IRC log started Fri Dec 27 22:02 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "Year in Review: What were the positive and negative signs in 1996?" and will be moderated by Tom Wright. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Tom. :) All right. As Sube said, tonight's discussion is on the past year any particular categories of happenings? We're going to be discussing various major events this year and what they mean in a larger context Political? Economic? I thought we'd begin with the election ugh! Don't worry, we'll cover other topics as well... until time runs out :) The worse of two evils won, that's for sure. You mean the evil of two lessers What were some positive signs in the election... not just the presidential election--congress as well I agree with Brad. Positive signs? Can't think of any. Certainly a positive sign that the Dems didn't take congress back Are you sure? Dole is pretty evil. I didn't see a big shift in the political landscape this year. Sub: the same party does not control both the white hous and the congress Passing of Prop 209 in CA? The last positive sign I saw during the campaign was when Steve Forbes won Arizona. After that, everthing seemed down hill. Troy: But that didn't happen with the 1996 elections. That's a carryover from before. Sub: true Positive sign: Ross Perot's vote % was cut in half from 92 Prop 209 was good, but it may yet be struck down. Hasn't been implemented yet, and may never be. Jim: But Forbes will try again next time?! Sorry folks, I was disconnected Agreed, but yet it passed. Lyceum: I hope so. What is prop 209 about? no more AA in Cal Legendre: End of legalized discrimination. End of Affirmative Action in California. Okay, so we have Steve Forbes and Prop 209? The Brady Bill was struck down somewhere or the other, I think. Sube: Let's concentrate on the elections for now BRB I thought it was part of the elections, Tom. Some proposition like 209. Has the government become less intrusive because of these elections? well, 209 was a referendum, the brady bill action was in the courts Okay. Let's try to stick to one topic at once the candidacy of Forbes was mentioned.... what was encouraging about it? He seemed to have a "less government" platform which got some support. How was he different from the other GOP candidates? They all claimed to be for smaller government he seemed to have at least a vague plan to attain "less gov't" You refer to the flat tax? Less of a government man, more private enterprise in his background. (Less political?) Well, he wasn't a rabid anti-abortionist, for one. And like Lurch said, he actually had some plans. Wright: One way in which he differed from other GOP candidates (as evidenced by their reaction to his campaign) is that he did not consider wealth in any way evil. Flat tax is one. he was for a return to the gold standard. Enter he without a reliable ISP Wright: It was sad to see the Republicans attack Forbes for being wealthy enough to run his own campaign. So, how was the Forbes campaign encouraging in wider context? Was it a sign that better philosophy is making progress? Jim: That's certainly a bad sign from the GOP Wright: I think so. Unfortunately, he's not an Objectivist, but he seems to grasp the value of Capitalism to a degree the other candidates did not. Better philosophy is always making progress. The numbers are tiny, but what's encouraging is that it's getting some attention. The discussions I have with J. Average Citizen are discouraging. They just can't seem to grasp why the current way we govern is so evil. Okay, any other signs of improvement in the political realm? What about the actions of the GOP congressmen? JimN: Yes, the Swedish media attacked him for being rich... Remember the "budget battle" and the "government shutdown"? Wright: The budget battle was good...except for the conclusion. The Republicans, such as Newt, now think it was a mistake to have shut down the government, since it apparently lead to much public disapproval. So, have they come to the conclusion that is was a mistake to act on principle? Wright: Given that conclusion, I'm doubtful that a Republican congress will take so strong a stand again. Very unfortunate. I also find their action on the minimum wage to be very disappointing Newt's going to have a hard time pushing anything now. I think people intuitively sense the hypocrisity of these conservatives; that's why they are more likely to be the target of ethics investigations and such. Having lost some "credibility", less people will be willing to back them. Wright: Yep. I realized this year that the Conservatives still believe that the Liberals are morally right, and that they can't defend capitalism when it challenges that morality. Yes, all they do is attack the liberals on very shaky pragmatic grounds. That brings us to the '96 congressional elections? Was the re-election of the GOP congress a result of support for their principles, or was it in response to the more "moderate" actions the congress took at the