Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rearden_Steel

  1. Wow, So many things wrong in that statement I don't even know were to begin. !. "Government didn't cause Great Depression. Neither did free market. Humans caused Great Depression. Specifically working class. Market worked very well." First to say that the market didn't cause the depression and that humans did is rather funny. Who is exactly is the market then? 2. "Market worked very well. Economy was completely restructured by 1933. But there was 25% unemployment." No, the market was working miserably. In 1929 prices in stocks doubled. The fed rose the interest rates and the market fell by 60%. That's hardly working well. This usually starts a spiral in the economy beginning with one of the following: Deterioration in bank balance sheets/Increased interest rates/stock market decline/Increase in uncertainty. This in turn leads to Adverse selection and moral hazards (Bailouts and government programs) which leads to economic declines which then begins a bank panic then more adverse selection ect... 3. "Economy was completely restructured by 1933. But there was 25% unemployment. Real free-market solution would be to kill those workers(or let them starve to death). Because they can't adapt fast enough. Humans are obsolete. They can't keep up with progress. Even without minimum wage there was no place for them in economy." No. Because of the "economic restructuring" you mention ie the "New Deal" there was actually less capital investment available to industry. The funny thing is that it was the exact opposite of what you describe. There was a huge reduction in capital spending for factories and machinery. This is because the government programs lead to what is called crowding out. When the government expands its expenditures it may discourage or crowd out the private sector in the same market. This excesses in government spending can result in low private-sector borrowing and decrease the amount of private investment. This is largely do to the fact that returns on government debt are typically lower than that of private debt. This results in slower economic growth. When the Federal government's fiscal policy increases spending, it must either create a deficit or create a increase of surplus. In both cases expansionary policy has a direct effect upon the bond market.hen Increased government spending increases the deficit or reduces the surplus the Treasury increase its sells of bonds then it would have otherwise. This causes a shift in the bond supply curve to the right. This creates a rise in the interest rates due to the reduced price in bond this increase in bond interest rate depletes the amount of capital available for private investment. This also creates a demand for dollars thus reducing the supply in the foreign exchange market. The result is a raise in the foreign exchange market. A higher exchange reduces net exports. This results in the change in the aggregate demand curve. Before the government interference real GDP was at equilibrium by the intersection of AD1 and the short-run aggregate supply curve. If there was no negative impact the government expenditures would have shifted outward to AD2. But the increase is offset by the loss of investment and exports. This creates a aggregate demand curve shift to only AD3. In the short-run this leads to a slight increase to GDP to Y2 but also higher price level at P2. 4. "But humans are unnecessary for economy. Machines can completely replace human labor. therefore free market doesn't guarantee that there will always be demand for human workers. Economy simply doesn't need any humans." Incorrect. Humans are the economy. Why would a company produce outside of the demand function? If there is less jobs and revenue then output will decline because of the rise of the LM point will be above equilibrium. In other words they would be producing more goods than what is demanded. This goes back into what economist call the consumption function. Income is an important factor in what determines the amount of goods you will consume. The Consumption function goes as follows: C=a+(MPCxY^D) Where "a" stands for the autonomous consumer expenditure that is independent of of disposable income and MPC is the marginal propensity to consume. This expresses the change in expenditure with that results in an additional dollar to disposable income. This brings us to the aggregate demand function. The aggregate demand function is the vertical sum of the consumption fuction line and planned investment spending. This gives the location of were demand for goods produce lies. If a company produces above the equilibrium line it will be saddled with tons of unsold inventory. So you can see how silly it is to speak of the economy and production independent of humans and demand.
  2. What a bunch of BS, here is a good article from the WSJ: Putting the Brakes on the GM IPO Fervor
  3. But your theory falls apart in super bowl thirty where Dallas beat Pittsburgh. Dallas's offense ranked fifth in the NFL and Pittsburgh's defense was ranked third NFL. Yet the more dominant offense won out. Naturally there are many examples of dominate offenses and defenses winning games. Unfortunately you can't just wrap the whole thing in a neat little equation and say dominate defenses always win. There's too many variables in play.
