Roger Bissell Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Not you. Harry. And yes, really. He sounds like a dopey simpleton in that comment, or a very young person. Whatever the version, I've seen many, they go,like this... "made all his money from eminent domain" "inherited all his money" "didn't do quite as well as the S&P500 over the comparable 30 year period" The last one is my favorite, because it fails to appreciate the difficulty of deploying vast sums of capital into the real world, not securities traded from the couch, but instead land, and millions of dollars of concrete coming Tuesday, and thirty million dollar window orders, etc., without losing all of it, let alone gain and gain and gain, decade after decade. To do anywhere near the S&P500 with whatever Daddy left 'ya, again, with real world projects, is phenomenal. So, all those simplistic reductions of the man are silly, they sound to me like the way third graders grasp the world. 3 Why am I not surprised? REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Not you. Harry. And yes, really. He sounds like a dopey simpleton in that comment, or a very young person. Whatever the version, I've seen many, they go,like this... "made all his money from eminent domain" "inherited all his money" "didn't do quite as well as the S&P500 over the comparable 30 year period" The last one is my favorite, because it fails to appreciate the difficulty of deploying vast sums of capital into the real world, not securities traded from the couch, but instead land, and millions of dollars of concrete coming Tuesday, and thirty million dollar window orders, etc., without losing all of it, let alone gain and gain and gain, decade after decade. To do anywhere near the S&P500 with whatever Daddy left 'ya, again, with real world projects, is phenomenal. So, all those simplistic reductions of the man are silly, they sound to me like the way third graders grasp the world. What the fuck are you talking about? You just made up an entire scenario. Again, since you lack intuitiveness, I was being sarcastic. You just described what REB has been saying about Trump and eminent domain. Congrats on missing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 12 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said: Why am I not surprised? REB Well Roger, when the mind gets dull, surprise is one of the things that goes, too. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: What the fuck are you talking about? You just made up an entire scenario. Again, since you lack intuitiveness, I was being sarcastic. You just described what REB has been saying about Trump and eminent domain. Congrats on missing that. I'm talking the fuck about how I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Mark, about Harry. Figure it out or just shut up now, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 And I don't see Rogers posts. He has been on ignore since he informed that words justify violence. I don't want to say the wrong thing to him, so I'm playing safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I have never, nor will I ever put someone on ignore here on OL. And for just that reason. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Who said that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Damn, I forgot about this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 "You are a prolific expert at making false presumptions." 5 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: As my freshman algebra teacher told us, "X is the unknown, and a spurt is a drip under pressure - so an expert is an unknown drip under pressure." Right on, Merlin. REB Heh. Hadn't heard that one. I will likely forget it, but I did save it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Not you. Harry. And yes, really. He sounds like a dopey simpleton in that comment, or a very young person. Whatever the version, I've seen many, they go,like this... "made all his money from eminent domain" "inherited all his money" "didn't do quite as well as the S&P500 over the comparable 30 year period" The last one is my favorite, because it fails to appreciate the difficulty of deploying vast sums of capital into the real world, not securities traded from the couch, but instead land, and millions of dollars of concrete coming Tuesday, and thirty million dollar window orders, etc., without losing all of it, let alone gain and gain and gain, decade after decade. To do anywhere near the S&P500 with whatever Daddy left 'ya, again, with real world projects, is phenomenal. So, all those simplistic reductions of the man are silly, they sound to me like the way third graders grasp the world. I have heard Harry inherited a lot of money, too. The commercial real estate market is a tough one, but I wouldn't call obtaining a return near that of the S&P 500 "phenomenal." It wouldn't be easy, but "phenomenal" would require beating the S&P 500 substantially. If "average" was much worse than the S&P 500, there would be a severe lack of people willing to play. I spent a few minutes looking on the internet for a graph that depicted the booms and busts in commercial real estate over many years. I didn't find one, but did see this: "No one in his right mind plays in commercial real estate with their own money. Other people’s money is the key." