in short, the reason why so many (statists) hate (on) ayn rand is because their morality (altruism) is a code of death and suffering. her morality (objectivism, or individualism if you like) is a code of life and happiness. when debated on their terms (with their morality underscoring the debate), the statist will always win. in fact the most irrational will always win. when debated on her terms, they will NEVER win. and hence, they've tried to write her out of history and relevance.
@MirageScience Not as simple, Ayn Rand posed in The virtue of selfishness that the state is useful, but only as what it trully is: the monopoly of force. It's only use is protect the citizens, but it has long been used for other things.
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu At least you referred to it as a monopoly on force which it very much is. Can you tell me why a monopoly on force would be better than competing firms of defense? I don't see why a monopoly would ever be better.
@MirageScience A monopoly is not by itself evil, as long as it accomplishes its goal. But competing firms of defense would have direct conflicts continually if there was no monopoly. To place an example, if A murdered B's wife, A's firm of defense could start force movements against B, and B's firm protect him. That would probably lead a war, for no one avoids both firms for killing each other. Neither it will avoid crimes for power or money, so the best example of those firms are mafias =/
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu yeah its call costs, costs stop firms from fighting. ever wonder why walmart doesn't try predatory pricing? it doesn't work, just like starting a war wouldn't work.
@MirageScience And when the numbers reach zero.... they lead to stagnation.The monopoly of force is useful for stopping stagnation by protecting life & freedom. But not only that, the necessity of using force is an exception, not the rule(read it as emergencies). As many services which rely on emergencies to work, deployment must be inmediate, always available, but not always used. So, if a system is required to work by emergencies, monopolies become the only required, for they're always there.
So appropriate,especially in light of the fact that the concept of true free market capitalism is so lost and does not exist today. In true free market, wealth would constantly flow in different directions and the extreme accumulation of wealth as we know it and the monopoly that comes with it would not exist.
Honestly, I prefer Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane to Rand. Though then again, I am a deist so it is natural I would find myself more in Paterson.
Not to undermine Rand's achievements of course. =P
Their slogan is "Free minds. Free markets." What exactly gave you the idea that Reason was anything other than libertarian... It was set up as a libertarian magazine. How stupid can you be to not realize that? Oh, btw, this may come as a surprise, but FOX is a nonconservative news channel... Dolt...
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism... Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of anmials, but not between animals and men. ... There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism. - Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand does a great job of showing just how much the individual can do in our capitalist society but she never addresses the evils corporations can unleash.
Ayn Rand was the BEST force for promoting democratic capitalism?? I gotta question that. Sure, she was a major force, but the best? That leaves out A LOT of people, like major economists Friedman Hayek, Ludwiv von Mises, and Milton Friedman (whose free-market preaching actually led to a lot of increase in free markets and democracy in LOTS of poor and developing areas like Chile). I don't think the developing world is embracing Rand all that much, though.
Objectivism never appealed to me. I mean, I am a rationalist and very much anti-religion, but I don't need a leader to tell me how to do so or label myself in such a broad manner. I essentially believe in a lot of what Objectivism stands for, I'm sure, but I never identified as such.
Rand was also, for some reason, against libertarians themselves, even though she pretty much was one. She was also a bit of a war hawk at heart, with current torch-carriers like Yaron Brooks.
I was never a huge fan of Rand, as you can see. I'm sure her books were great, and Anthem wasn't bad, but she was kind of nutty. She said on repeated occasions that altruism is evil, which is just mind-boggling. Of course, once you realize that she distorted the definition to its extreme and referred to it as "self-sacrifice" for others, then you realize how she came to that conclusion. Of course, it's kind of hard to call something you do to YOURSELF that hurts no one else "evil."
I'm also am not into metaphysics or epistemology when it comes to Philosophy. I HATED that crap in Philosophy class. It was so stupid, unprovable shit that doesn't really matter in the long run.
Rand also seemed to be very condescending and patronizing toward those who didn't share her views or against competing ideologies. She wasn't very open-minded, which is odd for a 'libertarian'.
This weird Rand idolatry among so many of my small-gov't brethren kinda creeps me out. All she did was preach her ideology and write books. Plenty do that, but we don't worship them. And the measurable effect of Rand on libertarianism and freedom compared to so many other pro-freedom historical folks seems very limited, at best.
Although I'm a libertarian, I'm not exactly a laissez-faire nut who wants to get rid of ALL regulations. We should get rid of a lot of them on the books now, sure, but you can't make a general statement and say that business should be free to do almost anything it wants. We should get rid of BAD REGULATIONS and say such when we're in the spotlight, rather than making fools of ourselves and saying all regulation is bad or making extremely general campaign statements.
Ayn Rand's books The Fountainhead, Anthem, and The Virtue of Selfishness have opened my mind up so much. I am now reading We the Living, and I plan to eventually read Atlas Shrugged. She really knows how to write in a way that inspires the individual.
"What [the liberal tradition] knew is the great secret of the ages: society contains within itself the capacity for self-management, and there is nothing that government can do to improve on the results of the voluntary association, exchange, creativity, and choices of every member of the human family." - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
I recognize every human being as an autocrat, whose rule reaches to the full extent of his body, his labour and his property, and no further.
To be more precise, I do not support any initiation of force against peaceful individuals. I'm all for law and specialized dispute resolution, the division and specialization of labour for property protection services and public services, but I think that state power is a hideously inefficient and inherently dangerous way to provide these things.
So you think anything the government does is a hideous and inherent initiation of force, but the best way to prevent that from happening is to let the Free Market run society with no restrictions or protections?
Should slavery be legal if it's economically efficient?
That is an accurate description, yes, though it would also behoove you to understand that the free market is nothing but a descriptor of the people and relations of civil society.
A less ambiguous way of stating my position, is that I believe that people should be free to manage their own bodies, labour and property, and to associate and trade with one another as they see fit.
I support no initiation of force against peaceful individuals, so no involuntary servitude.
What about transactions that provide negative effects to a non-involved 3rd party in society? (Negative externalities) Do you feel these situations should continue without any restriction?
Also, it's obvious you don't support slavery, so I shouldn't have implied that. Rather, would you be against a government agency using force to prevent slavery?
(On externalities) I've heard that term before, and I know what it means, but I don't know of any examples. Maybe you could help, by offering one or two?.
If it has something to do with damaging a person or her property without her consent (i.e. pollution), then I don't see why you need a fancy word for it. It's just vandalism.
(On the agency) I would. To forcefully release a kidnapped man is not an aggression, but to steal from the disarmed and the unborn to do it is..
What if there is systemically risky financial transactions taking place in the financial sector, which causes an economic disaster. This doesn't involve private property, but it does cause an outcome that some may deem socially unacceptable.
There's also the factor of companies that seriously pollute the environment, which may cause severe ecological consequences in the long term future.
Force may be required to release the slave; are you okay with this type of force?
So some investors lose their money through poor entrepreneurship, the problem being that wealth which otherwise might have been created now isn't. Did I get that right? Please feel free to correct me before I answer.
Pollution is simply a form of vandalism or property crime which, since the mid to late 19th century, state courts have been unable to deal with.
And finally, I would endorse whatever force is necessary against the slaver and his accomplices to secure the release of the slave, but condemn any force used against innocents.
If some wealth isn't created due to regulation, then it's worth it because the risk attached to some financial transactions ends up losing more wealth in the long run when the economy implodes. It's about putting short term gains aside for long term stability and growth.
CO2 based pollution can't be dealt with because it doesn't affect a specific person's private property. It can't be considered vandalism, but it can be regulated in ways to benefit the environment.
So, force is okay when it's prohibiting a person[s] from committing negative acts of force against another. This I agree with.
Would you support a government agency (Police, military, etc) to protect people from negative acts of force, or do you think it should be ignored, or left to the Free Market?
But how will the business cycle even occur at all, without credit expansion and expectations of "too big to fail"? Remember, even if one of many competitive currencies should begin to lose value, then it can simply be replaced for purposes of entrepreneurial calculation. Malinvestment will naturally still be a factor, but it will not be periodially intensified by skewed interest rates or money supplies, or by expectations of political reimbursement. (...)
And you are now contradicting yourself. If an act does not damage another's person or property, then it is not criminal. If it does, then that damage can be measured, and liability for restitution can be established.
In the case of CO2 emissions, if it can be conclusively proven that such emissions cause adverse climate effects, then the polluter is aggressing against literally every property owner on the planet. (...)
"Negative acts" is too ambiguous a definition for my taste. "Initiation of force" is more precise. Also, I do not endorse aggressions against innocent third parties.
Well, what does your proposed agency do? Does it aggress against someone, whether through taxation, tarriff, regulation, to curtail competition, etc? Because if not, then what you have is basically a private, competitive entity, but endowed with the free publicity of being "governmental".
The Police obviously initiate force when it is necessary to keep the public safe, and the IRS initiates force to collect the decided tax revenue to fund such a program.
With this system, people who cannot afford the police get to be protected as well. This system is better than a private enterprise because the poor won't be disproportionately serviced compared to the wealthy, and it is bound by a code of law, while private enterprise is not.
Speculation will easily take place without government intervention, and it is the driving factor behind the business cycle and malinvestment. However, regulation and intervention can limit bubbles and dilute crashes by changing interest rates, the money supply, or various safety net programs.
That was my point - CO2 emissions can't be considered criminal, so what should be done? Should the future extinction of countless species and ecosystems or regulation be allowed?
