Jump to content

Pliny

Member
  • Posts

    5,799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pliny

  1. Well, we don't know what everyone was thinking and each would probably have their own justification for participating in the frenzy of the moment but obviously the consequences were ignored. Most likely they saw someone benefiting and jumped in. Nothing wrong with not looking a gift horse in the mouth,especially when the government is forwarding the idea everyone deserves to live the American Dream. Of course, some may have realized a boom was happening and knew it would end where all booms end - in a bust. Timing is important in these events. By the time the public gets immersed in the activity it is near the bust.
  2. In what dictionaries? I know morals and ethics are often confused with definitions being used to define each other and the debate abut them continues and will continue until they are separated as two different things. Morals can and do become laws. Such as no showing your ankles in public. Morals are general rules that society has learned and incorporated for its sustainability, such as don't eat pork, or don't be promiscuous, or no spitting on the sidewalks or do not steal, or children should not work, these are consdiered to be moral questions. Ethics, are more a personal standard of acceptable behavior one considers he should maintain for himself or is expected of him from a group. They are usually quite general such as "Do no harm." It is left up to the individual to determine what is harm, although a tribunal may sit and determine whether it violates its code of conduct or not. If a person does not feel guilty or culpable for harmful acts for which he is responsible I would say he would be a criminal. I believe society today has trouble determining both responsibility and criminals. As right and wrong are being made fuzzy things under the banner of moral relativity and such that only lawyers, and civil rights groups are allowed to determine.
  3. You mean like crony capitalism failed to deliver? Imagine that. Probably the EPA had something to do with the decision?
  4. If you define a community as the interaction of individuals with common interests then they are all contributing to their own welfare. No one should be asking to get a bigger share than what they contribute to the community. Government tends to distort that by playing favourites through subsidies and tax breaks or levies. Well, I see it as business being a part of the community and paying for government to oversee the safety of the community, not determine who the haves and the have nots should be by socially engineering it as a vested interest. It eventually destroys it. It's pretty simple to see no one would accomplish anything if they worked entirely out of their own personal concerns and that chaos would ensue. A community however has common interests and everyone works harmoniously and co-operatively to achieve them. Your idea of the greedy individual as sole perpetrator for all ills is wrongly placed. As I said in my earlier post the future is what tends to hold greed at bay. However, yes, there are criminals and mobs that live for the moment. A community is working co-operatively and harmoniously or it is not a community. Government attempting to make people work harmoniously and co-operatively does not work because government is not part of the community. It is an overseer. At a certain point it becomes parasitic and tyrannical. You are not aware of any tyranny and things are comfortable for you. Eventually, in years time, you may come to think it is going a bit too far but will it be too late then? Rhetorical question, I know but I feel we must be vigilant about the encroaching State and crony capitalism. We don't have to worry about businesses encroaching upon our lives unless they are granted some sort of monopoly or licence of perpetual existence as long as the State shall deem.
  5. Sorry, kimmy, the 800 or so billion dollars that created the TARP fund was entirely fronted by the Federal Reserve. There was no other sale of government bonds. Correct, bailouts are not unpopular. No one likes to see groups of people hurt or suffering even if they did make their own bed. Another faulty assumption? How many is that now? The CEO's responsibility was not to himself it was to the company. Certainly, he abandoned prudence and the company was destroyed. I don't see government taking him to task for some reason? CNN's list of responsible individuals placed him at #9 on those responsible for the collapse. Number one was the Consumer and number two was Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie and Freddie. You don't seem to recognize any imprudence on the part of those having mortgages forced upon them by the greedy banks or investors buying up mortgage backed derivatives. They probably had the thought they shouldn't invest or be in the house they have but they went ahead anyway assured by bankers that all was well. Was it greed that caused their imprudence? Greed is a base instinctual survival mechanism and what holds it at bay is the future and consequences. It seems that the masses in typical mob mentality didn't look down the road too far and brushed aside any concerns about consequences to live the moment. Barney Franks egged them on with assurances as late as July of 2008 that all was well with Fannie and Freddie and the mortgage market. The collapse occurred in September. I agree the consequences were ignored in the created scenario of moral hazard. No one knew they would get bailed out but there was perhaps a consideration of being "too big to fail" pervading the offices of the banks on Wall Street. Don't forget. Wall street is a mistress of Government wile it pretends to be married to Main Street.
