Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
The Stock Market Roller Coaster
Um...Jesus also talked about the children. He also threw the money changers out of the temple. Are you saying that anyone who quotes Jesus is also parroting democratic talking points? (And, yes, I'm an atheist...who cares deeply about morality.) As to cognitive dissonance, I suspect you throw the term around so much that you no longer know what it means, and are too lazy to find another fancy sounding pejorative to toss willy-nilly into your weak arguments.— January 4, 2012 10:59 a.m.
The Stock Market Roller Coaster
The pattern here is clear: 1. Jeff, proudly representing the 1% who have destroyed the economy through irresponsible gambling, makes ridiculous claims. 2. Others dispute these ridiculous claims. 3. Jeff calls them names, sulks, and whines. It's a pity. I had hopes that Jeff would be capable of analysis, argumentation, discussion, maybe even truth-seeking. But his hubris overwhelms his reason (proving, again, that his homo-economicus world view is bunk) and he'd rather make wild accusations (like calling me a sex offender -- I don't expect he's man enough to apologize for that) than engage in debate. So I'll have to be content with being called a "second hander, third rate mind, and naysayer". Anyone else want to try to defend Jeff's side here? He's not capable. I really would like to have a rational discussion about the topic of economics, morality, and the situation in the world today where parasites like Jeff gloat over stealing food from starving children.— January 4, 2012 10:54 a.m.
The Stock Market Roller Coaster
Please excuse me for writing something so long...the baby's being fussy, and he'll only give me a short time to indulge in this sport of educating Jeff, so I don't have time to go back and cut it down to size.— January 4, 2012 8:37 a.m.
The Stock Market Roller Coaster
(cont.) This makes it clear to me, and any one else, that what you do is not honest business, but an insider game where your wet dream is to fleece a sucker. You're not an investor, who risks his capital in the hopes of gains in value...you're just a gambler betting on the outcome of issues you have no business in. It's no different than betting whether a roulette ball goes into black or red, and it's NOT investing or producing anything. That's not particularly moral, and you know it (which is why I get your goat so badly and provoke you to such insane fury...that's your guilty conscience speaking). So any talk about "risk" or price discovery is pure merde del toro, amigo. Face it...you are not lubricating the market, or discovering price, you are just betting. Finally, I must remind you that you still know nothing about me. Your characterizing me as a "rent seeker" who "does a lot of business with government" is absurd. Yes, almost fifteen years ago I helped create the Megan's Law database, and soon after I worked on the LACFD HazMat MIS, allowing firefighters to have critical information about the location of various dangerous materials in Los Angeles County so they could evacuate schools and hospitals, don the proper gear en route, and otherwise save lives that would otherwise be lost. Since that time, I don't believe I've worked for any government agency in the USA...and when I worked in Laos designing an early warning system for the Mekong River Commission, I wasn't paid a single Kip for my work. And then you close with insinuating that I'm parroting Democrat's talking points. In the first place, that's a non-sequitor (or poisoning the well, another logical fallacy). In the second place, it's ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about me. Why don't you ask Richard Rider, perhaps the best known libertarian activist in San Diego, who I am and whether I'm likely to be a registered democrat? (Oh yeah, you don't know squat about San Diego, do you?) So, again, you swing and miss. You cannot defend your position, especially not by misinterpreting Adam Smith.— January 4, 2012 8:35 a.m.
