1. central bank money (physical currency such as coins and paper money)
2. commercial bank money (money created through loans) - sometimes referred to as checkbook money
It's funny how most parents spend a considerable amount of time telling their kids "it doesn't matter what other people think" when it comes to things like peer pressure or social interaction, and then we go right back around and tell them it's important what other people think and your life is ruined if you make a fool out of yourself, whether on the street or online.
It's always been important what certain people think. With the acceleration of a permission based society, it is very important what those permission givers think. The function of academia has been absorbed into the permission granting process. If you're an independent contractor for private individuals or small businesses the chances of losing your income because someone looked you up on the net are pretty slim, but if you aim at passing through academia into the corporate world, you'd better please the masters. There are still enough masters around for there to be considerable flexibility for you, but in corporate life, you have to be pleasing to someone.
You call me friend. I call you the same, but you're the one who trusts me so little as to hold a weapon.
Not so, friend. He's the one that trusts you so much as to be ok with you holding a weapon. You don't seem to hold him in the same high opinion.
Civilised society is where guns are unnecessary.
When the government decides what is necessary and unnecessary and bans the unnecessary you are no longer in a free society. Whether any given thing is necessary is irrelevant. A few feet away, I have a brass vase. Certainly it is unnecessary, but it would be a horrible direction for society to take to ban it on that basis. Incidentally, it's big enough to be an effective weapon.
Few British police have guns...
... and yet you have this knife violence problem. You're not the only ones either, check out page 21 of the 2007 Australian Institute of Criminology report[pdf warning] and you'll see that in 33% of homicides the weapon is a knife, 14% blunt instrument, 18% hands and feet. So unless you think that being stabbed or beaten to death is somehow preferable to being shot, the gun laws don't seem to have accomplished anything of value. What they have done is given the advantage to the physically strong. Restrictive gun laws are inherently discriminatory against women and the elderly and have no place in a civilised, equitable society. And don't get me started on mass murders, the Rwandan genocide had about half a million people killed, largely by machetes. There have also been a number of smaller scale mass murders with machetes and similar weapons, including Laskar Jihad (who use guns when they can get them, but aren't at all stopped from mass murder by using swords, machetes and fire).
I mentioned in an earlier post about how the British fought for their own freedom in the English civil war but this whole "right to bare arms" thing.. a fascist monarch wanted to take over the country. Enough people wanted to overthrow the bastard, and guns suddenly appeared and the new model army defeated him.
And yet at the end of the English civil war, they instituted the Bill of Rights 1689 which gave, among other things, the right to bear arms (although in a more limited sense than the US bill of rights did later). Why did they do that do you suppose? Guns did not "suddenly appear" they were manufactured and distributed, and you need those guns to be manufactured and distributed before the shooting starts. "Guns will suddenly appear if we need them", sheesh!
I've worked with 1st generation Italian immigrants who came after WWII. One told me that he made the decision to learn a word every day. He could easily communicate everything needed for everyday life, never having had formal lessons. He learned at work.
The Federal Reserve Bank prints (creates) money, backed by gold^H^H^H^Hoil. Thats the closes to industry the financial "industry" gets. It's a commercial sector, not an industry.
Where have you been? The US dollar isn't backed by gold, it's a fiat currency. I hardly know where to begin with someone who still thinks that the US dollar is gold backed. You did really say oil though, so maybe I've taken you the wrong way. Probably I have.
Nevertheless, the banks do indeed produce money. Take your printed money and deposit it in the bank, someone gets a loan, yet your balance never goes down. Where do you think the loan money comes from? If you withdraw some cash, they don't make you wait while they get it from the borrower, how do the borrower and you have the same money at the same time if the bank didn't create new money?
Much of our money supply is created as loans and is backed not by gold, oil or any other commodity, it is backed by the borrowers promise of future payment.
1. central bank money (physical currency such as coins and paper money)
2. commercial bank money (money created through loans) - sometimes referred to as checkbook money
If the dollar drops, your gold is magically worth more dollars.
If? Don't you mean when?
I wish there were banks that would save gold on the back end, and let you use checks or VISA or ATMs to pull from it at the current exchange rate plus a small fee.
You can buy and sell gold online or over the phone with bullion dealers in Australia. It is only one extra step than what you are proposing and takes a little more preparation.
