BrassDragon

What causes the boom and bust cycle of business? Here are some related/smaller questions: -Does the Fed's role in changing interest rates, and the treasury's role in printing new money, have anything to do with it? -Would a gold standard end the problem? I have taken Econ 101 (Honors version, in fact). This question shows how much I learned (or, rather, how well the professor provided evidence for his claims.)

Well, I'm glad I've been able to help. Sorry I haven't responded in a while... I've been busy. Here goes. My feelings of not being mentally efficacious were only possible because I was overlooking a huge amount of evidence to the contrary, from my entire life. For example, I got excellent grades throughout high school and most of college; I always read a lot and asked big questions (which led me to find Objectivism); and so on. If you really examine your life, I'm sure you'll realize how smart you are. As far as specific things, besides schoolwork - I love computer programming. I've heard many Objectivists go into that field (broadly speaking). One of the great things is you can pick up a book on some language (say, Java) in the bookstore and be writing good code relatively soon. I love the way programming books are written - the opposite of many mathematics books I've run across in school, which require supplemental examples from the instructor. I love teaching myself from a book and becoming skilled. Now, this might not be your thing - but it's an example of something I enjoy. Also, posting to this forum and improving your philosophy/rhetoric skills should make you feel pretty capable. Are you sure you've no successes to look back on? Another thing you might try is getting a job. I've never had one (since I've considered myself a full-time student since starting high school), but I've been told earning money - even if the job isn't an intellectual or particularly stimulating one, like working as a waiter in a restaurant - is one of the most rewarding feelings. I'm sure you'll feel efficacious once you start making money. That's ironic... you want to come here, and I want to go to Dubai or the Chinese free zones. (Too much socialism here, and it seems to be temporarily on the rise.) Of course, we have different interests. By the way, I think everyone needs to feel successful and efficacious. If you're not going to feel that way acting, do something else. I wanted to be a writer for a long time, and I'd still like to try sometime, but I decided not to fully focus on that now, because I didn't see my chances of being successful as particularly large, and it wasn't worth the risk. Now, there are certainly some cases in which a talent or passion is so significant that it's worth taking the risk that you'll never get "noticed" by a director or a publisher... but you have to know you're good, and find validation in and of yourself. Now, please take my advice with a pinch of salt - I'm only a couple years older than you and I have a lot to learn. I like computers but I'm not feeling very efficacious as far as careers go, because I'm half way through college and haven't made up my mind on a career.

I really like this idea. There are lots of great YouTube videos, and we could probably amass quite an interesting collection. It might be helpful for people to indicate roughly the genre of the video (humor/philosophy/politics/etc.) and/or maybe give a short description.

Hey, I don't mind seeing the lyrics twice

Some of the Rush lyrics have been posted twice now in this thread. Seems like Rush has quite a following here. My challenge from earlier still stands:

