They argue over the details and often duck real differences. But it didn’t matter what song they played in the bar. When the icy water rushed through the corridors, the Titanic was doomed.
Well, it's nice to know that Bonner has a sense of humor as he writes in his second sentence, in part: "...we sit in front of the fire, and take a break from our customary rigorous analysis and air-tight logic to make some guesses." LOL!!! Then his column takes a downward turn as he tells us what Steve Bannon thinks. Now, if you are going to present someone's ideas, you would think the quote would be something significant - it wasn't.
Bonner does strike gold to some extent, when he describes "conservatives" as mostly dragging their feet to slow the progressives down (implying that they don't offer anything different). This is partly true or at least has been true for the preceding decades. This is something Ayn Rand railed against 60 years ago as she pointed out that the shared morality of altruism (sacrifice for others) on the left and right prevented the conservatives from being a true alternative to the progressives and true advocates of individual rights. But now it seems at least some of these conservative republicans are waking up and are ready to fight for fiscal sanity and shrinking government. Maybe many of them don't fully understand or support the concept of individual rights, but at least they are in the general vicinity; whereas the Progressives embrace Collectivism, an idea that posits the collective (society, state, common good, etc.) above the individual. Hence, why they so readily sacrifice the individual for the promotion of the common good. Look at Russia and China (and even Cambodia, etc.) where millions have died to create their ideal society. But also look at California where people's lives and welfare have been sacrificed to the almighty environmental god which is so much more important than any individual's measly life. They, of course, say that their policy is for the common good and based on science. It is not. It is based on an ideology of progressive nihilism - destruction of human achievement for anything else they seem to value more - whether it is a fish, insect, plant, etc.
Rand also promised us that the productive class would rebel. Didn't happen. And what's the "common good"? One man's meat is another man's poison. What might be Heaven for somebody would be boring as Hell to me. So, the only true altruism is freedom and liberty. Best always. PM
I've read just about everything Ayn Rand has written (thousands of pages), and she never made any such promise. What she did do was analyze the culture and issues of the day from a fundamentally philosophical standpoint based on the facts of reality, promoting the ideas and actions it would take to ensure human flourishing. The issues of her day were not much different than what we have now, although it is worse today as the Progressives progression into irrationality has sped up over the last ten years or so.
As far as the common good, I agree. There is no such thing and that was my point. Those who want to rule us will always cite the common good in order to get their policies passed. There is no common good when it comes to government with the exception of the protection of individual rights - but then again, that is the protection of each individual, not society as a whole. When done by force (government) the so-called common good is only the good of some people at the expense of others and that is why the free market practiced among free people, each of whom has the right to their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is the morally superior system. No one is forced to participate in any transaction. It is all voluntary.
Not sure what you meant by your comment on altruism. Altruism, which actually means "otherism", is the moral philosophy that evaluates morality from the standpoint of whether an action was initiated to benefit someone else other than oneself. The implication being that doing something for someone else is moral, especially if it means sacrifice, while doing something for oneself is selfish and therefore immoral. The further implication is that a successful man has trampled over other people to get where he is. The implication that someone taking actions to improve one's life without harming anyone else is not included in this thought process. All the varieties of collectivism count on the acceptance of the common good to get their agenda passed.
My apologies (and sympathies to you btw with regard to "thousands" of pages of AR!)) to you and Ms. Rand for misstating her philosophy and views. That having been said, I specifically wish you to understand that this next statement is NOT a personal rebuttal to you, as I trust and respect what you claim. I have seen people read pages upon pages of the same thing I read and NOT understand a word of it.
Allow me a revision: It is my personal interpretation from that which I have read of Ayn Rand, which I believe is good in theory but not in practice (too much "black and white" for me), that she expected the productive class to throw off, rebel, reject, repudiate, whatever, its collectivist tormentors, shafting them in the process. Now, regardless of whether I said it, or Ayn Rand implied it, it hasn't happened.
One last "word" about people understanding what they read: In his early days, Alan Greenspan, former Secretary of the Treasury, was a devote of Ayn Rand, and was considered to be a representative and adherent of her theories and doctrine. If you want to talk about studying something and not getting it, the example of Greenspan is prime (again, my interpretation).
Many thanks for your considered response. So far as I'm concerned, that's what makes this Bonner thing worthwhile. Without the readers' input, one could learn in fairly short order what makes Mr. Bonner "tick" and simply go on. Best always. PM
Thank you but no sympathy needed. Reading Ayn Rand sent me on an intellectual journey for the rest of my life exploring free market economics and the grotesque fallacies of the environmental movement as well as many other issues. (I read Atlas Shrugged in 1973 when I was fortunate enough to be handed the book.) So, I disagree profoundly in regard to your interpretation of Ayn Rand's writings. I'm fine with that. Believe what you like. However, I'm going to defend Ayn Rand whenever I believe she is being misrepresented or misunderstood.
