Ryan1985

Yesterday, Krugman further elaborated on commodity prices: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/are-rising-commodity-prices-an-inflationary-signal/

It looks like Krugman actually recommended that a new bubble be inflated in 2002 - http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html He does seem to be able to predict what is happening and when better than anyone else. Whether you love him or hate him, you have to listen to Krugman to know what is happening in the economy whether you agree with it or not.

He goes into more detail here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/core-logic/ Krugman was one of the first to warn of the housing bubble - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1 In contrast, conservatives, libertarians, and Objectivists were amoung the most prominent bubble deniers - http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-list-of-punditsexperts-who.html http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4243 There is a strong correlation between advocating fiscal austerity now (ie being economically conservative) and denying that a housing bubble existed. And the worst are people like Peter Schiff. Austrians like him will predict disaster always and at every point in time. A stopped clock is right twice a day and Schiff will be right on average once a decade with his recession predictions. Here he is predicting doom on the current situation - http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/markets/6105-the-hail-mary.html By the way, I'm totally open to being proven wrong on this, if someone can show me a fiscal conservative who 1) Predicted the bubble 2) Doesn't predict bubbles at every point in time, then I will change my mind.

Here is a link to why we should not focus on commodity prices when looking at inflation: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/wages-and-the-slide-toward-deflation/ (I know Paul Krugman does not gain much currency in this forum but if we focus on his arguments and not the man himself.) I agree that this is what is happening. I agree with this. I think high inflation is a long way off since credit is not going to boom anytime within the next 5 years at least. At that point we may get moderate inflation but nowhere near 20%. As sNerd says, innovation does not cease, and this will cause economic growth which will soak up some of the QE2 money.

We are not going to see 20% inflation as a result of this. At the moment US inflation is at 1.1% after $1.75 trillion was pumped in during QE1. Remember the size of the US economy. It's worth over 14 trillion dollars. 600 billion is not going to make much difference at all. What the Fed is trying to do is make sure that inflation doesn't drop below 0% which causes all kinds of problems for a mixed economy.

You're right, it seems that conventionally the word sacrifice is used for more than one meaning. I guess Rand clarified which one she thought was the right one. Not at all.

"Sacrifice" - from dictionary.com: Rand defined sacrifice as the opposite of dictionary.com, ie trading a greater value for a lesser value. My question is why does Rand define sacrifice differently than the conventional definition? I understand that Rand would say the conventional definition is not a sacrifice it's a profit, and I'd agree its a profit but that still doesn't stop it being a sacrifice too. For example, when a leader says "I need you to sacrifice to win this war" they mean its both a sacrifice (as per dictionary.com above) and also a profit (since freedom and winning the war is a greater value than whatever one is sacrificing).

I've been depressed/sad twice in my life. The first time, I made a big change and then the depression lifted almost immediately. Another time I had an episode of merely existing and was sad about it. I made another big change and I'm happy again. So I think that temporary depression/sadness can be really good. But if this is your constant state then I agree you should go to a doctor and actually take the meds he prescribes (and not be ashamed to do so!). I'd recommend getting any job, staying in your Dad's house and paying the rent, and then save as much as you can to start your own business. Business owners are the happiest people although they work longer hours often for less pay. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/the-self-employed-are-the-happiest/

Brilliant!

The second study looked only at whites and white Americans have a lower life expectancy than white Brits. I think stress could be it. Americans work more hours.

I agree that care is not lacking in the US. The US has the most per person spent on healthcare in the world. But the researchers are questioning the effectiveness of the care. I don't understand what you mean when you say the two studies conflict. The second study also adjusts for factors such as obesity: What are they?

There is specific research that compares the UK with the USA in a similar way to what you just described. One of it's conclusions is (bold mine): - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050200631_2.html Edit: I'm trying to locate the original research on this and not just a newspaper article. I'm sure I've got it bookmarked somewhere.

1. Americans don't live as long as other developed nation citizens. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html) 2. A new study shows that this is NOT because of obesity, traffic fatalities,smoking, etc.(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11502938, http://www.hivehealthmedia.com/healthcare-shortens-american-life-expectancy/). 3. The researchers speculate that "the nature of our health care system - specifically, its reliance on unregulated fee-for-service and specialty care - may explain both the increased spending and the relative deterioration in survival that we observed,". 4. This unregulated fee-for-service kind of system is unique to America's semi-free healthcare system. For example in the UK, the healthcare system is 100% nationalised (ie 100% not free) and no fee-for-services exist, everything is paid for out of taxes with no insurance at all. So my question is what causes America's lower life expectancy? Are the researchers right? Or is there a factor that they haven't thought of that causes America's lower life expectancy?

I think this is just standard Rand. If you read Atlas Shrugged she describes the masses of passengers who die on the crashed train as being guilty or deserving the crash (if I recall correctly). I don't think her Hickman comments are unique in that regard.

Thank you for posting that. I agree. I think I'm now convinced that Rand was not being immoral here. Thanks for everyone who didn't yell troll.