iflyboats
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by iflyboats
-
-
A mystic (I think) on reddit writes:
"Objectivism claims to be a completely secular philosophy, but basically enjoins one to have faith in the supremacy of reason."
Is this a skeptic argument equivalent to saying "we know that we know nothing?" The person is making a claim to firm knowledge, which, if it were true, he would have had to use reason to validate?
-
The general problem facing the world's developed economies is too much debt: too much government debt, bank debt and private debt.
For private people and companies: private borrowers have to start saving more. This has already started. A second thing that must be done is for creditors to recognize losses. Recognizing losses means that creditors too start to save more -- to compensate for their loss. This does not happen overnight: it is a slow and uneven process.
Governments need to do the same. The U.S. government needs to gets its debt under control. This is not going to change rapidly, particularly when a huge segment of voters thinks the government should be spending more, and another huge segment thinks the government should be taxing less. However, I think public opinion has moved slightly toward deficit-control, and I also think there is a pretty good chance that public opinion will continue to move in that direction. The debate about the debt-ceiling brought this to the fore, and ended with a decision to slow the rate of debt-growth, compared to previous plans. This is too little. However, that's how democratic politics works: if enough people complain that it is too little, incumbents and candidates start to re-position themselves to show how they will address the complaints.
Odds are that the deficit will keep growing. I doubt the politics against deficits are string enough to stop that. However, I also think there is enough public opinion today that ensures it does not grow at a faster rate than the past. States and local governments have laid off people, some have raised taxes. The typical voter is actually willing to take some cuts in spending and is also willing to have taxes raised. So, in general, there is pro-austerity pressure. Austerity brings pain, and news-stories, and reactions: it's messy and not a straight-line move.
European news does help public opinion in the U.S. as well. It is easier for people to look at the concrete example of Europe and that helps make a future -- which is probably a decade or more away -- more real. This, in turn, puts pressure on avoiding that future, or pushing it further into the future.
Indications are that the U.S. is going to see a flattening of the economy or even a double dip. If that happens and if public opinion swings toward the "we need huge stimulus" camp, that will be a bad sign for the country. On the other hand, if a slow-down pushes people to the "we've tried stimulus, we now need austerity" camp, it will be a good outcome. Note that even the "we need stimulus" camp feels the need to say that we need short term stimulus coupled with a long-term plan to control the deficit. So, wait and watch.
I believe that we are headed for massive additional "stimulus." If our leaders were wise enough to refrain from "stimulating" in the future, they would never have "stimulated" us into this mess in the first place. Obama will NEVER stop deficit spending and Bernanke will NEVER stop printing money. Nobody in Washington will ever admit to having acted in error; they will only try to blame the results of their mistakes on others. This country will hit rock bottom before it changes direction.
-
To lose reserve currency status implies that people who hold claims on the U.S. call in those claims: i.e. exchange those claims for real goods from the U.S. For instance, if China was to sell $1 trillion of its US$ bonds, it would get $1 trillion US$ currency. If it then took this and bought gold from (say) South Africa, the US$ balances previously held in China would now be in South Africa. Whoever holds this US$ currency can again decide to buy US$ bonds. The ratio of US$ currency versus US$ bonds (which are basically two types of claims on US-based people) will impact interest rates, but there is little reason for the ratio between them to change in a lasting way. The real impact on the U.S. will be when the total of US$ currency & US$ bonds held externally is reduced.
Continuing the example above, if the South Africans decide to buy a whole lot of Boeing aircraft, the US$ will return to the US.
The prospect of all those dollars ending up back in the US and tangible goods ending up outside the country is exactly what I expect to happen.
-
US != former Soviet Union in so many ways, but chief among them (in this context) is that the US enjoys reserve currency status. This acts as a brake on any collapse that may happen, and why the rest of the world generally suffers more than the US does.
What if the U.S. were to lose reserve currency status?
