Yet Still Another Economics Question That Rightards Will Dodge Every Time
Bret Cahill
The Question:
There's another question that does _not_, I repeat, does _not_ have
anything to do with free speech that rightards will dodge every time:
"Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_
being free to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else?"
More FDQ (frequently dodged questions) on the way.
Bret Cahill
AZDuffman
> We have already demonstrated GOP "market" economists will always dodge
> The Question:
Please show one piece of proof that anyone is dodging "the question"
vs. the fact that no serious economist knows who you are as well that
the question makes no sense.
Global Vermin
Yes, 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_ being free
to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else.
Not only will there be 8% growth rate, but eventually will will win
the war on poverty.
All you need is just 6-point business plan.
1. Create a 5-year plan.
2. Put one million liberals to make bricks for 5 years.
3. Put another million liberals to lay bricks for 5 years.
4. After 5 years 5 million poor families will own nice brick houses.
5. Realize that poverty is not over yet, because the poorest quarter
owns smaller houses than the rest.
6. Go to question one and start over.
AZDuffman
Except liberals are too lazy to do any kind of manual labor and will
cry to the mason's union about laying too many bricks in a day.
Shrikeback
> The Question:
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> There's another question that does _not_, I repeat, does _not_ have
> anything to do with free speech that rightards will dodge every time:
>
> "Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_
> being free to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else?"
That's a dodge of the central point. A slave is free to pick
cotton, after all, but a Chinese serf can't read this thread.
Therefore your claim that China has free speech is ludicrous.
Also, the Third Reich did better than that, and you wouldn't
call what they had a regime of free speech. So economic
growth is, of course, possible without free speech. What's
your point?
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Except that Conservatives are the laziest people. They don't really
work for the money. They just take money from the hard working people
who have actual jobs.
Nickname unavailable
the idiots still think that markets are self regulating, self
policing, self healing, self righting, all information is perfect, all
parties in a transaction are rational, and all parties in a
transaction have equal access to the same information. there are even
dummies that still believe in comparative advantage. people actually
bought that crap 30 years ago, and still buy it today.
Nickname unavailable
well said. i have never met a productive conservative yet. i have
never met a conservative that can handle money, or understands what
debt is. they talk a good game, till the bubbles pop.
Bret Cahill
> > The Question:
> Please show one piece of proof that anyone is dodging "the question"
Rightards like you keep deleting it.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > The Question:
>
> >www.bretcahill.com
>
> > There's another question that does _not_, I repeat, does _not_ have
> > anything to do with free speech that rightards will dodge every time:
>
> > "Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_
> > being free to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else?"
> That's a dodge of the central point.
Are you going to answer the question or continue to dodge it and prove
me right?
Bret Cahill
Nickname unavailable
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece
the people.
Abraham Lincoln
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith
"There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
for
critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
been
found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
appealing to the less intellectually curious.
Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
speak
out against it are simply sidelined.
ROBERT HENDERSON"
While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill
"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
- Bertrand
Russell
Once you have assisted the elites to get 99%
of the world's wealth into the hands of 1%
of the world's elites, which side of the
wealth divide will you be on?"
``Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own demise because the benefits of
a decade-long boom accrued to capital, with nothing flowing to labor.
Telling workers who hadn't had a decent pay raise for years to tighten
their belts once the good times ended proved disastrous.
The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little
coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated
our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free market cliches have passed for
sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these
ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that
capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and
deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth
doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to
"grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces
well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy
is "protectionism."
e.j. dionne
"teddy roosevelt
We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things
good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the
consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman
is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an
excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such
practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than
we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or
getting unfair advantages over business rivals."
"Just another example of the "CONservative movement" screwing over the
American people.
Deregulation is such a canard.
Remember, when a Republican talks about "Free" Markets, they mean
Free of Regulation
Free of Oversight
Free of Competition
Free of Ethics
Free of Morality
Free of Common Sense
Free of Long Term Thinking'
Economist and author Henry Liu summed it up brilliantly in a recent
article in the Asia Times:
"The collapse of market fundamentalism in economies everywhere is
putting the Chicago School theology on trial. Its big lie has been
exposed by facts on two levels. The Chicago Boys' claim that helping
the rich will also help the poor is not only exposed as not true, it
turns out that market fundamentalism hurts not only the poor and the
powerless; it hurts everyone, rich and poor, albeit in different ways.
When wages are kept low to fight inflation, the low-wage regime causes
overcapacity through over investment from excess profit. And monetary
easing under such conditions produces hyperinflation that hurts also
the rich. The fruits of Friedman test are in - and they are all
rotten."
Bret Cahill
> > 2. Put one million liberals to make bricks for 5 years.
> > 3. Put another million liberals to lay bricks for 5 years.
> > 4. After 5 years 5 million poor families will own nice brick houses.
> > 5. Realize that poverty is not over yet, because the poorest quarter
> > owns smaller houses than the rest.
> > 6. Go to question one and start over.
> "The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
> other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
> These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece
> the people.
> Abraham Lincoln
> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
> exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
> superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
> Galbraith
All true. It's interesting Lincoln had the better quotes.
> "There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
> fully
> fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
> for
> critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
> individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
> requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
> the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
> unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
> been
> found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
> appealing to the less intellectually curious.
>
> Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
> practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
> in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
> decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
>
> Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
> will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
> prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
> speak
> out against it are simply sidelined.
> ROBERT HENDERSON"
Almost as good as Lincoln.
> While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
> true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill
>
> "The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
> miracle
> theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
> the middle class"
> Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
>
> Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
> principles
> of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
> be
> restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
> - Bertrand
> Russell
Really good.
> Once you have assisted the elites to get 99%
> of the world's wealth into the hands of 1%
> of the world's elites, which side of the
> wealth divide will you be on?"
Rightards don't ask that question as they can't do numbers.
All this waste [$50 trillion]could have been avoided with one little
question:
Nickname unavailable
> > > 1. Create a 5-year plan.
> > > 2. Put one million liberals to make bricks for 5 years.
> > > 3. Put another million liberals to lay bricks for 5 years.
> > > 4. After 5 years 5 million poor families will own nice brick houses.
> > > 5. Realize that poverty is not over yet, because the poorest quarter
> > > owns smaller houses than the rest.
> > > 6. Go to question one and start over.
> > "The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
> > other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
> > These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece
> > the people.
> > Abraham Lincoln
> > The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
> > exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
> > superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
> > Galbraith
>
> All true. It's interesting Lincoln had the better quotes.
>
he saw the forming of corporatism, and the beginnings of their cult,
right before his eyes.
>
>
> > "There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
> > fully
> > fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
> > for
> > critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
> > individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
> > requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
> > the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
> > unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
> > been
> > found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
> > appealing to the less intellectually curious.
>
> > Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
> > practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
> > in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
> > decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
>
> > Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
> > will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
> > prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
> > speak
> > out against it are simply sidelined.
> > ROBERT HENDERSON"
>
> Almost as good as Lincoln.
>
he is still alive and kicking. he posts now and then. i have others
from him.
>
>
> > While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
> > true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill
>
> > "The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
> > miracle
> > theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
> > the middle class"
> > Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
>
> > Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
> > principles
> > of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
> > be
> > restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
> > - Bertrand
> > Russell
>
> Really good.
>
yep, and irrefutable.
> > Once you have assisted the elites to get 99%
> > of the world's wealth into the hands of 1%
> > of the world's elites, which side of the
> > wealth divide will you be on?"
>
> Rightards don't ask that question as they can't do numbers.
>
they think that the corporatists will treat them well. no one else
gets treated well, just them. the believers.
yep. its why freidman refused to give interviews, unless he could
control the questions.
Bret Cahill
> > > > 1. Create a 5-year plan.
> > > > 2. Put one million liberals to make bricks for 5 years.
> > > > 3. Put another million liberals to lay bricks for 5 years.
> > > > 4. After 5 years 5 million poor families will own nice brick houses.
> > > > 5. Realize that poverty is not over yet, because the poorest quarter
> > > > owns smaller houses than the rest.
> > > > 6. Go to question one and start over.
> > > "The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
> > > other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
> > > These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece
> > > the people.
> > > Abraham Lincoln
> > > The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
> > > exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
> > > superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
> > > Galbraith
>
> > All true. It's interesting Lincoln had the better quotes.
>
> he saw the forming of corporatism, and the beginnings of their cult,
> right before his eyes.
In 1833 Tocqueville had a chapter predicting the robber barons several
decades before they appeared.
He also predicted the Civil War and even the Cold War.
Only Jefferson was earlier.
I may have to contact that guy.
> > > While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
> > > true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill
>
> > > "The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
> > > miracle
> > > theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
> > > the middle class"
> > > Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
>
> > > Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
> > > principles
> > > of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
> > > be
> > > restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
> > > - Bertrand
> > > Russell
>
> > Really good.
>
> yep, and irrefutable.
A lot of it is taking the time to properly construct the argument.
Some vague idea that sumthin' ain't right doesn't get it.
> > > Once you have assisted the elites to get 99%
> > > of the world's wealth into the hands of 1%
> > > of the world's elites, which side of the
> > > wealth divide will you be on?"
>
> > Rightards don't ask that question as they can't do numbers.
>
> they think that the corporatists will treat them well. no one else
> gets treated well, just them. the believers.
98% of the rightard wage slaves here have zero quality of life.
That's easy to tell from their time frame. Their only hope at
survival -- 3 weeks is a long time for them -- is to pander to the
Boss more than the next guy.
The internet appears and they are like fish out of water.
The late J. K. Galbraith looks silly even debating that 2 card monte
swindler or swindler helper. In fact J.K.G. quit in his later years.
Another late "liberal" economist was as useless as Al Gore in a dust
devil:
Paul Samuelson.
He said he didn't care about the laws as long as he "could write the
economics books" or some such nonsense. Since then the disparity of
wealth has soared so this really reflects poorly on his life's work.
I say the exact opposite:
I could care less about the economists as long as I have free speech
on economic issues.
Economists have always been all talk no results. Just stick to the
political scientists Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville and
maybe Krugman.
Bret Cahill
zzbunker
Well, since these people generally break down as,
the only thing 50% of them know about economics
at all is Hedge Funds.
The only thing 30% of them know about science at all
is actually Washington Lobbying for the NRA.
And the only thing the rest of them know about investment
is Donald Trump. So you would need probably at least
a year's supply of hoirse manure, just to grease the
trick in trickle-down.
Fred Weiss
> the idiots still think that markets are self regulating, self
> policing, self healing, self righting, all information is perfect, all
> parties in a transaction are rational, and all parties in a
> transaction have equal access to the same information. there are even
> dummies that still believe in comparative advantage. people actually
> bought that crap 30 years ago, and still buy it today.
Actually it was 150 years ago that they "bought that crap".
The result was an historically unparalleled explosion of wealth
creation and technological innovation - and which benefited everyone,
even the poorest.
Idiots and dummies like you need to be regularly reminded of that.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> There's another question that does _not_, I repeat, does _not_ have
> anything to do with free speech...
Umm....Brat, that's our point not yours. You're the one who keeps
claiming that they have free speech in Red China - in fact more than
we have here.
> "Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_
> being free to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else?"
It's safe to say that people talk to each other in Red China. I'm
pretty sure they even talked to each other in Nazi Germany or
Stalinist Russia - or even now in N. Korea.
Now the question you are not answering - and continually dodging - is
what does it have to do with free speech. Or have you finally conceded
it doesn't and we can move on?
Fred Weiss
AZDuffman
> Except that Conservatives are the laziest people. They don't really
> work for the money. They just take money from the hard working people
> who have actual jobs.- Hide quoted text -
What is "working for the money" supposed to mean?
Does it mean you have to be in a unionto really work?
Does it mean you have to do some sort of manual labor?
Conservatives are out there making their way in the world while
liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are all about the bubbles!
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Awesome quotes! That is exactly how the CONservatives think.
CON serve-themselves!
MACK DADDY
What does "making their way in the world" mean"? Does it mean
sittting on your ass figuring out new ways to cheat people and rip
people off?
