[QE2]

Yesterday, Krugman further elaborated on commodity prices:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/are-rising-commodity-prices-an-inflationary-signal/

[QE2]

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

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

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.

[QE2]

Where's the argument?

He goes into more detail here:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/core-logic/

Certainly he shouldn't, since in the early 2000s he was out appealing to the govt to inflate a housing bubble to replace the burst stock bubble. And now we have this mess as a result.

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.

[QE2]

A better predictor is to look at commodities prices - the prices companies are having to pay for the goods that make up their products. These prices have been skyrocketing at least as much as gold has increased over the last year. Eventually companies are going to start passing the cost on to consumers, as consumers continue to spend less.

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.)

Banks have no incentive to lend out the money that the Fed poofed into existence, so they are just keeping the money on their books.

I agree that this is what is happening.

The essential fact is that expanding "high powered money" (as in M1) need not cause price-rises for day to day goods and services. The key is whether credit booms again.

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.

[QE2]

Is it now too late to turn back?

Seriously.

We'll see inflation for sure, no question. But will it be 20% and then a recovery? Or is this the end?

By end, I mean, there is no hope to pay off this debt even with 100% austerity, Laffer-optimal taxation?

What next?

How long?

Theories, go:

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.

[Objectivism and Sacrifice]

Essentially all the other definitions contradict the one you cited.

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.

I think what Ryan is trying to say is "Rand used a different definition for a word than a dictionary uses, so everything she ever said is wrong."

Not at all.

[Objectivism and Sacrifice]

"Sacrifice" - from dictionary.com:

the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

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'm depressed again....]

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/

[Critique of the Rally For Sanity]

This has been floating around...

Brilliant!

[What causes America's lower life expectancy?]

Immigration.

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.

[What causes America's lower life expectancy?]

Interesting. It sounds like those two studies conflict. The previous one you linked to claimed that they had adjusted for worse American obesity (e.g., Americans have more "diseases of the rich") and so on, and claimed that all that could explain it was the health-insurance model. However, this study would belie that. Anyone who has decent insurance cover (e.g.g the so called "richer Americans" mentioned in the second) can attest that provision of care is not lacking in the U.S.

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:

Even the U.S. obesity epidemic couldn't solve the mystery. The researchers crunched numbers to create a hypothetical statistical world in which the English had American lifestyle risk factors, including being as fat as Americans. In that model, Americans were still sicker.

Leads one to suspect that some important factor(s) are being ignored by the analysis.

What are they?

[What causes America's lower life expectancy?]

@Ryan: The U.S. has excellent life-expectancy, and it has been improving. However, why would it be surprising to find that some other rich developed countries that give poorer people free healthcare end up having better stats? A proper study ought to compare those who have health-care in (say) Japan --- i.e. everyone -- against those in the U.S. who have healthcare.

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):

"The upper crust in both countries was healthier than middle-class and low-income people in the same country. But richer Americans' health status resembled the health of the low-income English."

- 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.

[What causes America's lower life expectancy?]

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?

[Rand's views on murderer William Hickman]

Thanks for the quotes, Grames. Fascinating. But I still have a real big problem. Those words are so bitter and so absolutely condemn mankind. Grames, think about it. Is every person (or even the majority) you know so horrendously bad and horrible and without purpose? How can one hold the view that mankind is capable of god-like things, yet at the same time believe that mankind is thoroughly rotten.

I don't get it. But I can't believe it's a good mindset. Quite the contrary, I find it disturbing.

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.

[Rand's views on murderer William Hickman]

I'm going to post a big piece of text from the journals so people can see for themselves what a 23 year old Ayn Rand was up to.

Thank you for posting that.

Rand may have been referring to these events (overly-indignant, 'virtuous' mobs baying for justice) in general, and not this specific case. For instance when some famous person gets caught evading taxes, or having an affair, or insider trading, or taking a bribe, and the heartfelt consternation that somewhat unconvincingly follows.

I agree.

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

[Rand's views on murderer William Hickman]

Actually believing what? You made sure to cut off the quote before she explains who and what she was referring to, in the hopes that you'll find a few people lazy enough to believe your lie that she was referring to the "average person".

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.

