JASKN

My focus is not on speed, but on direction. Relatively free democratic voting means the country will probably not turn on a dime. The question is whether it moves gradually toward freedom or away from it.

In the South African context, removing all ongoing legal discrimination based on skin color was a huge step giving a lot of people freedom. The unfortunate part is that it also changes the electorate to one that wants to reduce freedom in other areas. If I look at the realistic options and consider what I would want to see in the first black post-Apartheid leader, it would be someone who keeps a check on the majority populations desire to punish the white population at large, or to go down the lines of Zimbabwe. I praise Mandela for keeping things under control with his preaching of reconciliation.
 
After this first re-setting what comes next?
 
Sure, the government and social elites are most to blame. They are the ones who take some philosophy and push it, pretend to be its champions, etc. When the population is at point X, the leadership can move it to point X+n  or to point X-m. It cannot move it much beyond while remaining democratic, because the voters won't buy it. (See Overton window). So, we should judge post-Mandela governments by how they moved the country after the initial stabilization. Leaders aid evil when they move the country away from freedom. It is something they do from a mix of reasons: to steal money for their personal bank-accounts, or for ideological reasons.
 
If African (or South American) leaders would simply roll-put a little of Herdanando de Soto's suggestions each term, their countries would thrive. In other words, within the Overton Window offered by cultural norms, it is the task of leaders to grant as much new freedom as the culture will take. That is the realistic standard against which we should judge post-Mandela governments, Japan's Abe, China's government, or Barack Obama.

The people in the East and the West are not much different. When it comes to street-smart entrepreneurship there are thousands of people running little businesses in India who would put many average U.S. middle-class people to shame if we compare their drive and the odds they overcome. Not something less about the Westerner, but the easy life of the West means one can have a good life -- by Eastern standards, a wealthy life -- by coasting along doing mediocre work in a mediocre job (not bottom of the totem pole, but still mediocre middle-class). Four generations ago, this middle-class American's great-grandfather might have been the fruit-seller who borrowed money from a pawn-shop each week, to use as working capital, and took back the wife's necklace each Friday so she could wear it to church. Like that, there are folk in India who have to turn around their working capital daily.
The real difference is the political system under which the different people live. Politically-enshrined collective statism has held them back. Ironically those ideas aren't even Eastern, but are most often imported from the West. India is statist because its early leaders after independence studied Fabian Socialism in Cambridge, Oxford and similar places. China was communist -- not an eastern system.

It does not take much to convert bazaar-minded traders to become businessmen: we see it happen routinely in the East when the traders spot even a sliver of opportunity. It does not take much to get farm-hands to migrate in droves to factory-cities, where they live in conditions that are decried by professors. Just look at the millions who migrate that way in China -- and migrate despite rules that make it difficult for them to make their migration stable and permanent. Nope... no central planner is needed... they only hurt the process.

The irony is that the bulk of the population -- in South Africa and elsewhere -- could thrive under freedom, but they have bought into an ideology that says they ought not to be given full freedom. To the extent that they vote themselves freedom, they pretty much deal with it rationally and benefit from it, yet clamor for less freedom at the ballot-box.

It's pretty tough to remake the social and political fabric of a nation just emerging from a tradition–bound past. (nevermind economic development for now). An uncomprehending peasantry must be converted into a modern farming population; a ragged bunch of casual laborers must be made over into a disciplined work force; bazaar–minded traders must become production–minded entrepreneurs.; nepotistic and corrupt bureaucracies much change into reliable civil servants. And until those changes happen, economic development will wait. 
 
It's always drawn–out and turbulent. If it could be done quickly, that would be one thing, but unfortunately that's not the prospect when you consider the logistics of development. Granted the situation isn't that black in every underdeveloped nation. But in general the implication is plain: economic development is not a smooth evolutionary prospect.

