lost confidence in their respective paper currencies and their government stewards. Whether or not broad price inflation happens next - is up for debate. There are a great many persuasive arguments for significant price deflation. Personally, as is clear by my comments, I fall in the inflation category - for no other reason than I enjoy studying history, and the signs are all there - especially when coupled with a study of Objectivism, and the identification of flawed ideas that drive contemporary politics and government decisions in the economy. Gold rose to record heights in the 70s - during which some considerable price inflation was experienced. For the next 20 years or so, gold hasn't really budged. However, prices over that 20 year period from 1980 to 2000 increased significantly. The 500% increase we've seen in gold in the last 10 years could be indicative of a larger price inflation on the horizon - sure. However, this is not the 1970's economy. There are many differences both in industrial composition, technology, global economic relationships and cultural influences that must certainly have an impact on the future prices.
  7. Aequalsa: I referenced the changing nature of the CPI calculation in a response to OP - but realize I didn't link a follow up reference. As you've inquired, I've linked it here for you. It explains how the CPI is calculated these days incorporating hedonics (subjective quality evaluations) into all inputs to the CPI calculation.
  8. Sadly, like most metrics these days, it depends entirely on which metric you're using. I've posted a few links that take you to a variety of sources. I believe all of the links themselves link back to actual Federal Reserve data sources. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 While the charts speak for themselves, and my point still stands, my reference was certainly skewed - thanks for asking about it. I admit that I tossed it out in haste - and acknowledge that I crossed it with the debt trend. Specifically, it took something in the neighbourhood of 70-80 years for the US to accumulate $1T in debt - and in the last 3-4 years, it's increased it by a factor of 3-4. Apologies.
  9. Not sure I understand your comment, or tone, here. I was only responding to your "gold looks like a panic-driven bubble" opinion. I am no goldbug - but I do question the dismissive nature of such a statement. The use of the term is nothing more than a weak smear. I apologize if you inferred some condescension in my response that precipitated your retort - I meant no offence. With respect to the relationship between gold and paper currencies - it goes back far longer in history than the last 10 years. It is intimately tied to capitalism (principles of money) and individual confidence in economic matters. Those that do choose to bank on gold do so with the expectation that its price has not yet topped out - which is a position driven by successive government's inability to curb the modern State's aggressive growth and interference in economic matters. To a certain extent, yes, many investors that use gold as part of a larger portfolio of assets do so because they calculate real inflation at levels much higher than the government approved (Bureau of Labor Statistics) rates. Since Clinton first removed energy and food from the standard inflation metrics in the early 90's - successive governments have been aggressively introducing "hedonic" statistical adjustments to all inputs to the calculation. You should investigate those methods - and the results - when compared to the standard pre-1990 calculation methodology. Not surprisingly, each "new" adjustment to the method significantly reduces the inflation rate over the straight year-over-year price increase. This is quite the out of context, appeal to ridicule. I'm not here to hijack your thread, nor be the subject of such tactics. This is certainly a fair point. Though, to ignore the strong correlation between the rising monetary base and the price level since the Fed was formed is to ignore some pretty persuasive evidence that monetary expansion leads to price inflation. It's not inevitable, just probable. I'm sorry - is your argument here that because gambling can produce fantastic results, we should all be gambling - regardless of the probabilities involved? To invoke facebook, google or apple without any context (namely, the fact that these success stories are dwarfed by the number of failures in the same industry) is particularly misleading. I compared gold's 10 year return to Berkshire Hathaway because I find the common excuses for avoiding gold are baseless (ie: doesn't pay dividends, goes up and down, has no intrinsic/industrial value, etc.) - when gold as a unique CLASS of asset has exceeded the best performing stock portfolio by huge margins over the same time period. Though, to bring us back to your opinion about gold as a bubble, consider the following: There is roughly $3 trillion of above ground bullion. The average investor holds less than 1% and the average pension fund holds less than 0.1%. Does that sound like a "bubble" - especially when contrasted against the recent real estate or tech bubbles of the last 10 years?
  10. The assumption driving rational investors to purchase physical gold is not that the USD will become toilet paper in the near future. Rather, it is an assumption that the unprecedented monetary expansion over the last 3-4 years (equivalent to nearly 70 years worth of expansion before that) will inevitably percolate through the economy over a series of years, gradually driving prices across all goods and services ever higher. Remember that inflation is a form of indirect taxation: a form of theft through the destruction of your purchase power. It matters not whether the government takes $1 from your pocket physically, or makes the amount of money in your pocket worth $1 less in terms of what you can buy. Gold - however - is immune to those effects. If you happen to have inherited 100oz of gold acquired in 1971, the day before Nixon closed the window and broke the peg, those 100oz that cost you about US$3,500 would be worth approximately $185,000 today. It's a notion often repeated but not really understood. Capitalism requires savings. What does it mean for capitalism if another individual happen to put his US$3,500 under his pillow in 1971? It would be worth something in the neighbourhood of $175 today. As I like to remind people - the darling of the stock market, Mr. Value Investor himself - Warren Buffet - has only returned his investors a 10 year return of about 75%. Gold, in that same time, has returned nearly 500%. Tragically, I'm too young and still paying off student debts to have been able to build any kind of portfolio. But the parallels I've noticed between Objectivist philosophy and Austrian Economics have illuminated the failings associated with - quelle surprise - government intervention (sponsored) in the monetary system.