But the police are not obligated to protect anyone. That's what discretion means. In fact, they habitually put peaceful people in jail, according to the whims of bureaucrats. Even worse, there's no way to opt out of their "service".
So your proposed method to help people deal responsibly with uncertainty and time in entrepreneurial calculation, is to create false savings and time preference data, and promise to reimburse any losses incurred by irresponsible management?
I apologize if I've been unclear on the pollution issue. Please allow me to clarify.
Anyone who can prove that the actions of a polluter has caused or will cause damage to her property in court should be able to stop that polluter from causing further damage, and to acquire full restitution, through defensive force.
If CO2 causes damage to every piece of property on Earth with a biotope on it in the way which you imply, then CO2 emission is a criminal act, and should be treated as such.
Indicated by science, CO2 emissions are currently and will continually and increasingly damage private property around the world. However, such actions being considered criminal will result in anyone driving a car being sued, along with economic disaster leading from the fossil fuel industry.
A more realistic approach would be regulation & government expenditure in the Green Energy sector, for the market isn't producing the necessary amount of renewable energy to curb AGW.
The Police obviously aren't perfect, but they provide a valuable public service. Since voluntary taxes suffer the Tragedy of Commons, some will have to chip in involuntarily for the protection of those who cannot afford to pay for private security, investigation, and imprisonment, which is very expensive.
Your economic description isn't my preferred method, but rather Canada's regulatory model is preferable to me. The Fed and bailouts are not angels in my eyes.
I'm enjoying our discussion so far, but the format is a little stifling. Perhaps you would be so kind as to pick one topic at a time to discuss, instead of attempting to deal with four different topics at once?
If you don't want to mislead entrepreneurs and consumers in regards to the supply and demand of savings ready for investment through inflation or price fixing of interest rates, and you don't want to relieve the responsibilities of managers and investors through tax-funded bailouts or monopoly court-granted limits of liability, then precisely what do you want them to do?
Much of the Fed's history has been trial and error, and I think it's still learning. Contracting the money supply after the 1929 crash, printing money with the false idea that inflation and employment is a trade-off in the 70's, and too low of interest rates are mistakes. However, the Fed's recent operations have kept deflation and demand stable, which is what I want the Fed to do - adjust the money supply and interest rates to economic conditions accordingly.
As for bailouts, that is something that I would prevent from being necessary by other means. I would not allow commercial and investor banks merge, I support the idea of the bank-funded bailout fund, I would lower the leveraging banks are able to bet with on securities, and I would even break up banks that are becoming too large, so that a tax-payer bailout isn't needed.
I would also implement various regulations in real-estate, which has its own problems.
But natural interest rates already reflect economic conditions. Specifically, the supply and demand of savings, and the premium at which participants in the marketplace value near future satisfaction as opposed to far future satisfaction. By lowering interest rates, you will cause marginal investors to withdraw their savings, while at the same time inducing entrepreneurs to take on expensive long-term projects, which consumer preference simply isn't willing to bear.
Consider that, in the absence of protectionism and price fixing, banks are extremely sensitive. Assuming the 3-6-3 rule of banking, that requires about 97% of all investments to be repaid on time to avoid default, and that's before accounting for operating expenses and competition, to say nothing of the riskless profits of central banking.
In the absence of protectionism and price fixing, if a bank can't make extremely accurate forecasts at rock-bottom prices, it is sure to fail on its own.
I see the problem you're pointing out, but it neglects the fundamental problem that causes banks to knock each other down like dominoes when one fails. Credit Default Swaps enable banks to put all of their risk onto each other, which is why bailouts are needed when the chain of bankruptcy begins. The whole system will collapse, causing a devastating economic fallout.
For the record, I feel most protectionism is just a result of Corporatism, and I'm not in favor of it.
The problem is interest rates will fluctuate with speculation, which will result in booms and busts that occur relatively frequently. With fixed rates that counter rather than align economic conditions, booms and busts can be somewhat controlled and stabilized. If interest rates had been hiked earlier on, the housing bubble may have burst before it was big enough to swallow the world economy.
Entrepreneurs take large risk whenever there's a boom, government driven or not.
I think you've unwittingly reversed causality. To use an appropriately distasteful metaphor, speculators aren't the predators of the economy, but the decomposers.
The speculator attempts to buy cheaply and sell dearly. To that end, he will buy in times or places of plenty, and sell in times or places of great need. To whatever extent he is successful, his profit will equilibrate the economy. To whatever extent he isn't, he quickly loses his ability to speculate.(...)
For instance, anticipating natural disaster, the speculator may buy supplies of durable goods, and store them until the aftermath, when he will sell them at a price higher than what he paid, but lower than the prices demanded at the time.
And in a world with hundreds of central banks, fiat money, shifting trade agreements and credit conditions, and rapidly increasing state debts... Should it really surprise us that speculation is running rampant? "Commerce was dead. Betting took its place."
I haven't reversed causality. I don't deny that a Central's banks actions may ramp up speculation, but that's not all that causes the sort. The banks speculate with our deposit money. This causes the adverse results of faulty, large-scale speculation to disastrously spill over to the rest of the economy.
Speculation can be caused by rich resource deposits, technological innovation, herd mentality, etc. The Fed can dilute the aftermath, via monetary policy.
I agree that banks take enormous risk with our money, but why is that?
We've already established that, in the absence of protectionism, a bank which takes dumb risks, or one which shares risk with one that does, won't remain a bank for long.
If a group of risk-sharing speculator banks default due to their own stupidity, and a few conservative banks pull through by having foregone short-term speculative gains in favor of secure, long-term investment, (... )
won't conservative banks outcompete liberal banks, by virtue of offering superior security?
I think it is now self-evident that people like to play fast and loose with other people's money. But will they do the same, when it's their own money at stake?
You're right in many aspects here. It's just whether or not the American people want to suffer the trillions of vanishing wealth by letting only JP Morgan Chase and a few others survive. Personally, I prefer they be bailed out and forced to repay the loan at interest, so that taxpayers eventually profit. Letting the entire financial system collapse would most likely have resulted in a much worse economic storm. Plus, the surviving banks would grab even more market power.
In the meantime, the proper safeguards need to be implemented.
By banning Naked CDS's, banks won't be able to swap away risk. Because banks will hold onto such risk, they will be much less inclined to hand out sub-prime loans like candy and more inclined to verify income.
Also, preventing banks from betting with consumer deposit funds will reduce risk and leveraging.
There are many other proposals that can prevent systemic risk without sacrificing trillions in wealth.
@Kev3d, the US has not built a nuclear Power plant in over 30 years. It takes a couple hundred Billion dollars and 15 years to get one online.
I'm all for it, like I said you don't understand the problem nor do you get it's full implications.
As of now there is no energy work around that will replace Oil, no tar sands, no Oil shale. No abiotic Oil. All the Super Giant Oil fields are in decline. Don't believe me google Canterell, Gehwar, the North Sea.
Try actually arguing, presenting alternatives, describing problems. Produce some content that enriches the discussion.
Or don't- but fyi, I and others who don't share your echo chamber will be informed either choice.
valhala, do you prefer the Chinese position - that there is no such thing as individual rights? If you don't go that far, let's hear some comments from you about where, how, and why you draw the line against the individual.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think hands down the absolute worst novels in the english language.
Complete shit. Proudly sociopathic, sure, but quite aside from that the novels are stunted, robotic exercises in unconvincing caricature and wooden, propagandistic set pieces. They're like anti-art. Evil, but fully aside from that craptastically awful.
Hilarious to see this little fanboy cult set of videos coming down the pike.
Fuck the lot of you white, middle class losers. Truly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is SO impoverished. Ayn Rand was, from a literary perspective, worthless, and from a philosophic perspective a lightweight - at best. Further, she exercised a terrible influence over those she came into contact with personally. Read Nathaniel Branden's story about her, his ex and that circle of insufferable, lightweight narcissists. Rand influenced me...when I was 17. By the age 21 I had moved on to real thinkers. Ayn Rand is a form of arrested development.
Worthless? How do you figure? Yes, the dialog is wordy and tends to not be "common" speech and can be long winded, but so too is the writing of Wilde or Tolstoy.
Yes, she was an egotist and held double standards on some personal issues, but so what? Sounds quite human to me. Thomas "All men are created equal" Jefferson owned slaves, Martin L. King Jr. Was a Womanizer. Are they too "lightweights"? Who, then is a "real" thinker?
strongbadXCP, Let's start by looking up the definition of "objective": " not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Let's celerbrate Ayn Rand, yes the woman who put the seed of greed (pun intended) into a country, The concept that all that matters is the indivual so the people who took on this philosophy created the Hedge funds, the Leaverage buy outs, the Corporate Raiders dismantling companies for sheer profit, the Mortage Backed Securties, the Credit Default Swaps, that brought The US almost to Finacial collapse. Yeah Ayn Thanks a lot.
what a lot of shit. tell me, when you have your perfect world where everyone gets everything exactly equal, where is my incentive to work harder?
why should i bother going to uni and working my ass off for no money for years when all i get when i finish is exactly the same pay as the dickhead in my class at school?
@liber8me, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you have helped your fellow man, So like a Medic on the battlefield you are helping people.
But that wouldn't occur to you would it?
For you it is all about me me me.
You have a good point though, I wouldn't help your sorry ass if I saw you laying in the street, I would run over you then sell your body parts to a a capitalist Organ reclyler and enrich myself at your expense. That makse sense don't it?
You do know you're negating your own position, right? What do you think you might disagree with the person who walks past your "sorry ass" about?