Tenure, it's truly incredible how much the picture you're painting of your experiences and thoughts reminds me of myself. Originally I was going to post this in the "Happy Birthday" thread, but I guess this is a more appropriate place. Anyway, just as you didn't enjoy your 18th birthday, neither did I enjoy my 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th. In general, I haven't allowed myself to enjoy my life for about the past 4 years. There were lots of good things that happened, but I didn't enjoy much of it; it wasn't all bad, by any means, but I was generally pretty depressed. Lately, things have been getting much better. The solution, for me, has been twofold. (1) Truly integrating the benevolent universe premise. I've always thought of myself as being very intelligent, done very well in school, and my parents gave me a good start in life. And I haven't really taken any wrong turns. But I still came to essentially hold the malevolent universe premise, because many bad things happened (losing important friends and family members, not getting that big scholarship, major romantic defeats, and the like). My accomplishments began to seem irrelevant, and my "emotional background" was "depressed." In other words, by default, I was very unhappy - when I got up in the morning, or whenever, in general. What I had to realize was that those bad things were accidents. They are not the norm. That is not what to anticipate. Rather, one should anticipate success. Man is alive; man has a rational faculty; man is efficacious, in general; therefore, success and happiness are the norm, not the accident, and actual accidents/bad things are accidents (which is why "accident" means, in addition to "something bad," something that is not supposed to, and does not, happen normally). This is really just my understanding of the benevolent universe premise, but thinking about it thoroughly - coming to the point where I can easily type it up, in my own words, and be convinced by it, and understand it, and believe it, and know it - has made all the difference in the world. (2) While the above might be relevant to you, THIS is the thing that really strikes a chord with me when I read what you're written in this thread. The second part of my solution was establishing a sense of mental efficacy. Proving to myself, or knowing, that I can think very well, and solve complex mental problems, and be creative. You've mentioned something about focus in the current free will thread, so you know what I'm talking about when I say, "the fundamental choice to focus." I've validated the fact that if I truly choose to focus, I can be very successful in my thinking. The more you choose to focus and find success, the more often you'll choose to focus, and the better you'll feel. Thinking will become a habit. And without this habit, one cannot have a sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Without those, one cannot avoid accidents/be successful, and the benevolent universe premise does no good, because it doesn't apply to you. Mental efficacy is key. I really think the second point may apply to you. I've seen several mentions on your part of feeling unable to think of things, or thinking that you cannot solve your problems, or feeling disconnected from reality and doubting your conclusions. All these, to me, suggest a lack of mental confidence/sense of mental efficacy. Finally, here is an interesting tie-in. You mentioned having trouble feeling like you love freedom. Well, freedom = capitalism (in the political sense, which I take it you meant). Many people think capitalism is a giant competition where only the fittest survive - even I felt that, after being familiar with Objectivism for years. I felt like only the Dagny Taggarts and the Hank Reardens could win. But actually, capitalism results in the lowest unemployment rate ever in history. In America, almost everyone who tries can get a job (and we're not even that capitalistic). Capitalism is like the ultimate safety net. If you're even somewhat intelligent, you're going to be able to fit into a good job where you will excel, and you will be successful in life. When I made this integration - when I saw how points (1) and (2) basically tie into this - I began to love freedom like never before. EDIT: I meant to include in the paragraph about (2), i.e. mental efficacy, that despite being very intelligent and excelling in school, I still developed a sense of mental inefficacy. I wanted to avoid thinking sometimes, in certain situations, and I didn't have much confidence in my own thoughts. Maybe all those 99's in high school were just too much of a disappointment, and made me feel stupid. (I'm being serious, in that comment.) My point is: anyone can develop a sense of mental inefficacy if they don't thoughtfully validate and confirm their own mental efficacy.

Happy Birthday! (Even if I'm a little bit late.) I'd bet everyone here can say they've enjoyed your input on the forum - I have - so you've definitely earned the well wishes. Let us know how the day goes/went.

I agree with everything you've said here. Actually if I've ever expressed disagreement with any of it, I didn't mean to. If a relatively just state government wishes to secede from a relatively unjust federal government, then secession is moral - as you just said. That is the main thrust of the principle known to Southerners as "states' rights." (A misnomer, because states don't have rights, per se.) That is potentially a valid claim. Of course, it was misapplied in the Civil War, because it was not really a situation of relatively just states rebelling from a relatively unjust government - more the opposite. I made the mistake, among others, of thinking that one could appreciate such a "potentially valid claim" in a particular instance, even if it generally and fundamentally didn't apply. Same to you!!! Adrian, thanks very much for your input as well.

