Ayn Rand

[RazzO]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79612.html?hp=l8

clave (jim) this might interest you.

Do you know who this CS is? I don't follow atheists. Apparently, Paul is a
big fan. I find it troubling. I know you won't. It's your right, though.





RazzO

[RazzO]

Furthermore

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/14/opinion/weiss-ryan-rand/index.html?c=mobile-homepage-t


RazzO

[RazzO]

Also

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/my-take-christianity-and-ayn-rands-philosophy-are-2-distinct-religions/?on.cnn=1



RazzO

[Tim Norfolk]

I read 'Atlas Shrugged' carefully this past year. None of the conservatives that applaud her ideas seem to note that she considered bankers and investment people to be just as parasitic on the system as politicians and the poor.

[popinjay999]

On Aug 16, 8:26 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> I read 'Atlas Shrugged' carefully this past year. None of the conservatives that applaud her ideas seem to note that she considered bankers and investment people to be just as parasitic on the system as politicians and the poor.

What the fuck do you know about conservatives?

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 16 2012 9:43 PM, popinjay999 wrote:

> > I read 'Atlas Shrugged' carefully this past year. None of the
conservatives that applaud her ideas
> seem to note that she considered bankers and investment people to be just as
parasitic on the system
> as politicians and the poor.
>
> What the fuck do you know about conservatives?

he imagines all sorts of nonsense about "groups" he has zero contact with
(and zero understanding of).

mo_ntresor

[Tim Norfolk]

That’s a very good question.

I am a mathematician, which comes from my desire for consistency, which is a quality I admire in people.

The ones whom I consider conservative are those who label themselves as such, as many on this newsgroup have. I then measure them internally, according to the beliefs to which they claim to adhere.

For example:

A former karate student is a strongly vocal ‘family values conservative’, who just completed his third divorce.

Another former karate student, a professor of Finance and self-proclaimed ‘social conservative’ and ‘fiscal conservative’ was very outspoken on the issue of unions (he was against them). Yet, when his retention was in peril, he used every power of his union to defend his job.

Any number of people who claim to be ‘free-market advocates’ and are loudly against government interference, yet demand that the government should ‘get gas to $1 a gallon’.

So, who is a 'real conservative'?

[Travel A]

And Northfuck is against the death penalty for murder, but thinks
nothing of abortion: the killing of innocent life that never murdered
anyone.

So, who's the real, smug hypocrite?

Northfuck, that's who.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 17 2012 2:49 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> For example:
>
> A former karate student is a strongly vocal ‘family values conservative’,
who just completed his
> third divorce.
>
> Another former karate student, a professor of Finance and self-proclaimed
‘social conservative’ and
> ‘fiscal conservative’ was very outspoken on the issue of unions (he was
against them). Yet, when
> his retention was in peril, he used every power of his union to defend his
job.
>
> Any number of people who claim to be ‘free-market advocates’ and are loudly
against government
> interference, yet demand that the government should ‘get gas to $1 a gallon’.
>
> So, who is a 'real conservative'?

you associate with a bunch of morons. go figure!

mo_ntresor

[Tim Norfolk]

Childishness aside, who ever said I was against the death penalty?

[popinjay999]

On Aug 17, 5:48 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

About a year or so ago I was trying to tell him about how our troops
were hindered in Vietnam by our own government and the RULES OF
ENGAGEMENT. I used as an example, "Didn't you ever see Rambo?" Of
course, Tim is out to lunch. He didn't buy none of it. It would have
been a good buy. The truth is cheap.

-Paul

[fffurken]

On Aug 18, 1:12 am, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:

> And Northfuck is against the death penalty for murder, but thinks
> nothing of abortion: the killing of innocent life that never murdered
> anyone.

Please provide a picture of a bucket of foetuses to prove that
abortion is murder. It's fairly standard, just ask Popinjay.

[~M~]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message
news:68eb9aa8-e3c7-4ab6...@googlegroups.com...

>I read 'Atlas Shrugged' carefully this past year.

Really?

>None of the conservatives that applaud her ideas seem to note that she
>considered bankers and investment >people to be just as parasitic on the
>system as politicians and the poor.

Then please explain Midas Mulligan.

--
"Actually, I'm an out-of-the-closed [sic] Independent."
- Jerry Sturdivant, 3/23/2011 Telling the biggest lie in RGP history

...until

"Jerry (on bail) 'n Vegas"
- Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/20/2011

...but not to outdo himself

"By behind them, you mean for the cause? If it's not peaceful, you're not
for the cause? I went to jail, are you still for the cause?"
- Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/23/2011

...Liars like Jerry make things up to cover their bullshit, like so...

"When the put me in the pattywagon [sic] I was 'jailed.' Now are you behind
OWS
or not?"
- Jerry (Lying Nazi Bitch) 'n Vegas, 11/23/2011

[popinjay999]

On Aug 17, 1:49 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> That’s a very good question.
>
> I am a mathematician, which comes from my desire for consistency, which is a quality I admire in people.
>
> The ones whom I consider conservative are those who label themselves as such, as many on this newsgroup have. I then measure them internally, according to the beliefs to which they claim to adhere.
>
> For example:
>
> A former karate student is a strongly vocal ‘family values conservative’, who just completed his third divorce.
>
> Another former karate student, a professor of Finance and self-proclaimed ‘social conservative’ and ‘fiscal conservative’  was very outspoken on the issue of unions (he was against them). Yet, when his retention was in peril, he used every power of his union to defend his job.
>
> Any number of people who claim to be ‘free-market advocates’ and are loudly against government interference, yet demand that the government should ‘get gas to $1 a gallon’.
>
> So, who is a 'real conservative'?