Now from our point of view, the cost of collectivism is high, because it denies political liberties and economic freedoms, among other things.. But collectivism doesn't wait for the slow, usually wasteful, growth–producing ways of the market...it just puts men where they're needed. (Stick > carrot)
 
Despite how it looks to the West, it's not so repugnant to the East/South. The harsh discipline of collectivism is much less noticeable at the margins of humanity where life is already horribly disciplined. The loss of liberty is hardly a loss to men who've never known liberty. As a method for achieving growth, it might not work for people who have a long history of past growth; but, to people who already live in misery and despair, it might be the only way of quickly escaping an insupportable life into a better future. 

These days I don't think there is any "official" Objectivism. When Objectivists get in their fights, there seems to be an even distribution of supporters for the respective sides.
But, what does it matter, really? If both sides just focused on the facts and worried less about the personalities involved, and didn't get their feelings hurt so easily, these fights wouldn't last and the quibbling over unimportant issues might be less frequent.

I just read the article and noticed it's not finished yet, it's still just a floating abstraction... :-)

I'll throw out the standard qualifier that I have no formal, or even amateur, training in psychology, and that you'd do good to get yourself to a psychologist, or at least read the writings of one online (for example, DrHurd.com).

That said, it's a myth to think that there is some "perfect" solution to anything in life. Perfection itself is a myth. Weighing pros and cons is a human approximation which works pretty well, and lucky for that, because it's "all" we've got. Or put another way, we're lucky to have the option of choice at all, unlike other animals, so that we don't have to be stuck with only what nature throws to us by chance. We're not omniscient and capable of knowing all outcomes and solutions, but neither are we hopelessly doomed to automatic reactions to the environmental stimuli around us.

And another way to look at your "indecision" is as a decision itself. Your working at a job which does not meet your personal potential is a continuous decision that you make, yielding unique results of its own, just like taking a chance working at a more challenging job would be a different choice of yours with a different set of unique results. Neither of these results could you predict "perfectly," but you can figure out a pretty good idea of the kind of life results you might expect in deciding either one. Both will have pros and cons, one might look to have better prospects than the other one, but neither will make deciding on new life circumstances in the future unnecessary. Life is an ongoing "thinking on your feet," not a "figure it all out and then do it." In fact, the only way we ever figure out how to figure out at all is by doing, doing again, doing again, doing again, doing again...

In that case, I have great news. Inside prisons, there's barely any violent crime, and no one is allowed to own any guns. So, by your idea of freedom, the prisoners are exceptionally free.

Its gobble-di-gook theory with Marxist intellectual underpinning, that conflates economic power and political power.

American workers conditions are horrible? That's what you're going with?

Thanks for the reference. I would not characterize that as Buffett giving sub-prime AAA ratings, but defending someone else's mistake in doing so.
 
Buffett himself sounded the alarm on Freddie and Fannie way before anyone else thought there was an issue. He sold his Freddie/Fannie stock when they were still high and when there was no sign of a downturn on the horizon. As often happens, people thought he was being unduly risk-averse, because those firms had an implicit government guarantee, but that wasn't reassurance for him. Similarly, a little before the downturn, he had bought a reinsurance company that had a lot of derivative risks, and he forced them to unwind their positions at significant losses. The one thing one cannot accuse Buffett of is taking one undue risk. he always plays things safe. Buffett has shown an obstinate independence when it comes to avoiding booms. If every American were to stick with Buffet's level of risk-taking (relative to their own level of assets) we'd not see such booms and busts. 
 
As for this topic, I have not read the linked article, but in my experience this particular libertarian argument usually fails to argue for any line at which a firm is justified in lobbying government or in using government-rules, subsidies, etc. to its advantage. By this logic, every bank is evil because they work under FDIC subsidy. 

Who's supporting stawman anarchism?  A voluntarily funded, constitutionally limited republic created soley for the task of upholding and defending individual rights is hardly a form of anarchism.

I reckon I agree with most of what you say about the market looking to the Fed for more QE, etc.
The way I think of recession, we are still in this great recession, and are likely to remain here for a while. That does not change the fact that even the bottom is a very rich country, with a high standard of living. Think about the world of "Grapes of Wrath", and the world at the bottom of this recent recession. Relatively, things are really very good. No credit to government policy. Instead, private individuals have figured out all sorts of ways to create values at a much lower cost.
The broad policy mistake in the current recession has been not allowing things to get worse. Consequently, people have cut back, but nowhere near enough. People are paying up mortgages, and saving slightly more, but nowhere near what they ought to be doing.
 
