Basically Argentina needs a bloody revolution and then a general election.
I took a quick look at Argentina's history on wikipedia. It looks like they've tried the revolution-election thing three times.
Bloody revolutions tend to produce a scared populace that doesn't care so much about the quality of a post-war government, as it does about having the violence end. Repression and universal theft will look positively attractive. Good election results require a calm, rational, and informed electorate.
That's the problem with gold and silver - you have to actively trade goods and services in order to accumulate it.
That's not a problem, that's a good thing.
What happens when technology and human innovation and efficiency proceeds at a rate several orders of magnitudes greater than the mining of gold and silver[1]? With gold/silver you cannot match value against currency in a stable and consistent manner. With fiat money you can.
Different goods change prices in different directions. If a fiat currency tracks bread, it won't track transistors.
The controllers of a fiat currency, while technically capable of keeping its value stable, in practice never do, and don't have any motive to.
With gold/silver you cannot match value against currency in a stable and consistent manner.
When gold is the currency, the value IS the currency, the match is perfect.
Good currencies are divisible, portable, a store of value (which make it stable), and not counterfeitable. Renaissance paintings fail at least 2, and possibly all 4. Dog shit has such low intrinsic value that enough to buy a magazine would not be portable.
In addition to industrial uses, gold is used in jewelry and other decorative applications, and in science. Technically, is is an excellent conductor, extremely chemically resistant, and extraordinarily ductile. It is scarce, which helps make it stable.
Yes, instead you create an inflexible currency system based on assigning arbitrary value to a physical commodity.
Inflexibility is precisely a property currency should have. A flexible currency is like a flexible law: a tool of tyrants. The value of gold is largely inherent; it is not having an arbitrary value assigned to it, a value is assigned to a currency by giving it a fixed relation to gold.
You have a poor understanding of value, so I will amplify the last point. When I say gold costs $1200 a troy ounce, I am not naming the value of gold, I am naming the value of a dollar.
The weak countries are weak because the government has screwed up the economy. (In the Greek case, the government has been elected by people who insist that the government continue its bad practices and make them worse.)
Take just the example of minimum wage controls. If the economy is weak, then the Greeks must not be doing enough work to earn enough money. This happens because other people see Greek labor as too expensive. In a labor market without minimum wage, wages would drop until someone saw Greek labor cheap enough to be worth buying, problem solved!
Alternately, if the Greeks keep their minimum wage but get off the Euro and make the drachma the official currency again, the value of the drachma will fall until Greek labor is worth buying at the revised exchange rate, if the rate is allowed to float.
There's no reason for a "weakest state" to drop out, it just has to stop destroying itself. Alas, as long as the people elect politicians selling fantasies, the destruction will continue.
With a government controlled electronic currency the government could handle your money, and you only have to piss off one bureaucrat to have anything in your name electronically made worthless. There are already people who think all Republicans should be killed, and others who think all "global warming deniers" should be killed. Do you want someone like that with the power to turn off your money?
I listen for beautiful music, preferably vocal. Well crafted music. I like Francoise Hardy and Patty Pravo for the voices, late ABBA for voices and the competently designed works.
I reject tunelessness, hatefulness, howling or whiny or raspy voices, and people that think that yelling on-key is the same as singing (which describes most male pop singers).
My taste hasn't so much changed over the years as it has refined. I find that I'm less willing to listen to dreck, and often have to resort to classical when there's no adequate pop to be found.
Most American principles and institutions were in place before large numbers of Roman Catholics came to the U.S. One difference between Catholicism and Protestantism back then was that Catholicism had made allowances for human foibles and Catholics were expected to follow church rules within those allowances, and did so. Protestants were given a much stricter code to follow, a code so strict that it was in fact impossible to follow it and live. As a result, American Protestants did not follow their religious beliefs (except on Sunday), thus making it possible to build a great secular government and a free country.
In fewer words: Protestants made America the glory that it is by protecting America from Protestantism.
The "Proofs" against the existence of God, are just as faulty as the "Proofs" for God.
First, ground rules. We're talking about conventional definitions of God, close to what many major religions use. No fair saying "This rock in my hand is God" or "everything is God". Silliness will not be tolerated.
Proofs for the existence of God always involve logical fallacies such as question begging, intimidation, etc.. No such "proof" has ever withstood critical examination. God can not be proved to exist out of thin air, nor can it be inferred from observed reality.
Proofs against the existence of god start from a different place. Somebody has to propose what God is; the disprover cannot be expected to find flaws in every single unstated possible definition of God. The disprover justifiably demands a clear description of what God is, and before long the describer has hung himself with his own words. Historically, all definitions of God meeting the ground rules have been proven either self-contradictory, inconsistent with observed reality, or both. No exceptions.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways...
This is Christianity's ultimate out, a way of playing it deuces wild. Every time a Christian is backed into a corner, every time that Christian doctrine is shown to be harmful to humanity, he'll just quote Isaiah 55:8-9 and say we're not interested in human good, we're interested in good as God knows it.(or words to that effect, depending upon the situation.)