Firstly, the State has always reserved the right to kill citizens.
... and restrict speech, and legislate religion, and enslave people, etc, etc, etc.
So I see this from another post of yours. You're either trolling or you're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to retain the right to bear arms.
I'm not sure I see your point; it's not like this is a terribly new idea.
The state has always tended towards tyranny. Your posts indicate that you support this, hence my opinion that you are the sort of person that makes the right to bear arms necessary. For the sake of liberty. It's a concept you may have heard of, but don't seem to understand or approve. Historically, many people have been willing to risk death in combat to obtain or retain it.
Sovereignty essentially means that one has no higher power. Hence, individuals only have rights that the sovereign body grants them.
Sovereign bodies are made up of people. Since there is no logical argument persuasive to the non-sovereign that one has an inherent right to rule another, sovereignty can then be gained two ways, by agreement or by force. If by agreement, then the people naturally have the right to veto that "sovereign" and may not as a body of people have their rights revoked by the state (as in the sovereign power is by delegation and subject to review, such as is the case in democracy or representative government), and if by force, then anyone who can find the capability to wield enough force to become the sovereign has the moral right to do so. In either case, the people have a moral right to arms, only that if force is the determiner of sovereignty, then if the government is capable of removing your rights by force then they may do so. That's called oppression, or sometimes tyranny.
If "society" requires me to lay down my life to outlaws, then "society" will have to get along without my cooperation.
Please. We'll be better off without you.
Since your ideal society requires that I am willing to lay down my life to support the rights of the "sovereign", then it's not much sacrifice to instead lay down my life for my own rights instead. Indeed, for any who aren't willing to enter into slavery, it is the only viable option. Fortunately, I live in a society where the system of government is not based on your idea of sovereignty. It doesn't look like I'll need to fight my government at any time, but ideas like yours must be opposed.
Laws that prevent people from 'protecting themselves' serve the same purpose as any other law; they weigh the advantage to individuals against the advantage to society. That is the fallacy of the 'the police will not protect you' saw- the police were never intended to protect you. Their purpose is to protect society, and your life, in the grand scheme of society, is not very valuable. If you happen to lose it because the law prevented you from protecting yourself, that's really just tough luck.
People can not reasonably be held to be under obligation to submit to any condition of society that would cost them their life. Since weapons are easily obtained, improvised or made by criminals, all citizens have the right to any weapons that would reasonably be required for personal defence against an armed assailant.
If "society" requires me to lay down my life to outlaws, then "society" will have to get along without my cooperation.
For example, if we decided that it was very practical for people to protect their lives by equipping themselves with thermonuclear destruct devices activated by the lack of a heartbeat...
Oh, I see my mistake now, the rest of us were trying to have a sensible discussion. Sorry for disturbing you. What kind of mentality does someone require to bring up nuclear weapons in a discussion of personal self defense?
All rights not explicitly granted to you are withheld to the sovereign body.
So I see this from another post of yours. You're either trolling or you're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to retain the right to bear arms.
If the resurrection was a fraud, it was one well beyond the ability of Jim Jones and his ilk.
Yeah, and Santa drives a sleigh pulled around by reindeer giving toys to little boys and girs. Jim Jones couldn't do that either.
Don't get me started on the Easter Bunny.
and there are so many accounts of people being martyred for their belief in Santa and the Easter bunny, right? My point stands, if you can convince people (to a degree of certainty that makes them willing to die for you) that you are the resurrection of their dead friend who they saw executed last week, you would have pulled off a spectacular fraud. It would require a far above average ability to trick people. That isn't proof that it wasn't fraud, but it isn't the sort of thing that is within reach for the average con artist.
People do stupid things regardless of which fairy tale they believe in. It's not evidence of anything in particular, just that people are gullible.
If they die for a cause it's evidence that they genuinely believe in that cause. It isn't conclusive evidence of the cause itself, but it is pretty conclusive that they believed in it. So it eliminates the possibility that they were deliberately lying, but doesn't eliminate the possibility of them being mad or mistaken.