Take away self-interest and mutual respect and you're left in the jungle, my friend. I hope you have opinions that line up with the majority in every way that matters. And that you're skilled at determining what matters, every day. And that no one denounces you during the daily hate. Otherwise it is you who will be run over, eventually.
@Fe3dGarvin you said "Otherwise it is you who will be run over, eventually. " I don't expect anything less. It has already happened to me and it will happen to me again. It is the nature of the Beast.
US did exactly that when they invaded a Soverign nation Iraq, Killed the President of that Soverign nation, a good part of his family, laid waste to a few citizens installed a puppet Goverment and took the Oil, What the hell would you call that?
I'm pointing out that you yourself provide an example of why your earlier point is not valid. Some folks talk the same talk as you and they mean it literally. Pol Pot, Lenin, Torquemada... great guys. Idealists, every one.
If you act in service of an external ideal, instead of in your own enlightened self interest, there is no limit to the evil you might do.
Re-read my comment. If you still don't understand... well then bless your heart.
Helping your fellow man should be voluntary, and not forced by govt or anyone else pointing a gun at you. Forced charity is an oxymoron.
The Medic signed on voluntarily, and gets paid.
If you ran over liber8me, you would be violating his rights, even though you hate him. If you sold his organs, you would be robbing his heirs.
Capitalism and Rand's thought are based on reason and property rights, so your actions would not be considered moral by any Objectivist or libertarian.
the satisfaction of knowing that you have helped your fellow man?
and how many people would that work for? how many people are going to work their asses off when they see all their friends mucking around and they end up getting paid exactly the same as them?
everyone would suffer
you live in a deluded fantasy where you seem to have a Utopian view of human nature. if you work hard then why should you be forced to give up the fruits of your labor? freesk8 addressed the absurdity of your analogy
@Libver8me, that just shows how indoctrinated you are. You think nobody out there would do anything without compensation, tell that to all the NGO's (Doctors without borders) in Africa feeding,healing the sick, or the thousands of people who are Freedom Fighters, even the Soldiers of the Continental Army getting paid with worthless scrip. Shoeless in Valley Forge. If they were like you they would tell Gen Washington they want a 401k. Ha you make me laugh.
@toliiverfive, I don't disagree with you. Human nature in the form of Ayn Rand's idealized version of greed, ie basically reinforcing in folks like you that yes you can be greedy and a good person, that your greed actually makes you a moraly superior person.
Well A. Hitler had a similar Philosophy, the only difference was it wasn't a Master Indivual it was a "Master Race"
Ayn Rand just condensed Fascism down to fit the American Ideal of indivualism.
what a load of shit. hitler had a similar philosophy"
no he didn't he believed in people existing first and foremost to serve the state - that's the opposite of what these people are advocating.
what is nazism? its NATIONAL SOCIALISM. a great part of fascism is based on socialism - thats right LEFT WING political thought. mussolini was originally a socialist who wrote for a left wing newspaper. he brought many of those ideas with him when he started his fascist state.
no, i think that everyone would suffer if the state took the vast majority of the money people earned.
its a pretty simple concept - the state taxes things it doesn't want people to do - such as smoke, and subsidizes things it does want people to do - such as buy solar panels for their roof
so what do you think taxing someone very highly for working does? it removes incentive.
@liber8me, acutally I am in kinda of agreement with you, there is a fair tax then there is tax that becomes Draconian or punishing.
I don't think most people are against being taxed it is excessive taxes that everybody pretty agrees is not in the best interest of anybody.
As of now we all are paying taxes that go right into the pockets of Billionares, the Too big to Fails, I have a problem with that sort of hedonistic philosphy that they should absorb all the wealth of the US.
@liber8me, well we do agree on the Bailouts. The way I see it most of that money went down an ecomic Black hole never to be seen again. I can guess where some of it went, 100's of millions of $ worth of Krugerands, Private Islands, luxury Yachts, all paid for by you me and all the other Joe and Jane America's.
Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Do you understand the difference between laissez faire capitalism and the government interventionist pseudo-capitalism that protects (among other things) faulty lending? And what exactly happens to a company that is "dismantled" for "sheer profit"? I suppose we should keep companies together for charity then?
What happens when Corporate Raiders dismantle a company, well lets take say a company that makes medicine, the Corporate Raiders lay off emplyees & pocket the savings, they sell off assets, borrow against the company then when the company is bankrupt they leave. They are the equivalent of Maifoso who take over a business, Borrow against it to the hilt, bankrupt it then when the company is dead they burn it to the ground to collect the insurance that is what Laissez Faire in the wrong hands does.
Really? Of course even if what you say is true it presupposes that another company has the money to purchase the other and that there are buyers for the assets being sold. Not all employees are laid off from corporate takeovers and in many cases, the employees are shareholders and benefit directly from their shares being purchased. It is easy to point out a few dozen or even a few thousand cases where capitalism goes wrong, but there are hundreds of millions of cases where it goes right.
@Kev3d, Oh yeah, Capitalism has done wonders, The shining star of Capitalism Goldman Sachs, AIG, GM, the Hedge Funds, the Billionaires who have made Billion dollar no lose bets using finacial Weapons of Mass Destruction the Credit Default Swap. A Stock Market that everybody knows is rigged for the benefit of chosen few. The common man has little chance in this system of rising above serfhood in a phony fairy tale propagted by the followers of Ayn Rand, the Alan Greenspans who gang raped US!
Again, learn the difference between laissez faire and the bailout of failing corporations. And yes, Capitalism has done wonders, from pineapples in New York in january to the Polio Vaccine to the Ipod, right down to the keyboard you are typing on and the website on which we debate. Capitalism, though imperfect, has done more to lift people out of poverty and raise the standard of living than any other system by far. When you have actual arguments instead of buzzwords, please let us know.
@kev3d, I too was under that erroneous belief that Capitalism is the source of Prosperity but to be honest in my case my belief was Science/technology/Capitalism was the source of Prosperity.
The real source of Prosperity is Oil. People don't understand how Oil powers the world economy so they think it is Capitalism that is the source. Well the reality is that Oil is the source for most of our prosperity. You may not like that fact but it is the fact Jack.
Wrong, Much growth in the US and Europe was BEFORE oil was used as fuel. Coal was the primary fuel of the period during most of the industrial revolution. True, oil is an ultraconvenient fuel but why then, are Oil-poor Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia and New Zealand prosperous and Oil rich Oman, Saudi Arabia etc are mostly poor (despite some mega rich oil barons)Science, technology and even Oil are worthless if not allowed to be exploited.
@Kev3d, well I'll tell you this. Without Oil Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia and New Zealand would look like Amish without the Religion. IE no Oil you ride a horse not a lexus, You have no plastic for your Apple iMac, No energy to power the server farms that support the internet, a helluva lot less food. Basicaly without Oil you would go back to the way life was in 1865. And then you would have to feed 6x the people that were on the planet in 1865.
Yes, Oil is an important resource. So is gold. So is Wheat and rubber and iron. However Oil is replaceable in certain respects and is, where the price system dictates. But it is beside the point, the real point is that whatever the resource, it is best left in the hands of an essentially free market, win or lose. The bottom-up self organizing nature of people decide the best use for such resources far better than any top-down bureaucrat or politburo.
@Kev3d, well I can see you are ignorant of the concept of Peak Oil. Oil has some unique properties that unfortunely our civilization/economy cannot do without. Oil is used in food production, the disel that powers the farm implements, the fertilizers/pesticides, the energy to power the factories that process the food, the disel that powers the truck that bring the food to market. This is just for food, basicaly if there is a shortage of Oil we are screwed in a big way. There is no subsitute.
Really? No kidding. I supposed Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Nuclear, Tidal and Coal cannot compensate. (oh wait, they can) "Peak Oil" is another misapplied buzz word that ignores alternatives, technological innovation and the price system. But what's your point? Energy is important? Yes it is, but ONCE AGAIN, what system most allows and rewards useful innovation in energy and in all other fields?
Hey Einstein again you fail to understand Peak Oil, yes there are technolgies our there, I can buy a kit to run my disel car on used McDonalds french fry grease. The problem is scale & Capital.
Right now all those technolgies you stated power less then 5% of our energy needs in America. Barely anything-Check Boone Pickens.
Now Einstein tell me how Capitalism is going to replace the other 95% & growing of US & world energy needs. You need to read up on this cause you just don't get it.
I just found an article written a year and half ago and they said they could sale vegetable oil from the restaraunts for 2.50 a gallon and that the restaraunts were now considering it theft because they actually sale it now.
2.50 a gallon is still cheaper than the 4 bucks it was costing last year, although maybe on the market it sales much higher. Im just wondering why we even need gas if vegetable oil is cheaper. Maybe when you add in the additives or filtration its the same price.
@skyding well only a few types of disel cars can be converted to running on used veg oil, and if you converted all of them to run on grease the price would skyrocket as each fast food joint would be overwhelmed with buyers. Supply-demand, dude. You know I you go low I go high, that old game.
Im not sure how much vegetable oil costs but one issue is land use. Take corn, corn can be used as fuel or food, but not both. So an acre that was used to feed people could be used to fuel, say, a car. There is a net loss of food. However there are experiments with using algae which can be grown in desert greenhouses or out to sea where there is no (or negligible) alternative use for that land (or water) I don't know if its an answer, but its certainly very interesting.
Your right. Right after i had written it I just remembered that the whole ethanol experiment proved that all it it did was raise food prices. So all vegetable oil will do is cheapen energy costs possibly, but cost food prices to go up so it might wind up being a net negative for the economy.
