Epistemological Engineer
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Epistemological Engineer
-
-
To the OP:
Be cautious in financial speculation, regardless of the commodity.
Thanks. Here are two of my premises, which I lay out for checking:
1) The only alternative I've set up for myself is cash
2) Gold and silver are going to do better than cash in the long run, and even in the moderately-short run. (Why wouldn't they? dot dot dot) Thus even if we're in a bubble and, say, yesterday's sharp decline continues, I can just wait until their perceived value relative to the USD bounces back.
-
Are you having them store it for you or are you storing it personally?
And what reasons led you to goldmoney.com?
I'm having them store the metal. There is a small fee associated with that, of course, but it's not much more expensive than renting a safe deposit box at the bank, and it's fully insured against theft, fire, etc. Also, if you change your mind and want them to ship you physical metal, you can do so by paying a "fabrication cost" that's as low as 2.5%.
I initially looked into local dealers, but their bid-ask spreads were too high: around 4% for gold and 6.7% for silver. (These spreads are the differences between the price at which you can buy from the dealer and the subsequent price at which you can sell back to him.) The spreads at goldmoney.com, on the other hand, are only about 0.5% for gold and 0.8% for silver. I initially checked out kitco and bullionvault (per recommendations on this forum, actually), but their spreads seemed to be much higher.
It's very possible that I didn't find a good local dealer or that I misread the information on the kitco and bullionvault sites. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary (i.e. low spreads for local dealers or for any online companies) I'd love to hear it.
-
snerd--
I'm looking to buy and hold the metals until their prices skyrocket during the big market crash of 2016.
Seriously, though: I want to hold for a while, and fluctuations during the next two years--even gold going to $1500--probably won't make me flinch. Will I sell at $2000/oz? $5000? $10000? It will all depend on the state of the country, the state of the world, and the vicissitudes of my own life at that time.
As far as likelihoods over the next two years, please keep in mind that my opinions and decisions are those of an eager new student just beginning a journey of developing practical wisdom. My sources come primarily from the gloom and doom newsreel of GoldSilver.com (they frequently interview this Dr. Doom guy named Marc Faber), so if you want to see some discussion of average-to-worst-case scenarios you can go there.
I do have to be honest about my motivations, though: this is, for me, more than just protection against a weakening dollar. I'm in it mainly for the thrill of taking control of my own destiny. Last year I lost 40% of everything I had in a mutual fund, then took another huge loss in a get-rich-quick merger that my optimistic, financially-savvy friend *thought* he had analyzed thoroughly. After that, I vowed never again to invest in something that I did not understand or follow closely.
Over the past year I've held cash, as 18-month CDs yielding a quarter percent hardly seemed worth it. Now I'm moving into gold and silver, and I'm keeping my eye on them. Could I take losses? Of course, but the losses would be *mine*--not my fund manager's, not my friend's--and by sinking or swimming on my own judgment I'll be forced to learn and grow.
After the metals run their cycle (say, over the next 5-10 years), where will I turn next for investment? Maybe other commodities (if I like learning about them), maybe another kind of investment that captures my interest. I do have a dream of buying a big house, living in the top floor and renting out the rest of the space (thereby producing cashflow as well as providing me with a place to live and an asset I can love and attend to regularly), and I also have ideas for businesses I can start related to things I love.
This is starting to digress, so I'll re-state that the main point tying these examples together is to have control over one's wealth, rather than leaving it to the mercy of a money manager, a stock one does not understand, or a government that will ruthlessly inflate away the buying power of your cash by diluting the money supply.
-
Thanks for the responses, everyone. Earlier this week I (finally) got around to buying gold and silver at $1132/oz and $18.23/oz, respectively, through Goldmoney.com. I'm only putting 40% of my assets into this account (as a partial hedge against my own naivete), and of that I'm going 20% gold and 80% silver.
Let's see where this goes...
-
I am currently looking to take a full position in gold and silver (physical), as a protection against loss during the hard times that may be ahead of us. Before I do so, though, I am seeking to better understand the reasons behind their inherent, objective value. The sources I've consulted thus far are Michael Maloney of goldsilver.com (precious metals advisor to Robert Kiyosaki, the "Rich Dad" guy) and Greenspan's 1966 article "Gold and Economic Freedom" in C:TUI. Here is what I have gleaned from Greenspan's article:
A metal is generally chosen [as a medium of exchange] because it is homogeneous and divisible....
The commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury...the term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value
...
In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.
Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has always been considered a luxury good. It is durable, portable, homogeneous, divisible, and, therefore, has significant advantages overall other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange.
(CTUI, p.97.)
For the most part, that seems like a decent explanation of gold's value. As a supplement to that, Maloney's book "Guide to Investing in Gold and Silver" gives brief historical accounts of the ascendancy of gold in tandem with the decline of various empires after they sink into enormous debt and start pumping out fiat currency (e.g. Athens, Rome, U.S. following WWI.) Clearly, then, governments and populations place high value on gold as a medium of exchange. What I still want to know, though, is:
1) How did this get started (e.g. back in ancient Greece, did one merchant say to another "I'll trade you these nice, shiny, rare, malleable bars for your cattle," or did one government say to another "I'll trade you these nice, shiny, rare, malleable bars for your grain stores," or was the evolution of gold as money more subtle and complicated than that)
2) How can I teach myself, through books and experience, to keep a well-trained eye on the value goverments and markets place on gold, silver, and on other commodities or media that might compete with these precious metals for the position of "sole" or most popular medium of exchange.
In other words (concerning #2): although people have always placed high value on precious metals, how will can I feel secure that things will continue this way? Or, if another medium is threatening to replace these, how can I understand the forces behind the new trend? I'm not expecting a pat answer to this, of course; rather, I'm embarking on a journey of long-term education, and I was wondering where might be a good place to continue from here, having read the Maloney book and the Greenspan article.
-
Remember, she had a mercy killing mentality -- and walking away from Wynand was her mercy killing of his hope residing in his love for her.
Huh. Hadn't thought about it that way. Thanks.
-
Thomas,
Your reply focuses more on Roark and Wynand. While what you say may be true, I'm more interested in trying to understand Dominique's mindset.
-
As for the Nietzsche quote. I don't think it's evil at all for the first thing you think of to be 'what if I do?'...
The examination of evil is not itself inherently evil. :-) I included this quote because I thought it was an apt observation on human psychology.
I can't actually remember where he wrote this. All I know is I read it many years back and it really stuck with me.
-
I'm looking at what's behind the whole exchange; the bolded part serves to summarize the tension between the different emotional states.
I was always curious why--even at the end of the book, when the hero and heroine of the novel had gained all the wisdom to proceed with living the lives they had always wanted--one would choose to hold on to spite for the rest of her life while the other would forgive and free his soul from what could have been an everlasting hatred.
(Not essential, but still worth exploring at times.)
-
Thank you for your replies. I agree with the analyses put forth here. I had always been curious if Ayn Rand herself believed that some depths of evil truly could "contaminate the observer," or if that was just Rearden's current mindset.
-
Roark: "Dominique, wait till he [Wynand] recovers."
Dominique: "You know he won't recover."
R: Have a little pity on him.
D: Don't speak their language.
R: He had no choice.
D: He could have closed the paper.
R: It was his life.
D: This is mine.
"He did not know that Wyand had once said all love is exception-making; and Wynand would not know that Roark had loved him enough to make his greatest exception, one moment when he had tried to compromise."
(FH, 50th anniversary edition, p.668.)
I never fully understood why Roark and Dominique differed on this issue--of whether or not to forgive Gail Wynand--to the end. Even after three readings, the sexist side of me still cries "Hell hath no fury...", and I grit my teeth and see this as indication of fundamental differences between the male and female psyches.
-
"What does Objectivism say about circumcision?"
Jesus Christ on a Cross. Don't you have anything better to do with your time and intellectual energy? This issue is third-level derivative, at best--certainly far from fundamental in a philosophical sense.