As far as Greenspan (he was a Chairman of the Federal Reserve, not a Sec of Treasury), he contributed some essays to Ayn Rand's non-fiction work, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" which was published in 1967. Sometime thereafter (I believe by the early '70's), he went his own way and pursued his own ideas. How much he agreed or even fully understood Ayn Rand's ideas is unknown to me. But his actions and career tell me he took a different path in contradiction to what he wrote in that book. It happens. In 2008, an interviewer mentioned that Ayn Rand was not a fan of the Federal Reserve (in fact, she was against it), and Alan Greenspan said that he didn't know because they never discussed that in particular. This borders on the laughable as anyone at all "conversant" in her philosophy would have known that she was against the Fed. So, yes - Greenspan did not get it.
P.S. at that time there was no internet, so I didn't realize a lot of this about Greenspan until the late 1980's or even later. Hence, when he was appointed to head a committee to fix Social Security in the 1980's and nothing substantial came of it, I was puzzled. When he was appointed to be the chairmen of the Fed, I was really scratching my head. Obviously, he had moved on from Ayn Rand a long time ago and, in my opinion, suffered the consequences.
Yes, you are correct in all things regarding Ayn Rand's contributions, and, again, my apologies to all for misstating Greenspan's office in government. The lines often blur in my head since I don't see much difference between Yellen and Powell, and all the Treasury people when Greenspan was Fed Chairman (1987-2006), which seems to me to be a cozy, hand-in-gl;ove arrangement. Again, forgive my mistake.
In my experience, Ayn Rand was too verbose. After I got her Idea, it bordered on drudgery reading it over and over. This is matter of personal preference.
Greenspan was given a job to do, which was perpetuate the system. He took the job. Coming from that perspective, he did an amazing job in a perverse way, he was successful. The book that set me free was Jerome Smith's, "The Coming Currency Collapse" which I read in the early 80s. He (Smith) introduced me to Von Mises and the Austrian School of Economics.
P.S. This is going to sound too coincidental, but I, too, read "Atlas Shrugged" in 1973 when someone gave me the book. That someone happened to be a girl who was trying to get something started with me. This was back in the spring of my junior year in college. She inscribed the volume, "To the real-life Hank Riordan, You need to read your story." Now, with an intro like that, how can I not have read the book? At the end, I said to myself, "I need a new image." Best always. PM
PM: first, let me acknowledge that you and I seem to agree quite a bit on politics based on previous posts.
Not to keep this conversation going on forever, but I get it when you say you are not a fan of the way Ayn Rand wrote. I've had similar experiences with other writers who I agree with but couldn't stand the way they expressed it. However, it seems you and I wound up in a similar place but by different paths. Jerome Smith's book sounds familiar, and I may have read it. If I didn't, I certainly read a lot of similar books with the same message.
As far as your criticism of Ayn Rand being too "black and white", I would say that fundamental philosophical principles are black and white. It's their application to present circumstances that might be nuanced and Ayn Rand understood that. She was against the welfare state but did not advocate "pulling the rug out" from welfare recipients immediately - the welfare state would have to be phased out as many people have been made dependent on the government and would need to adjust to the new reality of not getting handouts (as one example).
My correction concerning Alan Greenspan being a Fed Chairman vs. a Treasury Sec was not meant to be a "gotcha" moment and that's why I put it in parentheses. I assumed you were just going from memory and since the two positions are similar in most people's minds, you picked the wrong one. I elaborated on Greenspan only because those that hate Ayn Rand like to point out the failures of Greenspan in order to get at Ayn Rand by associating the two. Ayn Rand is the much bigger fish to destroy in their minds. The fact is, Greenspan had moved on from Ayn Rand for much more than a decade when he became Fed Chair, and embraced policies that Ayn Rand would not agree with.
Finally, interesting story about how you were given Atlas Shrugged. I may have a year or two on you as I was given the book a year after I graduated college. That girl comparing you to Hank Rearden is quite the compliment. She probably made something of herself assuming she lived her life by the principles of that book.
Thanks to PM and JP for Your comments. I do believe that AR also said that government should be in the back ground to protect You and I from ripping off each other. Now I have to admit that I have not read a lot AR'S work lately, so My memory may be a bit vague. Also agree 100 % in Capitalism.
In all of the talk about deficit reduction or spending cuts, I have not seen one comment that refers to prior years' spending. With the covid disaster, Trump's 2020 spending went up 2T from prior years. I suppose that became the norm, since the spending levels haven't decreased since. Even with 25% inflation, it seems 1.5T in cuts could be found somewhere.
The only question left for America is can civil society make a comeback? If the answer is No then the glideslope is the glideslope. Government will either devour itself or collapse under its own weight, and with the current state of civil society(and government encroachment) it will bring the entire ship to the bottom. Too much ice, too much speed, no binoculars on the foredeck. The “idea” of America, the thing that made this nation both unique and great, was that goverment existed to both protect the individual and civil society and to get out of their way. It worked for a while, well enough to make America the most powerful nation on earth. At the end of World War II America’s power was not its government. It was a free and robust civil society that powered the arsenal of democracy, that had voluntarily made the sacrifices and built the factories and been a beacon to the rest of the world. How quickly, by historical standards, it all changed. Can it change back? The momentum has temporarily shifted. Can it become permanent? The odds are long. Time will tell.
