Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Inflation, GDP and M4

Rate this topic


brightsparkey
 Share

Recommended Posts

To settle this matter with reason.

The fundamental postulate of Ayn Rand's Objectivism that pertains to economic decisions

is that human beings have free will and choose their own values.

If you gave me $1,000 as payment that I deserve for teaching you this lesson,

you wouldn't have the faintest clue what I would do with it.

Maybe I would lick it to death because I like the taste of money.

Maybe I would buy an engagement ring even though I don't have a future wife.

Maybe I would buy a savings bond instead of a treasury bond even though treasury bonds have a higher yield.

Good luck predicting the economic interests of 300 million Americans.

Get off this thread and do some reading, and then come back and tell me if you still think my

understanding of Objectivism is strange.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Anyone else reading the most recent development of this thread,

my conversation with Doug Morris,

My contributions are not violating any of the rules of this forum.

Unfortunately I have had to use verbal self-defense

just to get this arrogant dude off my back.

If there is any question, just read the thread.

The facts will speak for themselves.

Additionally, any support from others in my defense would be much appreciated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sebastien said:

Maybe I would lick it to death because I like the taste of money.

Maybe I would buy an engagement ring even though I don't have a future wife.

Maybe I would buy a savings bond instead of a treasury bond even though treasury bonds have a higher yield.

Would all of these be in your self-interest?

1 hour ago, Sebastien said:

Get off this thread and do some reading, and then come back and tell me if you still think my

understanding of Objectivism is strange.

 

I have done a lot of reading of Ayn Rand.  I stand by everything I have said in this thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug Morris,

I'm willing to continue to engage in argument with you.

Let me make two assertions. Please, for the sake of continuing the argument, tell me if you think they sound right, because I will be making deductions from these two assertions.

1. Objectivism is a philosophy of rational self-interest which advocates that every man (and woman) act for the furthering of his own values and interests, while not infringing on the rights of others.

2. A rational man holds values and interests that have been determined by a process of reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sebastien said:

1. Objectivism is a philosophy of rational self-interest which advocates that every man (and woman) act for the furthering of his own values and interests, while not infringing on the rights of others.

2. A rational man holds values and interests that have been determined by a process of reason.

Yes, both are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, great.

To continue.

3. Reason is volitional. We actively choose to engage in purpose/goal-oriented behavior guided by logic and limited by the requirements of life, whether in nature, or in society.

4. Man's primary form of life in society is productive work.

5. Men who engage in productive work have a right to dispose of the product of their labor.

6. Rational men dispose of the product of their labor by rational means.

7. If a man is an end in himself, the means of disposing the product of his labor is reason, while the end of disposing of the product of his labor is his happiness.

If rationality is what determines whether a means of attaining happiness is good, whose rationality governs this relationship? Does my mom have a right to tell me that drinking more than 7 cups of coffee is excessive because that is what her reason suggests to her?

Who is the holy moral lawgiver who decides whether a means to my happiness is rational?

Licking $1000 isn't good because it makes me happy. Licking $1000 makes me happy because I have tasted many things but nothing tastes as good as money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this is not an escape into moral relativism.

We're talking about economics, which involves individual consumption choices.

By nature, individual preference is important, while still satisfying the requirements of reason.

If we were talking about social contract or arbitration on the other hand, it would be very important for rational minds to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buying an engagement ring isn't good because it would make me happy, buying an engagement ring would make me happy because I think diamonds are worth more than they sell for. Whose reason decides that?

Buying a savings bond isn't good because it makes me happy, buying a savings bond makes me happy because I think it is good to buy things that are undervalued, which savings bonds are.

Again, whose reason decides that?

As long as I am using my reason to the best of my ability, when it concerns individual choice, my behavior cannot be predicted by someone who does not know my rationally determined preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have found is that the more integrated my interests and values become after I have chosen them by means of reason, the less deliberation is required to make decisions concerning my interests.

In other words, having thought things through, whenever I act, I have greater confidence that I am making a choice that later I will not regret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite example of the principle I am arguing for is the fact that Ayn Rand was a heavy smoker.

If a holy moral lawgiver were to come down from the sky and tell Ms. Rand that she was being irrational by either choosing to smoke so much or by failing to quit smoking, she would laugh and say something like:

"A life without my cigarettes would not be a life worth living."

Ms. Rand knew rationally the health risks of smoking. But she consciously chose to smoke heavily for the rest of her life.

Can we predict that she would smoke a cigarette on a given day because she was an addict?

That's not how rationally integrated minds work.

We nicotine addicts choose to be addicted to nicotine, and if we have the opportunity to quit,

that opportunity will come when we die and can smoke no longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sebastien said:

My favorite example of the principle I am arguing for is the fact that Ayn Rand was a heavy smoker.