-
I agree that the government needs to deregulate. However, let's assume we do not have much change from where we are today. In that scenario, let's assume that China decides to consume more instead of sending as many goods to the U.S. and accepting U.S. bonds in return. So, I assume you're implying a situation where the Chinese stop running up a positive trade-balance vis-a-vis the U.S. Is that what you're talking about?
If so, then it is the same thing as saying that the U.S. will no longer run a negative trade-balance with China. Do you agree?
Assuming for a moment that it is not just China, but that other foreign countries (at least as a whole) stop valuing our paper as much as they do today, you're positing a situation where the U.S. trade-accounts are back in balance? Is that true?
I'm trying to understand the exact situation you're positing, because that's the starting point to understand how likely it really is.
I envision a situation where America's negative trade balance comes to an end. But the case may very well be that we end up exporting more than we import, because foreigners will be able to outbid Americans for the things still made in America.
-
Does this mean America will change to be a manufacturing country and net exporter again?
Only if the government makes it possible to manufacture here again by repealing taxes and regulations. That's why we'll never recover until we have a philosophical revolution.
-
There's little doubt that America remains the premier super-power, both economically and militarily. The old adage goes that when America sneezes, the world gets a cold. That likely will be the case. Given the scenario I see for America, I fully expect it to be substantially worse elsewhere.
This, I don't agree with. Other nations have been subsidizing America's consumption by trading their goods for our paper. When U.S. debt is discovered to be worthless, other countries will start consuming the resources that they currently export to us. America's economic decline will be good for the rest of the world.
-
Sadly, I agree with utabintarbo. The United States will suffer a devastating economic collapse in the near future, and will not recover until we have a philosophical revolution and Paul Krugman is totally repudiated.
-
I've seen that site before and I can't stomach it. It's frightening how he twists things logically. For example, he wrote an article entitled "stop treating Americans like beggars in the street" in which he equated tax breaks (for anyone) to handouts from the government, thus likening the recipient of a tax cut to a "beggar in the street." I don't know it's even possible that a man like him could get into a Ph.D program. He can't be very smart.
I don't know what it is, but the guy just looks sick and seedy.
-
This in part depends on you. You stated your subject matter already: response to an article ridiculing the notion that the rich are job creators. Theme is more complex, I'd say. Why is it that you are taking the time to write anything? What do you have to say that is unique? By identifying errors, what are you trying to get at? And just to mention, not all rich people are necessarily job creators, because there are many ways to be rich; some legitimate, some not.
The reason I want to write an article is that, in the context of the current economic crisis, people on the left are making egregiously flawed arguments in favor of an immoral and dangerous course of action (raising taxes on the rich), and I want to provide a detailed refutation of those errors. I don't intend to discuss the issues of whether the rich are "job creators" and whether they should pay high taxes in purely abstract terms; instead, I want to relate those issues specifically to America's current economic crisis.
The leftist argument is as follows: the fact that America has poor job growth in spite of Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts proves that the rich are not really "job creators," and therefore, because the rich are not "job creators," we should raise their taxes.
I intend to argue the following: 1) that it is absurd to focus on taxes as if they were the sole factor driving job growth, that all other things being equal, job growth is higher now than it would have been if higher taxes had been imposed, and that people on the left are using the Bush tax cuts as a red herring; and 2) that the question of whether a rich man should be pay higher taxes does not depend on whether he would use his money to create jobs, because the protection of property rights is an end in itself, and all job creation depends on it
My motivation to do this arose from the fact that I have recently been arguing in defense of Ayn Rand and capitalism in the enemy's territory (leftist blogs and websites), which I don't believe accomplishes much because almost everyone who reads them is hostile to Objectivist ideas. I set up Google alerts to bring me articles and blog posts that reference Ayn Rand, and almost every commentary that appears is hostile to her ideas. My reasons for wanting starting a blog are to combat anti-Rand commentary by defending capitalism in my own territory. I doubt that what I have to say would be 100% original, but there is far more anti-capitalist than pro-capitalist commentary out there, and I would like to help reverse that trend. Is this a misguided idea?
