brian0918

I myself have not preemptively judged it to be bad - just that it can wait until DVD, based on specifically Grames's and Diana Hsieh's reviews, which I didn't find as simple to disregard as the criticisms you cite. I have also been hesitant to see it, knowing that the next time I read the book, I might end up picturing those actors in my head, rather than the characters I had previously imagined.

I had some motivation to see this film, but having read these reviews (and seeing on youtube), I think I'll wait till part 2, and see if they've learned from their mistakes.

Since his health problems, Ebert has grown a social consciousness. Obviously he's not going to look favorably on a philosophy that says we should not be forced to take care of his medical bills. However his review is more about the production quality than the philosophy, so I might end up being in agreement with his analysis, regardless of his own political views.

Definitely. But if the US is going to keep all of its promises to its citizens and creditors, it will easily eclipse all other nations in terms of printing. It has been able to avoid this in the last few years, due to its status as a reserve currency, but it cannot avoid it forever. I will note that the primary alternative currency recommended by both Schiff and Prechter is the Swiss Franc, and you can see by your own chart partially why that is. The Yen has also been a popular recommendation, though I wouldn't touch it after the latest disaster and the reaction of the BOJ in devaluing their own people's currency.

One other way in which that chart may not be a proper comparison is that the US economy is more highly-leveraged than other economies. A monetary expansion has a much greater impact in a highly-leveraged economy with easy credit. So in the US, a little monetary expansion goes a long way toward increasing prices. I would be interested in seeing a comparison in the expansion of not just the direct money supply, but also the money "supply" incurred through lending and debt. Given that we are the world's largest debtor nation, I can already predict what that chart will look like. Shadowstats is the only site I know of that gives alternative estimates. Here's an interesting article discussing the ways in which the money supply is under-reported in the US.

Given that the Federal Reserve no longer reports their broadest measures of monetary expansion, this chart may be comparing apples to oranges. We cannot check, because they don't cite their exact sources.

I think that depends on the time scale. They may drop in the short term due to the shock of a US dollar collapse, but assuming they do not print to try to devalue their currency and maintain an exchange rate with the USD, their currencies would gain strength against the dollar, giving their citizens more purchasing power, which is good for their economies. I like of 5 Asians and 1 American living on an island, in which the Asians are charged with doing all the work of gathering/preparing food, and the American is charged with doing the work of eating the food. Removing the American does not collapse their system - rather the Asians prosper as a result.

Tanaka: if you're going to downvote my post, at least explain what you found wrong with it.

I initially thought their difference was a matter of time horizon, but Prechter believes that the Fed is going to weigh the dangers and decide to let banks fail and let the government default on its promises to the world and its citizens. I believe what is partially blinding him is his adherence to these cyclical theories for predicting markets. I think all such theories are out the window once the markets can be heavily swayed on the whims of a politician or Fed chairman. If you go to schiffradio.com and sign up for the Premium account ($5 for a month access) you can listen to all the past discussions. This one is from 11/8/2010.

*** Mod's note: Merged into a related earlier thread. - sN *** I listened to a debate yesterday between Peter Schiff, who predicts dollar devaluation and the possibility of hyperinflation, and Bob Prechter, who agrees with Schiff on pretty much everything but how the Fed will react, and predicts major deflation. What was interesting was that there was some major overlap in their recommendations about how to hedge against these possibilities - both recommended owning gold and foreign currencies such as the Swiss Franc. Their main difference was that Schiff recommended getting out of the dollar, while Prechter recommended holding dollars (actual cash in your hands, not simply a bank account balance). So in looking into it, I found out that you can buy large amounts of foreign currencies at your local bank pretty easily, for a small fee. And if you ever need to exchange back into the dollar, you can simply bring the foreign currency back to the bank and get dollars at the current exchange rate (which, I'll note, is not the exact same exchange rate that is mentioned in popular media - that one is only used for inter-bank transactions over $1M). The most common foreign currencies to hold are other so-called "reserve currencies". But several of these reserve currency countries are currently in trouble, and actively devaluing their currency (e.g. euro, yen). The only ones that appear safe are the Swiss Franc, Canadian Dollar, and maybe the Australian Dollar. For proximity reasons, CAD would be a good choice. With all that said, what do others think of this strategy? Some possible downsides would be if there's a run on the banks and they are forced to shut their doors, it will be much more difficult to switch the foreign currency back into dollars. Another issue is if an event occurs one day and the dollar plummets in value during the day, the bank's stated exchange rate will not be updated until the next day, so you won't be able to get your Canadian dollars switched back to US dollars at the higher amount if you need cash for some reason. For reasons like these, it's still probably a good idea to have a portion of savings in dollars.