  11. @Greebo: Agreed. Insofar as a persuasive argument goes with a weak pragmatist though - it's not ideal. I suppose I was looking for something more specific to the Norwegian socialist "dream" experiment. I've since gone back and attempted to argue from a principled position. However, other than arguing that tax is theft - which formed the basis for the Norwegian majority share purchase - my argument is lacking oomph! @brianleepainter: Thanks for the input. I agree - I think I've become frustrated and impatient arguing with pragmatists and was looking for a different, refreshing angle to run with. Whenever I've jumped into a debate against a pragmatist by hammering home the necessity of acting on principles - I'm dismissed almost immediately as a crackpot. I find that counterproductive to constructive debate in non-objectivist circles. Thoughts? @OptimizedPrime (love the name): Thank you. Your comments articulate and crystallize those thoughts that I couldn't find the words for. With respect to your second paragraph - it's an interesting concept, and one I haven't come across too often studying Objectivism - actual literature or the various forums and contributors. I'm not sure I agree with you on whether there can be a truly legitimate case for government involvement in economic enterprise. Starting from the ground up - they'd necessarily be required to tax additional funds (or voluntarily seek donations - how would that make any sense?) to supply the capital required to explore and build an organization, acquire the expertise and technology. How could this possibly be in "everyone's" best in interest? Who get's to decide such a decision? Or are you assuming that the case can be made within the context of today's heavily involved government and pseudo-free market mixed economy... with an eye to less restricted future? With respect to Stat-oil - it was formed, in the early 70's, as a 100% government owned corporation. It 'privatized' in the 80s or 90s when the government converted it to a publicly traded company and acquired a 67% ownership. I have no data on whether or not 67% of the profits are distributed to the whole population; however, I do know that Norway manages a public pension - +$600B - one of the single largest asset pools of its kind in the world. Allegedly, 30 years of oil profit has made it possible for the little population of 5 million people. I simply don't have the data to know how "benevolently" or "malevolently" the profits are being shared. As for workability - pragmatism - I couldn't agree more. It was this line of reasoning that I pushed and am now advancing. =) Did you see Krugman's recent comments? Check out what these guys have to say: http://mises.org/daily/5559/Keynes-and-Space-Aliens
  12. I've scoured the forums for a discussion on this, or similar topics, but couldn't find any - so please feel free to point me to another thread if you're aware of one. In any debate about the efficacy of socialist nationalization schemes, despite mountains of spectacular failures, Scandinavia inevitably is referenced as how "it should be done" in all things socialist. Most recently, I've been beaten over the head with Stat-oil. The salient facts are: - originally formed as a Norwegian government company in the early 70's to develop the industry; - privatized - with the government retaining 67% share ownership - publicly traded and managed with, allegedly, little government interference in decision making - no information on how the profits are distributed to shareholders versus reinvested/R&D Apparently Stat-oil is a miracle of socialism. It's very difficult to argue against its results. Typically, I point to the fact that anything government creates conflicts of interest between the private interests and the government's proper role in upholding the laws, etc. Further, I argue that where the government gets involved in private enterprise, they distort behaviour. "IF" they're taking massive amounts of the profit and funneling it elsewhere for political purposes (think: education, healthcare, pensions, etc.) - it has the very long run effect of distorting - over generations - individual behaviour and perceptions about individual accountability which "can" have serious consequences. Can anyone assist me in fleshing out a balanced - principles up - position that more adequately analyzes a "well run" socialist enterprise? I feel like I'm missing something - and all the good results in the world can't hide the nagging sensation I'm feeling that there are some fundamentally ruinous issues at play. Cheers
  13. The matter, as I understand it, revolves entirely around the proper use of force by a state. In this case, the use of military - which has only one just use, and that is against foreign aggressors; never against its own citizenry. Further, your policing example doesn't hold. The police are part of a State's legitimate use of force against those that would initiate it against individual citizens - entirely domestic. While policy departments may be implemented/coordinated on a city by city, or county by county basis - this is merely a bureaucratic issue, not a matter of principle. Police - some police - have jurisdictional responsible over the entire geopolitical territory of the State and a duty to protect the rights of all individuals within that region. That region is united by its commitment, in general, to the recognition of individual rights. You can't extend that argument to encompass far flung (or any, for that matter) foreign States. Certainly it's in your long term self interest to "support" the freedom of Iranian citizens - but as the Iranians have not initiated the use of force against you, your military has no just basis for intervening. If they do, they become the initiators of force, and thus engage in an immoral act. Your reasoning would imply a duty - an obligation on a military created to protect your freedom - to seek out oppression and crush it wherever it