end of the session, such as the minimum wage and compromising on the budget? or was it to try to keep Slick from killing us? Most people identify themselves as moderate, so I'm tempted to believe the latter. Wright: it think people have come to feel safer with a Republican congress, so long as they do not challenge any sacred cows -- which they haven't done this time around, unfortunately. It was more in response to wanting a "balancing" factor in government(GOP congress and democratic white house) The idea was prominent during the election. Certainly I think we all agree that the outcome was better than the alternative What alternative? Democratic congress or Republican president? A return to power for the Democrats in congress The worst case would be an entire Democrat government. Yeah. I don't agree. Then The American People would get exactly what they've voted for, and would have to face up to it. Mike: Well, I think it's better to stave off disaster. Not for the American people. Rather for those who realized what had happened. Trouble is, The American People includes people on this channel as well. Subetai: Right! True. Don't imagine they'd want to be martyrs to prove a point. It is still possible to leave, though. The important broader question is, where is this all headed? Does the recent "shift to the right" mean that things are starting to move our way, or does it just mean a return of the religious conservatives? Mike: And go where? Doesn't this all sound like the struggle in Atlas Shrugged? TomM: Russia. :) Mike: Uh, yeah... worst case: Dole as President and Democrats in the both 'houses'? Wright: I think that's unanswerable at this time...the religious right scares many as well. Lyceum: That would be a repeat of the Bush administration I'm actually happy that Dole is not president. I hate Clinton, but having Dole as the representative of capitalism would have been disgusting. Lyceum: True, since the REpublicans would remain even more silent (if that is possible). It means something in between. The popularity of Forbes has very little to do with the O'ist movement, which is still tiny. But the people who voted for him are good material to take O'ism to. Jim: On the whole, the concressional elections were more important congressional Wright: My main concern in voting was to avoid a Liberal congress. TomM: I am personally very afraid of Buchanan...will he be back? Then he will block the immigration... :( bbl Sube: Steve Forbes is the best leader in the GOP now... we can only hope he gains support in the party Lyceum: Let's hope not, but I don't think so...I think he's seen his day come and go. The presidency, as long as the president isn't "popular", is going to be more ineffective. This leaves Congress as the main power in government. Lyceum: Buchanan is going the way of Jesse Jackson -- a couple of spectacular (but failed) runs, followed by descent to relative obscurity Lyceum: Personally, I don't think Pat Buchanan has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a national election Coming from a family that immigrated two generations ago (an maybe the other part of the family later), I don't think immigration should be Buccanized. Wright: That's another reason I didn't want Dole to Win. I want Forbes to run again next presidential election, and since Kemp didn't get to be Vice-President, he'll probably not run for President either. Jim: Another good sign Never did like Kemp Kemp turned out to be a real Keating figure. I've never seen so much apologizing and butt-kissing. Wright: ok, good to hear that. Wright: I thought Kemp was going to save Dole until I heard Kemp talk. Kemp was willing to betray Capitalism for inner city projects. Okay, so what I'm getting here is that it's just too soon to tell what the larger implications are for this election Wright: Has Forbes any chance as a 'free candidate' with no support from the GOP? Wright: It may have been just a stop-gap measure. Lyceum, you mean he HAD support from the GOP? When? Well, it was a boost for the Democrats who were under pressure since the republicans swept congress last time. Probably not. There doesn't seem to be a large enough base out there for him. But who knows? Lyceum: Third party candidates always have a hard time... Wright: ok Wright: It's definately not like 2 years ago when the REpublicans won the House and Senate, and we knew that things were going to change for the better. This election leaves me believing we prevented disaster but still haven't won anything. Ross Perot got a substantial %age of the vote in '92, but he won 0 electoral votes Except for that lunatic Perot And it weakened the republicans somewhat since they lost the presidency again and many seats in the congress besides. Overall, democrats came out as the winners. Jim: I have much the same feeling Sube: not that many seats Not as many as would be predicited by the Clinton landslide Okay, so they won by a smaller margin. But they won nevertheless. Unfortuanely, a stale-mate government is problably the