  6. Wow. You're good. Nothing against me, but position me with some well-known unsavoury gold hoarders and not great ones, like the central banks of the world. Thanks a lot. "Amusement", now that's a better word. The information isn't discarded. As I say, I may be entirely wrong. But I don't see a great economy because Ben Bernanke is slowing down the spigot. Nevertheless, I do think gold is at fire sale prices right now. Maybe he is just interested in buying some. In the long range I expect it to go above where it was at its peak 2 years ago. The result of slowing monetary growth will allow for a slight correction downward in the consumer price index which will be intolerable to the central bank so I expect a return to higher quantitative easing to get some inflation going. Globally, things look pretty volatile, a further sign that gold will bounce, at least in my world view.
  7. Buy low. Sell high. Not buy high. Sell low. Gold may be a bit different from other investments in that it is mostly a hedge, it is not a currency, it is a commodity and not entirely full of speculators but not devoid of them so you will see profit taking as well as corrections. What changed? Other than a speech from Ben Bernanke, nothing. It's a markets reaction to political monetary policy. Real market forces have yet to kick in. If it drops to $250 then it was a bubble. That's where it started going up. I feel like this is a sale. The profit taking speculators have left for a spell. I believe your view is a little short-term but then again I could be totally wrong. Of course, I only read and listen to financial advisors that follow a certain market philosophy. I like Mike Maloney and Peter Schiff. I see a difference between them and what I consider are just number crunchers, knowledgeable in what they do, I suppose but they do get caught up in things like bubbles. I didn't miss your unexpressed joy at this market news, by the way. At least you don't sink so low as to criticize my grammar and punctuation. I respect that. Are we having fun yet?
  8. It is pretty simple, waldo. If you need a consensus the science is not settled. The truth needs no consensus. If a consensus is necessary it remains simply theoretical.
  9. Fossil fuels have to go because they are non-renewable resources. Subsidies are tax breaks basically. So they are essentially taxes the government never collected. They aren't a cost. Before I answer about the coal company turning to solar energy I will say I haven't read it. So I am only guessing that the reason is only because the solar energy company is heavily subsidized. Solar energy is definitely not cheaper to produce.
  10. Well, that's a pretty definitive confirmation of those points.My view happens to be different and being an optimist those three things are somewhat possible. A commodity backed currency, be it gold or whatever, is necessary to accomplish the latter two points but it will not eliminate irresponsibility entirely, it will serve to reduce it. A government that has to borrow from it's citizens is far more desirable than a government that borrows from a central bank, bailouts of irresponsible corporations, would then not be a consideration - result fewer irresponsible corporations around. I note there are a few still around after the 2008 bailout. GSEs Fannie and Freddy, for example. The whole point of this thread is about being able to recognize responsibility. A person that points a finger and says someone did not build a business, obviously meaning he could not have done it alone and there is a whole community behind him, is correct but it took the co-ordination of all the necessary resources to build it and the person who did that is the one who built it. Is it a reason to then attack that person and say that he must now give back to the community on the basis that he didn't build that? No matter what Barack Obama says - that person is responsible for building his business and he is rewarded by the commmunity in direct ratio to his contribution to the community. The intent of what Obama said was that the person with the business needed to recognize the community through paying higher taxes and contributing back to the community in some manner with absolutely no recognition of the person's ability to organize and employ the resources that work together to improve the lives of those in the community. The business would simply not exist if it didn't supply a need or want to the community. The businessman or entrepreneur is responsible - he did build it. Blurring the true responsibility, the actual individual that brought it all about, and claiming he couldn't do it without the community is not only an insult to the individual but is detrimental to the whole business community. If the community wasn't there, there would be no reason to co-ordinate necessary resources and provide a service or product to improve the lives of those in the community, would there? I think that's pretty obvious. Of course no one wants to be responsible for negative acts in society, such as the Boston Marathon event. So we try and target an individual or individuals or a certain group. We don't say, they didn't build that. We don't demand that the community make recompense because the Tsarneav's couldn't have committed their atrocity without the community. Have a glorious day!
