"...the people in charge of each Federal Reserve branch are government-appointed..."
Appointed from a short list of banker-approved candidates.
"...they are supposed to, in part, work toward the interests of the United States."
LOL A bunch of central bankers operating in secret, beyond the reach of the sovereign government are only going to further the interests of themselves and their banker buddies.
It can be a little confusing considering the fact that the paper money is clearly marked "Federal Reserve Note". Even if the Federal Reserve bankers don't physically print money, they definitely "create" money. The physical cash is only a small percentage of the total money in circulation. When the Fed buys interest-bearing treasury securities from the U.S. government, the money is literally conjured from nothing. Pure profit for the banking cartel.
"especially if you didn't actually have to go to a gun store."
It's illegal to ship a firearm to anyone other than an authorized dealer. All buyers would need to show up in person, fill out the required paperwork and pass a background check before getting their merchandise.
"The NRA is in a full-on marketing push scaring people into buying guns"
We have Hillary Clinton telling us that she would consider an Australia-style weapons confiscation scheme and ISIS sympathizers attacking civilians on U.S. soil and you think the NRA is responsible for scaring people into buying guns?
Think carefully about what you're suggesting. You want to discourage people who would voluntarily seek out inpatient mental health treatment? You want service providers to be required to submit a patient's personal information to the federal government so that they become a "prohibited person"? Very few mentally ill people are actually violent. Those who might be inclined toward violence, such as the sociopaths and schizophrenics, will almost never seek out treatment voluntarily. Fear of being put on a list would result in many non-violent people with real mental health problems unwilling to get the treatment they need. That would have major negative implications for the quality of life of these people and their families. Terrible idea.
Interesting article, but it does not prove your claim that "Guns also mean a lot more suicides"
"So it's not that gun owners are more suicidal. It's that they're more likely to die in the event that they become suicidal, because they are using a gun."
Once you dig through all the inferences, hypotheses and other hand waving, this is the ONLY established relationship between firearms and suicides: People who use a gun in a suicide "attempt" have a higher success rate in actually killing themselves.
"rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership"
They are being deliberately misleading here by talking exclusively about firearms suicides. Again, they have no causal link to suggest that more firearms = more suicides. I'm sure that there are more jumpers in places with bridges and tall buildings than in the rural flatlands as well.
Another thing to consider is the people who go out and buy a firearm with the specific intent of committing suicide. At the very top of the article they mention such a case. The segment about the NH gun shop also described such situations. I guess these people would be considered "gun owners" for statistical purposes, but obviously the firearm isn't a causal factor.
We also know that there are real suicide attempts and "cry for help" suicide attempts. Maybe the people who use firearms are the ones who seriously intend to kill themselves as opposed to those who just want attention?
"Guns also mean a lot more suicides, this is a very well established fact."
Total BS. The only "well established" relationship between firearms and suicide is that people who attempt suicide by firearm are more likely to succeed in actually killing themselves than people who use other means. This could simply mean that people who genuinely want to kill themselves as opposed to doing a "cry for help" suicide choose the appropriate means.
Unfortunately, the people pushing for gun control are simply not interested in data or statistics. They want to exploit high profile tragedies to trigger an emotional response and implement gun control policies; Even policies which would not have prevented the incidents they use as justification. How many times have you heard "Sandy Hook!" in a discussion of universal background checks? This, despite the fact that such a policy could not have prevented that crime? Many of the anti-gun people actually mean well and naively believe that banning guns will reduce violence. At the heart of the anti-gun movement however is a sinister cabal of elites who simply want to disarm the serfs and will do or say anything to accomplish that goal.
What's wrong with that rule? It makes sense to me that a business owner wouldn't want a room full of drunk people with guns, but likewise wouldn't want to turn away potential patrons. If the person is going to ban guns in their business establishment, it makes sense that they would provide a temporary (secure) storage space so that people could check their weapons at the door. My thinking is that the property owner can set whatever rules they want in their place of business.
It all depends on what you're trying to secure. Knowing how easily a lock can be defeated is good information. My most frequent use of a padlock is in the gym. Who's going to carry a pair of bolt cutters into the locker room of the gym, health spa or anywhere else there are lockers available for temporary use? Obviously a padlock can be defeated by a determined thief with time, privacy and the right tools, but sometimes a deterrent against the casual thief is exactly what's needed. For the locker room, even a small hammer and 90 seconds seems a bit too conspicuous. The little combination Master locks that seem to be a de-facto locker room standard are much worse. Some of those can be defeated with the quick jerk of a pry bar.