Point conceded. I agree that it's dangerous to appreciate a political act regardless of context, or to appreciate anything regardless of its full context - including something like the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag does stand for "the Confederate States of America," but that comes with the context that the CSA was formed fundamentally as a way to prolong slavery. (It is likewise true that saying the flag "stands for slavery," is dropping context.) Lesson learned: You can't choose which parts of reality to pay attention to, and which to ignore. I think people hold on to the Confederate flag as a symbol because it is the most obvious symbol of certain things they want to express - perhaps Southern pride (for Binni); for me, the fact that I do not give my moral sanction to the government. It's difficult to show some of these things otherwise - there aren't other symbols that seem relevant. But like I said, I've changed my mind about displaying the Confederate flag - if you don't have a symbol you want, that doesn't mean you can take another symbol and ignore relevant contextual information. Following up to the previous paragraph, I don't think the examples of radical Islam are exactly analogous, because to drop the context of those symbols would be a tremendous evasion. I don't think an honest person could do it. With the Confederate flag, I do think people who don't take the time to thoroughly think about the issue (but are otherwise not necessarily bad people) would be (and are) strongly tempted to try to use the flag to symbolize something different than what it fully stands for. Thanks to "y'all", I've made an important integration here, and I've come to agree with you on the fundamental issues. (Wasn't easy - took some feeling humiliated - but it was well worth it.) I'll continue to respond to other points in your posts, which I think are really valuable, and not all of which I agree with. I'd agree that the slavery problem was the fundamental cause of the Civil War. (sNerd's post was particularly helpful to me in identifying it as fundamental, as opposed to just "most important.") Applying the same lesson from above, though, I don't think it's correct or useful to say that it was only about slavery. Part of it was the assertion that states were higher on the food chain than the Union, and not the other way around (as was shown to be the case, at least in fact, if not in principle). One can't ignore that the states' rights question was the driving rhetorical question - that's what the Southern states claimed the purpose of the war was externally, even if not consistently internally. And politically, that would have been the means to the end of preserving slavery for a time. I agree that "popular sovereignty" is a corrupt idea, a floating abstraction, and akin to the Libertarian Party's "liberty." I don't think states' rights is the same thing, though. I understand states' rights to mean, very specifically, the idea that states voluntarily joined the Union, and thus could leave it at any time; and that all powers not specifically reserved for the federal government in the Constitution still belonged to the states (which I'm 99% sure is specifically stated in the Constitution). I don't see anything corrupt about such a claim to states' rights. I'm not familiar with the "popular sovereignty" aspect of Civil War rhetoric; I thought "states' rights," as I defined it above, was the primary justification Southerners offered to the outside world for the war. I could just be wrong on that; it's a matter of historical fact. Now that you see how I'm differentiating the two ideas, let me know if you still think I'm wrong/if I have the history of the rhetoric wrong. I don't think it's "just another observation on how it can be easy to get a large population of non-philosophical individuals to march in the same direction." I think it's part of the context of the Civil War, and one of the factors that shaped it. It's not something to be ignored or thrown out as irrelevant. But again, I do agree that slavery was the fundamental cause of the war, and its importance pales in comparison. I don't have anything I disagree with you on here, but to be honest, I'm not as familiar with the history as you are (that, or you're very willing to make broad historical generalizations that aren't backed up - I'm pretty sure it's the former, though ). For example, I wasn't aware of the degradation of political argument of which you speak, or that the Southern politicians were eager to "ride roughshod over the 'states rights' of Northern states." I'd also like to point out that I didn't make most of the conceptual errors you mention above. I didn't say folk pride was a valid reason to support the South - I just said it was some people's reason. Nor am I "Southern propagandist" - to the degree I talk about the Civil War, I am fully willing to discuss it rationally, to the best of my ability; to learn from the experience; and to admit when I'm wrong. When you respond in this way, you seem to be implying that I did make those errors, and you seem to be pretty darn offended by it. This is a problem throughout your post. I think you definitely deserve the benefit of the doubt, though, so I'll assume you did not mean to imply those things. I agree with you that slavery was fundamental and rights violations were tangential and unimportant by comparison. I do still think there were other rights violations. The only one I can put my finger on is tariffs. I suspect there were others; I know the issue of the federal government expanding beyond the powers expressly outlined in the Constitution was present almost from the beginning. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I should clarify that I think any expansion of any government beyond the functions of courts, police and military is a rights violation in some way; at minimum, it's an unjustified use of involuntary taxation; at worse... well, it can be much worse. Conceded. That was not a statement of my argument, nor did I want to dabble in statistics (hence: "I tried (and failed, in a pinch) to find figures for the % of population enslaved before the formation of the CSA"). The point of that section of my post was to show "...that the decision to join the Confederacy was not tied directly to the number of slaves in a state." (the last line you quoted). You actually express your agreement with that particular conclusion - you said "The question was not whether they owned slaves and how many, the question was whether they felt they would continue to own slaves under a Republican administration and whether the federal government had the right to enforce its decisions by arms." That statement differs from my point in that you conclude that slavery was the fundamental cause of the war, whereas I was (mistakenly) downplaying its importance relative to other factors. I now agree with you that tt was the fundamental cause, so in a discussion like this, the other factors are not particularly important. OK - whew - breath of fresh air. I didn't expect things to get nearly this lengthy, and I don't have the time to continue to commit this much time to this thread, so be forewarned. But I'm hoping "y'all" will find fewer things to pick on me for, rather than more , and that I therefore will have time to respond adequately. That said, don't hesitate to point out anything that's still wrong with my thinking.