Yeah? And 130 years ago Whale blubber powered 100% of lamps and Hay and Coal powered everything else. What is unscalable about the Alternatives? My guess is Nuclear is going to re-emerge in a big way (if it can get past the greenies), possibly biofuel for other things, grown in the ocean. And by the way what is YOUR alternative? You are using energy right now...supporting a system you seem to despise.
Dude you are not getting it. 130 years ago the population was about 1.5 billion people. It has gone up x6=6.5 billion. When they had blubbered powered lamps there were no LA or NY using Megawatts of Electricity each day. There was no tv,radio, internet, commercial jets, Hummer Suv's, Millions of McMansions with heated swimming pools, 100 story skyskrapers.
Dude I'm not trying to be rude but I don't think you get it or you will ever get it. I'm kinda wasting my time with you here.
Yes, and 130 years ago there was no such thing as a nuclear reactor either. ONCE AGAIN, you completely miss the point of technological innovation, improvements, and your "fed is in the red" displays your assumption that the government needs to provide everything. I ask again, what is YOUR solution? If you want to live carbon neutral off roots in a cave, by all means, show us the way. Otherwise tell us how you power your computer with good intentions.
Thank Zeus that the future is not up to you or your limited worldview. Instead, you are happy to repeat slogans and fodder for bumper stickers like "save Civilization as we know it". You spout your marxist ideas all day, in the end you still voluntarily use the fruits of capitalism to argue its "evils". Meanwhile I will go buy a coke. Should cost about 70 cents here in Singapore, thank you Coca Cola company and thank you free market.
Hey Kev while your enjoying your coke put a butterfly or say a beetle in a bottle and watch coke dissolve it right before your eyes! Now that is a soft drink!
After that go and get you another product, say maybe a H1N1 vaccine, now that is value for your money there Bub. Not only do you get a Live H1n1 virus buy you get extra's like Squalene, Ammonia, and a nice helping of Mercury. Should go real good with a Coca Cola.
Ah, and you managed to squeeze in a jab against vaccines as well!
As for my Coke, its true, it is filled with the lethal Dihydrogen Monoxide...but somehow, I'll manage. I'll even save the aluminum for your hat (customary tin foil was replaced by aluminum through, you guessed it, the price system) I'm sure it will be of great comfort for you when the sky falls.
Thanks, I take the aluminum hat, and if you got any gold or silver you don't want I'll take too. If I put you off your coca-cola, well let's just say I'm a fan of that Black Gold too.
3) how is fusion more scaleable and useful than fission? It's perpetually 20 years away and costs a ludicrous amount of money... meanwhile pebble bed reactors are available now and they actually work.
4) see #1
5) kinda nutty
6) ...
kev3d has your number, it seems to me- you've got slogans where your analysis should be.
You're lining up behind Ehrlich against Borlaug. A mistake.
Fr2dGarvin, Obviously you couldn't spot satire if it slapped you. Obviously my little list wan't mean't to be taken totaly seriously. I Included Ayn Rand returning from the dead. Puhlease dude. Lighten up.
My alternative is a Manhattan level program, ie Apollo type program. No stops, almost unlimited public and private Capital to save Civilization as we know it. Barring this the world is eventualy going to come up against shortages this will lead to more political instablilty, more Wall Street Ponzi schemes, white collar crime, food riots, more war for resources.
Right now the US is quickly declining so they should do this otherwise it will be Ayn Rands every Man for himself or Herself.
@Kev3d, I forgot Infrastructure, we have built a petro based infrastructure over 100 years, that is Oil fields, Refineries, auto manfanufacturing, a vast network of nationwide gas stations, I think the number of cars/trucks in this country is 200 million.
So Einstein how are you going to replace that with Wind turbines or Solar panels?
With what money? the Fed is already $trillions in the red, Do you have $30,000 to put solar panels on your house and $100,000 to buy an electric car?
*slaps forehead* Learn about the price system for fucks sake. Nuclear reactors do NOT take a "couple hundred billion" and 15 years to get online. The Navy builds them all the time. The constraints and much of the cost is, you guessed it, Government red tape! The average age of an american care is less than 10 years. You make it sound like Y2k...lights out overnight on some undefined date with no turning back.
Thank you, Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. In the same fashion, every should be entitled to their own market choices, but some people, either religious zealots or extreme leftists not only "know" whats better for you and me, they feel the need to force their "utopian" vision on everyone else, usually through terrible slogans and worse arguments, but sometimes by the end of a bayonet. Interestingly, almost none actually practices what they preach.
Facsism is the merger of Corporations & State, the indivuals in the Plutocracy benefit from Facsism, by being in the elite. The people are slaves or Serfs. That is the case now. All debt slaves are slaves or Serfs to the Indivuals like Warren Buffer who are the Owners who get special consideration by the likes of Goldman Sachs and the very top of the Polital establishment. I should have made myself more clear so you wouldn't have misunderstood me. I'll break down next time so you can understand.
You really are just an empty vessel, aren't you? I hope you're very young.
My dad was dirt poor (actual dirt floors) when he was a kid. He ran away from home at 16. He paid his own way through college partially with poker winnings, partially by working full time while going to school full time.
In his highest earning years (he retired recently) he made 7 figures.
Yes, he's an exceptional guy. But he made his own chances.
Your sophomoric pseudo-marxist bs is quite clear, I assure you.
TAX CUTS FOR RICH ! CUTS FOR POOR ! IT'S IN GOP BIBLE
kn9ioutom 8 months ago
in short, the reason why so many (statists) hate (on) ayn rand is because their morality (altruism) is a code of death and suffering. her morality (objectivism, or individualism if you like) is a code of life and happiness. when debated on their terms (with their morality underscoring the debate), the statist will always win. in fact the most irrational will always win. when debated on her terms, they will NEVER win. and hence, they've tried to write her out of history and relevance.
Dumpster510 1 year ago
why does is need to be laissez-faire? Let's just get rid of the state.
MirageScience 1 year ago
@MirageScience Not as simple, Ayn Rand posed in The virtue of selfishness that the state is useful, but only as what it trully is: the monopoly of force. It's only use is protect the citizens, but it has long been used for other things.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu At least you referred to it as a monopoly on force which it very much is. Can you tell me why a monopoly on force would be better than competing firms of defense? I don't see why a monopoly would ever be better.
MirageScience 1 year ago
@MirageScience A monopoly is not by itself evil, as long as it accomplishes its goal. But competing firms of defense would have direct conflicts continually if there was no monopoly. To place an example, if A murdered B's wife, A's firm of defense could start force movements against B, and B's firm protect him. That would probably lead a war, for no one avoids both firms for killing each other. Neither it will avoid crimes for power or money, so the best example of those firms are mafias =/
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu yeah its call costs, costs stop firms from fighting. ever wonder why walmart doesn't try predatory pricing? it doesn't work, just like starting a war wouldn't work.
MirageScience 1 year ago
@MirageScience And when the numbers reach zero.... they lead to stagnation.The monopoly of force is useful for stopping stagnation by protecting life & freedom. But not only that, the necessity of using force is an exception, not the rule(read it as emergencies). As many services which rely on emergencies to work, deployment must be inmediate, always available, but not always used. So, if a system is required to work by emergencies, monopolies become the only required, for they're always there.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@MirageScience WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR CHENEY IRAQ OIL WAR ?
kn9ioutom 8 months ago
is this all?
chaserehn 2 years ago
Rand was right. Read Atlas Shrugged!
notbestfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Communist work camps alive and well? Better believe it. Google "seattle conservative culture examiner" for the article.
capitalismvcommunism 2 years ago
So appropriate,especially in light of the fact that the concept of true free market capitalism is so lost and does not exist today. In true free market, wealth would constantly flow in different directions and the extreme accumulation of wealth as we know it and the monopoly that comes with it would not exist.
MsDutchfox 2 years ago
Honestly, I prefer Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane to Rand. Though then again, I am a deist so it is natural I would find myself more in Paterson.
Not to undermine Rand's achievements of course. =P
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
ugh what the fuck reason. You present some good idea then you fall off the crazy wagon in this wacky libertarian bullshit
MarkG45 2 years ago
really? it's a 61 second video.
aallppiinnee 2 years ago
What's whacky about the idea that people have the right to be left alone?
Individualism101 2 years ago
Comment removed
AshillaBeige 2 years ago
Their slogan is "Free minds. Free markets." What exactly gave you the idea that Reason was anything other than libertarian... It was set up as a libertarian magazine. How stupid can you be to not realize that? Oh, btw, this may come as a surprise, but FOX is a nonconservative news channel... Dolt...
AshillaBeige 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow , what a fucking shame ,hey reason tv are also celebrating,her rascist ideas as well..
reasoningwitchpower 2 years ago
Ayn Rand's racist ideas? Like what?
ilieklolcatz 2 years ago 3
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism... Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of anmials, but not between animals and men. ... There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism. - Ayn Rand
InbheDax2002 2 years ago 12
@InbheDax2002 It was this article "Racism" in her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" that got me addicted to Any Rand.
Thank you for that post!
papeluso 1 year ago
looters & theives? more like inept morons out for the public good. Public Good? That's not like any corporation of today.
WhoRUASlave2 2 years ago
Ayn Rand does a great job of showing just how much the individual can do in our capitalist society but she never addresses the evils corporations can unleash.
WhoRUASlave2 2 years ago
What are those?
