Andrew Grathwohl

Dude, did you even read the article?

Even if you took anything a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank said seriously, you'd still be left with the problem of actual proof. So what if the manufacturing index goes up? Does that necessarily imply that the United States has a larger productive output than it used to? The answer to that question is: no. In fact, it's quite possible that the manufacturing index is only up because of government rescues/bailouts (for things like the car industry) - in which case, there would not be any need whatsoever for that rise in the PMI to result from heightened productive output or capacity.

Actually, there was a pretty insightful article about this recently in the Wall Street Journal, relating to Obama's health care proposal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3406386548.html Also, this is a really good paper written on the commerce clause... http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

He advocates all those positions. Keep in mind that he's always spoken on the economy from the perspective of investing, not politics. When he gets more into "politician mode" when he starts campaigning next week, you'll see him bring these issues to the center stage.

Actually, the commerce clause was very concrete: Congress has the power to keep regular the commerce between the states. It does not refer to "regulating" as the term is known today.

The CATO institute has been putting out this kind of documentation for some time now, but I hate to say I cannot agree with your analysis of the data. For one thing, a lot of "manufacturing output" measurements, like the manufacturing index, simply measure the aggregate of multiple aspects of manufacturing industries, such as price, employment, inventories, etc. Manufacturing sectors could certainly be performing better as a whole without actually increasing gross output. I'm not writing off your claims, just your evidence provided for those claims. The CATO institute has been arguing this position for some time without ever actually providing the data needed to confirm its findings. What does the US manufacture? Computers? No, that's India and Pakistan. Clothing? No, that's Asia - even couture is hard to come by in the US these days. Cars? That's Japan and Europe for the most part. Food? Much of our agriculture has been sent south of the border. Whatever the US does manufacture, it's not nearly enough. Whatever the US does specialize in, other nations specialize in more (and more profitable) industries. For a country that spends the most money, and borrows the most money, we sure don't show for it through productive capacity. Otherwise, how come we have trillions of debt looming above the clouds? I think we can agree there. The only reason why it "does not make business sense" to manufacture many of the items that China does, is because the policies of the US have forced this type of production out of the country. You'd better believe that many of the specializations of China would be produced cheaper and better in a free market.

Schiff's Asian-American island example is meant to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim that the Chinese economy relies on the US economy - basically, his views on people who don't agree with decoupling. The five Asians work all day, and the American enjoys the fruits of their labor. The fallacy is that the Asian workers need that American to eat, otherwise they wouldn't have jobs. But the fact is that the Asians are just as capable of enjoying the fruits of their labor as the American is, so there is no productive use in having him on the island. Yes, this is exaggerated because, obviously, America DOES make SOME stuff still. But remember that Peter writes those books for the every-day person - he writes much more straight-forward in his Euro Pacific Capital articles and newsletters. Peter does not say imports = exports. He doesn't talk about American exporting all that much, actually. Peter's talking more about saving/producing vs. consuming/borrowing - not exporting vs. importing.

Every sophisticated economy needs a manufacturing base before it can begin any focus on service-sector industries. If your service-sector economy collapses, then you need a springboard of manufactured goods industries, which have intrinsic value (versus a service which is valuated in non-physical properties). Jake: I think you're missing the general point. There would be nothing wrong with the amount that we produce in this country if we consumed far less to match this rate of production. Unfortunately, our dollar's strength is not representative of the country's productive prowess, but rather of the fact that it is the reserve currency of the world. Countries with a high savings rate and an extremely productive output can handle having a currency with no intrinsic value, such as Japan and New Zealand. But a country like the United States, which does not have much of a manufacturing base anymore, does not have anything to leverage against big government. In our case, the dollar's decline will occur because of the fact that we cannot "afford" the economic policies we're undertaking - assuming that the world doesn't dump the USD as the reserve currency before that can happen.

Check out the author's profile, though. http://www.ehow.com/members/chrisdavy.html She writes "about sex and money." Hah.

S. 604 is actually a bill replicating Congressman Ron Paul's bill, HR.1207. The House is currently conducting hearings on HR.1207 and could go to a vote any day now. The idea of the bill is to have a complete audit of the Federal Reserve, without changing any regulation or secrecy of the Federal Reserve Bank's monetary policy decisions.

Absolutely not - morphine is a completely different substance than marijuana. Morphine, when taken recreationally, can completely inhibit one's reflexes and mental comprehension. Marijuana, when used at anything less than extremely high amounts, is only a mild reflex inhibitor and typically allows the user to think like normally. Morphine is a painkiller, easily classified as a depressant. Marijuana, on the other hand, is not as easily classifiable, as there are ~65 cannibanoids that actually have an effect on the user (some of which are actually naturally-produced by the body already to regulate things like sleep and hunger). It is most strongly a hallucinogenic substance, if anything, with other stimulant and depressant qualities mixed in depending on the type of marijuana one ingests.