Regarding your reference to Jonestown, "I find this man to have compelling teaching and charisma" is significantly different to "I've known this man for several years, I saw him get brutally tortured to death, and later I saw him alive again". Roman soldiers given the task of executing someone where typically diligent to carry it out thoroughly. If the resurrection was a fraud, it was one well beyond the ability of Jim Jones and his ilk.
("Acts of Philip", which describe miracles attributed to him...)
Writing being rejected as scripture does not imply (even from a christian perspective) that it isn't true, or useful, or contain accurate records. It simply means it wasn't regarded as part of scripture.
Acts 8:6 (KJV)
And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
That page lost me where it says "This meant that for every $100 he held in deposits, it was possible to make 42% profit, most people believing he was only making 2%." I do not see how he can say 42% profit on $100. In the example $45 or 5% of $900 was made, then the $900 morphs into $100.
You're not alone, that's were the system loses most people. Think of this, if the bank lends out money it has from depositors, why does your account balance not go down when someone borrows money? So let's say you deposit one hundred dollars of government minted/printed money (hard money). Someone goes to the bank and borrows $90 to buy something from me, they pay by check which I deposit at the bank. The bank now has $190 of deposits, but only $100 of government minted/printed money actually exists. Now, on the basis of my deposit, the bank loans out $81 to someone else, who buys something from someone who deposits it at the bank. The bank now has $271 in deposits, yet still only $100 has been issued by the government. Where did the $171 come from? It is issued by the bank as loans.
If you keep going, using that reserve ratio of 9:1, that's how you get close to $900 in loans as a result of $100 being issued by the government. The story on that page is correct as far as it goes, but a simplified explanation, the reality is worse. You are correct, "the $900 morphs into $100", but that is done by the banks using fractional reserve lending, not the story writer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
So, with no Extra-Biblical support for Jesus in a miraculous sense, or even documentation that he said the things he said...
The execution of the apostles is a type of evidence. If someone is willing to die for something, it shows that they believe it. Now, if someone in 2008 is prepared to die over something that happened 2000 or so years ago, that isn't evidence about the event, but if someone who claims to have seen it is prepared to die over it, that does lend some credibility.
The apostles, when faced with trial over their claims, could have just said "You're right, it's a hoax, we did it for the offering", but they didn't. Why not? The existence of Jesus is a credible answer, more credible IMO than mass hallucinations or other possible explanations.
It isn't that hard to grasp, most money is created through loans (fractional reserve lending), when the loan is paid off, that (loan based) money is gone from circulation.
No, money is created by creating an item or providing a service people are willing to pay for.
What I'm talking about is how money is created, ie: how the currency supply is generated, not the process of earning some of that money. Producing an item people are willing to pay doesn't create any new money, it simply moves existing currency from your customer to you.
Thing is while loans can allow businesses to make bigger profits, money creation does not require loans.
I'm talking about the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve lending, which is what creates the need for perpetual economic growth (that was the question I was answering). Neither my assets nor my income are dependent on me personally borrowing money, but that doesn't change the nature of the currency I use, just my standing in that economy.
There's an explanation of what I'm talking about here: I Want The Earth Plus 5%. It's a simplified explanation, but it's a good introduction to how our currency system works, not the earning of money but the production of currency.
"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." - John Adams.
The borrowing of money at interest requires economic growth just to break even
It doesn't require growth all it requires is more revenue than expenses.
What you say is correct at the level of the individual. Similarly, as an individual, you are better off if you have your debts paid off. However, as you will see if you read the wikipedia article I referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation that paying off debts reduces the money supply "The destruction of money created through loans occurs as the loans are paid back". The point is listed as [citation needed] but there is a more detailed explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_creation. It isn't that hard to grasp, most money is created through loans (fractional reserve lending), when the loan is paid off, that (loan based) money is gone from circulation.
If we as a society allow most of the money supply to be created as loans at interest, then the total debt exceeds the total money supply. To pay that interest, there has to be an increase in the money supply which means either economic growth or inflation.
Just consider inflation. Let's say your CPA sister is making $100,000/year in 2008 (just wanted a round figure). If she still earns $100,000/year in 2018, she will have gone significantly backwards in real terms. She needs to be making probably $130,000-$140,000 just to be staying at the same level she's at now. That is the essence of the constant need for economic growth. It is to pay interest. Even if you are not personally in debt, you are still affected because of inflation.