If you're talking about Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, the drug in question is Diaprim (aka Pyrimethamine). This drug has been around since the 1950s and is not, I repeat NOT subject to any sort of patent protections.
Furthermore, the drug is a treatment for toxoplasmosis not HIV. There is some confusion about this because people with weakened immune systems are especially vulnerable to the parasite which causes toxoplasmosis.
The big controversy with Diaprim arises from the fact that there are relatively few cases of this infection in the USA so there is only one manufacturer of the drug. The size of the market is so small that it's not economically viable for anyone to set up a competing operation. Therefore, Turing figures it can radically increase the price.
Is that "groupthink" or is it a matter of cultural norms? Isn't a small town just a social connection between "like minded individuals" which is made somewhat more rigid by geography? The types of differences you're talking about definitely attract attention in a small town, but it's unfair to suggest that every difference which attracts attention is viewed as an intolerable negative.
The problem I see with cities is that this "mind your own business" mentality becomes extreme to the point of dehumanization. People outside your little cliques no longer count as humans who deserve respect and basic courtesy. The city dweller might be exposed to plenty of people, but is less likely to interact with or render assistance to a random stranger. In a small town, everyone is more or less in your clique so it's perfectly acceptable to strike up a conversation with someone and entirely normal to help out a stranded motorist for example.
She's not currently an elected representative, but Hillary Clinton recently said that an Australia style national gun "buyback" program is something worth considering.
"Buyback" is a ridiculous way to characterize what happened in Australia because it conjures up images of a voluntary program. In Australia, they first managed to implement firearms registration (bad idea). Then, when they moved on to the confiscation phase, people who owned guns were ordered to either turn them in to the "buyback program" or be considered felons. And thanks to the gun registry, they knew who owned what. That is "gun grabbing".
"So, there's proof that they're not doing it for cost savings."
Their positive cash flow and profits "prove" nothing about their motivations. To a corporation, profits are never high enough.
"bringing in H-1B labor for purposes that don't meet the original intention of the program."
The federal government publishes a set of "guidelines" and describes the "intentions" of the program for sure. Unfortunately, neither the guidelines nor the intentions are codified in actual LAW. Therefore, corporations like Disney can simply ignore them.
"According to federal guidelines, the visas are intended... to fill discrete positions when American workers with those skills cannot be found. Their use,... should not âoeadversely affect the wages and working conditionsâ of Americans." (NYtimes 6/3/15)
Great, except for the fact that we're supposed to trust that corporations will follow the "guidelines" as opposed to exploiting the LAW to maximize their profits? Ha! That's why the fired workers can't accuse Disney of breaking the law and have to resort to this "discrimination" theory. Once again, we get royally screwed by the Federal Government and the corporations get blamed.
*Finger gun at a Virginia grade school: suspension * Breakfast pastry "gun" at a Maryland elementary school: 2 day suspension *Hello Kitty bubble gun at a Pennsylvania kindergarten: 10 day suspension
If a pop-tart gun is grounds for discipline, then why does clock boy deserve $15m for a freak out about a timing device in a metal case?
On one side, the police and school administrators acted like total a$$holes in their handling of this situation. On the other side, the whole act of bringing a disassembled clock to school in a metal briefcase was a deliberate attempt to provoke this sort of over-reaction. Both parties are in the wrong. I call it an "over-reaction" but we live in a time where gun-shaped things made of pop-tarts or cardboard are grounds for disciplinary action under idiotic "zero tolerance" policies. The disassembled clock clearly wasn't a bomb, but a timing device in a metal case looks more like a bomb than a pop-tart looks like a gun. The kid's father is/was an activist with political ambitions. My guess is that he orchestrated the whole thing and it succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.
Nobody doubts that the CIA and other parts of the federal government have occasionally cultivated a public image of incompetence to mask their very competent evil. I totally disagree with your assertions about Snowden however. You call those revelations "zilch"? WTF more can there be? NSA nanobots infecting our bodies and reporting on our biometric data? He really did give us the smoking gun as well as the dead body of the U.S. Constitution. The ho-hum reaction is due to ignorance and indifference; I don't think the public actively approves of this crap. Nor do they approve of a government which will not punish its own employees for their crimes.