Here's what she was referring to: "Oh, that their best is so very small! Oh, that their worst is so very small! And oh, how horrid it is to be small!". That is from Nietzsche, and it hints to a belief system that is a far greater evil than Hickman's degeneracy. It is something that, in my humble opinion, doesn't fit many people, but it describes one in this thread pretty well: you.

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.

But what is more worrying is that seemingly few members of this forum are willing to admit there is any problem (and yes one that should invoke an 'emotional response' in any well adjusted person).

Hear, hear!

So does anyone have the full quote to post?

[Rand's views on murderer William Hickman]

This forum is not the place for oblique attacks on Rand.

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.

Assuming you are engaging in a serious dialogue on this matter in an attempt to understand why Rand made the statements she did you need to answer the question-

Was this crime the worst thing ever done and if so why?

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.

It would do good to read post #5.

#5 does not address the following from Rand:

It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal

Or are you saying that when Rand says this she was fantasising as per #5? Is that better than her actually believing it?!

[Rand's views on murderer William Hickman]

To my understanding, Rand was more interested in the public's reaction to Hickman than the man himself,

Indeed she said

The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...

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.

[Rand's views on murderer William Hickman]

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.

[Is Objectivism Totalitarian?]

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.

[Is Objectivism Totalitarian?]

I haven't heard you condemn the murder of millions of Chinese peasants by Genghis Khan, lately. Mass murderer. If you ask me, you and your murdering buddy could've at least buried them properly, instead of building a giant pile out of their heads like savages. What kind of a person are you?

Or should I wait until you're dead before I call you an accomplice to every crime you didn't know about, to make sure you can't correct me?

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.

[Is Objectivism Totalitarian?]

You presented no evidence that Rand supported sending homosexuals and other innocents to jail. Saying she "implicitly supported" it is just a cheap way of avoiding the need to prove your claim.

Not condemning an action is just as bad as doing the action. Just as taking no position on an issue is itself a position.

You might consider digging a little deeper.

What kind of 'witch-hunt' are you on?

Well from your CUI quote the key part is:

Senator McCarthy was never proved guilty of those allegations

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).

And who is the totalitarian apologist? Apparently, here's a guy who is okay with the economic theories of a man who said the following in the Nazi-propaganda-ministry-approved German edition of his treatise:

The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory. (JM Keynes, “Vorwort Zur Deutschen Ausgabe”, 1936.)

I find that Keynes quote to be disgusting, and I do not agree with it.

[Is Objectivism Totalitarian?]

Great, Rand failed to condemn something imaginary that you read on Wikipedia, so Objectivism is flawed. In the mean time, I presented evidence that the American Communist Party was a Soviet proxy.

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.

[Is Objectivism Totalitarian?]

Don't go by the fantasies of revisionist leftists, who will tell you the Soviet Union was Heaven and Che Guevara and Castro are freedom fighters.

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:

Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.[45]

If anything, McCarthy was all too kind to the communists.

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.

It is gaining information, not punishing those individuals automatically for potentially being part of that party, akin to the WW2 Japanese interment camps. Now that would clearly be wrong. Same principles apply in both scenarios.

Though I know you do not find these convincing Ryan after making it clear the other day in chat that you are a Keynesian when it comes to economics.

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.)

[Is Objectivism Totalitarian?]

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:

Among the first film industry witnesses subpoenaed by the Committee were ten who decided not to cooperate. These men, who became known as the "Hollywood Ten", cited the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and free assembly, which they believed legally protected them from being required to answer the Committee's questions. This tactic failed, and the ten were sentenced to prison for contempt of Congress. Two of the ten were sentenced to six months, the rest to a year.

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:

Asked years later about the hearings, Rand said that they were a "dubious undertaking," "futile," and "nothing but disappointments." She did not think the government could not legitimately investigate the ideological penetration of Communism into the movies. It could only show that there were members of the Communist Party working in the industry. She did believe, however, that it was acceptable for the committee to ask people whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its political goals, and investigating possible criminal activities was an appropriate role of government. "I certainly don't think it's any kind of interference with anybody's rights or freedom of speech," she said.3

In bold above, we see the exact topic we are now discussing.

From wiki again:

It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs.[43] In many cases simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.[44] Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.[45] Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment.[46]

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.