The legality is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you are liable to be arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in jail, regardless of the actual legality. So long as the government holds the monopoly on both force and legal tender, there is an inherent conflict of interest in that relationship. So you cannot assume you will get a fair trial, regardless of the legality of your actions. Nevermind the fact that laws are often written in a vague and contradictory way to leave room for just such individuals who attempt to skirt the system. Talk to Irwin Schiff about the difference between what the law says versus what the legal system does.

Some people may recall Binswanger's online written debate with "the Maverick Philosopher" in 2009, in which he had similar failings. He assumed that the person he was debating was actually open-minded and interested in the specifics of Objectivism. In reality, the guy only wanted to get HB on record making ridiculous-sounding statements, and HB obliged - e.g. stating that he only knows one person who is capable of easily translating between the Objectivist sense of a word and the popular sense. HB spent most of his time attacking other Objectivist commenters, calling them false representatives of Objectivism, telling them not to get involved in the debate - that it was a debate between "professional philosophers" - all the while the Maverick Philosopher was laughing at HB making a fool of himself. In this discussion, HB similarly assumed that this was going to be an actual discussion of the proper formation of the concept of "freedom", that it was going to stay on topic, that his opponent was a reasonable individual who was interested in considering the ideas of Objectivism. I can only attribute this naivete to an inexperience with debates.

I only saw part of the debate, but from the comments here, it is what I expected of Binswanger. I have seen him engage in discussions/debates before, and he is good in the abstract, and making opening speeches, but as soon as he's confronted with an opponent, he gets lost in the irrationality of the opponent's statements, and doesn't know how to handle it properly.

The 2nd debate includes Harry Binswanger, not Yaron Brook. From what I've seen, I don't think Binswanger is very good at debating, but maybe he'll surprise us.

I am not sure what amount of silver or SLV is in their financial products. You can argue that they were not actively selling silver to their customers, but I do still see a potential conflict of interest, being the largest holder of silver while also being the largest shorter of silver. If they can simply issue more paper silver to absorb increasing demand, without actually adding more silver to their collection, they can suppress silver prices. If they were more transparent about their holdings, like other precious metal ETFs, there wouldn't be any room for these conspiracy theories. The bigger story is how JP Morgan is allegedly manipulating silver prices to drive them down at key times. A while back there was a metals trader who blew the whistle to the CFTC about how it occurs, and giving them predictions about when futures instances would occur - predictions which came true. From the link:

It's a shame the way they have dragged his name through the mud. He should have built into the company's contracts a requirement to change its name if the company does not stick to certain principles. I'm not saying they've done anything illegal, but there is certainly a moral hazard and conflict of interest when you are the largest custodian to silver (Barclays iShares SLV ETF), while simultaneously holding the world's largest short position in silver. They persuade half their customers to buy one thing, and half to buy the exact opposite. The fact that their SLV holdings are not transparent allows the possibility that they are selling the same ounce of silver to multiple people (similar to fractional reserve banking, but with silver instead of dollars). This would further suppress the price of silver, aiding their short position.

That would be an argument against a *law* forcing an owner to treat their horse a certain way. However, Diana's post is not specifically referencing the legal, but the moral. It is certainly true that your animals are your private property. It is also true that your treatment of your animals can be morally evaluated.

I'm guessing there won't be any Q&A. I attended a lecture of his in the early 2000's, and I don't recall there being any. It was also in a huge theatre auditorium like yours.

No you're not. Her primary goal was not to make you feel sorry for them. What, specifically, is unclear to you? That is an assertion. What evidence is there that it "doesn't have anything to do with our reality?" Please cite the exact quote you are referencing, in order to provide the necessary context for clarification.

Jimmy Wales was very active in the Objectivist community in the '90s. I believe he was opposed to the ARI. I noticed on Facebook that he was friends with Diana Hsieh - maybe she has more information about his history. He was also active on the usenet group alt.philosophy.objectivism. Here is his user page: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=l_bDlA4AAAAaiyZ1xs6xVLY1G4vy693j Here is an old web page from 1993 with some of his essays: http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/authors/jimmywales.html

And how exactly does a big explosion 14 billion years ago imply that the universe had a beginning?

As far as Japanese cinema, the work of director Masaki Kobayashi focuses on the problems with communism/socialism (The Human Condition trilogy) and selflessness/self-sacrifice (Harakiri), and advocates adhering to principles of justice at all cost (Rebellion). The samurai films of the '60s were all about rebelling against the horribly oppressive social norms that required self-sacrifice and saving face.

The rotten apple doesn't fall far from the hollowed-out, termite-infested stump of a tree.

A physicist at UCSB gave a presentation recently on the risks from the Fukushima accident. His conclusion: "The worst case radiation hazards from Fukushima are mitigatable and local. The global radiation hazard is nil."

The creator of the popular Liberty Dollar currency has been found guilty and faces up to 15 years in prison. He will also be forced to give $7 million worth of minted coins and precious metals to the government, "weighing 16,000 pounds." Here was the official website before it was taken down by court order.