If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   Going Galt is a good way to go broke   (businessinsider.com) divider line 191
    More: Obvious, lululemon  
•       •       •

5265 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 Nov 2013 at 12:44 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-06 04:33:26 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: "Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' "


Hare psychopathy checklist

5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
 6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.
8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
 
2013-11-06 04:52:02 AM

LoneWolf343: A friend of mine once pointed out that "Going Galt" wouldn't work because, after the dust settled, the so-called leeches would realize they were better off without you.


Yeah, after a couple of weeks of confusion everything is back working just as before, but everyone can get paid twice as much as there isn't a bunch of leeches at the top siphoning off 50% of the income to themselves for doing nothing. While in the longer term some companies that were innovative due to their leadership might fade (like say Apple without Jobs), it is hardly going to be an immediate thing. But if they do they will get replaced by new companies from new entrepreneurs filling the gaps as they always do.

Of course in reality the people that find themselves taking over each company are likely to pay themselves lots and the pay raises for everyone else would be much lower, as they will probably fairly quickly start thinking of themselves as the key reason the entire company works to justify their inflated pay, despite the evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-11-06 07:26:55 AM
Ayn had a pretty screwed up personality and an unrealistic philosophy, but she came from a really messed up time in history while living in the wrong place in the world. That can screw up a lot of people.
 
2013-11-06 07:38:10 AM

Firethorn: At $2M per, 10k lives is still a rounding error for the $1B, so we'll ignore it for now.


$2M * 10000 = $20B, which is not a rounding error for $1B.
 
2013-11-06 07:53:27 AM

Firethorn: There's a lot less WTF's in Rand's philosophies if you fully develop them, it's when people only take the first page where there's trouble.


Well... no. Randianism as a philosophy is little more than a goldbug's misreading of Aristotle. Poor Aristotle- abused by both the Catholics and the Randroids. The simple idea of objective value is that- very simple, and very simply wrong. It doesn't make sense as an economic philosophy- market economies depend on the fact that value is  not objective. As a metaphysical philosophy it's slightly more useful, but it's little more than neo-Platonism at that point, with "value" as the key entity in the ideal world that we can't access.

The most charitable readings of Objectivism, stripped of its elitism and sense that some are "elect", still render it a very silly, very childish philosophy at its core.
 
2013-11-06 08:00:21 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Vlad_the_Inaner: globalwarmingpraiser: Henry Reardon followed every law and regulation

Sure sure.  There were no officially sanctioned claims that Reardon Metal was unsafe?  And Reardon didn't go ahead and sell it in safety critical applications anyway?  Sure with a wave of the authoress' magic wand these government experts were merely jealous competitors, but the way that comes out in the real world would be the  Reardon-analog  saying "I don't care what the experts say! Fark them! I, Superman, say it is safe!"


Claims. There were no regulations saying not to use it. They just didn't want him to. It is like certain elements of the government do not want you to own a weapon capable of firing 1000 rounds per minute, but it is perfectly legal to do so. Oh and it is called a Gatling Gun which if hand cranked falls into the antique weapons laws. If they had been actually breaking the law they characters would have been arrested. See in the Fountainhead Henry Roark burned down a building he designed. He broke the law and had to face a jury of his peers.

Oh and for what it is worth, I see objectivism as unworkable as communism. I am pointing out where you are wrong. I would also be glad to work for Hank Reardon. The man valued hard work, ingenuity, and honesty. I could live with that.


Sounds like weaseling to me.  You think that if some inventor's plane was deemed unsafe by the FAA, he'd still be allowed to fly it over populated countery?  Likewise if the State Science Institute declared Reardon Metal unsuitible for railways, it would not be allowed to operate as a business.

But think of the bar you've set yourself. "Henry Reardon followed every law and regulation"   Your Reardon did not get stolen gold from a pirate.  Your Reardon reported the fugitive pirate to the authorities after his meeting. Your Reardon dutifully followed Directive 10-289.  I hope you have your edition signed, because it is a rare book, that is nothing like the Atlas Shrugged other people have read.

To be sure, Reardon is one of the less Hickman-esque Rand supermen.  That's mostly a literary device.  So that he can be shown to move towards the world view of Danneskjöld and Galt as the story progresses, bringing the reader with him.  There's a reason Dagany Taggart dumps him for Galt.  It seemed he just didn't measure up to Galt level in the end. Maybe if he'd been just a bit more Hickman.
 