The Confederacy was created in a political act to eliminate federal political control over the South, and to allow Southerners to live under a system of law that they believed was morally just. It might be the case that slavery was the primary motive for wanting freedom from federal control, but that doesn't change the nature of the political act of creating the Confederacy, as a political act. Hence, the use of the Confederate flag by those who wish to demonstrate that they don't give their moral sanction to federal governmental controls. And, hence, my statement that the Civil War cannot be reduced to "a war over slavery." I was taught in school that it is as simple as, "The Civil War was fought because the South wanted to preserve slavery, and the North wanted to end it." There is much more that is worth thinking about here, such as, should States have more or less autonomy, with respect to the federal government? And, can secession from an established country ever be morally justified? My comments about the Tariff of Abominations and the North's primary motive being to preserve the Union were intended to support my thesis that there were other important issues besides slavery - not to argue that slavery wasn't a very important influence upon the South's decision that political separation from the Union was the right way to go. Furthermore, that these issues are present cements the fact that there is a link between resistance to political injustice and the Civil War. I tried (and failed, in a pinch) to find figures for the % of population enslaved before the formation of the CSA. But the fact that some states with a significant proportion of slaves remained in the Union (i.e. the border states), and that some states with relatively fewer slaves (I believe North Carolina and Tennessee, but again, could not find figures) joined the Confederacy, shows that the decision to join the Confederacy was not tied directly to the number of slaves in a state. "Being Southern" was a big part of the decision to rebel, and a big part of being southern was not being politically manipulated from a distance farther than the state capitol. That said, I won't argue that slavery wasn't the biggest end motivation for rebellion, all things considered. The letter you included speaks strongly to the fact that political leaders in major slave states (South Carolina and Georgia had the most as a % of the population, from what I understand) used slavery as the overarching and primary justification for war. Whew! Didn't know whether you misread me there, or were heading into some broader philosophical point... for the moment, I'm glad it was the former. This has really been helpful for solidifying my thoughts, so feel free to take issue with anything I've said. Seriously, though, can a mod merge this with an existing thread on the topic, or make a new thread?