Why do you think it's up to you or a food company to be the ultimate arbiter of what's "rational" or what's "safe" or to assess the overall environmental impact of a certain product or production process?
Should it be OK to put pork in food and sell it to unwitting Jews or Muslims because it's "irrational" to believe that a flying spaghetti monster described in some ancient fairy tails is going to curse you for eating it? Now that seems irrational to me, but it's up to the consumer to decide what to buy and what to eat.
Cross breeding plants is one thing. Taking a gene from a completely unrelated species, splicing it into another and producing some mutant organism that couldn't possibly exist in nature is radically different. All the species on this planet evolved slowly in a certain symbiosis with other species. Genetic modification upsets that delicate balance.
GMO and Organic labeling are merely about the consumer's right to have complete information about what they are purchasing. Organic doesn't necessarily mean "safe", it means that a specific set of guidelines were adhered to during the production process. GMO doesn't necessarily mean dangerous. Whether people's personal decisions based on labeling are rational or irrational is totally for them to decide.
"the profit motive itself pretty much makes a mockery of the practice of medicine in general."
Because medical professionals should go through years of schooling and accumulate massive amounts of debt so that they can donate their time? Because drug companies should develop new treatments out of scientific curiosity, and medical device manufacturers should be volunteer organizations?
For profit companies provide the overwhelming majority of the goods and services you use on a regular basis and you typically have an array of choices and various price/quality options. The ONLY reason healthcare is so screwed up is that the government decided to stick it's fat nose into the mix. Since the advent of Medicare & Medicaid, costs have absolutely skyrocketed while quality of results has stagnated. You won't find a similar result anywhere in a profit-driven free market. Only government can engineer such a disaster.
The rich Wall Street and Washington DC assholes already have us eating high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oils and other government subsidized, genetically modified garbage. If they're making jokes about the nasty "food" they've managed to put in our diets, the laughter has long since died down. Nutritionally speaking, a few servings of mealworms would be an improvement in the diet of the average American.
Maybe he was talking about sea urchins? They used to be chopped up for bait or discarded by New England lobster fisherman. Now, the urchins are a valuable part of the catch because they can be exported to Japan where they are considered a delicacy.
Unless you are the government of the USA and need a powerful Sunni militant group to facilitate your goal of regime change in Syria, counter the Shiite Muslim influence in Iraq and undermine the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.
" you'd have to be an idiot to think we couldn't have stayed had we just asked. "
Bush negotiated the withdrawal date with the Iraqi government. When the date was approaching, the idea of an ongoing U.S. presence was indeed proposed, but the Iraqis refused to renew the Status Of Forces Agreement(SOFA). That's the agreement which grants U.S. military personnel the permission to operate with impunity inside the country. This was unacceptable to the USA. I suppose Obama could have forced the issue, but based on his campaign promises, he had to maintain the illusion of being the "peace" guy.
There's no good time to withdraw from a mess like this other than ASAP. Given the aftermath of the U.S. government's withdrawal from Vietnam, it could also be argued that the withdrawal happened "too soon". But, just like Vietnam, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are both completely untenable. There is no possible way to "win". The defeat is not a military defeat. It's a defeat based on the creation and maintenance of an endless morass of human misery and a sinkhole of U.S. taxpayer wealth.
The way human institutions are currently structured, the species is DE-volving. There's little hope that homo sapiens is going to become healthier, heartier or more intelligent through evolution. All of the evolutionary pressures have been removed by society and technology. Without drastic changes, we are an evolutionary dead end.
Reforming the monetary system would be the greatest economic blessing you could bestow on the wage laborer. The current monetary system is the method by which labor's share of productivity gains is stolen. People complain about the fact that wages don't keep up with price inflation. What they should be asking themselves is what causes price inflation to begin with and then complaining about that!
In an economy that bears some semblance to a free market, innovation and competition would naturally increase the purchasing power of a given wage (or at the very least hold it constant) over time. That does not happen under the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking. This steady march of constantly higher prices can be traced directly back to the inception of The Fed. They will even confess publicly that their goal is price inflation and few people seem to care. Since 1913, The Federal Reserve has transferred trillions of dollars in wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra rich. The banking cartel is not going to give up such a profitable business without a bitter fight.
Slashdot Mirror
"...the people in charge of each Federal Reserve branch are government-appointed..."
Appointed from a short list of banker-approved candidates.
