Ben Archer

One problem I have with these factories and pipelines is they're skipping out on a lot of safety measures. There's been tragedy after tragedy in Bangladesh, including that 8 story building collapse that killed over 1100. And with the pipelines, someone's paying a lot of money to keep the hundreds (over 750 in N. Dakota alone), of oil spills quiet. Meanwhile, just this friday, oil that was supposed to be on the Keystone, derails on a 90 car train.

I suppose I should've migrated the posts over here, but we're having a discussion on this exact topic in this post. And I think yes, it is definitely teetering between a recession and a great depression. If congress gets in the way and we default on debt, the world with lose faith in US credit (and the results would be disastrous)...which is the driving force of our economy right now.

Forgot about this. 10 years?? eek. This is a really tough question...neither really appeals to me. I'd rather put that money in stocks in the short term, silver in for the long term. Trading currencies is honestly a little confusing to me, especially ADRs...since the value is in US dollars, but the holdings are in the foreign currency...so you're actually gaining money if the dollar falls? I'm still trying to learn finance (the focus lately has been economics which is why I'm probably so idealistic about all this). Which would you choose? China's bonds are very appealing, or at least interesting right now simply because the government owns 80% of their enterprises, and is making billions just by exchanging its delinquent loans for equity in the companies.

Some really great points you brought up there. And if my view of our present situation wasn't so pessimistic I'd agree with most of what you said. I'm irritated by some of the same things that I've been reading about in the news, especially on how banks are forced to pay fines, without admitting any guilt (or getting any sense of justice or clear reason behind the fines). And this is because if they try to contest the fines, they'll simply be shut down during any investigations, which would be much more harmful to the banks. But I also mention the banks because I think that's where I differ in terms of where I see the country going and views on regulation. It's been about five years since the collapse of the Lehman brothers, which put the world at the brink of the next great depression. Since then US debt has gone up about 7 trillion, so 125%. The US mortgage market has essentially become nationalized, and the banks now are much more condensed and in control about 1/3 of all deposits in the US. Meanwhile derivatives are still as out of control as ever, and we have a new Fed chairman stepping in who's just as much as fan of quantitative easing as ol' Bernanke. Also since Lehman's kicked it, about 1.5 mill manufacturing jobs have up and vanished from the US. Medium household income is back to where it was in 1989, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, of course, home prices are skyrocketing (all time high of $70 trillion). So this is where I disagree with the 'life of luxury.' But the point of all that is to show that banks are very much in charge now, and banks are primarily federally run. Whereas in capitalism the heads of industry controlled political power, now the banks do. And what we're witnessing (and what's historically always been the case) is that whoever creates the wealth controls political power. While I agree on the lessons of the past, I think some of the errors our economic analysts are making, however, are by using policies of the past. (the big media attention and surprise yesterday, at reports of job growth despite "expert analysts" saying otherwise, is a good example). So I don't think the issue is regulation, as much as regulation annoys me when I open the papers, it's that the stock market, our economy (and by extension, the world's economy) will move in direct accordance to the Fed's policies. So we have to look to the Fed's policy and their intentions to see our fate. What most people don't seem to realize is how disastrous it would be if we defaulted on our debt. So I'm not saying to hell with the future...it's just that we are very close to either defaulting on our debt, or another recession as a result from cutbacks on government spending (similar to 2008, but nothing like the great depression that would follow a default). The reason a default would be a catastrophe is that the US is the only superpower right now, mainly because we can buy things globally on credit. This is based on faith in US bonds. So if congress causes a default, it would shake that faith, and trigger this depression. Despite the 10 year US bonds only yielding 2.6% (japan's at 0.7%), it's well below what the US pays to borrow, so we should have the ability to pay our debts for a long time (again look at Japan), as long as congress allows it. And it looks like it will...the IMF report from last week showed that debt is already contracting, in fact too sharply, which is why the economy is dragging right now. But any sort of recession is preferable to the god–awfulness of a default and lack of faith in US currency. If we default: 1. no foreign funding = soaring interest rates...on everything. mortgages, credit 2. Exports would tank...since no one wants our IOUs, and can't support to keep their factories open from lack of buyers 3. just like in the 30's unemployment would skyrocket, and globalisation would end 4. a viscous cycle would start with trade barriers up. cost of goods goes up, assets devalued, unemployment goes up, as with deflation and interest rates. 5. banking globally would likely fail. economy would basically collapse, and the recovery could take lifetimes

