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.

Jake your first mistake is that your default with regards to people's motivations should be to assume the best. I didn't cut off the quote, I pasted it from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman), and this is where it cut off. I'd be interested if someone with the actual book could post the full quote here (and they could also update wikipedia). I still contend that she is speaking of the average person since she specifically refers to the rage of society against this individual. Quote her full passage and lets find out. Your second mistake Jake is your failure to extend basic courtesy. You could think the worst of me but keep it in the private messages and/or to yourself. Being rude simply detracts from the intellectual points you are actually making and is against forum rules. Hear, hear! So does anyone have the full quote to post?

An attack? This is not an attack, this is a neutral question as to why Rand thought that the majority of people were worse than a murderer. The fact that someone could think this depresses me, so forgive me for being slightly horrified or at least dismayed. I agree this was not the worst thing ever done. But the point is that she thought the average person had worse sins than this. #5 does not address the following from Rand: Or are you saying that when Rand says this she was fantasising as per #5? Is that better than her actually believing it?!

Indeed she said So Rand thinks that most people have worse sins than cutting up a little girl? How horrifying that she views society to be so loathsome.

I agree that Rand was admiring only certain aspects of Hickman, but what an extremely odd thing to admire aspects of a man's character who dismembered a little girl and removed all her organs. Hickman's actions were so utterly disgusting that confirming Godwin's law in this case is justified. If I was to admire aspects of Hitler's character who gassed people I'd be rightly desribed as odd at best, and at worst extremely immoral.

I'm a troll, and I don't understand Objectivism. If these are your debating tactics then you'll never convince anyone of your ideas. This discussion is over.

What? We are not talking about things that I or Rand didn't know about. Obviously it would be ridiculous to condemn someone for a lack of a position on something they are not aware.

Not condemning an action is just as bad as doing the action. Just as taking no position on an issue is itself a position. Well from your CUI quote the key part is: Contrast this with any history book which clearly showed that a portion of the hearings were expressly designed to evaluate the risk of homosexuals in government and you get a taste of the irrationality that Rand failed to condemn and in fact participated in. If you don't own any history books I will gladly get mine out and type it in if requested (the Objectivist created Wikipedia ironically does not have much support on this forum as a source). I find that Keynes quote to be disgusting, and I do not agree with it.

And I agree with that evidence that you posted. However it was people outside the Communist Party who were mostly persecuted. It was a disgrace, and not only did Rand fail to condemn it she stated that no rights violations had been committed. Here is more reading material on how gays and other communist "fellow travellers" were persecuted: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2491763/homosexuality_in_america_during_the.html Again, an absolute and utter disgrace and stain on America's history which Rand implicitly supported.

I agree, the Soviet Union was a disgrace. But so was America's McCarythism that Rand failed to condemn. I quoted in my post above the following from Wikipedia which I think is key: Not sure how to respond to that! The whole point is that most of the people harassed and oppressed had no link to communists. It was a classic Salem style witch hunt. CS, I refer you to my quote above. The whole thing was a witch hunt. (Aside - I don't think there is one single economic model that is perfect. But was Keynes intelligent and did he have some worthy contributions to his field? Yes.)

We actually have a real world example of what Ayn Rand actually thought on this subject. Here is a link to a transcript of her testimony as a "friendly witness" to the "House Un-American Activities Committee" - http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6125 From wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#House_Committee_on_Un-American_Activities: Rand's testimony was before the Hollywood Ten debacle sure, but we can see what she subsequently thought of the whole affair. From http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html, bold is mine: In bold above, we see the exact topic we are now discussing. From wiki again: The fact that Rand didn't denounce this whole process as disgusting and rights-denying is damning for Objectivism's claim to be the ultimate defender of free speech.