-
From Hank Rearden's thoughts, upon hearing about the "Equalization of Opportunity Bill":
(AS, 35th Anniversary Ed., p.215, where 215=6x6x6 -1, Part I, ch. VII "The Exploiters and The Exploited.)He shook his head. There are things one must not contemplate, he thought. There is an obscenity of evil which contaminates the observer. There is a limit to what it is proper for a man to see. He must not think of this, or look within it, or try to learn the nature of its roots.Was this the emotional reflex of Rearden's pure, naive innocence, or did Rand intend this as a general admonition to all readers?
I think Nietzsche was right on when he said something along the lines of "The first thing a man thinks when he hears 'Thou Shalt Not' is, 'What if I do'? " Indeed, Rand herself undertook a serious study of the depths of human evil long before writing (or even conceiving) Atlas Shrugged--she read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in her youth (not to mention having first-hand experiences with the evils of twentieth-century Soviet regimes.)
In spite of Nietzsche's undeniably accurate insight, though, I often wonder if curiosity should be suppressed and the exploration of certain depths of human evil should not even be begun.
-
The author of the article is advocating a return to problem solving and Socratic-style teaching (in some cases) to re-kindle a love for mathematics by inducing students to reason rather than pounding rote formulas into their heads. "Formula-pounding" might be appropriate for a college-level engineering course, but certainly not for elementary school. Here is evidence for my claim:
The main problem with school mathematics is that there are no problems. Oh, I know whatpasses for problems in math classes, these insipid “exercises.” “Here is a type of problem. Here
is how to solve it. Yes it will be on the test. Do exercises 1-35 odd for homework.” What a sad
way to learn mathematics: to be a trained chimpanzee.
But a problem, a genuine honest-to-goodness natural human question— that’s another thing.
How long is the diagonal of a cube? Do prime numbers keep going on forever? Is infinity a
number? How many ways can I symmetrically tile a surface? The history of mathematics is the
history of mankind’s engagement with questions like these, not the mindless regurgitation of
formulas and algorithms (together with contrived exercises designed to make use of them).
A good problem is something you don’t know how to solve. That’s what makes it a good
puzzle, and a good opportunity. A good problem does not just sit there in isolation, but serves as
a springboard to other interesting questions. A triangle takes up half its box. What about a
pyramid inside its three-dimensional box? Can we handle this problem in a similar way?
p.9
Now I will address your post:
People are too stupid to use the practical applications of math anyway!CITATION NEEDED
Reason is useless!CITATION NEEDED
The only interesting questions in math are the kind that have no answer!CITATION NEEDED.
Here is the next paragraph from the essay:
I can understand the idea of training students to master certain techniques— I do that too.But not as an end in itself. Technique in mathematics, as in any art, should be learned in context.
The great problems, their history, the creative process— that is the proper setting. Give your
students a good problem, let them struggle and get frustrated. See what they come up with.
Wait until they are dying for an idea, then give them some technique.
Ranger, you're obviously very angry about something. I suggest you take a long, deep breath before responding, if you're considering doing so.
-
But I think fountainhead777 comment, most of it was probably directed towards another discussion in the thread, that I wasn't following much that was off the topic of MM and about music or something.
Oh, right. Which reminds me: could you guys--Thales, Roark, etc.--please take your fight outside? Not that it's any of my bidness [ducks incoming beer bottle], but I'm sure the mods will appreciate it, as your discussion appears to be more about general aesthetic theory and less (or not at all) about the specific artist MM. Or just reread pp. 55-6 of Romantic Manifesto and then duck out, as I often do when discussions about music reach the point of "unsalvageable."
Getting back to my discussion with IA (and anyone else who cares to follow): here is some detailed explanation regarding my opinion on "We're From America." You are correct to point out that Manson is using this piece to expose hypocricies in the current right-wing-Christian culture of our country. The problem is that it isn't a "song" so much as a list of accusations simply spouted in series, with the eponymous phrase thrown in for rhythm. Let's lay them out and take a closer look. "We're from America," therefore:
1) We eat our young
2) It's where Jesus was born
3) They let you come on their faces (<--"Hey! Look! I made a funny! Guys? Guys? ...)
4) We don't believe in credibility, because we're fucking incredible ("Ooh! Wasn't that clever of me!")