So Binni - why do you have that flag? Of the three issues you cite, the only one that I see as having any potential connection to the Confederate flag is the issue in question now - the abolition of slavery. The others came after the Civil War. The Confederate flag has no connection to the modern South, to me. I think the Confederate flag can properly (and more appropriately) be seen as representing the Confederate rebellion, not necessarily "the South." And I think the fundamental characteristic of the Confederate rebellion was an appeal to states' rights, i.e. against unjust federal power. Unfortunately, one of the "rights" the Southern states wanted to preserve was institutionalized slavery. So, the Confederate flag as an appropriate pro-freedom symbol really is a mixed bag. But what other symbol speaks to strong discontent with the federal government? In absence of anything else, some people have adopted it to this purpose. Others have adopted it to the purpose of racism, and others have adopted it to the purpose of showing pride for Southern culture. Again, because it's kind of ambiguous, I wouldn't show the Confederate flag publicly. If it were to hang in my house, though, its symbolic role would be clear. I think the issue that's really at hand, here, is whether the Civil War can be reduced to "a war over slavery." I don't think so. Southern slavery wasn't abolished by the North until well into the war, as part of the "total war" doctrine, and even then, border states kept their slaves. Abraham Lincoln stated at the beginning that he was willing to endure slavery if the Union could be preserved; only later was slavery used, by him and others, as a justification for forcing certain states to remain in the Union. You're making a positive claim that the Confederate flag stands for slavery, so the burden is on you to prove that that is the case. But I don't think you can - there is no "flag that stands for slavery." The Confederate flag is, by definition, the symbol of the Confederate States of America. There is no objective extrapolation from that. So as to not hijack the thread, if y'all have further commentary on the Confederate flag issue, perhaps a moderator can split the thread. I am beginning to regret bringing it up, but I'm willing to defend what I've said if anyone feels that further discussion would be profitable.

I really enjoyed seeing what your room/car looks like. I think you can learn a lot about someone from the way they choose to live (to the degree that they put any effort into decorating, which you clearly do). I also like the Confederate flag. A couple of people have asserted that it "stands for slavery" and that that fact is "not disputable," but I'm disputing it, so there. At face value, at issue in the Civil War was an increasingly tax-hungry and tyrannical federal government, and the fight for states rights. The fathers of Southern independence were certainly right about growing federal tyranny - look where we are now - and they were right about it then, too. The North had a history of imposing economic controls upon the South that put a damper on economic progress - see Tariff of Abominations. To me, and to many others, the Confederate flag is a symbol of resistance to unjust federal laws. It can't be a symbol of slavery, since nobody actually supports slavery. That said, I would be hesitant to display a Confederate flag in public, since some people associate it with racism. What is the flag with the red "sun" and red lines? It looks like the Japanese naval flag... and why the Native American chiefs on the wall?

I really enjoyed this, so thanks! I agree with the point Thales made.

No thanks! (If you are taken aback by this, I don't mean to be rude... I'd be willing to explain my objection.)

Amen to all the Rush posts!!! I went to their Snakes & Arrows tour in Raleigh, NC on the Wednesday before the last one... it was beyond incredible. I'm thinking about driving to another show in Texas or up somewhere north at the end of the summer. Some of my very favorites have already been taken (especially Something for Nothing), but here's a few that have been left out: There's lots of great Rush stuff on YouTube for anyone who isn't familiar with them. Anybody recognize what my avatar is from? If you do, I'll give you a digital smile...

Happy birthday!

Sorry guys, I think I threw a monkey wrench of confusion into this thread when I said he's "strongly against anti-immigration," by which I meant he's "strongly against immigration" or, alternatively, "anti-immigrantion." To clear up - I take the position that unlimited immigration is a good thing if it's legal, and Sarko seems to want to cut off immigration. I agree with sNerd that strict labor laws are terrible for the people on the bottom and might be helpful for Pierre's cousin - and I think Sarko is the kind of guy who probably wants to do away with the 35-hour week (I've read quotes of him to that extent), but probably isn't so concerned about doing what will help Fatou if it's not going to be good for Pierre's cousin. It's interesting that, contrary to popular opinion and what I myself thought recently, France isn't a nation where the right-wingers are "lite socialists" like in, say, Sweden. They've truly got the full political spectrum - but the left tends to have a lot more influence than in America. Le Pen is a strong right-winger, even by our standards, who wants a return to traditional values; he's never going to get into France's political mainstream, but he's seen a lot more support than most would expect, and there's definitely a strong right-wing tendency in France these days (hence Sarko's election).

