Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ben Archer

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ben Archer last won the day on November 26 2013

Ben Archer had the most liked content!


About Ben Archer

  • Birthday 02/21/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Jersey

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    Piano player at heart. Operations Manager for Archer Seating Clearinghouse
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

4072 profile views

Ben Archer's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. I know China uses a lot of coal energy so I can see solar being comparatively expensive. The technology is encouraging elsewhere in the world, though. Solar power in America is growing rapidly, albeit from a small base (see chart).Last year it represented 29% of new electricity capacity, behind only natural gas at 46%. Solar output has more than doubled during Barack Obama’s time in office; GTM, a research firm, reckons it will grow another 26% in 2014. The Department of Energy wants solar to provide 27% of America’s electricity by 2050, up from less than 1% today. excerpt from The Economist "Let the sun shine" March 8 issue
  2. A good point on the licensing monopoly, thank you. I've had this discussion with a few friends who tell me that , sure we should technically be able to discriminate, but if you remember how America was during the 50's, it "not the kind of world I'd want to live in." With businesses popping up everywhere that say "No Jews/Blacks" etc. I have to wonder if America is slightly past that point, though—especially with the mob mentaility and outrage that comes from the new digital age we live in. There's lots of examples of the smallest slights against gays or blacks, that within a day go viral and end up all over upworthy
  3. I need a full–body photo of someone doing a dramatic pose that I can practice with in photoshop. Anyone hmm?

  4. Ari Armstrong posted an article about the cake baker who was threatened with fines for saying he wouldn't serve gays. Armstrong's point was that "The right to gay marriage rests on the freedom to contract—and that is precisely the freedom the court seeks to deny Phillips. If gay couples have the right to freedom of contract—and they do—then so does [the baker]" I agree with the right to discriminate...but how does this apply to "public services" like transportation? Let's say you go and start your own bus company, you might call it national city lines, when you come to sell tickets on these buses, you could stipulate that you only sold sitting tickets to people whose skin was white, because as you say, that's your "right" to "discriminate". I'm sure I wouldn't be comfortable with this, but is this the same sort of case as the baker?
  5. (actually I take back what I said...jekyll island does cover that time period now that I check)
  6. my favorite book on this is the creature from jekyll island. Although it doesnt go back as far as you're mentioning, it covers the most significant part of US central banking
  7. What we have here is someone who doesn't have the capacity to form their own argument, so they posted this here pretending it was their writing, to use this forum's replies here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2546236
  8. She rigs the test though, the blue-eyed test is much harder and she gives the brown-eyeds the answer.
  9. I agree. This reminds me of the eye color experiment by teacher Jane Elliot. It's an important point and often very revealing (or upsetting) to whites who do participate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MYHBrJIIFU
  10. Nicky what point exactly are you trying to make? That Mandela wasn't perfect? That he did more good than evil? What is the point of comparing him to the founding fathers, or hitler? Again when it comes to the heart of the matter, you're oddly quiet.
  11. Right...that's more important actually, for context...because if you compare it to that last 15 years you're just looking at a "bubble period." Currently, the Shiller P/E ratio today is around 23. And that is about roughly half of its peak – P/E in 2000 – bubble. And a lot of people, in their minds, they say, “Oh, then that means it’s pretty cheap because it’s nowhere near the top of the market in 2000.” But the problem with that is, if you look historically, the Shiller P/E has generally always been range-bound between around 20 and around 10. That’s where most of the Shiller P/E levels have been during the market history. There are several notable exceptions to that. Stocks were incredibly expensive prior to the Great Depression, so you look in ’29, the Shiller P/E is over 30. And stocks were incredibly expensive in the big bubble of 2000, where the Shiller P/E was over 45.
  12. Well to be fair, tapering does have some history. There's been three times (four if you consider the Twist) the fed has tried to wane itself off priming the pump, and the economy contracted each time: (from http://futuremoneytrends.com/blog/?p=11797) So it's clear the market sells off indiscriminately whenever there's tapering. The period lasts 12 weeks on average and the market falls around 16% each time. if you imagine that there is gonna be a continuation of the bubble that you saw in 2000, it’s still safe to buy stocks. If you imagine that we are in the process of returning to normal levels of stock valuation—particularly if you imagine that interest rates are likely to go higher—then there’s no way we’re gonna get to positive returns buying stocks at these prices, on average, over the next ten years. The way I see it is based on shiller p/e ratios. Stocks go up when interest rates go down and valuations go up. Stocks go down when interest rates go up and valuations go down. It's a lock. And I think you’re gonna see valuations fall by around 50 percent. So I think the Shiller P/E, let’s say it ends the year around 24, 25, you’re gonna see it next year between, say, 12 or 14. And this will be great for people who have a lot of cash on the sidelines.
  13. And so begins the tapering http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/526aac6a-685c-11e3-8ada-00144feabdc0.html historically there's always been a taper tantrum, but somehow analysts are still optimistic. Seasonal patterns play a part in this
  14. If you follow bitcoin you'll have noticed that its valued plummeted recently because of FinCEN. They sent "industry outreach" letters yesterday to around a dozen firms, discussing potential compliance measures related to Bitcoin businesses. In other words… if you're a business accepting Bitcoins… the government wants you to know it's watching you. http://www.newsday.com/business/technology/bitcoin-businesses-get-u-s-treasury-warning-on-money-laundering-1.6633168 http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2013/12/18/treasury-cautions-bitcoin-businesses-on-legal-duties/ Crow I'm not sure what you mean by which asset. If you just google asset price inflation there's plenty of info. The S&P's up 25% this year, home prices are up 17%, household wealth hit record highs (since 1945) last monday...all thanks to QE4ever.
  15. Really? Keep in mind that there's three types of inflation: consumer price, commodity price, and asset price. Now consumer price has rarely been lower than it is now, Same with commodity prices: down 25% in less than 2 years. (great time to buy silver). But asset prices are rising very sharply....simply because all this money the Fed's printing is being used to buy assets. This creates the wealth effect as people's homes go up in value...and it's the main thing driving aggregate demand. So this is the function of QE4ever. It doesn't matter how you cut the pie...the money is inflating somewhere, and worse, if QE starts to taper and aggregate demand falls, then deflation is likely. How exactly technology is going to help people repay their debt, with falling prices, is beyond me.
  • Create New...