As my son (who was 24 at the time) told me in 2010, "Face it, Dad: the good times are never coming back." Our progress through time is linear. What is happening and will happen is rooted in what happened up until now. Choices that were made then put us where we are now. The toughest thing for the Boomer kids of America, and I was one of them, was coming to the realization that we came in at the top, and there was only one way for it all to go. Some of us will get to find the exit before we are at the bottom; some will not. Technology has "shrunk" the globe and "compressed" time. Rise and fall don't take centuries anymore. Best always. PM
P.S. I see you have watched all the movies I have. The biggest, fastest, most modern cruise ship of its day founders for want of a set of binoculars? Even the best, most expensive set of optics in existence would have been a mere pittance in comparison to the cost of the ship. It recalls the pitiful line from Richard III, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" story/lesson of my day, when we read and taught real literature.
"New occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth." James Russell Lowell
If Bonner is right, nothing short of revolution will save The Republic, and even that would not guarantee "the Grand Experiment's" survival. A political entity called "The United States of America" will exist, I suppose, but the ideals, values, and principles that made the USA what we who knew, lived, and called "America" will not. Bonner's thesis is, as I parse it out, that the culture, and its values and mores, are a complete and total subset of the economics ("when the money goes, everything goes."). I'm not sure I agree with that, and I'd like to believe he's wrong, but his total dismissal of the cultural implications of the Trump phenomenon would indicate where both his mind and heart are at this point. Best always. PM
Trump phenomenon, hm…. That presupposes he really embodies those ideals, values and principles. Maybe he does, and maybe it does not matter as the system is now too far gone for change. One thing for sure, most of his supporters are hoping this is the time, even me, and and as for that it seems like there is a lot of hard praying going on. Then we hear that Costa Rica (last time I was there they were saying don’t leave your home untended), or maybe Columbia, better yet Argentina, is the place to be. What the heck, let’s make it Mexico! LOL! After all, money can buy you freedom, as long as it’s worth anything. As for revolution, that implies complete reset; i.e. no hope. Makes me remember the novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, maybe Elon is the only one with any sense. LOL!
I don't think I've missed it, but has Bonner Research discussed the impact of stable coins such as XRP and XLM and what their value might be going forward? Most of these daily reports reiterate the same thing over and over again - lots of debt, everything is doomed, etc. And while I don't disagree, the view here seems to only be "buy gold, stay in cash, everything will sink"
If we can all see the debt problem, I'm fairly sure the people running the government can see it as well and I'm assuming they aren't going to go quietly. I have to also assume they have a plan or two up their sleeve to extend this problem as long as possible and crypto seems to be offering them a temporary solution.
I hate the idea of a CBDC, but that does appear to have a high probability of occurring when disaster comes. With that, a great financial opportunity. Again, not saying I like that solution, but if it's likely to occur regardless, why is there no discussion here about at least making money as things go to shit? It's sounds like all doom, no solutions.
As corrupt and insidious as our present course is darkness and evil can be overcome.. How about we get off the Titanic and entertain the light of humanity that can change our course... This blather perpetuates the idea that we are only passengers. Start believing and proclaiming that the future is a collective ours... or shoot yourself before you drown. In the days the good Lord has left for you and indeed all of us let' change course. AC
Yes - the USS Costa Rica (sort of) should definitely fare better than the good ol' USofA in the crash and chaos ahead. Take a long look at where you light though - it isn't the same everywhere - especially in the recent building boom that is set to blow-up. Prices have sharply risen and the US$ has sunk to around 500 colones. Tourist area prices are in keeping with many locals in the U.S.
How do the readers feel about Trump already reneging on his promise to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours. His envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, recently spoke about 100 days being needed to end the war. Does it remind anyone of Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war?
It's hard to make an abrupt change from the current administration's policy of escalating the war to Trump's goal of ending it, especially since they seem to be doing everything they can to sabotage his agenda. If he really follows through with his promise, I'm willing to cut him a little slack on the timing. 100 days wouldn't be too bad.
You are right, Ol' LSO, I was in Costa Rica last April and going back there this Sunday. I have a relative who needs much dental care and I don't want them to be alone. The food prices are very high and the Ticos are concerned it will affect tourism. For example, last time, after a full day in the dental chair my relative needed something soft to eat. There was an Italian restaurant across the street. We ordered lasagna. For $24, not colones, we got a large square of lasagna. That was it. No bread, no salad, no drink. And the lasagna was very bland. I felt completely ripped off paying $48 plus tip for that part of the meal.
The CCP has a very heavy influence. We stay at a B&B close to the big, new soccer stadium in San Jose that China built for CR.
CCP has a heavy influence on the job market also. My experience there is, CR has almost completely given themselves over to the CCP. Hopefully the people wake up.