Fred Weiss
> On Dec 24, 6:28 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Conservatives are out there making their way in the world while
> > liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
>
> What does "making their way in the world" mean"?
Well, it might mean starting businesses which are responsible for most
of the employment in this country.
Do you know what "starting a business" means and what's involved (let
alone running one successfully)? Somehow I doubt you do.
Fred Weiss
AZDuffman
Means making money thru work, euntrapeneaurship, and the like. Means
pulling the cart even though it is heavy witl all the liberals riding
in it and screaming "PULL FASTER!"
AZDuffman
Forget it, Fred. He is the type who thinks it is Obama and government
who actually create jobs and anyone earning a profit is somehow
cheating people.
mr_antone
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 23, 11:15�pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Except that Conservatives are the laziest people. �They don't really
>> work for the money. �They just take money from the hard working people
>> who have actual jobs.
>
>Conservatives are out there making their way in the world while
>liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
Many of the farmers in the Midwest call themselves conservatives.
They make their way by sucking off the government tit thru
federal farm subsidies, listen to Faux News and whine about imaginary
welfare queens.
--
A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.
mr_antone
John Galt
It's an absurd notion that doesn't require a reply.
The people the poster dislikes because they are "conservative" he has
to call "boss" on a daily basis. That's the real issue.
JG
Michael Coburn
Both the trade deficit and the unemployment rate are proof that
comparative advantage is _NOT_ the primary driver in the relationship
between the United States and its trading partners. Whereas comparative
advantage is based on opportunity costs, an oversupply of resource (labor/
expertise) in one or more of the trading countries invalidates
comparative advantage because the concept assumes there is a viable _USE_
for the resources in the nations involved in the trades and that there is
a market for produced goods in the trading nations. When observing the
relationship between two countries, an imbalance in the financial flow
indicates the lack of comparative advantage at work. There simply _IS_
no "opportunity" for employment of resources that will increase the level
of overall _MARKETABLE_ output.
The reason that cranks continually fall back on "comparative advantage"
is because most people do not understand what "comparative advantage" is
and thus it is possible for cranks to use the fancy talk as a shield. In
most cases the cranks don't understand the concept either.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Rod Speed
> Fred Weiss wrote
>> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>>> the idiots still think that markets are self regulating, self
>>> policing, self healing, self righting, all information is perfect,
>>> all parties in a transaction are rational, and all parties in a
>>> transaction have equal access to the same information. there are
>>> even dummies that still believe in comparative advantage. people
>>> actually bought that crap 30 years ago, and still buy it today.
>> Actually it was 150 years ago that they "bought that crap".
>> The result was an historically unparalleled explosion of wealth
>> creation and technological innovation - and which benefited
>> everyone, even the poorest.
>> Idiots and dummies like you need to be regularly reminded of that.
> Both the trade deficit and the unemployment rate are proof
> that comparative advantage is _NOT_ the primary driver in the
> relationship between the United States and its trading partners.
We'll see...
> Whereas comparative advantage is based on opportunity costs,
Not necessarily, most obviously with the comparative advantage the
US has on the development of revolutionary ideas that completely
dominate the entire world economy, and continue to do that.
> an oversupply of resource (labor/ expertise) in one or more
> of the trading countries invalidates comparative advantage
> because the concept assumes there is a viable _USE_ for
> the resources in the nations involved in the trades
There always is.
> and that there is a market for produced goods in the trading nations.
There always is.
> When observing the relationship between two countries, an imbalance
> in the financial flow indicates the lack of comparative advantage at work.
Like hell it does. It actually indicates the exact opposite, most obviously with the
comparative advantage of very low labor costs in china relative to those in the US.
THATS the real reason for the trade imbalance.
> There simply _IS_ no "opportunity" for employment of resources
> that will increase the level of overall _MARKETABLE_ output.
Try telling that to china. Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh in your face.
> The reason that cranks continually fall back on "comparative advantage" is
> because most people do not understand what "comparative advantage" is
You clearly dont.
> and thus it is possible for cranks to use the fancy talk as a shield.
> In most cases the cranks don't understand the concept either.
You clearly dont.
Nickname unavailable
actually by the end of the long depression(1870-1895), the robber
baron era, the last of that depression from 1893-1895, millions of
desperate starving americas had left america for canada, mexico, and
south america in hopes of finding work, because about 25% of americans
were starving.
americans had had enough of your illusion, and ushered in the teddy
roosevelt era, which lead to real wealth creation for america.
and every time americans are dumb enough to vote in your type of
cranks, we step back decades, loaded with debt, plummeting wages,
soaring unemployment, depression, and stagnant innovations.
how are your investments doing in MAOIST china: you know, where they
practice protectionism, hang millionaires and billionaires, jail
business men who will not divulge proprietary information, enslave
their public, along with all sorts of other innovations that create
wealth for a few, to the detriment of the many, you know, liberty,
freedom, for a few that is)
you are to stupid to be embarrassed.
Nickname unavailable
freddy knows a lot about liberty and freedom in MAOIST, STALINIST,
FASCISTS, DICTATORSHIPS, he invests in them for the liberty and
freedom of being able to make money off of slavery.
Nickname unavailable
they certainly are working hard, creating all of that illusionary
wealth attributed with ponzi schemes:)
businessman Timothy S. Durham, a Republican political contributor, has
contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars in political campaign
funds, most of that to Indiana Republicans including Governor Mitch
Daniels, investigated for ponzi scheme
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aecgXiE6mHcg
Indiana Political Donor Faces Suits, Probes on Ponzi Claims
By Bob Van Voris
Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Indiana businessman Timothy S. Durham, a
Republican political contributor whose holdings include National
Lampoon Inc., has been targeted in lawsuits and investigations over
claims he funded a luxurious lifestyle with the proceeds of a Ponzi
scheme.
In a complaint seeking to seize assets owned by Durham and several of
his companies, including a 2008 Bugatti Veyron automobile, U.S.
prosecutors said Durham falsely told investors that one of his
companies, Fair Finance Co., was selling certificates backed by low-
risk, high-yield consumer debt.
“In fact, that money was not invested in the types of investments
represented to the investors,” prosecutors said in the complaint filed
Nov. 24 in federal court in Indianapolis. “Instead, the money provided
by victims of the scheme was used to make interest and redemption
payments to earlier victims of the scheme.”
Prosecutors voluntarily withdrew the papers seeking to seize Durham’s
assets, after they “became confident” that the assets wouldn’t be
transferred, said U.S. Attorney Timothy M. Morrison in Indianapolis in
a phone interview today. Morrison, who said the investigation into
Fair Finance is continuing, declined to explain why he’s confident the
assets are secure.
Durham, who hasn’t been charged with a crime, didn’t return a voice-
mail message seeking comment today on the claims against him. Dallas
lawyer Ken Carroll, who has represented Durham, didn’t return a voice-
mail.
Two-State Search
In addition to the government’s lawsuit, U.S. agents last month
searched the Akron, Ohio, office of Fair Finance and the offices of
Durham’s Obsidian Enterprises Inc., on the 48th floor of
Indianapolis’s Chase Tower, removing records belonging to Durham and
the companies.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission served subpoenas on Durham
and two other directors of Dallas-based CLST Holdings Inc. in
connection with an SEC investigation into Fair Finance, CLST reported
in a Nov. 24 regulatory filing.
Durham is a former corporate attorney with Ice Miller LLP in
Indianapolis.
He has been sued in at least two civil cases involving fraud claims.
Durham has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars in political
campaign funds, most of that to Indiana Republicans including Governor
Mitch Daniels, according to state campaign finance records.
The government’s withdrawn forfeiture case is USA v. Real Property in
Hamilton County, Indiana, 09-CV-1460, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Indiana (Indianapolis).
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at
rvan...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 22, 2009 17:16 EST
Nickname unavailable
its all they have. they think its growth. they try to do the
impossible, they use debt as money, and it blows up every time. they
gut demand(wages)then scratch their pointy heads what happened, when
the blowout occurs. then they blame everyone, and everything, but
themselves, or they say they never went far enough, or were not pure
enough.
Nickname unavailable
correct, it it collapses every time.
Nickname unavailable
you had better rephrase that freddy boy, its small business. we are
run by large business's, fascism.
Stan de SD
> We have already demonstrated GOP "market" economists will always dodge
> The Question:
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> There's another question that does _not_, I repeat, does _not_ have
> anything to do with free speech that rightards will dodge every time:
>
> "Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_
> being free to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else?"
Ever consider that people are "dodging" the question because they
can't figure out WTF you are trying to ask?
Nickname unavailable
most innovations in america happen on the factory floor, or
government run, or government financed institutions. your type uses
your inherited money, or money made off of exploitation and ponzi
schemes, to control innovations, then call it business.
Nickname unavailable
the american voter in most cases are ruled by superstition and the
super natural. markets are magic, and the wealthy must remain
untouched because they create jobs. we still have lots of fat cats,
the markets lay in ruins, but no jobs, there goes that fundamentalist
myth.
Nickname unavailable
Ayn Rand was a high functioning, manipulative and cunning
sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
Door
http://blogs.myspace.com/psychorand
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
I get email.
Category: Blogging
I live in a neighborhood that has a small homeless population. One
such person within that homeless group is known to the rest of us by
her first name only. I can hear her now, outside my apartment. I'm
told she lives in a kind of dilapidated garage of some sort, where she
sleeps in a pile of blankets and debris. She often walks my street,
collecting bottles and cans for the cash deposits. Whilst on her
journeys, she often stops abruptly, plants both feet firmly to the
ground and launches a kind of "external dialogue" with the world. She
doesn't scream, but rather projects her voice with a powerful force.
Her chanting can literally be heard for blocks as she speaks directly
to phantoms that only she can see. Sometimes she appears to be
"lecturing" passersby with a hostile, throaty tone. It all comes out
in a weird staccato rhythm, like a drill sergeant. Mostly, she's
harmless and her monologues, indecipherable. This is the kind of
obvious mental illness we can all recognize. But there are other forms
of psychosis. And books such as "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha
Stout illuminate that fact clearly. Still, as I write this, the sound
of our homeless inculcator strikes me as familiar. I am reminded of my
first Ayn Rand girlfriend ARGF1, who's moods would alternate between
states of overblown confidence and abject misery from time to time.
When she was on one of her transient "highs", she would ad lib her own
monologues, paraphrasing Ayn Rand's vituperative critiques on modern
society with a bratty, flippant demeanor. ARGF1 was crazy too. She was
a borderline.
I'm surprised that my little corner of Myspace gets the modest
attention that it does. However, to my critics and others who would
send me email defending Ayn Rand: let me be clear.
The main topic of this page is Borderline Personality Disorder and the
reasons why the belief system of Ayn Rand appeals to certain
individuals who exhibit traits of that psychological malady. The main
topic of this page is not – I repeat NOT about the merits of Ayn
Rand's "philosophy". Take a psychological perspective on what she said
and how she acted in life. The available research on BPD is extensive,
so I suggest that Rand's defenders who don't understand the disease
should first read "Stop Walking on Eggshells" by Paul Mason and Randy
Kreger. For a different take on the psychology of Objectivism, read
Ellen Plasil's autobiography "Therapist", in which she chronicles how
she was sexually molested by her Objectivist father when she was 11
years old and other horrific events that took place in the Randian
subculture of her time. It is my opinion that Plasil's book is
essential to understanding the cult-like phenomenon of Ayn Rand.
In so far as Rand's "philosophy" is referenced here, it serves mainly
to reinforce the established and substantiated opinion that Ayn Rand
probably did suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder. Her black &
white / all or nothing / love & hate beliefs (including her narrow
views on art and music) reveal her as a borderline pretty quickly to
any person who has experienced a close relationship with a BPD
partner. Apart from Rand's own tawdry personal story, it's also
distinctly evident to me that her writings are expressions of BPD and
therefore appeal to a certain borderline type, as my experiences and
those of others have demonstrated. (I've been contacted by supportive
readers who shared their stories of relationships with Randian
borderlines.) It's very clear to me that Ayn Rand was a high
functioning, manipulative and cunning sociopath (see: gaslighting, as
the term relates to borderline pathology). She was also severely
narcissistic and imperious. She was afflicted with multiple
personality disorders (co-morbidity) and psychologically abused people
within her social group, perhaps most cruelly her own husband.