That's a great argument, professor, you really put me in my place.
Champion of the fucking debate team. I'm humbled.

-Paul "The Way" Popinjay

[Travel A]

Northfuck, yes, that's a good idea, to put your childish little stories
away that prove zero and you probably them made up, anyway.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 11:03:15 PM UTC-4, Travel wrote:
> Northfuck, yes, that's a good idea, to put your childish little stories
>
> away that prove zero and you probably them made up, anyway.

Sadly, no.

If you want another one, I was at a party with another conservative, parroting the line that we" shouldn't change the Constitution". I asked her if that meant stripping her right to vote.

[Tim Norfolk]

I asked a question, rather than made an argument. How would you define a conservative (social, fiscal or otherwise)?

The current subject is conservatives, although the same process applies to the handful of liberals that I know, on different topics. Can you name people whose behaviour as conservatives matches their actions and words, and the available facts?

[Tim Norfolk]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 11:03:15 PM UTC-4, Travel wrote:

> Northfuck, yes, that's a good idea, to put your childish little stories
>
> away that prove zero and you probably them made up, anyway.

Giving their names would be an immoral act, since they didn't consent. However, the third set (oil prices) can be read in the letters and comments to the editor in just about e very newspaper in the country.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Friday, August 17, 2012 9:50:34 PM UTC-4, ~M~ wrote:
> "Tim Norfolk" wrote in message
>
> news:68eb9aa8-e3c7-4ab6...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >I read 'Atlas Shrugged' carefully this past year.
>
>
>
> Really?
>
>
>
> >None of the conservatives that applaud her ideas seem to note that she
>
> >considered bankers and investment >people to be just as parasitic on the
>
> >system as politicians and the poor.
>
>
>
> Then please explain Midas Mulligan.
>

<snip>

Yes, I read the book as a favour to my father-in-law. I found some of the ideas interesting, but it needed serious editing.

No-one disputes that we need bankers to have a modern functioning economy. They provide a necessary service at a fee. Perhaps the best model would be the old Swiss one, where they take a fee to hold your money.

But they can’t drive the economy, even by investment, although we have fooled ourselves that this is the case.

In the book, the biggest heroes are those who produce things of substance, not service – Miss Taggert building and running a rail system, the oilman with his new method of producing from dry wells, John Galt and his impossible electric motor, Reardon with his magic metal, and so on. Recall that everyone in ‘Shangri-La’ built their own home with their own hands.

Contrast that with James Taggert and his banker and government friends, who think that they can produce by simply owning things, like the d’Anconia (sp?) copper mines, or the young man who destroys the car company, the philosophers, writers and Reardon’s wife and brother-in-law, living off the production of others.

[Travel A]

Northfuck, yes, that's a good idea, to put your childish little stories

away that prove zero, and you probably made them up, anyway.

About 300,000,000 people in the country and well over half the voters in
the 2012 elections voted conservative but, yet, Northfuck, is claiming
he has defined conservatives using four of his little stories that he
made up.

Don't make us laugh.

You're just another hater, Northfuck, why don't you just admit it.

[Tim Norfolk]

No, I don't really hate anyone. I just try to educate some. Nowhere did I say anything was true of all conservatives. However, your posts certainly add to my database.

[popinjay999]

On Aug 18, 12:54 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> If you want another one, I was at a party with another conservative, parroting the line that we" shouldn't change the Constitution". I asked her if that meant stripping her right to vote.

----------

What a boring individual you are.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:10:38 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
<tims...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>Contrast that with James Taggert and his banker and government friends, who think that they can produce by simply owning things, like the d’Anconia (sp?) copper mines, or the young man who destroys the car company, the philosophers, writers and Reardon’s wife and brother-in-law, living off the production of others.

But M and Joe Long just told me that the rich are productive members
of society simply by virtue of being rich and keeping their money
invested. Who'd have guessed that, of the three of us, I'm the one
whose views are closest to Any Rand's?

--

Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

[~M~]

"Pepe Papon" wrote in message
news:2na138dk3hv5u5mj9...@4ax.com...

>Contrast that with James Taggert and his banker and government friends, who
>think that they can produce by >simply owning things, like the d’Anconia
>(sp?) copper mines, or the young man who destroys the car >company, the
>philosophers, writers and Reardon’s wife and brother-in-law, living off the
>production of others.

>But M and Joe Long just told me that the rich are productive members
>of society simply by virtue of being rich and keeping their money
>invested. Who'd have guessed that, of the three of us, I'm the one
>whose views are closest to Any Rand's?

You are closest to Norfolk's complete misstatement of her views.


--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012

[Tim Norfolk]

I haven't a clue about her views. I'm commenting on what she wrote.

To (probably) terminate this thread, I found the following on failblog.org:

“Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan” and “My ultimate Ayn Rand Porn” are anagrams.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:45:13 -0400, "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Pepe Papon" wrote in message
>news:2na138dk3hv5u5mj9...@4ax.com...
>
>>Contrast that with James Taggert and his banker and government friends, who
>>think that they can produce by >simply owning things, like the d’Anconia
>>(sp?) copper mines, or the young man who destroys the car >company, the
>>philosophers, writers and Reardon’s wife and brother-in-law, living off the
>>production of others.
>
>>But M and Joe Long just told me that the rich are productive members
>>of society simply by virtue of being rich and keeping their money
>>invested. Who'd have guessed that, of the three of us, I'm the one
>>whose views are closest to Any Rand's?
>
>You are closest to Norfolk's complete misstatement of her views.

