ThomasDoubts

From wiki-- The level of risk in investments is taken into consideration. This is why very volatile investments like shares and junk bonds have higher returns than safer ones like government bonds. The extra interest charged on a risky investment is the risk premium. The required risk premium is dependent on the risk preferences of the lender. If an investment is 50% likely to go bankrupt, a risk-neutral lender will require their returns to double. So for an investment normally returning $100 they would require $200 back. A risk-averse lender would require more than $200 back and a risk-loving lender less than $200. Evidence suggests that most lenders are in fact risk-averse. Generally speaking a longer-term investment carries a maturity risk premium, because long-term loans are exposed to more risk of default during their duration. --------------------------------------------------------------- Consider your breast enlargement cream, which is 100% effective. When they go seeking a loan, the shop around looking for the lowest interest rate. The millions of investors have to compete with each other to secure the business of the breast cream manufacturer. The investors, realizing the gold mine of the breast cream, and assured that the business will thrive and pay back the loans, race to the bottom. If one investor offers them a loan @ 10%, someone else will surely offer the same loan @ 9%. The process continues until the breast cream company finds the investor offering the lowest rate of interest. With a surefire investment, that interest rate is very low. This is why Apple, with a gazillion dollars in cash, a powerful brand, great products, etc, can get loans at very low rates. Short term US government bonds (treasury bills) are assumed by most, to be the safest investment in the universe(in capital markets), and have accordingly low rates of interest. It's assumed they'll never default, and therefore have a negligable risk. On the other hand, consider the purified bottle of air. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if it's your idea, and you are looking for a loan to do business, why would you want a higher interest rate? You can assume a 4% profit but the investor will assume a 0% profit. In fact he would assume a 100% loss, which is why he'd never give you a loan. He considers your risk of default so overwhelming that he wouldn't loan you money at any rate of interest. A 0% interest rate loan would be if I let you hold my money for 5 seconds and then returned it. There exists a concept called a risk free rate, which is essentially what the market considers due compensation for the lost opportunity cost to the lender. If I had not lent you money, what is the minimum return I could get by lending to safest creditor in the world. This is generally assumed to be the interest rate on US treasury bills. Any rate of interest in excess of t-bills is calculated as a combination of risk factors; interest rate risk, default risk, exchange rate risk (when currency exchange takes place at seperate times), political risk, and many others. The big lever is default risk, because you don't just lose a bit, you could lose you're entire investment. Interest rates are exactly a measurement of risk. That's not to say they're perfect, but they attempt to reflect the risk of the borrower. This helps illustrate the evilness of central bank policy. Government dictates to society how likely government is to default on their obligations, rather than allow people to see how a free market would price their risk.

With the disclaimer that I know very little about the Canadian real estate market, I can offer a few things to chew on from an economic perspective. You mentioned the possibility of moving back to India. For the sake of argument, assume in 5 years you move back to India. Had you chosen to rent a home, you will have paid your rent, and consumed the good. No strings attached, and nothing tying you down. Had you chosen to purchase a home by incurring a mortgage, I would assume you intend to sell the home, and use the proceeds to pay off the mortgage. In this scenario, the price at which you can sell your home 5 years from today becomes important. The price of your home may have appreciated 20% and you settle your mortgage with money left over to take to India. Conversely, the price of your home may have depreciated 20%, and you sell the house at a loss, and make up the difference in savings to pay off the mortgage. Being unable to make up the difference, you may have to delay the plans to move. If you intend to move to India, while your mother stays in the home, will she be able to comfortably service the debt on her own? Would she be willing to rent out a room to someone in the event that she cannot? Supposing you don't move back to India, what would your intentions be? Do you forsee living in the new home until it's paid off, and thereafter? If so, how stable is the household income? Would you/your mother be able to accumulate savings, or would the bills be paid with little to spare each month? How does the home compare to similar substitutes in the area, in terms of price and amenities, location, size, condition, etc. Would you be able to maintain the home without your mother if it is in your name? Will you/your mother be able to make a sizable downpayment? Here in the US, until you have 20% equity in your home you are required to pay a mortgage insurance premium every month which adds significantly to the cost of homeownership. Does Canada have a similar law? These are all, in my opinion, important questions to consider. Renting vs. owning is fairly straightforward. Renting gives you flexibility and less resposibility. Owning gives you ownership if/when you pay off the mortgage. Taking out a mortage without intending to pay it off, is taking a gamble that you can sell in the future and break even or better. If I could give one piece of advice, worth the price of an internet forum post, it would be to not look for the best home you can afford. Rather look for the best home where you can afford to be comfortable.