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
have you ever read her works? half the corperations are looters and theives
DarkDrgn666 2 years ago
yes she does. have you read her books?
toolshed333 2 years ago
I look forward to seeing the full episode in November.
davidg1234 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was the BEST force for promoting democratic capitalism?? I gotta question that. Sure, she was a major force, but the best? That leaves out A LOT of people, like major economists Friedman Hayek, Ludwiv von Mises, and Milton Friedman (whose free-market preaching actually led to a lot of increase in free markets and democracy in LOTS of poor and developing areas like Chile). I don't think the developing world is embracing Rand all that much, though.
whoo689 2 years ago
She gave it a moral defense. That's unique. The rest only tried to justify it on the grounds that it best served the accepted morality.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Anyone remember the Ayn Rand knockoff from Bioshock?
FatherTime89 2 years ago
Objectivism never appealed to me. I mean, I am a rationalist and very much anti-religion, but I don't need a leader to tell me how to do so or label myself in such a broad manner. I essentially believe in a lot of what Objectivism stands for, I'm sure, but I never identified as such.
Rand was also, for some reason, against libertarians themselves, even though she pretty much was one. She was also a bit of a war hawk at heart, with current torch-carriers like Yaron Brooks.
whoo689 2 years ago
I was never a huge fan of Rand, as you can see. I'm sure her books were great, and Anthem wasn't bad, but she was kind of nutty. She said on repeated occasions that altruism is evil, which is just mind-boggling. Of course, once you realize that she distorted the definition to its extreme and referred to it as "self-sacrifice" for others, then you realize how she came to that conclusion. Of course, it's kind of hard to call something you do to YOURSELF that hurts no one else "evil."
whoo689 2 years ago
I'm also am not into metaphysics or epistemology when it comes to Philosophy. I HATED that crap in Philosophy class. It was so stupid, unprovable shit that doesn't really matter in the long run.
Rand also seemed to be very condescending and patronizing toward those who didn't share her views or against competing ideologies. She wasn't very open-minded, which is odd for a 'libertarian'.
whoo689 2 years ago
This weird Rand idolatry among so many of my small-gov't brethren kinda creeps me out. All she did was preach her ideology and write books. Plenty do that, but we don't worship them. And the measurable effect of Rand on libertarianism and freedom compared to so many other pro-freedom historical folks seems very limited, at best.
whoo689 2 years ago
it's people like you that will ultimately destroy freedom in the US.
gryphon333 2 years ago
Although I'm a libertarian, I'm not exactly a laissez-faire nut who wants to get rid of ALL regulations. We should get rid of a lot of them on the books now, sure, but you can't make a general statement and say that business should be free to do almost anything it wants. We should get rid of BAD REGULATIONS and say such when we're in the spotlight, rather than making fools of ourselves and saying all regulation is bad or making extremely general campaign statements.
whoo689 2 years ago
Ayn Rand's books The Fountainhead, Anthem, and The Virtue of Selfishness have opened my mind up so much. I am now reading We the Living, and I plan to eventually read Atlas Shrugged. She really knows how to write in a way that inspires the individual.
ScottcNehrer 2 years ago 2
A man chooses a slave obeys...
wait I'm thinking of the wrong person.
FatherTime89 2 years ago
Can't wait for the series!
MengersDisciple 2 years ago
Looking forward to the series!
lmankj 2 years ago
Looking forward to this :)
boxant 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was a pure genius! She was slightly flawed personally -- but a stunning, amazing, wonderous GIANT!! :-)
PureLiberalRadio 2 years ago 3
Capitalism is cool, but what the hell's with the democracy? What are we, savages?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago 11
@PanzerDivisionBOM
So you're not in favor of popular vote? Do you favor Autocracy?
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
"What [the liberal tradition] knew is the great secret of the ages: society contains within itself the capacity for self-management, and there is nothing that government can do to improve on the results of the voluntary association, exchange, creativity, and choices of every member of the human family." - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
I recognize every human being as an autocrat, whose rule reaches to the full extent of his body, his labour and his property, and no further.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
So, you're in favor of no government whatsoever?
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
That's one way to put it.
To be more precise, I do not support any initiation of force against peaceful individuals. I'm all for law and specialized dispute resolution, the division and specialization of labour for property protection services and public services, but I think that state power is a hideously inefficient and inherently dangerous way to provide these things.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
So you think anything the government does is a hideous and inherent initiation of force, but the best way to prevent that from happening is to let the Free Market run society with no restrictions or protections?
Should slavery be legal if it's economically efficient?
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
That is an accurate description, yes, though it would also behoove you to understand that the free market is nothing but a descriptor of the people and relations of civil society.
A less ambiguous way of stating my position, is that I believe that people should be free to manage their own bodies, labour and property, and to associate and trade with one another as they see fit.
I support no initiation of force against peaceful individuals, so no involuntary servitude.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
What about transactions that provide negative effects to a non-involved 3rd party in society? (Negative externalities) Do you feel these situations should continue without any restriction?
Also, it's obvious you don't support slavery, so I shouldn't have implied that. Rather, would you be against a government agency using force to prevent slavery?
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
(On externalities) I've heard that term before, and I know what it means, but I don't know of any examples. Maybe you could help, by offering one or two?.
If it has something to do with damaging a person or her property without her consent (i.e. pollution), then I don't see why you need a fancy word for it. It's just vandalism.
(On the agency) I would. To forcefully release a kidnapped man is not an aggression, but to steal from the disarmed and the unborn to do it is..
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
What if there is systemically risky financial transactions taking place in the financial sector, which causes an economic disaster. This doesn't involve private property, but it does cause an outcome that some may deem socially unacceptable.
There's also the factor of companies that seriously pollute the environment, which may cause severe ecological consequences in the long term future.
Force may be required to release the slave; are you okay with this type of force?
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
So some investors lose their money through poor entrepreneurship, the problem being that wealth which otherwise might have been created now isn't. Did I get that right? Please feel free to correct me before I answer.
Pollution is simply a form of vandalism or property crime which, since the mid to late 19th century, state courts have been unable to deal with.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
And finally, I would endorse whatever force is necessary against the slaver and his accomplices to secure the release of the slave, but condemn any force used against innocents.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
If some wealth isn't created due to regulation, then it's worth it because the risk attached to some financial transactions ends up losing more wealth in the long run when the economy implodes. It's about putting short term gains aside for long term stability and growth.
CO2 based pollution can't be dealt with because it doesn't affect a specific person's private property. It can't be considered vandalism, but it can be regulated in ways to benefit the environment.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
So, force is okay when it's prohibiting a person[s] from committing negative acts of force against another. This I agree with.
Would you support a government agency (Police, military, etc) to protect people from negative acts of force, or do you think it should be ignored, or left to the Free Market?
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
But how will the business cycle even occur at all, without credit expansion and expectations of "too big to fail"? Remember, even if one of many competitive currencies should begin to lose value, then it can simply be replaced for purposes of entrepreneurial calculation. Malinvestment will naturally still be a factor, but it will not be periodially intensified by skewed interest rates or money supplies, or by expectations of political reimbursement. (...)
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
And you are now contradicting yourself. If an act does not damage another's person or property, then it is not criminal. If it does, then that damage can be measured, and liability for restitution can be established.
In the case of CO2 emissions, if it can be conclusively proven that such emissions cause adverse climate effects, then the polluter is aggressing against literally every property owner on the planet. (...)
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
"Negative acts" is too ambiguous a definition for my taste. "Initiation of force" is more precise. Also, I do not endorse aggressions against innocent third parties.
Well, what does your proposed agency do? Does it aggress against someone, whether through taxation, tarriff, regulation, to curtail competition, etc? Because if not, then what you have is basically a private, competitive entity, but endowed with the free publicity of being "governmental".
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
The Police obviously initiate force when it is necessary to keep the public safe, and the IRS initiates force to collect the decided tax revenue to fund such a program.
With this system, people who cannot afford the police get to be protected as well. This system is better than a private enterprise because the poor won't be disproportionately serviced compared to the wealthy, and it is bound by a code of law, while private enterprise is not.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Speculation will easily take place without government intervention, and it is the driving factor behind the business cycle and malinvestment. However, regulation and intervention can limit bubbles and dilute crashes by changing interest rates, the money supply, or various safety net programs.
That was my point - CO2 emissions can't be considered criminal, so what should be done? Should the future extinction of countless species and ecosystems or regulation be allowed?
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
But the police are not obligated to protect anyone. That's what discretion means. In fact, they habitually put peaceful people in jail, according to the whims of bureaucrats. Even worse, there's no way to opt out of their "service".
So your proposed method to help people deal responsibly with uncertainty and time in entrepreneurial calculation, is to create false savings and time preference data, and promise to reimburse any losses incurred by irresponsible management?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
I apologize if I've been unclear on the pollution issue. Please allow me to clarify.
Anyone who can prove that the actions of a polluter has caused or will cause damage to her property in court should be able to stop that polluter from causing further damage, and to acquire full restitution, through defensive force.
If CO2 causes damage to every piece of property on Earth with a biotope on it in the way which you imply, then CO2 emission is a criminal act, and should be treated as such.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Indicated by science, CO2 emissions are currently and will continually and increasingly damage private property around the world. However, such actions being considered criminal will result in anyone driving a car being sued, along with economic disaster leading from the fossil fuel industry.
A more realistic approach would be regulation & government expenditure in the Green Energy sector, for the market isn't producing the necessary amount of renewable energy to curb AGW.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
The Police obviously aren't perfect, but they provide a valuable public service. Since voluntary taxes suffer the Tragedy of Commons, some will have to chip in involuntarily for the protection of those who cannot afford to pay for private security, investigation, and imprisonment, which is very expensive.