Penny - you are a true observer. I have lived there for over 7 years - not in San José but in Guanacaste and have seen the huge change. Not sure what has gone on with the Government. Building permits beyond description without the infrastructure (water, sewer, electricity, roads, hospitals, fire protection, police) to serve it. Unfortunately, it is much worst than in 2009 when the 2008 building boom blew up. It is going to be ghost town city. So sad........
Maybe the passengers on the USS Costa Rica are more reality-based and make better decisions and have more realistic expectations. Perhaps the captain and his staff inform the passengers of their situation and don't gaslight them. I don't know, but cruise ships are more about their own singular reality. You know what I mean if you've ever been on one. Best always. PM
Bill: “And now Trump II is promising even more glorious expansion — to Greenland, Mexico, Canada... and perhaps teaming up with Mr. Musk... to the stars!”
It’s disappointing to this reader that Bill would denigrate efforts to try to obtain more energy (i.e., rare earth elements (REEs)—dominated by the ChiComs; natural gas, oil, etc.), improve shipping lanes, and cut the federal budget without cutting a tremendous number of jobs of soft (voting) Americans. With all the debt, what does Bill suggest the U.S. do to produce more wealth?
Bill knows that Pres. Trump is famous (infamous?) for bombastic rhetoric. He has been doing this his entire adult life. So Bill knows that taking over Greenland, Canada, and Mexico is bombast on the president’s part. He’s using bombast to bring attention to important issues. And he’s thinking outside the box, which has traditionally built true wealth for individuals and countries through the ages.
Bill needs to give Pres. Trump a chance to follow through on this strategy. If he doesn’t follow through, then millions more Americans than Bill will be blasting the president.
There is some fine philosophy there. “All ill winds blow some good” or “All works for good to those that believe.” There is a “Peace that the world can not give
You're exactly right, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties" (George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, Presidential Candidate in 1968). Not your quote Bill, but since your words were not exactly what Wallace said, can we give you a pass on quotes, and credit?
I still believe in giving the new Cabinet a fighting chance on what they were nominated to accomplish. Assumptions are, well Bill we all know what it makes us. Promising action beyond one's reach is well-worth what may be the accomplishments because however the end result ferrets out today will be better than the "status quo" of the four years of the Biden administration.
I look, in my lifetime, at the progression of companies: Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, all with humble, sometimes garage beginnings, then you have Standard Oil or General Motors and the advent of credit. All entailed explosive growth, an organic, inevitable miracle. That is government and all probably have an expiration date. It boggles the mind.
Rockefeller (Standard Oil) started with something as simple as kerosene, which beat the hell out of candles. As Kitty Kallen sang, "Little Things Mean a Lot".
Well, I look forward to Trump in the Oval Office instead of the one leaving it. I started reading Bill today and realized it was just washed, rinsed, and repeated stuff from the days of yore. Thank God I could look forward to what Dan had to say instead.
I believe the applicable quote that best describes our situation is "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later, but you are going to pay". The big question is how "much" are we going to pay. We can only pray that the cost will not be cataclysmic; however, solving our debt problem without extreme cost (financial and physical) probably would be harder than stopping a charging tiger with a BB gun. Hang on, youngsters. The best that we can hope for is to end up with just major claw marks, if we are lucky.
David Stockman has a detailed breakdown of why 2T is not so easy to cut. 400B from all the misc government departments, FCC, Education, Arts, NASA etc. 500B from Defense and that leaves 1.1T to be cut from entitlements! Good luck with that.
Hope and Denial seems to be the overwhelming emotions here in the U.S. I think - those from afar - there are different views and paths forward - clearly shown by the exchanging of US Treasuries for gold and the continuing expansion of the BRIC-centric world of anything but the US$! How does going on a colonization kick (Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Panama and who knows where else) going to "fix" the debt crisis or America's faulting infrastructure or lick inflation? Actually, consider that along with tariffs everywhere. Oh, it is understandable - those of us "stuck" in America have only those 2 choices - Hope and Denial - and clinking to them like a life raft in the freezing arctic. The Primary Trend is not changing - just the actors on the stage with different musings. Hold on tight - going to be a wild ride ahead.
Government is going to wear out the chairs rearranging them on the deficit deck, but they will just go ahead and “buy” new ones (with your money).
Well, it's nice to know that Bonner has a sense of humor as he writes in his second sentence, in part: "...we sit in front of the fire, and take a break from our customary rigorous analysis and air-tight logic to make some guesses." LOL!!! Then his column takes a downward turn as he tells us what Steve Bannon thinks. Now, if you are going to present someone's ideas, you would think the quote would be something significant - it wasn't.