"...they are supposed to, in part, work toward the interests of the United States."
LOL
A bunch of central bankers operating in secret, beyond the reach of the sovereign government are only going to further the interests of themselves and their banker buddies.
It can be a little confusing considering the fact that the paper money is clearly marked "Federal Reserve Note".
Even if the Federal Reserve bankers don't physically print money, they definitely "create" money. The physical cash is only a small percentage of the total money in circulation.
When the Fed buys interest-bearing treasury securities from the U.S. government, the money is literally conjured from nothing. Pure profit for the banking cartel.
"especially if you didn't actually have to go to a gun store."
It's illegal to ship a firearm to anyone other than an authorized dealer. All buyers would need to show up in person, fill out the required paperwork and pass a background check before getting their merchandise.
"The NRA is in a full-on marketing push scaring people into buying guns"
We have Hillary Clinton telling us that she would consider an Australia-style weapons confiscation scheme and ISIS sympathizers attacking civilians on U.S. soil and you think the NRA is responsible for scaring people into buying guns?
Think carefully about what you're suggesting. You want to discourage people who would voluntarily seek out inpatient mental health treatment? You want service providers to be required to submit a patient's personal information to the federal government so that they become a "prohibited person"?
Very few mentally ill people are actually violent. Those who might be inclined toward violence, such as the sociopaths and schizophrenics, will almost never seek out treatment voluntarily. Fear of being put on a list would result in many non-violent people with real mental health problems unwilling to get the treatment they need. That would have major negative implications for the quality of life of these people and their families.
Terrible idea.
Interesting article, but it does not prove your claim that "Guns also mean a lot more suicides"
"So it's not that gun owners are more suicidal. It's that they're more likely to die in the event that they become suicidal, because they are using a gun."
Once you dig through all the inferences, hypotheses and other hand waving, this is the ONLY established relationship between firearms and suicides: People who use a gun in a suicide "attempt" have a higher success rate in actually killing themselves.
"rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership"
They are being deliberately misleading here by talking exclusively about firearms suicides. Again, they have no causal link to suggest that more firearms = more suicides. I'm sure that there are more jumpers in places with bridges and tall buildings than in the rural flatlands as well.
Another thing to consider is the people who go out and buy a firearm with the specific intent of committing suicide. At the very top of the article they mention such a case. The segment about the NH gun shop also described such situations. I guess these people would be considered "gun owners" for statistical purposes, but obviously the firearm isn't a causal factor.
We also know that there are real suicide attempts and "cry for help" suicide attempts. Maybe the people who use firearms are the ones who seriously intend to kill themselves as opposed to those who just want attention?
"Guns also mean a lot more suicides, this is a very well established fact."
Total BS. The only "well established" relationship between firearms and suicide is that people who attempt suicide by firearm are more likely to succeed in actually killing themselves than people who use other means.
This could simply mean that people who genuinely want to kill themselves as opposed to doing a "cry for help" suicide choose the appropriate means.
Unfortunately, the people pushing for gun control are simply not interested in data or statistics. They want to exploit high profile tragedies to trigger an emotional response and implement gun control policies; Even policies which would not have prevented the incidents they use as justification. How many times have you heard "Sandy Hook!" in a discussion of universal background checks? This, despite the fact that such a policy could not have prevented that crime?
Many of the anti-gun people actually mean well and naively believe that banning guns will reduce violence. At the heart of the anti-gun movement however is a sinister cabal of elites who simply want to disarm the serfs and will do or say anything to accomplish that goal.
What's wrong with that rule? It makes sense to me that a business owner wouldn't want a room full of drunk people with guns, but likewise wouldn't want to turn away potential patrons. If the person is going to ban guns in their business establishment, it makes sense that they would provide a temporary (secure) storage space so that people could check their weapons at the door.
My thinking is that the property owner can set whatever rules they want in their place of business.
It all depends on what you're trying to secure. Knowing how easily a lock can be defeated is good information. My most frequent use of a padlock is in the gym. Who's going to carry a pair of bolt cutters into the locker room of the gym, health spa or anywhere else there are lockers available for temporary use? Obviously a padlock can be defeated by a determined thief with time, privacy and the right tools, but sometimes a deterrent against the casual thief is exactly what's needed.
For the locker room, even a small hammer and 90 seconds seems a bit too conspicuous. The little combination Master locks that seem to be a de-facto locker room standard are much worse. Some of those can be defeated with the quick jerk of a pry bar.
