Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rearden_Steel

  1. Schrödinger himself described the thought experiment as an example of the absurdness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. His intentions were that the mathematics had to have been flawed and gave an example of how it contradicts reality. However, many people have seemed to have taken his thought experiment to mean the exact opposite; if your calculations lead to bizarre conclusion that contradict reality then your math must be correct and its reality that must be wrong. Schrodinger was trying to demonstrate that if your conclusions lead to an obvious contradiction then your premise must be incorrect.
  2. I'm currently in Florida. I'll move back for the elections though.
  3. I thought it was a boxing term. Like when a boxing manager working his fighters corner, or when someone says their in your corner.
  4. Why? Is there a dead hooker in your closet?
  5. Two thirds of the interview is nothing but retarded liberals talking over him. I can't stand MSNBC.
  6. You should listen to his podcast, this would answer a lot of the questions you have. There should be a new one posting today.
  7. What? He was the headlining speaker at the "End the Fed" rally just a couple of months ago.
  8. Yes, but our situation is more dire because of the vice that we have on our labor laws compounded by our lack of savings as well as massive debt. Other counties are living more within their means. Although other counties also have restraints many of them are not operating on debt and cheap credit like we are. Its like comparing a stove fire to a forest fire and saying that their both equally problematic. Standard of living has nothing to do with the increase of cost. Actually the more a country produces with minimal interferences from the state results in higher standard of living and cheaper prices like that which was experienced in the US and the turn of the 19th century.
  9. But were still bound by our currency, central bank and labor laws. The fact that the Chinese can produce something simple like a child's wooden play set and ship it clear to the other side of the world and still undercut the domestic producers speaks volumes. We are all ready starting to see decoupling of the economies with Asia.
  10. Apparently this take over has been planned all along. English version: This is the official state newspaper where battle orders and government announcements are presented. Current orders are to fight in Sorlandet, the region has to be won at all costs. Finland and Norway have agreed that Finland takes the remaining Norwegian regions in custody to wipe Norway off the map, thus deleting all Norway's open wars and triggered MPPs. After the operation is complete, Norway will be returned to the world map, free of the Russian threat. Everyone is asked to fight in Sorlandet to the best of their ability, both today and tomorrow.
  11. Oh, ok I see it now. I have been carefully saving for over three weeks now, if I had lost that money I would have been pissed. I still don't see how they took the region so fast. Especially when the site was down for a long period after midnight.
  12. Both really. Either way their still losing money. From the Ludwig von Mises institute:
  13. What the hell! Apparently Sweden took over Vestlandet in the middle of the night in just a few hours! I thought that couldn't happen and they had to wait for a 24 hour seize window. My savings have been wiped out and even though I'm in the same region as my company I went to work and wasn't paid. What the hell is going on? After this I'm seriously considering dropping the game.
  14. Whatever her age and opinion is now the case has to be presented under the circumstances at the time it was committed. When she was thirteen she was the responsibility and property of her parents. Whatever she thinks or says now is ex post facto.
  15. Well said. I completely agree. This is a political issue. Which is why Schiff decided to run even though he much rather run his own business. He stated on his last radio show that he looks forward to the day when he can be bullish about the US economy. Well have to see how the politics play out. What I fear though is that Obama and his goons will continue to blame the free market for the economy's ills and insist that further controls and spending is needed.
  16. But she was thirteen at the time it happened. If her parents pressed charges at the time of the incident what ever she thinks now is irrelevant. I wasn't aware of the civil suit.
  17. All right I have more questions then I do time so I will only address a couple at a time. What your not understanding is that the foreign debt doesn't just concern the government but the whole economy as a whole. The problem in two pronged because it both sends false signals to the economy as well as destroys wealth. As the Fed sells T-Bills, the revenues go into the Fed balance sheet. Banks then borrow the money from the Fed through short term loans and commercial paper. Roughly $212 billion in loans was made available from the fed to banks just this past week alone, the same goes for the previous week. If there is a lot of money in the economy, interest rates will drop because banks will have an easier time of procuring money to loan. Due to the nature of Fractional Reserve Banking, the rate set by the Fed winds up increasing the money supply. Meaning as the rate is lowered, more money is "printed" into existence. The creation of all this new money has the artificial effect of lowering rates for things like mortgages because the supply of money just got that much bigger - hence demand falls, so rates need to fall as well to attract borrowers. The important thing to understand is that this increase in deposits at banks was not the natural result of savings - instead it was because of the artificial "money creation" following the Feds rate adjustment. In a free-market, interest rates provide crucial information about the state of the economy, just like prices. Low interest rates signal that money is plentiful, without monetary intervention, that would actually mean that our economy is in a state of prosperity, which is an environment that is more favorable to risk taking. The fed effectively tricked the market into thinking it was a good opportunity to take part in risky behavior because they think their is increased savings.