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: I'm talking the fuck about how I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Mark, about Harry. Figure it out or just shut up now, please. Read carefully Jon. You quoted Mark's conclusion to an argument to which one of the propositions set me up as a straw man and an attack--then you said: 10 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Well done, Mark. affirming the logic to his argument, which included me. Next time use more care before you go around congratulating someone's argument that contains a cut-down to other people. You might get your feelings hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: I don't see Rogers posts. He has been on ignore since he informed that words justify violence. I don't want to say the wrong thing to him, so I'm playing safe. 1. "Ignore" is a wonderful thing. 2. I did not say or imply that "words justify violence." But certain words certainly can sanction, condone, and encourage violence. And this feeds into the attitudes and actions of both one's supporters and one's opponents. It helps to nurture and grow a "culture of violence." Obama has been guilty of this, and so is Trump. 3. But I'm seeing all of Jon's posts, so how is that going to keep him safe from what he presumes to be my violent reactivity? Seems to me he should be blocking his own posts. Yeah, that would do it. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 2 hours ago, merjet said: I have heard Harry inherited a lot of money, too. Perhaps that explains how he was able to finance the self-publication of his book on epistemology, How We Know. If it had gone through regular ARI channels, surely it would have been better vetted than it apparently was. (Though Peikoff's 1991 OPAR went through considerable preliminary group discussion and review, and it still had some howlers.) I will read with fascination Robert Campbell's dissection of it in his review, which is slated for publication in the July 2017 (yes, next year) issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. But in general, I must say that I agree with Harry's views in ethics and politics, including his take on Don Keyhotey. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 7 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: 7 hours ago, Roger Bissell said: Why am I not surprised? REB Well Roger, when the mind gets dull, surprise is one of the things that goes, too. Sad but true. You're so right. I'm very surprised that I wasn't surprised over that. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 8 hours ago, Selene said: Tony: You may not have seen this angle. However, as a photographer who has covered actual news and took pictures of Mandela, what do you see of this angle? If I was the Secret Service Agent, I would have shot this prick the minute he got past the first ring of agents. Apparently, from his own mouth he stated that he has been planning this for over six (6) months. He should be in a Federal jail awaiting trial, or, in a box. A... I don't think shooting is the first option for SS protection when the protected is out in the open and exposed. In a military situation the order may be given to shoot immediately--to kill--in X situation. But that is in defense of something, not someone. The SS surrounded Trump, protecting him with their bodies. It is extremely difficult to kill the President; much easier to kill a presidential candidate. The candidate, however, is a less desirable target until he gets closer to the prize and it appears he might win. Very few people want to kill an ex-President for he's reverted to human normalacy. The intensity of the protection thus varies. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: I don't think shooting is the first option for SS protection when the protected is out in the open and exposed. In a military situation the order may be given to shoot immediately--to kill--in X situation. But that is in defense of something, not someone. The SS surrounded Trump, protecting him with their bodies. --Brant Another reason I would not be a "good" Secret Service Agent... A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, Selene said: Another reason I would not be a "good" Secret Service Agent... A... No. You get trained. There's no such thing as a "good" untrained SS agent. It's like anything else requiring proficiency. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 7 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: Actually, no I'm not sorry that after reading that comment. You're a coward for not addressing me directly. Maybe you should go back to your farm and stop pretending to be a philosopher. Go back to your ivory tower and stop pretending to be a farmer? How about go back to the docks and stop writing books like The True Believer? --Confusionist Says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Pete Rose’s attorney: ‘We do not know how Mr. Trump got the ball’ " My higher thinking (as opposed to automatic thinking) process is to identify something correctly, then evaluate it. I call this a cognitive before normative approach. I see time and time again people in O-Land doing the contrary, evaluating what they have incorrectly identified" (MSK). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Adam, This whole thing is concerning, I have to admit it worries me (goes without saying you all are). Not that the collective divisiveness in American society is new, it's been plain for a while. When one hears it from supposedly um, 'impartial' anchor-persons on Turner's network snidely and blatantly ask how can Trump "be stopped", not even pretending to pay lip service to their model of "social democracy" and that Trump represents the will of a large bunch of the people, one is justified to worry about who is paying attention to them. ("Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"). It seems CNN and other media are extremely annoyed that their King-maker status has been compromised and many people are deliberately countermanding their authority. Great for that at least - whatever one thinks of Trump he has rattled the power bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 13 hours ago, Mark said: I want Trump to win mainly because his stand on immigration is a huge step in the right direction. I want him to win despite the valid criticisms against him. His supporters need to take care not to “evaluate in reverse” and think they must defend his errors, such as trying to use eminent domain for no good reason, just because they prefer him over the other presidential candidates. For example, consider the following stupidity from a Trump supporter we could do without: In this case Trump was a jerk. That’s too bad, he’s still far and away the best man among today’s presidential contenders. By the way, Binswanger opposes Trump – another reason to like Trump. See Binswanger’s post:FutureOfCapitalism.com/comments/9016 and my response:FutureOfCapitalism.com/comments/9026 I love the Atlas Shrugged jab: Quote "Perhaps the second, special privileges, refers to (A) being allowed to bypass local regulations that shouldn't have been in force anyway, and (B) getting abatements of taxes that shouldn't have been in force anyway. "Trump donated to politicians to in effect bribe them so he could do what he would have been free to do in a future capitalist society. You could as well trash the fictional Taggart Transcontinental considering its fictional history." Heh. And think of all of the other Objectively just bribes and skirtings of the law that Rand's characters pulled to get what they wanted and to get intrusive government out of their way. And they also did some unjust things. Yet Hairy Binswanker and his posse always tell us that all of the actions of Rand's fictional heroes were rational and just! J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 59 minutes ago, Jonathan said: I love the Atlas Shrugged jab: Heh. And think of all of the other Objectively just bribes and skirtings of the law that Rand's characters pulled to get what they wanted and to get intrusive government out of their way. And they also did some unjust things. Yet Hairy Binswanker and his posse always tell us that all of the actions of Rand's fictional heroes were rational and just! J I don't read Binsy but Randianism (novelist) and Objectivism (philosopher) ain't the same thing. Objectivism is Randianism filtered down to the so called "rational." In that endeavor she did a lousy job but she did do it. Objectivism, officially rendered, is Rand having Randianism and eating it too. It started with the republication of We the Living and Nathaniel Branden was given the job, which he wanted, of teaching it--for power and money and prestige. For those three things he did a bang-up job. For a purely educational endeavor--well, no, it was impossible, starting with the money. But as a cultural-intellectual--even moral--force it was appropriate for the 1960s. I wonder if you had to have lived then to appreciate this. I think Branden referred to the Objectivist movement back then as living in an invulnerable or "Impenetrable fortress." To study Objectivism, especially in NYC, was to be invited into that and be part of that. All you needed was money and to be careful what you said and asked. For instance, you might ask Rand an inappropriate question and she'd let you have it and question your motives. So, people tended to ask her questions by writing them down and a gofer would collect them and take them up to her. Nathaniel could be just as bad in his own way, but all I witnessed from him was in 1968 when he was under a lot of stress just before the blowup. I heard stories that he could be quite funny and personable in private a few years earlier. For instance, The Objectivist had an addressing machine--an Addressograph--which broke down and they had to get the magazine out so they called in a lot of people to hand type the addresses on the address labels and Nathaniel exclaimed, "I'm no good at things mechanical!" --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MereMortal Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 13 hours ago, Mark said: I want Trump to win mainly because his stand on immigration is a huge step in the right direction. On this point, I listened to a 2 part podcast debate between Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff with Brook taking the open borders position and Peikoff explaining why, in the current political and cultural context, open borders would be a disaster. Peikoff was actually mirroring the Trump position on Hispanic and Islamic immigration. I don't know if that surprises anyone here but it's refreshing. Peikoff vs Brook on Immigration Part 1 Peikoff vs Brook on Immigration Part 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 1 hour ago, merjet said: Pete Rose’s attorney: ‘We do not know how Mr. Trump got the ball’ " My higher thinking (as opposed to automatic thinking) process is to identify something correctly, then evaluate it. I call this a cognitive before normative approach. I see time and time again people in O-Land doing the contrary, evaluating what they have incorrectly identified" (MSK). Merlin, I don't know much about this (yet). I do know I saw the presser Trump gave after the last round of primaries. Pete Rose was in the audience and Trump said very clearly that Pete Rose was endorsing him. And thanked him. All the reporters present seemed to be satisfied this was in order. I'm going on memory, but I'm pretty sure I heard that right. Seems like there is a lot of explaining to do by everybody. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now