-2 misinformative.
If you're talking about Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, the drug in question is Diaprim (aka Pyrimethamine). This drug has been around since the 1950s and is not, I repeat NOT subject to any sort of patent protections.
Furthermore, the drug is a treatment for toxoplasmosis not HIV. There is some confusion about this because people with weakened immune systems are especially vulnerable to the parasite which causes toxoplasmosis.
The big controversy with Diaprim arises from the fact that there are relatively few cases of this infection in the USA so there is only one manufacturer of the drug. The size of the market is so small that it's not economically viable for anyone to set up a competing operation. Therefore, Turing figures it can radically increase the price.
Is that "groupthink" or is it a matter of cultural norms? Isn't a small town just a social connection between "like minded individuals" which is made somewhat more rigid by geography? The types of differences you're talking about definitely attract attention in a small town, but it's unfair to suggest that every difference which attracts attention is viewed as an intolerable negative.
The problem I see with cities is that this "mind your own business" mentality becomes extreme to the point of dehumanization. People outside your little cliques no longer count as humans who deserve respect and basic courtesy. The city dweller might be exposed to plenty of people, but is less likely to interact with or render assistance to a random stranger. In a small town, everyone is more or less in your clique so it's perfectly acceptable to strike up a conversation with someone and entirely normal to help out a stranded motorist for example.
She's not currently an elected representative, but Hillary Clinton recently said that an Australia style national gun "buyback" program is something worth considering.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"Buyback" is a ridiculous way to characterize what happened in Australia because it conjures up images of a voluntary program. In Australia, they first managed to implement firearms registration (bad idea). Then, when they moved on to the confiscation phase, people who owned guns were ordered to either turn them in to the "buyback program" or be considered felons. And thanks to the gun registry, they knew who owned what. That is "gun grabbing".
"So, there's proof that they're not doing it for cost savings."
Their positive cash flow and profits "prove" nothing about their motivations. To a corporation, profits are never high enough.
"bringing in H-1B labor for purposes that don't meet the original intention of the program."
The federal government publishes a set of "guidelines" and describes the "intentions" of the program for sure. Unfortunately, neither the guidelines nor the intentions are codified in actual LAW. Therefore, corporations like Disney can simply ignore them.
"According to federal guidelines, the visas are intended ... to fill discrete positions when American workers with those skills cannot be found. Their use, ... should not âoeadversely affect the wages and working conditionsâ of Americans." (NYtimes 6/3/15)
Great, except for the fact that we're supposed to trust that corporations will follow the "guidelines" as opposed to exploiting the LAW to maximize their profits? Ha! That's why the fired workers can't accuse Disney of breaking the law and have to resort to this "discrimination" theory.
Once again, we get royally screwed by the Federal Government and the corporations get blamed.
Talk about "freak outs". This type of nonsense is happening all over the country. It's the new normal under "zero tolerance" policies.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
*Finger gun at a Virginia grade school: suspension
* Breakfast pastry "gun" at a Maryland elementary school: 2 day suspension
*Hello Kitty bubble gun at a Pennsylvania kindergarten: 10 day suspension
If a pop-tart gun is grounds for discipline, then why does clock boy deserve $15m for a freak out about a timing device in a metal case?
On one side, the police and school administrators acted like total a$$holes in their handling of this situation. On the other side, the whole act of bringing a disassembled clock to school in a metal briefcase was a deliberate attempt to provoke this sort of over-reaction. Both parties are in the wrong.
I call it an "over-reaction" but we live in a time where gun-shaped things made of pop-tarts or cardboard are grounds for disciplinary action under idiotic "zero tolerance" policies. The disassembled clock clearly wasn't a bomb, but a timing device in a metal case looks more like a bomb than a pop-tart looks like a gun.
The kid's father is/was an activist with political ambitions. My guess is that he orchestrated the whole thing and it succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.
Nobody doubts that the CIA and other parts of the federal government have occasionally cultivated a public image of incompetence to mask their very competent evil. I totally disagree with your assertions about Snowden however. You call those revelations "zilch"? WTF more can there be? NSA nanobots infecting our bodies and reporting on our biometric data? He really did give us the smoking gun as well as the dead body of the U.S. Constitution. The ho-hum reaction is due to ignorance and indifference; I don't think the public actively approves of this crap. Nor do they approve of a government which will not punish its own employees for their crimes.
