There's nothing wrong with it, but it's obvious if you want to change the Constitution, then you don't fully support the Constitution as it stands, so he and his supporters really shouldn't be going on about it so much.
It's as if you didn't know that Ben Bernanke stated that the FED caused the Great Depression. But you probably don't care to read actual information. I am quite aware of what he said. However I guess that's the only sentence you read and missed the rest of it where he explains that we've learned a lot in the last 60+ years.
the specific portion of that definition that concerns this conversation is "increase in available currency" AKA monetary inflation which is the result of PRINTING MONEY, or more specifically increasing the amount of currency in curculation (bank accounts, credit, money markets, cds, etc)
Again, MONEY is not the same as CURRENCY. The Fed doesn't create money, the banks do. You take your paycheck (say $1000) and put it in the bank. The bank lends out most of this (say $900) to Joe P. Yablonski for a home improvement loan. Joe pays the hardware store, which puts the money in their bank. So now the store has $900, and you still have your $1000. The money supply has increased from $1000 to $1900! And the Fed didn't even have to print any more dollar bills! And then the store's bank lends out that money, and so on.
You get too much inflation when there's too much borrowing. The Fed controls this (or tries to) by adjusting the interest rate it charges banks, who then pass on the changes to their customers.
Now, if the money supply was bound to something tangible (like gold), it wouldn't be possible to manipulate the available currency in circulation.
Which would be disastrous.
Ask yourself why no modern nation uses the gold standard today.
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;"
That is, if a state passes a law that says, for example, a Muslim can't hold public office, and it gets past the state courts, there's no way to appeal at the federal level. Do you honestly think that's a good idea? Because if you do, wow.
I've been doing that for years and I have yet to find anything like the racism you seem to think it's so chock full of. Have you read them yourself, or are you blindly following the lead of someone less informed than yourself?
I do recall, however, reading one article published sometime in the 80's where he wrote of how fast black gang members could run. If you think that's a racist statement then you should get your head examined.
If you don't think that's racist, you need yours examined, sorry.
You seem to be familiar with that though, you last 4 posts have negative (and incorrect) things to say about Dr Paul
That's because I am unable to find anything good to say about him, at least as a candidate. He'd probably be fun to have a beer with. Kind of like the crazy old grampa at the bar.
Except he only wants to follow the parts he wants to. He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship (from the 14th Amendment), and he sponsored the "We the People Act", which would largely dismantle some 1st Amendment rights on the State level.
The difference between green pieces of paper that come from a printing press and gold is... you can't print more gold every time you decide you need more.
Sigh. The Fed doesn't print currency because they decide they need more. The Fed prints currency because people want to to to the bank and withdraw cash. Also, currency is not the same as money. The amount of currency in circulation is small compared to the total amount of money (cash plus checking plus savings).
The only candidate who has a grasp of economics.... The only candidate who understands how to fight inflation...
These are the two biggest falsehoods I've seen lately. Ron Paul's understanding of economics is slightly worse than my understanding of women; a fact which boggles the mind.
You are apparently out of the loop. Check out the archives of Ron Paul's newsletter that The New Republic put online. Chock full of racism.
Of course the Paul supporters are claiming that they were ghostwritten, but then this implies that either Ron Paul was knowingly had racist employees and did nothing about it, or was totally oblivious to what his organization was publishing for 20 years. Neither one speaks well of the man.
Yes, because there's nothing the general audience adores more than a 20 hour movie, of which 15 hours are shots of people walking, accented by the occasional 2 hour Ent song.
I also expect John Rhys-Davies to slip in as Gloin, Gimli's father
In the documentaries on the LotR extended editions, John Rhys-Davies said that he will never, ever, EVER play a dwarf again, probably because he was terribly allergic to the makeup.
Jordan rarely used "filler prose" as you claim. His descriptions were allways vivid and captivating, and all of his writing for his more than 20 main characters was exceptional.
This is a joke, right?
Book 10 (I think it was) was nothing BUT filler prose. Nothing of any note happened until the last few pages. His descriptions may always be vivid, but frankly, I'm not really interesting that some random woman is wearing a wide, floor-length dress of a delicate blue, slashed with cream and decorated with a delicate pattern of seed pearls at the bodice; along with a necklace of silver filigree and firedrops with matching earrings that dangled from the ears that are framed by her elaborate braided honey-blond hair. Or whatever.
