utabintarbo

What K-Mac said. I am not happy about this. I work in the auto industry (so far). But throwing good money after bad seems like a silly policy. Time to re-org or liquidate. And this particular Seinfeld ref. seems pretty apropos here. Sorry.

I'd be interested. Can shorts/options/etc. be done on up/down?

This is hardly the fault of the philosophy, but rather those that look for a cult within the philosophy. One would think it obvious that the actions of a few individuals that label themselves as "Brand X" do not necessarily impugn all adherents of "Brand X". That would be collectivist thinking, no?

Such is the burden of an acolyte. He has no other choice.

Too late. We are already living that cartoon.

Well, you would think it would imply that if an on-topic question is asked, that it should be met with an answer, and not equivocations and ad hominem. Not that anybody really expected you to answer.... On-topic: Given the level of Democrat control in Congress, I would submit that any strongly right-wing Republican would be better, so as to establish gridlock. The economy needs the government to step back and let things fall where they may. This would be politically unpopular, and could probably only happen in a divided government (thereby allowing one side to blame the other). And yes, I realize this is strongly antithetical to Objectivist reasoning on contemporary US politics. But I think it is defensible nonetheless, in so far as economic issues are concerned.

Epic Fail. And now they beg for more money to flush. No soup for you, GM. To bankruptcy you go!

It is the triumph of form over substance. There are literally trillions of dollars that have gone away as a result of the deflation in housing prices. Throwing $75B at it is like trying to sink a battleship with a slingshot. But it looks like "change", and is designed to give all those upside-down homeowners "hope". Good fscking luck with that.

Some have, but nobody listens.

Given the current philosophical/cultural base of the country, it is more likely they will demand either a slight easing of the descent to socialism (a la Reaganism), or (IMO, more likely) a complete cradle-to-grave safety blanket and the concomitant economic stagnation rather than freedom and uncertainty. Personal responsibility has seemingly been bred out of all but those over ~50 yrs. old. I hope I'm wrong.

That's his plan... Blow the deficit up, then cut it in half. Which would still leave it almost twice Bush's biggest deficit. He'll increase the national debt by 60% in 3 years, and still blame it all on Bush.

It is actually a graphic off of a cake of fireworks. You can see it on top there. Hey, you brought it up!

It's the obamafication of my usual avatar. I thought the "OBEY" would be especially apropos on this forum, don't you?

I'm with you there. And I think you are referring to the "Combine".

Yes, they do that at the state level (rather than at the national level), hence my point.

This merely postpones the inevitable. Better to take our economic medicine fast and hard than draw it out, only to have a larger dose forced upon us later. Bad debts need to be forced out into the open and written off. Nationalization will merely allow them to be hidden and serviced by the government (read: you and I) until the inevitable capitulation is forced upon us all (rather than "just" the shareholders/creditors of the insolvent bank). This will likely result in Weimar-style monetization of the debt and epic inflation. Let's not go there.

Not to be overly pedantic here, but AFAIK, gerrymandering can really only take place at the state level, and can only really affect the Legislature/Congress. As the electoral college is by state, it would seem the best he can do is possibly add a very few* undeserved seats to "blue" states. While this might come into play in a very tight election, I think the depth of the coming disaster we face will make a tight election highly unlikely. More probable that he gets ousted/re-elected by near-acclimation. * I say "very few" due to the numbers of humanoids involved in defrauding the states out of rightful numbers. Conspiracies (not in the tin-foil hat sense) are successful in inverse proportion to the number of conspirators. States are often allocated funds by population, and the "losers" will raise a huge ruckus, and that will serve to expose any political "maneuvering" to cheat the states of their "rightful" allocation.

Eh?

http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/ Apparently, the Foundation for Economic Education has a special edition available in PDF format. Read this book.

<crickets chirping> Mammon?

I think, in addition to all that is being done to positively promote Objectivism, that an effort to impeach harmful competing popular philosophies (read: Pragmatism) may be in order. Right now, being "pragmatic" is in vogue. Everyone wants to be pragmatic. Our Supreme High Commander is all about pragmatism. "Pragmatic" is used as a compliment. I'm sure that in large part, the common usage is as a classier (sic) synonym for "practical", and that the larger (and more sinister) implications are lost on the average guy. This is where we need to concentrate some effort. By de-legitimizing Pragmatism, we would effectively blunt the sword being held to our political throats. No longer would politicians be able to substitute the word "pragmatic" for a discussion of the principles behind their argument. They would be forced to lay the truth out for all to see. This may not change the ultimate outcome, but I submit that it may make some proponents of Pragmatic Politics just a little uneasy. In short. we must hammer the point that Pragmatism is Politics stripped of ethics. This may not sell Objectivism, but making it difficult to sell a competitor can't hurt.

I can't speak for Bryan, but in my case, it (the underwear comment) is a running joke between my wife and I. Perhaps the smiley did not make that clear enough. We are actually pretty happy despite my inability to lift my underwear from the floor. Of course, I certainly don't get called "sexycakes" anymore.

Wow! Lucky guy. After 22 yrs. of marriage, I generally just get told to pick up my G.D. underwear.

To take your warfare metaphor, one could view Boxing as an individual battle within the greater battle. Kinda the same, but different perspective. There are objective criteria in Boxing as well. It is just that they are subjectively interpreted. FWIW, the effort to remove the subjectivity from Boxing (and other contact sports where "subtlety" is involved) have led to the disgusting mess that is Olympic Boxing, where 3 people on 3 sides of the ring must all see the same punch at the same time to score it. This has effectively caused a disconnect between Olympic success, and success out in the "real world" of Pro Boxing. The jab has become only useful punch in the Olympics, since it is the only punch all judges can easily see. I'm sure the Jackass fans would dig it. In any case, just as there are fans of Ballroom Dancing and women's sports (like soccer ), there are always going to be those that "get" a sport, and those that don't. I refuse to let this particular expression of individuality keep me from making fun of the fans of sports I don't "get".

That's just sad.