gags
-
Posts
1755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by gags
-
-
If there were ever a time to make your opinion known to your representatives, this is it.
-
That's true. In fact, I'd say property rights is the only true right. All other rights like "right to jobs", "right to a home" are socialist measures that lead to totalitarianism.
A right is a freedom of action in a social context and the most fundamental of those rights is man's right to his own life. One doesn't have a "right" to property owned and/or produced by others. Thus there is no right to healthcare, food, a home, or a job.
-
There’s no doubt that you’ve identified one of the problems with just looking at the end value of goods manufactured here in the US. Nevertheless, I think it’s still the best single measure to review when trying to judge your statement that we don’t make anything here in the US anymore.Yes, I see your point however like I said how do you measure industrial production? Though the GDP? Like I showed on the previous post those numbers are artificially risen by counting foreign inputs so they are not an accurate way to measure industrial output. That's not real production. They only reason they piece them together here is to avoid tariffs. These things could be assembled anywhere.
The problem with capacity utilization is that it rises as capacity is reduced. For example, in the US auto industry the current recession and the resulting bankruptcies of auto suppliers have caused there to be a drop in capacity, which would cause the utilization index to increase even as production remains stagnant. I don’t see how that index backs up your statement that we don’t make anything here anymore. The problem with employment stats is that the number of manufacturing jobs is declining in the US because of increasing productivity. By the way, the same thing is happening in China, where productivity is also increasing. So, this doesn’t help your argument either. Finally, the trade imbalance is impacted by a number of different variables and to claim that it is worsening, thus showing that we aren’t making anything here, is fairly ridiculous.The only way you can really judge us production is through the Manufacturing capacity utilization rate index, the level of industrial employment, and the deficit in trade all these things have fallen not just in the last year but have been declining in the last twenty.The utilization of industry, the increase of industrial jobs and exports are rapidly rising in most of Asia but falling here. Look at the deficit. It rises as our utilization of industry falls.
Having said all of that, I think that government regulation and the threat of unionization are making it more and more difficult to manufacture things here in the US. In that sense, I agree with you on some level.
-
Yes, they have a final bill in the Senate and are planning to vote on it at 1:00 am on Monday morning.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091220/ap_on_...h_care_overhaul
-
I must admit that I got a minor kick out of the fact that Obama returned from the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen to a raging blizzard in D.C. where they were predicting as much as two feet of snow.
-
Seeing how very little is produced in the US anymore...
This article from 2007 (prior to the current recession) directly contradicts your statement:
The United States makes more manufactured goods today than at any time in history, as measured by the dollar value of production adjusted for inflation -- three times as much as in the mid-1950s, the supposed heyday of American industry. Between 1977 and 2005, the value of American manufacturing swelled from $1.3 trillion to an all-time record $4.5 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.With less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States is responsible for almost one-fourth of global manufacturing, a share that has changed little in decades. The United States is the largest manufacturing economy by far. Japan, the only serious rival for that title, has been losing ground. China has been growing but represents only about one-tenth of world manufacturing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/02/AR2007090201189.html?hpid=topnews
I think you've made the common mistake of assuming that because we are in a long term trend of declining manufacturing employment, we are also producing less. That simply isn't the case. The other mistake you've made is to look at the recent decline in manufacturing (due to the recession) and assume that it will continue. It will not, and there is recent evidence that manufacturing has begun to bounce back as the economy rebounds.
-
This is the key to your question about whether Strategic Default is immoral. As you've correctly stated above, the relationship between borrower and lender is governed by a contract and that contract provides for certain consequences in the event of a default. If the situation is such that one party must default, then that party should be willing to suffer the consequences spelled out in the contract. None of this reaches the level of immorality unless a party enters a contract with the intention to defraud the other party. If, for example, one mortgaged a property and then added a second mortgage without recording/notifying the bank of the first mortgage, then that would be fraud and clearly immoral. This sort of thing has certainly occured, but it's not the situation you have described. By the way, businesses commit "Strategic Defaults" on loans all of the time and nobody brings up the issue of morality. I don't see how such a default on a mortgage is any different.The same could be said for Strategic Default. Clearly if you enter into a mortgage for the sole purpose of collecting free rent for 12-18 months (thank you, "foreclosure assistance" programs) then that is fraud. However if you and the bank had a plan, and it involved the house price doubling in five years and both sides making lots of money--and that plan went south--then both parties should revert to the legal contract in question, which of course spells out the procedure when the plan goes wrong.In the current state of the US housing market, it would appear that the contracts written heavily favor the home occupier over the lender. That people are simply taking advantage of a favorable situation is perfectly "fine" as long as they didn't plan it that way from the start.Whether the contract is written in favor of one party or the other has no moral implications (assuming no force was involved).