Your economic description isn't my preferred method, but rather Canada's regulatory model is preferable to me. The Fed and bailouts are not angels in my eyes.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
I'm enjoying our discussion so far, but the format is a little stifling. Perhaps you would be so kind as to pick one topic at a time to discuss, instead of attempting to deal with four different topics at once?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Either one is fine with me. You choose.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
Thank you.
If you don't want to mislead entrepreneurs and consumers in regards to the supply and demand of savings ready for investment through inflation or price fixing of interest rates, and you don't want to relieve the responsibilities of managers and investors through tax-funded bailouts or monopoly court-granted limits of liability, then precisely what do you want them to do?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Much of the Fed's history has been trial and error, and I think it's still learning. Contracting the money supply after the 1929 crash, printing money with the false idea that inflation and employment is a trade-off in the 70's, and too low of interest rates are mistakes. However, the Fed's recent operations have kept deflation and demand stable, which is what I want the Fed to do - adjust the money supply and interest rates to economic conditions accordingly.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
As for bailouts, that is something that I would prevent from being necessary by other means. I would not allow commercial and investor banks merge, I support the idea of the bank-funded bailout fund, I would lower the leveraging banks are able to bet with on securities, and I would even break up banks that are becoming too large, so that a tax-payer bailout isn't needed.
I would also implement various regulations in real-estate, which has its own problems.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
But natural interest rates already reflect economic conditions. Specifically, the supply and demand of savings, and the premium at which participants in the marketplace value near future satisfaction as opposed to far future satisfaction. By lowering interest rates, you will cause marginal investors to withdraw their savings, while at the same time inducing entrepreneurs to take on expensive long-term projects, which consumer preference simply isn't willing to bear.
(...)
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
Consider that, in the absence of protectionism and price fixing, banks are extremely sensitive. Assuming the 3-6-3 rule of banking, that requires about 97% of all investments to be repaid on time to avoid default, and that's before accounting for operating expenses and competition, to say nothing of the riskless profits of central banking.
In the absence of protectionism and price fixing, if a bank can't make extremely accurate forecasts at rock-bottom prices, it is sure to fail on its own.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
I see the problem you're pointing out, but it neglects the fundamental problem that causes banks to knock each other down like dominoes when one fails. Credit Default Swaps enable banks to put all of their risk onto each other, which is why bailouts are needed when the chain of bankruptcy begins. The whole system will collapse, causing a devastating economic fallout.
For the record, I feel most protectionism is just a result of Corporatism, and I'm not in favor of it.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
The problem is interest rates will fluctuate with speculation, which will result in booms and busts that occur relatively frequently. With fixed rates that counter rather than align economic conditions, booms and busts can be somewhat controlled and stabilized. If interest rates had been hiked earlier on, the housing bubble may have burst before it was big enough to swallow the world economy.
Entrepreneurs take large risk whenever there's a boom, government driven or not.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
I think you've unwittingly reversed causality. To use an appropriately distasteful metaphor, speculators aren't the predators of the economy, but the decomposers.
The speculator attempts to buy cheaply and sell dearly. To that end, he will buy in times or places of plenty, and sell in times or places of great need. To whatever extent he is successful, his profit will equilibrate the economy. To whatever extent he isn't, he quickly loses his ability to speculate.(...)
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
For instance, anticipating natural disaster, the speculator may buy supplies of durable goods, and store them until the aftermath, when he will sell them at a price higher than what he paid, but lower than the prices demanded at the time.
And in a world with hundreds of central banks, fiat money, shifting trade agreements and credit conditions, and rapidly increasing state debts... Should it really surprise us that speculation is running rampant? "Commerce was dead. Betting took its place."
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
I haven't reversed causality. I don't deny that a Central's banks actions may ramp up speculation, but that's not all that causes the sort. The banks speculate with our deposit money. This causes the adverse results of faulty, large-scale speculation to disastrously spill over to the rest of the economy.
Speculation can be caused by rich resource deposits, technological innovation, herd mentality, etc. The Fed can dilute the aftermath, via monetary policy.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
I agree that banks take enormous risk with our money, but why is that?
We've already established that, in the absence of protectionism, a bank which takes dumb risks, or one which shares risk with one that does, won't remain a bank for long.
If a group of risk-sharing speculator banks default due to their own stupidity, and a few conservative banks pull through by having foregone short-term speculative gains in favor of secure, long-term investment, (... )
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
won't conservative banks outcompete liberal banks, by virtue of offering superior security?
I think it is now self-evident that people like to play fast and loose with other people's money. But will they do the same, when it's their own money at stake?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
You're right in many aspects here. It's just whether or not the American people want to suffer the trillions of vanishing wealth by letting only JP Morgan Chase and a few others survive. Personally, I prefer they be bailed out and forced to repay the loan at interest, so that taxpayers eventually profit. Letting the entire financial system collapse would most likely have resulted in a much worse economic storm. Plus, the surviving banks would grab even more market power.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
In the meantime, the proper safeguards need to be implemented.
By banning Naked CDS's, banks won't be able to swap away risk. Because banks will hold onto such risk, they will be much less inclined to hand out sub-prime loans like candy and more inclined to verify income.
Also, preventing banks from betting with consumer deposit funds will reduce risk and leveraging.
There are many other proposals that can prevent systemic risk without sacrificing trillions in wealth.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance The problem is central banking. End the Fed.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1 the fed is A problem. THE problem is statism.
Dumpster510 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I fucking hate people who won't shut up about this broad.
tattypatty 2 years ago
Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right, by Jennifer Burns. Read it.
Signofthedollar 2 years ago
@Kev3d, the US has not built a nuclear Power plant in over 30 years. It takes a couple hundred Billion dollars and 15 years to get one online.
I'm all for it, like I said you don't understand the problem nor do you get it's full implications.
As of now there is no energy work around that will replace Oil, no tar sands, no Oil shale. No abiotic Oil. All the Super Giant Oil fields are in decline. Don't believe me google Canterell, Gehwar, the North Sea.
NG declines even faster then OIl.
valhala56 2 years ago
To bad Rand liked a neo-con foreign policy. And that she hated libertarians. Other then that, she's great.
Betty5150 2 years ago
Looking forward to it!
zombiechaddy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
shes got some good idea's but shes also a fucking cunt.
PsychedelicVideos 2 years ago
Um, the Brandens? No thanks.
chopsky 2 years ago
Time to get some real Capitalist back into the Government!
JMBSM61 2 years ago 3
Yay, Ayn Rand!
Yay, Reason! :)
Free minds and free markets!
freesk8 2 years ago 3
terpis, marcus, your flat statements are empty.
Try actually arguing, presenting alternatives, describing problems. Produce some content that enriches the discussion.
Or don't- but fyi, I and others who don't share your echo chamber will be informed either choice.
valhala, do you prefer the Chinese position - that there is no such thing as individual rights? If you don't go that far, let's hear some comments from you about where, how, and why you draw the line against the individual.
Fr3dGarvin 2 years ago 4
Can't wait!
jpinkard 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think hands down the absolute worst novels in the english language.
Complete shit. Proudly sociopathic, sure, but quite aside from that the novels are stunted, robotic exercises in unconvincing caricature and wooden, propagandistic set pieces. They're like anti-art. Evil, but fully aside from that craptastically awful.
Hilarious to see this little fanboy cult set of videos coming down the pike.
Fuck the lot of you white, middle class losers. Truly.
terpis 2 years ago
Nothing like overt racism and hostility to show how clear headed and reasonable you are.
kev3d 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
BillPigg 2 years ago
terpis,
Is that the best you got?
BillPigg 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is SO impoverished. Ayn Rand was, from a literary perspective, worthless, and from a philosophic perspective a lightweight - at best. Further, she exercised a terrible influence over those she came into contact with personally. Read Nathaniel Branden's story about her, his ex and that circle of insufferable, lightweight narcissists. Rand influenced me...when I was 17. By the age 21 I had moved on to real thinkers. Ayn Rand is a form of arrested development.
MarcusCMarcellus 2 years ago
Worthless? How do you figure? Yes, the dialog is wordy and tends to not be "common" speech and can be long winded, but so too is the writing of Wilde or Tolstoy.
Yes, she was an egotist and held double standards on some personal issues, but so what? Sounds quite human to me. Thomas "All men are created equal" Jefferson owned slaves, Martin L. King Jr. Was a Womanizer. Are they too "lightweights"? Who, then is a "real" thinker?
kev3d 2 years ago 4
Most 17 year olds don't even read.
Good for you.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago 2
Ayn Rand was a remarkable thinker ...she is sorely missed.
ConcernedAmericans 2 years ago 2
I do not understand the fascination with Rand. I've never seen what is "objective" about "objectivism".
Looking forward to the series.
strongbadXCP 2 years ago
strongbadXCP, Let's start by looking up the definition of "objective": " not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
That's basically it, actually.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Let's celerbrate Ayn Rand, yes the woman who put the seed of greed (pun intended) into a country, The concept that all that matters is the indivual so the people who took on this philosophy created the Hedge funds, the Leaverage buy outs, the Corporate Raiders dismantling companies for sheer profit, the Mortage Backed Securties, the Credit Default Swaps, that brought The US almost to Finacial collapse. Yeah Ayn Thanks a lot.
valhala56 2 years ago
what is greed?
dudeman5790 2 years ago
what a lot of shit. tell me, when you have your perfect world where everyone gets everything exactly equal, where is my incentive to work harder?
why should i bother going to uni and working my ass off for no money for years when all i get when i finish is exactly the same pay as the dickhead in my class at school?
liber8me 2 years ago 3
@liber8me, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you have helped your fellow man, So like a Medic on the battlefield you are helping people.
