m082844

Objectivism, to me, is a philosophical system that makes sense of the world in which we live to better allow me to control my life for my life. I've seen other sciences accomplish the same task, but in different realms -- not strictly to my life and its relationship to reality. As an example, I'm an engineer and the course "statics" really built a system of thinking involving stationary/inertial objects that allowed me to design solutions to achieve desired ends. Most engineering courses built on this framework and expanded my understanding, and therefore, my power of control over the world around me involving physical objects. There is truth to the old adage, "with knowledge, power (usually in Latin)". The same applies to a massage therapist I know. Biology and human anatomy helps make sense of what she senses in the human body (knotted muscles) and why certain areas are damaged and in pain, and what the remedy is. Bad therapists don't have these understandings. I'm sure any profession worth the money for its services is the same but maybe to a different degree. What makes philosophy unique is that, unlike the specialized examples I gave, it is the ultimate generalization, and therefore, It affects everything.

When do you address "how do we master self-control?"? I was looking for that.

How do you expect to find real value to your life in the world we live in by considering scenarios like this? What does it matter to your life (any part of it) if you decide to stay or go in this fantasy? If you must choose an answer, just pick any answer and live comfortably knowing that it can't help or harm you in any way whatever.

Inflation is an economic term and may or may not be due to a violation of rights -- you're right though, counterfeiting by definition is a violation of rights. I wouldn't package deal inflation with rights. A more accurate definition: inflation is the result of the increased ratio of currency to goods and/or services. The increas in that ratio causes inflation, which may be due to a decrease in goods and not necessarily and increase in currency. For example, a natural disaster might inflate prices of destroyed goods as has been seen in many instances.

Think of man as a variable in an algegraic expression; it means any, all, past, present and yet to be created rational animal. It identifies a certain category of entity in existence with a certain nature, with its most fundamental characteristic being its rational capacity. Like any variable you can fill any concrete instance into it, where you, me or Obama would satisfy the category of entity in question.

For your general query, look in the ayn rand lexicon for the "arbitrary." Your "faith" based example of crossing the street is using evidence as the basis for "faith", which contradicts faith, so using the law of identity one rejects that example as a faith based example. One relies on senses not because of faith but from induction; they are never wrong. They are physical phenomena subject to causes and they have no choice in their effect. Our mind learns at a very young age to interpret and integrate them into a frame of understanding. Any errors in what we think we sense is in our interpretation -- it can be tricked, but our senses can't.

If you engage you'll likely find that your fundamental disagreement isn't welfare (i.e., politics), it's somewhere in metaphysics and/or epistemology. Ask him his views on rights. Then maybe ask his views on man's mind and it's link to survival. Then maybe his view on the nature of man and how we come to know things. If you just want to push back to make him a weaker defender of welfare ask him what gives his mom the right to receive expropriated funds, from productive citizens? When he answers with some form of "they needed it for such and such", then reply with "then so does any burgler, but at least the burglar isn't trying to convince his victims or pretend that his in the right." Or if you really care what he thinks and want to provide the best opportunity for him to change his mind then just give him "In defense of Selfishness."

Atlas.

Agree why would you spend your last moments with someone trying to dupe them into believing in something you know is a lie. Share what values you have left together.

Yes. And more competent (independent thinker) in general. You ever wonder why so many politicians are incompetent? They likely depend on others to think or try to think through others, e.g., John "D student" Karry and polls determining his policy.

I find that sometimes procrastinating pays off. Not everything needs to or can be done right now after all.

Have you seen the http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com site? This seems complete to me, but I don't see objectivism written on it, even though I identify it as extremely similar (if not exact). Perhaps you can ask the owners of that site to integrate into this site?

Good argument. At best all I have is that FRB harmful so long as everyone is honest, but should be legal. You've managed to change my mind. In a free system I can avoid the damage of FRB, but in our current system it's more difficult.

I'll be the judge of that for myself. Do you make purchase considerations with M2?

. Thought about it. If FRB causes price increases, and uses real assets with increased prices to back deposits, then given a bank run situation the prices of real assets will decrease making it impossible for the bank to cover a large portion of its depositors. This is my complete thoughts on the subject as far as I've been able to take the implications of FRB. http://lifeordeathpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-key-to-understanding-the-fed-the-dangers-of-fractional-reserve-banking/ I would start where it says "A second system of banking is called fractional reserve banking,". The rest is background info. If a contradiction is in my thinking, it is likely to be there.

