A.West

I agree that the Falun Gong should have the right to practice their self-destructive mysticism. However, my point is that if you want protest to be effective, and teach people about the true nature of the Chinese government's evil, then it is much more useful to have a protest arguing that the Chinese government is against individual rights, and making an argument based upon rational premises. If an alleged global symbol of reason and capitalism such as Bill Gates wines and dines and kneels before Hu at his home, while the only people protesting are a bunch of unworldly, unsuccessful mystics, then THAT sends a message about the legitimacy of the Chinese government. As for how the media reacts to it, the large media companies have been kissing Chinese Communist Party butts for years. They think China will be their new promised land and growth market, and are generally quite docile and supportive of the Party, as they depend upon them for permission to do anything. I remember this article I wrote back in 1999: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=233

Too bad that Falun Gong is extraordinarily anti-mind, anti-self, anti-life on earth, and anti-pleasure. I'd like to see some real protests based on the promotion of individual rights.

Buy computer software that actually gives you simulated testing and training. I scored a 710 (about 93rd percentile) and I think the simulated tests helped me prepare for the real thing better than the books. Only that helps you deal with the time control situation, and the way the program mixes up easy with hard depending on how your doing. (I think that's how it works). That helped me get into NYU Stern.

Trudy Cool: These are more floating abstractions heaped on top of Felix's floating abstractions. You offer no definition or description of what you are graphing. What exactly is being measured in this "financial sector"? What is a "family basket"? There are no citations for where the alleged historical data come from, nor whose forecasts are being presented. If people and governments are borrowing beyond their means to repay, then that's a problem. But don't blame it on money as such. And don't arbitrarily assert that money under central banking is the same as money under free banking, or that Ayn Rand somehow didn't understand the topic. One thing Ayn Rand did do was concretize and ground in reality what she talked about - something I'm not seeing a lot of here.

South Park's 4/5/06 episode certainly had larger aspirations than most of their episodes, and worked on several levels. Their critique of the head in the sand approach to not defending free speech was good. Their parody of Family Guy's style was consistent with the 1 and 1/2 episodes I've seen of it (random flashbacks to create a gag). Ultimately, I think the episode wasn't about Family Guy, it was about South Park and the pressures that they may be getting from Comedy Central. They personally would probably would like to show Muhammed performing in a Mexican donkey show. Usually, South Park's ultimate resolution of these big issues are a bit disappointing, because they typically step back from the brink of drawing a truly radical conclusion that would be deeply unpopular. So I'm keeping my expectations low for part 2 next week.

Ok, give it a try and please report back your impressions. I haven't had any interest in the horror genre since integrating Objectivism. I don't know if I'd even find the stories interesting, 20 years later, other than as part of a socialogical/psychological exploration of why many young people are fascinated by horror.

Just this morning on the train I noticed this from "The Art of Fiction": "The only rule about it [the use of fantasy] is that it should not be purposeless..." ... "What kinds of fantasies are not justified? Those with no intellectual or moral application to human life...But fantasy for the sake of fantasy is neither valid nor interesting." ... "I know of no ghost or horror stories that I would classify as valid" So, what would be the purpose of reading a horror book by H.P. Lovecraft which generally and essentially portrays man as helpless and doomed living in an incomprehensible and malevolent universe? I'm not tempted to reread them.

Horror short stories. Malevolent universe, and insanity are the key features. I read pretty much all his stuff in early high school during a phase. I recall the writing quality to be pretty good in terms of creating suspense, atmospherics, delivering a plot and resolution. I don't see how much positive could come from reading H.P. Lovecraft, however, from a psychological or sense of life perspective.

In a real economy with a real currency, pretty much everyone would have assets and provide services that would be of economic value to others, and nearly everyone would have at least some amount of the underlying currency (gold, salt, etc.). (After all, why would people choose a currency that wasn't commonly used, and regularly available?) Thus productive individual A would focus on converting his economic value into adequate liquidity on his loan repayment date (trading labor or other assets for currency from those who do not have high currency liquidity needs at that time.) At another time productive individual B may supply liquidity, or need liquidity. The bank is not the only source of credit - every productive individual is a potential source of credit and liquidity. And if the bank extends credit (currency due at a future time) beyond the ability of its creditors to repay on time, then the bank will have to take a loss, restructure loans, seek repayment in alternative assets, fail, or whatever. It's not the end of the world or some stunning newly discovered mystery of economics! But to understand this, you've got to look outwards to reality, observing what really goes on in an economy. You can't understand it by rationalistically deducing your way into it.

I second the above by David. I'm against a holiday that blends loud drunkenness with a forgotten celebration of mass Christian conversion of a population. But its danger in today's context is physical rather than philosophical, e.g. drunk drivers, "date-rapes", alcohol poisoning, etc., rather than new converts to Christianity. I've never gone out for drinks to "celebrate" the holiday. However, I did put out green socks for my 4 year old daughter to wear today, so she wouldn't get pinched at her Montessori school.

