merjet

I would like to have read a little beyond what Stephen excerpted from A Companion to Ayn Rand. However, I don't own the book and I can't see the rest of page 172 using Amazon's 'Look Inside' feature. I made two examples on this thread that presume rational men, but a conflict of some kind arises between them. Wright says that Rand does not deny the potential for setbacks and disappointment. Does Wright say anything next about when such potentials become actual? The two examples I gave are exactly that. A conflict of some sort arose, whether or not one chooses to call it a "conflict of interest." In one example the two parties disagree about what’s best for their common goal. In the second something happens unforeseen by either side that creates the conflict. Yet in my opinion neither party in either example acts irrationally. We can’t ask Ayn Rand if one party or the other acted irrationally. There seems to be two main choices. 1. One did act irrationally, and hence he was not a rational man in that instance. 2. Both men were rational, but a conflict of some sort occurred anyway.

Crypto Fearmongers Get Pushback From Former CIA Director || Turkey bans crypto payments

How so? I didn't make the example until page 4.

Huh? The buyer I described is not playing victim; he is a real victim. The buyer is not making a scapegoat. Assume the buyer had to pay a higher price to somebody else to obtain the supply he had contracted for with the supplier. Do you consider the buyer irrational to (a) ask the supplier to make up for such price difference or (b) believe the supplier should have met the terms of the contract by buying from somebody else? I do believe there are too many laws. On the other hand, lawyers aren't merely for the purpose of representing a plaintiff or defendant after a dispute arises. They may make contracts better before a dispute arises.

Prove it with an exact citation. Her words, not yours.

Suppose all that Buyer B wants from Supplier S is some monetary compensation for having to pay somebody else a higher price or not being able to get enough supply, but Supplier S won't pay. Then which one do you believe is irrational and hence only "supposedly" rational?

The term "harmony of interest" has been used at least since Adam Smith (link). I don't know why Rand did not use it instead of "no conflicts of interest." "Harmony of interest" doesn't connote perfection like "no conflicts" does, at least to me.

So what should said party have done or do that would be rational?

I agree. Ayn Rand said there are no conflicts of interest among rational men. However, does a rational person never does anything irrational (even if only in retrospect, but not before the doing) or have foresight so perfect that everything the rational person plans never meets a conflict of interest when implementing the plan? I say 'no'.

I agree that the second meaning I showed is toward the potential. But the first meaning need not be. For example, somebody has a 30% interest (stake) in a business. One definition of "interest' in the Oxford definition referenced on the page I linked above is: A stake, share, or involvement in an undertaking, especially a financial one.

"Interest" has several definitions. Link. The two noun meanings from the MacMillan Dictionary that seem to best fit what Ayn Rand meant by "interest" are: ▸an advantage or benefit to someone or something ▸a connection with something that influences your attitude or behavior because you can gain an advantage from it.

False for both of the following two examples. 1. Employees E1 and E2 work together. E1 is E2’s boss. Both are rational. In order to solve a particular work problem or achieve a particular goal, E1 wants to execute Plan1 and E2 wants to execute Plan2. Plan1 and Plan2 are incompatible; can’t do both. Each believes his or her own plan is somewhat better than the other. They argue. E1 decides on Plan 1 since E1 is the boss. Both are rational and their plans conflict. 2. Two rational businessmen sign a contract. Buyer B agrees to buy from supplier S. If the contract is simple, short-term, and no problems arise, then omniscience is not required. On the other hand, assume a long-term contract that is far more complicated. B and S negotiate and agree on the terms. They consider contingencies, and the written contract addresses the contingencies. Suppose all goes well for a while. Then a problem arises, a contingency that neither anticipated, and S can’t meet the terms of the contract. It may not even be S’s fault, but that of a third party. For example, a supplier to S or a spike in prices triggers the problem. B and S are both dissatisfied. Each considers the other inflexible given the circumstances. In other words, they have a conflict of interest. In order to have anticipated the problem and have written the contract to deal with it would have required omniscience. Both are rational and they have a conflict of interest.

I disagree. The only conditions Ayn Rand gave were that two men were applying for the same job and only one could be hired. She said nothing about one being a friend of the boss's son. So all your extrapolating makes it not Ayn Rand's example, but yours. She said nothing about one applicant trusting the other, or one owing loyalty to the other, or even knowing one another.

