Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

adrock3215

Regulars
  • Content Count

    978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About adrock3215

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

3078 profile views
  1. And how does that affect the overall economy when the total amount paid out in dividends remains the same?
  2. No, inflation would not occur. Each shareholder does not have "less money" to invest in other things in the strict sense. All that has happened is that each shareholder now owns a smaller piece of Wells Fargo. Take this example: I own 1 share of Wells Fargo's (WFC) 100 outstanding shares (1% of the bank) WFC issues 10 new shares and sells them to new investors I now own 1 share of WFC's 110 shares (0.91% of the bank) If the total market cap of WFC was originally $1000, then each of the 100 shares was worth $10. Say that the market cap stays the same after WFC sells the new shares (
  3. There are a lot of mistakes in your post Brian. Companies issue and destroy shares all the time. Sometimes they issue shares to pay off debts. It's called converting debt into equity, which is a normal recapitalization procedure. If you and I own a business, and then we each sell more or less 17% of our shares to a third person, then each of the three of us will end up owning a third of the company. The same process is at work here. That's why you see terms like dilution. Instead of floating (say) 1,000,000 shares, Wells Fargo will float (say) 1,200,000 shares. Therefore each share represe
  4. You cannot prove the existence of free will deductively. As Thomas said, most attempts to do so usually lapse into a discussion of physics, since that is the logical deductive starting point. Instead, I recommend approaching the conversation by rejecting physics as a starting point. The method which I have found to work (at least on some level) is to get at the following questions in some way: "Do you have any reason to suppose that human beings do not have free will? Are you really good at predicting the actions of human beings? If so, what will Tom be doing tomorrow afternoon at 1:21?" Le
  5. adrock3215

    Mark Twain

    I think he is a great writer. I always find Twain eminently quotable. He is full of witty aphorisms. I also think that Huck Finn is a great novel, though I remember the second half of the book as being somewhat crude (Twain stopped working on the novel about halfway through, where he picked it back up several years later is obvious.)
  6. I posted yesterday: Facebook user: thinks that no one should die because they cannot afford *your* health care, and no one should go broke because *you* get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
  7. Interesting appearance, but CNBC anchors do need to do a better job mediating the discussion. Overall, I don't think that appearance was very productive.
  8. Like sNerd, I do not see the problem with this statement. First, I don't read it as pushing blame on Rand for the current crisis at all. Second, everything said in the sentence is factually true. The key is that "influencing" White House policy means literally just that; it does not mean that the White House literally followed Rand's philosophy.
  9. Jonathon13: Dali purposefully ignored the knowledge gained during the early Renaissance regarding the acurate portrayal of three dimensions on a two dimensional picture plane and distorted the lines of the cross in this painting. The reason this painting is subtitled Corpus Hypercubus is because the cross is created from an unfolded hypercube. A hypercube is the four dimensional analogue of a typical three dimensional cube. You can view a picture of one here. In the same way that a three dimensional cube can be unfolded into a two dimensional image composed of six squares, a four dimension
  10. I think that you are being dishonest; that is to say, that you made all this up to try to get someone to congratulate you for being honest, while you are in fact lying.
  11. Given her intense admiration of Victor Hugo, this should be an obvious point incapable of being contested. Several of Hugo's works are motivated by causes and concerns which Rand would disagree with. Another example: Rand's admiration of Quo Vadis. Seinkiewicz imbued the novel with intense pro-Christian themes (his motivation for writing the work).
  12. Yes it does. I provided the reasons above. The painter is exercising judgment according to his values and expressing it through his representation of the "something" in "some" way. Yes, it would be art. Whatever arbitrary distinction you are drawing between art and non-art in your head, you should move away from. The only line between art and non-art is representation. Art as representation (which has its philosophical roots in Aristotle's Poetics) is the only qualification. What is typically referred to as art as form (which has its philosophical roots mainly in Kant) is not art, beca
  13. I think that the painting of a loaf of bread and a streetscene are indeed art. Regardless of how dedicated he is to depicting reality truly and accurately, the painter will inevitably have to make choices about what to include, how to represent the objects he perceives, etc. More importantly, as Jackethan pointed out, the artist is making a choice by deciding what scene to represent in the first place. This cannot be totally random, as if the artist spun a wheel and landed on a streetscene or a loaf of bread rather than a sea otter. Instead, the artist must have paused on the relevant street/i
×
×
  • Create New...