I disagree the city needs to grow. That's the same mindset corporations have, they "have to grow" or they'll die. Where exactly does this belief come from?
Usury. The borrowing of money at interest requires economic growth just to break even.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
In modern economies such as that of the United States relatively little of the national GDP is in currency (coins, banknotes, accounts backed by central bank), so that most is created through lending.
Since most money is created through lending at interest, the amount of money created is always less than the amount of debt (created money + interest), requiring a balance of economic growth and inflation, and eliminating the possibility of a sustainable economy.
Despite the fact that such tactics NEVER seem to stop us.
Have you considered that the human shields thing is more about producing propaganda than stopping attacks? If they had a concrete bunker and we killed them, all they do is die, if they surround themselves with children and we bomb them they gain a valuable propaganda weapon. If we don't kill them, they gain propaganda "You can't get us" and continue planning and executing attacks.
What they have been successful at is convincing a sufficient number of the population that a "conspiracy theory" is something that only crackpots hold to
I've recently been saying to people that historically, there has always been a group of people planning to rule the world, the evidence being the continual series of empires that have arisen, and that before they succeed they do this planning in secret. Therefore, the basic premise of conspiracy theories is correct, even if they have their facts wrong.
Any particular theory may be wrong, but the chances are that there are groups of people planning to rule you right now. Some you may know about, some you may not, but they definitely exist and work daily towards that goal.
According to whose ethics? The classic example being abortion -- some feel that abortion is not wrong, others feel abortion is wrong. And please no one start a debate about abortion -- it's a very polarizing subject (and irrelevant to the topic at hand). But that's why it's such a good example.
I'm sorry, but the law cannot be about 'right' and 'wrong'. These are relative terms that mean different things to different people.
The law is still about right and wrong, but it's about issues of right and wrong where there is general agreement.
There are many, for example, who think that distributing copyrighted content is quite ok, but there is general agreement that theft is wrong. The issue of disagreement is about whether copyright infringement = theft. So you have an agreement that theft is wrong and make it illegal, but disagreement over whether some actions constitute theft.
The abortion issue is essentially the same, people who want it banned want that because they believe that abortion is murder, but there is no disagreement over whether murder itself is wrong, just there are people who don't think abortion is murder. In essence, there is no moral disagreement over abortion: "murder is wrong" is pretty much agreed by everyone and that is the moral issue. The issue in dispute is really a technical one: When a woman is pregnant, are there two people or one? If one, then abortion is a medical procedure on that person. If two, then abortion is the murder of the second person. "Are there two people here or one" is not a moral question, the moral question is "is murder wrong and should it be illegal" and there is no real dispute about than issue.
Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee?... Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.
We as a society, sir, never have rewarded people on the basis hard work and effort, nor is there ever any intention to do so. We reward people for supplying a saleable product or service for which there is a demand. The extent of the reward is determined by supply and demand.
Consider this example: a man moves a pile of rocks, then moves it back, every day for a year. No-one asked him to, he has no contract promising payment for moving the rocks. Do we reward him on the basis of his hard work? He has worked extremely hard! No, we don't reward him. If he had a lifelong dream to move rocks, he has fulfilled his dream, he's a success! If he did it in the expectation that someone should reward him, he's just a fool.
Nobody cares how hard the "individual creator" works, that's their problem. Introduce laws to reward hard work and you'll get a whole bunch of people doing "busy work" that's totally unproductive and undesirable and drains the economy. It'd be like having another government.
Here's the issue: copying is a natural right. It is the basis of all learning. We copy to learn to walk, we copy to learn to talk, we copy to learn to write, there is no endeavour you can embark on that does not depend on you first doing a massive amount of copying. Even our very life comes about from the copying of DNA, it is fundamental to our existence. Therefore, it is the obligation of the copyright proponents to justify their demand that people refrain from their natural right, not the obligation of the people to justify copying.
Well, here is the justification:
Without copyright (and with the existence of the internet) an unregulated free market operating solely on supply and demand does not facilitate the production of works as abundantly as we would like. The reason is that due to the infinitely copyable nature of the works, there are two extremes of supply only, (1) zero supply (or potential supply) for works not yet created and (2) unlimited supply for works that have been created. In the case of (1) the price for the production of one copy needed to provide incentive for the creator is too high for most potential buyers, greatly decreasing demand and therefore decreasing production of works. In the case of (2) the unlimited supply drops the price to near zero, greatly decreasing the incentive to supply and therefore decreasing production of works. But we want the works to be produced, so we can use (including copy) them.
