eficazpensador
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by eficazpensador
-
-
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.
-
According to a new survey by Baylor University, more than half of Americans say that they are protected by a guardian angel. This study is truly remarkable in my opinion. If its findings are correct, it seems that rational individuals are losing the war against mysticism. From a Washington Times story on the survey:
"Half of all Americans believe they are protected by guardian angels, one-fifth say they've heard God speak to them, one-quarter say they have witnessed miraculous healings, 16 percent say they've received one and 8 percent say they pray in tongues, according to a survey released Thursday by Baylor University.
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.
-
OK. So now what happens? The government has stepped in to the tune of $1,000,000,000,000 or so, so what does it mean? What is going to be the result of this intervention?
Oh, pick me! Austrian Business Cycle Theory?
-
one time when I heard Andy Bernstein speak that he mentioned he wouldn't vote for Democrats.
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.
-
I usually find Mises to be a good, clear source for economic insight:
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.
-
and most particulary Friedman
Why is that?
-
A guy with no license and no insurance rides his motorcycle. A guy in a truck switches lanes without looking and hits the guy on the motorcycle. Guy in the truck stops to see if guy on motorcycle is OK. He is slightly injured and his bike is totaled. Guy in truck finds out guy on bike has no license or insurance. Guy in truck knows that guy on bike can't call the cops, so guy in truck drives off without fear or repercussions.
Now, is the guy on the bike in the wrong for not having a license or insurance? Of course. But what the guy in the truck did is still extremely immoral. But, he lives to drive another day.
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.This is what businesses do as well. They cut corners when they know they can get away with it, and given the opportunity will behave unethically when it behooves them.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.
-
An example of collusion between manufacturer and third party evaluator is a pharmaceutical company providing kick-backs or gifts for doctors and hospitals that recommend their product.
And if the product is crappy, how long do you think the hospital will keep its reputation?
By definition a Free Market assume no coercion or fraud between buyer and seller (or from third parties), with everything determined by transactions based on mutual consent governed solely by the law of supply and demand.As you can see, that requires ALL CONSUMERS and PRODUCERS to be honest, rational, and aware.
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.
That is why while I consider it to be the ultimate expression, practically other steps must be taken first.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.
-
You need to read more Objectivism. There is no such thing as something that is good in theory but not in practice. A good theory is a practical theory.
I understand Objectivism. Did you read the quote? That is what Moebius is asserting, not me.
-
How about you read what I actually wrote instead of what you assume I meant.
It is quite difficult to understand a person's tone through the internet. My mistake.
So... what is your problem again? The fact that I wrote "in theory" behind it?Yes actually. That makes it look like you believe it to be only a theory and not practical. Again, sorry if I was mistaken.
However as far as practicality goes, it would obviously be far more complicated when it is introduced into reality.For instance, I think the government is still needed to monitor collusion and fraud between manufacturers and third party labelers, at least until such time that a critical mass of consumers are educated and aware enough to make rational decisions -- so on and so forth.
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 is right on this one
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.
-
Yeah but oftentimes it would be a huge waste of time and resources locating an "expert" if all I wanted to know was how many grams of fat is in the cheese that I am buying.
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.
To be honest as a consumer I generally quite enjoy the results of "consumer rights".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 think the real issue here is that producers are forced at gun point to provide these information. Objectivism would probably argue that if there are enough consumers like me, the market would automatically adjust itself to include these labels since those products would be preferred and therefore more competitiveI 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.
- theoretically.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.
-
Also, the argument goes, failure will have a "domino effect".
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!
-
2. For every buyer in the market there must be a seller.
Number 2 is most important of all, and most people tend to forget it when discussing these sorts of things.
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.
-
I perceive that the disagreement you have with a few other members on this issue stems from different usage of the words 'subjective' and 'objective'. If I am not mistaken, you seem to be using the words 'objective' and 'intrinsic' interchangably. Although this is probably how 'objective' is normally used by modern philosophers, it is not how Objectivists use it. In addition, I suspect that your usage of the word 'subjective' is different from how Objectivists use that term.
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?
According to Objectivist philosophy, there is no dichotomy between subjective values and intrinsic values. Subjective values, if I am not mistaken, would be something that is good because of the subject but completely independent of the facts of the reality.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.
If values are subjective, then some individuals can decide that abusing crack cocaine or crystal methamphetamine regardless of the fact that embracing such a habit will destroy your life. Similarly, intrinsic means that an object is good, in and of itself. So if mozarella cheese is intrinsically good, then it should be good for everyone, regardless if the person happens to be lactose intolerant, has heart problems or just happens to not like the taste.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.
I like to use set theory to explain the allowance for personal preferences with objective values. The way I see it, there is an objectively defined set of life-advancing values and the complement of that set are values that are not life advancing. For example, in the context of dietary preferences, there are plenty of foods that are well within the set of possible life-advancing values for cuisine: New York strip steak, Chicken parmesgian, Rigatoni vodka, Bourbon-marinated salmon, et cetera. With reasonable exceptions, an individual can objectively claim that some meals in this set are values to him and others are not, depending on his personal tastes. The point is, this set of possible values is objectively defined.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.
-
They aren't intrinsic because without the valuer they have no value. On the other hand, they are not purely mental constructs. They are the result of the man looking at the external world and evaluating the "is" for its various attributes (its intrinsic features, if you will); then, relating it to himself and figuring out the "ought".
Exactly! Its value depends on the objects ability to ease a dissatisfaction.
Well then, all other things wouldn't be equal then. My response was worded very carefully. Subjective is too broad a term. It implies that any choice is valid and rational.Thanks, it's a font I had designed based upon my own handwriting.
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."
-
Rational values are not subjective. They are contextually objective. All other things being equal, if you flip these two guys around, the value stays the same in each context.
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.
It is true that some choices, such as choice of career, or favorite color, etc are arbitrary (philosophically speaking), but to the extent that choices are not arbitrary and to the extent that men use reason and adhere to reality, values become knowable, and causal.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 may differ among men, but they differ for good reason. They are not whim based, as the term subjective would indicate.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.
Subjective is not really the right term here.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.
-
Just because two parties mutually benefit from a voluntary transaction certainly does not mean that values are subjective.
No, It doesn't necessarily follow from that. Objective value was just my false premise.
Given that one villager objectively has a sufficient amount of wood to sustain his needs, it objectively makes sense that he will enhance his welfare by exchanging a few of his logs for agricultural produce. The same can be said for the farmer who trades the produce.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.
-
How does this differ from garden variety investment?
ruveyn
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.
but legendre provides Walker's possible reference: Rand's essay "The Money-Making Personality."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.
-
In every trade you exchange something of lesser value (to you) for something of greater value (to you). If you chop wood all day the value of your wood is low. If you are a farmer the value of food is low. You both go to the market and exchange wood and food et voila you both gained a greater value for a lesser value -> wealth was created.
Ok, that makes sense. I was assuming that values weren't subjective.
What wealth creation functions do speculators perform?They allocate capital to where it is needed the most.
-
Wealth is created with each purchase you make [of course with the premise that you earned the money and that you are acting in your own self-interest.]
How does that create wealth?
-
Wow that's amazing, and the article was wonderful up until this point:
We have a collective responsibility to do this.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.
John Lewis on Radio tonight (Oct 2nd, 2008)
in Events & Announcements
Posted
Where is he? He's late.