The Stock Market Roller Coaster
Jeff...you've obviously NOT read the Theory of Moral Sentiments. Otherwise you would know better than to pull out that old canard of the butcher. This has been misquoted and misapplied for a long time, and misrepresented in business schools too...but you've swallowed the lie and believe it to be true. In fact, if you actually bother to read for yourself rather than just parrot others, you'll find that Smith was directly contradicting what Mandeville proposed. While the butcher does act in self interest, this is and always has been limited and circumscribed by SYMPATHY. This was Smiths' biggest issue in the book, which is why it's clear to me you've never read it beyond that one popularly misunderstood quote. Let me educate you: Smith portrayed man as an inherently social being, NOT the egoistic, self-centered "homo economicus" you claim. His close friend David Hume was similarly convinced that emotion and fellow-feeling trumped reason and was the well-spring of human action...NOT cold calculation of advantage. Reason is a slave to the passions, not the other way around. Smith makes it very clear than any philosophy that neglects the key role of inherent human sympathy is merely, "debauched teachings": "There is, however, another system which seems to take away altogether the distinction between vice and virtue, and of which the tendency is, upon that account, wholly pernicious. I mean the system of Dr. Mandeville." Smith wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments specifically to REJECT Mandeville's "Parable of the Bees", which is the theory that the invisible hand turns vice into virtue. Smith NEVER claimed that unfeeling selfishness produces public goods except by accident...and was clear in saying that morality MUST trump economic calculations. Even more, he also noted that MORAL actions can create bad outcomes...so all he was saying in the butcher metaphor is that there are unintended consequences in the world, good and bad. HE NEVER SAID THAT EVIL ALWAYS PRODUCES GOOD. It's perverse to twist Smiths' words around so completely, although you are not alone in this whopper of an error. But let's get back to YOU. You wrote in earlier comments elsewhere that you clear your positions every night. You never invest for the long haul, and never hold a position for longer than a day. Isn't this what you have said? Didn't you also write that the "common man" has no business investing because people like you will take all their money? Haven't you agreed that the market is rigged against outsiders, and that only the pros can manipulate the system? (cont...)— January 4, 2012 8:34 a.m.
Supreme Court Knocks Out Redevelopment Agencies
Mudville, do you work for CCDC? The reason I ask is that your statements are identical to the hogwash they peddle (and we all have to pay for in taxes). You never participated in this forum until this topic...so I'm just wondering who you are, where you got your faulty "information", and if you're not actually a sock-puppet for CCDC. None of your arguments stand up to scrutiny. And I bet you've never been to Rome, or have even the faintest understanding of what Gibbons called "bread and circuses", and its calamitous effect on the empire. Those of us who actually understand economics and are deeply interested in history have to shake our heads and laugh at your foolishness...but we've seen these same lies you're repeating for so long that the laughs turn to anger at a certain point. So, tell us honestly, who are you?— January 3, 2012 11:16 p.m.
Occupy San Diego Names January Free-Speech Month
Look at the overdeveloped forearm and 'roid-rage on that cop's face...how much steroids does he shoot into himself each month? SDPD doesn't test its officers for steroids. Their union won't allow it, and the city council is too cowardly to demand it. Sure explains a lot about police behavior in San Diego, just a hop away from Tijuana where you can buy steroids as easily as a pinata.— January 3, 2012 10:58 p.m.
The Stock Market Roller Coaster
Well, this has been fun. But I have people to see and things to do, so I can't indulge in this play any more today. Maybe I'll check back in eight hours or so...hopefully Jeff will be able to defend his position then, telling us why he believes it's moral to speculate on other people's food. See y'all later, fred (P.s. For anyone who's interested in digging deeply into economics and morality, I highly recommend Tomas Sedlacek's book, The Economics of Good and Evil.)— January 3, 2012 12:07 p.m.
The Stock Market Roller Coaster
No...I simply used common English words to describe what Jeff does for a living and how he does it, according to what he's written here. I don't think I've ever written anything anywhere that would suggest I'm a sex offender...except maybe that one time two years ago I jokingly offered to give a female poster a "pearl necklace", but I quickly apologized when she took offence. Tit for tat would be him calling me sanctimonious, which is fair enough. What he's done here today is just childish.— January 3, 2012 11:56 a.m.
The Stock Market Roller Coaster
No, it's Jeff's edit...originally he posted a link to a sex offender database. The link didn't work, but I'm guessing it pointed to someone who has a similar name as mine. It's too bad he removed it, since it clearly demonstrated his inability to advance his arguments through reason or examples, and his eagerness to insult and denigrate those who disagree with his bombast. As noted above, it's especially ironic since I actually helped create California's sex offender database, and Jeff has posted numerous claims that we're calling him names. As to "kill and make up"...I hope you unintentionally used your right ring finger instead of your left ring finger when you typed that...I don't see any reason (yet) to commit murder over mere blog comments, though I'm sure I won't be kissing Jeff any time soon either.— January 3, 2012 11:47 a.m.