The solution society (in the USA) came up with: we will temporarily forsake our natural right to copy, artificially creating a third intermediate phase in the supply of infinitely copyable works. (1a) temporary period in which the work has already been created, stimulating demand, but supply is limited, increasing the price and providing incentive for the creator. It is important to remember that the whole purpose for agreeing to this artificial limitation of supply is to achieve an abundance of infinitely copyable and usable works. So copyright is a social contract. You can find the terms of that contract in the US constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
So, you can see that "limited time" is a key part of the social contract. The agreement isn't "You produce works for us to buy, and we'll pay for them forever" it is "We'll temporarily refrain from copying so you can sell your work, you deliver that work to the public domain". Saying to me "Don't copy this work for now, your gr
I completely agree with your point, he doesn't actually spell out a conspiracy but I think you are missing the bigger picture and that is why I replied to your post. I believe the conspiracy theory that he is blowing the dog whistle for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_politics
Dog-whistle politics, also known as the use of code words, is a type of political campaigning or speechmaking employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience.
So he doesn't actually spell out a conspiracy but his post contains secret code words that let people know about the conspiracy? A secret society of conspiracy theorists? It's all become clear to me now. Yes, yes, it's JordanL that's the conspiracy theorist.
Come on, TapeCutter, I've seen your posts, you can do better than that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll consider making that my new sig. The true meaning of EULA revealed at last.
... I will not sell to anyone owning a Che Guevara T-shirt ...
Aw, c'mon!
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) ... . Let`s not even go into the Senator`s invovlement in the "Keating 5" savings and loan scandal...
Wasn't his "involvement" that he was exonerated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_creation
The process of fractional-reserve banking has a cumulative effect of money creation by banks. In short, there are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system:
1. central bank money (physical currency such as coins and paper money)
2. commercial bank money (money created through loans) - sometimes referred to as checkbook money
It's always been important what certain people think. With the acceleration of a permission based society, it is very important what those permission givers think. The function of academia has been absorbed into the permission granting process. If you're an independent contractor for private individuals or small businesses the chances of losing your income because someone looked you up on the net are pretty slim, but if you aim at passing through academia into the corporate world, you'd better please the masters. There are still enough masters around for there to be considerable flexibility for you, but in corporate life, you have to be pleasing to someone.
Not so, friend. He's the one that trusts you so much as to be ok with you holding a weapon. You don't seem to hold him in the same high opinion.
When the government decides what is necessary and unnecessary and bans the unnecessary you are no longer in a free society. Whether any given thing is necessary is irrelevant. A few feet away, I have a brass vase. Certainly it is unnecessary, but it would be a horrible direction for society to take to ban it on that basis. Incidentally, it's big enough to be an effective weapon.
And yet at the end of the English civil war, they instituted the Bill of Rights 1689 which gave, among other things, the right to bear arms (although in a more limited sense than the US bill of rights did later). Why did they do that do you suppose? Guns did not "suddenly appear" they were manufactured and distributed, and you need those guns to be manufactured and distributed before the shooting starts. "Guns will suddenly appear if we need them", sheesh!
I've worked with 1st generation Italian immigrants who came after WWII. One told me that he made the decision to learn a word every day. He could easily communicate everything needed for everyday life, never having had formal lessons. He learned at work.
People do indeed decide.
The Federal Reserve Bank prints (creates) money, backed by gold^H^H^H^Hoil. Thats the closes to industry the financial "industry" gets. It's a commercial sector, not an industry.
Where have you been? The US dollar isn't backed by gold, it's a fiat currency. I hardly know where to begin with someone who still thinks that the US dollar is gold backed. You did really say oil though, so maybe I've taken you the wrong way. Probably I have.
Nevertheless, the banks do indeed produce money. Take your printed money and deposit it in the bank, someone gets a loan, yet your balance never goes down. Where do you think the loan money comes from? If you withdraw some cash, they don't make you wait while they get it from the borrower, how do the borrower and you have the same money at the same time if the bank didn't create new money?