best we can hope for, at lest in the near future elections. The democrats did gain marginally Wright: Ah, that reminds me. It was good news that Clinton failed again to get 50% of the vote. Jim: Yep. At least Ross Perot is good for something! :) <> TomM wonders if politics is all that happened this year? ;) Well, we have got bogged down in politics That's probably at least partly because of his personal life as well as the ddemocratic agenda, Jim. or gotten JimN: Why did so few voted this time? Are you fed up with politics in USA?! ;) Lyceum: There was nothing to vote **for**. TomM: Exactly. Lyceum: Well, the turnout wasn't all that much lower than the average Everyone was afraid to speak up...never seen so many cowards running for office in my life. Wright: It was the lowest turnout in 70 years! Turnout is always low in the US relative to other countries So Wright, what other issues did you want to discuss? Wright: Other than the election? Tom: But not all that much lower, %wise It was horrid %wise. Less than 50% of registered voters. Wright: Most people who vote do it out of "duty". that percentage will always be there no matter what. TomM: Ok. Here in Sweden, >10 % voted for the Communist Party... And at least >30 % for the Socialist Party.... Well, as I recall, the average turnout has been hovering in the 50's... might be wrong I'll check later Lyceum: Reminds me of a conversation a friend had with must-vote-joe. The friend asked if the vote was to have your left arm or your right arm cut off, would you insist on voting? must-vote said yes, decide which arm you like bertter, and vote for the other guy. Okay. Since time is running out, I'll take suggestions for another topic... Science? culture? academia? midas: I got the name from the NSS magazine. economics? Why do O'ists find the Libertarians more threatening than the 2 major parties? Brad: That's a topic for when we have more time :) Libertarians corrupt the word freedom. technology? BradW: They're tolerationists is the simple answer. How about if I throw it open to encouraging sings from this year... any category I don't see Libertarians as a bigger threat than the major parties. signs But we'll talk about that later, as Wright says. Subetai: but it has been stated from the leading O'ists that they are. The Libertarians have explicitly repudiated Capitalism in favor of "no -ism's" , meaning they have repudiated philosophy as such. Libertarianism as such is subjectivist and hence anarchist in its politics. Really, we don't have time to get into the Libertarian debate now Wright: How about Peikoff getting his own radio show? Or Limbaugh promoting Atlas Shrugged? Go ahead, Tom. Limbaugh promoted AS? I think we all know about the Peikoff show... tell us more about Limbaugh please midas: yes, did practically a whole show on it (the strike aspect of As). I send e-mail about it to #geekspeak list. I'm upset that it happened on the ONE day that week that I didn't listen. Well, he started off quoting the reason for the strike and asked for comments from the listeners. I would love to hear it replayed Tom: I heard about 5 minutes of that show... would you elaborate for those who missed it, or your message? Mostly, callers said they were ready if they thought it would do any good...of course, there were those who said it would be giving up. Some are already on strike, taking low paying jobs and living off their capital savings. Hard to tell though, since it was only one show. I find it interesting that so many Limbaugh listeners have read Atlas I think Limbaugh is NOT Objectivist, but he's certainly more in touch with reality that any other nationally syndicated talk show host (when can I get Peikoff here in Detroit? ARGH) Limbaugh characterized those folks as "very angry", and *not* kooks. Considering who is in his audience, it's not quite so surprising. (educated, etc..) Sure, i did a follow-up post as to why Limbaugh should only be marginally supported. Actually, I haven't listened on a regular basis in years.. I find him rather boring That's about it..."Atlas Shrugged" was mentioned often, but no real Objectivism was spoken of. I like how the background on his television show consists of millions of copies of his books... (I'm being sarcastic, of course.) Tom: It does some good in that the show is heard by millions Wright: I love his sense of life, but he can run things into the ground on politics, whihc is about the deepest he gets. Perhaps some will read the book as a result of the show Kelly: It ain't no more. Well, I've only seen about one or two episodes of the show. Is he no longer an egomaniac? :) kellyT: I actually liked that his was proud of its success. He flaunted that people bought it. Limbaugh gets rather philosophical in detailing the nature of what he is *against*. But ask him what he is for, and you get nothing but platitudes. Wright: Sure...he refered to it as the "Atlas Shrugged concept." be much better if those books were copies of AR's works I'm sure how great a person who thinks we