Djoop

Thanks. I'm not sure if I can agree with that though. Whether something is beneficial or not is rather subjective. Furthermore, the speaker spoke about 'capitalism' not 'free market capitalism'. One of the reasons I favor free market capitalism is because of the very principle you explained earlier. I do agree that it's a less loaded terminology, but one could question if it should be. The fact that a business activity requires profit draws back on the idea that there has to be a finiancial benefit to make the activity sustainable. We never speak about self interest in a negative way when it's a about feeding our children.

Yes, there's a financial benefit to parties involved in these transactions. I just don't understand why you consider that a more accurate statement. Care to elaborate?

The logical picture of the facts is the thought... Just as a spatial picture represents things in physical space, a logical picture represents things in logical space. A logical picture represents possible states of affairs: it is the most general kind of picture because logical form is the most general kind of form. However, a logical picture cannot represent logical space or logical form itself, in the same way that a spatial picture cannot represent physical space itself. Rather, it displays its form by depicting facts (2.172) (Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico) There need not be any agreement on the meaning of words, we simply need to be able to communicate our logical pictures. That being said, language is of course very important when we're trying to communicate abstract ideas. But it's not that difficult to imagine how you would use different words trying to explain the same logical picture to two different family members. In your mind, the idea doesn't change, the picture(s) remains the same.

It does not require. That argument is just often made by the religious. The main argument against God, from a scientific point of view, is the fact that it doesn't explain anything. If you say God created the 'earth and skies' someone could ask you how God created the earth and skies. Vice versa, no matter how far we're able to track back our existance, we could always place a God in front of it, science never excludes God. Whenever we discuss religion we should discuss the morality of its teachings. Let's leave circular reasoning to the religious.

Probably meant to say that capitalism is a system that operates on profit. I'm not surprised to hear that psychopathy is more prevalent among CEO's. I just think it's rather naive to assume they'd be less prevalent in other economic systems. I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more prevalent in other economic systems. 4% means 96% are not, that's more surprising to be honest.

When I see examples like this, I see a lack of free market capitalism. Which is a confusing topic to begin with, many people confuse this idea with laissez faire politics, and that it is not. The basic principle always applies though; rational economic actors acting in their self interest.. price goods and services most efficiently. would not pass an opportunity like this. You could produce this drug for 600$ untill I offer it for 500$. If it can be made for < 13$, it's never going to be sold for 750$. That's capitalism, the reason why it doesn't work in this case is likely to be found in (failing) government regulation.

Well, she deserves it. Her father had the best tv show ever.

I'm inclined to say that it's always immoral to try and indoctrinate someone, especially a child. I once asked why grandfather why he didn't go to church. I was told this story that some years ago, he asked the Church permission to eat a steak on friday for his sisters birthday. She had a chronical illness and lived with my grandparents. They denied this request (catholics are supposed to eat fish on friday) and my grandfather almost choked on a fishbone on his sisters birthday. They had to surgically remove the bone from his throat. He saw this as a divine intervention. There was no problem with his faith, there was a problem with the Church. I'm still not sure if he really based his decision on the fishbone incident alone. But either I am to accept that one of the most decent and moral human beings I've ever met didn't make it to heaven, or that some RC teachings are heavily flawed. To me, the whole concept of heaven requires my grandfather to be there, otherwise it could make as little sense as his explanation for leaving the Church made that day.

Not only that but they fail to realise that their austerity measures combined with zero wage development drives spending in the other direction.

Basicly, this measure is meant to motivate Swedish banks to require other assets than deposits at the national bank. Which is pretty weird considering that most banks -post crisis- have to raise their tier one capital as well. Anyhow, they will likely use it as an argument to lower interest payments for account holders. I'm an economist in the sense that I know just as little, but these are usually not signs of a bull market. An other, more easy to understand explanation is the relation between exponential economic growth and inflation. People want interest when they borrow you money because the value of their currency tends to devaluate. Vice versa, if there's no growth, no inflation, interest rates drop.

Waste of time, Hitchens refuted these silly viewpoints long time ago. Every day roughly 3000 slave girls experience the difference in intention. There's worse than dying. The comparison Chomsky makes is rather dangerous as it blurs the lines between wrong and downright evil. And one ought to question why someone who asserts that "authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate, and that the burden of proof is on those in authority" also believes that "we should be getting together with Iran". He has this blind spot for Islam, which may explain Harris's fascination for Chomsky. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/05/chomskys_follies.html http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/noam-chomsky-islamic-state-one-main-effects-us-invasion-iraq