5) I wanna be a martyr, I don't wanna be a victim
6) Be a killer with a god, so they call me a hero. [Ok, he gets props for this one, but...um...hasn't he said all this before? Wasn't this the fundamental motivating theme behind Holywood?]
7) God is an excuse [oh, in case they didn't hear me...Ima say this seven times]
8) We don't like to kill our unborn/we need them to grow up and fight our wars [yeah, I'll give him props for this one, no strings attached.]
9) We believe in everything we say, and we say it because we believe it [ok, it actually makes sense to repeat this one. More genuine props.]
10) etc.
So the song is bouncy and fun. The content and layout of the lyrics doesn't meet with my approval (e.g. reminds me of the crap one hears in System of a Down and the general decline in quality of modern "metal"), and that's why I thought it was a poor choice for the "debut" song--the one he made available for free download a month before the album's release. But I think I've said enough for now. I'll just skip it when it comes on (unless I'm in a weird mood/altered state) and move on with my life.
-
You guys could argue on technical aspects of music; i.e. lyrics, technical prowess, etc. but on what taste is better you both are probably wasting your time. I would say be less heated about and not try to prove whose musical taste is more correct or try and insinuate that the other could never understand your tastes.
Thanks for the mediation, necessitated in part by my initial omission of the "facetious" smiley or equivalent indication of jest. However, I think IA and I are cool now. There's always that delightfully subjectivist quote from the Romantic Manifesto. Oh, and this:
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go come on someone's face. This is America, after all.
-
I probably will end up, like I usually do, listening to it over and over, till I get sick of hearing it, then return to it later. I even sound like him when I sing along. Only singer I sound most like.
Huh. Well, I did notice "Disposable Teens" on a karaoke list somewhere (if you don't mind publicly repeating said phrase ad nauseum, especially with the high, pinched part at the end.) Oh, and "Tainted Love" is a great one for getting the gothically-inclined chicks out on the dance floor in a bar that otherwise features off-key renditions of pop country-frat songs.
Also when you return to songs after a while or play them on iTunes, then in your car, you notice all kinds of different things musicaly about the songs that you didn't hear before. I know I do.Absolutely. I was doing pushups and crunches in my room one day with my music on shuffle all, when "Vodevil" came on. I was, like, "Hey, it's a new Manson song!", and then I was, like, "Wait...how did a new Manson song sneak onto my hard drive?", and then I was, like, "Sweet! Rediscovery!", as the effect was the exact same as a new song's *actually* having been released.
-
Don't disrespect me again.
Haha, ok. I listened to We're From America again, and it's actually pretty funny. My problem with Manson qua lyricist is not what he says so much as how he says it. The purpose of poetry is to say things in ways that use metaphor, suggestion, and imagery--NOT directly.
For example, let's go back in time to Mechanical Animals and take a close look at "User Friendly." The melody, beat, and verses are badass, but the main chorus?
I'm not in love, but I'm gonna fuck you til somebody better comes along.Really, Manson? Really? I rarely see that track to the end: having the same bland line pounded into my head again and again quickly grates on my nerves. Another example of this bad habit--which he seems to have inherited from Trent Reznor--would be the main chorus of "The Red Carpet Grave." There are more out there, but that's just off the top of my head.
Getting back to High End of Low: I really liked "Four Rusted Horses" and will probably put it on my hypnotic playlist. Thus far I feel only so-so about the album as a whole, but some of the songs have potential to grow on me. That's what happened with a number of the songs on Eat Me, Drink Me, Golden Age...well, ok, most of the albums had songs that I always skipped at first, only to rediscover and truly enjoy later.
-The last three tracks ("I have to look up just to see hell," "Into the Fire," and untitled) were beautiful and would make great background music for a movie.
-The instrumentation on "Wow" was pretty cool. It made me think of a twisted funhouse, for some reason. The lyrics seemed a little on the childish side, though.
-I really didn't get "I wanna kill you like they do in the movies." It just seemed to meander. From the length of the song (and all the hype Manson was giving it) I was expecting a buildup to an intense climax, not a dissonant fizzle.
Initial impressions. Will listen to again later during long trips on the open road.
-
Ookay...getting back to the topic at hand...[hints at topic split for Mozart & Rach]
, and there are others that I like..."We're from America", et al.Anyone else going to buy it, or any of the tracks?
