algernonsidney

You will see the same thing in Montreal. The beggars are only there in the summer, interestingly enough. In winter, they disappear. I could say the same thing about Jamaica. One of my best buds went down there in the summer. She is engaged to a Rastafarian. She also knows a few of the Marleys. She went to Kingston, not Montego Bay. She saw the Jamaica that most Americans never see. Jamaica is not beaches and music. It's pretty ugly. My impression of Brazil comes from a lady I used to work with. She had an all-expense month-long trip to Sao Paulo. The Rotary Club paid for it all. I was so jealous!

I can just imagine Brad Pitt in Atlas Shrugged. It might sound something like this: The first rule of Galt's Gulch is you do not talk about Galt's Gulch. The second rule of Galt's Gulch is you do not talk about Galt's Gluch. Third rule of Galt's Gulch, someone yells "Stop!", goes limp, taps out, the mind strike is over. Fourth rule, only two guys to a mind strike. Fifth rule, one mind strike at a time, fellas. Sixth rule, no shirt, no shoes. Seventh rule, mind strikes will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule, if this is your first night at Galt's Gulch, you have to mind strike.

And you are doing the same. This seems to be a popular thing among Objectivists. I don't think it will ever be made in that apparatus. Even you are admitting that you wonder "if it is ever made at all." The purpose of copyright law is to protect creators. In this case, the creator is dead. How does the copyright of this novel protect Ayn Rand? It does not. Even worse is that kind of garbage discredits the whole concept of copyright law. With intellectual property rights being abused so badly nowadays, some people are starting to think that the only cure to these abuses is to get rid of intellectual property altogether. Like all law, the first purpose of intellectual property should be justice. When its purpose is not justice, then it starts to cancel out any good that it does. Atlas Shrugged will not go public until 2052. Ayn Rand died in 1982. This is absolutely ridiculous.

I never thought of it this way, but it sounds like a decent hypothesis. Some of the most reputable businesses do try to make a profit. They do not try to make an insane profit. Southwest Airlines is a prime example. They have made a profit every year since 1973. As far as risk-taking is concerned, they operate quite conservatively. Speaking of insane lifestyles, where did all of Ed McMahon's money go? How does someone like this end up with his house being foreclosed? Not only did he work beside Johnny Carson all those years, he also had numerous commercial endorsements like Alpo and Budweiser. Oh, wait, Ed has two divorces. Now we all know where his money went. For a man, divorce is the surest route to the poorhouse. I still stand by what I said. The only it will get done will be as a bootleg. I don't care as long as it's done right. Ayn Rand is dead.

Nobody has applied that context until now. The networks you seem to love are collapsing. They are losing power every day. Nor did I say I wanted a film made, period. I have stated that I definitely want the film to be made by people who actually respect the novel. The system you write of generally doesn't respect novels. How many times have we heard the old line: "The book was better than the movie."? I don't want people saying that about an Atlas Shrugged movie. The stars that you love so much also make the "massive capital" necessary. It sounds like the film you want to see made is already going to pay out about $50,000,000 just in actors' salaries. This is completely unnecessary. Such a film already has a nearly guaranteed audience. Most of the people who have read the book will want to see a film. This is not a small number. I believe the book has sold at least 25,000,000 copies. Well, if you translate that 25,000,000 tickets at $8 a ticket, you've got $200,000,000 gross. That's excellent, unless you've done something stupid like spend $300,000,000 to make it. One way the filmmaker could screw this up would be to disrespect the novel. One person suggesting "collapsing Francisco and Galt" into one character. If that was in the film, I would refuse to see it on principle. Many others would as well. I'll admit that I have a huge bias now toward the person who isn't a "star." I have taken quite a few acting classes here in Austin myself. I have met a lot of wonderful people who act as a sideline (but don't want it to be). I know quite a few people who have worked on Friday Night Lights. I know people who could play these roles. The whole point is that there is never going to be a film within this system. The novel came out in 1957. We've already waited 51 years for "this system" to make the movie. Maybe we should give up on the system. He took the money and is basically guaranteeing that it doesn't get made. I really don't expect all the socialists in Hollywood to be particularly sympathetic to this novel. They could have done this just so they could pigeonhole the project. They've been keeping it down for 51 years already. I would like to see Mark Cuban get his hands on it. I know he's a big fan of The Fountainhead. If he got his hands on the rights, I bet it would get done. I don't know about international copyrights. I imagine that the film will come from someplace outside the USA. That's what happened with We The Living.

That's more Bidinotto's doing than Ed's. Check out his blog. Bidinotto seems to have an obsession with Ron Paul. He has toned it down somewhat, now that he has a schoolboy crush on Sarah Palin. It's quite hilarious.