It is obvious from the rest of what you wrote after your quoting Wikipedia that you don’t understand the significance of “primary interest” and “secondary interest.” Here is a shorter and clearer explanation. “A conflict of interest arises when what is in a person’s best interest is not in the best interest of another person or organization to which that individual owes loyalty.” Maybe the following will clarify it more. Let P1 = primary interest and P2 = secondary interest. P2 owes loyalty to P1. P1 (or somebody else) trusts P2 to act in P1’s best interest. The relationship might come about in various ways. P1 could choose P2, expecting P2 to act on behalf of P1 and in P1’s best interest. P2 might be chosen otherwise, such as by a court of law, a government agency, or non-profit organization. Common situations where conflicts of interest could arise are: - P2 = doctor and P1 = patient of P2; - P2 = lawyer and P1 = client of P2; - P2 = person P1 hires to manage P1’s investments. In each case P2 is trusted and owes loyalty to make P1’s best interest primary. For example, if P2 is a doctor, P2 is expected to act in P1’s best interest regarding P1’s health. Suppose there are different treatments for treating P1’s health. P2 choosing not the best treatment for P1’s health, but the most expensive one, or the one that maximizes P2’s income would be a breach of trust. For another example, suppose P1 engage money manager P2 to manage P1’s investments, and P2 has discretion in choosing what to invest in. Suppose P2 prioritizes and chooses investments that generate high commissions or fees paid to P2, as opposed to choosing ones that maximize the expected return and safety for P1. That would be a breach of trust conflict of interest violation by P2. It should be obvious by now that the only example Ayn Rand gave in her essay – two people pursuing the same job that only one of them can get – doesn’t even come close to satisfying the conditions described above. Neither job applicant owes loyalty to the other. Nether commits a breach of trust. In many such cases the two applicants would be complete strangers to one another and have no relationship with one another whatever.

I have explained to you what the topic is and given you lucid examples. It was like talking past you, because you didn't understand the topic well enough to rationally discuss it. Cretins, I have observed, are unable to conceive what I was talking about, and they are only interested in shouting their own a priori, subjectivist views of the topic.

Somehow I was reminded that Ayn Rand's idea of conflicts of interest was discussed in Reason Papers in July 2013 (link). Eyal Mozes reviewed Tara Smith’s Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics. In Section 2 of his review, he harshly criticized what Smith wrote about conflicts of interest. Carrie-Ann Biondi and Irfan Khawaja responded to Mozes' review. None of the four indicated awareness of the ordinary meaning of 'conflict of interest'.

According to https://coinmarketcap.com/ there are now 4668 cryptocurrencies. Stunning. Binance is #3 in market cap. Bitcoin is #1 and Ethereum #2.

John Dewey on rights and government

NY Times spreads ITEP falsehoods and propaganda

Look again. There are links to Stansberry Research videos in the article.

I hate Stansberry Research videos. 1. No timer to see the duration. 2. Full of hype.

Medicare Advantage analysis | Federal spending spree

https://aynrandstudies.com/subscriptions/

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Cointelegraph reports that Fidelity Investments has filed for SEC approval of a bitcoin-linked ETF. However, the author deems it unlikely to get approval due to concentration of risk or lack of diversity of assets. "With equity funds, the SEC doesn’t want any single stock to comprise more than 25% of an ETF’s basket size as measured by market capitalization." Despite this, Fidelity already offers investing in Bitcoin and Ethereum indirectly. Two of several ways are Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (ticker: GBTC) and Grayscale Ethereum Trust (ticker: ETHE). A buyer owns "shares", not a "wallet." Oddly, Fidelity's profile of GBTC says: "Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) is an exchange traded fund launched and managed by Grayscale Investments, LLC. The fund invests in Bitcoins. It invests through derivatives such as futures, swaps, and other CFTC-regulated derivatives that reference digital currencies" (my bold). More directly investing in cryptocurrency is available at crypto-dedicated exchanges such as Coinbase or Binance. https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/ https://www.investopedia.com/best-crypto-exchanges-5071855

Bitcoin, hedging, speculation Like this article https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/a-deep-dive-into-bitcoins-contango says, “contango” refers to a situation where the futures price of a commodity is higher than the spot price. Bitcoin’s contango is the main topic of this article. Instead, I will use part of it to comment about hedging (decreasing risk) and speculation (increasing risk). From the article: “Currently, the spot price (market price for bitcoin on exchanges) trades lower than futures prices. The spread for the June futures contract is more than 25 percent annualized on most major exchanges. This means that anyone can buy bitcoin and use that bitcoin as collateral to sell the June futures contract. This trade locks in a risk-free 6 percent USD-denominated return (more than 25 percent annualized) no matter where the price of bitcoin goes over the following months. The only risk is exchange custody (losing coins due to poor management or hacks).” This is true and a hedged situation if the futures seller did not borrow $US (or another fiat currency) in order to buy the bitcoin. The bitcoin can be used to make delivery to the futures buyer when the futures contract expires. However, it is false and speculative if the futures seller will borrow $US later in order to buy and later deliver the bitcoin. Suppose bitcoin’s spot price is $60,000 and the futures price is $63,600 (= $60,000 x 1.06). Suppose bitcoin’s spot price moves to $65,000 and the futures seller then buys or borrows and buys. Then he will pay $65,000 but must deliver at $63,600, a $1,400 loss. Suppose instead bitcoin’s spot price falls to $55,000 and the futures seller then borrows and buys. Then he will pay $55,000 and will deliver at $63,600, a $8,600 gain. In either case, subtract any cost of borrowing. (The futures seller might unwind his contract before delivery and the gain or loss will differ. But I ignore that for simplicity.)