Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Most problems in today's society can be summed up with two words. Ayn Rand. Using words like "morality of capitalism" so they can simply and directly attack anyone who questions the morals of PEOPLE who practice "capitalism", when what they are actually doing is practicing "objectivism".
Connecting "objectivism" in this way with "capitalism". On it's own "capitalism" does not have any morals. "Objectivism" adds that. And by the way, anyone who doesn't agree is automatically a "communist".
Please excuse me while I go retch. I have not read any literature more disgusting than Ayn Rand's. Not sure why I use literature. It's really putrid foul smelling compost.
Her place in the grand scheme of things would never be worth mentioning, ever, except that a few influential rightwingnut pols and their con men (Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul) still spout her 'economic' claptrap about takers and dependency and individualism and government and all else. There is a cargo of high and gross comedy there, but the best is probably her needing and taking SS and Medicare for her final years. I love the quip about her (I'm messing it up, surely), 'Anyone who believe there's no such thing as altruism will believe anything.'
The novels, Fountainhead especially and Atlas Shrugged...both are amazing.
Original. Captivating. e Philosophy aside. She was brilliant.
Like Daphne du Maurier. Pure schmaltz! But who does not like Rebecca?
Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again...
You gotta love it.
So, she wrote a couple great novels. Still read today.
Have to give her that.
I have no opinion on fiction because that's a matter of opinion. I wouldn't object if Ayn Rand was the most celebrated fiction writer of all time. Someone should have sent Greenspan to get a degree in liberal arts and critique Rand's novels then and not base economic policy on it.
Hm, the criticism of Ayn Rand is quite surprising. Was her philosophy entirely correct, definitely not. But viewed within the proper context of her life, it was understandable. Take our current situation where, leftwingnuts could justify any program in order to achieve their version of Utopia where the Government is always there to 'help'. After eight very long years of leftwingtopia, 'Atlas Shrugged' seems so much more appealing. As we all know very well reversion to mean applies to everything, even Government spending. Just ask the people of Detroit.
BW, presumably you are here because you invest. What kind of shape would we all be in financially if, in 08 and 09 and after, there had been zero gov TBTF help (should I use sarcastic quotes around help? gosh, I dunno), do you think?
I also speak as one who received tens of thousands of dollars of unemployment payments as well. I was a taker for sure. Like GM.
And if you think the last eight years have been leftwingtopia (I wish) or anything even remotely close to it, you simply have not been paying attention to the House and Senate. What an odd thing to write. BO is to the right of Nixon.
I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the experience factor. Unfortunately, if a candidate has experience, he/she also has plenty of accumulated baggage. This is also a problem with term limits: you elect someone from the "outside", and by the time they know where the water cooler is they're gone. If you prefer pols with "experience", they are already corrupt by the time they're elected.
BrianW: "Take our current situation where, leftwingnuts could justify any program in order to achieve their version of Utopia"
Take our current situation, where we have allowed the Kochs and their Rand-loving ilk to reduce ever more jobs to minimum wage, part-time only, no benefits, no retirement, no future. In the thirteenth century that was called "serfdom".
Fed-Ex doesn't need employees as drivers: they hire "private contractors" who not only receive absolutely no benefits but must even supply their own trucks and uniforms. Minimum wage entry-level workers in sandwich chains forced to sign "no-compete" contracts that scare them into believing that they cannot go to work for a competitor. Every day the list gets a bit longer, doesn't it?
This country is being reduced to serfdom even as you and your kind prattle about Ayn Rand. But I'm betting that you have no personal worries: you're one of the privileged class.
These political threads always end badly. I would suggest everyone take a deep breath.
Can we talk about mutual funds?
Problem is OT conversations are allowed on MFO. I'm all for removing them. Its just that sometimes you learn something on these boards even though its not about funds.
Like for instance objectivism is a legitimate form of capitalism and left-wing nut is a term. Besides I always thought Mark Cuban was a democrat, only to learn Ayn Rand would have divorced him.
Yes, they do, and you must surely have noticed that I do my best not to start them. But by God, I'm not sitting here and passively listening to total crap like that above.
I am not in favor of censorship, just trying to keep the piece. The old adage of not bringing up religion and politics at the dinner table comes to mind.
It is known here that I would agree more with @BrianW than some of the others. I also know when it is better to back out rather than fuel the flames.
Government is trying too hard to be everything for everyone. What they need to do is to create a system of equal opportunity for all and then let the people make their opportunities. Sure, some regulation is needed but we are beyond that. The rule of law should be fair and just for all and not changing for the latest trends. Felonies used to be reserved for serious crimes. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of serious is. Now simple misdemeanor crimes have been elevated to felony status and with that the guilty party is further restricted by the felony rules.
All crimes are hate crimes. We should not be elevating certain crimes based on race or religion.