I'm a bit surprised. You don't make purchase considerations based on how much money you have in the bank? FRB has a tendency to cause price increases due to other factors that affect prices. All else being equal, FRB causes price increases due to an increase in M2 whenever it is used. I think this is a well known example: a bank lends out a percentage of someone's deposit and it gets spent and deposited again. Now the aggregate total of money people think they have in a bank went up. Beacuse of this, when they calculate what they can buy, they are more confortable spending than if the available money left as it was lent out in the first place.

I like your positive attitude. I'm going to mull your example over for a bit until I have a clear understanding of its implications. I think it's a good example.

Good question. If notes (M2) are implicitly/explicitly accepted as equalling M0, which is safe to say it is, then an increase in M2 will lower the value of M0, will it not? Do you not equate your digital bank account (M2) to be actual dollars (M0)? Don't you make decisions based on that assumption? I know I do. Everyone I know that has had a similar conversation with me does. Inflation is a general term that subsumes special cases. I mean by inflation that there is a general increase in prices. Increasing M0 obviously has a tendency, all else being equal, to cause inflation. Increasing M2 has the same effect, all else being equal.

I do believe I was making the distinction between M0 and M2; thus, the difference between FRB and finding gold. Unless I'm missing something. So just to reword it into terms you're using, I think there is an important distinction between increasing M0 (caused by discovering more currency) and increasing M2 (caused by FRB).

Yes, that should be legal. PS got busy there for a while; sorry I didn't get back to you more quickly.

It may be inflation of one or deflation of the other -- it depends on whether a new supply of gold and/or silver was discovered and if gold and/or silver has been disposed of. But if it is inflation, then No. They should be able to coin metal and call it anything -- including the weight and percentages of the metals within an alloy. I think there is an important distinction, however, between discovered metal that causes inflation and a systematic ("artificial?") expansion of the money supply created by FRB.

No, I don't see anything illegal about that. The one problem I have left with FRB is that of inflation. If a gold note is essentially traded like gold, the value of gold reduces as the number of notes exceed the amount of gold (due to FRB). This value reduction is a problem. I could use the reduced value of gold to collect gold at a reduced price, then if FRB collapses to full reserve, my gold gains value. I haven't produced anything of value nor have I performed a service to speak of, yet my net value increased. The flip side is a man whose gold's value reduces as more notes are created and he trades for notes right as a run occurs and looses everything. I understand taking a risk in a venture and coming up short, but what really happened here? The value of the currency was manipulated. I suppose we should let it happen as a legal transaction. And I simply need to hold things of value that are not represented by notes, then as close to the last minute as possible (right before a run), i need to trade for the hard items represented by notes. Then start the whole process again. Does this inflation and manipulation of value warrant an investigation for legitimate gov interference?

You misunderstand me. I meant equal in essentials; it can be used like gold and reduces the value of gold when they are used. Like the OP said, notes are a claim against gold. And what is gold but a claim against a produced value (in the OP scenario)? One holds gold (in the OP scenario) trusting they can exchange it for another's labor; one hold the note trusting they can exchange it for gold, and by extension, for another's labor. "Let’s say they had 100 ounces of gold in reserve (in the vaults) and they print out Bank Notes (BN) as claims against 150 ounces of gold and loan them out or use them as transactions for cash exchanges." -- OP

Sold, it shouldn't be illegal for that reason. What about a situation where the originator of a scam is dumb and misidentifies the terms, and therefore, doesn't lie, but doesn't tell the truth? He commits an error; is that something that should be left alone by the gov? If so, why?

You make some great points, but I can't get past that the note has to equal gold at some point. So when the depositor exchanges his gold for the note, or the other way around, it's considered an even trade (one for one). But I think I understand you to mean the person holding the notes after the exchange is holding something that is not equal gold. And if a bank run occurs, it's not equal gold. I'm not sure one can say the note is not equal gold while holding it, and it magically equals gold during an exchange -- that seems to be another contradiction. What's the essential difference? To draw another analogy, let's consider a pyramid scheme. If everyone is honest about all the terms and rules, is that acceptable activity in capitalism? If so, why? There might be a connect here between honest pyramid scheme and honest FRB.