The proper response to which is, of course, "I'm a human being, my good is what rightfully applies to me, you can take your god's good and shove it.
There are a lot of complicated interactions here, but some understanding comes from further back in history. A large part of the Progressive movement comes from the colleges, elitist professors rejecting religion and caught up in the enthusiasm for communism of the early 20th century. At the same time, colleges are deeply involved with scientific progress, and liberal-arts professors pretend that they share the accomplishments of collegiate science. Those same professors work to drive Christianity out of the minds of their students. The brightest students get the most benefit from more higher education, so they spend more time having their minds warped by their professors.
From the conservative end, people who don't spend a lot of time (or any time) at college are more interested in what works and what business activities keep them alive; theoretical considerations that don't affect their daily lives don't get critical analysis (so they don't challenge their own religious beliefs, and neither do their friends) This leaves conservatives in the curious position of being grounded in practical reality, while still believing in Jesus and angels.
Jimmy Carter was making the country poor and militarily weak and pessimistic. Reagan showed a way to prosperity and strength and optimism. Reagan's belief in God was obvious, there was no implied diminution of religion by removing an ineffectual, loopy preacher from the presidency.
It may suggest a move toward freedom, as belief in god is one form of tyranny over the minds of men. Whether freedom is well-correlated with conservatism is open to debate, but freedom is not in the realm of the left.
Decent people help their neighbors with or without religion.
One problem with Christianity is that it denies the concept of self-ownership, providing the false dichotomy of being owned by god or by the government, with no other option but a compromise between the two, i.e. "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's". By having destroyed a person's self in the name of god, an individual is left intellectually defenseless against the claims of government, and can see nothing wrong with being forced to perform "charity" to the poor.
I can find comfort in a fiction, even knowing that it is a fiction. Hug a doll or a stuffed animal in times of stress. Always wear my "lucky hat" to a baseball game. Honor the grave of a family member or soldier.
Comfortable habits and decent behavior do not imply belief in a god or an afterlife.
I believe people need faith in proportion to their misery.
"You look miserable, lying there in the fetid mud. Worms are beginning to bore into your skin. Why don't you walk over to that nice restaurant across the street?"
"I have much faith, and the longer I lie here, the more good my faith is doing me."
Slashdot Mirror
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
You bet your sweet ass I am.
I took a quick look at Argentina's history on wikipedia. It looks like they've tried the revolution-election thing three times.
Bloody revolutions tend to produce a scared populace that doesn't care so much about the quality of a post-war government, as it does about having the violence end. Repression and universal theft will look positively attractive. Good election results require a calm, rational, and informed electorate.
That's not a problem, that's a good thing.
Different goods change prices in different directions. If a fiat currency tracks bread, it won't track transistors.
The controllers of a fiat currency, while technically capable of keeping its value stable, in practice never do, and don't have any motive to.
When gold is the currency, the value IS the currency, the match is perfect.
Good currencies are divisible, portable, a store of value (which make it stable), and not counterfeitable. Renaissance paintings fail at least 2, and possibly all 4. Dog shit has such low intrinsic value that enough to buy a magazine would not be portable.
In addition to industrial uses, gold is used in jewelry and other decorative applications, and in science. Technically, is is an excellent conductor, extremely chemically resistant, and extraordinarily ductile. It is scarce, which helps make it stable.
Inflexibility is precisely a property currency should have. A flexible currency is like a flexible law: a tool of tyrants. The value of gold is largely inherent; it is not having an arbitrary value assigned to it, a value is assigned to a currency by giving it a fixed relation to gold.
You have a poor understanding of value, so I will amplify the last point. When I say gold costs $1200 a troy ounce, I am not naming the value of gold, I am naming the value of a dollar.
Fiat money is a token for promises. FTFY.
The weak countries are weak because the government has screwed up the economy. (In the Greek case, the government has been elected by people who insist that the government continue its bad practices and make them worse.)
Take just the example of minimum wage controls. If the economy is weak, then the Greeks must not be doing enough work to earn enough money. This happens because other people see Greek labor as too expensive. In a labor market without minimum wage, wages would drop until someone saw Greek labor cheap enough to be worth buying, problem solved!
Alternately, if the Greeks keep their minimum wage but get off the Euro and make the drachma the official currency again, the value of the drachma will fall until Greek labor is worth buying at the revised exchange rate, if the rate is allowed to float.
There's no reason for a "weakest state" to drop out, it just has to stop destroying itself. Alas, as long as the people elect politicians selling fantasies, the destruction will continue.
With a government controlled electronic currency the government could handle your money, and you only have to piss off one bureaucrat to have anything in your name electronically made worthless. There are already people who think all Republicans should be killed, and others who think all "global warming deniers" should be killed. Do you want someone like that with the power to turn off your money?