How so?

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:21:57 +0000 (UTC), Vince <vi...@hush.ai> wrote:

>Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:d9fb73ab-b028-40d5...@googlegroups.com:

>
>> I haven't a clue about her views. I'm commenting on what she
>> wrote.
>

>Ayn Rand's 1967 Appearance on 'The Tonight Show' With Johnny Carson
>
>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/ayn-rands-1967-
>appearance-on-the-tonight-show-with-johnny-carson/260400/

Thanks for posting that. It was quite informative.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 20 2012 12:58 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> >>Contrast that with James Taggert and his banker and government friends,
who
> >>think that they can produce by >simply owning things, like the d’Anconia
> >>(sp?) copper mines, or the young man who destroys the car >company, the
> >>philosophers, writers and Reardon’s wife and brother-in-law, living off
the
> >>production of others.
> >
> >>But M and Joe Long just told me that the rich are productive members
> >>of society simply by virtue of being rich and keeping their money
> >>invested. Who'd have guessed that, of the three of us, I'm the one
> >>whose views are closest to Any Rand's?
> >
> >You are closest to Norfolk's complete misstatement of her views.
>
> How so?

she doesn't make the idiotic judgment call that tim and other leftwing
dunces do. she's not in the business of dictating what is or isn't a good
way to make a living (barring coercive powers of government).

mo_ntresor

[Travel A]

Chortle, now Northfuck is backing-off his idiocy and trying to say that
his little stories weren't meant to represent conservatives as a group
as hypocrites.

You're boxed-in, Northfuck.

I wrote, previously:

[Travel A]

General note:
Rand Paul is speaking at the Republican convention. I posted that he
wasn't in a earlier post. However, Ron Paul, with a hundred+- rabid
delegates is snubbed.

Mittens is probably trying to gain a little favor with Rand because, if
Mittens wins, Rand will surely be the Mittens administration's strongest
critic in the Republican-side senate.

[~M~]

"Pepe Papon" wrote in message

news:h0o338l512tlbda82...@4ax.com...

>>>But M and Joe Long just told me that the rich are productive members
>>>of society simply by virtue of being rich and keeping their money
>>>invested. Who'd have guessed that, of the three of us, I'm the one
>>>whose views are closest to Any Rand's?
>>
>>You are closest to Norfolk's complete misstatement of her views.
>
>How so?

Ayn Rand did think that investment by the "rich" was valuable. She had no
problem with bankers. Her problem with Taggert and his friends is that they
tried to use government coercion to accomplish things.

Rand did not have some sort of "substance, not service," philosophy. Rand
was all for voluntary exchanges, and completely against involuntary ones.
And, if you agree with Norfolk that a rail system doesn't provide a service,
then you certainly aren't closer to Rand's views than most people.


--
" If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that
happen."
- Barack Obama, 7/15/2012

[Tim Norfolk]

I didn't say that about the rail service. In fact, if you check my earlier replies, I said exactly the opposite, referring to Miss Taggert as one of the heroes of the novel. However, there are several places in the novel where she clearly shows that many people can't distinguish between money and wealth derived from production (including ideas).

[Tim Norfolk]

Perhaps to you, but not necessarily to the people that I care about. However, given your many outbursts on this newsgroup, the biblical in junction abouts motes of dust and beams of wood might apply.

[~M~]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message

news:dc38081f-ba55-46bf...@googlegroups.com...

>> And, if you agree with Norfolk that a rail system doesn't provide a
>> service,
>> then you certainly aren't closer to Rand's views than most people.

>>I didn't say that about the rail service.

You said

"In the book, the biggest heroes are those who produce things of substance,
not service – Miss Taggert building and running a rail system,"

Do you think the rail system, without providing a service, has any value at
all?

>"In fact, if you check my earlier replies, I said exactly the opposite,
>referring to Miss Taggert as one of the >heroes of the novel.

Right, because you think a rail system is a substance, not a service.

>However, there are several places in the novel where she clearly shows that
>many people can't distinguish >between money and wealth derived from
>production (including ideas).

You have also, apparently, discovered the unknown, unstated, and
non-existent belief that Rand "Considered bankers and investment people to
be just as parasitic on the system as politicians and the poor," your main
argument being that "“Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan” and “My ultimate Ayn Rand
Porn” are anagrams."

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:33:51 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >>But M and Joe Long just told me that the rich are productive members
>> >>of society simply by virtue of being rich and keeping their money
>> >>invested. Who'd have guessed that, of the three of us, I'm the one
>> >>whose views are closest to Any Rand's?
>> >
>> >You are closest to Norfolk's complete misstatement of her views.
>>
>> How so?
>
>she doesn't make the idiotic judgment call that tim and other leftwing
>dunces do. she's not in the business of dictating what is or isn't a good
>way to make a living (barring coercive powers of government).

That's rather vague. Can you give specific examples of where I've
done these things?

Of course, the comment was in reference to the idea that merely being
rich and owning things makes someone productive. M and Joe Long
insist that it does. I, along with Ayn Rand, say that it doesn't.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:36:16 -0400, "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Pepe Papon" wrote in message
>news:h0o338l512tlbda82...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>But M and Joe Long just told me that the rich are productive members
>>>>of society simply by virtue of being rich and keeping their money
>>>>invested. Who'd have guessed that, of the three of us, I'm the one
>>>>whose views are closest to Any Rand's?
>>>
>>>You are closest to Norfolk's complete misstatement of her views.
>>
>>How so?
>
>Ayn Rand did think that investment by the "rich" was valuable.