  11. Waldo... oops... sorry, I mean, waldo, the whole premise of global warming is that it is an anthropogenic event. AGW with an emphasis on the "A". Specifically, the generation of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a greenhouse gas that will cause surface temperatures to rise. The argument now morphs into some new crisis hardly, if ever, before mentioned. Atmospheric temperatures seemed to suffice as an argument prior to a year ago when models were not proving to predict correct outcomes of those temperatures. Even if the ocean is warming, waldo, is it anthropogenic in nature? That is what needs to be proven before we embark upon any extreme measures regarding our energy needs. Until then let's just gradually reduce our dependency upon fossil fuels through technology. Reducing our footprint, researching viable alternatives (Emphasis on viable)and fighting off extremist calls from politician's to run into the fox's den because the sky is falling.
  12. President Obama still claiming climate change is the biggest global threat. Something needs to be done before it is too late. Really the models being wrong tells us that any climate change we have experienced is not anthropomorphically generated. Of course, we should have some attention on resolving pollution problems. I think that governments are well aware of the fact that we are, and we must, move away from fossil fuels as they may last only another hundred years and for the last fifty or so it will be too expensive for most people to afford. But what government has to do is recover the loss of revenues they would suffer if we ended using fossil fuels. Carbon taxes?
  13. It's sinking. Down to $.964 The markets fell sharply on Bernanke's words of slowing bond buying, or for others slowing quantitative easing, or for others slowing the printing presses, or for others creating less money out of thin air.
  14. Ultimately, you are right, dre, it is people.It boils down once again to informed choice. People, for the most part, don't have and don't want to have to spend time worrying about their government and don't even seem to understand its origin or purpose. Its purpose, with the advent of social engineering, has been skewed somewhat. One could say, instead of skewed, redefined or evolved, which implies that all is well and we are progressing as we should. Perhaps, and maybe I am guilty of it, one could look too much into the past and our history for answers to building our future. I have mentioned in other threads that what makes life worthwhile is helping others. Living on our own or for ourselves alone does not make for a happy life. So it is our co-operative, harmonious interaction that is vital to our well-being. It certainly isn't money for most of us, it certainly isn't power, it certainly isn't control. Those things never satiate our appetite for happiness. They may give us some temporary pleasure but similar to an addiction there is always the desire for more. Happiness is elusive and is tied directly into our self-image, our sense of self-respect. Money, power and control are individual, and for the most part, selfish pursuits when they are goals in and of themselves. They are essential to freedom though. One would like to control his own life, at least. One finds it necessary to have "money" in this society and would like the power to direct and form his environment to satisfy his needs and desires. Is it then the government's job to order happiness, to order harmonious interaction. Should it order one to help his fellow citizens? Generally, that means things like giving back to the community, when the community exists only because people contribute to it in the first place? Does it mean, we can relinquish our responsibilities to each other and give them to the government? Where the government is happily "helping" people and we are left desolate only to receive help from the government and never feeling happy? Not happy on either end, giving to the government or receiving from the government. These are the two factions created in a socially progressive democracy. The haves and the have-nots pitted against each other and a democratic determination for equality - that mundane, mediocre and stifling goal that steals all character, colour and personality in a society. So is it history or is it people that we need to understand? We can understand history if we look, we are doing a poor job of understanding people, especially when they do not have the freedom to pursue their own happiness - which is not born out of selfishness but the selfless contribution to other people's happiness. Should we let government be the only happy entity of society giving us somewhat dubious results with our labour? Can we construct a society by ourselves if government just weeds out the obstructions, like threats to the safety of person and property? I believe Libertarianism has a place if we take the time to understand what a society is. If we look and learn from history we find that when a government starts to take over the engineering of a society, the social welfare state just being the beginning of that engineering, and that being enabled only because it has seized control of the money supply, it begins to run everyone's life leaving no room for the individual to contribute to the creation of society or community. Thus leaving people discontent with their lot and selfishly clamoring for their fair share and demanding others give their fair share. Does that sound like an alien race with a different nature? I think we need to make some progress in the field of the humanities. Austrian economics teaches us that the individual will always act in his best interests to improve himself and his position, to build a higher standard of living. And of course that cannot be done without harmoniuos and co-operative interaction with his fellows. Those with a collective mentality emphasize the selfish aspect of that interaction where they see someone make a gain believing it to be at the expense of someone else instead of a mutual co-operative interaction. Certainly, fraud are concerns but that is not an harmonious and co-operative interaction and deserves the scrutiny of a government. There is theft, where someone gains at the expense of others. But the collective it seems has confused any person's or corporations gain as criminal and not a result of co-operative interaction.