Evidence of her unbalanced psychology appears early in her life, as
Michael Prescott has observed. This is not a case of a person "losing
it" in her old age, although her psychological problems were magnified
during that later time period.
I suggest that my critics crawl out of the fantasy world of "Galt's
Gulch" and face the facts: Mental illness is real. Borderline
Personality Disorder is real. Now take a fresh new look at your
precious guru.
Currently reading:
The Sociopath Next Door
By Martha Stout
Release date: 2006-03-14
5:04 AM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
THERAPIST: A book that is testimony to Rand’s destructive legacy.
I purchased a used copy of Therapist from Amazon. It deserves to be
reprinted and perhaps someday a new edition will be published.
It's an engaging read, but disturbingly so. I actually had knots in my
stomach while getting through it. In Therapist, author Ellen Plasil
recounts in detail her experience as a patient with the Objectivist
psychiatrist, Dr. Lonnie Leonard. Over the course of several years,
Dr. Leonard psychologically manipulated, controlled and sexually
abused the author and other women in his care. Years later, legal
action was taken against Dr. Leonard, and some justice was procured
for the victims.
Many of the doctor's patients were students of Objectivism, and it's
unsettling how immured they were, as a group. The doctor's sex
theories were highly informed by those of Ayn Rand, especially in
regards to his interpretation of the so-called "ideal man" that Rand
championed. Plasil says that she, along with other "students of
Objectivism" were all blinded by the mechanism of Objectivist culture,
where leaders of the movement possessed unchallenged authority, much
like a cult. It was this culture that enabled the abuse.
"Whatever their source, there seemed to be rules of right and wrong
for everything in Objectivism. There was more than just a right kind
of politics and a right kind of moral code. There was also a right
kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a
right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we could not buy,
and right ones which we should. Wrong books were written by "immoral"
people whom we didn't want to support through our purchase; right
books never were. There were plays we should not see, records we
should not listen to, and movies we should not pay to watch. There
were right ways to behave at parties, and right people to invite to
them. And there were, of course, right psychotherapists. And on
everything, absolutely everything, one was constantly being judged,
just as one was expected to be judging everything around him. And if
one was not judging everything that was around him, one was judged on
that, too. It was a perfect breeding ground for insecurity, fear, and
paranoia."
"The numbers of these blindly devoted went beyond coincidence. There
was more to this than just a chance meeting of several dozen sheep all
willing to follow their hero, their ideal man anywhere. Maybe the
"hook" was in the lesson that if Objectivism was the right way, then
being a student of objectivism made us more right than others. And for
those of us who were not certain of our value to begin with, such
superiority helped us ignore our self-evaluations and feed our
egos.... Or maybe it was in Ayn Rand's incorporation of "hero-worship"
into her representation of romantic love; show an Objectivist a hero
and the hero has but to take command."
Therapist reveals the dark side of Objectivism like no other document
can.
Currently reading:
Therapist
By Ellen Plasil
Release date: September, 1986
9:03 PM
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
2 Kudos
Translate
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Why I created this page.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder;
how I wish I had never heard of these two things!
And how I wish that I'd never heard of a person named Ayn Rand.
Actually, I'm reasonably confident that I never would have heard of
that name until recently, if it were not for one person: I will call
her Ayn Rand Girlfriend Number One, hereafter referred to as ARGF1.
I met ARGF1 about 1 year after graduating from college. I was in my
first (and last) corporate job at the time, making decent money and
trying to figure out what to do with myself. ARGF1 was slightly
younger and had a troubled life. Her father was a recovered alcoholic
and her parents were long divorced. I guess when she was about 15, she
dropped out of high school and ran away to the state where her father
lived. She slummed around, used drugs and ran with a group of punk
rock kids. But when she needed money or food, her father's place was
not far. Indicatively, she had very poor relations with both of her
parents, especially her mother, whom she often spoke of in disparaging
tones. Somewhere along the line, ARGF1 suffered from some kind of
abuse. Parts of that dimension within her history were known to me,
and others I surmised were either missing or suspect, because ARGF1
was a chronic prevaricator. Lies of omission were especially
problematic with her. However, it was certain that something terrible
did happen to ARGF1. I witnessed her trauma as she would break down in
tears, unpredictably on several occasions. Other times she raged and
her face morphed into the most ugly countenance I have ever seen,
before or since. I realized that those incidents occurred because of
triggers (unknown to me) that would cause her to act out. Those
moments were frightening and unsettling. I didn't know it then, but
ARGF1 had Borderline Personality Disorder. Clearly though, I did
perceive that she had Narcissistic Personality Disorder and was
unmistakably antisocial. My friends couldn't believe I was dating her.
Nobody liked her, including my parents.
What was I thinking? Well, I have my own problems too! I'm working on
those issues now. But, let's just say that in the past, I've taken on
the role of the "rescuer" in certain relationships. Also, I honestly
saw the good in ARGF1, even if others did not. Perhaps most
significantly, at that time I was very young. During college, I never
took a proper psychology class. I regret that now.
I mentioned before that ARGF1 was a high school drop out (she later
earned her G.E.D. after she ran away). In this regard, she was low
functioning and characteristically she also had trouble keeping jobs.
The false identity that she fostered, both as a brash punk and an
intrepid runaway appeared outwardly to indicate that she was
independent. The opposite in fact, was true; she was needy, insecure,
petty, histrionic and childish sometimes to the point of caricature.
Somehow, she cultivated an image of herself that equated independence
with intelligence. Her bookshelf was packed with second hand copies of
things I knew she could not possibly have read, including books on
complex subjects such as physics and mathematics. In actuality, when
she enrolled at the local state university, she had to drop out of
basic algebra because she was failing. She was intelligent on a
certain level, however she was not book smart. Revealingly, she only
really finished one specific group of books on that shelf. Indeed, she
read and reread these particular books thoroughly and memorized her
favorite passages from them, underlining the important sections for
good measure. These were the books of Ayn Rand; The Fountainhead,
Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, The Romantic Manifesto and lastly, a
title so sensationally vulgar that it virtually insures book sales to
the publisher – The Virtue of Selfishness.
I don't remember at what stage of the relationship I was introduced to
them, but Ayn Rand's books were obviously important to ARGF1, so I
reluctantly agreed to consider some of them. I wasn't a huge fan of
fiction at the time, so I first chose to read The Virtue of
Selfishness, since it was supposedly a summary of Rand's "philosophy"
and it contained long passages from her fiction anyway. Now let me
declare from the outset that I was immediately suspicious of this
work, since ARGF1's behavior was already troubling, and if these books
were informing her actions at the time, there must have been something
weird about her exaggerated enthusiasm for them. Besides, as a recent
graduate from an elite university with its subsequent required course
work in English literature, I found it strange that I had never heard
of this supposedly important author. My suspicions correctly reflected
the general academic position on Ayn Rand: She was a prodigious hack
who would never have been able to stand up to any kind of rigorous
academic peer review process. This work was nothing more than pop
philosophy and more importantly, it was dogma. To any reasonable
sentient human being, the first few pages of The Virtue of Selfishness
reveal the author as what she was: a hateful, pedantic, patronizing
and arrogant pedagogue.
But people with Borderline Personality Disorder are not reasonable
human beings. They are narcissists. When I tried to explain my
objections to Ayn Rand's "philosophy", my concerns went right through
one ear of ARGF1 and exited out the other side of her skull. It simply
did not register. To ARGF1, Ayn Rand was good, all good and nothing
but good. This hostile dichotomy of things that are either all good or
all bad is in fact, a hallmark of Borderline Personality Disorder.
Moreover, I think the ideas contained in The Virtue of Selfishness
were interpreted by ARGF1 to justify her destructive behaviors. At
times, Rand reads like a teenager who just discovered Friedrich
Nietzsche. It's crass, unsophisticated and simplistic. But that's why
it's so appealing to borderlines: It has often been written that
borderlines stop their emotional development at an early age. While
they may appear to be adults, emotionally, they are frightened
children. Rand dresses her arguments in a kind of pseudo-intellectual
aura, but really she appeals to ugly, base emotions. One of her
favorite words repeated continuously in Atlas Shrugged is contempt.
And contempt is what Ayn Rand exuded in virtually everything she
wrote.
With welcome relief, I ended that relationship within a year. I heard
through a mutual friend that ARGF1 had shacked up with another punk
and consummated an even more turbulent relationship with him. They met
at a punk club. It's my understanding that she cased after him when
she caught a glimpse of the Ayn Rand quote he had scribbled on the
back of his studded leather jacket. Sometimes borderlines are just
like cartoon characters. It would be funny if it weren't so
horrendous.
That was 17 years ago. I'd hoped to have forgotten Ayn Rand. But in
later years I would meet another person that would throw me for a
loop. Unlike ARGF1, she was extremely intelligent, talented and
beautiful. I was in love. In the beginning, it was wonderful. But Ayn
Rand and Borderline Personality Disorder would once again intrude upon
my world. Thus begins my tale of Ayn Rand Girlfriend Number Two.
To be continued…
Update: For personal reasons, I have decided to post only minimal
information regarding my former relationship with ARGF2. There is a
post regarding Ayn Rand tattoos that covers the topic with brevity.
11:57 AM
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
2 Kudos
Translate
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Mental illness is REAL.
They call them "invisible borderlines".
These are people who are "high functioning" and outwardly, they appear
normal.
Inside however, there is emotional turmoil.
Control is what they need; control over their own feelings of inner
shame,
control over their significant others and family members.
Outwardly, they might exude self confidence, but during times when
"the
mask" is off, they often reveal an unusual and irrational fear of
abandonment.
It is this constant fear of abandonment, always churning in the
background
that makes the whole thing so tragic and pernicious.
What this all has to do with Ayn Rand becomes clear when you get
involved
with one of her borderline fans.
Ayn Rand's books are MADE FOR BORDERLINES.
Let me explain. And may I submit that I am not jumping to conclusions
here,
but I am now convinced that there is a quantifiable, tangible
CONNECTION
between Ayn Rand's ideas and the characteristics of borderline
personality disorder.
Twice in my life, I have been involved with BPD women that
"discovered" the
writings of Ayn Rand. The similarities of these two relationships, set
years apart
from one another are frighteningly striking. The cold, social
darwinism championed
by the hateful Ayn Rand appeals to the narcissistic side of the
borderline. Also, the
simplistic black and white solutions to EVERYTHING would seem
perfectly necessary in the BPD's mind. Ayn Rand's portrayal of human
beings as being either "all good" or "all bad" is 100% consistent with
their views of all others and themselves. And a lack of empathy
towards other people, so similar to what Rand preaches is a hallmark
of borderline personality disorder.
Not convinced yet? If your BPD girlfriend has ALL THOSE BOOKS on her
shelf, take a look at them closely, especially if the spines are worn
(evidence of repeated readings). Look for the parts that she
underlined. These passages are frightening glimpses into the mind of
borderline. Remember, Ayn Rand herself was a diagnosed NPD and current
research suggests that she had BPD also.
If you meet someone who claims that Ayn Rand has inspired them to new
heights of
philosophical awareness, be very, very concerned.
Currently reading:
THE AYN RAND CULT
By Jeff Walker
Release date: 1999
3:52 PM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Monday, June 11, 2007
Why did Ayn Rand use Dexedrine?
This is interesting.
Consider this description of Dexedrine from Wikipedia:
"Dextroamphetamine is a powerful psychostimulant which produces
increased wakefulness, energy and self-confidence in association with
decreased fatigue and appetite."
Self-confidence?
Why did Ayn Rand need a drug to boost her self-confidence? She
apparently held a negative view of her own body image. But her fans
claim that she was the most confident person who ever lived.
Question: Did Ayn Rand even like herself...?
Currently reading:
THE AYN RAND CULT
By Jeff Walker
Release date: 1999
3:46 PM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Sunday, June 10, 2007
This is how Borderlines talk...
An exaggerated form of hero worship is one of the many hallmarks of
BPD.