For an Objectivist forum, some of the members here have a disgusting lack of knowledge of macro economics and fiscal policy. Also, to misunderstand Peter so much as to think he doesn't understand capitalism doesn't demonstrate Peter's writing/speaking abilities, but rather the reader's lack of reading comprehension... EDIT: and misplaced knowledge of past economic history.

To the rotting piece of swine's credit, Capitalism is very anti-Christian.

Both of my parents are atheists, and thus they raised me an atheist, without even instilling in my mind the notion of organized religion until I came upon it on my own. Of course, I'm still atheist, and very thankful that I never even had to go through the process of discovering how wrong religion is.

You completely misunderstand what Peter means, then. We don't need to buy more stuff because we live in a completely consumption-driven economy, allowed by easy money and cheap credit in an economy that consumes more than it produces. He completely acknowledges that this is a failure of government, not the free market. He acknowledges that if the free market were allowed to work, interest rates would have never been at 0.5% and there would have been no financial crisis to speak of. It would be very arrogant and dishonest to think that decoupling isn't a possibility, let alone the fact that it's already clearly happening. Honestly, where did you come from? Since when did anybody on this forum not think the dollar was worthless? Of course it's worthless - it's a fiat currency! And in comparison to the rest of the world, our currency has hardly recovered. Why would it? It's a direct indication of an economy that makes nothing productive of its own, and borrows money from the rest of the world to buy everything it does actually own.

I'm not well-versed on Aristotleleanism enough to say this with absolute certainty, but yes, this mistaken view would be a part of Aristoteleanism. However, there was a good reason why Ayn Rand did not like having Objectivism called "Randism." If we are to live by truth, rational behavior, and logic, then these things should be the guiding forces of our life. Objectivism is merely the instruction guide to living on earth - we live by reason, not Objectivism. Objectivism is merely a philosophy telling you that it's logical and right to live rationally and selfishly. If somebody lived as an Aristotlean, then that mistaken philosophical view would be a necessary aspect of their life, because they have then chosen to live under a philosophy that, somewhere along the way, arrived at a false premise or conclusion, and is therefore irrational. Objectivism is a completely rational system, so it is impossible to have a mistaken viewpoint in Objectivism - only poor, inaccurate, incomplete, or mistaken, premises/conclusions/analysis.

I think his point was that if there is any legitimate use for any product, then the morality of sale needs to go on a case-to-case basis. Also, is there no legitimacy to the argument that making these substances, no matter their potential for vice, is a craft in itself? I see no difference between somebody who wishes to spend his life perfecting the craft of high quality cocaine cultivation and somebody who wishes to spend his life perfecting the craft of high quality handgun construction. Both have high potential for immoral activity, but both also have legitimate uses. To not recognize these facts would be to not recognize the productive achievement of that individual.

You're asking me, though, how we know something is something. We know this through our perceptions of it. I'm not suggesting that we re-name or re-brand Objectivism. I'm only suggesting a difference in how its organizational structures conduct their analysis and interpretation of new issues using the Objectivist standards. Just because Objectivism was created by Ayn Rand, though, doesn't mean that everything she said was true. If she happened to not live by her own standards, as I believe she did when she spoke ill of homosexuality, that doesn't mean we have to accept it as right. Objectivism shows us what is right and wrong, and though these ideas may have been formulated and structured by Ayn Rand, that doesn't mean that we can determine these values by just examining what Ayn Rand said. That would be lazy; we must confirm her remarks and extraordinary knowledge by utilizing our own rational minds. I do not advocate anything that changes the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What I advocate for is simply a reevaluation of what constitutes that philosophy. Should her positions, for example, of public education, which she wrote of in the 1970s and 1980s, be part of her philosophy, or merely instantiations of that philosophy? I would think the latter, because while Objectivist epistemology and its outlook on metaphysics (objective reality) could pertain 100% no matter what time or situation, specific writings on particular issues that are colloquial and/or time-specific in nature may not. But one of the fundamental differences between Peikoff and Kelley was that Peikoff believes an idea can be morally judged, whereas Kelley believes only actions can be. Ayn Rand thought ill of homosexuality; Objectivism thinks ill of homosexuality. Just because she didn't write about it in any official Objectivist literature doesn't mean that she didn't think it. Branden did repudiate Objectivism, but certainly Ayn Rand agreed with Branden's ideas when she sanctioned his writings in The Virtue of Selfishness, among other publications? I'll read into this - thanks.