Why do you think it's up to you or a food company to be the ultimate arbiter of what's "rational" or what's "safe" or to assess the overall environmental impact of a certain product or production process?
Should it be OK to put pork in food and sell it to unwitting Jews or Muslims because it's "irrational" to believe that a flying spaghetti monster described in some ancient fairy tails is going to curse you for eating it? Now that seems irrational to me, but it's up to the consumer to decide what to buy and what to eat.
Cross breeding plants is one thing. Taking a gene from a completely unrelated species, splicing it into another and producing some mutant organism that couldn't possibly exist in nature is radically different. All the species on this planet evolved slowly in a certain symbiosis with other species. Genetic modification upsets that delicate balance.
GMO and Organic labeling are merely about the consumer's right to have complete information about what they are purchasing. Organic doesn't necessarily mean "safe", it means that a specific set of guidelines were adhered to during the production process. GMO doesn't necessarily mean dangerous. Whether people's personal decisions based on labeling are rational or irrational is totally for them to decide.
"the profit motive itself pretty much makes a mockery of the practice of medicine in general."
Because medical professionals should go through years of schooling and accumulate massive amounts of debt so that they can donate their time? Because drug companies should develop new treatments out of scientific curiosity, and medical device manufacturers should be volunteer organizations?
For profit companies provide the overwhelming majority of the goods and services you use on a regular basis and you typically have an array of choices and various price/quality options. The ONLY reason healthcare is so screwed up is that the government decided to stick it's fat nose into the mix. Since the advent of Medicare & Medicaid, costs have absolutely skyrocketed while quality of results has stagnated. You won't find a similar result anywhere in a profit-driven free market. Only government can engineer such a disaster.
"Sick do[sic] death of the ED drugs."
How long have you been taking them?
The rich Wall Street and Washington DC assholes already have us eating high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oils and other government subsidized, genetically modified garbage. If they're making jokes about the nasty "food" they've managed to put in our diets, the laughter has long since died down.
Nutritionally speaking, a few servings of mealworms would be an improvement in the diet of the average American.
Maybe he was talking about sea urchins? They used to be chopped up for bait or discarded by New England lobster fisherman. Now, the urchins are a valuable part of the catch because they can be exported to Japan where they are considered a delicacy.
"ISIS is completely unnecessarily evil."
Unless you are the government of the USA and need a powerful Sunni militant group to facilitate your goal of regime change in Syria, counter the Shiite Muslim influence in Iraq and undermine the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.
" you'd have to be an idiot to think we couldn't have stayed had we just asked. "
Bush negotiated the withdrawal date with the Iraqi government. When the date was approaching, the idea of an ongoing U.S. presence was indeed proposed, but the Iraqis refused to renew the Status Of Forces Agreement(SOFA). That's the agreement which grants U.S. military personnel the permission to operate with impunity inside the country. This was unacceptable to the USA. I suppose Obama could have forced the issue, but based on his campaign promises, he had to maintain the illusion of being the "peace" guy.
There's no good time to withdraw from a mess like this other than ASAP. Given the aftermath of the U.S. government's withdrawal from Vietnam, it could also be argued that the withdrawal happened "too soon". But, just like Vietnam, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are both completely untenable. There is no possible way to "win". The defeat is not a military defeat. It's a defeat based on the creation and maintenance of an endless morass of human misery and a sinkhole of U.S. taxpayer wealth.
The way human institutions are currently structured, the species is DE-volving. There's little hope that homo sapiens is going to become healthier, heartier or more intelligent through evolution. All of the evolutionary pressures have been removed by society and technology. Without drastic changes, we are an evolutionary dead end.
Reforming the monetary system would be the greatest economic blessing you could bestow on the wage laborer. The current monetary system is the method by which labor's share of productivity gains is stolen. People complain about the fact that wages don't keep up with price inflation. What they should be asking themselves is what causes price inflation to begin with and then complaining about that!
In an economy that bears some semblance to a free market, innovation and competition would naturally increase the purchasing power of a given wage (or at the very least hold it constant) over time. That does not happen under the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking. This steady march of constantly higher prices can be traced directly back to the inception of The Fed. They will even confess publicly that their goal is price inflation and few people seem to care. Since 1913, The Federal Reserve has transferred trillions of dollars in wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra rich. The banking cartel is not going to give up such a profitable business without a bitter fight.