Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Inspector

Regulars
  • Posts

    4032
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Inspector

  1. Yes, look how the discussion is still going in a futile direction. As I said, it can't move forward without addressing that keystone point. So long as he continues to use the Marxist conflation of political power and economic "power," this will go nowhere.
  2. Unfortunately you seem to be committing the same error as your opponent. There is no universal term "power" which refers to a man's efficacy in all matters. There is a stark and extremely important difference between political power and economic "power." Political power refers to physical force - the ability to command the power of the state to use force to physically compel someone to comply with your bidding. The latter refers to your ability to voluntarily trade the products of your labor for the goods and services of others. There is no physical force or compulsion involved. If someone does not want to purchase on the terms you are offering, no amount of "economic power" in the world can lay a finger on them. Properly, there can be no conflation of these two, completely different, concepts. The fact that some people happen to use the same word ("power") to refer to them is highly unfortunate, but does not change the vast distinction between them. Note also that capitalism as defined here on this board is: the political system which outlaws the use of physical force (including political power) for any purpose other than the defense against someone who initiates the use of said force. The only political power which legally exists (that is, outside of criminals and outlaws) under capitalism is that.
  3. Bold added. I'm surprised it took this long for that fact to come up in this thread. The amount of money and political pressure on the AGW side of the debate utterly dwarfs anything to be seen on the climate heretic side. To claim that the heretics are "corrupted" by financing is ludicrous, given that the other side is more than ten times worse in that regard.
  4. Granted, but some publishers and "scientists" have made that statement (as applying to themselves personally - that the science comes second because the ecology movement is "so important" that they are allowed to fudge the facts) - Lindzen's testimony just served as a confirmation to me that they are walking the walk that they talk. Nor is his the only such story that I've heard of anti-GW studies being stonewalled.
  5. I linked to Gus Van Horn's discovery of that little tidbit in the other giganto Global Warming thread on this board. I mention it quite frequently whenever this topic comes up, but for some reason not too many people notice or react to it. On the subject of people deliberately faking the data, read this. They've been caught red-handed.
  6. Additionally, I've heard the term "peer review" thrown around here, but what meaning does that have when the so-called scientific journals Science and Nature have gone on the record saying that they absolutely will not publish any article that is contrary to the AGW theory, regardless of its scientific content? (if you want the source on that, check the big thread on this board that RB tried to direct the OP to) The term "conspiracy" tends to indicate that something is hidden - which isn't the case. The greenies are more than willing to make public what they are doing, including their disregard of science. It's more like that few people are actually looking for it.
  7. Ah, finally someone makes a point of that. (and ironically, it is the person who is using the Marxist definition who did so!) (Yes, I saw the brief mention earlier in the thread, but nobody jumped on it) Basically, folks, that right there is the keystone to this thread. So long as he is allowed to continue to use the Marxist anti-concept of "power," and equates the use of force with the offering of money, this thread will go in circles.
  8. I think we're referring to different things here. When I hear "stocks," I think of, well, stocks, and not diversified bundles of mutual funds. And when I hear "bonds," I think of those things which you buy from the government where they are set for 5-20 years, not... um, whatever it is that you're talking about where you trade them. I do apologize for my ignorance on these things - I am not a professional investor like you and Galileo. Nor am I in a position to do any investing right now - basically what I need is something that works like a bank account, where I can put money in and take it out as I need.
  9. Bonds? Forget it. I need my money liquid, not tied up for years at a time. Thanks anyway, though.
  10. I haven't found this to be the case, though. I don't know of any interest-bearing account - that isn't paying heavily on the assumption of additional risk - which has come even remotely close to matching the inflation rate found on that chart. If you know of one, please do let me know so I can move my money. Basically the point I'm making is that while it is technically true that, as you say, "...if your wealth consists of deposits in a bank or real property or stocks or bonds, then it also gained in nominal value along with the inflation," in actual fact this gain is minuscule in comparison to the inflation and the inflation pretty much is as bad as aequalsa was saying.
  11. I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the 1-4% that someone gets from having money in the bank would somehow make a dent in the >50% loss in the chart? Part of that 1-4% represents genuine interest, i.e. compensation from the bank for your lending them your money. So really we're talking less than 1-4% "nominal value gain" from not having one's money "duffel bagged." If you're referring to other forms of investment, such as stocks, really those are not an option for anyone who isn't a professional investor. They all involve a degree of risk, so much of the gain there is from the assumption of risk, and not from the "nominal value gain" of the inflation. I'm trying to see how your statement works. Perhaps you meant something that I'm not seeing here.
  12. If you don't mind my asking, what area does she practice in? Is it fairly rural? I imagine it can vary a bit by region. If you do mind my asking then please disregard.