The best keys are the Honeywell Hall-effect devices, now out of production for 18 years.
I also read it as Oprah, and when I looked at the article I saw a bloated monstrosity. Yep, Oprah.
"Cut the mustard" has become common usage from ignorance and stupidity. The proper phrase is "cut the muster"
I listen for beautiful music, preferably vocal. Well crafted music. I like Francoise Hardy and Patty Pravo for the voices, late ABBA for voices and the competently designed works.
I reject tunelessness, hatefulness, howling or whiny or raspy voices, and people that think that yelling on-key is the same as singing (which describes most male pop singers).
My taste hasn't so much changed over the years as it has refined. I find that I'm less willing to listen to dreck, and often have to resort to classical when there's no adequate pop to be found.
Little Boxes by Pete Seeger.
Assuming each drone flight shuts down the executive branch for an hour, for a mere $10,000 a day the government could be disabled indefinitely.
Here's a hypothesis for you.
Most American principles and institutions were in place before large numbers of Roman Catholics came to the U.S. One difference between Catholicism and Protestantism back then was that Catholicism had made allowances for human foibles and Catholics were expected to follow church rules within those allowances, and did so. Protestants were given a much stricter code to follow, a code so strict that it was in fact impossible to follow it and live. As a result, American Protestants did not follow their religious beliefs (except on Sunday), thus making it possible to build a great secular government and a free country.
In fewer words: Protestants made America the glory that it is by protecting America from Protestantism.
First, ground rules. We're talking about conventional definitions of God, close to what many major religions use. No fair saying "This rock in my hand is God" or "everything is God". Silliness will not be tolerated.
Proofs for the existence of God always involve logical fallacies such as question begging, intimidation, etc.. No such "proof" has ever withstood critical examination. God can not be proved to exist out of thin air, nor can it be inferred from observed reality.
Proofs against the existence of god start from a different place. Somebody has to propose what God is; the disprover cannot be expected to find flaws in every single unstated possible definition of God. The disprover justifiably demands a clear description of what God is, and before long the describer has hung himself with his own words. Historically, all definitions of God meeting the ground rules have been proven either self-contradictory, inconsistent with observed reality, or both. No exceptions.
This is Christianity's ultimate out, a way of playing it deuces wild. Every time a Christian is backed into a corner, every time that Christian doctrine is shown to be harmful to humanity, he'll just quote Isaiah 55:8-9 and say we're not interested in human good, we're interested in good as God knows it.(or words to that effect, depending upon the situation.)
The proper response to which is, of course, "I'm a human being, my good is what rightfully applies to me, you can take your god's good and shove it.
There are a lot of complicated interactions here, but some understanding comes from further back in history. A large part of the Progressive movement comes from the colleges, elitist professors rejecting religion and caught up in the enthusiasm for communism of the early 20th century. At the same time, colleges are deeply involved with scientific progress, and liberal-arts professors pretend that they share the accomplishments of collegiate science. Those same professors work to drive Christianity out of the minds of their students. The brightest students get the most benefit from more higher education, so they spend more time having their minds warped by their professors.
From the conservative end, people who don't spend a lot of time (or any time) at college are more interested in what works and what business activities keep them alive; theoretical considerations that don't affect their daily lives don't get critical analysis (so they don't challenge their own religious beliefs, and neither do their friends) This leaves conservatives in the curious position of being grounded in practical reality, while still believing in Jesus and angels.
Jimmy Carter was making the country poor and militarily weak and pessimistic. Reagan showed a way to prosperity and strength and optimism. Reagan's belief in God was obvious, there was no implied diminution of religion by removing an ineffectual, loopy preacher from the presidency.
It may suggest a move toward freedom, as belief in god is one form of tyranny over the minds of men. Whether freedom is well-correlated with conservatism is open to debate, but freedom is not in the realm of the left.
It violated zoning laws.
The meaning of life is entirely an individual's own responsibility. It's trite but true:
Life is what you make it.
Decent people help their neighbors with or without religion.
One problem with Christianity is that it denies the concept of self-ownership, providing the false dichotomy of being owned by god or by the government, with no other option but a compromise between the two, i.e. "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's". By having destroyed a person's self in the name of god, an individual is left intellectually defenseless against the claims of government, and can see nothing wrong with being forced to perform "charity" to the poor.
I can find comfort in a fiction, even knowing that it is a fiction. Hug a doll or a stuffed animal in times of stress. Always wear my "lucky hat" to a baseball game. Honor the grave of a family member or soldier.
Comfortable habits and decent behavior do not imply belief in a god or an afterlife.
"You look miserable, lying there in the fetid mud. Worms are beginning to bore into your skin. Why don't you walk over to that nice restaurant across the street?"
"I have much faith, and the longer I lie here, the more good my faith is doing me."
At least sports fandom doesn't necessarily lead to contradictions, whereas religious answers to the questions you propose always does.