"We're from America" is without a doubt the most puerile garbage I've EVER heard come out of this guy's mouth. You should be ashamed of yourself.
...
That said, as a lifetime member of the Manson fan club (albeit with waning enthusiasm), I'm going to go get a copy of the album right now. It has to have at least two tracks that are good for listening to while working out, and I intend to find them. If his claim that he "has his fire back" is accurate, then I'm hoping for a return of the more-"fun"-less-self-pitying feel that was characteristic of Golden Age (and, to some extent, Portrait.)
-
I assume you mean a situation something like this: a person's child has just been wheeled in for a life-or-death operation and he is calm as he waits, "knowing" that whatever God does will be for the best. Is that the kind of example you're thinking of?
Well...sort of, but not really. Basically, lately I've had a few disappointing medical issues, and I've lost a lot of money in investments. None of these are life-threatening or crushing; rather, they are reminders that life isn't always steady forward progress and that my body is a machine subject to wear and decay. All things considered, I'm at a good place in life and I'm active. It just seems that the BUP is something I have continually strive to hold.
More than the "BUP", I think this is about the metaphysical vs. the man-made. Harken back to Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer (used by AA too) quoted by Rand:God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Snerd, thank you for the reminder of this prayer. The question it poses is central to this issue, though the real art of it is developing that wisdom without "God." I'd forgotten that there was a whole essay about it in PWNI--I'm going to go reread it right now.
-
The issue is not what to think about when bad things happen, but how to deal with uncertainty--uncertainty about economic/financial situations, about career paths, about health. I think what I'm mainly interested in here is how to integrate the BUP, and I don't mean by just reading through OPAR. The success story I'm looking for might be titled "How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Benevolent Universe."
-
Religious people have God and various beliefs; Discordians and
embrace the chaos. What do Objectivists have?To the extent that my question, as stated, has an answer, I believe it is the Benevolent Universe principle: "If Man does adapt to the universe, then it is 'benevolent' in another sense: auspicious to human life. If a man does recognize and adhere to reality, then he can achieve his values in reality; he can and, other things being equal, he will."
If this is the case, does anyone have advice for how to integrate this principle into one's life--not just rationally/epistemologically, but experientially? I mildly envy religious traditions for their extensive literature and practices that help their practitioners reaffirm the premises that give them spiritual fuel. Perhaps the great reward of Objectivism's BUP (acronym) demands a great struggle of figuring out (mostly) for yourself how to integrate it into your own life. The BUP is a beautiful idea, but specific literature on the subject seems to be scarce.
-
I see C&P as an exploration of the disease of rationalizing and the way it can torment and nearly destroy a man's soul. It simply cannot be understood by a reader who has never himself engaged in serious rationalizing, and is thus not for everyone. I am shocked that the novel is sometimes assigned as high school reading, as the average teenager will not have the psychological maturity or self-awareness required to mine its depths.
I'm exaggerating a little for effect here, of course. Reading this book--suffering through the nauseating and initially inexplicable contradictions of Raskolnikov's inner monologues--is quite an ordeal, and nothing I would wish to inflict on those not ready (or not needing) to walk the fine, tense line of the protagonist's pathology.
But the ending--the beautiful ending--makes it all worthwhile. "Life had taken the place of dialectics, and something else had to work itself out in his mind..." The dark clouds yield to rays of sunshine illuminating fertile ground for psychological healing, in the original sense of the word.
-
The Neverending Story. I own copies of all of Ende's novels, but the most famous is rightly the best.
Understanding the Objective Value of Gold
in Economics
Posted
But I won't be worse off--and that's my starting point. Again, as I said earlier, my primary reason for taking this first step, from cash to metal commodities, is wealth protection given the standard nonoptimistic view on the world economic situation.
Again, one of my assumptions is that I'm keeping things simple; understanding the value of a business or the performance of a stock would take me into territory much more complex than that of a simple commodity. So let me ask you a few questions for clarification of your position:
1) In which businesses or stocks do you invest?
2) How do you research and track these companies? Do you read their monthly cashflow statements and their CEOs' letters to shareholders?