But that wouldn't occur to you would it?
For you it is all about me me me.
You have a good point though, I wouldn't help your sorry ass if I saw you laying in the street, I would run over you then sell your body parts to a a capitalist Organ reclyler and enrich myself at your expense. That makse sense don't it?
valhala56 2 years ago
Wow.
You do know you're negating your own position, right? What do you think you might disagree with the person who walks past your "sorry ass" about?
Take away self-interest and mutual respect and you're left in the jungle, my friend. I hope you have opinions that line up with the majority in every way that matters. And that you're skilled at determining what matters, every day. And that no one denounces you during the daily hate. Otherwise it is you who will be run over, eventually.
Fr3dGarvin 2 years ago
@Fe3dGarvin you said "Otherwise it is you who will be run over, eventually. " I don't expect anything less. It has already happened to me and it will happen to me again. It is the nature of the Beast.
US did exactly that when they invaded a Soverign nation Iraq, Killed the President of that Soverign nation, a good part of his family, laid waste to a few citizens installed a puppet Goverment and took the Oil, What the hell would you call that?
valhala56 2 years ago
Your response is a non sequitur.
One more try:
I'm pointing out that you yourself provide an example of why your earlier point is not valid. Some folks talk the same talk as you and they mean it literally. Pol Pot, Lenin, Torquemada... great guys. Idealists, every one.
If you act in service of an external ideal, instead of in your own enlightened self interest, there is no limit to the evil you might do.
Re-read my comment. If you still don't understand... well then bless your heart.
Fr3dGarvin 2 years ago
Helping your fellow man should be voluntary, and not forced by govt or anyone else pointing a gun at you. Forced charity is an oxymoron.
The Medic signed on voluntarily, and gets paid.
If you ran over liber8me, you would be violating his rights, even though you hate him. If you sold his organs, you would be robbing his heirs.
Capitalism and Rand's thought are based on reason and property rights, so your actions would not be considered moral by any Objectivist or libertarian.
Makes NO sense.
freesk8 2 years ago
the satisfaction of knowing that you have helped your fellow man?
and how many people would that work for? how many people are going to work their asses off when they see all their friends mucking around and they end up getting paid exactly the same as them?
everyone would suffer
you live in a deluded fantasy where you seem to have a Utopian view of human nature. if you work hard then why should you be forced to give up the fruits of your labor? freesk8 addressed the absurdity of your analogy
liber8me 2 years ago
@Libver8me, that just shows how indoctrinated you are. You think nobody out there would do anything without compensation, tell that to all the NGO's (Doctors without borders) in Africa feeding,healing the sick, or the thousands of people who are Freedom Fighters, even the Soldiers of the Continental Army getting paid with worthless scrip. Shoeless in Valley Forge. If they were like you they would tell Gen Washington they want a 401k. Ha you make me laugh.
valhala56 2 years ago
valhala56,
Human nature seems a mystery to you.
toliverfive 2 years ago 2
@toliiverfive, I don't disagree with you. Human nature in the form of Ayn Rand's idealized version of greed, ie basically reinforcing in folks like you that yes you can be greedy and a good person, that your greed actually makes you a moraly superior person.
Well A. Hitler had a similar Philosophy, the only difference was it wasn't a Master Indivual it was a "Master Race"
Ayn Rand just condensed Fascism down to fit the American Ideal of indivualism.
valhala56 2 years ago
what a load of shit. hitler had a similar philosophy"
no he didn't he believed in people existing first and foremost to serve the state - that's the opposite of what these people are advocating.
what is nazism? its NATIONAL SOCIALISM. a great part of fascism is based on socialism - thats right LEFT WING political thought. mussolini was originally a socialist who wrote for a left wing newspaper. he brought many of those ideas with him when he started his fascist state.
liber8me 2 years ago
no, i think that everyone would suffer if the state took the vast majority of the money people earned.
its a pretty simple concept - the state taxes things it doesn't want people to do - such as smoke, and subsidizes things it does want people to do - such as buy solar panels for their roof
so what do you think taxing someone very highly for working does? it removes incentive.
liber8me 2 years ago
@liber8me, acutally I am in kinda of agreement with you, there is a fair tax then there is tax that becomes Draconian or punishing.
I don't think most people are against being taxed it is excessive taxes that everybody pretty agrees is not in the best interest of anybody.
As of now we all are paying taxes that go right into the pockets of Billionares, the Too big to Fails, I have a problem with that sort of hedonistic philosphy that they should absorb all the wealth of the US.
valhala56 2 years ago
bailing out big companies is not capitalism. if the market was being left to its own then those corporations wouldn't get a cent.
liber8me 2 years ago 3
@liber8me, well we do agree on the Bailouts. The way I see it most of that money went down an ecomic Black hole never to be seen again. I can guess where some of it went, 100's of millions of $ worth of Krugerands, Private Islands, luxury Yachts, all paid for by you me and all the other Joe and Jane America's.
valhala56 2 years ago
Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Do you understand the difference between laissez faire capitalism and the government interventionist pseudo-capitalism that protects (among other things) faulty lending? And what exactly happens to a company that is "dismantled" for "sheer profit"? I suppose we should keep companies together for charity then?
kev3d 2 years ago 4
What happens when Corporate Raiders dismantle a company, well lets take say a company that makes medicine, the Corporate Raiders lay off emplyees & pocket the savings, they sell off assets, borrow against the company then when the company is bankrupt they leave. They are the equivalent of Maifoso who take over a business, Borrow against it to the hilt, bankrupt it then when the company is dead they burn it to the ground to collect the insurance that is what Laissez Faire in the wrong hands does.
valhala56 2 years ago
Really? Of course even if what you say is true it presupposes that another company has the money to purchase the other and that there are buyers for the assets being sold. Not all employees are laid off from corporate takeovers and in many cases, the employees are shareholders and benefit directly from their shares being purchased. It is easy to point out a few dozen or even a few thousand cases where capitalism goes wrong, but there are hundreds of millions of cases where it goes right.
kev3d 2 years ago
@Kev3d, Oh yeah, Capitalism has done wonders, The shining star of Capitalism Goldman Sachs, AIG, GM, the Hedge Funds, the Billionaires who have made Billion dollar no lose bets using finacial Weapons of Mass Destruction the Credit Default Swap. A Stock Market that everybody knows is rigged for the benefit of chosen few. The common man has little chance in this system of rising above serfhood in a phony fairy tale propagted by the followers of Ayn Rand, the Alan Greenspans who gang raped US!
valhala56 2 years ago
Again, learn the difference between laissez faire and the bailout of failing corporations. And yes, Capitalism has done wonders, from pineapples in New York in january to the Polio Vaccine to the Ipod, right down to the keyboard you are typing on and the website on which we debate. Capitalism, though imperfect, has done more to lift people out of poverty and raise the standard of living than any other system by far. When you have actual arguments instead of buzzwords, please let us know.
kev3d 2 years ago
@kev3d, I too was under that erroneous belief that Capitalism is the source of Prosperity but to be honest in my case my belief was Science/technology/Capitalism was the source of Prosperity.
The real source of Prosperity is Oil. People don't understand how Oil powers the world economy so they think it is Capitalism that is the source. Well the reality is that Oil is the source for most of our prosperity. You may not like that fact but it is the fact Jack.
No Oil=No economy.
valhala56 2 years ago
Wrong, Much growth in the US and Europe was BEFORE oil was used as fuel. Coal was the primary fuel of the period during most of the industrial revolution. True, oil is an ultraconvenient fuel but why then, are Oil-poor Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia and New Zealand prosperous and Oil rich Oman, Saudi Arabia etc are mostly poor (despite some mega rich oil barons)Science, technology and even Oil are worthless if not allowed to be exploited.
kev3d 2 years ago
@Kev3d, well I'll tell you this. Without Oil Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia and New Zealand would look like Amish without the Religion. IE no Oil you ride a horse not a lexus, You have no plastic for your Apple iMac, No energy to power the server farms that support the internet, a helluva lot less food. Basicaly without Oil you would go back to the way life was in 1865. And then you would have to feed 6x the people that were on the planet in 1865.
valhala56 2 years ago
Yes, Oil is an important resource. So is gold. So is Wheat and rubber and iron. However Oil is replaceable in certain respects and is, where the price system dictates. But it is beside the point, the real point is that whatever the resource, it is best left in the hands of an essentially free market, win or lose. The bottom-up self organizing nature of people decide the best use for such resources far better than any top-down bureaucrat or politburo.
kev3d 2 years ago
@Kev3d, well I can see you are ignorant of the concept of Peak Oil. Oil has some unique properties that unfortunely our civilization/economy cannot do without. Oil is used in food production, the disel that powers the farm implements, the fertilizers/pesticides, the energy to power the factories that process the food, the disel that powers the truck that bring the food to market. This is just for food, basicaly if there is a shortage of Oil we are screwed in a big way. There is no subsitute.
valhala56 2 years ago
Really? No kidding. I supposed Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Nuclear, Tidal and Coal cannot compensate. (oh wait, they can) "Peak Oil" is another misapplied buzz word that ignores alternatives, technological innovation and the price system. But what's your point? Energy is important? Yes it is, but ONCE AGAIN, what system most allows and rewards useful innovation in energy and in all other fields?
kev3d 2 years ago
Hey Einstein again you fail to understand Peak Oil, yes there are technolgies our there, I can buy a kit to run my disel car on used McDonalds french fry grease. The problem is scale & Capital.