Consider these examples of quotes from Ayn Rand's most famous
disciple, Nathaniel Branden.
"I had come to Ayn out of the void - and I imagined that without her a
void was all that awaited me."
"I am in the first place I have ever felt at home in my entire life...
a place where only good can happen and no harm can possibly come."
Borderlines often speak about their lives as being "voids"... They
have a chronic feeling of emptiness. They attempt to fill that void by
virtue of idolizing their significant other (for certain amount of
time) until they "split" and devalue that person.
--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
[Dr.] Stout says that as many as 4% of the population are
conscienceless sociopaths who have no empathy or affectionate feelings
for humans or animals. As Stout (The Myth of Sanity) explains, a
sociopath is defined as someone who displays at least three of seven
distinguishing characteristics, such as deceitfulness, impulsivity and
a lack of remorse. Such people often have a superficial charm, which
they exercise ruthlessly in order to get what they want. Stout argues
that the development of sociopathy is due half to genetics and half to
nongenetic influences that have not been clearly identified. The
author offers three examples of such people, including Skip, the
handsome, brilliant, superrich boy who enjoyed stabbing bullfrogs near
his family's summer home, and Doreen, who lied about her credentials
to get work at a psychiatric institute, manipulated her colleagues
and, most cruelly, a patient. Dramatic as these tales are, they are
composites, and while Stout is a good writer and her exploration of
sociopaths can be arresting, this book occasionally appeals to
readers' paranoia, as the book's title and its guidelines for dealing
with sociopaths indicate.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Bret Cahill
> > The Question:
>
> > www.bretcahill.com
>
> > There's another question that does _not_, I repeat, does _not_ have
> > anything to do with free speech that rightards will dodge every time:
>
> > "Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_
> > being free to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else?"
>
> Ever consider that people are "dodging" the question because they
> can't figure out WTF you are trying to ask?
The GOP "market" economists know full well what The Question is all
about. They also know if they so much as let on that they've ever
heard of it they'll be retraining for the productive sector.
Anyway, the Chinese have a sustainable 8% growth rate while the U. S.
limps along at 1 - 2%.
In ten years China's will be the largest economy in the world.
So the question is:
Do the Chinese have any freedom whatsoever to communicate any economic
information whatsoever with or to each other?
We know they don't have free speech for naked nazi flag burner parades
like here in the land of the free and home of issue dodging "market"
economists.
But we also know the "inner kingdom" or whatever dynasty that runs
China now isn't directing every last move of all the entrepreneurs in
China.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> of the employment in this country.
>
> Do you know what "starting a business" means and what's involved (let
> alone running one successfully)? Somehow I doubt you do.
Well don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
Tell us!
Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Dec 24, 10:05 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ayn Rand was a high functioning, manipulative and cunning
> sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
> Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
> Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
> Door
>
>
It's hopeless to argue with the Liberals.... they are some form of brain
damaged situation, like a cross between Autism and Tourette's syndrome,
fact and logic are stimuli that can't be processed by their brains and
the resulting frustration causes a Tourette syndrome response of lies
and curse words. - Talk-n-Dog -
--
Bret Cahill
> > sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
> > Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
> > Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
> > Door
>
> It's hopeless to argue with the Liberals....
Sounds like you just aren't bright enough to debate.
> they are some form of brain
> damaged situation, like a cross between Autism and Tourette's syndrome,
> fact and logic are stimuli that can't be processed by their brains
Let's see how well our rightard does with a simple logic question.
Anyone with an IQ above single digits should know the answer.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
> Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
> Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
> Door
You're making Rand out to be more interesting that what she was.
She fled the USSR and like any recent convert merely highlighted
everything that she thought was different from the USSR.
You often see exchange students or other foreigners doing the same
thing, driving the biggest SUV they could find, etc.
Bret Cahill
Beam Me Up Scotty
Those evil people exercising their new freedom.....
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Nothing scares a Socialist more than free people exercising their freedoms.
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote
>> Fred Weiss wrote
>>> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>
>>>> the idiots still think that markets are self regulating, self
>>>> policing, self healing, self righting, all information is perfect,
>>>> all parties in a transaction are rational, and all parties in a
>>>> transaction have equal access to the same information. there are even
>>>> dummies that still believe in comparative advantage. people actually
>>>> bought that crap 30 years ago, and still buy it today.
>
>>> Actually it was 150 years ago that they "bought that crap".
>
>>> The result was an historically unparalleled explosion of wealth
>>> creation and technological innovation - and which benefited everyone,
>>> even the poorest.
>
>>> Idiots and dummies like you need to be regularly reminded of that.
>
>> Both the trade deficit and the unemployment rate are proof that
>> comparative advantage is _NOT_ the primary driver in the relationship
>> between the United States and its trading partners.
>
> We'll see...
Some of us _already_ see.
>> Whereas comparative advantage is based on opportunity costs,
>
> Not necessarily, most obviously with the comparative advantage the US
> has on the development of revolutionary ideas that completely dominate
> the entire world economy, and continue to do that.
That is called "absolute advantage". The handlers need to attend to the
virus system _AGAIN_.
>> an oversupply of resource (labor/ expertise) in one or more of the
>> trading countries invalidates comparative advantage because the concept
>> assumes there is a viable _USE_ for the resources in the nations
>> involved in the trades
>
> There always is.
An oversimplification on my part. The word "_USE_" should have been
"_MARKET_".
>> and that there is a market for produced goods in the trading nations.
>
> There always is.
There is no "market" for goods unless the people can afford to buy the
goods. Clearly the Chinese cannot afford to buy the goods they produce
and neither can we. The result is a huge pile of financial debt.
>> When observing the relationship between two countries, an imbalance in
>> the financial flow indicates the lack of comparative advantage at work.
>
> Like hell it does. It actually indicates the exact opposite, most
> obviously with the comparative advantage of very low labor costs in
> china relative to those in the US.
>
> THATS the real reason for the trade imbalance.
ONE MO TIME!!!
That is called "absolute advantage". Comparative advantage has to do with
specialization in production and depends upon local labor use and
_OVERALL_DEMAND_ for that which is being produced. But even "absolute
advantage" is economically perverse given lack of _market_ (the desire
and ability to acquire goods).
>> There simply _IS_ no "opportunity" for employment of resources that
>> will increase the level of overall _MARKETABLE_ output.
>
> Try telling that to china. Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh in
> your face.
Only the Chinese people that are as ignorant as a virus would laugh.
>> The reason that cranks continually fall back on "comparative advantage"
>> is because most people do not understand what "comparative advantage"
>> is
>
> You clearly dont.
Sorry. It has to do with opportunity costs WITHIN THE NATION, not with
labor differentials between the nations. The latter is "absolute
advantage" and it serves ONLY the rentier.
>> and thus it is possible for cranks to use the fancy talk as a shield.
>> In most cases the cranks don't understand the concept either.
>
> You clearly dont.
A virus is not accountable. Call the handlers.
3877
It did not with the Word War 2 debt.
3877
> On Dec 24, 9:44 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 10:11 am, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 6:28 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 23, 11:15 pm, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Except that Conservatives are the laziest people. They don't
>>>>> really work for the money. They just take money from the hard
>>>>> working people who have actual jobs.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> What is "working for the money" supposed to mean?
>>
>>>> Does it mean you have to be in a unionto really work?
>>>> Does it mean you have to do some sort of manual labor?
>>
>>>> Conservatives are out there making their way in the world while
>>>> liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
>>
>>> What does "making their way in the world" mean"? Does it mean
>>> sittting on your ass figuring out new ways to cheat people and rip
>>> people off?
>>
>> Means making money thru work, euntrapeneaurship, and the like. Means
>> pulling the cart even though it is heavy witl all the liberals riding
>> in it and screaming "PULL FASTER!"
>
> most innovations in america happen on the factory floor,
It did not with the PC, credit cards, TV, radio, aircraft, the internet, google, paypal, GPS, etc etc etc.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Fred Weiss wrote
>>>> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>>>>> the idiots still think that markets are self regulating, self
>>>>> policing, self healing, self righting, all information is perfect,
>>>>> all parties in a transaction are rational, and all parties in a
>>>>> transaction have equal access to the same information. there are
>>>>> even dummies that still believe in comparative advantage. people
>>>>> actually bought that crap 30 years ago, and still buy it today.
>>>> Actually it was 150 years ago that they "bought that crap".
>>>> The result was an historically unparalleled explosion of wealth
>>>> creation and technological innovation - and which benefited
>>>> everyone, even the poorest.
>>>> Idiots and dummies like you need to be regularly reminded of that.
>>> Both the trade deficit and the unemployment rate are proof that
>>> comparative advantage is _NOT_ the primary driver in the
>>> relationship between the United States and its trading partners.
>> We'll see...
> Some of us _already_ see.
Fools like you have wanked yourself completely blind and will never see again.
>>> Whereas comparative advantage is based on opportunity costs,
>> Not necessarily, most obviously with the comparative advantage the
>> US has on the development of revolutionary ideas that completely
>> dominate the entire world economy, and continue to do that.
> That is called "absolute advantage".
Wrong, as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_advantage
That advantage the US has has nothing to do with the production of goods or services, fool.
>>> an oversupply of resource (labor/ expertise) in one or more of the
>>> trading countries invalidates comparative advantage because the
>>> concept assumes there is a viable _USE_ for the resources in the
>>> nations involved in the trades
>> There always is.
> An oversimplification on my part. The word "_USE_" should have been "_MARKET_".
There always is, even with that change.
>>> and that there is a market for produced goods in the trading nations.
>> There always is.
> There is no "market" for goods unless the people can afford to buy the goods.
But they always can.
> Clearly the Chinese cannot afford to buy the goods they produce
Corse they can, and do.
> and neither can we.
Corse the west can, and does.
> The result is a huge pile of financial debt.
Utterly mangled all over again. No surprise coming from someone
who couldnt even manage to drive a truck for long tho.
>>> When observing the relationship between two countries, an imbalance
>>> in the financial flow indicates the lack of comparative advantage at work.
>> Like hell it does. It actually indicates the exact opposite,
>> most obviously with the comparative advantage of very
>> low labor costs in china relative to those in the US.
>> THATS the real reason for the trade imbalance.
> ONE MO TIME!!!
> That is called "absolute advantage".
Wrong, as always.
> Comparative advantage has to do with specialization in production and depends
> upon local labor use and _OVERALL_DEMAND_ for that which is being produced.
Wrong, as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
> But even "absolute advantage" is economically perverse given
> lack of _market_ (the desire and ability to acquire goods).
There is no such lack.
>>> There simply _IS_ no "opportunity" for employment of resources
>>> that will increase the level of overall _MARKETABLE_ output.
>> Try telling that to china. Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh in your face.
> Only the Chinese people that are as ignorant as a virus would laugh.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
>>> The reason that cranks continually fall back on "comparative
>>> advantage" is because most people do not understand what
>>> "comparative advantage" is
>> You clearly dont.
> Sorry. It has to do with opportunity costs WITHIN THE
> NATION, not with labor differentials between the nations.
Wrong, as always.
> The latter is "absolute advantage" and it serves ONLY the rentier.
Wrong, as always.
>>> and thus it is possible for cranks to use the fancy talk as a shield.
>>> In most cases the cranks don't understand the concept either.
>> You clearly dont.
> A virus is not accountable. Call the handlers.
Failed truck driver face down in the mud, as always.
MACK DADDY
> On Dec 24, 10:11 am, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 6:28 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Conservatives are out there making their way in the world while
> > > liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
>
> > What does "making their way in the world" mean"?
>
> of the employment in this country.
>
> Do you know what "starting a business" means and what's involved (let
> alone running one successfully)? Somehow I doubt you do.
>
If there are so many people starting businesses then why is there so
much unemployment? I can only surmise that the businesses you speak
of are FAILURES!
Why does EVERYBODY have to START a business? I would rather work for
an established, successful business that has established customers.
MACK DADDY
> On Dec 24, 10:11 am, MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 6:28 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Except that Conservatives are the laziest people. They don't really
> > > > work for the money. They just take money from the hard working people
> > > > who have actual jobs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > What is "working for the money" supposed to mean?