Bonner does strike gold to some extent, when he describes "conservatives" as mostly dragging their feet to slow the progressives down (implying that they don't offer anything different). This is partly true or at least has been true for the preceding decades. This is something Ayn Rand railed against 60 years ago as she pointed out that the shared morality of altruism (sacrifice for others) on the left and right prevented the conservatives from being a true alternative to the progressives and true advocates of individual rights. But now it seems at least some of these conservative republicans are waking up and are ready to fight for fiscal sanity and shrinking government. Maybe many of them don't fully understand or support the concept of individual rights, but at least they are in the general vicinity; whereas the Progressives embrace Collectivism, an idea that posits the collective (society, state, common good, etc.) above the individual. Hence, why they so readily sacrifice the individual for the promotion of the common good. Look at Russia and China (and even Cambodia, etc.) where millions have died to create their ideal society. But also look at California where people's lives and welfare have been sacrificed to the almighty environmental god which is so much more important than any individual's measly life. They, of course, say that their policy is for the common good and based on science. It is not. It is based on an ideology of progressive nihilism - destruction of human achievement for anything else they seem to value more - whether it is a fish, insect, plant, etc.
Rand also promised us that the productive class would rebel. Didn't happen. And what's the "common good"? One man's meat is another man's poison. What might be Heaven for somebody would be boring as Hell to me. So, the only true altruism is freedom and liberty. Best always. PM
I've read just about everything Ayn Rand has written (thousands of pages), and she never made any such promise. What she did do was analyze the culture and issues of the day from a fundamentally philosophical standpoint based on the facts of reality, promoting the ideas and actions it would take to ensure human flourishing. The issues of her day were not much different than what we have now, although it is worse today as the Progressives progression into irrationality has sped up over the last ten years or so.
As far as the common good, I agree. There is no such thing and that was my point. Those who want to rule us will always cite the common good in order to get their policies passed. There is no common good when it comes to government with the exception of the protection of individual rights - but then again, that is the protection of each individual, not society as a whole. When done by force (government) the so-called common good is only the good of some people at the expense of others and that is why the free market practiced among free people, each of whom has the right to their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is the morally superior system. No one is forced to participate in any transaction. It is all voluntary.
Not sure what you meant by your comment on altruism. Altruism, which actually means "otherism", is the moral philosophy that evaluates morality from the standpoint of whether an action was initiated to benefit someone else other than oneself. The implication being that doing something for someone else is moral, especially if it means sacrifice, while doing something for oneself is selfish and therefore immoral. The further implication is that a successful man has trampled over other people to get where he is. The implication that someone taking actions to improve one's life without harming anyone else is not included in this thought process. All the varieties of collectivism count on the acceptance of the common good to get their agenda passed.
My apologies (and sympathies to you btw with regard to "thousands" of pages of AR!)) to you and Ms. Rand for misstating her philosophy and views. That having been said, I specifically wish you to understand that this next statement is NOT a personal rebuttal to you, as I trust and respect what you claim. I have seen people read pages upon pages of the same thing I read and NOT understand a word of it.
Allow me a revision: It is my personal interpretation from that which I have read of Ayn Rand, which I believe is good in theory but not in practice (too much "black and white" for me), that she expected the productive class to throw off, rebel, reject, repudiate, whatever, its collectivist tormentors, shafting them in the process. Now, regardless of whether I said it, or Ayn Rand implied it, it hasn't happened.
One last "word" about people understanding what they read: In his early days, Alan Greenspan, former Secretary of the Treasury, was a devote of Ayn Rand, and was considered to be a representative and adherent of her theories and doctrine. If you want to talk about studying something and not getting it, the example of Greenspan is prime (again, my interpretation).
Many thanks for your considered response. So far as I'm concerned, that's what makes this Bonner thing worthwhile. Without the readers' input, one could learn in fairly short order what makes Mr. Bonner "tick" and simply go on. Best always. PM
Thank you but no sympathy needed. Reading Ayn Rand sent me on an intellectual journey for the rest of my life exploring free market economics and the grotesque fallacies of the environmental movement as well as many other issues. (I read Atlas Shrugged in 1973 when I was fortunate enough to be handed the book.) So, I disagree profoundly in regard to your interpretation of Ayn Rand's writings. I'm fine with that. Believe what you like. However, I'm going to defend Ayn Rand whenever I believe she is being misrepresented or misunderstood.
As far as Greenspan (he was a Chairman of the Federal Reserve, not a Sec of Treasury), he contributed some essays to Ayn Rand's non-fiction work, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" which was published in 1967. Sometime thereafter (I believe by the early '70's), he went his own way and pursued his own ideas. How much he agreed or even fully understood Ayn Rand's ideas is unknown to me. But his actions and career tell me he took a different path in contradiction to what he wrote in that book. It happens. In 2008, an interviewer mentioned that Ayn Rand was not a fan of the Federal Reserve (in fact, she was against it), and Alan Greenspan said that he didn't know because they never discussed that in particular. This borders on the laughable as anyone at all "conversant" in her philosophy would have known that she was against the Fed. So, yes - Greenspan did not get it.
P.S. at that time there was no internet, so I didn't realize a lot of this about Greenspan until the late 1980's or even later. Hence, when he was appointed to head a committee to fix Social Security in the 1980's and nothing substantial came of it, I was puzzled. When he was appointed to be the chairmen of the Fed, I was really scratching my head. Obviously, he had moved on from Ayn Rand a long time ago and, in my opinion, suffered the consequences.