-
This has been the norm for so long now... at what point does Atlas shrug?
That point may come sooner rather than later. As much as the push to restrict carbon use concerns me, I'm far more upset about the fact that socialized healthcare now looks like it will surely pass in the Senate. This country is in a tail spin and all of the parachutes were just thrown out of the back of the plane.
-
It's now being reported that the Democrats have gathered the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to pass their healthcare bill. Nobody other than Harry Reid knows for sure what's in the bill, but it will be passed anyhow. Socialized healthcare will be a complete fiscal, moral, and life-destroying disaster for America. This is what we get for years of embracing bad philosophy and voting for jackasses who are happy to put that philosophy into action.
-
No, no, you see, it's not protectionism, it's just the government advertising its own products...
Ha, Government Motors is alive and well..... Or better yet, "What's good for Government Motors is good for America."
-
That's one of the beauties (from the perspective of a statist) of the VAT. It gets collected along the production process, so it's more than just a national sales tax. It will be very hard to avoid. Many of the European countries have VATs, so I can hear the arguments already: "The US is the only developed country without a VAT...."
-
The politicians and their willing accomplices in the media are starting to float the idea of a national Value Added Tax, or "VAT", to extract more wealth from the American economy. Of course, we can’t continue to run annual government deficits well in excess of a trillion dollars and the only way to pay for this kind of massive overspending is through a broad based tax like the VAT. Predictably, the New York Times leads the way with a recent article that deals favorably with the idea of a VAT:
“We have to start paying our bills eventually,” said Charles E. McLure, a tax economist who worked in the Reagan administration. “This strikes me as the best and most obvious way of doing it.”
The favored route of economists is known as a value-added tax, which is a tax on goods and services that is collected at every step along the production chain, from raw material to a consumer’s shopping bag. Similar to a sales tax, it generally results in consumers paying more for the things they buy. The revenues could be used to pay for health care or other social programs, or just to pay down existing debt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/business/11vat.html?_r=1&hpw
The NYT isn’t the only place where there is talk of a VAT. Quite a few business executives see this coming as well:
The prospect of the enactment of a value-added tax in the United States is getting closer – five years and counting, according to a Tax Governance Institute survey.
More than half of the senior business executives surveyed by TGI expect some type of value-added tax to be introduced in the United States within five years. In fact, 57 percent of the executives in the survey said they believe VAT legislation will be introduced within five years, while 18 percent expect it within 10 years.
The huge increase in government spending coupled with diminishing sources of revenue makes it increasingly likely.
http://www.webcpa.com/news/VAT-Coming-to-US-52704-1.html
So hold onto your pocketbooks, the latest money grab is being designed right now by your elected representatives in Washington D.C.
-
The question is, which of the two, the religious Republicans or generally, widely irrational Dems is the biggest threat. The Republicans are organized on two levels and have a common belief. At least the Dems vary and disagree in a lot of ways, and their political viewpoint is soundly discredited.
I think you're giving too much credit to the Republicans. They aren't nearly as organized or as monolithic as some make them out to be, although they definitely do better at sticking together when they're out of power than when they're in-power. I don't know why people seem to think that the Dem's political viewpoint is soundly discredited. For being discredited, a lot of Americans sure did vote for that viewpoint in 2008. So many in fact that the Dems now control both houses of Congress and we have a far-left President leading the country in the wrong direction on almost every significant issue. If that's discredited, I'd hate to see what happens when their view becomes accepted.