-
I'm attempting to start a blog in defense of Ayn Rand's ideas. The article that I'm currently attempting to write is a rebuttal of another article recently posted on Alternet in which the author ridicules the idea that the rich are "job creators" to justify increasing their taxes. I intend to identify all the author's errors, refute them and explain why the rich ARE job creators and why they should not be taxed.
My first problem is identifying my subject and theme. Should my subject be the article that I'm repudiating, or the notion that the rich are "job creators" itself?
Sorry if this is an amateur question; this is my first attempt at writing.
-
You are ignoring some essential facts.
The reality is that Ron Paul will never win. And even if he win, he would achieve nothing because the entire political system would oppose him. And even if he somehow gained dictatorial powers, he would only cause civil war because the 80% of Americans who derive a significant portion of their income from the state would riot.
In our current intellectual climate, advocacy of rational policies is inversely proportional with the probability of winning elections. And if that ever changes, the candidates won't need our support anymore.
So the real question is - why would anyone waste resources on politicians when there are real causes worth supporting?
If he did nothing except veto every spending bill that came out of congress for four years, that would be a BIG accomplishment.
-
I know this does not speak to your question, but what exactly do you mean by "supporting him"? What actions does it entail? Does it entail something more than wishing he will be the GOP nominee and then win against Obama?
If I decided to actively support him, it would include actions such as donating money to his campaign and probably serving as a delegate at the local caucus.
If I could also decide not to actively support him, but to merely vote for him as the least bad candidate in the field.
Or I could abandon him altogether. Given the alternatives, this option is unlikely, but still at least possible if I encounter a compelling reason to do so.
-
I've been digesting the criticisms of Ron Paul made recently by Objectivist thinkers Yaron Brook and psychologist Michael Hurd, Ph.D. They both seem to hold an overall negative view of Paul due largely to his foreign policy.
Admittedly, I'm not very knowledgeable about foreign affairs. My main concern in politics has always been domestic policy. I don't really like to think about the weirdos/degenerates in the middle east, and Ron Paul's foreign policy of just leaving them alone, withdrawing from that part of the world and saving the money to spend on ourselves was easy for me to latch onto when he ran in 2007-2008, which was my first foray into politics. However, I realize that not liking to think about foreign affairs doesn't justify neglecting to do so, and I now agree with the criticisms that Ron Paul's foreign policy is not aggressive enough and that, rather than retreating from the middle east, the US should crush states that sponsors terrorism.
Having said that, I'm still considering supporting Paul anyway, because in my judgment, the US government's financial behavior seems to be a much greater immediate threat to my well-being than any foreign enemy. I fear that, unless the next President takes a firm stance against deficit spending, monetary inflation and government intervention in the economy on principle, we will be likely to suffer a worst-case scenario of hyperinflation in conjunction with a massive government power grab, with the result being many years of outright misery in America. Ron Paul is the only one who clearly understands the cause of our economic problems and is committed to championing the principle of individual rights in economic life. He is also the only one I trust not to take advantage of the coming crisis to justify an even bigger and more dangerous power grab than the one that happened in 2008-2009.
Furthermore, it seems that a financial collapse brought about by a big-spending President would compromise our military strength even more than the errors in Ron Paul's foreign policy, so if he gives us the best chance to avoid such an outcome, he might actually do more to maintain our military strength than someone with a better foreign policy, but a reckless fiscal policy.
Finally... it's worth notice that it was Ron Paul's candidacy in 2007-2008 that got me interested in ideas and eventually led me to Objectivism. I went from Ron Paul to Austrian economics to "Gold and Economic Freedom" to Ayn Rand. Google trends suggests that the rise in popularity of Austrian economics corresponds almost perfectly to Ron Paul's rise to prominence in 2007-2008. I credit him with injecting this knowledge into the mainstream at a crucial moment in history, and for all his flaws, I suspect that he has had a net positive impact on political and economic thought in America.