Yes, you are correct in all things regarding Ayn Rand's contributions, and, again, my apologies to all for misstating Greenspan's office in government. The lines often blur in my head since I don't see much difference between Yellen and Powell, and all the Treasury people when Greenspan was Fed Chairman (1987-2006), which seems to me to be a cozy, hand-in-gl;ove arrangement. Again, forgive my mistake.
In my experience, Ayn Rand was too verbose. After I got her Idea, it bordered on drudgery reading it over and over. This is matter of personal preference.
Greenspan was given a job to do, which was perpetuate the system. He took the job. Coming from that perspective, he did an amazing job in a perverse way, he was successful. The book that set me free was Jerome Smith's, "The Coming Currency Collapse" which I read in the early 80s. He (Smith) introduced me to Von Mises and the Austrian School of Economics.
P.S. This is going to sound too coincidental, but I, too, read "Atlas Shrugged" in 1973 when someone gave me the book. That someone happened to be a girl who was trying to get something started with me. This was back in the spring of my junior year in college. She inscribed the volume, "To the real-life Hank Riordan, You need to read your story." Now, with an intro like that, how can I not have read the book? At the end, I said to myself, "I need a new image." Best always. PM
PM: first, let me acknowledge that you and I seem to agree quite a bit on politics based on previous posts.
Not to keep this conversation going on forever, but I get it when you say you are not a fan of the way Ayn Rand wrote. I've had similar experiences with other writers who I agree with but couldn't stand the way they expressed it. However, it seems you and I wound up in a similar place but by different paths. Jerome Smith's book sounds familiar, and I may have read it. If I didn't, I certainly read a lot of similar books with the same message.
As far as your criticism of Ayn Rand being too "black and white", I would say that fundamental philosophical principles are black and white. It's their application to present circumstances that might be nuanced and Ayn Rand understood that. She was against the welfare state but did not advocate "pulling the rug out" from welfare recipients immediately - the welfare state would have to be phased out as many people have been made dependent on the government and would need to adjust to the new reality of not getting handouts (as one example).
My correction concerning Alan Greenspan being a Fed Chairman vs. a Treasury Sec was not meant to be a "gotcha" moment and that's why I put it in parentheses. I assumed you were just going from memory and since the two positions are similar in most people's minds, you picked the wrong one. I elaborated on Greenspan only because those that hate Ayn Rand like to point out the failures of Greenspan in order to get at Ayn Rand by associating the two. Ayn Rand is the much bigger fish to destroy in their minds. The fact is, Greenspan had moved on from Ayn Rand for much more than a decade when he became Fed Chair, and embraced policies that Ayn Rand would not agree with.
Finally, interesting story about how you were given Atlas Shrugged. I may have a year or two on you as I was given the book a year after I graduated college. That girl comparing you to Hank Rearden is quite the compliment. She probably made something of herself assuming she lived her life by the principles of that book.
Thanks to PM and JP for Your comments. I do believe that AR also said that government should be in the back ground to protect You and I from ripping off each other. Now I have to admit that I have not read a lot AR'S work lately, so My memory may be a bit vague. Also agree 100 % in Capitalism.
Nice take on what is happening. I guess we will see if common sense wins out over ideology. Let’s hope so
In all of the talk about deficit reduction or spending cuts, I have not seen one comment that refers to prior years' spending. With the covid disaster, Trump's 2020 spending went up 2T from prior years. I suppose that became the norm, since the spending levels haven't decreased since. Even with 25% inflation, it seems 1.5T in cuts could be found somewhere.
The "Inflation Reduction Act" took care of your $2T. Best always. PM
The only question left for America is can civil society make a comeback? If the answer is No then the glideslope is the glideslope. Government will either devour itself or collapse under its own weight, and with the current state of civil society(and government encroachment) it will bring the entire ship to the bottom. Too much ice, too much speed, no binoculars on the foredeck. The “idea” of America, the thing that made this nation both unique and great, was that goverment existed to both protect the individual and civil society and to get out of their way. It worked for a while, well enough to make America the most powerful nation on earth. At the end of World War II America’s power was not its government. It was a free and robust civil society that powered the arsenal of democracy, that had voluntarily made the sacrifices and built the factories and been a beacon to the rest of the world. How quickly, by historical standards, it all changed. Can it change back? The momentum has temporarily shifted. Can it become permanent? The odds are long. Time will tell.
As my son (who was 24 at the time) told me in 2010, "Face it, Dad: the good times are never coming back." Our progress through time is linear. What is happening and will happen is rooted in what happened up until now. Choices that were made then put us where we are now. The toughest thing for the Boomer kids of America, and I was one of them, was coming to the realization that we came in at the top, and there was only one way for it all to go. Some of us will get to find the exit before we are at the bottom; some will not. Technology has "shrunk" the globe and "compressed" time. Rise and fall don't take centuries anymore. Best always. PM
P.S. I see you have watched all the movies I have. The biggest, fastest, most modern cruise ship of its day founders for want of a set of binoculars? Even the best, most expensive set of optics in existence would have been a mere pittance in comparison to the cost of the ship. It recalls the pitiful line from Richard III, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" story/lesson of my day, when we read and taught real literature.