2013-11-06 08:44:56 AM

xria: Firethorn: At $2M per, 10k lives is still a rounding error for the $1B, so we'll ignore it for now.

$2M * 10000 = $20B, which is not a rounding error for $1B.


You know, you're correct....  Was writing that while distracted.  Well spotted.

t3knomanser: Well... no. Randianism as a philosophy is little more than a goldbug's misreading of Aristotle.


I didn't say it became good if you developed it, I said there's less WTF.

Vlad_the_Inaner: Sounds like weaseling to me. You think that if some inventor's plane was deemed unsafe by the FAA, he'd still be allowed to fly it over populated countery? Likewise if the State Science Institute declared Reardon Metal unsuitible for railways, it would not be allowed to operate as a business.


Hmm...  It depends on how 'unsafe' they figure it'd be.  Ultra-lights, for example, are minimally regulated because they pretty much figure that the most you're likely to kill is yourself.

As for the railways thing - just because it's not good for railways doesn't mean that it can't be used elsewhere.  Aluminum isn't good for railways, but it's great for soda cans and airplanes.
 
2013-11-06 08:53:39 AM

Smackledorfer: So again, I ask: do you believe households should hold no debt?


Why are you continuing to argue with him?

He's actually arguing that a government should never borrow money and should repay surplus taxes every year. That's so utterly ludicrous on the face of it (what happens if the government suddenly needs to spend money on something unexpected, eg; a war? Do we just surrender? do we try to delay it for a few years until we've raised enough taxes to pay for it?) that he must be either trolling, a child or mentally deficient in some way. That's not even mentioning the "nobody should ever take a loan" thing that would mean most people can't get a college education and spend their lives renting.
 
2013-11-06 08:53:52 AM

untaken_name: Target Builder:

1. It worked for several thousand years. The price of goods did not fluctuate much from generation to generation (there were brief fluctuations, but they reverted to the norm quickly). Now the price of goods goes up every year, and the price of gold fluctuates in fiat currency, but is relatively stable in purchasing power. For example, if you had a $20 gold piece in 1900, you could buy a pretty snazzy suit with it, including shirt and shoes. Today, if you have a $20 gold eagle, you can trade it for about enough fiat currency to buy a pretty snazzy suit, including shirt and shoes. 2. What's to stop your employer from cutting the amount of fiat currency they pay their workers over the years?


1. If you got paid a $20 piece a month in 1900 there is no guarantee you would be paid the same now. It doesn't matter of the value of a $20 piece remains constant if your pay goes down.

2. Why has the value of all goods gone down by about 30% in the last year?

3. I guess snazzy suits were pretty damn cheap between the commodities boom of the 80's and the gold spike we're currently coming down from.
 
2013-11-06 08:58:33 AM

Target Builder: untaken_name: Target Builder:

1. It worked for several thousand years. The price of goods did not fluctuate much from generation to generation (there were brief fluctuations, but they reverted to the norm quickly). Now the price of goods goes up every year, and the price of gold fluctuates in fiat currency, but is relatively stable in purchasing power. For example, if you had a $20 gold piece in 1900, you could buy a pretty snazzy suit with it, including shirt and shoes. Today, if you have a $20 gold eagle, you can trade it for about enough fiat currency to buy a pretty snazzy suit, including shirt and shoes. 2. What's to stop your employer from cutting the amount of fiat currency they pay their workers over the years?

1. If you got paid a $20 piece a month in 1900 there is no guarantee you would be paid the same now. It doesn't matter of the value of a $20 piece remains constant if your pay goes down.

2. Why has the value of all goods gone up in terms of the innate value gold represents by about 30% in the last year?

3. I guess snazzy suits were pretty damn cheap in USD between the commodities boom of the 80's and the gold spike we're currently coming down from.


FTFM
 
2013-11-06 09:18:00 AM

Firethorn: I didn't say it became good if you developed it, I said there's less WTF.


Well, sure. There's  less wtf. It's gone from being 10lbs of WTF is a 5lb bag to 9lbs of WTF in the same bag. You are technically correct.
 
2013-11-06 09:23:20 AM

mcreadyblue: Article list me when it dissed the gold standard and praised Ben Bernake.

Inflation is around the corner folks.


I hope so. See, like many smart American's, I invested in debt. I have TONS of it. Loans, Mortgages, ect... So when inflation finally hits, I will profit nicely.