That's a ridiculous comment. You are saying that it needs to be made more expensive to get financing. Are you also going to say that it will get more financing if they spend more money on special effects? Maybe they should also buy really expensive cameras, too? The star-driven system is falling apart. Lots of people own cameras and make their own movies. Kevin Smith made Clerks for $25,000 and made the second movie for only three million. I think Atlas Shrugged could be done right for as little as $500,000. Fortunately, Sonny Bono is dead now. I'll bet anything that Disney will be lobbying for it again. But it only applies to the USA. Disney isn't going to bribe every legislature all over the world. Atlas Shrugged will definitely be made into a movie. It will get to the screen as a bootleg. That's why Piekoff sold off the rights. He knew that those rights would eventually be worthless and that he could get somebody to buy them. He cashed out. Next thing you know, Piekoff will be digging up the bones from Ayn Rand's grave and selling them on Ebay. He'll do anything to make a dollar off stuff he didn't produce, since he's totally incapable of producing anything himself.

Please don't go on. This is perhaps the lamest excuse for not making it into a movie. How about all those people who went to see Russell Crowe in Gladiator? That movie was a lot more dated. How about all these people who still watch movies like The Sound of Music and Gone with the Wind? "Dated" movies come out all the time. People watch them.

If any of these modifications are made, I hope the movie is never made. If it becomes a movie, I want it done right by people who actually respect the novel. If you respect the novel, you aren't going to collapse Francisco and Galt. I think such a movie would be a complete abomination. If that means breaking it up into several movies, then go right ahead. I want the movie done properly. As Bob Evans used to say: "Down on the farm, we do it right. Or we don't do it."

I want to see Atlas Shrugged made into a movie. I also want to see it done right. A bad movie would be worse than none. I definitely think it will be made. We are more likely to see a bootlegged version of it. I personally would have no objection to this whatsoever. If they respect the novel, I will cheer on anyone who does it. Rand is dead, so it isn't going to take any money from her pocket anyway. The movie does not need someone like Angelina Jolie to be a hit. You could find someone who could do just as well in the major roles for $5000 or $10000. I know people who could do these roles. The most important thing is that you get people who truly respect the novel. Ayn Rand fans are going to see this movie no matter who the cast is. Such a movie also wouldn't require a lot of advertising either. Again, Rand fans would be the best advertising. When do the rights go public? The day that all of Rand's material is in the public domain will be a great day in the history of Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff and his leeches will finally have to fend for themselves.

How is Jim Cramer still on television, by the way?

One thing I've noticed is that many of the WTC conspiracy buffs were also buying electric generators back in December of 1999. They tend to believe some weird things. Every theory about the WTC is just that, a theory. Every theory is a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy by definition is when two or more people conspire to commit a crime. Most of the time, Hanlon's Razor is true. It says: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." It would be difficult to prove any malice regarding the events of 11 September 2001. However, you can easily prove incompetence. All one has to do is look at all the intermarrying and inbreeding of European monarchs. Look at all the monarchs Queen Victoria was related to. We also suffer from a conspiracy of bad ideas. What we need to do is make governments less powerful. Then, people would have less ability to manipulate financial markets or whatever. Even if the WTC is not an inside job, it is definitely a tremendous failure. I personally believe that it was allowed to happen on purpose. I am still open to hearing both sides on the issue of whether it was made to happen on purpose. It's all theory anyway, because nobody is going to spend the billions that it would take to test the theories. That is, nobody is going to spend billions of dollars to build the buildings just so we can test to see if burning jet fuel can bring them down or not. With that kind of money, someone who really cares about freedom could ultimately start his own country, free of politicians, academics, lobbyists, judges, lawyers, and legislators. And that would do more good anyway. Rich, how are you doing on your 70 approaches?

Again, you are attributing ideas to me which I do not hold. Please respond to things I actually say, not what you think I say. It's quite annoying. You must be desperate for an argument. I did not say that the standard of living was higher in those times. I am saying that the increase in the standard of living was higher in those times. It's the same way that going from $1 to $10 is a greater increase than going from $100 to $200. One is a gain of 1000%. The other is a gain of 200%.

Am I pessimistic about the USA? Hell, yes. Am I pessimistic about the world? That's another story. Most of the world has gained economic freedom in the last 30 years. Marxism is dead and buried. This crisis will bury Keynes. It depends on many factors. I've said for several years that I believe Brazil is the next world super power. One big reason is that the country is energy self-sufficient. They give little or nothing to OPEC. Population growth is stabilizing. They have not even discovered all the resources that they have. They aren't really that connected to the world economy. Brazil does not suffer from much of the socialist muck that Europe and Asia do. Their military exists for the protection of their nation and isn't looking for monsters to destroy. China could collapse simply because they are so dependent on the USA. The same goes for Japan. Europe does not need the USA all that much, but they are still mired in a great deal of socialism. I also figure the EU will mess up things worse than the DC is messing up things here. Where would I go? Let's see. New Zealand. It's one of the freer countries on Earth. They speak English. They aren't joining any associations that can destroy them. It's safe from foreign invasion because it's so far from everything. Switzerland. It's expensive. I would have to learn another language. They have the right kind of traditions. It will be a bastion of civilization in the heart of barbarism once Islam takes over Europe. Chile. It's probably the best in South America. If I do learn a second language, I would certainly prefer Spanish. Costa Rica. It's already home to lots of Americans. It seems too popular. Estonia. It's possibly the freest in Europe now. It's also high-tech. The biggest drawback is that I would have to learn a dying language. Estonian is useless outside of Estonia.