Right now all those technolgies you stated power less then 5% of our energy needs in America. Barely anything-Check Boone Pickens.
Now Einstein tell me how Capitalism is going to replace the other 95% & growing of US & world energy needs. You need to read up on this cause you just don't get it.
valhala56 2 years ago
Just have a mcdonalds at every corner. Problem solved. LOL
skyding8962 2 years ago
@Skyding8962, I wish they would put a McDees on every corner that way I might win at McDonalds Monoply!
valhala56 2 years ago
I just found an article written a year and half ago and they said they could sale vegetable oil from the restaraunts for 2.50 a gallon and that the restaraunts were now considering it theft because they actually sale it now.
2.50 a gallon is still cheaper than the 4 bucks it was costing last year, although maybe on the market it sales much higher. Im just wondering why we even need gas if vegetable oil is cheaper. Maybe when you add in the additives or filtration its the same price.
skyding8962 2 years ago
@skyding well only a few types of disel cars can be converted to running on used veg oil, and if you converted all of them to run on grease the price would skyrocket as each fast food joint would be overwhelmed with buyers. Supply-demand, dude. You know I you go low I go high, that old game.
valhala56 2 years ago
Im not sure how much vegetable oil costs but one issue is land use. Take corn, corn can be used as fuel or food, but not both. So an acre that was used to feed people could be used to fuel, say, a car. There is a net loss of food. However there are experiments with using algae which can be grown in desert greenhouses or out to sea where there is no (or negligible) alternative use for that land (or water) I don't know if its an answer, but its certainly very interesting.
kev3d 2 years ago
Your right. Right after i had written it I just remembered that the whole ethanol experiment proved that all it it did was raise food prices. So all vegetable oil will do is cheapen energy costs possibly, but cost food prices to go up so it might wind up being a net negative for the economy.
skyding8962 2 years ago
Yeah? And 130 years ago Whale blubber powered 100% of lamps and Hay and Coal powered everything else. What is unscalable about the Alternatives? My guess is Nuclear is going to re-emerge in a big way (if it can get past the greenies), possibly biofuel for other things, grown in the ocean. And by the way what is YOUR alternative? You are using energy right now...supporting a system you seem to despise.
kev3d 2 years ago
Dude you are not getting it. 130 years ago the population was about 1.5 billion people. It has gone up x6=6.5 billion. When they had blubbered powered lamps there were no LA or NY using Megawatts of Electricity each day. There was no tv,radio, internet, commercial jets, Hummer Suv's, Millions of McMansions with heated swimming pools, 100 story skyskrapers.
Dude I'm not trying to be rude but I don't think you get it or you will ever get it. I'm kinda wasting my time with you here.
valhala56 2 years ago
Yes, and 130 years ago there was no such thing as a nuclear reactor either. ONCE AGAIN, you completely miss the point of technological innovation, improvements, and your "fed is in the red" displays your assumption that the government needs to provide everything. I ask again, what is YOUR solution? If you want to live carbon neutral off roots in a cave, by all means, show us the way. Otherwise tell us how you power your computer with good intentions.
kev3d 2 years ago
There are only three or four solutions to Peak Oil, all are unlikely.
1] Finding a new Super Giant Oil field like Gehwar in Saudi Arabia or Canterell in Mexico.
2] the Technological Singularity estimated 2045.
3] a Breaktrhough in something like Nuclear fusion-nothing on the horizon been working on it for 50 years
4] All countries working closely together for energy conservation-unlikely NWO
5] Advanced Alien giving us tech that will save our ass's-unlikely too.
6] Ayn Rand coming back .
valhala56 2 years ago
Thank Zeus that the future is not up to you or your limited worldview. Instead, you are happy to repeat slogans and fodder for bumper stickers like "save Civilization as we know it". You spout your marxist ideas all day, in the end you still voluntarily use the fruits of capitalism to argue its "evils". Meanwhile I will go buy a coke. Should cost about 70 cents here in Singapore, thank you Coca Cola company and thank you free market.
kev3d 2 years ago 3
Hey Kev while your enjoying your coke put a butterfly or say a beetle in a bottle and watch coke dissolve it right before your eyes! Now that is a soft drink!
After that go and get you another product, say maybe a H1N1 vaccine, now that is value for your money there Bub. Not only do you get a Live H1n1 virus buy you get extra's like Squalene, Ammonia, and a nice helping of Mercury. Should go real good with a Coca Cola.
Enjoy!
valhala56 2 years ago
Ah, and you managed to squeeze in a jab against vaccines as well!
As for my Coke, its true, it is filled with the lethal Dihydrogen Monoxide...but somehow, I'll manage. I'll even save the aluminum for your hat (customary tin foil was replaced by aluminum through, you guessed it, the price system) I'm sure it will be of great comfort for you when the sky falls.
kev3d 2 years ago
Thanks, I take the aluminum hat, and if you got any gold or silver you don't want I'll take too. If I put you off your coca-cola, well let's just say I'm a fan of that Black Gold too.
valhala56 2 years ago
You're a little bit of a nut, aintya?
1) even if we find more oil it will run out.
2) riiiight...
3) how is fusion more scaleable and useful than fission? It's perpetually 20 years away and costs a ludicrous amount of money... meanwhile pebble bed reactors are available now and they actually work.
4) see #1
5) kinda nutty
6) ...
kev3d has your number, it seems to me- you've got slogans where your analysis should be.
You're lining up behind Ehrlich against Borlaug. A mistake.
Fr3dGarvin 2 years ago
Fr2dGarvin, Obviously you couldn't spot satire if it slapped you. Obviously my little list wan't mean't to be taken totaly seriously. I Included Ayn Rand returning from the dead. Puhlease dude. Lighten up.
valhala56 2 years ago
I know that you aren't to be taken seriously, believe me. I didn't, and I don't.
I do think you're kindof a nut.
And that kev3d has your number.
Did you google Norman Borlaug yet?
Fr3dGarvin 2 years ago
Valhala, I think I found your playground when your away from George. ;)
skyding8962 2 years ago
My alternative is a Manhattan level program, ie Apollo type program. No stops, almost unlimited public and private Capital to save Civilization as we know it. Barring this the world is eventualy going to come up against shortages this will lead to more political instablilty, more Wall Street Ponzi schemes, white collar crime, food riots, more war for resources.
Right now the US is quickly declining so they should do this otherwise it will be Ayn Rands every Man for himself or Herself.
valhala56 2 years ago
@Kev3d, I forgot Infrastructure, we have built a petro based infrastructure over 100 years, that is Oil fields, Refineries, auto manfanufacturing, a vast network of nationwide gas stations, I think the number of cars/trucks in this country is 200 million.
So Einstein how are you going to replace that with Wind turbines or Solar panels?
With what money? the Fed is already $trillions in the red, Do you have $30,000 to put solar panels on your house and $100,000 to buy an electric car?
valhala56 2 years ago
*slaps forehead* Learn about the price system for fucks sake. Nuclear reactors do NOT take a "couple hundred billion" and 15 years to get online. The Navy builds them all the time. The constraints and much of the cost is, you guessed it, Government red tape! The average age of an american care is less than 10 years. You make it sound like Y2k...lights out overnight on some undefined date with no turning back.
kev3d 2 years ago
Good job, you beat him on every point, despite the fact that he doesn't seem to know it.
Fr3dGarvin 2 years ago
Thank you, Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. In the same fashion, every should be entitled to their own market choices, but some people, either religious zealots or extreme leftists not only "know" whats better for you and me, they feel the need to force their "utopian" vision on everyone else, usually through terrible slogans and worse arguments, but sometimes by the end of a bayonet. Interestingly, almost none actually practices what they preach.
kev3d 2 years ago
"Individualized fascism" is a self-negating term.
Do you know what words those two words mean?
AngrySkeptic 2 years ago
Facsism is the merger of Corporations & State, the indivuals in the Plutocracy benefit from Facsism, by being in the elite. The people are slaves or Serfs. That is the case now. All debt slaves are slaves or Serfs to the Indivuals like Warren Buffer who are the Owners who get special consideration by the likes of Goldman Sachs and the very top of the Polital establishment. I should have made myself more clear so you wouldn't have misunderstood me. I'll break down next time so you can understand.
valhala56 2 years ago
You really are just an empty vessel, aren't you? I hope you're very young.
My dad was dirt poor (actual dirt floors) when he was a kid. He ran away from home at 16. He paid his own way through college partially with poker winnings, partially by working full time while going to school full time.
In his highest earning years (he retired recently) he made 7 figures.
Yes, he's an exceptional guy. But he made his own chances.
Your sophomoric pseudo-marxist bs is quite clear, I assure you.
Fr3dGarvin 2 years ago 3
Looking forward to these Rand vids.
I love her quotes. Ayn Rand is an incredible lady.
averagejoe040 2 years ago 5
Don't know much about Rand and I havent read any of her books. But I look forward to learning more.
spanky267 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They're peices of crap
TheJosephPrice 2 years ago
Reading atlas schrugged for the first time ^^
martinaoe2 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ayn rand is one of the worst spokes people for capitalism
her viewpoints of intellectual property are bullshit
xkeltoix 2 years ago
This looks like a good profile of Rand. Bound to be interesting, I'll check it out for sure.
haypenny 2 years ago 4
Reason TV getting exclusive interviews with founding editors of Reason magazine is not as impressive as this video seems to make it.