  4. What about the Imam who's building the WTC mosque? Is he getting billed for all their police protection?
  5. \If your talking west coast offense and super bowls then you also have to include: Mike Shanahan's (former Walsh asst) two wins with Denver, Mike Holmgren (Walsh asst) and also John Gruden (Holmgren asst) with Tampa Bay. 9>6.
  6. I don't think Obama is dumb enough to let foreign troops on US soil. Could you imagine the outcry? This is just political grandstanding that has no merit. Obama just wants to point to the opposition and say; see the world agrees with me.
  7. I recognize their right to build the mosque. However, I think their jerks for doing so. Why do they have to build it right there? Really? Right next to the world trade center, in New York's financial district? That can't be coincidental. And how much did they spend to get that land? That location had to be expensive as hell. Its all in really bad taste. If the builders of the mosque want to improve relations then why do they insist on putting the mosque in such a delicate location? Plus, the name of the mosque is "Cordoba" which is the name of the Mosque that Islam created when they conquered Spain. The very word Cordoba is synonyms with conquering of the west in the Islamic world. The Japanese didn't try and build a cultural center over Pearl Harbor. The US didn't build an American University over Hiroshima, Germany doesn't build its embassies over former Holocaust sites. Why? Because it would be an insult to that nation and they have respect for the sites and the people that died there. I guess we can't expect the same from the Muslim world. That speaks volumes about their culture.
  8. Apparently he is in Minnesota now. I think he is going to play. My theory is he just doesn't want to be in camp. Walter Jones used to do the same thing every year to Seattle.
  9. Only about 100,000 people decide the Republican primary in Connecticut.
  10. Ahhh....Sweet vindication! Referee Bill Leavy apologizes to Seahawks for bad calls made during Superbowl XL. First Okung finally signs now this. Its a good day to be Seahawk fan.
  11. Do you mean the Hayek vs. Keynes video? Or is there another one I don't know about?
  12. Political atmosphere? How about a UK judge acquitting the "kingnorth six" from The Guardian: This shouldn't be a pissing contest about which country has the worst radicals. However, the environmentalist are holding the UK hostage, even at the judicial level. A persons property could be damaged or rights taken away by vigilantism which the UK's legal system is unwilling to prevent. Sorry guy, but that's much worse than Fox censoring their own cartoon.
  13. Greenpeace Shuts London BP Forecourts So a group walk onto private property vandalized it and illegally sealed off the business while impersonating its employees. And the London police just watched. Wow. I can tell you right now that kind of thing would not fly in the US. Not to mention the vandalized power plant awhile ago were the perpetrators were released by the judge because "they strongly believed in their cause". Does the UK have any rights?
  14. Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants Umm.... yea.
  15. No, I figured they were full of it. That's why I asked for clarification.
  16. Is this correct? I read it here: Haters Go After the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. If this is true I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
  17. Well they let him go. Once again the rat scurries free. Authorities dispute Polanski case miscommunication.
  18. No it works. I live in Vancouver and pay no state income tax. When I want to go shopping I just drive across the bridge into Portland where there is no sales tax.
  19. The difference being is contract. The two journalist went to North Korea and China despite warnings from the State Department and the US Embassies. They ignored those warnings and through their own actions put themselves in peril. The Oil rigs were purchased and licensed with the Venezuelan government and had contracts with the same. Venezuela then violated those contracts and sized the property of US citizens. Its imperative that the US protect and enforces contracts for its foreign commerce. Without which foreign trade would be impossible. The Journalist went to a place were they were not supposed to be and were warned so by all parties involved. Where as the US oil company had peaceful agreements made with good faith between two foreign parties. The Journalist in their case were willful violators of agreement and policy. The government of Venezuela in their case were the violators. The journalist took a risk as interlopers where the oil companies had their rights violated through breech of contract. That's the difference.
  20. His unfortunate zeal for spiritualism came to him late in life. Within a few short years he lost his wife, brother, two brothers in law and his beloved nephew. He sank deep into depression at the start of the twentieth century. Sadly I think he began to lose his sanity...as all spiritualist have.
  21. Holmes quit his cocaine habit after the second the "Sign of Four" with the help of Doctor Watson.
  • Create New...