Felix, I already mentioned Menger's principles. But if you say the things you do after reading Atlas Shrugged twice, then I must conclude that you are either lacking in reasoning ability, or simply intellectually dishonest. If you cannot see a connection between the production of food and shelter and economics, then I don't see much point in discussing economics with you.

This appears to be a rationalist assertion, likely due to thinking that the sum of bills=the economy. Robinson Crusoe and Friday can't build a treehouse and store coconuts without credit cards? First learn what an economy is before you offer further predictions. It appears that you think markets are Platonic. Must every transaction be perpetually up for global auction to not be flawed? One man has a car that was worth more than $6000 to him, in exchange for $6000. Another man has $6000 in return for a car that was worth less than $6000 to him. Perhaps he bought it for $5,000 and rebuilt the engine and re painted it for $500. In your imaginary zero sum world, was he a sucker then an exploiter? By this standard, anyone who doesn't buy a stock at its historical low price is a loser, as well as everyone who sells a stock at anything less than its all-time high. Because Felix can IMAGINE that a better trade could have been made. What you are doing is imagining all the various goods in the world would still exist without the profit motive, and then imagining that they could all be had at (price minus profit). This is essentially the same as imagining that everything could be had for free, and so every item purchased above zero involves loss. Mutualy profitable transaction example: a farmer pays $1 for seeds, grows wheat, sells wheat to baker for $2, baker turns wheat into and sells $4 of bread. But it could have all happened without money, with farmers, bakers, and shepherds all exchanging their produced values in exchange for the goods produced by others, so take your eyes off the dollar signs and watch what they are doing if you want to learn what an economy is. The dollar signs simply show the relative values of their products, and helps guide them toward the highest use of their efforts and inputs. I am being harsh because a reasonable person is expected to engage in some thoughtful reflection, inductive observations, consult useful reference materials, and think before spouting nonsense hypotheses which we are presumably obliged to refute. This too (thinking) has a cost, though not necessarily a monetary one.

Check your premises here. They're wrong. Focusing on dollars is also wrong. I suggest thinking through Carl Menger's "Principles of Economics". 1. Dollars (euros, etc.) are not the primaries in markets - values are. 2. Your formulation ignores credit. 3. Transactions can create profit for all participants, in both dollar and value terms. 4. Your last sentence pretty much encapsulates the exact opposite of Ayn Rand's economic message in Atlas Shrugged. Have you read it?

Chef had been playing a diminished role in recent years anyway. I'm hoping there will soon be something funny in an episode about Chef's sudden disappearance/death. Of course, Chef couldn't go to heaven in the South Park universe, because Heaven's only for Mormons and Kenny.

Be yourself but you can still seek to emphasize areas of common interest among your coworkers and/or clients. When I was young I was a junior analyst working in an office surrounded mostly by stockbrokers. I spent a lot of time with them discussing things of interest, but also walked away from some "bonding" activities like drinking binges and trips to topless bars. If the place you're working at is any good, you should be able to suceed without betraying your own judgement. I don't think leaving to get to class on time should be a big deal. If leads/rewards are distributed based on brown-nosing and friendships, then reconsider the place, or at least consider alternatives.

Are you agreeing and disagreeing with me? I wrote of the Dagny/Francisco relationship as an "appropriate" early relationship, so I think we agree on that. To others quoting Ayn Rand's early letters and journals- they simply aren't her fully-worked-out thoughts on the matter. They are interesting, because they might be the very documents/thoughts that inspired her to develop more fully those elements of Objectivism. You'll find Ayn Rand's well-developed analysis of sex and love presented in Atlas Shrugged, which she worked on for over a decade, a bit longer than her journals or letters. There are numerous relevant passages, but in particular, Francisco's comments and Hank Rearden's development makes her views quite clear. In particular, see the passage in which Francisco talks to Rearden, which begins with:

If Roark had held a mind/body, sex/love dichotomy, then that would have been a flaw, or internal conflict to correct/resolve, as Hank Rearden did in Atlas. I think the journal entry would have fallen in that category. I can't think of any internal conflict presented about Roark in the Fountainhead. And I think that total integrity and lack of internal conflict was a key element of his character. Note that in Atlas, Ayn Rand presented an appropriate early-life sexual relationship for Dagny/Francisco. And note that for Ayn Rand's top heroes, Roark and Galt, she did not present any early romantic relationships - they apparently waited for their ideal.

I don't have Ayn Rand's Journals with me, but those were her early thoughts on Roark, right? There's a reason that that description of Roark didn't appear in her finished book. Note that Wynand's early love life did make it into the novel. My theory - the attitude towards sex that Rand wrote about in her journals conflicted with her more fully developed thoughts on an ideal man, which Roark was meant to portray, and she didn't want to undercut him by injecting early character flaws. The case of Hank Rearden vs Lillian R makes clear Ayn Rand's views on attempting to divorce sex from love/values. Hank's early view, emphasized and concretized by Lillian was an error which he eventually overcame. So no, not all agreed. Having sex is not scratching an itch.