rears its head in the world. Remember that your military is not comprised of mindless brutes. They voluntarily put their life on the line to protect the "shared" values of the people - being the freedom enjoyed within the State. I highly doubt whether or not your military would still retain its numbers if you told them that their new job was the liberation of oppressed people - even though no threat exists to the people they swore to defend. Put simply: I doubt most military personnel value the lives of foreign citizens high enough to put their lives on the line. They may value them - but again, to what extent? Would you put your life on the line to free oppressed Iranians? Americans have a right to leave America - not to enter Iran. Iran does not protect or recognize individual rights. Whether they ought to or not is irrelevant. They don't. Any American that chooses to endanger their life and risk moving there does so of their own volition - with the knowledge that their rights are only properly protected (in theory of course) in America - not abroad. If Americans wanted to support and encourage the freedom of oppressed peoples - they could certainly set up a superior military force in a position to defend any and all individuals that were able to free themselves from the bondage of their oppressors and seek sanctuary. Think of it like an overt, underground railroad of sorts. They could invent and proliferate technologies that would encourage rebellion and support rebels with charitable organizations. More importantly however, is that your value of oppressed individuals in foreign nations, while admirable, is simply that: your value. It may not be shared, at least to the same extent, by your fellow American citizens. Sure, on some level, I'm sure all free people value and want every other human to be free - but compared to what? Where do think such a value fits in to everyone else's value hierarchy? Is the freedom of Iranian citizens really in the long term interest of you? When? The next 20 years? The next 100? How do you measure that? You're asking your military - those individuals that are willing to die protecting you - not Iranians - to go out and wage war and die; not to protect you, but to chase your value preferences. I doubt whether or not you'd have much popular support. Perhaps you know best or your intentions are pure. That's not the point. If your values were so popularly shared, you could raise the money and personnel to organize a private military to chase your goals. You just couldn't do it on behalf of the American people. Nothing about your personal value preferences justifies the use of force - against your own military to fight for what you believe is important. It is not the concern of American families to send their children out into the world to "liberate" people that, as far as I can tell, have no shared interest in individual rights. Rather, most seek to enforce their own brand of collective tyranny. No nation of oppressed people, to my knowledge, has yet expressed a serious interest in pursuing individual rights. Ask the Chinese about how China is being run - and they will tell you the problem is not with Communism; rather, it is the corruption and failed implementation.
  14. Yes. To my knowledge, his position is that the military should be well funded and as technologically advanced as is necessary to deter any and all enemies from attacking. However, the initiation of force, in all contexts - whether domestic or foreign - is only rationally justified to defend against those who first initiate force. I think the only reason he's pumping the anti-war theme, and calling the troops home - is because the government is both bankrupt, and engaging in a principally unjustified war in a far off land. I'm not sure which reason is the most significant - but both have far reaching ramifications on the future of America in the world. It may be politically "popular" to support the foreign wars - but politically popular is a far cry from philosophically justified. Sanctions - by a government against another government - is more accurately characterized as the initiation of force against its own citizens. If the US Government "sanctions" Iran - it prevents US citizens, or its companies, from engaging in any trade with businesses in Iran or subsidiaries of Iranian businesses. Sure the Iranians lose out - but the actual force being applied is against the right of American citizens to live their lives as they see fit. Moreover, Ron Paul is correct - if a few "interested" parties in the US government see fit to sanction Iran and the Iranian people by forcing (banning) Americans from engaging in trade with them - I would imagine the Iranians would assume those "interested" parties were their enemy. If Americans truly opposed Iranian society and the real, serious violations they conduct - they can voluntarily restrict themselves. But force against a free people is never justified. Ever. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the derivation of individual rights, but my understanding is that it stems from human nature - what specifically in our nature that defines us as human and not beast/ape - and is therefore "of nature". Again - perhaps it's just me reading too much into the body of his work, or giving him too much credit - but I believe, within the context of his entire set of ideas on liberty and individual rights, that his references to "god given" rights or "natural (mother nature?)" should be seen as a political olive branch to bridge the void between the religious minded that love their god but also love their freedom. Fair point. Though, as I said, his arguments taken as a whole within the context of his other arguments - especially those on sound money and its necessary function within a truly capitalist society - I believe any candidate that can speak so articulately, and generally uncompromisingly in a pro-freedom voice deserves a fair shake.
×
×
  • Create New...