If I asked him that, then I would be blowing smoke! Well, OK, everything you've said sounds pretty good. Do you think it would be valid to say that my buddy's claim is in violation of the Identity axiom, or is that perhaps a simplification or misstatement of the axiom?

Yeah, I'm tired too... been studying for an exam all night. My question: Is the claim that physics is a probability game (as opposed to a system of rules, properties and principles that we are used to thinking about) compatible with Objectivist axioms and Objectivist metaphysics? Or, can Objectivism disprove this claim?

Thanks for all the good information, Prometheus. All that is helpful but I guess I'm more concerned specifically with the rules of physics always working out of a high statistical probability - putting aside the question of observation of something or not. Also - I'm mainly interested in whether or not such a claim could be axiomatically, metaphysically valid.

*** Mod's note: Merged with earlier thread. sN *** Some people I've talked to (fellow undergraduates) claim that reality is predictable only because of statistical likelihood. For example: Something could "fall up," against gravity, but the chance of it doing so is simply very tiny. This is supposedly due to the nature of quantum physics. I don't know much more about the theory (i.e. whether or not it holds that a chair could randomly turn into a potato), but I suspect so (according to the theory). Basically, the theory is that physics has no set rules; things are just most likely to happen in a certain way.. My question - does this particular claim violate the axioms (specifically Identity), and is it otherwise consistent or inconsistent with Objectivist metaphysics? Additionally, if anyone knows anything about the science (or quack science) behind this, please speak up.

I don't know much about the guy. He said America could count on France as an ally, which is great, but he also said America shouldn't hold back in the effort to fight invisible monsters *cough* I mean, global warming. The sense I get of the guy is really good, though, and I really disliked Royal. Oh, another thing - he's strongly against anti-immigration. While I don't think that's the solution to the massive amounts of unemployable N. Africans in France, I'm glad he sees it as a problem (and not one that's solved with big government programs). On a related topic - I found amusing. It's Tony Blair's public welcome of Sarkozy onto the the world scene. I thought it was really cool that he did it on YouTube instead of in the mainstream media, and it's really funny hearing him try to speak French. He does a good job, from what I can tell, but he starts out (something like, as this is my translation), "Hello everyone, I've decided to risk addressing you in French, although it may have been a very bad idea..."

The protagonist is Jean Valjean, who as a starving young man steals a loaf of bread and is imprisoned for 19 years (or is it 27?). A very bad experience indeed. He ends up escaping from prison and starting a factory which revitalizes a town; he eventually becomes mayor. Meanwhile, Inspector Javert is trying to track down the escaped prisoner, and eventually does... Valjean also adopts an orphan girl and raises her as his own daughter. A lot of action takes place in Parisian uprisings (1832, I believe?) - which actually happened, historically. The characters I've already mentioned are entangled with people fighting on both sides, all for noble causes. Anyway, there's just so much more to it, and it really is well-written, but that's the basics (and I haven't told you the cool stuff, so as not to ruin it).

Me? But this thread isn't about me! Anyway... Les Mis is, to me, spiritually moving. The characters really exemplify (to me), in many ways, what it means to be alive. Les Mis is human volition, desire, and search for value transformed into beautiful language. (OK, that sounded extremely cheesy. You just have to read it - and I don't think you can consider yourself an educated person until you do - it is that important in the literary canon.)

If you're looking for the "proof" of the 3 central axioms of Objectivism (existence, consciousness, and identity), it's that these axioms are presupposed in all knowledge. Because the axioms are presupposed in all knowledge, anyone who tries to argue that one of them is false can easily be defeated in an argument. For example, a skeptic must assume that existence exists in saying "Existence does not exist." For something to not exist, something has to exist, etc. I could be more helpful if I had OPAR handly, but like tps_fan said, it's WELL worth your time to read the first chapter and see how eloquently the axioms can be shown to be absolutely bulletproof.