[equalizer]

[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Esmith – yes I did – my bad. How is a hippy wagon on that list?[/quote]

The red Solara is probably driven by adventurous young women, but the hippy wagon has got me stumped.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]I was a pseudo-socialist in college then became an ardent libertarian (helped along by Ayn Rand and others) and I’ve slowly moved toward the center over the last decade. I think Ayn Rand made some brilliant, counter-intuitive observations, but over time I found two major flaws in her philosophy.

One, her philosophy discounts the influence of sheer luck. The heroes of her stories reach the heights of success by sheer force of will. While this is inspirational, it’s also not particularly realistic. Luck – or good fortune or whatever you want to call it – plays an enormous role in determining various human outcomes. Nassim Taleb does an excellent job discussing this issue in “Fooled by Randomness.” Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in Ronald Reagan’s observation that “The harder I worked, the luckier I got,” but when you observe the careers of the super successful, there were an awful lot of lucky breaks (that is, “helpful randomness”) along the way.

Two, Rand’s philosophy doesn’t take into account what I call the “Revolution Factor.” In a purely capitalistic system, wealth is going to get enormously concentrated at the top (yeah, even more than we see now because our taxes are somewhat progressive). This income inequality, at some point, is going to cause social strife that will bring on revolution. I just don’t see how it’s avoidable. And that brings the whole system down such that the “uber capitalists” lose everything they have. And what’s the point in that? So, in my view, progressive taxes and other socialistic institutions that we see here in the U.S. – to use one example – are just the price the more successful and lucky among us pay in order to keep the peace, so to speak, with the less successful and less fortunate. I’d rather pay high income taxes and benefit from a system that allows me to compound wealth (albeit at a lower rate due to the taxes) than live in poverty resulting from anarchy.

I’m sure Rand’s writings have other flaws, but those are two of the most glaring. But I still think her books are full of many spot-on observations that many folks don’t like to think about.

[/quote]
Excellent observations davelj.

Regarding sheer luck, it reminds me of Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality, or equality of resources. Since all the freshman beer wiped out my recollection, I’ll just quote WIKI here:
“human beings are responsible for the life choices they make. The second is that natural endowments of intelligence and talent are morally arbitrary and ought not to affect the distribution of resources in society. Like the rest of Dworkin’s work, his theory of equality is underpinned by the core principle that every person is entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. Dworkin’s theory of equality is one variety of so-called luck egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin

My Chicago boys (I really miss shoveling the alley) forgot an important element in their utopia – extreme law and order, practiced by Pinochet, and more subtlety by Singapore and China. Pinochet was respected by a surprising many people in Chile because economy improved under the regime, with a little help from the Chicago boys. Singapore also prospered with this mix. From “The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China”, the reader will find that China studied the Singapore model in early 80’s and now they too have prospered.

So we have many choices as sdude pointed out.
Right here, right now that is where I wanna be.
Did you guys know that Duran Duran were Rand fans??
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjg3MDI3YWMxZjkxMTU3NmVmNjVkMTllNDdmYWMxMmE=

[equalizer]

These guys think that new home prices are too high, so show this to the sales office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/

“The combination of falling new home sales coupled with sharply lower prices suggests that there’s unlikely to be an end to the pain, as the value proposition offered by existing properties still exceeds that of newly built homes. Until that relationship moves more into line, perhaps from another 20% decline in new home prices, there’s little indication that sales of newly constructed properties will show any improvement. Even the cash-rich among the homebuilders are going to have a rough 2009 and 2010.” –Guy LeBas, Janney Montgomery Scott

“To the extent that low mortgage rates and sales incentives, such as buyers’ tax credits, do facilitate sales, those sales are increasingly tilted towards existing homes. Under these circumstances, new home prices will remain under steady downward pressure, and new residential construction may bottom later this year but will remain weak through 2010.” –Richard F. Moody, Mission Residential

[equalizer]

These guys think that new home prices are too high, so show this to the sales office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/

“The combination of falling new home sales coupled with sharply lower prices suggests that there’s unlikely to be an end to the pain, as the value proposition offered by existing properties still exceeds that of newly built homes. Until that relationship moves more into line, perhaps from another 20% decline in new home prices, there’s little indication that sales of newly constructed properties will show any improvement. Even the cash-rich among the homebuilders are going to have a rough 2009 and 2010.” –Guy LeBas, Janney Montgomery Scott

“To the extent that low mortgage rates and sales incentives, such as buyers’ tax credits, do facilitate sales, those sales are increasingly tilted towards existing homes. Under these circumstances, new home prices will remain under steady downward pressure, and new residential construction may bottom later this year but will remain weak through 2010.” –Richard F. Moody, Mission Residential

[equalizer]

These guys think that new home prices are too high, so show this to the sales office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/

“The combination of falling new home sales coupled with sharply lower prices suggests that there’s unlikely to be an end to the pain, as the value proposition offered by existing properties still exceeds that of newly built homes. Until that relationship moves more into line, perhaps from another 20% decline in new home prices, there’s little indication that sales of newly constructed properties will show any improvement. Even the cash-rich among the homebuilders are going to have a rough 2009 and 2010.” –Guy LeBas, Janney Montgomery Scott