You think Gold is a good investment...lol
 
2013-11-06 10:10:26 AM
Sally Rand was more interesting.
 
2013-11-06 10:15:51 AM

Rapmaster2000: Did you know that every year a dollar is worth less and less while a dram of gold can still buy the same monocle in 2013 that it did in 1913?  This is why we need to go back to the gold standard, so my keen investment intellect is no longer punished by the hand of government.


That's why I'm heavily invested in monocle factories.
 
2013-11-06 10:20:51 AM
Most of the article doesn't say you'll go broke, it says you'll be unpopular or just a terrible person, which is pretty much how rich/business people are portrayed every day by Democrats. Since going full Galt wouldn't make much of a difference there, that's not much of an argument against it. And being able to unload on the lazy, the demanding, the talentless, the whiners, and the political class is a definite plus.
 
2013-11-06 10:22:29 AM

Slaves2Darkness: .

John Galt forms a commune in the mountains, sure they pretend  to "pay" people in gold, but he rewards those who he views as more equal with more gold right from the start, just like the old USSR did. He then convinces those producers to move there, getting them to imprison themselves in their own gulag without ever realizing that they are their own prisoners.


Close, He stole gold from governments and distributed it to his followers based upon how much they had ever paid in income taxes.  The more taxes you paid, the more gold you got.

I notice Glen Beck has been hawking gold lately.
 
2013-11-06 10:46:07 AM

jjorsett: Most of the article doesn't say you'll go broke, it says you'll be unpopular or just a terrible person, which is pretty much how rich/business people are portrayed every day by Democrats. Since going full Galt wouldn't make much of a difference there, that's not much of an argument against it. And being able to unload on the lazy, the demanding, the talentless, the whiners, and the political class is a definite plus.



They are terrible people...the real whiners are the conservatives who don't get enough corporate welfare and have to pay taxes. But don't mess with their pocketbooks just the undeserving shiftless poor peoples, right? Fn whiny punks...
 
2013-11-06 10:57:01 AM
Watched "The Fountainhead" last weekend. The 1949 version with Gary Cooper.

My impression is that the antagonist, Roark, was a talented idiot.

He's an architect that refuses to design buildings that people want.

From my experience in business, you tend to provide goods or services the client wants...otherwise you gots no money.
 
2013-11-06 11:41:50 AM
Going Galt is a good way to go broke

Well, at least when you do go broke, you can suck on the government tit, like Ayn Rand.
 
2013-11-06 11:53:01 AM

Gunther: Smackledorfer: So again, I ask: do you believe households should hold no debt?

Why are you continuing to argue with him?

He's actually arguing that a government should never borrow money and should repay surplus taxes every year. That's so utterly ludicrous on the face of it (what happens if the government suddenly needs to spend money on something unexpected, eg; a war? Do we just surrender? do we try to delay it for a few years until we've raised enough taxes to pay for it?) that he must be either trolling, a child or mentally deficient in some way. That's not even mentioning the "nobody should ever take a loan" thing that would mean most people can't get a college education and spend their lives renting.


I wanted to hear him post something that stupid, and was thoroughly amused when he did.

He is probably just a troll, but oh well.
 
2013-11-06 12:21:54 PM
Business is all about relationships, and Ayn Rand was too socially damaged to ever understand business despite constantly championing it. She just didn't get people, period. She was an absolutely despicable person according to EVERYONE who ever had the misfortune of working with or even meeting her. She was indomitably defiant, obscenely difficult to talk to (you were not permitted to interrupt her, but she would interrupt you constantly), and she was known to completely suck the life out of a room. She never smiled or laughed, she abhorred small talk, and she would often approach strangers with random questions like "Tell me about your premises." She was a pure autistic in every sense of the meaning.

And the big problem with philosophy was, like all philosophers, she assumed that everyone ought to think like her.
 
2013-11-06 12:28:12 PM

JohnBigBootay: Weaver95: I strongly encourage every ayn randian fanatic to go galt and drop out of this evil society as fast as they can. Flee to the hills! You'll be safe in your bunkers and caves, I promise.

Thanbk you. I am off to a secret canyon in Colorado where I will live on a self-sustaining ranch and barter goods and services with other high-minder makers.

You know, I just don't get it. I actually read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in their entirety back in college. I actually enjoyed them both. I like a long novel and I found them ripping good sci-fi lite yarns. But it was well over twenty years ago and they didn't seem such political touchstones at the time. It never occurred to me for a second that the ideas in those books made a goddam bit of sense as some kind of political system that someone should actually try. Simplistic horseshiat for dime-store intellectuals.