  18. Why is everyone defending this guy? Any one who says he should be released should be ashamed of themselves! I also hate it when the press say he was charge with "having sex with a underage girl". He drugged and raped a child!! Europe has completely lost its damn mind. San Diego Reader:
  19. What you don't realize is that the private services are being funded by foreign debt through the t-bills and the fed. The money that's there for goods and services would not be near as close to where it is without foreign debt. The amount of wealth and production in this country comes no were close to the amount were accurately consuming. It's not that services are bad it's that the U.S. service economy was a sham. It's very possible to have a service economy, but America did not and does not have it. It has a fake economy.The only truly profitable service industry in America is the entertainment industry. Movies, games, books, and porn. These things are Made In America goods.Everything else is either a scam (Wallstreet) or unprofitable (Detroit) or non-existent (The South) or communist (agriculture, dept. of defense, government jobs in general). Schiff is arguing that the trade deficit + exponentially increasing debt + inflation means that our service economy is phony. If the services we export were of equal value to the products we import there would be no deficit. The problem is that we have been borrowing money in order to service ourselves, then we pretend that consumption = GDP. The issue is that people need to buy goods, not just services. If the only thing Americans make are services then goods must be produced elsewhere. This means that the net money flow is out of the US; i.e. the huge trade deficit. If Americans manufactured goods then the money would stay within the economy. So, if money flows out of the economy but doesn't flow back, what happens? The available money supply in the US drops, so the value of the dollar increases -- deflation, the bane of Keynesian economists. To compensate, the Fed prints more money so the money that people hold loses value while the economy in the US remains functional. Since people holding cash don't want to lose value they have to invest it. Where is the best place to invest it? Back in the US, the "powerhouse" of the world. So the foreign governments and investors lend the money we gave them back to us. Now, not only do we owe these investors the original principle back, but we also owe them interest. Since the net flow of wealth is out from the US, how do we do we pay them back? Inflation! We pay them back with worthless money. So, as you can see, the answer is always inflation, a terrible and invisible tax that destroys all wealth.
  20. Come on Jake that's hyperbole and you know it. However, I assume your not understanding the principle behind it. So here we go: You forget that the dollars that the Asians are getting were funded through service sector that received them from a bank( loans..ect) which was back by the fed who printed them backed by US treasuries bills that were borrowed from the country that's receiving the dollar. We didn't actually produce anything with that dollar so the value was never increased. That's the problem with a "service economy" which is why a service economy is a phony one because it relies on increasing its debt in order to keep it running rather than producing actual wealth. Where are the reserves getting their value? What are we producing that is going to account for that amount of wealth? The amount of debt the U.S. Treasury needs to issue to finance day-to-day operations will drive up bond yields, and hence borrowing costs across the spectrum. Further, the amount of debt will eventually pull down the value of the dollar and the drop could be acute if foreigners who have gobbled up the bonds over the years take a pass. That would ultimately force the Fed to step in, print money and act as a buyer of last resort. I'm not exactly sure what your saying here. That is the question isn't it. The answer is when we started down this road thirty some odd years ago there was wealth and saving to be had in the US. However, today this wealth has been squandered. The truth is that their finally getting to the point were they realize that we are unable to to pay off this debt. They have been doing it to maintain a favorable trade balance but they have seemed to have gone to the well one too many times. No the Dollar was accepted as a global currency because the US government promised that for every thirty five dollars a country held that it would be redeemable for one ounce of gold. We welshed on that promise long ago. Why do you think they are discussing a replacement for the dollar at the G20 as we speak. The replacement for reserve currencies around the world will be more dynamic. The Chinese are already buying massive amounts of gold and Japan is talking about using a basket of currencies. To get a better understanding of all this I highly recommend reading Thomas Woods "Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse". This book should answer some the questions you have as well as discusses Peter Schiffs example you took offense to. I always have a hard time explaining economic issues and don't always have the time to write lengthy post like these.
  • Create New...