I agree that the end game is not favorable, but I think the alternative is a catastrophe. I also agree that booms and busts are part of normal economic cycles, however this particular state of credit–fueled economics is entirely unique to anything in the history of economics. If you look back to the end of WWII,...1952 I think, since then, if credit grew by less than 2%, we had a recession. And that's happened 9 times since then. And the recession wouldn't end until we had another large surge of credit expansion. But in those times it was easier to see which sector credit growth would come from. Since this debt crises started however, the only thing that's driven credit growth is government, which is what's unique about this. Since the 60s credit has increased almost 50 fold, where before it was increasing at a predictable rate. The rules for credit booms and busts are completely different from typical, capital driven economics. Japan's been going through this crises for 23 years now. They went from debt being 60% GDP to 250%. Abenomics is being adopted on a global scale. Many other countries are changing their policies to mimic it (the austrian model of credit economics, which is what our Fed subscribes to). So Japan is a perfect example of where we're headed with current policy. Because our government (like the Austrians), believe that the bubble will eventually pop, and we'll have to recover, as in 2008. But I think they're underestimating how big this bubble has gotten, and how bad the recession would be. So instead of wasting money on consumption and war, why not a plan on how to invest these trillions that we're going to spend anyway. investing them in productive, capital assets that will generate a massive profit in the future. They could invest on such an aggressive scale that they could induce a technological revolution, and lock in some sort of american sanctuary. Unfortunately it would take leadership and vision that we're obviously short on. (the way our leadership reacted to 2008 is my reason for saying this)

I'm not trying to talk past people. The points I bring up are commonly ones I hear and read as response to ideas like spending a trillion on innovation. Things like "do more of what got us in this spot?" , or "state science institute", "welcome back mr keyes". etc. It's the typical dismissive attitude I find. My point towards the OP was that these small issues are symptoms of the larger economic problems which are rarely addressed. I don't think "tiny steps" will be enough, because our entire economic system has changed, and in such a way that I think we'll have to work with it. I suppose I should supply some data to avoid the "keyes" and related criticisms that were quickly thrown at me. With the US gov spending 23% of GDP, their role is far too involved to call this capitalism. It used to work that businesses would invest, accumulate capital, then repeat. Our current system is based on a cycle of credit creation and consumption. And it's created ridiculously rapid growth for the last 40-50 years (just look at China). But the private sector is straining under this debt...teetering really, which is why I don't think small measures should be taken. Because yes, the only thing we can rely on now is more credit growth, but where is that going to come from when we're at 70% consumption, with no significant industrial base or investment? The private sector obviously can't provide the growth, so that's why I suggest government. Since it's government policy, in this credit system, that drives asset prices and economic growth, the only optimistic option I can see is spending it on innovation.

The original point I was making in response to the OP was that much of the focus on the "crap" that is causing our problems, does not really focus on the broader issue that is affecting this global economy that we now live in. If we stick to strict objectivist principles would we then have to demand the US government abolish income taxes, public education, the US Postal Service, etc? What I think is unrealistic is pretending that we don't live with some sort of compromise. Just as Taggart and Rearden had to deal with the unions and media to get the galt line down, they got it done. Just as we have to pay income taxes, because though it goes against our principles, the compromise is (hopefully) worth it. If that's unacceptable, then what is the value of objectivism in politics today besides nitpicking and offering no long-term strategy? Yes, you can break down just about any decision made today with epistemology and show why it's wrong. You can point out the contradictions in policy, as above, and refer to how contradictions don't exist. But then what? There are valuable arguments on topics like abortion and gun laws on this forum , but really nothing that useful when it comes to global economics. In fact how capitalism is going to be applied on a global scale is a common subject of debate in economic forums and articles everywhere. I see plenty of arguments against the IMF and WTO, all backed up with sound reasoning...but few arguments for any solutions. Rand certainly didn't say much about it. Adam Smith didn't say much about human rights or minimum wage either. Ricardo saw the doom of capitalism because he couldn't imagine our modern methods of agriculture. Marx envisioned large corporations well ahead of his time, but not anti-trust laws, and so on. I don't think it's a lack of farsight on their part...because how could they have a realistic concept of the economics of the future? What bothers me is the arrogance that some objectivists here have in thinking they have the absolute blueprint in the way the world ought to be. (or even more useless, what "could have been"). Pragmatism and flexibility may be necessary if you can admit at least some unknowns. In fact you could argue that those two things are what kept the United States from following the Marxist scenarios of capitalism's doom abroad in the 19th and 20th century. True those same things have given way to greater degrees of social responsiveness, but the US is still among the forefront of a capitalistic model. So by realistic I mean, if you were in office , how could you apply your objectivist principles without some degree of compromise? Or would you hope the nation reads Rand and Hazlitt and see the value in what could have been?