The U.S. will not default. There is no way the GOP will push for an actual default. And, if they were to reach there through some type of brinksmanship, there is no way the President whether GOP or Democrat will allow it to happen. Do you really think the U.S. will default on paying dollar-denominated debt, when it can pay it in full electronically at any time? You list various consequences of a default, but we're nowhere near that happening. Most of the market was yawning during all the buzz about default. The only impact was in very short term rates, where even a few days of delay could matter. 
Unfortunately, with things the way they stand, further credit-deflation and a mini-recession would actually be a good thing right now. The bad side would be that the government will pump up credit again, coming to the rescue. Nevertheless, each recession does prune some bad investments, force the recognition of some bad-debts: a dose of reality. 
Over a 10-year horizon, I would choose the dollar over the Yen, because Japan seems to be more committed to fiscal and monetary stimulus. To me, China is too risky and investment for a foreigner.
Despite everything, the U.S. still has a huge advantage in being a relative bastion of rule-of-law and stability. It is not just the U.S. dollar that foreigners want to hold. When they are rich, they look to putting some money into U.S. stocks, into U.S. real-estate (also Australia, Canada and U.K.).

I am neither proud nor embarrassed to be an American. I am lucky to be an American. I am proud to be a capitalist, rationalist, and an individualist. Being an American allows me to exercise my preferences, (well, most of them), without (much) interference from the American government or societal pressures. As for what people of other countries believe about Americans, who cares?

No it is not. The american economy is very resilient, as are most others. Americans are wealthy. Even if one concedes we're in a recession, go to any Panera Bread store and see how the middle class spend, consider how freely people spend on Starbucks coffee, or even on the latest smart phone. The crisis is relative, not absolute. By depression-era standards, we're living a life of luxury.
Political hacks like Paul Krugman like people to believe that government spending is the answer since it is the only game in town. Professors who have studied theory but not history scratch their heads and wonder why more private credit is not created when interest rates are so low. Fact is that the low interest rates a major part of what is killing traditional private credit-creation, and pushing the supply of that capital into riskier assets instead.

You're on the right track when you say innovation is the solution. The biggest effect of innovation is in lowering real costs of production, and thus making everyone richer. The U.S. has automated so much already, but there's so much more that can be done. yet, when a Keystone pipeline is proposed, people don't think the lowered cost of gas is worth the fictitious environmental harm. When Boeing tries to relocate a factory to lower its costs, the government throws a spanner in the works. When banks fail some of the guiltiest are saved, and those that are relatively innocent and even step forward to help outy are then penalized and fined. When government mandates cause health care to be so expensive, both GOP and Democrats increase those mandates further. Every year, voters -- via their government -- put more regulations in the way of business. Most of this is neutralized by innovation and by the wit of businessmen, and one sees some growth: but, the unseen is the growth that could have been.

The solution is not to have the government make more decisions about how and where people should innovate. One motivated private innovator will usually come up with more productive work than a dozen university professors who have to spend their time pleasing bureaucrats, while filing grant applications; and the lone inventor will do more than the charlatan "private" companies who get government grants to innovate, based one their selling skills to bureaucrats.

The solution is not to have more government, but for government to get out of the way. I can understand the desire to double down, and to hell with the future. However, if there is any lesson to be learn from rational philosophy -- not just Objectivism -- it is that man ought to think long term: at least across the span of his life, and the lives of the ones he loves.

You're right to point to Japan's huge debt, and to the fact that every other country seems to be heading there too. It is a good thing that we have Japan as an example. If you had to hold a CD for 10 years -- unhedged -- would you bet on a dollar-denominated CD or one denominated in Yen?

So, Solyndra is the answer! Gee, I never imagined innovation was so simple. Just create a State Science Institute and voila, innovation happens. "Disastrous" consequences ensue from sound money because we declare it so. Our only salvation is theft from the productive so that we can fund the unworthy. Wow, now I see. Stolen concepts, floating abstractions, non sequiturs, ... all we need is bad philosophy!