Thank you, by the way, for actually giving an intelligible answer and contributing to the debate. I consider the core the very same way you do, and I absolutely advocate building around it without contradicting or changing the core. My assertion is that Leonard Peikoff and the ARI have not properly defined what the core ought to be. They have made that core far too broad and overreaching. And yes, Objectivism requires independence, and self-responsibility - that should indeed be part of the core of Objectivism. If you define the core of Objectivism to be every work by Ayn Rand, and every work sanctioned by Ayn Rand, then you run the risk of not being able to expand anything because a certain minute aspect of the so-called "core" of Objectivism is out of touch with reality as it exists today, and thus contradicts that expansion. Think about Branden's claim in The Virtue of Selfishness that children are "confused" by their lack of respect for their evil parents, and "escape reality" by becoming homosexuals because of it. It's an asinine statement, as we now know due to modern scientific research into the psychology of the human being. Is Branden's statement on homosexuality part of the "core" of Objectivism, or is that just one contradiction we choose to leave out? I still believe that Ayn Rand has also given similar answers regarding homosexuality, even if she never decisively wrote about it in a publication. Are we to simply ignore the ill regard she held of homosexuality?

Last time I checked, Wikipedia was real. I don't think Wikipedia is axiomatic in nature, if that's what you're intending to imply. It actually does mention A is A in the article, but this is old news for anybody who claims to be a fan of Ayn Rand's books, let alone her philosophy. I'd prefer you not dodge the issue and merely present your point. Obviously the philosophical system Ayn Rand created was called Objectivism. So-effing-what? That doesn't make it any more or less right. I won't fall to the mercy of word games. I never said Ayn Rand wrote about homosexuality. I believe only Nathaniel Branden did that, and he did so in passing.

I didn't mean to communicate that, if that is actually what you think I meant. I would imagine that every Objectivist agrees that A is A - a thing is itself - that a leaf cannot be red and green at the same time. Objectivism is grounded in reality that exists regardless of one individual's perception. Every Objectivist can agree on that, whereas there were clearly opposing views on other topics, like the morality of homosexuality. I need to stress the importance of this particular subject, because I think it best illustrates the point. Peikoff claims that going against Ayn Rand is going against Objectivism, but what does that say about every single Objectivist that exists today, who now goes by the word of Leonard Peikoff - that homosexuality is not subject to moral judgment - versus the word of Ayn Rand - that it is vile and disgusting? If you analyze every subject by utilizing knowledge and writings that existed 20 years ago, especially regarding issues of policy and government, wouldn't that be the ultimate example of context-dropping?

This clip earlier on in the Freedom Watch interview outlines Peter Schiff's foreign policy. He discusses the missile defense system in Eastern Europe, and I think it is pretty clear now as to what his position is!

Well, I like the way Wikipedia sums it up: Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally. I think that every Objectivist needs to agree with the above to label oneself as such. But as I said in my previous post, this does not mention anything about Ayn Rand's word being infallible. I think that her comments on homosexuality are a pertinent example of this, and it also represents the dangers of having O'ism being a closed system. So, those fundamental truths, more explicitly, are the axioms that uphold the Objectivist epistemology, views of metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. We know those truths are indeed fundamental because axioms - as their nature implies - are irrefutable. Anyone trying to object to them must implicitly assume them even before he or she can formulate a counter-argument. No, there are no fundamental truths that are not part of Objectivism. I think that there ARE parts of Objectivism, according to Peikoff and the ARI, that are not necessarily fundamental truths. I, like Kelley, do not believe that Ayn Rand is infallible. Objectivism, on the other hand, definitely is infallible.

I've been reading a lot about the Peikoff-Kelley debate, and have found little reason to not believe that Kelley has a good point regarding the "open" argument, but I don't think it is that simple. Obviously, there are certain axioms that exist, which are irrefutable, and there are principles of Objectivism which are inarguable. But I think that to label Objectivism with Ayn Rand as its parallel is a dangerous belief to hold. Nathaniel Branden once made the argument that to do that is the equivalent to "What would Jesus do?" which I think is a valid point. It subtracts the necessity of reason for the practicality of simplicity. Why can't Objectivism be based on the fundamental truths of Objectivism that are inarguable, and leave the inferences we derive from these inarguable truths open to continuous debate and discussion? I don't think it's unrealistic to say that the progression of time can affect aspects of one's understanding of something, even if it doesn't affect the actual truth of the topic at hand. At the very least, we can benefit from approaching old topics in modern times. One immediate example I can provide is Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality. If we were to have a truly "closed" system, then Ayn Rand's word from back in the 1970s would have been the final word on that subject, and Peikoff's assertion that ideas can be evil would have meant that anybody who doesn't think that the morality of homosexuality is a valid topic of judgment, would be acting evilly. If Peikoff believes Objectivism is a closed system, furthermore, it makes me seriously wonder why he felt the need to publicly refute Ayn Rand's claim about homosexuality after her death, when she had already made her argument heard on the topic.

I actually think that, by Peter saying "The government does so much that they shouldn't do, they are forgoing the one thing they're supposed to do" it begs the question of whether or not Yaron and he actually disagreed. I'd say that Yaron just took an objection to Peter's calling government a "necessary evil." I don't think they disagreed on anything, but rather Yaron - rightfully - thought a better phrase would fit than "necessary evil," and he muttered to Peter right before the segment ended: "I agree with you." This has only encouraged me that he does not run under the typical "libertarian" foreign policy. He and Yaron have gotten along well together on Freedom Watch in the past...