Anyway, my question is, can I rationally continue to support Ron Paul based on my judgment that, under the dire circumstances, the value of his domestic policy outweighs the errors in his foreign policy? I don't want to support the wrong man due to an error in my thinking, but right now, I don't see a better alternative in the field (save for Gary Johnson, who doesn't have a chance). His campaign's volunteer office just opened up in my state, and I need to decide whether I'm going to help with his campaign or not. I would therefore appreciate any arguments as to why I should or should not support him.
-
lol did they really? If so at least that was one selfish justification for him to waste his time on these frigs.
All he had to do was embarrass them in public. This guy is like a character out of Atlas Shrugged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GBo9PSxTA&feature=player_embedded
-
A week after this testimony, the regulators mysteriously decided that it was time to lift the sanctions against his company...
-
This question pertains to the idea that rights are objective. A contrary view is that individual rights are dictated by society, but doesn't that statement implicitly accept the concept of objective rights?
Isn't the claim that "society creates rights" equivalent to saying that "society has the right to create rights?"
Not to imply that this is groundbreaking; I'm just wondering whether my observation is correct and if I should use it in debate.
-
I save my intellectual arguments for the internet and avoid the subject as much as possible IRL.
-
I used to think Barack Obama was just extremely ignorant and irrational, but today, I flipped through his book "The Audacity of Hope" for the first time, and I am deeply disturbed by some of the things he wrote. For example:
In other words, he was clearly aware of how dangerous the deficit was even when it was MUCH smaller, and he clearly understands exactly what is going to happen when foreigners realize we can't pay out debts without debasing our currency. This suggests, to me, that he is not a well-intentioned liberal idiot, but an intelligent man who is deliberately raizing America to bring about misery and death.
should be "razing," sorry
-
I have always pictured this guy as Hank Rearden:
-
Having been labeled with ADD earlier in life, I am now a firm non-believer in its legitimacy. I have not seen any evidence that difficulty concentrating constitutes a medical disorder.
-
I used to think Barack Obama was just extremely ignorant and irrational, but today, I flipped through his book "The Audacity of Hope" for the first time, and I am deeply disturbed by some of the things he wrote. For example:
The result of this collective denial is the most precarious budget situation that we've seen in years. We not have an annual budget deficit of almost $300 billion, not counting more thatn $180 billion we borrow every year from the Social Security Trust Fund...
So far we've been able to get away with this mountain of debt because foreign central banks- particularly China's- want us to keep buying their exports. But this easy credit won't continue forever. At some point, foreigners will stop lending us money, interest rates will go up, and we will spend most of our nation's output paying them back.
In other words, he was clearly aware of how dangerous the deficit was even when it was MUCH smaller, and he clearly understands exactly what is going to happen when foreigners realize we can't pay out debts without debasing our currency. This suggests, to me, that he is not a well-intentioned liberal idiot, but an intelligent man who is deliberately raizing America to bring about misery and death.
Do you think my inference is tenable, and is this what Peikoff means when he calls Obama a nihilist?
- freedombreeze and aequalsa
-
2
-
Dogs are wolves; they are the same species.
-
You're a pervert for liberty. Wait, was that what you said someone was gonna say? Who knows.
I wonder, of all the big-talkers that say they're moving, how many actually do it. I'm gonna say 0, because moving to another country is way harder than yelling on the internet about how the new president stinks.
I would have left already if not for government obstructions to emmigration.
Is psychology helpful?
in Psychology and Self Improvement
Posted · Edited by iflyboats
does anyone have any advice on finding a competent therapist? a lot of the ones listed on the internet for my area look like outright crackpots, have dubious credentisls, including education in semenaries, advertising wierd looking theraputic approaches including "equine" therapy, "east-west meditation," "transpersonal" therapy and all kids of other whackjobbery, and some making clear that they hold far left political views.