>
> > > Does it mean you have to be in a unionto really work?
> > > Does it mean you have to do some sort of manual labor?
>
> > > liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
>
> > sittting on your ass figuring out new ways to cheat people and rip
> > people off?
>
> Means making money thru work, euntrapeneaurship, and the like. Means
> pulling the cart even though it is heavy witl all the liberals riding
>
> - Show quoted text -
You got it backwards! It is the Liberals who do the heavy pulling and
we all scream for the obese conservatards to get the hell off the cart!
MACK DADDY
My boss is liberal like me.
John Galt
There's always a couple.
JG
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
More than that I'm sure!
Michael Coburn
It is not the US that has the advantage, virus. It is China. Ya see,
the country with the absolute advantage ends up with all the money/gold/
IOU's, or ownership of the other party's hard assets. The country
without the absolute advantage ends up with hula hoops and lead painted
dolls.
>>>> an oversupply of resource (labor/ expertise) in one or more of the
>>>> trading countries invalidates comparative advantage because the
>>>> concept assumes there is a viable _USE_ for the resources in the
>>>> nations involved in the trades
>
>>> There always is.
>
>> An oversimplification on my part. The word "_USE_" should have been
>> "_MARKET_".
>
> There always is, even with that change.
No, moron virus. Demand may exist even if the desired _stuff_ cannot be
bought. Only when the demand and the supply intersect is there a market.
And that intersection only occurs at the price point where demand and
supply are balanced.
>>>> and that there is a market for produced goods in the trading nations.
>
>>> There always is.
>
>> There is no "market" for goods unless the people can afford to buy the
>> goods.
>
> But they always can.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>> Clearly the Chinese cannot afford to buy the goods they produce
>
> Corse they can, and do.
>
>> and neither can we.
>
> Corse the west can, and does.
>
>> The result is a huge pile of financial debt.
>
> Utterly mangled all over again. No surprise coming from someone who
> couldnt even manage to drive a truck for long tho.
Not mangled at all. Debt is the witness of the mismatch in the market.
It is purchasing power injected to cause/allow demand to intersect supply.
The Chinese cannot continue to produce unless Americans continue to
borrow, because the Chinese cannot afford to buy their own output. And
they cannot do so so because their government makes it so.
>>>> When observing the relationship between two countries, an imbalance
>>>> in the financial flow indicates the lack of comparative advantage at
>>>> work.
>
>>> Like hell it does. It actually indicates the exact opposite, most
>>> obviously with the comparative advantage of very low labor costs in
>>> china relative to those in the US.
>
>>> THATS the real reason for the trade imbalance.
>
>> ONE MO TIME!!!
>
>> That is called "absolute advantage".
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> Comparative advantage has to do with specialization in production and
>> depends upon local labor use and _OVERALL_DEMAND_ for that which is
>> being produced.
>
> Wrong, as always.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
The handlers need a remedial reading course.
>> But even "absolute advantage" is economically perverse given lack of
>> _market_ (the desire and ability to acquire goods).
>
> There is no such lack.
>
>>>> There simply _IS_ no "opportunity" for employment of resources that
>>>> will increase the level of overall _MARKETABLE_ output.
>
>>> Try telling that to china. Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh
>>> in your face.
>
>> Only the Chinese people that are as ignorant as a virus would laugh.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
>
>>>> The reason that cranks continually fall back on "comparative
>>>> advantage" is because most people do not understand what "comparative
>>>> advantage" is
>
>>> You clearly dont.
>
>> Sorry. It has to do with opportunity costs WITHIN THE NATION, not with
>> labor differentials between the nations.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> The latter is "absolute advantage" and it serves ONLY the rentier.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> and thus it is possible for cranks to use the fancy talk as a shield.
>>>> In most cases the cranks don't understand the concept either.
>
>>> You clearly dont.
>
>> A virus is not accountable. Call the handlers.
>
> Failed truck driver face down in the mud, as always.
--
Rod Speed
> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote
>> MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote
>>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Conservatives are out there making their way in the
>>>> world while liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
>>> What does "making their way in the world" mean"?
>> Well, it might mean starting businesses which are responsible for
>> most of the employment in this country.
>> Do you know what "starting a business" means and what's involved
>> (let alone running one successfully)? Somehow I doubt you do.
> If there are so many people starting businesses then why is there so much unemployment?
There isnt, 10% is fuck all.
> I can only surmise that the businesses you speak of are FAILURES!
Tad unlikely given that they employ a hell of a lot more than govt does.
> Why does EVERYBODY have to START a business?
They dont.
> I would rather work for an established, successful business that has established customers.
They are unlikely to be stupid enough to give someone like you a job.
Nickname unavailable
i bet a lot more. how many small business people are conservatives?
lots. how many have gotten a rude awakening, lots.
Rod Speed
>>>> We'll see...
> It is not the US that has the advantage. It is China.
Wrong, as always, most obviously with the full commercialisation
of almost all technology, with everything from railroads, to cars to
aircraft to radio and TV to tubes to the transistor to the ic to
computers and the PC and everything from consumer credit to
fast food and DNA, GPS, google, paypal, ebay etc etc etc.
> Ya see, the country with the absolute advantage ends up with all the
> money/gold/ IOU's, or ownership of the other party's hard assets.
That never ever happens either.
> The country without the absolute advantage
> ends up with hula hoops and lead painted dolls.
And an economic system that can STILL completely
implode the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
>>>>> an oversupply of resource (labor/ expertise) in one or more of the
>>>>> trading countries invalidates comparative advantage because the
>>>>> concept assumes there is a viable _USE_ for the resources in the
>>>>> nations involved in the trades
>>>> There always is.
>>> An oversimplification on my part. The word "_USE_" should have been
>>> "_MARKET_".
>> There always is, even with that change.
> No
Fraid so.
> Demand may exist even if the desired _stuff_ cannot be bought.
You'll end up completely blind again if you dont watch out.
> Only when the demand and the supply intersect is there a market.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed failed truck driver pig ignorant fantasyland.
> And that intersection only occurs at the price point where demand and supply are balanced.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed failed truck driver pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>>>> and that there is a market for produced goods in the trading nations.
>>>> There always is.
>>> There is no "market" for goods unless the people can afford to buy the goods.
>> But they always can.
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
You've been warned about using your vibrator in public before.
Next time, its summary execution for you, ala the chinese.
>>> Clearly the Chinese cannot afford to buy the goods they produce
>> Corse they can, and do.
>>> and neither can we.
>> Corse the west can, and does.
>>> The result is a huge pile of financial debt.
>> Utterly mangled all over again. No surprise coming from someone
>> who couldnt even manage to drive a truck for long tho.
> Not mangled at all.
Utterly mangled all over again. No surprise coming from someone
who couldnt even manage to drive a truck for long tho.
> Debt is the witness of the mismatch in the market.
How odd that the even bigger debt that WW2 produced wasnt.
> It is purchasing power injected to cause/allow demand to intersect supply.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed failed truck driver pig ignorant fantasyland.
> The Chinese cannot continue to produce unless Americans continue to borrow,
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed failed truck driver pig ignorant fantasyland.
America buys only a small subset of what china produces, fool.
> because the Chinese cannot afford to buy their own output.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed failed truck driver pig ignorant fantasyland.
> And they cannot do so so because their government makes it so.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed failed truck driver pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>>>> When observing the relationship between two countries, an
>>>>> imbalance in the financial flow indicates the lack of comparative
>>>>> advantage at work.
>>>> Like hell it does. It actually indicates the exact opposite, most
>>>> obviously with the comparative advantage of very low labor costs in
>>>> china relative to those in the US.
>>>> THATS the real reason for the trade imbalance.
>>> ONE MO TIME!!!
MO TIMES ARE ILLEGAL.
>>> That is called "absolute advantage".
>> Wrong, as always.
>>> Comparative advantage has to do with specialization in production
>>> and depends upon local labor use and _OVERALL_DEMAND_ for that
>>> which is being produced.
>> Wrong, as always.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
> The handlers need a remedial reading course.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed failed truck driver pig ignorant fantasyland.
Beam Me Up Scotty
If that were true, why do force others to pay for your "Lifting"
The one thing you never do is pay your way, Liberals don't pay their
taxes. Liars and Tax cheats, that what Democrats/Liberals/Socialists are.
Geitner and the rest of "the marry band" of tax cheats want everyone
else to pay their way.
--
MACK DADDY
> MACK DADDY wrote
>
> > Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote
> >> MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote
> >>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Conservatives are out there making their way in the
> >>>> world while liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
> >>> What does "making their way in the world" mean"?
> >> Well, it might mean starting businesses which are responsible for
> >> most of the employment in this country.
> >> Do you know what "starting a business" means and what's involved
> >> (let alone running one successfully)? Somehow I doubt you do.
> > If there are so many people starting businesses then why is there so much unemployment?
>
> There isnt, 10% is fuck all.
>
> > I can only surmise that the businesses you speak of are FAILURES!
>
> Tad unlikely given that they employ a hell of a lot more than govt does.
But that blows your whole statement of government being too big!
>
> > Why does EVERYBODY have to START a business?
>
> They dont.
Then why do you always tell people to start a business?
>
> > I would rather work for an established, successful business that has established customers.
>
> They are unlikely to be stupid enough to give someone like you a job.
They didn't have to give me a job, I earned it! They were smart to
hire me because I'm really fuckin' good at what I do!
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I pay taxes all the time. And let me tell you something, Geitner is a
Republicon!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> MACK DADDY wrote
>>> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote
>>>> MACK DADDY <pepsivani...@msn.com> wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Conservatives are out there making their way in the world
>>>>>> while liberals are waiting for free health care. Sad.
>>>>> What does "making their way in the world" mean"?
>>>> Well, it might mean starting businesses which are
>>>> responsible for most of the employment in this country.
>>>> Do you know what "starting a business" means and what's involved
>>>> (let alone running one successfully)? Somehow I doubt you do.
>>> If there are so many people starting businesses
>>> then why is there so much unemployment?
>> There isnt, 10% is fuck all.
>>> I can only surmise that the businesses you speak of are FAILURES!
>> Tad unlikely given that they employ a hell of a lot more than govt does.
> But that blows your whole statement of government being too big!
I never ever said that govt is too big.
That fool Weiss may well have done.
>>> Why does EVERYBODY have to START a business?
>> They dont.
> Then why do you always tell people to start a business?
I never ever said that either.
>>> I would rather work for an established, successful business that has established customers.
>> They are unlikely to be stupid enough to give someone like you a job.
> They didn't have to give me a job, I earned it!
Easy to claim. You'll have to pardon us if we dont believe you
given that you cant even manage to work out who said what.
> They were smart to hire me because I'm really fuckin' good at what I do!
Easy to claim. You'll have to pardon us if we dont believe you
given that you cant even manage to work out who said what.
Fred Weiss
Making my point as usual.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> > Ayn Rand was a high functioning, manipulative and cunning
>
> > sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
> > Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
> > Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
> > Door
I accept the fact that she apparently represents your worst nightmare.
> You're making Rand out to be more interesting that what she was.
Well, she is interesting enough for two recent biographies which have
gotten widely reviewed - and I know of a third major one in the works.
But I can accept the fact that you don't find her interesting. You are
clearly not bright/insightful enough to see what would be interesting
in her ideas.
> She fled the USSR and like any recent convert merely highlighted
> everything that she thought was different from the USSR.
Well, that's not particularly difficult given what a mess the USSR
was.
But that hardly even begins to explain two major highly controversial
blockbuster bestsellers and a groundbreaking new philosophy.
> You often see exchange students or other foreigners doing the same
> thing, driving the biggest SUV they could find, etc.
Gee, sometimes you even see Americans doing that.
Fred Weiss
Nickname unavailable
this is how a cult works, the high functioning ones, dominate the
"LOW" functioning ones. i wonder which one beam me up is:)
Nickname unavailable
> > > Ayn Rand was a high functioning, manipulative and cunning
> > > sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
> > > Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
> > > Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
> > > Door
>
> > It's hopeless to argue with the Liberals....
