Toolboxnj

Anyone have a sour taste in their mouth after reading this attack on Tracinski?

The problem was the Andersen partner on Enron named David Duncan that allowed the dubious accounting to take place. Enron shelled its liabilities into SPEs or "special purpose entities" to keep them off the balance sheet. This is a big no-no in accounting, but it happened all the time prior to Enron. Duncan, as the partner in charge on Enron, "oked" these transactions and it was a snowball effect from there. The managers at Enron were creating these SPEs named after their children to shell the liabilities away. There was also the shreading of documents that the SEC warned Andersen against. I'm not privy to the trial or Skilling, but I'm not apt to believe that he is an "innocent" man. Also, Sarbanes-Oxley wasn't in reaction to Enron, but rather WorldCom. WC capitalized billions of dollars in expenses inproperly, leading to the biggest bankruptcy in history IIRC. $70 billion I think it was... alot of money kept off income statements. Now we only have four large accounting firms due to the breakup of AA which may be the worst of our problems. The accounting industry has a chokehold on Congress and regulatory agencies. It's only a matter of time that the big-4 turn into the big-3 and then we won't be worrying about SOX anymore :worry:

I honestly think that John Lewis' article is much more convicing than Peikoff's

Voting Republican for the Senate, Democrat for the House

How much more can Norway raise taxes? When I was there 2 1/2 years ago in Oslo, a pizza and two beers was $50.

There was a long thread posted on this topic in the last year or so. I'd use the search function.

And I bet Peikoff would call voting Libertarian worse than voting Republican! I kid, I kid. I'm more with Trachinski and the "Cox and Forkum"-type of us. But again, all politics is local.

On another forum (now closed) we had a running list of bills and law enforcement examples where liberal politicans or cities (San Fran, Seattle) took "moral stands" against "social ills". One, IIRC, wsa a stand against lapdances in Washington by a liberal politican that cited some religious moral reasoning. The right-wing does not have the monopoly on religiousity in America. Look through any bookstore and you'll find probably dozen books in the current events and religious sections on liberal politics and religion (one that stands out is "God's Politics"). After all, Christianity isn't "conservative". It's a great base for socialism, and Christianity has replaced Marxism as the new reasoning for increased government control. At the same time, we should look to thwart Republican whack-jobs like Santorum from PA but support good Republicans like Kean Jr. and George Allen (at least as good as they get... I'm a fan of Allen). Again, how can a free-marketer vote for Menendez, a corrupt, anti-market, anti-war, anti-reform dirtbag that was appointed to the Senate by his crony Corzine (who both happen to live in the same apartment building in Hoboken, NJ)? I mean, I know an informed Democrat who says that Menendez is as dirty as they come.

I also agree with some of Peikoff's points, but not all of them. How can I (as a NJ resident) pull the lever for Menendez - a corrupt, tax raising, anti-war sleezebag - over Tom Kean Jr. who voted for tax cuts and privitization of SS reforms? Like a previous poster wrote: the economy is great. I give (as well as others like Larry Kudlow) credit to the Bush tax cuts which have juiced economic growth in America that isn't occuring other Western nations. Seems like we are the best of the worst, which isn't that bad. I vote with my pocketbook, not because Im afraid of crosses and praying. Perhaps Dr. Peikoff has to be reminded that the Democrats have their own version of the "religious left" and morality police which potentially is much worse than what a neo-conservative has to offer. Also, I agree that politics is local. Most of what effects you is at the township or county level. I'm a firm believer that national politicans are pretty much centerists that float wherever reelection will push them. If cutting taxes is popular, then even the liberals will vote for taxcuts. But, property taxes - for instance - are really controlled by state and local government entities. What about enforcement of the law? Again, another local issue.

Rutgers University's undergraduate philosophy program is considered tops in the country, interestingly. If you can survive living in New Brunswick and dealing with the thousands of miles of red tape, Rutgers is a pretty good value.

Wow, those are awesome scores. Good job

The thing is, just because you can pass an AP test with a 3 or 4 doesn't mean you have university-level knowledge on the subject. It just means that you got a 3 or 4 on a test.