The above is essentially what Calpers does, but of course using an incorrect philosophy. There are a number of hedge funds that are activist investors, and pursue the posotive moral agenda of trying to push companies to stop wasting money, right-size, optimize capital structure, etc., to serve shareholder interests. From a practical perspective, I think it would be better to hold a concentrated portfolio of companies likely to economically benefit from your activism. A small fund paying salaries is a recipe for massive underperformance. I once proposed as a concept a hedge fund that would invest on the basis of economic freedom, agitating countries on that basis. But I'd say that's just one layer of the investment management process - one would need to overlay that level of analysis upon a sound investment analysis at the investment unit level. One could even short companies likely to suffer from increasing econ freedom (e.g. companies subsidized/ propped up by the govt.) or go long cos benefitting from removal of restrictions, etc. The challenge is that one needs size because activism is expensive - you need lawyers, influencers. I wouldn't be surprised if the largest hedge funds may well influence US and foreign govt decisions.

"Classical" music is not all the same. I suggest that start with the few pieces you like, and build up an ability to hear themes good composers integrate into longer pieces. I like some kinds of "classical" music (most of which would be termed "Romantic" and not "Classical" by purists), and rarely listen to others. If there is a composer or two you like whose most famous pieces are played on Classical Radio, you might then explore their lesser-known pieces, or find composers with a similar style. If you like soundtrack-like music, then you might enjoy Tchaikovsky's ballet music for example. Chopin and Lizst are known for their ability to create emotionally evocative music, as was Rachmaninoff. Rimsky-Korsakoff's "Sheherazade" suite and a number of Richard Strauss' tone poems present entire stories in music.

Maybe Danica Mc Kellar can help me check this math problem: Brags about lending her voice to a very special episode of "Captain Planet and the Planeteers" + spends a day bagging groceries to "help the environment" + sang in the music video "Let It Be Earth Day Everyday" = average Hollywood twit.

I'd play but I live in New Jersey. My 4 year old has been keeping me mostly off the courts for the last several years.

Yes Hunter, racial quota. Kwanzaa, a holiday created to celebrate and encourage black tribalism, collectivism, and race-conciousness, is recognized around the country and in the media primarily because race-activists have demanded that it be recognized in the name of racial diversity. According to what I saw, the only good thing I saw about Kwanzaa was that its creator hoped it would push aside the mysticism that he thought black people who celebrated Christmas were falling for. (So I guess he was a pretty consistent Marxist). The reason I single out Kwaanza is that it is 1)recently created by a racist collectivist with the explicit purpose of promoting that philosophy and 2) is now being mandated as the newest addition to everyone's "Happy Holidays".

That Futurama slight wasn't the sort of confrontation it deserves. Kwaanza deserves the sort of treatment South Park has provided for Mormonism, Scientology, and Alcoholics Anonymous. To answer Hunter's question, I do not find Christmas or Hannukah nearly as philosophically objectionable as Kwanzaa. The story of the baby and the three kings and such is propaganda for Christ as lord, of course, but Christmas in practice has become Santa Claus dispensing rewards for good behavior unrelated to the Christian religion, and Rudolph overcoming a negative self-image. Hannukah appears to have less to it, but seems tied to resistance against oppression, though of course it's dragged down by mystical content. Kwaanza is an attempt to take a very specific philosophical program and obtain for it equal time as some form of racial quota. It's very clearly collectivist and tribalist. Who can think of something related to Ayn Rand or Objectivism that falls in late December? We need to start our own holiday and get our ideas disseminated for free in schools and media during the holiday season.

DavidOdden's statements are consistent with what I've read/seen on this topic. I've seen Popper's nihilistic epistemology applied in my field (finance), leading to destructive results. In effect, it tells academics to abandon induction as a means to knowledge, because the only real knowledge you can have is of what has been proven false. Implied by this falsafiability concept is that all "testable", (including highly rationalistic) theories that have not yet been proven false, are essentially equal. This rationalistic, anti-inductive bias has encouraged finance academics to spend most of their time working on existing databases and statistical methods, each hoping to disprove (falsify) each others' rationalistic hypotheses. Overall, very little time is spent going out into the finance world, talking with investors, companies, and other market participants trying to formulate concepts and principles based upon actual observations of the world. Ultimately, Popper's approach is anti-knowledge, anti-certainty, anti-Aristotle. While I can see how some could be attracted to its surface appeal to "hard-headed" scientific method, it takes the exact opposite approach required of a healthy epistemological method. And there's nothing good in "falsifiability" that would not already be required by the process of integration (namely, recognizing that contradictions do not exist).