It is true that idle money, or savings increases purchasing power, all else equal. Although, I would argue money isn't lent to the highest bidder (willing to accept the highest rate of interest, or requesting the largest loan). Every lender's risk profile is different but the highest bidder presents the greatest risk to the lender. A prudent lender doesn't seek the greatest risk for want of the greatest return; but rather attempts to capitalize on the mispricing of risk. The "greatest needs", like all other needs will be serviced in accordance with the risk of default, among other things. Price, via interest rates, is the mechanism determining who gets capital, and who doesn't, not the degree of need. Perhaps I misunderstand so forgive my rambling if that's the case. An Armstrong wannabe makes a poor investment when he buys a $2,500 bike. I would hope he spends all his money on as many bikes as he can buy. His money will go to capital investors creating value, and the bikes he bought will be sold on the secondary markets at a discount. He incurs a loss, and learns a lesson; while the buyer on the secondary market is rewarded for making a more prudent purchase. Of course more "wannabes" put upward pressure on prices and profit seeking businesses have no reason to disincentivize the suckers. Successful businesses are more rational, on average, than consumers. The more rational consumers become, the more efficient resources will be allocated. In the meantime, I think it best to capitalize on the difference between the retail price a wannabe pays, and what he's willing to accept on the secondary market when he realizes his mistake. To me, it all seems a reflection of what people value, and how they determine the price they're willing to pay for that which they value. It doesn't say anything good about the consumer driven society, but at least the money is going from the irrational to the less irrational.

It all depends. If I'm Lance Armstrong, dropping a couple thousand dollars on a bicycle and some red blood cells, it's a great investment. If I'm just an amateur intent on an exersice regiment, it seems like overkill. Perhaps materialistic. If you can afford it, more power to you. Ultimately the money spent becomes capital for someone creating value, rather than being idle. To me, such an attitude reflects a materialistic society, but one reached voluntarily. The consequences of malinvestment are unavoidable, so I take comfort in the economic justice.

To my mind, anytime the initiation of the use of force is used against you, you have the right and justification to reply in kind. Beyond that, all considerations become practical and tactical. "The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government." What gives any man or group of men the right to presuppose another's obedience? It's just another way of arguing the validity of a social contract that does not exist as was signed by nobody. If an implicit agreement exists, it would be reached through the act of voting, and only be valid for the time alloted in office for the elected representitive.

Maintaining an empire is one thing. Building an empire is quite another. I can't think of anything infinitely maintained. You may be right but there is very little I would presume about an interstellar species. My point isn't that such a scenario is likely; rather to acknowledge a fatal flaw that could in theory be exploited. Also, such a species mustn't be based on domination and destruction. It would simply require a species willing to employ such tactics, if only out of survival instinct. I operate under the assumption that anything is possible, until proven otherwise. Of course this requires me to double check each morning that I'm still bound by the laws of gravity, and so far they've held up, but I can't promise you that I won't be wrong tomorrow.

The first things that came to mind as I read that were the concepts of the Black Swan and Fragility. (N.Taleb) The whole idea of a society in perfect equilibrium is flawed for the very reason you point out; it's not adaptable owing the precision with which it must be tuned, the lack erronious experimentation that provides new information/innovation, and the systemic risk inherent in a system universally governed by the same rules. Of course the irony of it being that a peaceful society's fatal flaw will always be the use of force. Should we become a peaceful planet, a potentially catostrophic and systemic risk would always be the uncompromising, genocidal alien invaders, which a violent society would be perhaps better adapted to overcome. It's interesting to consider that from such a perspective, the value of a peaceful society might be quite different. ie: Peaceful with a 85% chance of extinction vs. violent with a 55% chance of extinction... I suppose the decision criterion (foreseeing such an event) comes down to what one considers the purpose of humanity; to survive at any and all costs, or something more. In all likelyhood, the probability of extinction would be more like 99.5% and 99.3%, respectively; or .5% and 3% respectively. Or we might just teleport to another planet. It's an interesting thought experiment, nonetheless.