Does anyone here really believe that going back to a gold-standard is an option? It will never happen in our lifetime, and if it did, you would not live long enough to see the end of a depression that severe (I think rome's lasted what...1000 years?) We don't live in a capitalistic economy...it's fueled by credit. The Fed prints more money because it has to. So if we're going to spend money, why not at least try to put it into innovative technologies instead of blowing it on social policies? The US will spend trillions in the coming years...a trillion invested into any tech would give the US a way to stay competitive. State science institute? Don't forget government investment is why we've got the erie canal, the apollo program, the manhattan project , interstate highways, the internet, global military dominance. Unless you have any other, realistic ideas on policy, or plan on starting Galt island somewhere, I don't see many other alternatives.

The state of the economy is the major cause of a lot of this political debate, but I think it's unrealistic to think any policy is going to affect the actual causes. For example, a huge issue is wages and workers' share of capital. The left would press firms; the right, if they even acknowledged the issue, would want deregulation, lower taxes, etc. But neither of these would have a lasting effect. Worker's share of GDP is falling in countries with various states of regulation...in fact even more so last quarter in much of the EU. These are global economic issues. If there's going to be any policy it should really address the reality of globalisation and the need for more innovation. Despite fantasies objectivists might have of returning to a gold standard, there's no way that's happening...the results would be disastrous. The only way I can see to maintain this level of credit (175% of GDP now), is if we make a solid commitment to innovation, by spending say a trillion on biotechnology (stem cells, nanotech), spend a trillion on energy like solar, wind, etc. Not just dumping money, but making a full commitment to be competitive in these areas (like with the space program).

Am I the only one who disagrees with this?

This showed up in my news feed (and has a thousands of shares already) with the caption: "its much easier for every one to be happy in secular nations because your beliefs are up to YOU. if they aren't up to you.. if you have to worship a certain way to avoid punishment.. then how sincere can your belief be? yay freedom" Despite how this is obviously a gross–generalization, I see where the argument is coming from.

also slavery, civil rights inequality, and anti-abortion laws were accepted politically and socially at one point and time, whether it was right or wrong. Through societal changes we were able to force the political change. If we as a society are moving towards not implementing capital punishment, then eventually the laws will change, as the laws represent the will of the people generally. I believe Castro is a monster and I have no sympathy for him. Whatever occurs to him has no bearing in my view. I suppose you could say I no longer see him as human, but I think he just forfeit his right to exist in society based upon his actions. His decisions are the reason he is where he is. I do think certain extreme cases warrant the discussion of does a person of such a heinous nature even deserve sympathy.

Actually our society "as it is currently defined" agrees with me. We have the death penalty. At a federal level. So, even though you sound very smart and use some really big words (I'll admit I had to look up epistemological), your cohesive thought process and basis for argument is false. Hence the remainder of your argument is invalid. Secondly,I know about our criminal justice system and its virtues, and I agree with it in order to protect people in our society from wrongful prosecution. So your whole P.S. statement - waste of your time to type. Also, I made it clear, to point out in this specific instance, how our justice system should have something in place for a case this apparent. So your point about "if I understood why justice takes time" is again somewhat misguided. Lastly, your quote: "But the suggestion that justice should happen instantly is the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. If you make that suggestion, you cannot then still use the word "society" as if it still refers to a valid concept." It is not the dismissal of every single principle and rule that defines society. The society in the US and most modern nations no longer accept "instant justice". We used to though in our early history (duels over honor, gunfights to settle disputes, etc.). There are some societies in the world today that still implement swift and immediate justice. Now the argument can be made on whether or not that is how they should dispense justice, or even if it is justice they are dispensing, but you can use the word society and it does refer to a valid concept. My point which you were talking about though was about our lack of enforcing justice once it has been decided upon. If you want to rethink and focus on that point, then I'll be happy to reply or discuss it with you. P.S. What you wrote sounds like a really good beginning for a philosophy class, dissertation, or coffee shop discussion. Unfortunately you're arguments do not seem very objective, considering you replied to something you did not fully read. Understanding the counterpoints to your argument is always the first step in forming a complete response.

