wdiaz03

Took it, It seems I'm smarter than I think I am

I agree Baylor, I think this feature is necessary, but people have been using it incorrectly. I can see up voting when you agree or see good insight on a post, but the contrary is not true. Simply disagreeing with a post should not trigger a downvote. This will drive away unpopular opinions since the member posts will be hidden. Stef has said that he welcomes opposite views and they go to the front of the queue. So down voting should only be use for abusive language etc.

My personal opinion, so take that for what its worth, I think she is using her kids. I would not want my naked pics circulating around the internet because my mother decided it was art when I was a boy. But that is just me. Some of the pictures are interesting some show WAY too much skin for my taste. But i would not buy any of her stuff...Not that type of art lover. What are your thoughts?

From a legal standpoint (please check the law on your area on this) it might be a federal offence to do what OP did, in the U.S. the USPS probably claims the mailbox as theirs, and ONLY for mail THEY deliver. Most people in my area hang the ad on the door probably for this reason. NOT agreeing with the law or anything but why be morally right and be locked up or paying the farmers more fines that you have to?

Sorry BF, That's a good point, thanks for pointing it out.

I admire your determination but question your approach. I wonder if people just redefine what abuse is in their heads not to feel guilt about your sign. Slogans seem ineffective, because if someone changes their mind by a slogan, then they'll change it back by a different slogan...there's no meat, just my two cents

Thanks all for the responses. Last night my son told me that he thought about death again and that he was not afraid but his body was, I don't know what to make of this, maybe he understands that rationally he has nothing to fear but that he still has deep emotions. I followed the advice of postponing the talk since it was right before bed. I hope to explore more this weekend. Thanks again

Thanks for all the replies. Crallask: I would be hesitant to mention this ( I could be wrong) but I would like him to understand the importance of quality of life first before quantity. Maybe once he understand the importance of a quality life then extending its quantity might be like a bonus. marginalist: Good question that I got a chance to explore this morning. He woke me up a few minutes before my alarm to tell me that he had been thinking about death again, I asked him if he wanted to hear how I viewed death. He said he wanted to hear it. I told him that I felt that because life was finity that that is what made it special. That if we were beings that lived forever we would take life for granted and not enjoy it. I told him that is how I coped with a finite life and with problems in life, that to have problems makes the moments of happines much sweeter. He said that cavemen used to have a lot of problems. I told him that because of that, when they had a chance to sit around a fire and enjoy that moment it most have felt amazing. He agreed. I told him that if the faucet always provided clean water no matter what. the water would not be a big deal. But if we were in a desert and finally found some water that it woult taste like the best water in the world. He also agreed then said that if he ate ice cream all the time that it would not be special anymore. Then he told me that we wanted to give up his cereal for breakfast since he has been having it for years and it no longer felt special (ironic that the brand is Special K), he now wants eggs and bacon. I told him about an immortal robot that would just sit there and do nothing because nothing had any meaning anymore. I also told him that death is easier when you know you leave a little bit of us behind in our children, Like a huge tree that drops his seeds, if the tree did not died it would block the sun and hurde the nutrients, and the little sapplings would not have a chance. He felt much better at the time but he felt bad again on his way to school and his mom took him to the beach instead. As far as my thoughts on death I tend to agree with what Mises said in "Human Action" about how we are how we are because we live in a world of scarcity and economic problems. How humans in order to remove felt uneasiness have evolved to solve complex problems by reason. Without these challenges there would have been little pressure to reason and thinking at all. "Acting and Thinking man is the product of a universe of scarcity in which whatever well-being can be attained is the prize of toll and trouble, of conduct popularly called economic" - Human Action, Ludwig von Mises This always resonates with me when I think of death an when problems arrise and its what helps me keep going and accept the inevitable end. regevdl Thank you for sharing your story I'm sorry for what you had to deal with as a child. I will keep probing. I like your advice of asking more questions, help him figure out where it is comming from.