As far as I know micro/macro are almost universally the two intro economics courses. Microeconomics is normally quite good, and ought to be taken by everyone. You get the basics on how individuals/firms/agents behave in markets, supply & demand, how prices are determined, etc. On the other hand, Macroeconomics seemed to me like a total waste of time, with the exception that it was a required course. To condense a semester into one idea, macroeconomics taught me that with an understanding of basic algebra and a 5 data points, I could control the universe. Of course, if you're the type that takes pleasure in agitating professors, macroeconomics would be the place to do it. Someone mentioned the mathmatics becoming quite complex: that was not my experience. I never saw anything beyond dressed up algebra. You'll get bits and pieces of basic calculus in finance but I never saw much of it in Economics. Which brings me to another point: I would suggest an introductory finance course for everyone. Time value of money is everywhere in your everyday life and you ought to learn to appreciate it and be able to do the calculations. Any credit/debt instruments (mortgages, credit cards, loans, bonds, etc.) are priced most primarily on time value of money and default risk. For any entrepreneur it's vital to understand Internal Rates of Return, Cash Flows, and a half dozen other things you'll learn in an intro finance course. Best of Luck

I'm by no means an expert, but in my self guided experience sleep deprivation has worked quite well. 36 hours does the trick for me, more often than not. Of course this might not be too practical for you, I don't know. I also notice that sleeping with the TV on will occasionally dictate settings for me. For instance, if infomercials for cooking gadgets/equipment are repeating all night while I'm sleeping, I'll have dreams that take place in a kitchen for no other reason apparent to me. That might not be so useful, unless you think a setting may help coax out something you wanted explore. I find it kind of interesting nonetheless. Having perked my interest, a quick search yielded a fairly long list of tips/tricks. wikihow dot com/Lucid-Dream Neither of my accidental discoveries (sleep deprivation, smoking pot before bed) are listed so take them for what they're worth. I'm an amateur when it comes to lucid dreaming, I generally become aware out of happenstance, not because I've trained myself to become aware. If you've never had one, keep up the pursuit. It's a blast.

I can say it's hard for me to imagine ever calling the police in such a situation. Perhaps I'm a bit biased, having pled guilty to a DUI in the past. I'm still waiting the eternity required for it to be expunged from the public record, and resent with every fiber of my being the fines and court costs imposed. In my case, I was pulled over in college for a bad tail light by a cop shooting fish in a barrel (parking next to the bar and pulling over as many people as possible as they leave). 4-5 12oz. light beers over a couple hours and off to jail I went. Nevermind that the allowable BAC is fairly arbitrary, and varied by geography. I would have been entirely innocent had I been in another location. Nevermind the fact that I'm ten times safer on the road after five beers than my grandfather is sober. Besides protecting people from themselves, the purpose of DUI laws is to protect innocent people on the road that should not have to assume the risk of driving on roads with drunks. Maybe this is true, but if so, they should not have to assume the greater risk of sharing the road with my grandfather, and horrible drivers in general. I don't intend to make light of a serious issue, but I could stomach it all much easier without the punitive punishments/tax collections. These are issues to be dealt with by insurance companies, and people should assume all risks, driving defensively at all times. In my case, my insurance rates were not adjusted in the slightest, but the state wanted thousands and thousands of dollars. How is this rational? Whatever you do, I would strongly advise not drinking and driving. While I do my best to intervene and provide solutions when the opportunity presents itself and is warranted, I won't fund the state one more penny at anyones expense. I don't know what this says about me, but this is how I feel about DUI's in general. Apologies for my personal rantishness. With regard to your story, was he trespassing or did he become you're roommates guest? Did your roommate say screw him and go to bed, or go out greet him? If your main concern was the noise, and he was unwelcome by all parties, I would have given him another chance. I would have approached him and asked him to step out of the car for a conversation, and expressed my concerns. I would have lied by reminding him that I was perfectly willing to involve the authorities. If I judged him to be a threat to himself or others, I'd give him choices: I can call you a cab, you can call a friend, or I can call the police. Let him feel in control while firmly making it clear that you won't allow him to be driving anymore for the night. 95% of the time people will pick the cab, the friend, or an alternative solution over the cops. It would be a small inconvenience for you, compared to calling the cops, but a peaceful solution nonetheless. Of course you don't owe him that, but it's precisely what I would want another to do for me if I were to find myself in such a situation.