“To the extent that low mortgage rates and sales incentives, such as buyers’ tax credits, do facilitate sales, those sales are increasingly tilted towards existing homes. Under these circumstances, new home prices will remain under steady downward pressure, and new residential construction may bottom later this year but will remain weak through 2010.” –Richard F. Moody, Mission Residential

[equalizer]

These guys think that new home prices are too high, so show this to the sales office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/

“The combination of falling new home sales coupled with sharply lower prices suggests that there’s unlikely to be an end to the pain, as the value proposition offered by existing properties still exceeds that of newly built homes. Until that relationship moves more into line, perhaps from another 20% decline in new home prices, there’s little indication that sales of newly constructed properties will show any improvement. Even the cash-rich among the homebuilders are going to have a rough 2009 and 2010.” –Guy LeBas, Janney Montgomery Scott

“To the extent that low mortgage rates and sales incentives, such as buyers’ tax credits, do facilitate sales, those sales are increasingly tilted towards existing homes. Under these circumstances, new home prices will remain under steady downward pressure, and new residential construction may bottom later this year but will remain weak through 2010.” –Richard F. Moody, Mission Residential

[equalizer]

These guys think that new home prices are too high, so show this to the sales office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/

“The combination of falling new home sales coupled with sharply lower prices suggests that there’s unlikely to be an end to the pain, as the value proposition offered by existing properties still exceeds that of newly built homes. Until that relationship moves more into line, perhaps from another 20% decline in new home prices, there’s little indication that sales of newly constructed properties will show any improvement. Even the cash-rich among the homebuilders are going to have a rough 2009 and 2010.” –Guy LeBas, Janney Montgomery Scott

“To the extent that low mortgage rates and sales incentives, such as buyers’ tax credits, do facilitate sales, those sales are increasingly tilted towards existing homes. Under these circumstances, new home prices will remain under steady downward pressure, and new residential construction may bottom later this year but will remain weak through 2010.” –Richard F. Moody, Mission Residential

[equalizer]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=moxiecalifornia]I heard that it was never supposed to be a toll road, and that housing developers promised buyers that the 125 would make the commute into the city easier. When I bought my house in April I thought the toll was unusually high, even when I got the fast track I ended up spending at least 80 dollars a month just on tolls. Now they want to increase it? Are you kidding?! It’s an insult as it is that when I have visitors to my house that they either have to spend money on the toll, or make the painful drive to the 805. If the company kept to their original budget we would never have had this problem. Don’t they also realize that lowering the toll would increase the amount of people on the road and balance out or even make them more money? [/quote]

Usually toll roads dont want to increase the number of people using them, because part of the reason people pay for them is that there will be no traffic.
[/quote]
Also, the toll road operator usually pays for maintenance so they dont want big trucks or too much traffic cause they would have to fix the road early.

[equalizer]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=moxiecalifornia]I heard that it was never supposed to be a toll road, and that housing developers promised buyers that the 125 would make the commute into the city easier. When I bought my house in April I thought the toll was unusually high, even when I got the fast track I ended up spending at least 80 dollars a month just on tolls. Now they want to increase it? Are you kidding?! It’s an insult as it is that when I have visitors to my house that they either have to spend money on the toll, or make the painful drive to the 805. If the company kept to their original budget we would never have had this problem. Don’t they also realize that lowering the toll would increase the amount of people on the road and balance out or even make them more money? [/quote]

Usually toll roads dont want to increase the number of people using them, because part of the reason people pay for them is that there will be no traffic.
[/quote]
Also, the toll road operator usually pays for maintenance so they dont want big trucks or too much traffic cause they would have to fix the road early.

[equalizer]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=moxiecalifornia]I heard that it was never supposed to be a toll road, and that housing developers promised buyers that the 125 would make the commute into the city easier. When I bought my house in April I thought the toll was unusually high, even when I got the fast track I ended up spending at least 80 dollars a month just on tolls. Now they want to increase it? Are you kidding?! It’s an insult as it is that when I have visitors to my house that they either have to spend money on the toll, or make the painful drive to the 805. If the company kept to their original budget we would never have had this problem. Don’t they also realize that lowering the toll would increase the amount of people on the road and balance out or even make them more money? [/quote]

Usually toll roads dont want to increase the number of people using them, because part of the reason people pay for them is that there will be no traffic.
[/quote]
Also, the toll road operator usually pays for maintenance so they dont want big trucks or too much traffic cause they would have to fix the road early.

[equalizer]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=moxiecalifornia]I heard that it was never supposed to be a toll road, and that housing developers promised buyers that the 125 would make the commute into the city easier. When I bought my house in April I thought the toll was unusually high, even when I got the fast track I ended up spending at least 80 dollars a month just on tolls. Now they want to increase it? Are you kidding?! It’s an insult as it is that when I have visitors to my house that they either have to spend money on the toll, or make the painful drive to the 805. If the company kept to their original budget we would never have had this problem. Don’t they also realize that lowering the toll would increase the amount of people on the road and balance out or even make them more money? [/quote]

Usually toll roads dont want to increase the number of people using them, because part of the reason people pay for them is that there will be no traffic.
[/quote]
Also, the toll road operator usually pays for maintenance so they dont want big trucks or too much traffic cause they would have to fix the road early.

[Author]

Posts