If a holy moral lawgiver were to come down from the sky and tell Ms. Rand that she was being irrational by either choosing to smoke so much or by failing to quit smoking, she would laugh and say something like:

"A life without my cigarettes would not be a life worth living."

Ms. Rand knew rationally the health risks of smoking. But she consciously chose to smoke heavily for the rest of her life.

Can we predict that she would smoke a cigarette on a given day because she was an addict?

That's not how rationally integrated minds work.

We nicotine addicts choose to be addicted to nicotine, and if we have the opportunity to quit,

that opportunity will come when we die and can smoke no longer.

Sebastien, this is a forum not a twitter account. Consider outlining your responses to a thread and composing a single summation, or if need be, identify which post(s) in particular you are responding to. You have an hour after you post a response to edit that response.

As to consciously choosing to smoke heavily for the rest of her life, Mr. Rand, when the doctor informed her that she was killing herself with the habit, quit cold-turkey in 1975. You may want to seek out a new favorite example, or revamp this one to be in better alignment with the available facts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sebastien said:

3. Reason is volitional. We actively choose to engage in purpose/goal-oriented behavior guided by logic and limited by the requirements of life, whether in nature, or in society.

4. Man's primary form of life in society is productive work.

5. Men who engage in productive work have a right to dispose of the product of their labor.

6. Rational men dispose of the product of their labor by rational means.

7. If a man is an end in himself, the means of disposing the product of his labor is reason, while the end of disposing of the product of his labor is his happiness.

All true.

1 hour ago, Sebastien said:

If rationality is what determines whether a means of attaining happiness is good, whose rationality governs this relationship? Does my mom have a right to tell me that drinking more than 7 cups of coffee is excessive because that is what her reason suggests to her?

Each person has the right and the responsibility to make his or her own judgments, and to deal with whatever consequences result.

1 hour ago, Sebastien said:

Who is the holy moral lawgiver who decides whether a means to my happiness is rational?

There is no holy moral lawgiver.  But there is reality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Sebastien, this is a forum not a twitter account. Consider outlining your responses to a thread and composing a single summation, or if need be, identify which post(s) in particular you are responding to. You have an hour after you post a response to edit that response.

As to consciously choosing to smoke heavily for the rest of her life, Mr. Rand, when the doctor informed her that she was killing herself with the habit, quit cold-turkey in 1975. You may want to seek out a new favorite example, or revamp this one to be in better alignment with the available facts.

 

Duly noted, dream_weaver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sebastien said:

Additionally, any support from others in my defense would be much appreciated.

You are hostile, accusatory, insulting, off-topic, and treating this like your twitter account. I don't think anyone is going to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You are hostile, accusatory, insulting, off-topic, and treating this like your twitter account. I don't think anyone is going to.

Truly it is saddening to get such a negative response from a highly esteemed community member.

Did you not see the attitude with which Doug Morris instigated my self-defensive behavior?

Imagine you were a child and built a structure out of blocks, and some other child just said

"No."

And smashed it to pieces.

Would you not rationally resort to well-justified verbal self-defense?

I have lost all of my respect for you Eiuol. Clearly you do not understand the core of what it means to have rights protected in an online learning and discussion environment. Instead, you reproduce the same hostility that you just criticized by smashing my good experience on this forum to pieces.

Nice work.

You succeeded in alienating a fellow Objectivist from the Objectivist community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

No.

As people who receive extra money spend it, this increases demand, which raises prices.  As some prices go up, this increases some people's costs, so they have to raise prices or bargain for higher pay.  People are reacting to the market conditions they encounter.  Even if they aren't even aware of the expansion of the money supply, inflation happens.

Eiuol, read the first response Doug Morris left me, and tell me if the tone is appropriate for this forum.

Then cast whatever judgment you have on me.

But remember Rearden's trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

What if the other child said "No" and explained why the structure was unstable and vulnerable to collapse?

The "No" is a verbal attack. Very aggressive.

The source of my resorting to self-defensive verbal behavior, which was further indicated by your aggressive attitude.

Will someone come to my rescue and redeem my right to verbal self-defense or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Sebastien said:

The "No" is a verbal attack. Very aggressive.

The source of my resorting to self-defensive verbal behavior, which was further indicated by your aggressive attitude.

"Yes", "No" or "Maybe", or "I don't know" are going to be common answers.

"No" in this case simply means he disagrees.

The only option you have is to make your case or ignore and move on.

There are no judges here and there are no rescuers either.

One thing that may help would be if you said what could or should have been said for people do understand it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...