Nobody claimed that investment isn't valuable. Of course it is.

> She had no
>problem with bankers. Her problem with Taggert and his friends is that they
>tried to use government coercion to accomplish things.

Although I read and enjoyed "The Fountainhead" many years ago, I'm
certainly no expert on Ayn Rand, but in a previous comment, it was
stated that she doesn't believe that merely owning things makes a
person productive. That's the point on which I was commenting.

>Rand did not have some sort of "substance, not service," philosophy. Rand
>was all for voluntary exchanges, and completely against involuntary ones.
>And, if you agree with Norfolk that a rail system doesn't provide a service,
>then you certainly aren't closer to Rand's views than most people.

I don't recall Norfollk saying any such thing. It's hard to believe
he would say something as absurd as that, but if he did, then of
course, I disagree.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 21 2012 1:24 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> >she doesn't make the idiotic judgment call that tim and other leftwing
> >dunces do. she's not in the business of dictating what is or isn't a good
> >way to make a living (barring coercive powers of government).
>
> That's rather vague. Can you give specific examples of where I've
> done these things?
>
> Of course, the comment was in reference to the idea that merely being
> rich and owning things makes someone productive. M and Joe Long
> insist that it does. I, along with Ayn Rand, say that it doesn't.

given both are lazy, being rich will automatically make "you" more
productive than being poor. this is obvious.

mo_ntresor

[~M~]

"Pepe Papon" wrote in message

news:dud638180819etiae...@4ax.com...

>>Ayn Rand did think that investment by the "rich" was valuable.
>
>Nobody claimed that investment isn't valuable. Of course it is.

Tim said that Rand claimed investment was not valuable, that it was actually
parasitic. That is the post I responded to.
"I read 'Atlas Shrugged' carefully this past year. None of the conservatives

that applaud her ideas seem to note that she considered bankers and
investment people to be just as parasitic on the system as politicians and
the poor."

>> She had no
>>problem with bankers. Her problem with Taggert and his friends is that
>>they
>>tried to use government coercion to accomplish things.
>
>Although I read and enjoyed "The Fountainhead" many years ago, I'm
>certainly no expert on Ayn Rand, but in a previous comment, it was
>stated that she doesn't believe that merely owning things makes a
>person productive. That's the point on which I was commenting.

No one thinks or said that merely owning something makes a person
productive. It's what you do with what you own that makes you productive.

>>Rand did not have some sort of "substance, not service," philosophy. Rand
>>was all for voluntary exchanges, and completely against involuntary ones.
>>And, if you agree with Norfolk that a rail system doesn't provide a
>>service,
>>then you certainly aren't closer to Rand's views than most people.
>
>I don't recall Norfollk saying any such thing. It's hard to believe
>he would say something as absurd as that, but if he did, then of
>course, I disagree.

"In the book, the biggest heroes are those who produce things of substance,
not service – Miss Taggert building and running a rail system,"

Here, he says a railroad system is a thing of substance, not a service.

Furthermore, Tim himself agrees with his phantom-Rand position that
investors are parasites, and make no contribution. See the "How much would
Obama's plan raise taxes for a guy..." thread, where he says that a person's
tax contribution is defines what his contribution to the economy. He says
investors make no contribution to the economy. I would also disagree with
his position that Rand thought poor people are parasitic as well.

These threads start to lose any ability to hold interest when they devolve
into a senseless mass of posts about things that have nothing to do with
anything. I'm limiting my posts to things that are actually said by people,
and would love to not have to address or defend things that have not. So,
for the record, here are a few items to consider:

Tim Norfolk says:
Ayn Rand thought bankers and investors were parasitic, and just as bad a
government and poor people.
Investors do not contribute to the economy.
Railroads are things of substance, not service.

I said:
Ayn Rand though bankers and investors do contribute to the economy.
The only time railroads are valuable is when they are providing a service.
Investment provides a great contribution to the economy.

The following people have said that simply being rich makes someone a
contributor to the economy:

[da pickle]

Bravo!

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 21 2012 7:14 AM, ~M~ wrote:

> The following people have said that simply being rich makes someone a
> contributor to the economy:

put me down on this list.

mo_ntresor

[popinjay999]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're one of these
morons who doesn't think the major media is biased to the left. Of
course, that's because you people think the sun and the universe
revolve around you.

[Tim Norfolk]

A rail system, is of, course, both. It requires building and maintenance. One thing I took from the book was an affirmation of the joy of creation, which is not directly dependent on money.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 10:23:45 PM UTC-4, ~M~ wrote:

The reason why I referred to investment (and supported by my reading of the novel) as 'parasitic' is because it is. It generates economic activity, but not wealth, and there is a difference.

As for the claim that the only objection in the book to investment is government power, I would point out the two examples:

1. The young man (whose name I forget) who runs the car company into the ground using borrowed money (although I can't recall at the moment if he used government power to get the money).
2. The attempted acquisition by the imsiders, including James Taggert, of the d'Anconia copper mines.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Tim Norfolk wrote:
>
> The reason why I referred to investment (and supported by my reading
> of the novel) as 'parasitic' is because it is. It generates economic
> activity, but not wealth, and there is a difference.

This can be argued. It's a matter of definition.

If you define "Generating wealth" as producing something by your own hand,
then no, of course investment isn't a wealth producer.
If you define it as "increasing production through tools, motivation, or
knowledge" then yes, of course it is.