100% agree. I read Fountainhead many years ago to see what the fuss was about and I just couldn't figure it out.

/same with Stranger in a Strange Land btw
 
2013-11-06 12:42:20 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Have you read it? Is it any good or does it only get attention because its a libertarian favorite?


I read the thing in its entirety while sitting on the can. It took me 2.5 years to use all the pages.

Here is it, in a nutshell:

What Ayn Rand did was simplify a complex network of economic theories, ideas, practices and human motives and constructed a mono-dimensional faux-reality as a vehicle to push her pulp. Then she filled it full of cardboard cutout characters and mary sue ubermensches who don't talk but lecture for tedious pages about why the rich and powerful have divine right to being rich and powerful. And of course things play out exactly the way her philosophy says because she's the author and she controls the outcome. In clear violation of every realistic portrayal of ethics, politics, economics, reality, life, human nature, philosophy, and farking national train corporation management.

The book's premise is ridiculous because NO ONE is so important that they think they can destroy the world by retreating from it. Nature abhors a vacuum. Everything important and meaningful that has ever been created -- from thoughts to ideas to products to technology to companies -- is instantly taught, copied, and spread around, effectively building an organic backup system in case the original fails or dies (or retreats to Galt's Gulch). No one is the sole arbiter of anything. No one has a privileged position on humanity's future. To rely on a single source for progress and advancement is dangerous to a functioning system. True stability means constant evolving contingencies, backup plans, and millions of redundancies. Society can't fail because one man lost his motor car plans in a factory. Everyone is replaceable. Even John Galt.

And that's what's wrong with Atlas Shrugged (well, there's far more, but this is the gist).
 
2013-11-06 12:58:24 PM

untaken_name: The author isn't saying fiat currency doesn't produce inflation, he says it produces steady, predictable inflation, which is supposed to be better.


It is better. It makes loans easier to pay off and increases fiscal liquidity. If there is deflation, lending slows as it gets harder to pay off debts, and everything grinds to a halt. You don't want that.
 
2013-11-06 01:02:55 PM

untaken_name: 1. It worked for several thousand years.


There were no more than a few thousand principle players in the world's largest economies for thousands of years. Today there are billions.

The problem with gold is that there is a finite amount of it in the world and we even know how much: About 33 cubic metres worth. It's been estimated that about 25 cubic metres of gold has already been discovered and scooped out of the ground, most of it within the last two centuries. There's hardly any gold left that we either don't know about or is inaccessible (bottom of the ocean, volcanoes, etc.). But the important thing to understand here is that we cannot get, nor make, any more gold. This is all we get. The only other place to get more gold is in the exploded cores of stars.

The Gold Standard was fine for world economies up until about 100 years ago because of a few things:

1) Belief in the fiscal fluidity of gold. If legal tender got scarce, you could always scoop more out of the ground to grease the engines of capitalism.

2) There were only a handful of nations with global currencies/economies. Less players in the capitalist game == less pressing need for fiscal fluidity. Economies moved relatively slow, money supply/inflation stayed the same, and all the gold in the world was enough for the major players at the time.

Today, however, there are over a hundred global currencies and 150 global economies. The dependency on a finite resource has moved from a few million bit players a century ago to most of the world's population (let's say 5+ billion), which as you might imagine, has reached a tipping point. There simply isn't enough gold to ensure fiscal fluidity (gold -- or lack of it -- frequently caused bank panics and Depressions in the 19th century for this reason).

Economists knew this as far back as the 1890s and their response was to devalue the gold supply by printing "gold certificates" (paper money representations of gold), essentially increase the amount of gold that existed by dealing in an abstract representation of gold. They needed to devalue the gold four times in the first half of the 20th century alone -- in 1921, 1934, 1938 and finally in 1944, where under the Bretton Woods agreement gold was officially worth 40% of what it was. It stayed that way until 1971 when the emergence of post-colonial economies necessitated a massive shift in global economic policy. Gold was too rigid and too structured (not fluent enough) to handle the influx of a billion more capitalist customers, so that's when they moved off gold and into the age of fiat currency (floating paper money printed by governments), backed by the US dollar.

Fiat isn't perfect. It has its problems too. There are pros and cons to every economic system, but at the time, moving to fiat may have been the most sensible choice (but maybe only a short-term one). See, that's the problem with economics -- the law of unintended consequences plays havoc with longterm planning, foresight and policy.