  15. I calls 'em as I sees 'em Thanks for quoting what I said.Here's what you said: "You claim that violence, unless motivated by personal gain, is almost always caused by drugs. That's outrageous" That would be outrageous but I said: "Drugs are almost always behind these Incidents that lack a motive and are just bizarre." So it isn't as you claim that I said "violence" is almost always caused by drugs, but incidents of violence that are bizarre and seemingly unmotivated. He is already diagnosed and I don't see any mention of a plan of treatment.He is not here so I am not suggesting he do anything. I am saying what I would wish for someone that needed help and that being he be in full control of himself and his senses. I just happen to believe that a person on any psychoactive drug is in an altered state to a greater or lesser degree. Many people would feel better on cocaine and heroin but because people feel better is it a reason to prescribe them? Yes. I said that. How many people, deeming they are mentally deficient, shoot up schools and movie houses before they have had psychotropic drugs? If it's bizarre and unmotivated violence chances are likely that drugs are involved. The entire "profession", like yourself, is not interested in anything but the status quo.Dr. Szasz says there are people with problems that they don't know how to cope with but doesn't like to call them an "illness". Something they may have experienced they don't understand but is that an illness. there is no biological marker for these illnesses so how are you to treat it? Just guess that it is a chemical imbalance? Or apply some electricity or cut out the bad parts, parts that have yet to be determined? Firstly, not even I am seeking to ban psychopharmaceuticals to stop gun violence. There doesn't seem to be too much of a "mob" behind me. I would like to see a vast curtailment of their use, especially in children and infants.I can't understand how an infant can be prescribed these things. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/prescribing.aspx "Of particular concern is the prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to vulnerable populations, including foster care children and elderly nursing home residents. Foster children are up to four-and-a-half times more likely to receive psychotropic drugs than other children covered by Medicaid, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. The investigation of foster care programs in five states found that hundreds of children were prescribed multiple psychotropic drugs, including antipsychotic drugs at excessive dosages. Infants also were prescribed psychotropic drugs despite no scientific evidence supporting that use" So they are told. And many, once on them, can't function at all without them. Once again I'm not calling for their banning. You can't do that to the many people dependent upon them. Like welfare, they have to learn to live without them. But I am not sure there is any alternative for them.The article I cited above pretty much sums up my view. People should be informed and made aware of options so they can make informed choices. Insulin is for a disease by the way with a definite biological marker, a non-insulin producing pancreas. I know this comparison is made by the industry and many people repeat it. But it is comparing oranges and apples. Shooting innocent people in schools and movie theatres is evil.Let's solve that problem. You won't unless you look at all the information. If you choose to blame guns or video games I don't believe you will have solved the problem. Do you? You may disagree but millions do not want their 2nd amendment rights violated. We'll have to establish some solution. Could you consider there is a possible link to these bizarre incidents and psychotropic drugs? I don't tack with the mainstream, I know that. I like Fox news, I read about alternative medicine. I essentially agree with what I conclude works best. A fiat currency doesn't work in the long run, medical solutions that leave patients ill-informed don't work for me, a State that wishes to run people's lives for them doesn't work for me, and behind those things are people that promote them, not entirely out of evil, as I believe people are fundamentally good, but out of some misguided concept of necessity for control or power or wealth or that other people are somehow a threat and should remain weak and ignorant, lest they become a danger by being educated and strong.