The guy who buys a farmer harvesting machines for a share of the crop
produced wealth, in my definition.

The guy who does a hostile takeover of a mismanaged company, turns it around
and gets it to double production and grow its market also produced wealth.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Tim Norfolk wrote:
> A rail system, is of, course, both. It requires building and
> maintenance. One thing I took from the book was an affirmation of the
> joy of creation, which is not directly dependent on money.

No, its dependent on people.
However, most people are motivated by wants, and money can most easily
fulfil most of those wants

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:14:50 -0400, "~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>I don't recall Norfollk saying any such thing. It's hard to believe
>>he would say something as absurd as that, but if he did, then of
>>course, I disagree.
>
>"In the book, the biggest heroes are those who produce things of substance,
>not service � Miss Taggert building and running a rail system,"

That's not how I parse that sentence. It looks to me like he's
including Miss Taggert in among those who produce things of substance.

[~M~]

"Pepe Papon" wrote in message

news:tvt838tvphkjuej57...@4ax.com...

>That's not how I parse that sentence. It looks to me like he's
>including Miss Taggert in among those who produce things of substance.

That is how I parse the sentence as well, he is including her as producing a
thing of substance, not service. And he is totally incorrect.
A railroad, as a substance, is useless. Its only value in is the service it
provides. And in the book, she spends a great deal of time and effort making
sure the railroad provides its service.

--
"I am firmly of the opinion that if I make it to 50 in good health, I'll
make it to 100. And if I make it to 100, technology will get me to 200."
-Beldin the Sorcerer, 10/28/2007

[mo_ntresor]

it can't be argued. tim's just an idiot.

mo_ntresor

[Tim Norfolk]

You are, of course, quite correct that the devil is in the details and definitions. I would argue that your examples have people moving more from simple investment into ownership and management.

How would you classify short-term trading?

Before _mo_'s head explodes yet again (assuming that he reads this far), I would point out that I am trying to make statements of fact, not value judgments. If someone can make money by producing nothing of substance, or even of service to others, more power to them. However, we cannot run an economy in that way.

[Tim Norfolk]

I was going to add more to this. Most of the scientists and engineers that I know are not directly motivated by money in their work, and most do much more than necessary for their pay.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 22 2012 12:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> > No, its dependent on people.
> > However, most people are motivated by wants, and money can most easily
> > fulfil most of those wants
>
> I was going to add more to this. Most of the scientists and engineers that I
know are not directly
> motivated by money in their work, and most do much more than necessary for
their pay.

then they won't mind if we end tenure protections, rationalize salaries,
eliminate pensions, and force them to work real hours and a real year.

mo_ntresor

[~M~]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message

news:bcac25f7-4010-4b44...@googlegroups.com...

>The reason why I referred to investment (and supported by my reading of the
>novel) as 'parasitic' is because it is. It generates economic >activity,
>but not wealth, and there is a difference.

That is nothing more than an opinion, and it is not supported by the novel.

>As for the claim that the only objection in the book to investment is
>government power,

Actually, there is no objection to investment in the book.

>I would point out the two examples:
>
>1. The young man (whose name I forget) who runs the car company into the
>ground using borrowed money (although I can't recall at >the moment if he
>used government power to get the money).

Are you talking about Twentieth Century Motors, run into the ground by the
Jed Starnes' kids?
The destruction of Twentieth Century Motors had nothing to do with
investment. It had to do with Marxism. It is such a great parable that it
deserves its own thread, and will get it. It will not be the first time I
posted it.

>2. The attempted acquisition by the imsiders, including James Taggert, of
>the d'Anconia copper mines.

d'Anconia decided to destroy the mines when Mexico decided to nationalize
them. It has everything to do with government intervention. He decided to
screw James Taggert and politically connected insiders as a bonus. This is
also not a rejection of investment or banking. It was a rejection of
Marxism.

I don't know what version of Atlas Shrugged you read carefully, but it seems
to me that it might have been abridged by Paul Krugman. I realize that some
people disagree with Rand's views, but I see no logic in misstating them and
then disagreeing with them. What point does that serve?

--
"We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating private
business."
- Dutch 12/3/2011

[~M~]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message

news:bc008061-0ea3-438c...@googlegroups.com...

>A rail system, is of, course, both. It requires building and maintenance.
>One thing I took from the book was an affirmation of the joy of >creation,
>which is not directly dependent on money.

Which characters in the book did what they did for the joy of creation,
instead of for the money?

[~M~]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message

news:d9fb73ab-b028-40d5...@googlegroups.com...

>I haven't a clue about her views. I'm commenting on what she wrote.

Finally something we can agree on. It doesn't seem possible though, if you
read Atlas Shrugged carefully this past year. Atlas Shrugged is the most
complete and readable explanation of her views. I also have no idea why
someone who does not have a clue about her views would completely misstate
them. Why would you do that? Are you just trolling?

--
"'Personal responsibility' there addressess [sic] people who feel a personal
responsibility to help others... "
- The Dictionary According to Beldin

[Travel A]

No, Northfuck's a Marxist. But when they (Marxists) "write it down," it
just looks like they must be trolling.

As Judge Bork said: "Communism (or, Marxism as they call it in schools)
is absurd in theory, and a disaster in practice."

Northfuck doesn't know this. Northfuck thinks it works, but can't point
to an example of it working and, yet, still thinks it works.

