eficazpensador

Where is he? He's late.

If god is all powerful, he can make an immovable object. If god is all powerful, he can move any object.

When I was younger, I loved Lego Mindstorms. It was the greatest toy ever made. Building Legos is just something you have to learn. There are certain instances where things seem like they should match up, but they don't. For instance, if you stack the long pieces with holes in the middle, the axle holes often don't line up well enough to accept certain gears. My guess as to why there's no website explaining all of this, is that there are just too many possibilities.

I have a hard time believing that half of people in the U.S. think they are protected by a guardian angel. That just seems like a B.S. statistic to me. I also have a hard time believing that 8 percent of Americans pray in tongues. Unless of course, they count Hispanics, and people of other nationalities that pray in their native language.

Oh, pick me! Austrian Business Cycle Theory?

I asked him about this once after a lecture he gave. He told me he wasn't sure of peikoff's current opinion about the election. He said he would not vote Democrat because he believes religion is on a downward trend. He also told me he had not thought about it enough yet (this was before the candidates were even picked), so who knows what his current position is.

Do these idiots think that suspending short selling is going to magically help these companies? I mean, do they really think that they can substitute their irrational whims for reality? This is scary stuff.

Why is that?

Yeah, the guy in the truck initiated force against the motorcycle driver, but its the bike driver's fault he can't call the police. The situation is similar to a man who is out streaking in only a trench coat. Lets say while running around flashing people, he gets robbed and the thief takes his coat. The streaker can't call the police and report the theft for obvious reasons. The streaker and the bike rider, decided that their illegal hobbies were worth the potential downsides. They ultimately chose to take the risk. The story about the truck driver is entirely unrelated to businesses. If a business can get away with cutting corners, then clearly the consumers don't care that they do it.

And if the product is crappy, how long do you think the hospital will keep its reputation? No, under a Free Market coercion is illegal. Those who initiate force are punished (fraud is the initiation of force). The Free Market protects property rights. It is not anarchy. The Free Market doesn't require everyone be rational, it just promotes it. Once again, you say quite clearly that it is an ideal that is not practical right now. If suddenly we were placed into a Free Market, it would not require government regulation. It is not a utopia like communism. It doesn't require anyone to be anything but human.

I understand Objectivism. Did you read the quote? That is what Moebius is asserting, not me.

It is quite difficult to understand a person's tone through the internet. My mistake. Yes actually. That makes it look like you believe it to be only a theory and not practical. Again, sorry if I was mistaken. So now you don't regard the theory as practical. Do you see why I was unable to understand your position? What sort of collusion would the government need to monitor? And of course the government will protect against fraud. That is one of its assumed roles in a free market.

I think Moebius was saying that the market won't take care of it, and that it is only a theory but not practical. I think it's pretty obvious that there's an enormous market for nutrition labels.

And if you could not find out, you wouldn't buy it. It might be a pain for you, but a lost sale is also a pain for the company. Yeah, and if I were a poor man, I would enjoy it if the wealthy were forced to give me a percentage of their income. But my enjoyment doesn't make it right. I don't think Objectivism "argues" that the market would take care of the problem. It "argues" that it is immoral to initiate force against the producer. Do you really think that food producers would stop including nutrition facts if the Government stopped forcing them? Please. Everyone and their grandma looks at and uses this information. With all of the countless people on diets, few people would buy food if they were unsure of its nutritional value.

What is your argument against this statement?

All of his arguments are straight out of the first few chapters of "Mere Christianity." Read it if you want to know what he's going to say next!

Warren Buffet was on CNBC the other day saying the exact same thing. Oil speculation doesn't remove any supply. Its not like guys working on Wall Street are going to have 100 barrels of crude oil delivered to their homes.

Perhaps. I'm using the dictionary definition of both words. Subjective defined as: "belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)." Objective defined as: "belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective)." It seems that according to this definition, if the value is objective, it belongs to the object and thus is intrinsic. I understand that our definitions differ and therefore makes this impossible to discuss. Can you supply an Objectivist definition of Objective? I believe the Austrian's used subjective to describe the fact that value is different for each individual. I am not arguing that this was right or wrong, simply because I have no idea. That's just how it was used. Remember that the value we are referring to is economic value. I agree with your statement about the cheese. That's obviously not the case in reality. Once again, we're talking about economic values. This is a mere mix up of words because our ideas are the same. Economic value depends on the person and his circumstances. Whether we call it subjective or objective or neither I'm really not sure.

Exactly! Its value depends on the objects ability to ease a dissatisfaction. Well if everything were equal they'd have to have the same exact judgments. Of course they would attribute the same value to the wood. Either way, all we're arguing about now is what term to use. I used subjective simply because that's the word the Austrian economists used for their "Subjective Value Theory."

How can you know that if you flip the two men's position they will each value the log as the other valued it? Lets change the scenario a bit. Lets say one man loves to have flowers around his house and has a lot of them. His friend on the other hand, hates flowers and does not have many. Now clearly the first man values flowers a lot more than his friend. If you flip the two men's position, they will not flip their valuations. Yes, they are causal. They are caused by each man's personal choices (whether it is his career choice, or just a personal taste). In other words they are subjective to each individual. I agree that the word subjective has a negative connotation of being irrational. The dictionary definition is: "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought." They're certainly not objective as Marx thought. If values were objective, they would belong to the object. They would be intrinsic. We all know there can only be values for man. If you go by the exact definition of the word, then it is correct. If we were to use the word contextual, it would imply that values are based on the context alone, and unrelated to man. p.s. I like your signature.

No, It doesn't necessarily follow from that. Objective value was just my false premise. Right. He may have an objectively sufficient amount of wood, but the wood is just a means for his subjectively chosen goal. Values are subjective. If a man has enough wood for two dozen people, a single log is of less value to him than to a guy with no wood. A single log does not have an objective value, that is equal for everyone. Values are not intrinsic, it is dependent upon man. Therefore value must be chosen by each individual.

Maybe I misunderstood your initial question. Both investors and speculators are trying to allocate their capital as best as possible in order to make money. I don't think their intentions or functions differ much. That quote is not in "The Money-Making Personality." You are right about the similar ideas though, at least sort of. There is a quote: "I once asked Alan Greenspan...to venture an estimate on what percentage of men in our business world he would regard as authentic Money-Makers-as men fully sovereign, independent judgment. He thought for a moment and answered a little sadly: "On Wall Street-about five per cent; in industry-about fifteen." Rand defines "Money-Makers" as business men who created their wealth without influence/help from the government. Basically, shes talking about something entirely different than you were talking about.

Ok, that makes sense. I was assuming that values weren't subjective. They allocate capital to where it is needed the most.

How does that create wealth?

Wow that's amazing, and the article was wonderful up until this point: Those damn collectivists know how to put a damper on everything. I wonder how far away they are from production of sizable quantities. Also, I wonder if it will still be economically feasible when the oil bubble bursts.