Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rearden_Steel

  1. Government didn't cause Great Depression. Neither did free market. Humans caused Great Depression. Specifically working class. Market worked very well. 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. Free market economy ensures fastest economic growth. 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.

    Austrians believe that Roosevelt was evil, however he was forced to try to save those unnecessary 25% of workers otherwise they would probably destroy system. But Great Depression happened worldwide, many people couldn't find jobs, and capitalists didn't do enough to save them. I believe that's one of major reasons of WWII, technological advancements and capital accumulation lead to millions of workers that economy didn't need and those millions killed each other plus enough capital was destroyed so demand for previously unemployed workers was created again.

    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. Gruden? I think not. Tampa won for its defense. Which, BTW, he inherited from former Steeler Tony Dungy, and one of his defensive assistant coaches was soon-to-be-Steeler Mike Tomlin. Anyway, the defense scored 21 points, as many points as it allowed the Raiders to score.

    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.

  3. If you have been paying attention, you will know that it is not actually a mosque. If the sponsors can raise the money (which remains to be seen), it would contain a prayer room, but also a restaurant, a 500-seat theatre, basketball courts and a swimming pool that would be open to all. It would not have a minaret, but there would be a memorial to the 3 000 people (in cluding 300 Muslims) who died in the 9/11 attacks. Now, what is wrong about it?

    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.

  4. Would that they have kept Favre, hey?

    The Favre Soap, Part III, seems to have gone on hiatus. I really don't care much anymore.

    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.

  5. As I predicted months ago. Much as some here liked Schiff's policy positions, there was never any evidence to support the belief he had a chance of winning. Reality trumps wishful thinking once again. The country would be in better shape if voters were willing to elect candidates like Schiff, but it is still earlier than you think.

    Only about 100,000 people decide the Republican primary in Connecticut.

  6. I agree, but it does have something to do with the political atmosphere. Ie if FOX's audience got their way abortion would be made illegal. By banning the Family Guy episode, FOX is implicitly agreeing that abortion rights are wrong or at least distasteful.

    The UK has no such Christian pressures.

    Political atmosphere? How about a UK judge acquitting the "kingnorth six"

    from The Guardian:

    The six were acquitted after arguing that they were legally justified in their actions to prevent climate change from causing greater damage to property around the world. It was the first case where preventing property damage caused by climate change has been used as part of a "lawful excuse" defense in court.

    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.

  7. Now I turn the tables. Name three rights that Americans have that Brits don't.

    Greenpeace Shuts London BP Forecourts

    The whole forecourt is sealed off with high metal fences; the signs outside saying “Closed. Moving beyond Petroleum” look very like official BP signage. Reports say that the environmentalists have also stopped the fuel supply at 50 service stations by flipping safety switches on the forecourts and then removing them to prevent the petrol stations from reopening.

    No-one has been arrested in connection with the protests, but the Metropolitan police said that they were aware of the protests and were monitoring the situation.

    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?

  8. " To begin with, the proposed Islamic center – not a mosque, but the Muslim equivalent of the YMCA – a nonprofit foundation wants to build in New York City isn’t at "ground zero," it is four blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.

    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.

  9. There are other taxes: property tax, sales tax. Also, I suppose, the rules for taxes on businesses may be different from the rules for taxes on individuals.

    Using tax-rates to decide where to live, here is a suggestion: live and work in Vancouver, WA. It is a suburb of Portland, OR. No state income tax in Washinton state. Then, do all your shopping in Portland and the Oregonian suburbs -- no sales tax. [We have some Portland folks here. I have a feeling they're going to tell me that this won't work, because the bureaucrats have covered this "loophole"].

    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.

  10. Just to clarify, it is the US government's obligation to protect the rights of Americans outside of its jurisdiction, not just within its borders? How does this compare to those who didn't want Bill Clinton to go get those two journalists from North Korea? My understanding was "the US can't protect you when you're outside of the US." What should have been done instead?

    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.

  11. What I find so fascinating is that the creator of Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, was very different from the analytical and rational Holmes and the down-to-earth, common-sense doctor Watson (although I think that Watson was modelled after Doyle himself, who also was a physician), he was an enthusiastic believer in spiritism and other "paranormal phenomena" and even thought that the very obviously fake photos of the Cottingly fairies were real. Nothing could be more removed from the rational world of Holmes and Watson. On the other hand, there is his series of SF books with Professor Challenger. The first books, like "The Lost World" are still a nice read, but "The Land of Mist" is an embarrassing read, with its defense of spiritism, the once so fierce Challenger swallows it hook, line and sinker. But nothing of that can be found in the Holmes stories. (IIRC there is a reference in one of the stories to some spiritual explanation, which is rejected however).

    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.

  12. Welcome - I still feel like a newbie to Objectivism too. Welcome to the best ride of your life.

    I think that insofar as Holmes is holding strictly to reason, then yes, he is being objective. He certainly holds himself to reason far more than anyone around him, people who are ready to attribute crimes to spirits and innocent men. I loved how, in the recent movie, everyone else was convinced of magical forces at work, but his strict adherence to reality led him to the real cause.

    I wouldn't say that he is uniformly rational though. One of Holmes's flaws is that he lacks purpose unless he has a crime to solve, and in those times of boredom he indulges in his cocaine addiction. That is not in his long-term self-interest!

    But despite this flaw, he feels most alive when he is using his mind to solve a case.

    Holmes quit his cocaine habit after the second the "Sign of Four" with the help of Doctor Watson.

  • Create New...