Much of our money supply is created as loans and is backed not by gold, oil or any other commodity, it is backed by the borrowers promise of future payment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_creation
The process of fractional-reserve banking has a cumulative effect of money creation by banks. In short, there are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system:
1. central bank money (physical currency such as coins and paper money)
2. commercial bank money (money created through loans) - sometimes referred to as checkbook money
If the dollar drops, your gold is magically worth more dollars.
If? Don't you mean when?
I wish there were banks that would save gold on the back end, and let you use checks or VISA or ATMs to pull from it at the current exchange rate plus a small fee.
You can buy and sell gold online or over the phone with bullion dealers in Australia. It is only one extra step than what you are proposing and takes a little more preparation.
When they attempt to rob you, shoot them? I'll consider your idea.
The state has always tended towards tyranny. Your posts indicate that you support this, hence my opinion that you are the sort of person that makes the right to bear arms necessary. For the sake of liberty. It's a concept you may have heard of, but don't seem to understand or approve. Historically, many people have been willing to risk death in combat to obtain or retain it.
Sovereign bodies are made up of people. Since there is no logical argument persuasive to the non-sovereign that one has an inherent right to rule another, sovereignty can then be gained two ways, by agreement or by force. If by agreement, then the people naturally have the right to veto that "sovereign" and may not as a body of people have their rights revoked by the state (as in the sovereign power is by delegation and subject to review, such as is the case in democracy or representative government), and if by force, then anyone who can find the capability to wield enough force to become the sovereign has the moral right to do so. In either case, the people have a moral right to arms, only that if force is the determiner of sovereignty, then if the government is capable of removing your rights by force then they may do so. That's called oppression, or sometimes tyranny.
Since your ideal society requires that I am willing to lay down my life to support the rights of the "sovereign", then it's not much sacrifice to instead lay down my life for my own rights instead. Indeed, for any who aren't willing to enter into slavery, it is the only viable option. Fortunately, I live in a society where the system of government is not based on your idea of sovereignty. It doesn't look like I'll need to fight my government at any time, but ideas like yours must be opposed.
People can not reasonably be held to be under obligation to submit to any condition of society that would cost them their life. Since weapons are easily obtained, improvised or made by criminals, all citizens have the right to any weapons that would reasonably be required for personal defence against an armed assailant.
If "society" requires me to lay down my life to outlaws, then "society" will have to get along without my cooperation.
Oh, I see my mistake now, the rest of us were trying to have a sensible discussion. Sorry for disturbing you. What kind of mentality does someone require to bring up nuclear weapons in a discussion of personal self defense?
So I see this from another post of yours. You're either trolling or you're the type of person that makes it necessary for the rest of us to retain the right to bear arms.
and there are so many accounts of people being martyred for their belief in Santa and the Easter bunny, right? My point stands, if you can convince people (to a degree of certainty that makes them willing to die for you) that you are the resurrection of their dead friend who they saw executed last week, you would have pulled off a spectacular fraud. It would require a far above average ability to trick people. That isn't proof that it wasn't fraud, but it isn't the sort of thing that is within reach for the average con artist.
People do stupid things regardless of which fairy tale they believe in. It's not evidence of anything in particular, just that people are gullible.
If they die for a cause it's evidence that they genuinely believe in that cause. It isn't conclusive evidence of the cause itself, but it is pretty conclusive that they believed in it. So it eliminates the possibility that they were deliberately lying, but doesn't eliminate the possibility of them being mad or mistaken.
Regarding your reference to Jonestown, "I find this man to have compelling teaching and charisma" is significantly different to "I've known this man for several years, I saw him get brutally tortured to death, and later I saw him alive again". Roman soldiers given the task of executing someone where typically diligent to carry it out thoroughly. If the resurrection was a fraud, it was one well beyond the ability of Jim Jones and his ilk.
("Acts of Philip", which describe miracles attributed to him...)
Writing being rejected as scripture does not imply (even from a christian perspective) that it isn't true, or useful, or contain accurate records. It simply means it wasn't regarded as part of scripture.