This is how I feel. And yes I know the changes I suggested would never come to pass...I just don't have the patience our justice system demands for this type of situation. Just can't imagine 10 years of my life being robbed from me in such an awful way

If you rape then murder someone... You should be killed. If we, as a society, made it cut and dry. Made it very clear. Made it understood.... if A (you rape and kill someone) will equal B (you will die). It might actually make criminals think. As it stands now.. you can rape, kill, torture, jail, beat, do whatever... and criminals get 3 hots and a cot, tv, mail priviledges, workout time, free clothes, and whatever else. With the possiblity of parole a few years down the road. There are certain people and crimes that should be inexcusable. Or at least clearly defined. Hey.. you can do what you want.. but this will occur. You want to kill? Sure, but know you will be killed. You want to rape then kill someone? Sure, but you will be killed. It's your choice. Don't whine or beg for mercy after you commit a heinous crime. Caveat, every situation is different. I believe in innocent until proven guilty (don't use this asshole as an example, no court case is even needed). I believe in the jury system. I believe in the prosecution and defense. Our justice system, for all of its faults is one of the best in the world. It is the will of the people to enforce punishment once a verdict has been reached. It is the will of the people to make criminals, murderers, rapists, child abusers pay the price and suffer. It is the will of the people to ensure that we protect the innocent and avenge them when we can't. There are certain lines once crossed, that offenders should pay the ultimate price. And in this situation, what this guy did to these three women, deserves it.

The man who imprisoned and raped three women for nearly ten years has accepted a plea agreement. Ariel Castro pleaded guilty in court on Friday in a deal that would give him life in prison without the possibility of parole, according to USA Today. He will be sentenced by a judge at a later date. The deal is for a life sentence, plus a thousand years. When a crime this heinous is committed, he should just be taken to a hole already dug at a cemetery and shot. Our justice system is amazing in many ways, but situations like this... common sense and swift justice should overrule it. Criminals of this magnitude should know, if caught, they will die swiftly and surely. I know if I were the father, brother, or relative of one of these three women he would suffer the ultimate punishment. I can only hope bad men already in prison, dispense the justice he deserves upon him. also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZcRU0Op5P4

I guess someone got a Word-A-Day desk calender and wanted to try it out

Do y'all even read the quoted sections of the Bible for context around the thing you blatantly take out of context? Originally Posted by The Actual Verses from the Bible 42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. The lesson of the parable is identical to the one Obama espoused. In this case, the beating for having a lot (of info of the master's intent, in the parable) is beaten more severely than the person who sins mistakenly. I mean, really. The NY Daily News has about the credibility as the toilet paper I wipe my ass with. Never mind the myriad of other support the Bible offers for redistribution of wealth, including the teachings of Jesus and his disciples in Acts.

So the French Socialist Party is back in power. Some few things the new President feels are fair. Telling the EU that France is allowed to have a Higher deficit and debt then previously agreed to. Throwing out most if not all of the previous Austerity measures. Anyone who makes 1.3 million a year or more pays 75% tax. Does anyone think any of the above things would actually be a good thing? I do have to give the guy props tho, People think Obama is playing the class warfare card, he only says "fair" rate of taxes, won't put a figure on it. Obama don't have shit on the French.. Take about class warfare, no no.. we don't have to cut back spending.. we will just tax the rich people to the point that they are poor. I'd love to see someone in the US ask for a 75% tax rate on someone making 1.3 mill a year. Altho.. I bet what they want would effectively be that anyway. P.S. Don't forget France also has a VAT tax on TOP of the proposed 75% tax. Got to love Europe.

Thank you all for the suggestions and ideas. I hadn't heard of most of these artists either, so I'll see what the local library has. And a change of scenery is a good idea so maybe I'll walk. I work inside on the computer all day so it's probably good to get the blood flowing anyway. And it's less of a funk and more dissatissfactoin with where I am right now, and trying to get motivated and discplined to find a way to get ahead of my bills, and maybe have some spare time to do something I enjoy. It's a "funk" I've been dealing with for years. I live and work alone in an area I just moved to where I know no one...so no beautiful women available unfortunately =P