The Super Abundance Blog: Recent Comments

Comment on War on Drugs is Insane

Jeffrey Levine — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:43:04 GMT

Someone else's drug habits are really none of my business, now is it! I am sick of paying for people who did nothing to hurt anyone else but themselves being imprisoned while people who had commited real crimes are let off due to lack of space in jails. Read Peter MacWilliams book, It Aint Nobody's Business if You Do

Comment on War on Drugs is Insane

Drug Testing Kits — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:06:03 GMT

That's a weird response to the problem. You think that legalizing the stuff is going to solve the problem of addiction and abuse? Legal alcohol and cigarettes aren't helping lower the rates of abuse of both substances. Prevention and education does.

Comment on Jim Rohn on Goal Setting

Nathanael pangrazio — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:17:13 GMT

Dear readers,

Jim Rohn was my Grandfather and I thought some of you might enjoy this music I wrote to honor this great man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNSuhw7wo24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHUuLsoeXFk

Comment on AIG: A Case Study of Government Intervention Out of Control

Car Insurance — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:28:25 GMT

Hmm. An interesting analysis, I wonder what grade you got for this? In any case, I agree that government intervention sometimes can get out of control, but most of the time it's important, I think.

Comment on AIG: A Case Study of Government Intervention Out of Control

Jeffrey Levine — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:21:23 GMT

The full article can be found on:

http://jeffrey1959.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/aig-a-case-study-of-government-intervention-out-of-control/

Comment on AIG: A Case Study of Government Intervention Out of Control

arpita — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:02:02 GMT

can u send me this paper so I can read it full.

Comment on Ethical Businesses: Making a Profit while Making a Difference

Alek Grabinski — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:16:32 GMT

Shalom, Jeffrey!

I'm glad to hear you're seeing the necessity for "force" in managing economic interactions between humans; I was going to use the word "enforcement" in my previous post, but thought against it. But if you consider Man to be an economic actor in society (which I know you do, among other views), then Man needs to be able to act confidently in matters of commerce. That means contracts are honored, and that a purpose of gov't is to manage the enforcement of those contracts. By logical extension, that also means regulation. D'you think?

As for letting the big institutions fail: I think the jury's still out on that. There's new evidence every day that Goldman rigged the game in multiple ways to benefit from a situation they knew was fatally flawed, and real-life, prosecutable FRAUD is just around the corner. I still think the answer is going to be re-regulation; had these institutions failed, it's not like all their employees would have been chastened and would have retired to meek lives in retail or early retirement. These sharks would have been back in the water immediately, unchanged in character, re-aggregating capital to launch their next wave of duplicitous financial products. No, the answer is to put these fuckers in cages, and to inspect the bars of the cage every couple of months to make sure they're not escaping.

Did you happen to read the Greenwald article I linked to a couple of weeks ago? It explores where people such as you and I might have common ground in creating a new economic framework; if we can get past our different descriptors of what's happening, we could actually ally on the fact that we're getting screwed by the same bad actors.

Comment on Ethical Businesses: Making a Profit while Making a Difference

Jeff Levine — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:40:00 GMT

Rabbi Alek,

1) Actually, this article has nothing to do with Objectivism. That being said, I have come to the conclusion that Objectivism has one flaw... It assumes that we are all super humans and will always do what is best. Perhaps some force is necessary. Right now, I am taking a "micro" approach, it doesn't have anything to do with "isms" but rather you and I ( and the other 6 billion people out there) living a fulfilled life.

2) We lost a great opportunity as to a mechanism. If the companies in question were allowed to have failed that would have proven such a deterrent that structures would have been put in place to prevent something like that from ever happening again, and yes part of that solution would have involved the government. The trillions that were spent on bailouts could have been used to handle the fall out.

As for your broader question, I need to do some research. Personally, I intend to incorporate in Wyoming or Nevada!

Comment on Prescription for your 2010 Success

Alek Grabinski — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:06:58 GMT

Thanks for the template. I've been really wanting to find something like this to complete 2009 and create 2010, especially since the past year was so momentous for me.

I'm also thinking of going to the next Special Evening about the Landmark Forum (SELF); the January one is always about completing the previous year and creating the coming one.

Comment on Ethical Businesses: Making a Profit while Making a Difference

Alek Grabinski — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:03:34 GMT

Jeff, like many of your articles, I find myself compelled to take a lot of time in responding. However, in this particular case, in the best rabbinic tradition, I'm going to respond with two questions:

1) In examining your own biases (e.g. your "already-always listening"), do you think you would be able to relate to matters of business, commerce and economics in anything other than an objectivist framework? (elaboration below)

2) I am in full agreement that businesses ought to have a goal of making a difference in the world, and that the profit margin corrupts. What mechanism do you suggest to make sure that happens? (Previously you'd suggested trade associations, BBB's, ratings agencies and other non-governmental agencies. I assert these are inadequate -- or they certainly have been, including almost all of the companies you've mentioned above.)

Follow-up to #1 -- Your objectivist view makes you do weird tap-dancing around larger, more obvious truths. For instance, you suggest that the banking crisis of 2008 was fueled by well-intentioned bankers making feel-good loans to marginal borrowers so they could get a piece of the American dream -- all while glossing over the fact that massive deregulation, initiated under Reagan and dealt the death-blow with Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999, led to a financial free-for-all environment where "making a difference in the world" took a back seat -- hell, it wasn't even on the same BUS -- to the profit motive. But since your opposition to government regulation is practically in your DNA, you can't actually say that the gov't would be a beneficial player in this situation. So the question to you is really: Could you even consider that the central tenet of objectivism is fundamentally flawed? (I know, big question...)

Oh, and to answer the broader question (I couldn't resist) that your essay poses: It's called "incorporation" and "the corporate charter." And it's been weakened in the past five centuries to the point where it's been neutered. If you know the history of why most corporations are incorporated in Delaware, you're on your way.

:-)