  13. They are much better than that, but are quickly sinking to that level as more socialism is shacked upon us.
  14. Oh yes they do. In fact that number must include rural docs, because it seems a bit small to me. But believe me: they earn it. As just a small illustration - not that I think any of you doubt the above - a doctor must go through 4 years of undergrad (paying tuition), 4 years of med school (paying even more tuition), 3-5 years of residency (making basically minimum wage, given that they work 60-100 hours a week), and possibly additional years of fellowship before they start making that money.
  15. Yes, that's what I said. And Objectivism correctly describes it, while your methods do not.
  16. All I can say is... it is. Not empiricist, concrete-bound reality, but the actual reality. The reality described by Objectivism - the one in which philosophy is a prime mover - that is the reality in which we live.
  17. Hmm... I don't know about that one. I've already been over your rejection of the Objectivist theory of history. Apparently, you don't accept the importance of philosophy in other areas as well. I'd say just read the philosophy and see if it doesn't change your mind.
  18. Rourke, Your question seems to be in line with your continued misunderstanding of the purpose of this forum. The stance of this forum is that Objectivism is 100% true, and therefore by definition any other system of philosophy is - to one extent or another - wrong. Thus if anyone is attempting to "see the truth" through any other (wrong!) "worldview" (as you put it) then - to the extent that that worldview is dissimilar from Objectivism (and therefore wrong) - they will not see the truth. This forum is for people who accept that Objectivism is 100% true, and thus other systems are by definition incorrect to whatever extent they differ from it. We allow guests, such as yourself, to come and ask questions about Objectivism and about how to evaluate things using Objectivism. This is not a place for other "worldviews" and for how they evaluate things. If you are not knowledgeable in Objectivism and capable of making evaluations that are consistent with it, then we are not interested in what you have to say, as such. This is not a place for the opinions of non-Objectivists. If you have questions to ask, and for the purpose of those questions must mention your current view then by all means do so. But this is an Objectivist forum. As such, a lot of what you have been posting is most unwelcome and furthermore quite rude. Thus the somewhat strained responses you have received. Whether you realize it or not, you have been rather impolite here. We even have a debate forum for if you want to dispute Objectivism. All we ask is that you stick to it if you want to make arguments instead of asking questions.
  19. Yep. That's in fact one of the things I was alluding to. \ Is that the context from which we are making statements here? As investors? No, this is a philosophy forum. The purpose here is to identify the proper causes and solutions to the problems. In the context of this forum, Buffet is wrong, wrong, wrong. "Trade deficits" are not the problem and his statements only serve to perpetuate Keynesian idiocy.
  20. I thought I made it pretty clear what my "agenda" was: Keynes is just about the most horrible thing to ever happen to economics.
  21. Buffet is a mercantilist, Keynesian, fool. Here is a much better perspective on "trade deficits." If you want a second opinion, try Richard Salsman, here. And it's not just Objectivists who know this; it's really anyone who has a modicum of sense in economics - see Walter Williams here. The real danger here is that the rapidly inflating dollar will kill this "trade deficit," which Salsman aptly said should properly be called an investment surplus. When foreign capital starts to flee this country, thus ending the "trade deficit," then we have a problem. For more on this, see my post here. Warren Buffet. I mean, come on.
  22. (bold mine) That's the thing - it didn't really have to be a polemic. I think in this context your two cents were inappropriate. As I said, if you want to ask a question about the Objectivist view, and in doing so for the record state your opinion, then I think that would be okay. But to just put in your opinion like that is counter to the stated purpose of this forum. If that sounds harsh, then please see the Leonard Peikoff podcast and thread on the podcast as they pretty much directly address what I am concerned about. (note that I have been on the record with that opinion well before the podcast) Here is the official Objectivist position on the topic. I also suggest reading the ARI backed articles that were linked to in this thread, as they are very good expansions on the principles given by Objectivism (although they are not - themselves - Objectivism, I think you will see they are a correct application of Objectivism). Also, perhaps even more relevant than the articles previously linked to is this, John Lewis' piece, which is absolutely brilliant. When you're done with that, see also here and here - that last one directly addresses some of the questions brought up in this thread.
  23. Too true. A pox on both their houses. There's just a whole lot of stupid floating around out there on this issue. I can't say I'm satisfied he's going to jail, nor am I particularly outraged. I'm just disgusted with the whole mess and how thugs like him make it nigh impossible for the truth - that animals do not have rights - to be heard. Kind of like Libertarians, actually.
  24. And I am of the opinion that unsolicited opinions of that nature run contrary to the purpose of this forum. I for one don't want the raw opinions of newbies or non-Objectivists. If you have such an opinion, then you might ask for the reasoning behind the fact that Objectivism does not share it. (But of course, the links were already provided to some very definitive articles on the subject... which I wonder if you read) Your other option is to take it to the debate forum. But this much is not simply my opinion: this forum is a place to learn Objectivism, not to assert your opinions contrary to it. For more on this, see here.
×
×
  • Create New...