Personally, I think that the dollar should be backed in gold, silver, steel, copper, oil, cotton and a bunch of other commodities.
Why?
But the current system where the reserve prints up money out of thin air is ridiculous.
The amount of currency in circulation is insignificant compared to the amount of money out there. Money includes things like checking and savings accounts. The Fed only prints currency because there's a demand for it, ie, people make a withdrawal from their accounts to get cash to go to the bar. The Fed doesn't create money. Banks create money.
Why? Because if the US government defaults on it's $9Trillion debt, then the $US will collapse completely.
Let's do some math. In 2001 it was estimated that there have been 145,000 metric tons of gold ever mined throughout history. At 32,150.72 troy ounces to the ton, that's 4.66 billion troy ounces. On Oct 1, the price of gold hit a record high of $850 per ounce, which means if the United States owned all the gold ever mined, we would have had just shy of $4 trillion worth of gold.
For example, the US has a very fragile economy because of national debt and a currency that is no longer backed by a gold standard.
Except that history has so far demonstrated that the economy is not that fragile. And what's so magical about gold? Gold, like anything else, is only worth what other people are willing to give you for it. It's value fluctuates on the international market on a daily basis. If you understand that everything, including gold, only has value in relation to other things, then you might be able to take the tiny step and realize that fiat money is as good as anything else.
This often gets overlooked
It's overlooked because no one cares and it's irrelevant.
yep but when you've got a metal backed standard you have actual levels that you have to watch and compare to how much money your printing
Sure, and what happens when your economy wants to expand beyond the limits of your gold supply?
in this country we print money like its the cool thing to do
Jesus Christ almighty. The Fed doesn't print money because it's the cool thing to do. They print it because people want to be able to go to the ATM and get some. In other words, they do it because there's a demand for it. Inflation is NOT caused by the Fed printing too many dollar bills.
There's no economic, scientific, or otherwise reason other than being able to say, "hell yeah, we did it!"
Well, yes. Whatever happened to the human drive to explore?
why Mars then? Why not colonize the moon, which would be just as cool and probably less costly? How about exploring the ocean, which is nearly as difficult but would probably have a much greater impact?
Well, frankly, the moon is boring. There's nothing there except rocks, which haven't changed much in a couple billion years. On the other hand, we know Mars has had a varied history, which makes it a much more interesting place to explore. Wouldn't it be awesome to go fossil hunting on Mars?
And if you're scoping out possible places to start an off-Earth colony to guard against the day a 15-mile wide rock comes down and spoils everyone's millennium, Mars is the place to go.
In a way, the oceans are harder to explore than space. If you're going into space, you only have to protect against a maximum pressure difference of about 14.7 pounds per square inch (sea level vs. vacuum). If you want to explore the bottom of the Mariana Trench you have to protect against a difference of something like 16,000 pounds per square inch. Besides that, how you seen some of the things that live in the deep ocean? Some of them make you want to stay out of the water altogether.
Moreover, why is ANYONE "against" convergence? Seriously? Do you really WANT to be carrying around a camera, a phone, a PDA, and a laptop?
No, but then, I don't have, need, or want a PDA or a laptop, and I already have a camera, which despite being 6 years old now is still better than most or all of the cell phone cameras. And I had to get a phone without a camera (a difficult task these days) because it's not allowed at my workplace.
Why is it so certain that you can find other civilizations by listening to radio frequencies ?
We're not certain, it's just a good bet. The assumption behind SETI is that the "smarts" (the advanced aliens) are deliberately trying to communicate with the "stupids" (us). If you're trying to send a message to a primitive civilization, radio waves are a good way to do it. They are cheap to generate, and they go a long way. In other words, radio is so easy even a dumb civilization like ours has figured out how it works.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with it, but it's obvious if you want to change the Constitution, then you don't fully support the Constitution as it stands, so he and his supporters really shouldn't be going on about it so much.
It's as if you didn't know that Ben Bernanke stated that the FED caused the Great Depression. But you probably don't care to read actual information.