should outlaw abortion's sense of life is. Mark: Well, he is a conservative. Kelly: Well, he is a conservative ;) I'm not sure, I mean. KellyT: I'd say his sense of life is one of the few positive things about him.. "Having more fun than a human being ought to be aloowed to have!" Tom, he is being sarcastic. What do you mean when you talk about his sense of life? Yeah, I do find it entertaining, in small doses He is enjoying life, despite what the "mainstream" tells him to do. oops allowed...as if we need someone's approval to hold happiness as our highest triumph. KellyT: what TomM said. Its sarcastic but he is having fun. Howard Stern has fun. Brad: Yes and no...I think he means it in a deeper sense than he is willing to admit. Actually, in his books, Limbaugh's sense of life comes out pretty well. He's very pro-achievement, and at times can be inspiring. Unfortunately, he does have his religious premises that sometimes undercut his other views. Okay, we're almost out of time... looks like we'd need a lot more time to discuss what's going right, and that in of itself is a very encouraging point! God is watching, and his talent is on loan from God. Can't get away with too much with god looking over your shoulder ;) Tom, yes, the religious aspects are annoying. Brad: yep, god-aweful ;) But that is conservatism...and will be the downfall of the Republican party. Before We conlude, are there any other points you wanted to get in in the last few minutes? Wright: George Reisman's Treatise on Economics has now been published. That's very good news. bosnia? though I suppose it's technically not a 1996 problem Reisman also appeared on C-Span Jim: I'll have to look for it JimN: Is it Good News? ... Wright: Yeah I heard that. I missed it. It was his Cure for Racism speach too. I saw it. Yeah, and so did Barbara Branden. I do have it on tape I be missin' dat. On a down note, I really hated that C-Span thing where all of Rand's ex "friends" got together and ripped on her personal life and called her philosophy "dead". Lyceum: Good news for anyone who wants to understand the value of wealth and what it depends on. Jim_N: I've pick it up (the book), and it's great! That's VERY good news. Yeah, I keep missing it, too. My dad told me about it the day after he saw it. (Weird how he knew I'd want to see it.) Spowe: The chapter titled "The Role of Wealth in Human Life" is a fantastic discussion of the objective value of industrial civilization. Have you found the book in Edmonton, Scott? JimN: ok, but you could start with other books first, e.g. Carl Menger's 'Principles of Economics'. All right, it's now midnight EST, and the time for our scheduled discussion has concluded. Thanks for participating and please feel free to stay and continue discussion on this or any other topic. Thanks, Tom. :) Lyceum: I've read Menger's book. While it lays down the foundations of Marginal Utility theory, it only scratches the surface of economic theory. Thanks Tom! :) Jim_N: I'm still on Chapter 1 ;) Thanks Tom. You're welcome I still haven't heard if Salsman proclaimed that his prediction was correct, that we werre in a recession the latter part of 1996. JimN: Ok The Dow Jones hit another all-time-high today. On the positive side, I got my ex-roomate to read Fountainhead, and she went out and bought Atlas Shrugged Subetai: it's all smoke right now...the economy is in sorry shape. I have her OPAR and TNL -have +gave How do you figure that, Tom? Subetai: Sales at my shop, my brother's shop, and the news lately about economic growth. Retailers here claimed that Christmas shopping was up. Can't speak for sales at your store, but the numbers I've seen are all up. Sales at your shop are completely irrelevant. TomM: where do you live Tom? Subetai: Not as high as they should have been...the Clinton tax hike hit-em hard. Dallas. Doesn't look like a recession to me.. not yet, anyway My brother is in CAlifornia. Phoenix is still doing well. How do you figure how high they "should" have been? From what I can tell, everyone's saying they never expected the Dow to be this high. Well, it's hardly questionable that growth would be faster with lower taxes All economic indicators are down, last I heard. The unofficial estimates for Christmas sales this year were 4% over last year -- considered an "ordinary" increase Very odd, Tom. From what I heard, they're all up. Didn't Greenspan pipe up about something a couple weeks ago? I can't remember what he said. Subetai: forget the stock market. A lot of that is wishful thinking. That's easy to check See you all later. Thanks. What should I pay attention to then, Tom? Mark: He said stocks were over valued, and the market fell over 100 points. Yeah, that was it. :) Mark: AG said that the stock market was becomming overvalued Subetai: The stock market runs on expectations, not current trends per se. Stocks are reaching record-high Price/Earnings ratios He's never done anything like that before, that I can remember. Today set a new all-time high at 6560.91. So what should