"New occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth." James Russell Lowell
If Bonner is right, nothing short of revolution will save The Republic, and even that would not guarantee "the Grand Experiment's" survival. A political entity called "The United States of America" will exist, I suppose, but the ideals, values, and principles that made the USA what we who knew, lived, and called "America" will not. Bonner's thesis is, as I parse it out, that the culture, and its values and mores, are a complete and total subset of the economics ("when the money goes, everything goes."). I'm not sure I agree with that, and I'd like to believe he's wrong, but his total dismissal of the cultural implications of the Trump phenomenon would indicate where both his mind and heart are at this point. Best always. PM
Trump phenomenon, hm…. That presupposes he really embodies those ideals, values and principles. Maybe he does, and maybe it does not matter as the system is now too far gone for change. One thing for sure, most of his supporters are hoping this is the time, even me, and and as for that it seems like there is a lot of hard praying going on. Then we hear that Costa Rica (last time I was there they were saying don’t leave your home untended), or maybe Columbia, better yet Argentina, is the place to be. What the heck, let’s make it Mexico! LOL! After all, money can buy you freedom, as long as it’s worth anything. As for revolution, that implies complete reset; i.e. no hope. Makes me remember the novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, maybe Elon is the only one with any sense. LOL!
Reset, but it better not be according to the wef, un and all those other useless world ruler wanna be's
I don't think I've missed it, but has Bonner Research discussed the impact of stable coins such as XRP and XLM and what their value might be going forward? Most of these daily reports reiterate the same thing over and over again - lots of debt, everything is doomed, etc. And while I don't disagree, the view here seems to only be "buy gold, stay in cash, everything will sink"
If we can all see the debt problem, I'm fairly sure the people running the government can see it as well and I'm assuming they aren't going to go quietly. I have to also assume they have a plan or two up their sleeve to extend this problem as long as possible and crypto seems to be offering them a temporary solution.
I hate the idea of a CBDC, but that does appear to have a high probability of occurring when disaster comes. With that, a great financial opportunity. Again, not saying I like that solution, but if it's likely to occur regardless, why is there no discussion here about at least making money as things go to shit? It's sounds like all doom, no solutions.
Ferengi Rule 162: Even in the worst of times, someone makes a profit.
Go for it. Best always. PM
P.S When it does hit the fan, all the rules go out the window, and you can make your own. PM
As corrupt and insidious as our present course is darkness and evil can be overcome.. How about we get off the Titanic and entertain the light of humanity that can change our course... This blather perpetuates the idea that we are only passengers. Start believing and proclaiming that the future is a collective ours... or shoot yourself before you drown. In the days the good Lord has left for you and indeed all of us let' change course. AC
I'm personally getting off the Titanic and getting on the USS. Costa Rica. Maybe they have a better skipper.
Yes - the USS Costa Rica (sort of) should definitely fare better than the good ol' USofA in the crash and chaos ahead. Take a long look at where you light though - it isn't the same everywhere - especially in the recent building boom that is set to blow-up. Prices have sharply risen and the US$ has sunk to around 500 colones. Tourist area prices are in keeping with many locals in the U.S.
How do the readers feel about Trump already reneging on his promise to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours. His envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, recently spoke about 100 days being needed to end the war. Does it remind anyone of Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war?
It's hard to make an abrupt change from the current administration's policy of escalating the war to Trump's goal of ending it, especially since they seem to be doing everything they can to sabotage his agenda. If he really follows through with his promise, I'm willing to cut him a little slack on the timing. 100 days wouldn't be too bad.
I thought that would be one of His 100 executive orders. Stop the war In Ukraine
You are right, Ol' LSO, I was in Costa Rica last April and going back there this Sunday. I have a relative who needs much dental care and I don't want them to be alone. The food prices are very high and the Ticos are concerned it will affect tourism. For example, last time, after a full day in the dental chair my relative needed something soft to eat. There was an Italian restaurant across the street. We ordered lasagna. For $24, not colones, we got a large square of lasagna. That was it. No bread, no salad, no drink. And the lasagna was very bland. I felt completely ripped off paying $48 plus tip for that part of the meal.
The CCP has a very heavy influence. We stay at a B&B close to the big, new soccer stadium in San Jose that China built for CR.
CCP has a heavy influence on the job market also. My experience there is, CR has almost completely given themselves over to the CCP. Hopefully the people wake up.
Penny - you are a true observer. I have lived there for over 7 years - not in San José but in Guanacaste and have seen the huge change. Not sure what has gone on with the Government. Building permits beyond description without the infrastructure (water, sewer, electricity, roads, hospitals, fire protection, police) to serve it. Unfortunately, it is much worst than in 2009 when the 2008 building boom blew up. It is going to be ghost town city. So sad........