Acts 8:6 (KJV)
And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
You're not alone, that's were the system loses most people. Think of this, if the bank lends out money it has from depositors, why does your account balance not go down when someone borrows money? So let's say you deposit one hundred dollars of government minted/printed money (hard money). Someone goes to the bank and borrows $90 to buy something from me, they pay by check which I deposit at the bank. The bank now has $190 of deposits, but only $100 of government minted/printed money actually exists. Now, on the basis of my deposit, the bank loans out $81 to someone else, who buys something from someone who deposits it at the bank. The bank now has $271 in deposits, yet still only $100 has been issued by the government. Where did the $171 come from? It is issued by the bank as loans.
If you keep going, using that reserve ratio of 9:1, that's how you get close to $900 in loans as a result of $100 being issued by the government. The story on that page is correct as far as it goes, but a simplified explanation, the reality is worse. You are correct, "the $900 morphs into $100", but that is done by the banks using fractional reserve lending, not the story writer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
The execution of the apostles is a type of evidence. If someone is willing to die for something, it shows that they believe it. Now, if someone in 2008 is prepared to die over something that happened 2000 or so years ago, that isn't evidence about the event, but if someone who claims to have seen it is prepared to die over it, that does lend some credibility.
The apostles, when faced with trial over their claims, could have just said "You're right, it's a hoax, we did it for the offering", but they didn't. Why not? The existence of Jesus is a credible answer, more credible IMO than mass hallucinations or other possible explanations.
What I'm talking about is how money is created, ie: how the currency supply is generated, not the process of earning some of that money. Producing an item people are willing to pay doesn't create any new money, it simply moves existing currency from your customer to you.
I'm talking about the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve lending, which is what creates the need for perpetual economic growth (that was the question I was answering). Neither my assets nor my income are dependent on me personally borrowing money, but that doesn't change the nature of the currency I use, just my standing in that economy.
There's an explanation of what I'm talking about here: I Want The Earth Plus 5%. It's a simplified explanation, but it's a good introduction to how our currency system works, not the earning of money but the production of currency.
"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." - John Adams.
What you say is correct at the level of the individual. Similarly, as an individual, you are better off if you have your debts paid off. However, as you will see if you read the wikipedia article I referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation that paying off debts reduces the money supply "The destruction of money created through loans occurs as the loans are paid back". The point is listed as [citation needed] but there is a more detailed explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_creation. It isn't that hard to grasp, most money is created through loans (fractional reserve lending), when the loan is paid off, that (loan based) money is gone from circulation.
If we as a society allow most of the money supply to be created as loans at interest, then the total debt exceeds the total money supply. To pay that interest, there has to be an increase in the money supply which means either economic growth or inflation.
Just consider inflation. Let's say your CPA sister is making $100,000/year in 2008 (just wanted a round figure). If she still earns $100,000/year in 2018, she will have gone significantly backwards in real terms. She needs to be making probably $130,000-$140,000 just to be staying at the same level she's at now. That is the essence of the constant need for economic growth. It is to pay interest. Even if you are not personally in debt, you are still affected because of inflation.
I disagree the city needs to grow. That's the same mindset corporations have, they "have to grow" or they'll die. Where exactly does this belief come from?
Usury. The borrowing of money at interest requires economic growth just to break even.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
In modern economies such as that of the United States relatively little of the national GDP is in currency (coins, banknotes, accounts backed by central bank), so that most is created through lending.
Since most money is created through lending at interest, the amount of money created is always less than the amount of debt (created money + interest), requiring a balance of economic growth and inflation, and eliminating the possibility of a sustainable economy.
Have you considered that the human shields thing is more about producing propaganda than stopping attacks? If they had a concrete bunker and we killed them, all they do is die, if they surround themselves with children and we bomb them they gain a valuable propaganda weapon. If we don't kill them, they gain propaganda "You can't get us" and continue planning and executing attacks.
What they have been successful at is convincing a sufficient number of the population that a "conspiracy theory" is something that only crackpots hold to
I've recently been saying to people that historically, there has always been a group of people planning to rule the world, the evidence being the continual series of empires that have arisen, and that before they succeed they do this planning in secret. Therefore, the basic premise of conspiracy theories is correct, even if they have their facts wrong.