[Tim Norfolk]

Compared with private industry, most of them earn 50-60%, and actually do something useful. Where do you think companies turn when they need help? Universities provide very cheap results. In fact, I had a request from Diebold cross my desk this week.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 22 2012 6:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> > then they won't mind if we end tenure protections, rationalize salaries,
> >
> > eliminate pensions, and force them to work real hours and a real year.
>

> Compared with private industry, most of them earn 50-60%, and actually do
something useful. Where do
> you think companies turn when they need help? Universities provide very
cheap results. In fact, I
> had a request from Diebold cross my desk this week.

LMAO!! are you proud of your exploitation, or is your head is three times
bigger than it should be? either way, i'm shorting diebold.

mo_ntresor

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

And most are in a field they actually really enjoy, which is atypical, too.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Depends what they do with it.

Are bookies non-productive?
Short term traders are basically betting on the perceived value of a
company.

If the "winners" of those bets buy expensive houses, cars, and take trips
and such, are they not stimulating the economy?

It's the hoarders, the people that bury gold in the bomb shelter, or stuff
money in their mattress, that truly harm an economy

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

He is not an idiot.
He is an idealist.
Some people DO confuse the breeds, but they are different

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 23 2012 7:34 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> > You are, of course, quite correct that the devil is in the details
> > and definitions. I would argue that your examples have people moving
> > more from simple investment into ownership and management.
> >
> > How would you classify short-term trading?
> >
> > Before _mo_'s head explodes yet again (assuming that he reads this
> > far), I would point out that I am trying to make statements of fact,
> > not value judgments. If someone can make money by producing nothing
> > of substance, or even of service to others, more power to them.
> > However, we cannot run an economy in that way.
>
> Depends what they do with it.
>
> Are bookies non-productive?
> Short term traders are basically betting on the perceived value of a
> company.
>
> If the "winners" of those bets buy expensive houses, cars, and take trips
> and such, are they not stimulating the economy?
>
> It's the hoarders, the people that bury gold in the bomb shelter, or stuff
> money in their mattress, that truly harm an economy

you two need to quit pretending you know what a short term trader today
is. 90% of them make a living off the spread and price improvement.
tim's argument's akin to saying walmart provides no service.

yes, he's pretty much an idiot.

mo_ntresor

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

He's talking about a trader, not a broker.

Basically being a middleman on an investment adds no value, except as you
spend the money you make.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 23 2012 7:59 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> > you two need to quit pretending you know what a short term trader
> > today is. 90% of them make a living off the spread and price
> > improvement. tim's argument's akin to saying walmart provides no
> > service.
>
> He's talking about a trader, not a broker.
>
> Basically being a middleman on an investment adds no value, except as you
> spend the money you make.

i repeat: you two have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

mo_ntresor

[Tim Norfolk]

Galt and Reardon for two. Both had far more money than they could spend, and were offered much more for their inventions before the State took them (or tried to, in the former case).

[Tim Norfolk]

No, I have some pride in what I have personally produced.

[Tim Norfolk]

I am, sad to say, neither. I would, as the Irish say, probably be happier.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:54:18 PM UTC-4, mo_ntresor wrote:

Fact #1: The rules at public universities are (usually, perhaps always) part of State law.

Fact #2: Many, if not all, professors are not represented by a union. Our university was only unionized a few years ago, and I am not part of the union at present.

So, in a thread on Ayn Rand, we have a self-professed conservative suggesting that the State should use political power to abrogate contracts with private individuals.

Do you know the definition of irony?

As for salaries, private ones pay much better, and generally require less work. For quite a few disciplines, the pay in industry is even higher.

[Tim Norfolk]

I didn't say anything about harm. Bookies, I suppose, provide a service, although I've never used one in the States.

[~M~]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message

news:6ccb5600-0368-4121...@googlegroups.com...

> Which characters in the book did what they did for the joy of creation,
> instead of for the money?

>Galt and Reardon for two. Both had far more money than they could spend,
>and were offered much more for their inventions before the >State took them
>(or tried to, in the former case).

Both of them withdrew from society rather than see their work taken from
them. There is no way you read Atlas Shrugged and can think that John Galt
or Hank Reardon did not insist on being compensated for their efforts.

[Tim Norfolk]

Absolutely. But that isn't why they created, is it? They could have quit being extremely wealthy. Galt was even offered a huge sum in gold towards the end.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:49:34 PM UTC-4, ~M~ wrote:

It’s funny that you should mention compensation.

In England, I had a discussion many years ago with a plumber. He argued that manual labourers should earn more than the college-educated, because the latter enjoy their jobs (wait for the laughs to die down). I suspect that he meant that the latter didn’t do ‘real’ work.

Currently in the US, the only people that I have seen argue for reduced wages (for nurses, teachers, professors, firefighters, the police, auto workers, and so on; but not for investors) are self-professed conservatives.

[da pickle]

On 8/23/2012 8:06 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> Currently in the US, the only people that I have seen argue for reduced wages (for nurses, teachers, professors, firefighters, the police, auto workers, and so on; but not for investors) are self-professed conservatives.

You really know less about "conservatives" than you do about Ayn Rand.

Wages should be set by the market, not what you or someone else thinks
is "fair."