-
The concept of lobbying was originally considered by the Founding Fathers to be the process of people petitioning government for a redress of their grievances (see the 1st Amendment). In that sense, there is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying. The problem arises when government is allowed to regulate, tax, and control things that are outside of its core functions, which should focus on protecting individual rights (national defense, police, courts). So, in today's context, when (for example) big pharmacy companies send their lobbyists to Washington to seal a healthcare deal with President Obama, the definition you referenced that mentions "a mixed economy", "threats, bribes and blackmail", isn't too far off the mark.
-
In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand wrote (and rightly so) that "nothing is outside the province of reason". However, she defined reason as the following:
"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."
Leaving aside the fact that sensory perception (sense-based identification) is not excluded by this definition ("identified ... by man's senses"), and is not a rational process, does anyone see a problem here?
How does the fact that sensory perception is an automatic process (Ms. Rand acknowledges this) and not a rational one cause a contradiction with her definition of reason? Reason is applied to our sensory perceptions, thus those perceptions are not outside the province of reason.
-
Economics: the science that studies the principles relating to the creation and exchange of wealth.
Price: the equilibrium point between the amount of a good available for sale and the demand for it (in a given context).
The definition of economics that I recall from college Econ 101 was something more along the lines of: The study of how scarce resources are allocated through the forces of supply and demand. Sometimes people go a bit further with it and break economics down into Macro and Micro.
As far as "price" is concerned, snerd's definition makes more sense. You might say that I'm in the business of pricing certain kinds of assets and I can tell you that people often pay more or less than what one determines to be the equilibrium point for the supply and demand of an item. Prices are frequently set by a whole host of factors other than supply and demand.
-
There is a real question, namely whether the word "sound" refers exclusively to sounds that are perceived. If you define "sound" as "the perception of an acoustic waveform" then tautologically it would; my point simply is that this is not the correct definition of "sound".Perhaps.
Yes, Organon seems to be confusing the definition of "sound" with the action of hearing. Clearly the two are not the same.
-
The use of "extreme" goes back to the 1960s at least, because Ayn Rand wrote an essay on it "Extremism and the art of Smearing", iirc.
Right, wasn't it Barry Goldwater who said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." during the 1964 presidential campaign?
-
This certainly isn't a new development, but many members of the religious left have become very involved in the environmental movement. Diana Hsieh discussed this recent article in her blog:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009...6-climate_N.htm
-
Agreed, atleast in Obama's case. Listen to him here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sy9kMxOEVs
He makes his position on the bible clear.
I haven't bothered to look, but I'd bet one can also find video clips of Obama talking about how he's deeply religious, etc... Let's face it, politicians like Obama play to their audience, saying whatever they think will resonate with the crowd. One minute he's secular and the next minute he's a committed religionist.
By the way, reading some of my earlier posts in this thread makes me look like friggin' Nostradamus.
Obama is fulfilling all of my worst expectations. -
Sophia, I would argue that the redistribution of wealth from the West to the developing world is part and parcel of the Red hiding under the green.
Absolutely. How pathetic when the delegates at Copenhagen give the Marxist thug Hugo Chavez a standing ovation and then demand a handout from the capitalist countries responsible for creating most of the world's wealth that they're trying to grab.
-
The spinmeisters of the Clinton Administration were fond of using the word "extreme" when describing their political opponents. Clinton and his gaggle of statists loved to throw the "extremist" charge at Newt Gingrich and his gaggle of statists. Since then, the Left has continued to use it as a favorite term when describing almost anyone who opposes their policies.
-
The latest poll I could locate is from early November. It shows Schiff with 5% in the primary. He was trailing other Republicans Simmons, Foley and McMahon at that time.
-
HAH! I knew it! I called it just based on the movie trailer that thing thing was going to be extremely anti-man. I guessed just from the trailer the thing would be full of stuff about how bad humans are in comparison to this other ancient culture which exists in harmony with nature and is all peaceful and blah blah.
I had the same reaction after seeing the trailer. They won't get my $10 for a ticket to this one.
E=mc2. Why is that?
in Physics and Mathematics
Posted
Why not? It's more useful knowledge than what the OP put up for discussion.