I guess I shoulda said I was also talking about Ray Gun, a second pernicious fraud. BO is to the right of him, actually, since nobody but nobody remembers that Ray Gun:
- raised taxes on a large scale four times - made a decision to cut and run from Lebanon after our troops were attacked - negotiated with terrorists (arms traded for hostages with Iran) - negotiated with the 'Evil Empire' without preconditions, and - gave amnesty to illegal immigrants
I believe the Government does have its place. However, as it becomes larger the corruption becomes more and more obvious. And to respond to the so called 'privileged' class. I grew up in the ghettos of Washington DC. I've learned to invest and as a byproduct, have done better. If the Government was truly there to help, they would develop programs to teach others to do the same. However, their approach is always the opposite. Why is that? I submit it is because dependent sheep are easier to influence than independent investors. Perhaps? Social Security will not survive. However, anytime privatization is mentioned, some Democrat talks about Enron. An argument that is disingenuous at best. Politicians in general are show ponies and true leaders could never rise to the top for one reason, the truth is a hard pill to swallow. Take care of yourself, respect others and the world will be a better place.
Regarding the Financial crisis. The crisis was caused by the Governments' failed policies and it doesn't appear they learned their lesson. Just ask Brooksley Born.
Yes, they do, and you must surely have noticed that I do my best not to start them. But by God, I'm not sitting here and passively listening to total crap like that above.
It's not the political discussion in itself, as much as the insta-anger ("Just add politics!") that happens whenever there's the slightest hint of differing opinions. It quickly becomes virtual yelling because people are so deeply wrapped up in their political religion - and politics in this country has become religion, complete with hatred and anger (at levels I find astonishing) towards those who don't have the same religion as you.
Politicians probably find this delightful, because they can keep on doing zip and pretending to their base that they give a **** because their base is too busy screaming at anyone on the internet that has a differing opinion rather than actually being demanding of politicians to, I don't know, do something. Must be nice to be a politician these days - do nothing of any substance, play political games and have a base that still defends you rabidly against anyone who could be viewed as opposition or heaven forbid actually has a differing opinion about something.
I read stories on any number of things on CNN, Huffpost, etc every day and the fury that people have towards what they believe is "the other side" is to the point where it's gone past being merely "uncivil" and is now - in my opinion - concerning.There is no respect for anyone's opinion, there is no desire to hear someone out, etc. It's just "you agree with me or you're part of whatever problem is the focus today." (and that's putting it kindly)
"The sky is blue." "F you, Koch Brothers (or whatever "villain" has been held up for your side to hate and hiss at) are probably controlling the weather to make profits somehow."
It could be about something not related to politics in the slightest, and the comments section still manages to find an incredible level of hatred (and the usual name calling, which at this point has become deeply repetitive and really shows how much civil discourse has deteriorated in this country - can't actually have a discussion, no - it's "those Dumocrats or those evil right wingers or whatever Republican term I can't think of at the moment because it's early") towards the other side who, they believe, is somehow at fault.
Read any number of comments sections on Fox, huffpost, CNN, etc etc and if you're not highly pessimistic about our ability to potentially ever come together as a nation, maybe there's some hope but I don't see it.
And the implication...gridlock. At least for normal ops. We do still seem to be able to come together during crises.
lol, I almost added that "Heaven help us if we have a crisis, financial or otherwise. People will stand around arguing whether the democrats or republicans caused it rather than spend one iota of energy on trying to come together to solve it." I hope that I'm wrong, but everything that I see leads me to believe otherwise.
While I do agree with the observations regarding the pre-programmed lack of civility, particularly in the comments posted by responders in forums other than MFO, I'd like to observe that this is not universally true.
While I have fundamental disagreements in some areas with, for example, John and Maurice, we also have many areas of essential agreement, and have managed to express our differing opinions without personal nastiness. John, Maurice and I have had many exchanges of differing opinions, yet I cannot remember being called a "leftwingnut", or anything remotely similar. If you have an opinion, fine, provide some information which you believe to be factual and be prepared to defend your position with appropriate citation.
From above, the flat statement "Social Security will not survive", unsupported by any factual reference or citation, is a pretty good example of how not to do it, and is properly deserving of responsive derision.
Comments
Using words like "morality of capitalism" so they can simply and directly attack anyone who questions the morals of PEOPLE who practice "capitalism", when what they are actually doing is practicing "objectivism".
Connecting "objectivism" in this way with "capitalism". On it's own "capitalism" does not have any morals. "Objectivism" adds that. And by the way, anyone who doesn't agree is automatically a "communist".
Please excuse me while I go retch. I have not read any literature more disgusting than Ayn Rand's. Not sure why I use literature. It's really putrid foul smelling compost.
"If you are not sure what to do, go play golf. "
Barack Hussein 0bama.
The novels, Fountainhead especially and Atlas Shrugged...both are amazing.