You also seem to believe that the government can do ANYTHING effectively
and efficiently, even those things that only it must do.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 23 2012 6:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> > then they won't mind if we end tenure protections, rationalize salaries,
> > eliminate pensions, and force them to work real hours and a real year.
>

> Fact #1: The rules at public universities are (usually, perhaps always) part
of State law.
>
> Fact #2: Many, if not all, professors are not represented by a union. Our
university was only
> unionized a few years ago, and I am not part of the union at present.
>
> So, in a thread on Ayn Rand, we have a self-professed conservative
suggesting that the State should
> use political power to abrogate contracts with private individuals.
>
> Do you know the definition of irony?
>
> As for salaries, private ones pay much better, and generally require less
work. For quite a few
> disciplines, the pay in industry is even higher.

the definition of irony is professing no care for pay then throwing a
hissy-fit when pay limits are threatened. of course, why would anybody as
talented as university professors care, they could run into the waiting
arms of INDUSTRY that's begging to pay them MORE!

LMFAO!

of course, harvard and yale are probably begging to enlist some generous,
innovative, underpaid university of akron academics.

mo_ntresor

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Of course I do.

But feel free to prove me wrong. What "value" does a self employed stock
flipper add?

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 24 2012 7:10 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> >> He's talking about a trader, not a broker.
> >>
> >> Basically being a middleman on an investment adds no value, except
> >> as you spend the money you make.
> >
> > i repeat: you two have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
>
> Of course I do.
>
> But feel free to prove me wrong. What "value" does a self employed stock
> flipper add?

traders improve prices (tighten markets) and increase liquidity: ie. they
save customers money.

mo_ntresor

[Tim Norfolk]

You should talk with mo_ . He stated position is that the market isn't at work.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 24 2012 12:24 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> > You really know less about "conservatives" than you do about Ayn Rand.
> >
> > Wages should be set by the market, not what you or someone else thinks
> > is "fair."
> >
> > You also seem to believe that the government can do ANYTHING effectively
> > and efficiently, even those things that only it must do.
>
> You should talk with mo_ . He stated position is that the market isn't at
work.

sort of. my official position is that you are clueless. you believe
there's a long list of bidders for your (and your colleague's) talents.
i'm certain there isn't.

mo_ntresor

[~M~]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message

news:ffb047fa-a0f6-45c4...@googlegroups.com...

>> Both of them withdrew from society rather than see their work taken from
>> them. There is no way you read Atlas Shrugged and can think that John
>> Galt
>> or Hank Reardon did not insist on being compensated for their efforts.

>Absolutely. But that isn't why they created, is it? They could have quit
>being extremely wealthy.

This is like trying to discuss the shade of blue that the sky happens to be
with someone who thinks it's red.
John Galt did not develop a motor so everyone could have it. He wanted to
profit from it.
Hank Reardon did not develop his metal so everyone could use it for free. He
wanted to profit from it.
If either one of them had a goal limit for wealth, it sure was not discussed
in the book, and neither one would accept what you think is wealthy enough
as what his goal should be.

>Galt was even offered a huge sum in gold towards the end.

Actually, he was captured and imprisoned toward the end.


--
"Actually, I'm an out-of-the-closed [sic] Independent."
- Jerry Sturdivant, 3/23/2011 Telling the biggest lie in RGP history

[Tim Norfolk]

Not quite. He was captured and offered a lot of money, first paper, then gold. When he refused, he was tortured, and rescued by Reardon and the others.

As for the inventors, each could easily have sold out, for more money than they could make otherwise. I will stand by my reading that their need to create and control those creations was more important than JUST the money.

I also accept that others can read different things into the text. That's why literature appreciation can be so interesting, until people kill each other over those views, such as with the Bible.

[Tim Norfolk]

Just for fun, I would suggest that you check out pretty much any list of the 'best' majors to have. Mathematics is quite commonly in the top 7 of such lists.

Certainty is so nice, especially when it goes against the data.

[~M~]

"Tim Norfolk" wrote in message

news:de7aec89-d706-4f7a...@googlegroups.com...

>Not quite.

Yes, quite.

>He was captured and offered a lot of money, first paper, then gold. When he
>refused, he was tortured, and rescued by Reardon and the >others.

From this, you do not get that he was not quite captured and imprisoned?
That he built his motor for some other purpose than to be successful?

>As for the inventors, each could easily have sold out, for more money than
>they could make otherwise. I will stand by my reading that >their need to
>create and control those creations was more important than JUST the money.

It doesn't really matter what you stand by. If you only plan on seeing what
you want, instead of what is, who cares?
I don’t know if you simply misunderstand the book, or you just disagree with
the ideas it presents so much that you subconsciously convince yourself that
things happened in it that did not, or that characters did things that they
did not. I don't know. But don't you think, if you disagree with John Galt
or Francisco d'Anconia, you should at least acknowledge what their beliefs
were?

>I also accept that others can read different things into the text. That's
>why literature appreciation can be so interesting, until people kill >each
>other over those views, such as with the Bible.

Or the Catcher in the Rye. Why are you bringing the Bible into this, to
prove there is another book you don't understand? I'm not getting into that
with you, so don't bother.

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 24 2012 7:30 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> > sort of. my official position is that you are clueless. you believe
> > there's a long list of bidders for your (and your colleague's) talents.
> > i'm certain there isn't.
>

> Just for fun, I would suggest that you check out pretty much any list of the
'best' majors to have.
> Mathematics is quite commonly in the top 7 of such lists.
>
> Certainty is so nice, especially when it goes against the data.

does anybody know what the fuck this idiot is talking about? i graduated
near the top of my class from one of the top universities on the planet.
the average art history major from my ugrad class would annihilate your
top math majors on any exam you could conjure. christ, they should
probably TEACH YOU.

mo_ntresor

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

I'm sorry? What customers? The hypothesis is the guy works for himself

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 25 2012 7:19 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> > traders improve prices (tighten markets) and increase liquidity: ie.
> > they save customers money.
>
> I'm sorry? What customers? The hypothesis is the guy works for himself

lmao. the unknown other in the market you traded with. do you and tim
need any more help with anything?

mo_ntresor

[Tim Norfolk]

The point being that most people like money, some love it, to the point that they see it as an abstract. The heroes in this text are not presented as the latter.

