Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by utabintarbo

  1. Does this not also rule out any Democrat, quasi-Democrat, liberal, etc. as well?
  2. One would think that the candidates themselves would support such a check. Anything they find will undoubtedly be found by someone. Better to find out sooner, rather than later.
  3. I imagine that is possible, but from a viewpoint of political pragmatism, highly unlikely. After all, Bush 2 had the Presidency and both houses, and it didn't happen. Like it or not, the political will of the electorate matters, and nothing is likely to happen in the foreseeable future to change that. Basing one's political choices of the possibility of an exceedingly unlikely scenario seems ....wasteful. The more likely scenario is that Barry gets a 2nd term, turns even more ridiculously to the left (since he'll have more "flexibility" by being relieved of the burden of reelection), nominates 2 Justices to the SCOTUS, and we'll relive the massive expansion of Federal power brought on by the Warren court, only on steroids and crystal meth. Or we elect Romney, and realign more center-right, get 2 Justices of the Roberts mold, and find that we still have to guess how cases will be decided. In either scenario, BTW, we encounter an economic crisis which may render all this moot.
  4. It is unlikely that we will have a decade. More likely that it will happen within a year. Be prepared.
  5. Nobody wants to reverse Roe v. Wade, despite all protestations to the contrary. Abortion rights enjoys the support of a majority of the public. As long as that holds true, it will never be overturned. The SCOTUS would simply deny writ. They don't want to get involved in that either. I really don't understand Objectivists that see the right as a threat vis-a-vis the left. It seems to indicate an absolute political tin ear, as if we were politically on the very precipice of falling into a theocracy if <insert Republican candidate here> is elected. It ain't going to happen. There is no political will to go there. One might hear stuff like that from the crazies that tend to get the attention of the press, but it seems only other crazies take them seriously. Generalizing that view onto an entire swath of the electorate, and the candidates that make tangentially obsequious noises in their direction (because that's where the press is looking) is a mistake. One must realize that the Presidential Election is a game much like Survivor, and integrity is not included in the rules.
  6. Judging from the article, thinking is not a strong point with him.
  7. Not really. They will, at the very least, shed the stink from that 0-16 season, and become a potential destination for the odd free agent who may just put them "over the top" to get into the Super Bowl conversation. Besides, with Stafford and C. Johnson, they have at least a "puncher's chance". If they had any running game at all, I'd give them more than that.
  8. "Religious science" is kinda oxymoronic. It seems to be an attempt to "square the circle", allowing room for both rationality and faith. Such cognitive dissonance would give me a headache, but it seems to be needed by some.
  9. Agreed. I was off the wagon for a bit there, but I am pretty firmly back on it now. I see the Lions in playoffs as being all-but assured. BTW, Green Bay's loss will not hurt that assessment in the least, as they will no longer be going for perfection (and WTF! - a loss to the freaking CHIEFS!!!!!). Unfortunately, I also see a quick exit from them being pretty likely as well.
  10. Amorality means, in this context, that they (Adam & Eve) would have had no frame of reference to determine that eating the fruit, or even dying, was "wrong". Before the eating of the fruit, "wrong" (or "right", ftm) didn't exist.
  11. And, of course, that begs the question... You're missing the point: If Adam & Eve had no knowledge of the concepts of "right and wrong" before they ate the fruit, how would they know it was "wrong" to eat it? Kinda like an ex post facto law.
  12. The OWS types (generally speaking) are essentially laying the groundwork for greater statism. This will likely become manifest when the US hits the economic wall of debt it has constructed, and the government will be forced into the Morton's Fork of printing (a la Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany) or running government on an effectively cash basis. This will zero out nearly all social program spending, sparking unrest. Order will be demanded. You see where this is going....
  13. True, the deficit will keep growing, until it can't. That is, when there will be no demand for Treasury debt at sustainable interest rates. You can see this happening in Italy as we speak - the interest rates on their sovereign debt is rising rapidly. At the point where the carrying costs of the outstanding debt exceed tax revenue, you become instantly insolvent. With the kind of deficits we are running, even a small uptick in interest rates on Treasury debt would be disastrous (assuming our present level of "obligations"). The alternatives would be inflate or run government on a cash basis. The second is the kind of austerity that would be economically sustainable, but politically unworkable. Too many people out there feel "entitled" to their free shit (see mass protests in Greece - it will be no different here, other than the guns ). But printing to satiate the masses blows the whole system up and effectively takes the US government with it. Better to put down riots than have utter chaos consume us. In any case, given the general attitude of entitlement (see AARP ), the only politically viable course is to keep the free bennies rolling. They may be trimmed a bit (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth), but they will not go away. There are very few politicians out there willing to commit political suicide, and very many who will tell people what they want to hear (see GOP Debates ). Given the nature of compound interest, we are long past the point at which a long-term plan will be sufficient. We need to cut spending. Now.