Good thing, too, because I know some pretty burly "sissyboys."

Do you realize that this is not correct?
Rights are first ethical principles, the ones having to do with how to treat other persons. Some of those principles are amenable to crafting into a legal system. Rights are epistemologically prior to governments. The proper motive to have a government is to better protect rights which already exist not to create them.

This actually isn't true. Rand repeatedly said that compulsory taxation is wrong, and Objectivism is opposed to it. How are you going to protect rights with an agency that is violating rights as a means of its existence?

This actually isn't true. Rand repeatedly said that compulsory taxation is wrong, and Objectivism is opposed to it. How are you going to protect rights with an agency that is violating rights as a means of its existence?

Relating to Objectivism, like secondhander, I have continued "profound" experiences every year as the principles of this philosophy are made more real with my ever-expanding life experience and observation. But, they aren't as jarring as my first read through Atlas Shrugged.
 
Growing up Christian, the closest I came to anything like Rand's ideas was the relentless demand from my father to never lie, and a very strong work ethic early on, setting high standards for myself. There was a two-year period where I painfully transitioned from a full Believer to a guesser, to finally an atheist just beginning to read Rand's work. It was during this time I was affected by a set of profound experiences.
 
First came my desperate belief that nobody seemed to know why they were doing anything. I was pretty sure that religion was completely false, and so I began to view the world as a purposeless nothing. I questioned many people whom I thought must know why they existed, and I was sorely disappointed with their answers. I started to really become terrified that everything was for nothing!
 
Second came a basic Religion Studies 101 class, which I enrolled in as a last-ditch effort to make some sense out of the religious belief that had essentially defined my life. It took about two weeks for that class to tip me over the edge. It was so obvious and so simple to find out how religions have copied each other over and over again throughout history. Even seeing the class plainly frame religion in a historical context instead of a mystical one made me feel very foolish for ever having believed. That class ended religious belief for me, but it would be a long time before I would be able to de-habitualize some of its worse effects.
 
But, both of these experiences did set the stage for my final big Objectivism-related "profound experience."
 
Completely by chance, I began reading Atlas Shrugged. It was purchased for a scholarship, but I quickly realized there was no possible way to finish it before the deadline, so I put it down. Much later, I picked it up again, ironically out of guilt to not waste the money I'd spent to purchase it. With further irony, I almost couldn't get through more than 60 pages because I found it so boring! What finally went down was by far the most intellectual "mind blown" experience of my life. It quickly became apparent that I had something so huge in my hands, and I became obsessed with figuring it out. I went from the novel to Rand's non-fiction back again to the novel, trying to make sense of everything I read as fast as I could manage. In under a year, I'd had the novel and 90% of her non-fiction read.
 
And that was that! I was a philosophy super genius now! Just ask me at the time! Seriously, though, I haven't stopped since, thanks to Rand, though obviously the intensity and speed is less now in regards to philosophy. I no longer have a philosophical life crisis to avert!

Yes, but was the catheter wider or narrower than the penis?

Resenting criticism doesn't imply a lack of coolheadedness. "Hero-worship" doesn't imply a lack of objective evaluation, nor does "aesthetic exuberance" or (reasoned) loyalty.
 
Why is Rand the one who is to blame for not fitting into what is essentially nothing more than a culture of university professors? Why not the other way around? Rand's whole thing was that philosophy needs to be accessible to people, not just as a series of floating ideas. Professors' and Rand's approach to philosophy do not jive, and I think Rand's is superior.

This relies on the assumption that Republicans knew the Democrats wouldn't fund the rest of the government if there was no funding for the ACA. How many times will we navigate this circle?

Both sides appear willing to shut down the government over this. To lay the blame entirely on one side is sports-fan politics. How a given person feels about this issue seems to depend entirely on his or her view of the healthcare law. But have no fear; I think I've found a solution to these debt limit/government funding antics: Don't pass laws on slim majorities that are likely to be so hated that they will not be funded 2 years later.

All of the posts Ive read of his reminds me of the "man is the head" garbage I heard in church for so long.