So, basically what you've got is Bonner's premise in "Hormegeddon": there can be too much of a good thing. Kind of recalls Joni Mitchell:
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
I've always thought about living large(ly) in the Central American jungle ever since I read "Papillon". Somehow, I'm still here in IN.
Best always. PM
Mark, see my comment below. I wish you good luck in your endeavors.
Maybe the passengers on the USS Costa Rica are more reality-based and make better decisions and have more realistic expectations. Perhaps the captain and his staff inform the passengers of their situation and don't gaslight them. I don't know, but cruise ships are more about their own singular reality. You know what I mean if you've ever been on one. Best always. PM
I'm currently on the USS Colombia, where the leader is whack, inflation is still high, but the dollar still goes a long way down here.
See "Rum and Coca-Cola" (Andrews Sisters 1945). Best always. PM
Bill: “And now Trump II is promising even more glorious expansion — to Greenland, Mexico, Canada... and perhaps teaming up with Mr. Musk... to the stars!”
It’s disappointing to this reader that Bill would denigrate efforts to try to obtain more energy (i.e., rare earth elements (REEs)—dominated by the ChiComs; natural gas, oil, etc.), improve shipping lanes, and cut the federal budget without cutting a tremendous number of jobs of soft (voting) Americans. With all the debt, what does Bill suggest the U.S. do to produce more wealth?
Bill knows that Pres. Trump is famous (infamous?) for bombastic rhetoric. He has been doing this his entire adult life. So Bill knows that taking over Greenland, Canada, and Mexico is bombast on the president’s part. He’s using bombast to bring attention to important issues. And he’s thinking outside the box, which has traditionally built true wealth for individuals and countries through the ages.
Bill needs to give Pres. Trump a chance to follow through on this strategy. If he doesn’t follow through, then millions more Americans than Bill will be blasting the president.
When about all hope is lost,
Remember the lobsters...
In the tank...
At the restaurant...
On the titanic.
There is some fine philosophy there. “All ill winds blow some good” or “All works for good to those that believe.” There is a “Peace that the world can not give
It is an I'll wind that blows from the stock yard; if you get my drift.
Yea! If you own the stock yard it’s the sweet smell of money. Or, you just hate everything and will never find enlightenment or opportunity.
Except in months with no "r" (mid-year), as my Dad (a New Englander) used to tell me when I was a boy. Best always. PM
You're exactly right, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties" (George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, Presidential Candidate in 1968). Not your quote Bill, but since your words were not exactly what Wallace said, can we give you a pass on quotes, and credit?
I still believe in giving the new Cabinet a fighting chance on what they were nominated to accomplish. Assumptions are, well Bill we all know what it makes us. Promising action beyond one's reach is well-worth what may be the accomplishments because however the end result ferrets out today will be better than the "status quo" of the four years of the Biden administration.
I look, in my lifetime, at the progression of companies: Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, all with humble, sometimes garage beginnings, then you have Standard Oil or General Motors and the advent of credit. All entailed explosive growth, an organic, inevitable miracle. That is government and all probably have an expiration date. It boggles the mind.
Rockefeller (Standard Oil) started with something as simple as kerosene, which beat the hell out of candles. As Kitty Kallen sang, "Little Things Mean a Lot".
Well, I look forward to Trump in the Oval Office instead of the one leaving it. I started reading Bill today and realized it was just washed, rinsed, and repeated stuff from the days of yore. Thank God I could look forward to what Dan had to say instead.
I believe the applicable quote that best describes our situation is "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later, but you are going to pay". The big question is how "much" are we going to pay. We can only pray that the cost will not be cataclysmic; however, solving our debt problem without extreme cost (financial and physical) probably would be harder than stopping a charging tiger with a BB gun. Hang on, youngsters. The best that we can hope for is to end up with just major claw marks, if we are lucky.
Remember Ned Land (Kirk Douglas) taking on Captain Nemo's Nautilus submarine with a harpoon? Talk about b@lls... Best always. PM
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea ( Disney, 1954)
David Stockman has a detailed breakdown of why 2T is not so easy to cut. 400B from all the misc government departments, FCC, Education, Arts, NASA etc. 500B from Defense and that leaves 1.1T to be cut from entitlements! Good luck with that.
Hope and Denial seems to be the overwhelming emotions here in the U.S. I think - those from afar - there are different views and paths forward - clearly shown by the exchanging of US Treasuries for gold and the continuing expansion of the BRIC-centric world of anything but the US$! How does going on a colonization kick (Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Panama and who knows where else) going to "fix" the debt crisis or America's faulting infrastructure or lick inflation? Actually, consider that along with tariffs everywhere. Oh, it is understandable - those of us "stuck" in America have only those 2 choices - Hope and Denial - and clinking to them like a life raft in the freezing arctic. The Primary Trend is not changing - just the actors on the stage with different musings. Hold on tight - going to be a wild ride ahead.