>
> Sounds like you just aren't bright enough to debate.
>
well we know the high functioning ones dominate the "LOW" functioning
ones. so we know his skills are limited:)
Nickname unavailable
> > Ayn Rand was a high functioning, manipulative and cunning
>
> > sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
> > Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
> > Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
> > Door
>
> You're making Rand out to be more interesting that what she was.
its not that she is more interesting. its the skill sets of her
followers that's so scary. the same low functioning indoctrinated cult
followers, also hang onto every word david ricardo, frederick hayek,
milton friedman, ayn rand, and other cranks have ever wrote or spoke.
we know ricardo was a banker looking for ways to gut the wages of the
british worker. the others have worked hard thru out history to
achieve that goal.
Nickname unavailable
as i have said, "LOW" functioning.
Nickname unavailable
i was going to tell our "LOW" functioning follower that, good job. he
also seems to have missed out on all of the tax cuts conservatives
have lavished on the wealthy parasite class. littered with
conservatives, libertarians, and outright fascists.
Nickname unavailable
all of that means is that she has a large following of "LOW"
functioning indoctrinated cult followers. hitler and mussolini have
been written about extensively to, that does not make them sane.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
You people are all the same! You all claim to be against anything
that is for the common good of the people, but you aren't consistent
in your philosophy. You don't complain about socialist roads and
highways, socialist fire departments, socialist police departments,
socialist post office, etc.
So why should I believe a damn thing you say?
John Galt
Nobody is. I don't know what your philosophy is, but I can guarantee
that you're not always consistent in your application of it.
Secondly, as a conservative, I'm not against the common good of the
people in the slightest. I am simply of the opinion that people are, in
the long run, better off with a booming economy than one which is
hindered by government interference.
You don't complain about socialist roads and
> highways, socialist fire departments, socialist police departments,
> socialist post office, etc.
Putting aside your very, VERY loose (and incorrect) use of the term
"socialist" (which is perfectly good term that refers to government
running businesses, not providing services)........your observation is,
well, obvious. Neither Conservatives for Libertarians are anarchists.
> So why should I believe a damn thing you say?
You don't.
JG
Rod Speed
>>>> They dont.
> You people are all the same!
And you never ever could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag!!!
> You all claim to be against anything that is for the common good of the people,
I have never ever done anything like that.
> but you aren't consistent in your philosophy.
We'll see...
> You don't complain about socialist roads and highways,
> socialist fire departments, socialist police departments,
> socialist post office, etc.
Yes, I believe that all those things with the possible exception
of the worst post offices are what are best done with socialism.
> So why should I believe a damn thing you say?
You dont have to believe anything I say, just check the attributions of who actually said what, fool.
Fred Weiss
> > You don't complain about socialist roads and highways,
> > socialist fire departments, socialist police departments,
> > socialist post office, etc.
>
> Yes, I believe that all those things with the possible exception
> of the worst post offices are what are best done with socialism.
C'mon you know better.
None of that is socialism which is a socio-economic system where the
state controls *the means of production* and where no or little
private enterprise is permitted.
Furthermore, the police (and courts and military) are in an entirely
different category from roads, fire depts. and the post office.
In addition, certain enterprises have been argued to be "natural
monopolies", providing at least a premise for gov't either running
them or highly regulating them. I don't agree with that argument but
it doesn't pertain to the vast rest of the economy.
Fred Weiss
Beam Me Up Scotty
Obviously you haven't been listening to me.....
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
Explain that to Gates, Buffett and Soros.
you do know that Exxon payed $27 Billion in taxes in 2006. How's that
Hope and Change working? How much did you pay?
just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion)
annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is
65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3%
of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax
rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9
billion in taxes).
What have you done to make this Nation great?
--
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> You don't complain about socialist roads and highways,
>>> socialist fire departments, socialist police departments,
>>> socialist post office, etc.
>> Yes, I believe that all those things with the possible exception
>> of the worst post offices are what are best done with socialism.
> C'mon you know better.
Nope.
> None of that is socialism
Wrong.
> which is a socio-economic system where the state controls *the means of production*
Thats just one definition of socialism and isnt even the most commonly used
one, most obviously when govt provides most of the health care services.
> and where no or little private enterprise is permitted.
That is just plain wrong too. When a few western european countrys were
actually stupid enough to go for govt ownership of car factorys, there was
no attempt what so ever to stop them being done by private industry as well.
> Furthermore, the police (and courts and military) are in an entirely
> different category from roads, fire depts. and the post office.
Yes, but its still govt doing that stuff instead of private enterprise.
We did in fact use private enterprise for the police, military
and even tax collection at one time and then virtually
everywhere worked out that its better done by govt.
Same with education too, tho there was hardly ever any attempt
to stop private industry doing that too if they wanted to.
> In addition, certain enterprises have been argued to be
> "natural monopolies", providing at least a premise for
> gov't either running them or highly regulating them.
Regulating is an entirely separate issue to being done by govt.
Even retail stores are highly regulated right thruout the entire modern
first and second world, but that aint socialism at all, just regulation.
> I don't agree with that argument but it doesn't pertain to the vast rest of the economy.
It doesnt pertain to much of the economy at all in fact.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Did the Germans use Socialism to climb out of the economic collapse in
post "World War One". Did the Germans actually get out of economic
collapse? Their Fiat Currency collapsed and National Socialists slowly
took power and the *government grew but did the Private sector* actually
recover and was the recovery(if any) sustainable or were the Germans
forced to *war, genocide and Slavery* along with theft of personal
assets and theft on a National scale of Czechoslovakia and Poland and
France.... to keep the National Socialist machine from falling back into
collapse, Depression and ramped inflation.
--
Rod Speed
> Did the Germans use Socialism to climb out of
> the economic collapse in post "World War One".
That is very arguable indeed. Hitler did do the same
Keynesian deficit spending that FDR did as well, but
its very arguable whether that was in fact socialism.
> Did the Germans actually get out of economic collapse?
Yes, but the time they invaded poland, the unemployment rate was quite reasonable.
> Their Fiat Currency collapsed
Mostly because it was convenient to repay the reparations in worthless deutchmarks.
> and National Socialists slowly took power
Wasnt that slowly.
> and the *government grew
Particularly govt spending grew very substantially, just like FDR's did.
> but did the Private sector* actually recover
Yes it did. Unfortunately quite a bit of that was with the production
of military hardware and stuff like that which did have to get used
once the bills for that stuff started to have to be paid.
> and was the recovery (if any)
There was plenty of recovery, most obvious in the unemployment rate.
> sustainable
We'll never really know. Likely it would have been if Adolf had not
been stupid enough to go to war, but a case can be made that he
would not have been able to repay what he borrowed to buy all
that military hardware and all the building and autobahns etc that
were a large part of the reason for the very real economic recovery.
> or were the Germans forced to *war,
Yes, you can make a solid case for that.
> genocide and Slavery*
Nope, none of that was necessary.
> along with theft of personal assets and theft on a National
> scale of Czechoslovakia and Poland and France....
Or that either. It was mostly of very little economic value.
> to keep the National Socialist machine from falling
> back into collapse, Depression and ramped inflation.
The only real problem was that they lost the war.
And that was a pretty close call too. If he had in fact concentrated
on the oil fields in SE europe instead of Moscow and invading russia,
its quite possible he might have won even when invading russia later.
hal
The German "National Socialists" were in fact, fascists. There was
nothing socialistic about the fascists.
3877
There was in fact quite a bit socialist about them, most obviously with the spending
on autobahns etc and heavily subsidised and free holidays for 'workers' etc.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>
>> Did the Germans use Socialism to climb out of
>> the economic collapse in post "World War One".
>
> That is very arguable indeed. Hitler did do the same
> Keynesian deficit spending that FDR did as well, but
> its very arguable whether that was in fact socialism.
>
>> Did the Germans actually get out of economic collapse?
>
> Yes, but the time they invaded poland, the unemployment rate was quite reasonable.
>
>> Their Fiat Currency collapsed
>
> Mostly because it was convenient to repay the reparations in worthless deutchmarks.
>
>> and National Socialists slowly took power
>
> Wasnt that slowly.
>
>> and the *government grew
>
> Particularly govt spending grew very substantially, just like FDR's did.
Which was unsustainable without going to war, and or enslaving people
and demonizing them so as to enable the confiscation of their wealth.
If the Government had continued to spend it would have had to print
money or steal from and enslave people to use that wealth to continue
the government spending.......
>> but did the Private sector* actually recover
>
> Yes it did. Unfortunately quite a bit of that was with the production
> of military hardware and stuff like that which did have to get used
> once the bills for that stuff started to have to be paid.
As I asked, how could they continue buying military hardware and pile it
up without using it to go out and collect more wealth.
And in the end their Socialist economy that morphed to Fascism failed
after WWII.
>
>> and was the recovery (if any)
>
> There was plenty of recovery, most obvious in the unemployment rate.
But the private sector was all temporary jobs that supplied government
government, what were the exports? did they sell German aircraft to
Japan and Italy? Just what did Germany export? Besides war.
>> sustainable
>
> We'll never really know. Likely it would have been if Adolf had not
> been stupid enough to go to war, but a case can be made that he
> would not have been able to repay what he borrowed to buy all
> that military hardware and all the building and autobahns etc that
> were a large part of the reason for the very real economic recovery.
What their economic path of Government spending did, was force the
Germans to either collapse again or go to war and steal the wealth they
needed.
>> or were the Germans forced to *war,
>
> Yes, you can make a solid case for that.
Collapse again under the Government Socialist spending, or attack people
within and outside their borders.
The problem with Socialism is, sooner or later, socialists run out of
other peoples money. Then they must go and steal from someone new.
>
>> genocide and Slavery*
>
> Nope, none of that was necessary.
Yes they needed to take from the "wealthy" and Jews were said to be
wealth and had done little work to earn it.... Class envy was a
practical weapon to use to steal large amounts of money.
>> along with theft of personal assets and theft on a National
>> scale of Czechoslovakia and Poland and France....
>
> Or that either. It was mostly of very little economic value.
Slaves to conscript and workers to enslave for profit.
Rome did it.
>> to keep the National Socialist machine from falling
>> back into collapse, Depression and ramped inflation.
>
> The only real problem was that they lost the war.
Which lends credence to the fact that they needed to keep stealing the
accumulated wealth of nations to keep buying more German labor.
> And that was a pretty close call too. If he had in fact concentrated
> on the oil fields in SE europe instead of Moscow and invading russia,
> its quite possible he might have won even when invading russia later.
During the 1939 – 1942 period, the UK and Russia depleted much of their
gold stock in purchases of munitions and weaponry on a *cash and carry*
basis from the U.S. and other nations.
That is what pulled the USA out of its Depression in 1939......
It's the Government Spending(Socialism) on someones part that encourages
war, in WWII it was Germany. There is two reasons for a nation to
expand, power and or economic gain. Since Socialists aren't Capitalist
the only way to grow Socialism is via more government power and they
need wealth to grow the government and gain that power.
Whereas Capitalism grows without more government power.
More Socialism will lead to less economic growth and more war, as one
way or another, Government will seek more growth.
--
hal
That was propaganda. The people had no real power in Nazi Germany.
All the power lied with the aristocracy and Nazi Party members.
hal
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>More Socialism will lead to less economic growth and more war, as one
>way or another, Government will seek more growth.
You're completely insane. The economy has improved under Democratic
Presidents and Congress, and tanked under the conservatives. Almost
every single time. Look it up.
3877
> That was propaganda.
Nope, that was reality with the stuff I listed, and other stuff like the state owned VW etc.
> The people had no real power in Nazi Germany.
Yes, but that is a separate matter entirely to whether they had some socialism.
> All the power lied with the aristocracy and Nazi Party members.
It had very little to do with the aristocracy at all except with Adolf getting to be Chancellor in the first place.
Fred Weiss
> > The people had no real power in Nazi Germany.
>
> Yes, but that is a separate matter entirely to whether they had some socialism.
I wouldn't concede his underlying assumption here that "the people"
have "real power" under socialism. They certainly had none in the
Soviet Union or now in Cuba or N. Korea.