Original. Captivating.
Philosophy aside. She was brilliant.
Like Daphne du Maurier. Pure schmaltz! But who does not like Rebecca? You gotta love it.
So, Ayn Rand wrote a couple great novels. Still read today.
Have to give her that.
And, they are still making satire about her.
The video Ted posted was hilarious.
Too much.
Submitted for your approval:
I also speak as one who received tens of thousands of dollars of unemployment payments as well. I was a taker for sure. Like GM.
And if you think the last eight years have been leftwingtopia (I wish) or anything even remotely close to it, you simply have not been paying attention to the House and Senate. What an odd thing to write. BO is to the right of Nixon.
I'm not sure he is "right", just incompetent for the job. He had no experience going in and it badly shows now.
The people voted for history and not for President.
No win, no how.
Take our current situation, where we have allowed the Kochs and their Rand-loving ilk to reduce ever more jobs to minimum wage, part-time only, no benefits, no retirement, no future. In the thirteenth century that was called "serfdom".
Fed-Ex doesn't need employees as drivers: they hire "private contractors" who not only receive absolutely no benefits but must even supply their own trucks and uniforms. Minimum wage entry-level workers in sandwich chains forced to sign "no-compete" contracts that scare them into believing that they cannot go to work for a competitor. Every day the list gets a bit longer, doesn't it?
This country is being reduced to serfdom even as you and your kind prattle about Ayn Rand. But I'm betting that you have no personal worries: you're one of the privileged class.
Can we talk about mutual funds?
Like for instance objectivism is a legitimate form of capitalism and left-wing nut is a term. Besides I always thought Mark Cuban was a democrat, only to learn Ayn Rand would have divorced him.
Yes, they do, and you must surely have noticed that I do my best not to start them. But by God, I'm not sitting here and passively listening to total crap like that above.
It is known here that I would agree more with @BrianW than some of the others. I also know when it is better to back out rather than fuel the flames.
Government is trying too hard to be everything for everyone. What they need to do is to create a system of equal opportunity for all and then let the people make their opportunities. Sure, some regulation is needed but we are beyond that. The rule of law should be fair and just for all and not changing for the latest trends. Felonies used to be reserved for serious crimes. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of serious is. Now simple misdemeanor crimes have been elevated to felony status and with that the guilty party is further restricted by the felony rules.
All crimes are hate crimes. We should not be elevating certain crimes based on race or religion.
Anyway I've had my say.
- raised taxes on a large scale four times
- made a decision to cut and run from Lebanon after our troops were attacked
- negotiated with terrorists (arms traded for hostages with Iran)
- negotiated with the 'Evil Empire' without preconditions, and
- gave amnesty to illegal immigrants
and talk about inexperience. Literally.
Politicians probably find this delightful, because they can keep on doing zip and pretending to their base that they give a **** because their base is too busy screaming at anyone on the internet that has a differing opinion rather than actually being demanding of politicians to, I don't know, do something. Must be nice to be a politician these days - do nothing of any substance, play political games and have a base that still defends you rabidly against anyone who could be viewed as opposition or heaven forbid actually has a differing opinion about something.
I read stories on any number of things on CNN, Huffpost, etc every day and the fury that people have towards what they believe is "the other side" is to the point where it's gone past being merely "uncivil" and is now - in my opinion - concerning.There is no respect for anyone's opinion, there is no desire to hear someone out, etc. It's just "you agree with me or you're part of whatever problem is the focus today." (and that's putting it kindly)
"The sky is blue."
"F you, Koch Brothers (or whatever "villain" has been held up for your side to hate and hiss at) are probably controlling the weather to make profits somehow."
It could be about something not related to politics in the slightest, and the comments section still manages to find an incredible level of hatred (and the usual name calling, which at this point has become deeply repetitive and really shows how much civil discourse has deteriorated in this country - can't actually have a discussion, no - it's "those Dumocrats or those evil right wingers or whatever Republican term I can't think of at the moment because it's early") towards the other side who, they believe, is somehow at fault.
Read any number of comments sections on Fox, huffpost, CNN, etc etc and if you're not highly pessimistic about our ability to potentially ever come together as a nation, maybe there's some hope but I don't see it.
In a word...polarized.
And the implication...gridlock. At least for normal ops. We do still seem to be able to come together during crises.
better read up on this
While I have fundamental disagreements in some areas with, for example, John and Maurice, we also have many areas of essential agreement, and have managed to express our differing opinions without personal nastiness. John, Maurice and I have had many exchanges of differing opinions, yet I cannot remember being called a "leftwingnut", or anything remotely similar. If you have an opinion, fine, provide some information which you believe to be factual and be prepared to defend your position with appropriate citation.
From above, the flat statement "Social Security will not survive", unsupported by any factual reference or citation, is a pretty good example of how not to do it, and is properly deserving of responsive derision.