But technically, we've been off the gold standard since 1934.
 
2013-11-06 01:06:05 PM

Firethorn: There's a lot less WTF's in Rand's philosophies if you fully develop them


Objectivism, fully developed:

www.ishkur.com
 
2013-11-06 01:49:37 PM
Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
static.seekingalpha.com

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.
 
2013-11-06 03:37:03 PM

Mrbogey: Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
[static.seekingalpha.com image 440x143]

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.



I'm a little confused. Why did you stop reading?

See, most time, when one stops reading, it because they find the point so foolish, they they don't want to waste their time. However, you then post in support of the point.

Inflation is higher off the gold standard, however, the fluctuations are far far lower, indicated by the lower std dev. which makes cost estimation and trade far more predictable and manageable.

So are you for or against the gold standard?
 
2013-11-06 04:19:08 PM

Mrbogey: Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
[static.seekingalpha.com image 440x143]

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.


See how the standard diviation was reduced after going off of the gold standard? That would a direct measurement of "fluctuations."
 
2013-11-06 04:20:50 PM

Publikwerks: See, most time, when one stops reading, it because they find the point so foolish, they they don't want to waste their time. However, you then post in support of the point.

Inflation is higher off the gold standard, however, the fluctuations are far far lower, indicated by the lower std dev. which makes cost estimation and trade far more predictable and manageable.


Whenever gold bugs start talking, it's only a matter of time before they expose their gross ignorance of economics and monetary theory.
 
2013-11-06 04:54:40 PM

impaler: Whenever gold bugs start talking, it's only a matter of time before they expose their gross ignorance of economics and monetary theory.


Is there a way to get them talking about Free Silver (16 to 1) or do I have to bring up dimes and gasoline?
 
2013-11-06 04:56:02 PM

impaler: Publikwerks: See, most time, when one stops reading, it because they find the point so foolish, they they don't want to waste their time. However, you then post in support of the point.

Inflation is higher off the gold standard, however, the fluctuations are far far lower, indicated by the lower std dev. which makes cost estimation and trade far more predictable and manageable.

Whenever gold bugs start talking, it's only a matter of time before they expose their gross ignorance of economics and monetary theory.


I'm not a gold bug and your one to talk about "gross ignorance of economics" from your spewings here.
 
2013-11-06 05:00:19 PM

lilbjorn: Going Galt is a good way to go broke

Well, at least when you do go broke, you can suck on the government tit, like Ayn Rand.


you hit it on the nail...! She and her ilk were/are the biggest hypocrites since Jefferson Davis and Thomas Jefferson!
 
2013-11-06 05:04:54 PM

Mrbogey: Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
[static.seekingalpha.com image 440x143]

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.


Dumb.
 
2013-11-06 06:52:25 PM

Mrbogey: Advocating a return to hard money is terrible business advice, because it's not only unproductive and wildly unlikely but would also bring back the huge fluctuations in inflation that modern monetary policy has managed to largely end in the Western world.

Stopped reading at that point.

Here:
[static.seekingalpha.com image 440x143]

Going off the gold standard is done precisely so inflation can be created and manipulated.


Not understanding your own chart..
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-06 07:14:49 PM

robbiex0r: Not understanding your own chart..


Follow my next sentence. The purpose of fiat money is to control it so you only have inflation. You trade volatility for guaranteed higher inflation.

There's benefits to a fiat currency. But when you encourage it to only inflate "so you can erase volatility" you're going to debase your currency and have problems you simply can't wash away.

Stating, if a man complains about being too hot then too cold, setting him on fire may not be the answer.
 
2013-11-06 08:03:12 PM

Prophet of Loss: impaler: Publikwerks: See, most time, when one stops reading, it because they find the point so foolish, they they don't want to waste their time. However, you then post in support of the point.

Inflation is higher off the gold standard, however, the fluctuations are far far lower, indicated by the lower std dev. which makes cost estimation and trade far more predictable and manageable.

Whenever gold bugs start talking, it's only a matter of time before they expose their gross ignorance of economics and monetary theory.

I'm not a gold bug and your one to talk about "gross ignorance of economics" from your spewings here.


Such as?
 
2013-11-06 09:05:14 PM

Mrbogey: The purpose of fiat money is to control it so you only have inflation. You trade volatility for guaranteed higher inflation.