Interesting question. My knee jerk reaction inclines me to think it's very important. Without understanding why an action occurs, how can we seperate causation and correlation with respect to managing our future environments. It seems we would be accumulating a list of abusive people to avoid, rather than generating some set of general rules by which we can try to avoid or consciously consider the risk factors of potentially abusive people. That to me seems much more efficient, and forward looking, while not understanding why seems crude, reactionary and more suceptible to duplicating experiences with new abusers. If you don't understand why a parent was abusive, you may paint parents, caretakers, people you're emotionally close too, etc. with a broad brush. You mustn't let an abusive parent "teach" you to avoid close emotional bonds for fear of abandonment, abuse, manipulation, etc. If you were a victim of Jerry Sandusky, you mustn't let that experience "teach" you to fear old men, football coaches, homosexuals, foster parents, etc. Contrarily, you mustn't let an abusive parent "teach" you in the opposite direction; to crave an unhealthy amount of love, attention, reassurance, etc. I think we tend to overreact to any significant harm (or benefit for that matter) An older male relative of mine was raped on more than one occasion as a child by his male teacher. To this day, he's as homophobic as anyone I've known, backed with the same holy scripture that was (in his mind) essential in breaking the alcohol addiction he suffered well into his 40's. His story shows failure on many levels (he didn't tell a soul until 25-30 years later), but I would say it's fair to assert he never processed that experience accurately or fully, otherwise it's unlikely he'd be so homophobic. Perhaps the answer to the question why is only important to the extent that the victim understands that they are a victim of a sick person. I wouldn't say it's necessary to understand your abuser's childhood, nor your abuser's parent's childhoods...in infinite regress, unless it leads you to the state, of course If you've been the subject of abuse it's obviously important to process that experience. At the minimum, I think it's essential to realize an abusive person is a sick and broken person. Personally speaking, I think I would have to know more, ie: why they are sick and broken. I want an objective understanding of my subjective experience, and to that extent, the more truth, the better.

I tend to think of left handed people as a generally superior race. Had anyone tried to take away my superiority, I would not have been happy in the least. In all seriousness, I'm fairly certain that left handed/abmidextrous children have a statistically more significant rate of being diagnosed with dyslexia. I would hypothesize that any efforts to convert children would be destructive and neglectful of the extra attention dyslexic children require in early development. It may be that converting would be viewed as a possible treatment, which of course is nonsense. I've always done what comes natural, which in a right handed world, leads to plenty of conversion by necessity as it is. I'm all for abolishing the tyranny of the righties! With all that money, my school couldn't afford a pair of left handed scissors? Come on, man!

It may seem presumptious, but here are my thoughts. It seems to me that what you are really seeking is acceptance. Acceptance and approval from women, and society. You mention that the problem isn't internal but some unknown external factor. For clarification, do you mean physical traits, appearance, manorisms, etc.? It is not unique or uncommon to seek approval, it's natural. I think you may find however, that the military by its very nature is among the most conformist social structures. There is a certain appeal to a lost soul seeking approval in joining a group where your value is determined almost entirely by the degree of your conformity, rather than your virtue, skill, wisdom, etc. All that is required for acceptance is submission to authority, which is antithical to the foundations of this community. Speaking anecdotally, the military sells an idea, not a reality. "Be all you can be" is all well and good until you're mopping the floor of an aircraft carrier day after day. I had a close friend who joined the armed forces at 19 when the only girlfriend he ever had pressured him into finding a respectable future, one where he could provide for her and a family, and be a respectable member of society. He had grand visions of a marriage in the near future, a doubling in salary, housing allowances, etc. Less than a year after he signed up, he got a call from her explaining that she had "met someone" and could no longer continue their relationship. Putting aside judgements on her charactor, he found himself battling depression, strong contemplations of suicide, and bound to serve the remaining 4 years of his contract doing what he described as nothing meaningful. You speak of joining a cause but I submit to you that doing anything meaningful, nonetheless virtuous, in the military is a long shot at best. The chances that you become part #3465kl43 in an oppressive, self serving machinery of violence are overwhelming. When you come home people will wave flags, express gratitude, praise your sacrifice, and consider you a patriot. You will have your acceptance, but that will fade. You'll rejoin the real world and realize one morning how meaningless your service was, and how inevitable and fradulent your acceptance was. All it required was blind submission. You can experience all kinds of civilization, read your books, travel the world, etc. without the military. You can learn survival skills without the military. You can make a drastic change without the military. You can be a force for good without the military. All things are possible. Introspect on why the military? You can seek acceptance through virtue. You can seek it through conformity. You can seek it by any means necessary. The choice is yours, but I encourage taking the path less traveled.

A perfect society could never exist, particularly if it's defined as one where sadness never takes place. A free society is another story. Recognizing one's happiness or sadness is information. How you interpret that information and act upon it will determine it's value. Sadness, harm, stress, pain, etc. are simply weights for your mind to exercise with. The more you lift them, the lighter they'll become, provided you're exercising correctly.