Which one was that? I'll give him that. That's what ultimately keeps most people (including me) interested in reading his stuff. While so many people on boards like these claim to know what is going on around the world, Doug actually gets out there and travels. I've read a couple of his books. To his credit, he seems to be able to see the big picture and not just the world of investing. What is happening right now can be summarized like this: What is happening? We're not sure. Why is it happening? We're not sure. What caused it? We're not sure. When did it start? We're not sure. Who is responsible? We're not sure. Government must do something. On this, we're sure.

Chris, Say what? I look around me, see all this wealth floating around, and it just doesn't look that way. America is a VERY WEALTHY nation. Michael It seems like you are trying very hard to make me wrong here. This argument could be called "use different words as if they are synonymous." Observe that your response does not use the word "prosperous" or any form of that word. You then use another word as if it is synonymous. Prosperity is not wealth. Prosperity is an increase in wealth, just as acceleration is an increase in speed. It is the general nature of things for wealth to grow over time. However, some periods see greater growth of wealth than other periods. After adjustments were made, we had about 20 years without any downturn. We have never had a period like that since then. It was a period of some of the best growth the country has seen. Consider also that the country absorbed millions and millions of immigrants during that time. There was the Irish potato famine. There were many people leaving the upheaval of 1848. It was this new imbalance in population that partially helped lead to the Civil War, as most of the immigrants stayed in the north. Here are the numbers. Observe that there were increases of over 30% between every census up until 1860: 1790 3,929,214 1800 5,236,631 33.3% 1810 7,239,881 38.3% 1820 9,638,453 33.1% 1830 12,866,020 33.5% 1840 17,069,453 32.7% 1850 23,191,876 35.9% 1860 31,443,321 35.6% 1870 38,558,371 22.6% 1880 49,371,340 28% 1890 62,979,766 27.6% 1900 76,212,168 21% 1910 92,228,496 21% 1920 106,021,537 15% 1930 123,202,624 16.2% 1940 132,164,569 7.3% 1950 151,325,798 14.5% 1960 179,323,175 18.5% 1970 203,211,926 13.3% 1980 226,545,805 11.5% 1990 248,709,873 9.8% 2000 281,421,906 13.2%

I'm not sure how to express the worthlessness of Doug Casey and his advice. I now realize that probably most of these guys don't make any money investing themselves. They just make their income from selling worthless advice. Thanks again for helping me lose money, Doug.

double post

Here's the Youtube: I would love to post more of Alex's stuff here. But people will just ignore it solely because it is Alex.

Jackson's actions led to the era of wildcat banks. It was the closest thing to a free market in money that the country has had. After a panic under Van Buren, it was also the most prosperous time the nation has had. Jackson often said that it was his proudest accomplishment: "I killed the bank." This was all destroyed by Lincoln's civil war. Regardless of your feelings about the civil war, nobody can deny that Lincoln was also a major advocate of corporate welfare. This was mainly in the form of land grants to railroads. Also during Lincoln's time came things like the Morrill Act, which created land-grant colleges and was the first time the feds interfered with the colleges. There were also things like the Homestead Act (the first federal welfare program for the poor) and national banks. Bankers have been bribing McCain since the late 1980's. He was one of the Keating Five.

You're just figuring that out now?

The same thing has been going on with Harry Potter.

I believe the bubonic plague which wiped out about 1/3 of Europe was spread by rats. If this is the case, one can understand why people will still have an aversion to rats and mice. It is irrational now, but there was a time when such a fear was rational. You are actually onto something, Rich. When guys like Osama bin Laden are taking on multiple wives, it means that some guys definitely are not getting laid. That energy has to go somewhere. The same thing happened with Cho at Virginia Tech. It was obvious that sexual frustration was one thing that motivated him. Incidentally, he put three bullets into one of my distant cousins--she survived. If this guy had simply gotten laid a few times, 33 people might still be alive today.

When mutual funds publish their "averages" for the year, they actually use the arithmetic mean. The more accurate figure is the geometric mean. You once pointed this out. Here's an example. If a fund loses 10% one year and gains 10% the next, the mutual fund will make it appear that it broke even over the two years. In fact, the fund lost 1%. If it loses 20% and gains 20%, the loss is 4%.

I have been told by several people that the overwhelming majority of them underperform the market. I owned three mutual funds at one time in 2001. I have since gotten out of all of them. I looked them up and found that I wouldn't have done any better if I had stayed in them. The funds have went nowhere. Merlin, on the WeTheLiving list, you even once pointed out that mutual funds like to play games with the numbers in order to make them look better than they are. They definitely do.