Any particular theory may be wrong, but the chances are that there are groups of people planning to rule you right now. Some you may know about, some you may not, but they definitely exist and work daily towards that goal.
The law is still about right and wrong, but it's about issues of right and wrong where there is general agreement.
There are many, for example, who think that distributing copyrighted content is quite ok, but there is general agreement that theft is wrong. The issue of disagreement is about whether copyright infringement = theft. So you have an agreement that theft is wrong and make it illegal, but disagreement over whether some actions constitute theft.
The abortion issue is essentially the same, people who want it banned want that because they believe that abortion is murder, but there is no disagreement over whether murder itself is wrong, just there are people who don't think abortion is murder. In essence, there is no moral disagreement over abortion: "murder is wrong" is pretty much agreed by everyone and that is the moral issue. The issue in dispute is really a technical one: When a woman is pregnant, are there two people or one? If one, then abortion is a medical procedure on that person. If two, then abortion is the murder of the second person. "Are there two people here or one" is not a moral question, the moral question is "is murder wrong and should it be illegal" and there is no real dispute about than issue.
Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee? ... Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.
We as a society, sir, never have rewarded people on the basis hard work and effort, nor is there ever any intention to do so. We reward people for supplying a saleable product or service for which there is a demand. The extent of the reward is determined by supply and demand.
Consider this example: a man moves a pile of rocks, then moves it back, every day for a year. No-one asked him to, he has no contract promising payment for moving the rocks. Do we reward him on the basis of his hard work? He has worked extremely hard! No, we don't reward him. If he had a lifelong dream to move rocks, he has fulfilled his dream, he's a success! If he did it in the expectation that someone should reward him, he's just a fool.
Nobody cares how hard the "individual creator" works, that's their problem. Introduce laws to reward hard work and you'll get a whole bunch of people doing "busy work" that's totally unproductive and undesirable and drains the economy. It'd be like having another government.
Here's the issue: copying is a natural right. It is the basis of all learning. We copy to learn to walk, we copy to learn to talk, we copy to learn to write, there is no endeavour you can embark on that does not depend on you first doing a massive amount of copying. Even our very life comes about from the copying of DNA, it is fundamental to our existence. Therefore, it is the obligation of the copyright proponents to justify their demand that people refrain from their natural right, not the obligation of the people to justify copying.
Well, here is the justification:
Without copyright (and with the existence of the internet) an unregulated free market operating solely on supply and demand does not facilitate the production of works as abundantly as we would like. The reason is that due to the infinitely copyable nature of the works, there are two extremes of supply only, (1) zero supply (or potential supply) for works not yet created and (2) unlimited supply for works that have been created. In the case of (1) the price for the production of one copy needed to provide incentive for the creator is too high for most potential buyers, greatly decreasing demand and therefore decreasing production of works. In the case of (2) the unlimited supply drops the price to near zero, greatly decreasing the incentive to supply and therefore decreasing production of works. But we want the works to be produced, so we can use (including copy) them.
The solution society (in the USA) came up with: we will temporarily forsake our natural right to copy, artificially creating a third intermediate phase in the supply of infinitely copyable works. (1a) temporary period in which the work has already been created, stimulating demand, but supply is limited, increasing the price and providing incentive for the creator. It is important to remember that the whole purpose for agreeing to this artificial limitation of supply is to achieve an abundance of infinitely copyable and usable works. So copyright is a social contract. You can find the terms of that contract in the US constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
So, you can see that "limited time" is a key part of the social contract. The agreement isn't "You produce works for us to buy, and we'll pay for them forever" it is "We'll temporarily refrain from copying so you can sell your work, you deliver that work to the public domain". Saying to me "Don't copy this work for now, your gr
I completely agree with your point, he doesn't actually spell out a conspiracy but I think you are missing the bigger picture and that is why I replied to your post. I believe the conspiracy theory that he is blowing the dog whistle for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_politics
Dog-whistle politics, also known as the use of code words, is a type of political campaigning or speechmaking employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience.
So he doesn't actually spell out a conspiracy but his post contains secret code words that let people know about the conspiracy? A secret society of conspiracy theorists? It's all become clear to me now. Yes, yes, it's JordanL that's the conspiracy theorist.
Come on, TapeCutter, I've seen your posts, you can do better than that.