I am quite aware of what he said. However I guess that's the only sentence you read and missed the rest of it where he explains that we've learned a lot in the last 60+ years.
the specific portion of that definition that concerns this conversation is "increase in available currency" AKA monetary inflation which is the result of PRINTING MONEY, or more specifically increasing the amount of currency in curculation (bank accounts, credit, money markets, cds, etc)
Again, MONEY is not the same as CURRENCY. The Fed doesn't create money, the banks do. You take your paycheck (say $1000) and put it in the bank. The bank lends out most of this (say $900) to Joe P. Yablonski for a home improvement loan. Joe pays the hardware store, which puts the money in their bank. So now the store has $900, and you still have your $1000. The money supply has increased from $1000 to $1900! And the Fed didn't even have to print any more dollar bills! And then the store's bank lends out that money, and so on.
You get too much inflation when there's too much borrowing. The Fed controls this (or tries to) by adjusting the interest rate it charges banks, who then pass on the changes to their customers.
Now, if the money supply was bound to something tangible (like gold), it wouldn't be possible to manipulate the available currency in circulation.
Which would be disastrous.
Ask yourself why no modern nation uses the gold standard today.
Good grief, did YOU actually read it?
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;"
That is, if a state passes a law that says, for example, a Muslim can't hold public office, and it gets past the state courts, there's no way to appeal at the federal level. Do you honestly think that's a good idea? Because if you do, wow.
I've been doing that for years and I have yet to find anything like the racism you seem to think it's so chock full of. Have you read them yourself, or are you blindly following the lead of someone less informed than yourself?
Good God.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
I do recall, however, reading one article published sometime in the 80's where he wrote of how fast black gang members could run. If you think that's a racist statement then you should get your head examined.
If you don't think that's racist, you need yours examined, sorry.
You seem to be familiar with that though, you last 4 posts have negative (and incorrect) things to say about Dr Paul
That's because I am unable to find anything good to say about him, at least as a candidate. He'd probably be fun to have a beer with. Kind of like the crazy old grampa at the bar.
following the Constitution
Except he only wants to follow the parts he wants to. He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship (from the 14th Amendment), and he sponsored the "We the People Act", which would largely dismantle some 1st Amendment rights on the State level.
The difference between green pieces of paper that come from a printing press and gold is ... you can't print more gold every time you decide you need more.
Sigh. The Fed doesn't print currency because they decide they need more. The Fed prints currency because people want to to to the bank and withdraw cash. Also, currency is not the same as money. The amount of currency in circulation is small compared to the total amount of money (cash plus checking plus savings).
There's a finite amount.
You say that like it's a good thing.
The only candidate who has a grasp of economics....
The only candidate who understands how to fight inflation...
These are the two biggest falsehoods I've seen lately. Ron Paul's understanding of economics is slightly worse than my understanding of women; a fact which boggles the mind.
You are apparently out of the loop. Check out the archives of Ron Paul's newsletter that The New Republic put online. Chock full of racism.
Of course the Paul supporters are claiming that they were ghostwritten, but then this implies that either Ron Paul was knowingly had racist employees and did nothing about it, or was totally oblivious to what his organization was publishing for 20 years. Neither one speaks well of the man.
Dammit, yes, WE want a 20 hour movie with a two hour Ent song.
:)
No WE don't. YOU and the 3 other people in your Tolkien fan group maybe.
For you, they made "Eragon" and "Dumb and Dumber".
No, for me they made Lord of the Rings, only without most of the crap I don't like in the books.
The project needs a top to bottom rewrite
Funny, that's what the Netscape guys said. While they were doing it, IE took the market.
Don't write- just film the book. Thank you.
Yes, because there's nothing the general audience adores more than a 20 hour movie, of which 15 hours are shots of people walking, accented by the occasional 2 hour Ent song.
I also expect John Rhys-Davies to slip in as Gloin, Gimli's father
In the documentaries on the LotR extended editions, John Rhys-Davies said that he will never, ever, EVER play a dwarf again, probably because he was terribly allergic to the makeup.
They actually had to change their design slightly for the army of the dead because Pirates of the Caribbean basically did what they were going to do.
Jordan rarely used "filler prose" as you claim. His descriptions were allways vivid and captivating, and all of his writing for his more than 20 main characters was exceptional.
This is a joke, right?
Book 10 (I think it was) was nothing BUT filler prose. Nothing of any note happened until the last few pages. His descriptions may always be vivid, but frankly, I'm not really interesting that some random woman is wearing a wide, floor-length dress of a delicate blue, slashed with cream and decorated with a delicate pattern of seed pearls at the bodice; along with a necklace of silver filigree and firedrops with matching earrings that dangled from the ears that are framed by her elaborate braided honey-blond hair. Or whatever.