Hi all, I need your advice on how to talk with my 10y old son. A few days ago he started approaching me and telling me that he can't get death out of his mind. That this makes him very afraid. and He would start getting emotional at his point in the conversation. I have asked him what he pictures and what makes him afraid, HE says he pictures himself as an old man in his bed about to die. he also shows concern about time passing to quickly for him, like if death is approaching faster than he likes. I have talked to him in different occasions and pretty much reiterated the same suggestions on this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43610-6yo-daughter-asks-about-death/ After our talks he tells me he feels better and that he is glad that we talked. then a few days later he would tell me again that he thought about death again and that it scares him. I have told him that if he sees himself as an old man, means he lived a long life. and that in that time he could have done many things and enjoyed life. again he tells me he feels better... I would like to hear your thoughts on what i should be asking or tell him to help him understand, I have thought of telling him how I view and deal with those thoughts myself, but can he relate? Thanks in advance. BTW, I should mention that he is not a typical 10 year old in the sense that he is of above average intelligence and maturity.

Could not agree more! There are good arguments that there is no need to have fix prices, any mingling with the money supply just results in never hitting the desired target and causing more harm than good. As long as the money supply is pegged to a stable commodity the rate of creation is stable and predictable, all that the market needs to set the future price.

I can see where you are correct, Unless there is prior knowledge of the money creation and creditors include that factor on the terms of the loan. For Example if the increase in the money supply is stable and known, then creditors will factor that the amount of money they will get back from the debtors at time x would be devalued by y and hence will factor that in. I believe this is what the Austrians mean, I cannot imagine they would miss this point that you bring up. How much is too much depends on the desired outcome. If you wanted prices to remain constant then you have to keep increase the money supply increasing or decreasing relative the the goods produced in the economy. If you had your money pegged to a commodity like gold, and the gold was being mined faster than the economy then you wuld see prices go up. etc. Does this help? do you have any other questions or need any more clarification?

As I understand it, Yes. it applies to any printer of money. I like to think of it as the relationship between the goods in an economy and the money supply. If the money supply is increasing in relation to the amount of goods then more money will be chasing each individual good and the price of those goods will go up. If each person receives the money then it is a wash, prices went up but they have the same proportion of money to buy those goods. It doesn't matter who prints it. They argue its counterfeiting because it i exactly the same to the overall result as if I start printing dollars at home, even if I can produce the exact replica of a dollar bill. because that money once in the economy devalues every other dollar out there. They are more out them now chasing the same goods. How much is too much? Depends on what the expected outcome is. if the printer can tell how much the economy is growing or shrinking and increase or reduce the money supply accordingly then prices would not change. Some Austrians would argue that if the money supply was pegged to a good (say gold) that rate of new gold mined is small and stable, So this would avoid wild price fluctuations. Prices would likely decrease over time because the economy is likely to grow faster (more goods produced) than the supply of gold increases. But this increased value applies to all the gold, so all holders benefit equally. Sellers would have a good idea about the stable depression so they would price their goods accordingly as well. Hope that helps.

Good find! Really enjoyed these!

I don't know, but a big difference between Japan and the US is that the dollar is an international currency and there's a lot of dollars outthere. A trigger could send those dollars back into the US to trade those dollars for actual goods and this will increase prices.

Good one, I have Lyca mobile at $35 (T-mobile MVNO) Unlimited talk/text and first 1GB at LTE speeds. Grabbed the Fire Phone from amazon for ~$40 final price on black friday!

I will disagree with this proof, The 7 people might agree to pull the lever a priori to better their odds of survival. once the roles are assigned only 6 people want the lever pulled. hence UPB time test no longer holds. also, At least one person will not want the lever pulled, hence universality no longer holds. You proof is not valid because you can't isolate a group "future possible lever operators" and conclude that since they all want to do X it is UPB. with that line of reasoning won't all "future possible thief's" want to steal? making Stealing UPB.

I agree, To be consistent with NAP theory this would be the acceptable answer, As Block points out it would be immoral to pass on the "Bad luck" of the 5 people on the path of the train to the innocent person on the other track that otherwise would not be harmed. If one applies this principle consistently then regardless of the variations one would arrive at the same conclusion.

I would invite you to look into Walter's Block paper posted earlier. The fact that all will choose to pull the lever to maximize their chances does not make it moral. The question is should there be consequences for pulling the lever afterwards. If one is dying of thirst most people if not all will choose to steal a bottle of water. But the question is should they be held accountable afterwards. I would choose to steal the water and survive and take my chances in court. So in your example all will choose to pull the lever but the person pulling it should be held responsible.