Yep. A higher (≈ 4%) constant rate of inflation is easier to deal with than a year of 8% inflation followed by a year of -8% inflation (deflation). Sure the latter averages to 0, but it sucks to deal with.

The prior is easy. You're going to have 4% inflation. So if you want to save money, you need an interest bearing account. Historically, CDs match inflation pretty close, and an index mutual funds beat it easily.
 
2013-11-06 09:16:58 PM
Oh, I got a free copy of that tw@t's crap off the Net. F*ck paying even a plugged nickel for that drek.
 
2013-11-06 10:32:27 PM

Publikwerks: Inflation is higher off the gold standard,


As it should be -- population keeps increasing and technology keeps advancing. Fixed currencies backed by finite commodities are only applicable to steady state economies.
 
2013-11-06 11:51:52 PM

globalwarmingpraiser: I need to get some sleep. but transfer 20% of our active combat arms to reserve groups. Consolidate all administrative military functions to DOD civilian jobs. Revamp the procurement process. Privatize the R and D basically allowing companies to actively compete for what we are needing. End the war on Marijuana, Turn the TSA to private security, shut down most the the post 9/11 overreaches, and allow for private ownership of automatic weapons while giving a 5 year ban on anyone involuntarily committed. I would also end any entrapment programs. The War on Terror is done. I have an entire plan, but it would make politicians eyes bleed.


1.  We're currently activating reserve/guard groups to help with the fighting in Afghanistan.  It currently wouldn't save any money to transfer any of our 'active' combat arms to reserves because we're using them.  Some money could be saved by optimizing our forces, but that's always a factor.
2.  'All administrative military functions' to DOD civilian jobs?  We've already done a heck of a lot of that.  Still, sometimes you need to be able to do admin in a war zone, plus, well, most combat troops need non-combat dwell time.  Finally, GS jobs aren't really cheaper than enlisted folks.
3.  Revamp the procurement process - I agree with the sole caveat of 'far easier said than done'.
4.  Privatize R&D?  It's already private!  I'd take a lot of it back into the government rather than contracting it out.  The problem is that we've reached the point where there's basically two companies we can buy X from, and because developing and building X is so expensive that the company that doesn't get the job will go bankrupt if it misses the contract for Y, we essentially have a duopoloy in the production of most of our serious military assets(planes, tanks, ships).  As a result the contracts are really messed up and only 'competitive' on paper.
5. End the war on Marijuana - Yep, I'd also end the war on LSD, cocaine, heroin, etc....
6. Turn the TSA to private security - And tell it to back the hell off.
7. shut down most the the post 9/11 overreaches - Agreed
8., and allow for private ownership of automatic weapons while giving a 5 year ban on anyone involuntarily committed. - I'd have a periodic review process instead of a static ban period.
9.  I would also end any entrapment programs  - I don't know; I happen to like the fact that idiots looking for a hitman are more likely to get an undercover cop, but then that's not really entrapment, is it?  I'll agree in general on the basis of what happened to DeLorean.  Cops posting ads offering illegal things and arresting those who show up to purchase/participate in said illegal things(murder, slavery, child molestation, etc...) is mostly okay in my mind.
10. The War on Terror is done. - We always need to fight it, but it shouldn't be a freedom ending affair.  I'd rather take the occasional exploded plane than a police state that doesn't even prevent the plane exploding.

Mrbogey: Follow my next sentence. The purpose of fiat money is to control it so you only have inflation. You trade volatility for guaranteed higher inflation.


That's because deflation is really bad for economies.  And what's wrong with predictable inflation?  By the way, if you look at history we've been dropping that inflation amount for a while.  It's hovering around near 1% at the moment.  I wouldn't be surprised if it took the economists a while to learn how to stabilize inflation enough that they could keep it down to 1% while guaranteeing no deflation.

There's benefits to a fiat currency. But when you encourage it to only inflate "so you can erase volatility" you're going to debase your currency and have problems you simply can't wash away.

Keep inflation stable and not too high and your currency will be just fine.  Please be more specific with the problems that a currency that's worth 4% less each year will incur?

Ishkur: As it should be -- population keeps increasing and technology keeps advancing. Fixed currencies backed by finite commodities are only applicable to steady state economies.


That's technically a bit different than what inflation measures.  If the economy expands and the currency supply doesn't that translates into deflation.  'Neutral' would be the currency supply keeping in step with the economy, but that's deuced difficult.
 
Displayed 41 of 191 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report