After the law passed through Congress the stock values of the online gambling sites plumeted more than 50%. Now the media is reporting that brick-and-mortar casinos are looking to buy up the sites at a discounted price. Reminds me of the Phoneix-Durango. These transactions between gamblers and bookkeepers are voluntary and free of force. It's akin to going to the grocery store and buying 10 pounds of rice. Unless an individual (or individuals) coerces you or defrauds you (intentionally misleadleading of material fact) then no crime has taken place (fraud and larceny are already crimes!). This is the line that worries me the most: Like with the criminalization of crack-cocaine, Kyl wishes to pull sports betting and poker deeper underground into the shadows of society. Kyl is the symbol of moral perversity, endangering the lives of those that wish to make simple wagers on sports or play internet poker in the comfort (and safety) of one's own bedroom (or dormroom) Note that I am not morally defending poker and sports wagering as such. In context, simple wagers and fine considering the wagerer and the wageree. A man with seven children living in poverty is not morally right when he gambles his paycheck away awhile his children need clothes and food. But, a college student with a couple bucks to burn or a professional that is independent and self-sufficent can afford the pleasure of gambling even in a moral sense. (Some will say that morality does not exist, that morality is only based on the force principle, i.e. if there is no force/consent, that an action is morally acceptable. I contest this, of course.) I would like to investigate how much the casino and Indian lobbies have given to Republicans and those that supported this law. The casinos here in NJ are very influential in the statehouse and singlehandedly ended the state shutdown.

My finance professor asked us "can nominal interest rates be negative?" at the end of class yesterday, and I've been pondering it. I guess in times of war you would "pay" an institution to safeguard your assets and that would result in a negative rate. Also, in times of deflation wouldn't you have a negative nominal rate as well? Just kicking up some ideas.

Makes Europe seem palatable

I generally say "Acting in my own self-interest is not zero sum." And then I give a concrete example, for instance a businessman that employs 100 people is acting in his own self-interest, yet others benefit from his actions as a secondary effect. This usually disarms most attacks because there really isn't an rebutal against it.

I was suprised by this mostly positive article in USA Today that I am cross-posting from another forum. You can read the rest of the article from the link in the first sentence. It's good to see businessmen and prominent CEOs coming out supporting Objectivist principles and Atlas Shrugged, in particular.

Selfish bump because of S's great music. In particular, I love "Sun Sets On False Guilt" (actually listening to it right now). I don't know much about progressive rock... can anyone direct me to other bands (particularly those that provide samples, akin to $)?

I'm in Newark, so if anyone wants to get together for some social events in Hoboken or New York City in the second half of August send me a PM. I have break from Aug 18 to Sept 4 from grad school and won't really have a chance to get out much during the term. - John

Cox and Forkum's newest cartoon is pretty apropos

Usually it's not in my interest or time to get into "debates" with other people about Objectivism or politics in general. I try to lead by example, not by spouting empty slogans. My family isn't hostle, but I don't wear my philosophy on my sleeve. People in class or school actually think it's interesting whenever it comes up; my left-of-center classmates think of me as a libertarian and it's fun to disarm them sometimes using philosophical detection every now and then. I have a colleague who is a spitting image of Peter Keating, actually.

These cries from, generally, liberals and (Western) Europeans are rooted in altruism; that Israel and the West "owes something" or "should sacrifice to" the Arab/Muslim street. The West, they say, has created so much and we should offer and give our resources to those who, for whatever reason, cannot create. This is moral suicide and we know this very well.

I looking around my class and I see about 10 Indians, about 10-15 Pacific-Rim, a handful of African-Americans and Africans, two Orthodox Jews and the rest are some Eastern Europeans and Anglo-Americans. No Muslims, at least as far as I know - and this part of New Jersey is heavily populated by Muslims. I was thinking Muslims are too busy reading their Korans and praying in their Mosques to actually do anything productive or to add value to civilization. They then blame others for their failures and resort to force in order to bring us down to their level of stupiduty, irrationality and ignorance.

Problem is that in this thread we have an individual who claims to adhere to Objectivist principles, yet allows for the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians of allied states. It's individuals like this that misinterpret the philosophy and give it a bad name.

If the United States and North Korea existed in a vacuum, perhaps you are correct. You discount Russia and China, two totalitarian states with more nukes than the DPRK would dream of. If we were to take an offense against the DPRK today (when the country does not have the means to attack us at this second as evidenced by their failed ICBM launch), how would Russia and China act? I know my political and moral philosophy, but I've also studied game theory and other critical approaches to foreign policy. The US and DPRK do not exist on their own; Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Russia and even Iran also have a stake in this incident. It appears you are taking what appears to be an Objectivst-like policy and rationalizing it to cover this particular event. This is what gets some Objectivists and its students in trouble. How about using some common sense?