I pay attention to instead of stocks, Tom? And many more people are getting into the stock market, driving it up when the economy really won't support it. The stock market is driven by demand like all other markets. question is: Can the economy support that kind of demand? TomM: Yes, a free economy can do it. What you really mean is, are the stocks overvalued, if so, by how much, and can future expansion meet the expectations of the "overvalued" amount. TomM: i.e. Is it a bubble or sustainable growth? Subetai: yes, exactly. It might be a bubble about to burst. I hope not, since I want to get in it myself shortly, but I fear it is. How would you know? Well, that can be tested as well What indicators would you use? Subetai: by seeing if the growth in the economy matches the growth in the stock market. Right now, it doesn't. Tom: But you can't use that measure. One would look at Price/earning ratios, the value of the companies relative to thier stock prices... They are buying big because of the interest rate from the Fed. TomM: How do you measure the growth of the economy? The price of a company is more than the value of its assets. That's how it'll always be. right, of course Measure economy by indexing new jobs created and business expansion. both are down, as far as I know. more than it's physical assets Sure - but a company could have a billion in assets, be valued on the market at $2B, and still be worthless. New jobs created doesn't mean a whole lot in this new high-tech economy. And far as I know, new jobs are being created at least as fast as last year. Subetai: Sure, I know that. But if many people put money in, prices go up. I see it all the time in signed prints. but the burst after a while. Business "expansion" can be measured in several ways, one of which is value of its stocks, which is up. You have to look not only at the value, but also at it's earnings/earnings per share and it's potential for future earnings Wright: Earnings per share on what the company *produces*, not the price value of the stock per se. In a way, a price for a share of stock is like a loan to the company. From what I've been seeing of the market, my impression is that the economy is doing at least as well as it'd done over the past couple of years, and that there's nothing about to go seriously wrong with it. Haven't found any numbers to contradict that impression yet. huh? earnings per share means profit per share Wright: Yes. but profits are not up. Where do you get that from? Wright: Or are up only marginally, which doesn't really count. I'd like to see some hard figures Where did you get that from Tom? Wright: I liosten to the reports everday going to work. time. So little! (Scott takes a little shot at "Artsies") ;) It's like we're watching two different sets of news. :) <> Wright goes off to look up data on the web... bbs It completely contradicts what I've noticed. Do you know any good sites with Dow Jones index for a long period of time (several years)? Subetai: Well, you'd have to compare the earnings from last year and comapre them to this year. On a year-to-yewar basis, amny are only up a few percent. oops...sorry for the typos. Earnings on equity shares? Earnings on what? Subetai: No, I mean things like how much were sales at KMart last year compared to this year? on a month to month basis. Okay, you mean sales, then. Subetai: Sales, and profits. In the retail markets. Department stores and discount stores? Lyceum: i don't. Subetai: Those are usually good economic indicators. It's called same sales idex, or something like that. TomM: ok. Well, I don't know the numbers for K-Mart, so I'll take your word for it. I'm wary of projecting that to the economy as a whole, because I know for a fact that it was a highly profitable year for the computer and healthcare sectors. If you find some, please send a note to: trader@algonet.se What they do it index sales of stores existing for at least one year, and compare them. thanks and bye for now. 6.20 am Saturday. Time for bed. to last year. I think it's called same store year index? Don't know. However, I wouldn't generalize K-Mart to the economy as a whole. It's not just the Dow. The broader and secondary markets are up. Same year sales index? Wish I could remember. No, not just Kmart, but every major retail outlet is indexed. Let me see if I can find the numbers for KMart/WalMart. There are times when the stock market gets a fever of speculation. Especially at the all time record highs. people think there can be no end in sight. I wouldn't doubt that stocks are overpriced, Tom. That's a long way from saying the economy is in a recession or about to enter one. TomM: if it does burst though it will be a great time to buy when it starts bottoming. Unfortunately, Reisman doesn't cover how to measure aggregate production until chapter 15. I'm not there yet. Also, there has been a broadening of mutual funds, and other "easy" markets that puts more people in the market. So, you can make money there, but watch out. cjs: Sure.