  16. This study is simply a statisitical analysis of statistics. It isn't a clinical double blind trial in and of itself so we have to take it for what it is and also the interests of the authors.Considering this: "... participants tend to be mildly to moderately depressed and that studies tend to enroll patients who are not suicidal, do not have other psychiatric illnesses, and do not have known substance abuse problems." It's rather selective. ..and considering it was on only completed suicides and did not consider attempts or agitation or suicidal ideation. The statistical evidence is low for violent side effects. All that should happen is the patient be informed. He is not informed if he is told he has a chemical imbalance and needs the drugs to correct the imbalance.He needs to be made aware of the all possible side-effects and after that it is his choice. There are millions of people on these drugs in North America, as you say and there may be only one killing spree in a year or two years or even three years. Articles like this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/28/the-depressing-news-about-antidepressants.html Don't make me too encouraged to suggest Doctors prescribe them. Once again a patient has to be made aware of exactly where he is headed - is it towards a greater mix of drugs and heavier doses with increased chances of side effects? I don't know how many just take it on the advice of a practitioner without being fully informed but I would say it is quite a few.
  17. Charles Whitman: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/austin_3.html "Dr. Jan D. Cochrun prescribed Valium for Charlie and referred him to University Health Center Staff Psychiatrist Dr. Maurice Dean Heatly. Heatly found that Charlie "had something about him that suggested and expressed the all-American boy," but that he "seemed to be oozing with hostility." Charlie spoke mainly of his lack of achievement and his hatred of his father. At one point, he told Heatly that he had fantasized about "going up on the Tower with a deer rifle and shooting people." Heatly was not disconcerted. Many of his patients had made references to the Tower, and Charlie showed no behavior patterns as of yet that indicated that he was serious" Jiverly Wong: This is inconclusive as there is no account I can find on his life in California. "I don't know anything about his life in California," Voong said. "Something must of have happened there." During the nearly 15 years he spent in California, Wong rarely kept in touch with his family. He never visited or sent letters. His phone calls were few and short and he refused to share a mailing address. Mail addressed to their son occassionally arrived at the family's Binghamton home. Voong recalls opening a piece addressed to Jiverly Wong, which was different from his son's given name of Linh Phat Voong. Nidal Hasan: Mr Hasan was a psychiatrist. The only news report that referred to drugs was a a box full of pill bottles found in a closet at his residence. Some of what was in the box was listed but the list is incomplete. Not conclusive. I didn't find anything on Patrick Sherrill about drugs at all. Is a reporter that believes video games and violence on TV makes people go berserk going to tie anything to pharmaceuticals? Kimmy would never ask that question and many people agree with her. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that pharmaceutical companies influence the media to downplay the role of these drugs.
  18. Sorry, it doens't. The unknown factor is indeed the person. A person that takes a drug to better control himself and experiences an adverse reaction where he lacks any control of himself is not making a self-determined decision. If a person blacks out on alcohol gets into an argument and shoots someone usually tries to blame the alcohol but he made a self-determined decision to drink that amount of alcohol. A drug that is given that is supposed to return his self-determinism that results in a bizarre random act of violence of which he has no understanding is, in my view, the responsibility of the practitioner who prescribed him that drug.
  19. I would say that the pharmaceutical lobby will dispute the findings and attempt to have them lifted but the fact they are there is an acceptance of data that shows a correlation. A study by who? I like to keep up on these things do you have a reference? They are bizarre and seemingly motiveless and often end with the perpetrator killing themselves. It isn't a clinical study. It is just a fact that they all have been taking psychotropic drugs. Call it coincidence. A full one or an empty one?
  20. The analogy doesn't fit. A person with a gun is still in control of his faculties. A person on a drug can lose control of himself.
  21. It only takes observation. A little bit of a distortion. I did no such thing. Actually if you understand me it's mainly people who are violent that are mentally ill. The people that are labelled mentally ill A public service. Wow! Just trying to help, are you? It doesn't matter what I proof I cite you will refute it. I have given you things to read to get you up to speed but you do not seem interested. The public will eventually reject the carnage and make the connection. At least read the small print, the side-effects. What I have said is right there. Are you taking these meds, kimmy?
×
×
  • Create New...