The reason that I picked the Bible is that there are thousands of fundamentally different texts, which have generated at least 25,000 sects, each of which disagrees on interpretations, and have often killed for it. I suspect that this is not the case for 'Catcher in the Rye'.

[Tim Norfolk]

What an interesting experiment. Since we established in an earlier thread that you don't even really understand the statistical tools which you are losing, I think it unlikely (and that isn't even my field of specialty).

Your comment here suggests that you don't understand very much else, certainly in mathematics, of which I only know a tiny percentage.

As I said earlier, I strongly suspect that your temper gets the better of you when playing poker.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Friday, August 24, 2012 10:56:28 PM UTC-4, mo_ntresor wrote:

You have given a testable claim, which hardly seems fair. First off, the typical Art History major has a Mathematics requirement equivalent to a high school Algebra II class. Secondly, I doubt that you have one handy, whereas I have access to a lot of Mathematics majors.

However, you do claim to be a top graduate of a top school in an analytical area, so, according to your claim, should be able to out-perform me on a Mathematics test of my creation.

As a preliminary test, you might visit my website, at www.math.uakron.edu/~norfolk, where I have most of the tests I have given in the past 10 years or so. Some are even take-home tests, which means that cheating is less of an issue. My snailmail address is on my website, as is my business email address, so you could scan your test, or mail it to me.

If you can get over 90% on say 3 of those tests from various areas, then we can talk about a real test. I would suggest Beldin as an adjudicator, since he has a background in an analytical field, as I recall.

You may, of course, choose to not do so, and admit your mistake. That is unlikely, given your personality. Nothing, however, would prevent me from reminding everyone, on every single one of your posts, of this personal and intellectual failing.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Tim Norfolk wrote:
> If you can get over 90% on say 3 of those tests from various areas,
> then we can talk about a real test. I would suggest Beldin as an
> adjudicator, since he has a background in an analytical field, as I
> recall.

Oh hell no!

I was an eco-finance major at Bentley, but I haven't done calculus in over
20 years.

[Tim Norfolk]

Not to grade or anything, just to ensure honesty.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Mo, did you fail logic, thinking, or expressing yourself?

All a daytrader does is INCREASE the price by acting as a middleman (if he
is successful)

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Vince wrote:
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:k1c9dh$3i9$1...@dont-email.me:

> A daytrader is someone who gets in/out of the marekt tha same day.
> Not taking a chance that some unforseen event will take place, and
> he/she will be trapped in the market, that is going against
> him/her.
> Maybe you're thinking of a specialist/market maker.
No, Mo is.

Day traders increase volitility. That increases costs to your general buy
and hold customers

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Tim Norfolk
<tims...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>As for the inventors, each could easily have sold out, for more money than they could make otherwise. I will stand by my reading that their need to create and control those creations was more important than JUST the money.

I didn't read Atlas Shrugged, but what you're saying is consistent
with the character of Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead". He
refused offers to create designs for money if he felt that the project
required him to compromise his creativity. While he clearly expected
to be paid for his work, it was the work of creation itself that was
primary for him.

--

Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

[mo_ntresor]

On Aug 25 2012 10:41 PM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:

> > lmao. the unknown other in the market you traded with. do you and
> > tim need any more help with anything?
>
> Mo, did you fail logic, thinking, or expressing yourself?
>
> All a daytrader does is INCREASE the price by acting as a middleman (if he
> is successful)

you are totally clueless. there's really nothing else to say. i do this
for a living. please don't respond any further until you know what the
hell you're talking about.

mo_ntresor

[RichD]

On Aug 16, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:

> I read 'Atlas Shrugged' carefully this past year. None of the
> conservatives that applaud her ideas seem to note that she
> considered bankers and investment people to be just as parasitic
> on the system as politicians and the poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY

--
Rich

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

No I am not totally clueless, you moron.

If you're showing a profit, you're buying from someone trying to sell, and
turning around and selling it to someone else, decreasing the price paid to
the former and charging more to the latter, than if they didn't have to deal
with you.

It's basic economics, Mo. Why lie?

[da pickle]

All those fucking middlemen like Wal-Mart that we have to deal with
every day ... running up the fucking prices. I am not dealing with any
more middlemen ... thanks Beldon

da "I can get it for you wholesale!" pickle

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Wal-mart provides a service for you.

They put the goods in an easily accessable place. They also (hey, here's an
idea) force the manufacturer to discount their products (or Walmart will not
carry them) and while the manufacturers will also (and must, by law) offer
those volume discounts to other retailers, most cannot buy in the quantity
that WalMart does, nor sell in the quantity they do.
WalMart provides a service, and often provides a cheaper retail price.
Middle men are fine, if they provide some service.

A Broker (and if you scroll up this thread, at some point earlier I
mentioned brokers provide services, but day traders don't) facilitates the
trade so you don't need to go looking for someone to buy your stock. His
service justifies the commission

A day trader just tries to profit off the volitility. IOW, he makes the
market messier, and generally costs the general value stock purchaser money.

Also if you scroll up through the thread, you'll see comments about the
economic good a day trader can do when he spends what he makes.