You don't have to surround your wind farm with maximum-security fencing and a legion of armed guards, either.
Because terrorists haven't discovered the concept of "boats"? Or what?
Oops, slight error. The $850 per ounce price was reached in 1980. It's less now, which just makes the shortfall worse.
Cause never, ever, ever, in history has commodity pricing shifted very suddenly.
The price of gold has tripled in the last 6 years.
Personally, I think that the dollar should be backed in gold, silver, steel, copper, oil, cotton and a bunch of other commodities.
Why?
But the current system where the reserve prints up money out of thin air is ridiculous.
The amount of currency in circulation is insignificant compared to the amount of money out there. Money includes things like checking and savings accounts. The Fed only prints currency because there's a demand for it, ie, people make a withdrawal from their accounts to get cash to go to the bar. The Fed doesn't create money. Banks create money.
Why? Because if the US government defaults on it's $9Trillion debt, then the $US will collapse completely.
Let's do some math. In 2001 it was estimated that there have been 145,000 metric tons of gold ever mined throughout history. At 32,150.72 troy ounces to the ton, that's 4.66 billion troy ounces. On Oct 1, the price of gold hit a record high of $850 per ounce, which means if the United States owned all the gold ever mined, we would have had just shy of $4 trillion worth of gold.
So that still leaves us $5 trillion short.
For example, the US has a very fragile economy because of national debt and a currency that is no longer backed by a gold standard.
Except that history has so far demonstrated that the economy is not that fragile. And what's so magical about gold? Gold, like anything else, is only worth what other people are willing to give you for it. It's value fluctuates on the international market on a daily basis. If you understand that everything, including gold, only has value in relation to other things, then you might be able to take the tiny step and realize that fiat money is as good as anything else.
This often gets overlooked
It's overlooked because no one cares and it's irrelevant.
yep but when you've got a metal backed standard you have actual levels that you have to watch and compare to how much money your printing
Sure, and what happens when your economy wants to expand beyond the limits of your gold supply?
in this country we print money like its the cool thing to do
Jesus Christ almighty. The Fed doesn't print money because it's the cool thing to do. They print it because people want to be able to go to the ATM and get some. In other words, they do it because there's a demand for it. Inflation is NOT caused by the Fed printing too many dollar bills.
There's no economic, scientific, or otherwise reason other than being able to say, "hell yeah, we did it!"
Well, yes. Whatever happened to the human drive to explore?
why Mars then? Why not colonize the moon, which would be just as cool and probably less costly? How about exploring the ocean, which is nearly as difficult but would probably have a much greater impact?
Well, frankly, the moon is boring. There's nothing there except rocks, which haven't changed much in a couple billion years. On the other hand, we know Mars has had a varied history, which makes it a much more interesting place to explore. Wouldn't it be awesome to go fossil hunting on Mars?
And if you're scoping out possible places to start an off-Earth colony to guard against the day a 15-mile wide rock comes down and spoils everyone's millennium, Mars is the place to go.
In a way, the oceans are harder to explore than space. If you're going into space, you only have to protect against a maximum pressure difference of about 14.7 pounds per square inch (sea level vs. vacuum). If you want to explore the bottom of the Mariana Trench you have to protect against a difference of something like 16,000 pounds per square inch. Besides that, how you seen some of the things that live in the deep ocean? Some of them make you want to stay out of the water altogether.
I am a professional scientist ...in the field of bullshit.
Moreover, why is ANYONE "against" convergence? Seriously? Do you really WANT to be carrying around a camera, a phone, a PDA, and a laptop?
No, but then, I don't have, need, or want a PDA or a laptop, and I already have a camera, which despite being 6 years old now is still better than most or all of the cell phone cameras. And I had to get a phone without a camera (a difficult task these days) because it's not allowed at my workplace.
Why is it so certain that you can find other civilizations by listening to radio frequencies ?
We're not certain, it's just a good bet. The assumption behind SETI is that the "smarts" (the advanced aliens) are deliberately trying to communicate with the "stupids" (us). If you're trying to send a message to a primitive civilization, radio waves are a good way to do it. They are cheap to generate, and they go a long way. In other words, radio is so easy even a dumb civilization like ours has figured out how it works.
Is it that hard to entertain the possibilities?
Yes. Not all possibilities are worth entertaining.