> > All the power lied with the aristocracy and Nazi Party members.
Fine, under socialism all the power is in the hands of the bureaucrats
and the union bosses.
Btw, if arguably Hitler referred to himself as a socialist as
something of a propaganda ploy, Mussolini in contrast was an avowed
socialist and never abandoned it. You just don't approve of his brand
of it. But then the different wings of socialism have been at each
others throats from the beginning and if they put aside their
differences to seize power, once that is accomplished they go after
each other with a vengance. The French Reign of Terror was a
forewarning of this.
Fred Weiss
Rod Speed
>>> The people had no real power in Nazi Germany.
>> Yes, but that is a separate matter entirely to whether they had some socialism.
> I wouldn't concede his underlying assumption here
> that "the people" have "real power" under socialism.
They do when its decent democratic socialism like in much of western europe but not germany under hitler.
> They certainly had none in the Soviet Union or now in Cuba or N. Korea.
Those are communism, not socialism, a different animal entirely.
>>> All the power lied with the aristocracy and Nazi Party members.
> Fine, under socialism all the power is in the
> hands of the bureaucrats and the union bosses.
Like hell it is with the great democracys.
> Btw, if arguably Hitler referred to himself as a
> socialist as something of a propaganda ploy,
Not really, he was a real socialist in some areas, most obviously with VW etc.
> Mussolini in contrast was an avowed socialist and never abandoned it.
Neither did Hitler.
> You just don't approve of his brand of it. But then the different wings
> of socialism have been at each others throats from the beginning
Depends on what you call socialism. That isnt true of democratic socialism that was
so common in western europe and involved govt ownership of car factorys etc.
> and if they put aside their differences to seize power, once
> that is accomplished they go after each other with a vengance.
Like hell they did in many of the western european democratic socialists.
> The French Reign of Terror was a forewarning of this.
Like hell it was. None of the others were actually stupid enough to try a king again etc.
David P.
>
> I was gonna tell our "low" functioning follower that.
> He also seems to have missed out on all the tax cuts
> conservatives have lavished on the wealthy.
You spelt your name wrong. It's "Brain unavailable".
.
.
--
David P.
>
> I pay taxes all the time. And looky here,
> Geithner is a Republican!
MACK DADDY
of unregulated greed and crapitalism.
>
> You don't complain about socialist roads and
>
> > highways, socialist fire departments, socialist police departments,
> > socialist post office, etc.
>
> Putting aside your very, VERY loose (and incorrect) use of the term
> "socialist" (which is perfectly good term that refers to government
> running businesses, not providing services)........your observation is,
> well, obvious. Neither Conservatives for Libertarians are anarchists.
>
> > So why should I believe a damn thing you say?
>
> You don't.
>
> JG- Hide quoted text -
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't call me a fool. You responded to my post even though it wasn't
written about you.
MACK DADDY
They should have to pay taxes on all the money they are overpaid. If I
got paid trillions of dollars at my job I would gladly pay a shitload
of taxes.
Rod Speed
>>>>>> They dont.
>> We'll see...
> Don't call me a fool.
I call a spade a spade and a fool that cant even manage to work out who said what, a fool.
You get to like that or lump it, fool.
> You responded to my post even though it wasn't written about you.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
John Galt
Over the long term, our prosperity is *delivered* by capitalism. It;s
why you have a computer to type on and food on your table. Hardly wise
to go throwing it out the window now, simply because we've had a "bust"
after a "bubble", something that's part of the nature of free markets
and has been occurring since the Roman Empire.
JG
John Galt
No more than a couple of measly percent of Democrats are Socialists, so
what does that matter?
The assertation on the table is that Socialism leads to less economic
growth and more war. Do you have a refutation?
JG
Jerry Okamura
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c0505971-8a39-4d15...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> We have already demonstrated GOP "market" economists will always dodge
> The Question:
>
> www.bretcahill.com
>
> There's another question that does _not_, I repeat, does _not_ have
> anything to do with free speech that rightards will dodge every time:
>
> "Do you think an 8% growth rate is possible without at least _someone_
> being free to _communicate something_ to _someone_ else?"
>
What has growth rate got to do with the question. Perhaps if you thought
through the question before you posted it, one could provide an intelligent
response.
Fred Weiss
> We don't have a booming economy. Our economy is in shambles because
> of unregulated greed and crapitalism.
The only thing holding up the (real) economy at the moment is the
remnants of "unregulated greed and crapitalism (sic)"
The vast fiat money expansion and deficit spending will have to be
paid for - and what will pay for it is "unregulated greed and
crapitalism (sic)"
When the bills finally came due in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe,
and Mao's China, they discovered that there was nothing and no one to
pay them. They had wrecked their economies.
So, your contradiction is that you are counting on the very thing -
greed and capitalism - which you loathe. If you are going to soak the
rich, you have to have rich to soak. After you have soaked them,
what's left?
Fred Weiss
John Galt
It's generally better not to ask these folks not to think more than one
move ahead.
JG
Nickname unavailable
dog.com> wrote:
> Did the Germans use Socialism to climb out of the economic collapse in
> post "World War One".
nope, they followed the advise of the idiots at the austrian school
of economics. and their economy went into a free fall, that lead to
the rise of the unltra conservative, hitler.
Did the Germans actually get out of economic
> collapse?
yes. after they raped europe.
Their Fiat Currency collapsed
nope, they were on the gold standard. only idiots use the gold
standard. being on the gold standard, is a recipe for economic
collapse.
and National Socialists slowly
> took power and the *government grew but did the Private sector* actually
> recover and was the recovery(if any) sustainable or were the Germans
> forced to *war, genocide and Slavery* along with theft of personal
> assets and theft on a National scale of Czechoslovakia and Poland and
> France.... to keep the National Socialist machine from falling back into
> collapse, Depression and ramped inflation.
>
> --
and it was all backed by conservatives, who supported hitler right
till the end. hitler was bankrolled by conservatives, and they served
in his government in high positions of power.
Nickname unavailable
> On Dec 26, 12:21 am, "3877" <3...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > hal wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:50:54 +1100, "3877" <3...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > The people had no real power in Nazi Germany.
>
> > Yes, but that is a separate matter entirely to whether they had some socialism.
>
> I wouldn't concede his underlying assumption here that "the people"
> have "real power" under socialism. They certainly had none in the
> Soviet Union or now in Cuba or N. Korea.
>
the reason why you hate cuba and the soviet union so much, is because
they will not allow you to invest in their slave labor empire. yet,
you blubber and pour trillions into communist china:) you will change
your tune on north korea soon, they are now allowing limited invest in
their slave labor factories. its only a matter of time, and you will
drop north korea from your hate list:)
> > > All the power lied with the aristocracy and Nazi Party members.
>
> Fine, under socialism all the power is in the hands of the bureaucrats
> and the union bosses.
>
it matters not if its free market economics(fascism)or communism,
almost all wealth and power ends up in the hands of a few in either
system.
> Btw, if arguably Hitler referred to himself as a socialist as
> something of a propaganda ploy, Mussolini in contrast was an avowed
> socialist and never abandoned it. You just don't approve of his brand
> of it. But then the different wings of socialism have been at each
> others throats from the beginning and if they put aside their
> differences to seize power, once that is accomplished they go after
> each other with a vengance. The French Reign of Terror was a
> forewarning of this.
>
> Fred Weiss
mussolini was no longer a socialists. he was the father of fascism, a
conservative value.
Nickname unavailable
Ayn Rand was a high functioning, manipulative and cunning
sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
Door
http://blogs.myspace.com/psychorand
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
I get email.
Category: Blogging
I live in a neighborhood that has a small homeless population. One
such person within that homeless group is known to the rest of us by
her first name only. I can hear her now, outside my apartment. I'm
told she lives in a kind of dilapidated garage of some sort, where she
sleeps in a pile of blankets and debris. She often walks my street,
collecting bottles and cans for the cash deposits. Whilst on her
journeys, she often stops abruptly, plants both feet firmly to the
ground and launches a kind of "external dialogue" with the world. She
doesn't scream, but rather projects her voice with a powerful force.
Her chanting can literally be heard for blocks as she speaks directly
to phantoms that only she can see. Sometimes she appears to be
"lecturing" passersby with a hostile, throaty tone. It all comes out
in a weird staccato rhythm, like a drill sergeant. Mostly, she's
harmless and her monologues, indecipherable. This is the kind of
obvious mental illness we can all recognize. But there are other forms
of psychosis. And books such as "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha
Stout illuminate that fact clearly. Still, as I write this, the sound
of our homeless inculcator strikes me as familiar. I am reminded of my
first Ayn Rand girlfriend ARGF1, who's moods would alternate between
states of overblown confidence and abject misery from time to time.
When she was on one of her transient "highs", she would ad lib her own
monologues, paraphrasing Ayn Rand's vituperative critiques on modern
society with a bratty, flippant demeanor. ARGF1 was crazy too. She was
a borderline.
I'm surprised that my little corner of Myspace gets the modest
attention that it does. However, to my critics and others who would
send me email defending Ayn Rand: let me be clear.
The main topic of this page is Borderline Personality Disorder and the
reasons why the belief system of Ayn Rand appeals to certain
individuals who exhibit traits of that psychological malady. The main
topic of this page is not – I repeat NOT about the merits of Ayn
Rand's "philosophy". Take a psychological perspective on what she said
and how she acted in life. The available research on BPD is extensive,
so I suggest that Rand's defenders who don't understand the disease
should first read "Stop Walking on Eggshells" by Paul Mason and Randy
Kreger. For a different take on the psychology of Objectivism, read
Ellen Plasil's autobiography "Therapist", in which she chronicles how
she was sexually molested by her Objectivist father when she was 11
years old and other horrific events that took place in the Randian
subculture of her time. It is my opinion that Plasil's book is
essential to understanding the cult-like phenomenon of Ayn Rand.
In so far as Rand's "philosophy" is referenced here, it serves mainly
to reinforce the established and substantiated opinion that Ayn Rand
probably did suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder. Her black &
white / all or nothing / love & hate beliefs (including her narrow
views on art and music) reveal her as a borderline pretty quickly to
any person who has experienced a close relationship with a BPD
partner. Apart from Rand's own tawdry personal story, it's also
distinctly evident to me that her writings are expressions of BPD and
therefore appeal to a certain borderline type, as my experiences and
those of others have demonstrated. (I've been contacted by supportive
readers who shared their stories of relationships with Randian
borderlines.) It's very clear to me that Ayn Rand was a high
functioning, manipulative and cunning sociopath (see: gaslighting, as
the term relates to borderline pathology). She was also severely
narcissistic and imperious. She was afflicted with multiple
personality disorders (co-morbidity) and psychologically abused people
within her social group, perhaps most cruelly her own husband.
Evidence of her unbalanced psychology appears early in her life, as
Michael Prescott has observed. This is not a case of a person "losing
it" in her old age, although her psychological problems were magnified
during that later time period.
I suggest that my critics crawl out of the fantasy world of "Galt's
Gulch" and face the facts: Mental illness is real. Borderline
Personality Disorder is real. Now take a fresh new look at your
precious guru.
Currently reading:
The Sociopath Next Door
By Martha Stout
Release date: 2006-03-14
5:04 AM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
THERAPIST: A book that is testimony to Rand’s destructive legacy.
I purchased a used copy of Therapist from Amazon. It deserves to be
reprinted and perhaps someday a new edition will be published.
It's an engaging read, but disturbingly so. I actually had knots in my
stomach while getting through it. In Therapist, author Ellen Plasil
recounts in detail her experience as a patient with the Objectivist
psychiatrist, Dr. Lonnie Leonard. Over the course of several years,
Dr. Leonard psychologically manipulated, controlled and sexually
abused the author and other women in his care. Years later, legal
action was taken against Dr. Leonard, and some justice was procured
for the victims.
Many of the doctor's patients were students of Objectivism, and it's
unsettling how immured they were, as a group. The doctor's sex
theories were highly informed by those of Ayn Rand, especially in
regards to his interpretation of the so-called "ideal man" that Rand
championed. Plasil says that she, along with other "students of
Objectivism" were all blinded by the mechanism of Objectivist culture,
where leaders of the movement possessed unchallenged authority, much
like a cult. It was this culture that enabled the abuse.