Following your argument can't I replace "moral" with "non-immoral" and make this a valid question? I don't think this is the case. The question seems to be "should you do nothing, and let x die, or do something and KILL y" with different variants of the problem to make the killing y more direct or indirect. For these reasons there are variations where the people happen to be walking on the tracks. Why automatically? When doing nothing is consistent with NAP theory as Walter Block pointed out. If one is to follow this principle then all the variants can be solved constantly. This problem is meant to test people principles and as you pointed out it revolves around making people fall into an utilitarian trap but one is not forced to. I completely agree with this point. Many people in this threat have jumped in with their views of "This is a waste of time" "This is impossible" "Stefan said that this is a diversion from bigger issues"...etc. Maybe so. But why not just state that view to the people involved here and move on and ignore the thread? why the strong views and attacks? Let the OP "waste his time" after you have politely pointed it out to him. Hasn't Stefan also said that one must do what they think is best until convinced otherwise? "Go help Ron Paul..." "Go talk to your parents..." etc. I say let him and the others involved here find closure and I invite the other to explore why they have felt such a strong aversion to this issue.

One could argue that a businessman that enters in a partnership with another when the other person does not share his risk tolerance goals has committed such error. Since he has a formula for calculating his risk while the other might be just guessing and gambling.

I might be missing something but I do not see the point of this article. All examples are failures to select proper means to the stated end. a) Regular sex is not the right mean to a PERMANENT monogamous relationship. b) sexual teasing is not the right mean to a PERMANENT relationship... etc. All the examples involve a cognitive errors on the part of one of the parties which to me is the source of the anxiety/frustration. For example: Person A gets on a car (that's going east) because he wants to get to the town to the north. Person B is driving the car for the pure enjoyment of driving. The issue is not that the car is a means for A but an end for B.. but that A has made an error in judgement. (believing that the car going east will take him north) On the other hand. I f person A was correct on his judgement and gets on a northbound car. then it does not matter that the car is a means to him and an end for B. since they will both get what they want as long as both parties are correct in their judgement.

Could it be a self esteem issue then? if you are not confident that you will easily earn money in the future you might feel like saving more in the present is the right thing to do. On the other hand, if you felt confident on your skills and do not worry about not finding a job if you get laid off, then spending money would come easier. Another point to consider is that you might be more informed than the average person, if you believe that it is highly probably that there will be an economic collapse in the future, then saving money might be a way of cushioning that hit. One of my biggest incentives in delaying gratification is the knowledge that each day the government is pouring sand on the gears of the economy, I would feel much better in a booming free market economy where jobs would be easily available. Instead of the massive unemployment we have now and the regulations that prevents new business from entering the market. I feel that jobs are harder to find now days, so I try to create a nest egg to prevent future suffering. hope that helps

You seem to remain engaged in the discussion for someone who thinks there's nothing left to discuss. Have you looked at Block's approach to this issue? On a general note, since certain amount of down votes will cause a person's posts to no longer be displayed and also directly affect someone's reputation on the forum, I think we should think twice before down voting a post. It seems to me ( I could be wrong) that this feature is being abused and used as a form of censorship. Down votes should be used for posts that are disrespectful, abusive, etc. I have not seen such thing in this thread yet posts that people disagree with are being down voted. I have tried to correct this by using my vote as I normally do throughout the forum, I encourage like minded individuals to do the same. Sorry to sidetrack with this but I felt it needed to be said.

I think Walter Block makes a good case for answering these type of problems here https://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf He proposes the idea of negative homesteading and if you apply it to these type of scenarios the answer is clear.

Isn't it "Dead end" only if he stays? The job might be misrepresented by the hiring manager. What I mean is that one cannot truly access the job by the bias and preconceptions of a hiring manager...He might have read one of those hiring books too many...or "reading people signals for dummies", Once the OP is hired he can truly access what the job is about, what the chances of moving around the company are etc. most companies allow you to climb the corporate ladder or move to different divisions. In a free society I can see people having more employment opportunities but in today's regulated environment employment might be harder to come by and it would not hurt trying things out for a few weeks.