Interesting Kevin "Being tolerant of someone being unfair to you (anti-UPB) is a contradiction in terms because that's not tolerance." I think this is very much the to the point. If someone intolerantly agresses against me, my choices are submission, opposition by force, if necessary, or flight. There is no moral or virtuous judgement to be made. Your response would be one made under duress. If I am a bystander to an intolerant agression, my choices are encouragement, active opposition by force, if necessary, or passive permission. You're right that definitions are lacking but I don't want to get too wrapped up in them, fundementally important though they may be. For instance, I'm a bit bothered by the fact that your (I know its not "yours" per se) definition of tolerance includes "permissive", while your definition of permissive includes "tolerant". If A=B and B=A, what is A? What is B? I wonder if, in a free society, would you exersize your consumer voting rights by refusing to buy a home from a couple who circumcized their children? Would you not buy products from a company who's CEO had an abortion in the distant past? I suppose there is a question of when tolerance becomes intolerance. If you are a "pro-life" activist, are you intolerant because you think abortion is murder and don't respect others rights to make their own moral judgements? If you are a "pro-choice" activist, are you intolerant because you defend your right to make choices about your own body, and make your own moral judgements without deferance to others'? I wonder if it doesn't become intolerance until your actions constitute agression, force, or the threat thereof. As a practical matter, no matter how repulsive you may find genital mutilation, it seems to me that you would be tolerant of it until you threaten violence (legislation), or stay the hand holding the knife. You may not approve of it, you may not respect it, you may be an activist against it, but it goes on thoughout the society of which we are a part. As it would be unwise to exercize force against genital mutilation, or against the state in the name of true liberty, it would also have been unwise to exersize force against the institution of slavery in 1850's Virginia, as John Brown can attest. As others have argued, violence was not neccessary in freeing the slaves but would you condemn those who violently opposed it? Would you condemn the slave who kills his master? If not, it would seem you would tolerate the opposition of force, by force. If so, you wouldn't respect one's right to fight force with force. But as your analysis states, being tolerant/intolerant of intolerance isn't really exercizing one or the other; rather it's the absence or use of force in opposition. Maybe

No worries. It may or may not be relevant, and it's food for thought. I just don't want to get too far out on a tangent. To do justice to that story would require a discussion of its own.

Well, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit, but we've got some great tasting shit. In my experience it's been beneficial to temper expectations when dealing with shattered people. For me, the only important questions always began with "why?" I've answered my "why's" and made peace with the fact that you can't change the past. Though it hasn't always been the case, I feel more like the parent, and they're the children. As many parents (though surely none here!) may attest, reasoning with a teenager, unfamiliar with reason, is just unreasonable. I could go into greater detail but unless you can bait me into seeing it's relevance to the topic at hand, it would probably be more appropriate to do so elsewhere.

Post numero uno Been a long time listener (I suppose thats rather relative, seems like a lifetime), and recently signed up for the forums. After the update/upgrade, I simply couldn't resist. The questions I pose, and ones I've been thinking about lately, conern Karl Popper's argument regarding the Paradox of Tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Assuming we share the same goals; a stateless society, the NAP, UPB, etc., the only question is the means by which they're achieved. By and large, Stefan's arguments rightly concern the raising of children and rational thought. I'm concerned, however, that these means are insufficient. Help me square this circle. If, as history demonstrates, political power is not given up volutarily, how can such a force be eliminated if not by force or ballot? By definition, political power permits and requires the use of force. Stefan has argued against the usefulness of voting, and who could argue with him in today's context? Perhaps Kokesh will start a trend; what's wrong with an anarchist platform? Consider a quasi-utopic world where 60% of the population in a given nation subscribed to NAP, UPB, the stateless society: So long as an enforcement class could be fielded from the remaining 40%, would a tyranny of force not remain plausible? Is the path forward one where we must win so many hearts and minds that an enforcement class cannot be fielded? Is it reasonable to expect such a time to ever come about? Should we be voters? Government will always demand the use of force, and recognizing their highest economic value, those willing to employ the use of force will naturally congregate in/around government, where they are most profitable and enjoy legal protection. I can't help but thinking, by abstaining from the political process would we forfeit our only mechanism for the abolition of the state (absent force)? How would a stateless society in it's infancy protect against the establishment of a minimilist government (1776) Should we not claim the right to employ force against intolerance of liberty? Would this not be an extension of the right to self defense? Claiming the moral high ground, should we not be more impatient, more intolerant of intolerance? Thoughts?