  14. First, utabintarbo is all one word. Thanks. Second, my post-oblivion scenarios were in my first post. FWIW, I tend to think the deflationary depression scenario is the most likely. In either scenario, we will likely end up less free, for the reasons stated previously.
  15. I think that 'reserve currency status' also refers to A) Much of the world's commerce is denominated in USD the fact that the world perceives the USD as the currently best store of wealth available. When the Euro goes boom (and it will), there will be a flow of wealth into dollars (and PM's). These flows will mitigate somewhat the rate (but not the inevitability) of our swirling into oblivion.
  16. They would more likely view the complete obliteration of their population as their blessed delivery of their peoples to Allah's holy paradise.
  17. US != former Soviet Union in so many ways, but chief among them (in this context) is that the US enjoys reserve currency status. This acts as a brake on any collapse that may happen, and why the rest of the world generally suffers more than the US does.
  18. There's little doubt that America remains the premier super-power, both economically and militarily. The old adage goes that when America sneezes, the world gets a cold. That likely will be the case. Given the scenario I see for America, I fully expect it to be substantially worse elsewhere.
  19. In the end, what you arrive at is a distinction without a difference. The endpoints have different names, but the means are essentially identical. It becomes more about marketing at that point.
  20. I think y'all are entirely too optimistic, and that scares the hell out of me. The "can-kicking" that Maarten ref'd has a finite endpoint beyond which it will simply not work. Eventually, people/governments (the Chinese) will no longer lend us money at effectively 0% interest. This will leave us with two options: 1. Inflate, Zimbabwe-style, to eliminate the debt overhang by paying it down with effectively worthless dollars/euros; 2. Deflate, and allow prices to fall to equilibrium via foreclosures/bankruptcies. This will have the effect of raising interest rates dramatically. BTW, this also entails the effective total dismantling of the Welfare State, as the government will be unable to deficit spend (at the new, higher rates), and will have to live on a cash basis (with a tremendously smaller tax base, at that). This is your classic Depression scenario. #1 will impoverish all but the super-rich and well-connected. It will wipe out savings and encourage capital flight. What capital that does remain will be even more concentrated than it is now. It will be a return to the Middle Ages. Expect riots, with even (formerly) middle-class participation. OTOH, those who invested in PM's will look like geniuses. #2 will wipe out those who carry debt, and will be a great opportunity for those who do not. The depth of the depression will depend on the amount of debt in the system at that time. The length will depend on governmental actions attempting to mitigate damage. Less gov't action => shorter but sharper. See Depression of 1920-21 and The Great Depression for examples of both types. One big difference between then and today is that we now have a large plurality of humanoids actively receiving money from the government. Money which will likely no longer be available to pass out/buy votes with. There will be a good chunk of these people who will be unhappy. Expect riots, though it will likely be the usual suspects only. Likely short-term scenario: Obama/Bernanke continue to kick the can until either China's RE bubble implodes (they stop buying T-bills); the Euro implodes (or a reasonable facsimile thereof); or Obama gets re-elected. In any case, the next guy in the Oval Office is going to be the next Hoover (unless he can pawn blame off onto Obama). Longer-term scenario: A 20-ish year Depression, as whoever is in power will likely do everything they can to mitigate damage, and therefore prolong the necessary pain. At the end, which will likely involve some kind of military activity, we will be even less free than we are today. I say this because though Rand's ideas are definitely out there and being talked about, they have not yet reached the "critical mass" needed to tip the balance away from the Dark Army of Leeches. While the Atlas Shrugged scenario all happened in a very few years, I'm afraid real life won't be nearly as cooperative.
  21. It's good that your local paper so strongly supports women's sports. In news about men's sports, the loss Sunday to the 49ers has me preliminarily re-assessing my initial enthusiasm for the Lions. I had no illusions about them going 16-0, but the way the Offense was so ....lame gives me pause. Another reasonable test comes on Sunday against the Falcons. If they right the ship, I may have to, once again, belly up to the Lions' kool-aid bar.
  • Create New...