"Whatever their source, there seemed to be rules of right and wrong
for everything in Objectivism. There was more than just a right kind
of politics and a right kind of moral code. There was also a right
kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a
right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we could not buy,
and right ones which we should. Wrong books were written by "immoral"
people whom we didn't want to support through our purchase; right
books never were. There were plays we should not see, records we
should not listen to, and movies we should not pay to watch. There
were right ways to behave at parties, and right people to invite to
them. And there were, of course, right psychotherapists. And on
everything, absolutely everything, one was constantly being judged,
just as one was expected to be judging everything around him. And if
one was not judging everything that was around him, one was judged on
that, too. It was a perfect breeding ground for insecurity, fear, and
paranoia."
"The numbers of these blindly devoted went beyond coincidence. There
was more to this than just a chance meeting of several dozen sheep all
willing to follow their hero, their ideal man anywhere. Maybe the
"hook" was in the lesson that if Objectivism was the right way, then
being a student of objectivism made us more right than others. And for
those of us who were not certain of our value to begin with, such
superiority helped us ignore our self-evaluations and feed our
egos.... Or maybe it was in Ayn Rand's incorporation of "hero-worship"
into her representation of romantic love; show an Objectivist a hero
and the hero has but to take command."
Therapist reveals the dark side of Objectivism like no other document
can.
Currently reading:
Therapist
By Ellen Plasil
Release date: September, 1986
9:03 PM
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
2 Kudos
Translate
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Why I created this page.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder;
how I wish I had never heard of these two things!
And how I wish that I'd never heard of a person named Ayn Rand.
Actually, I'm reasonably confident that I never would have heard of
that name until recently, if it were not for one person: I will call
her Ayn Rand Girlfriend Number One, hereafter referred to as ARGF1.
I met ARGF1 about 1 year after graduating from college. I was in my
first (and last) corporate job at the time, making decent money and
trying to figure out what to do with myself. ARGF1 was slightly
younger and had a troubled life. Her father was a recovered alcoholic
and her parents were long divorced. I guess when she was about 15, she
dropped out of high school and ran away to the state where her father
lived. She slummed around, used drugs and ran with a group of punk
rock kids. But when she needed money or food, her father's place was
not far. Indicatively, she had very poor relations with both of her
parents, especially her mother, whom she often spoke of in disparaging
tones. Somewhere along the line, ARGF1 suffered from some kind of
abuse. Parts of that dimension within her history were known to me,
and others I surmised were either missing or suspect, because ARGF1
was a chronic prevaricator. Lies of omission were especially
problematic with her. However, it was certain that something terrible
did happen to ARGF1. I witnessed her trauma as she would break down in
tears, unpredictably on several occasions. Other times she raged and
her face morphed into the most ugly countenance I have ever seen,
before or since. I realized that those incidents occurred because of
triggers (unknown to me) that would cause her to act out. Those
moments were frightening and unsettling. I didn't know it then, but
ARGF1 had Borderline Personality Disorder. Clearly though, I did
perceive that she had Narcissistic Personality Disorder and was
unmistakably antisocial. My friends couldn't believe I was dating her.
Nobody liked her, including my parents.
What was I thinking? Well, I have my own problems too! I'm working on
those issues now. But, let's just say that in the past, I've taken on
the role of the "rescuer" in certain relationships. Also, I honestly
saw the good in ARGF1, even if others did not. Perhaps most
significantly, at that time I was very young. During college, I never
took a proper psychology class. I regret that now.
I mentioned before that ARGF1 was a high school drop out (she later
earned her G.E.D. after she ran away). In this regard, she was low
functioning and characteristically she also had trouble keeping jobs.
The false identity that she fostered, both as a brash punk and an
intrepid runaway appeared outwardly to indicate that she was
independent. The opposite in fact, was true; she was needy, insecure,
petty, histrionic and childish sometimes to the point of caricature.
Somehow, she cultivated an image of herself that equated independence
with intelligence. Her bookshelf was packed with second hand copies of
things I knew she could not possibly have read, including books on
complex subjects such as physics and mathematics. In actuality, when
she enrolled at the local state university, she had to drop out of
basic algebra because she was failing. She was intelligent on a
certain level, however she was not book smart. Revealingly, she only
really finished one specific group of books on that shelf. Indeed, she
read and reread these particular books thoroughly and memorized her
favorite passages from them, underlining the important sections for
good measure. These were the books of Ayn Rand; The Fountainhead,
Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, The Romantic Manifesto and lastly, a
title so sensationally vulgar that it virtually insures book sales to
the publisher – The Virtue of Selfishness.
I don't remember at what stage of the relationship I was introduced to
them, but Ayn Rand's books were obviously important to ARGF1, so I
reluctantly agreed to consider some of them. I wasn't a huge fan of
fiction at the time, so I first chose to read The Virtue of
Selfishness, since it was supposedly a summary of Rand's "philosophy"
and it contained long passages from her fiction anyway. Now let me
declare from the outset that I was immediately suspicious of this
work, since ARGF1's behavior was already troubling, and if these books
were informing her actions at the time, there must have been something
weird about her exaggerated enthusiasm for them. Besides, as a recent
graduate from an elite university with its subsequent required course
work in English literature, I found it strange that I had never heard
of this supposedly important author. My suspicions correctly reflected
the general academic position on Ayn Rand: She was a prodigious hack
who would never have been able to stand up to any kind of rigorous
academic peer review process. This work was nothing more than pop
philosophy and more importantly, it was dogma. To any reasonable
sentient human being, the first few pages of The Virtue of Selfishness
reveal the author as what she was: a hateful, pedantic, patronizing
and arrogant pedagogue.
But people with Borderline Personality Disorder are not reasonable
human beings. They are narcissists. When I tried to explain my
objections to Ayn Rand's "philosophy", my concerns went right through
one ear of ARGF1 and exited out the other side of her skull. It simply
did not register. To ARGF1, Ayn Rand was good, all good and nothing
but good. This hostile dichotomy of things that are either all good or
all bad is in fact, a hallmark of Borderline Personality Disorder.
Moreover, I think the ideas contained in The Virtue of Selfishness
were interpreted by ARGF1 to justify her destructive behaviors. At
times, Rand reads like a teenager who just discovered Friedrich
Nietzsche. It's crass, unsophisticated and simplistic. But that's why
it's so appealing to borderlines: It has often been written that
borderlines stop their emotional development at an early age. While
they may appear to be adults, emotionally, they are frightened
children. Rand dresses her arguments in a kind of pseudo-intellectual
aura, but really she appeals to ugly, base emotions. One of her
favorite words repeated continuously in Atlas Shrugged is contempt.
And contempt is what Ayn Rand exuded in virtually everything she
wrote.
With welcome relief, I ended that relationship within a year. I heard
through a mutual friend that ARGF1 had shacked up with another punk
and consummated an even more turbulent relationship with him. They met
at a punk club. It's my understanding that she cased after him when
she caught a glimpse of the Ayn Rand quote he had scribbled on the
back of his studded leather jacket. Sometimes borderlines are just
like cartoon characters. It would be funny if it weren't so
horrendous.
That was 17 years ago. I'd hoped to have forgotten Ayn Rand. But in
later years I would meet another person that would throw me for a
loop. Unlike ARGF1, she was extremely intelligent, talented and
beautiful. I was in love. In the beginning, it was wonderful. But Ayn
Rand and Borderline Personality Disorder would once again intrude upon
my world. Thus begins my tale of Ayn Rand Girlfriend Number Two.
To be continued…
Update: For personal reasons, I have decided to post only minimal
information regarding my former relationship with ARGF2. There is a
post regarding Ayn Rand tattoos that covers the topic with brevity.
11:57 AM
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
2 Kudos
Translate
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Mental illness is REAL.
They call them "invisible borderlines".
These are people who are "high functioning" and outwardly, they appear
normal.
Inside however, there is emotional turmoil.
Control is what they need; control over their own feelings of inner
shame,
control over their significant others and family members.
Outwardly, they might exude self confidence, but during times when
"the
mask" is off, they often reveal an unusual and irrational fear of
abandonment.
It is this constant fear of abandonment, always churning in the
background
that makes the whole thing so tragic and pernicious.
What this all has to do with Ayn Rand becomes clear when you get
involved
with one of her borderline fans.
Ayn Rand's books are MADE FOR BORDERLINES.
Let me explain. And may I submit that I am not jumping to conclusions
here,
but I am now convinced that there is a quantifiable, tangible
CONNECTION
between Ayn Rand's ideas and the characteristics of borderline
personality disorder.
Twice in my life, I have been involved with BPD women that
"discovered" the
writings of Ayn Rand. The similarities of these two relationships, set
years apart
from one another are frighteningly striking. The cold, social
darwinism championed
by the hateful Ayn Rand appeals to the narcissistic side of the
borderline. Also, the
simplistic black and white solutions to EVERYTHING would seem
perfectly necessary in the BPD's mind. Ayn Rand's portrayal of human
beings as being either "all good" or "all bad" is 100% consistent with
their views of all others and themselves. And a lack of empathy
towards other people, so similar to what Rand preaches is a hallmark
of borderline personality disorder.
Not convinced yet? If your BPD girlfriend has ALL THOSE BOOKS on her
shelf, take a look at them closely, especially if the spines are worn
(evidence of repeated readings). Look for the parts that she
underlined. These passages are frightening glimpses into the mind of
borderline. Remember, Ayn Rand herself was a diagnosed NPD and current
research suggests that she had BPD also.
If you meet someone who claims that Ayn Rand has inspired them to new
heights of
philosophical awareness, be very, very concerned.
Currently reading:
THE AYN RAND CULT
By Jeff Walker
Release date: 1999
3:52 PM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Monday, June 11, 2007
Why did Ayn Rand use Dexedrine?
This is interesting.
Consider this description of Dexedrine from Wikipedia:
"Dextroamphetamine is a powerful psychostimulant which produces
increased wakefulness, energy and self-confidence in association with
decreased fatigue and appetite."
Self-confidence?
Why did Ayn Rand need a drug to boost her self-confidence? She
apparently held a negative view of her own body image. But her fans
claim that she was the most confident person who ever lived.
Question: Did Ayn Rand even like herself...?
Currently reading:
THE AYN RAND CULT
By Jeff Walker
Release date: 1999
3:46 PM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Sunday, June 10, 2007
This is how Borderlines talk...
An exaggerated form of hero worship is one of the many hallmarks of
BPD.
Consider these examples of quotes from Ayn Rand's most famous
disciple, Nathaniel Branden.
"I had come to Ayn out of the void - and I imagined that without her a
void was all that awaited me."
"I am in the first place I have ever felt at home in my entire life...
a place where only good can happen and no harm can possibly come."
Borderlines often speak about their lives as being "voids"... They
have a chronic feeling of emptiness. They attempt to fill that void by
virtue of idolizing their significant other (for certain amount of
time) until they "split" and devalue that person.
--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
[Dr.] Stout says that as many as 4% of the population are
conscienceless sociopaths who have no empathy or affectionate feelings
for humans or animals. As Stout (The Myth of Sanity) explains, a
sociopath is defined as someone who displays at least three of seven
distinguishing characteristics, such as deceitfulness, impulsivity and
a lack of remorse. Such people often have a superficial charm, which
they exercise ruthlessly in order to get what they want. Stout argues
that the development of sociopathy is due half to genetics and half to
nongenetic influences that have not been clearly identified. The
author offers three examples of such people, including Skip, the
handsome, brilliant, superrich boy who enjoyed stabbing bullfrogs near
his family's summer home, and Doreen, who lied about her credentials
to get work at a psychiatric institute, manipulated her colleagues
and, most cruelly, a patient. Dramatic as these tales are, they are
composites, and while Stout is a good writer and her exploration of
sociopaths can be arresting, this book occasionally appeals to
readers' paranoia, as the book's title and its guidelines for dealing
with sociopaths indicate.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ayn rand novels are not historically accurate, nor are they the
product of a stable mind.
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.
definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases