Basejumper.com - archive

It seems that I've seen a lot of posts saying that America is screwed and blaming that on the ignorance and media addiction of the young generation. I agree that America is screwed but I think it is more because of decades of policies and practices that have taken us away from a nation that makes things, saves money, and believes in self sufficiency to a nation that consumes, mounts up dept, and loves their entitlements.

Recently the national dept has reached $14,000,000,000,000! That is nearly 100% of GDP, and the majority of the money is owed to foreign nations. There are already other nations in Europe, The Middle East, and Southeast Asia talking about moving to a new world reserve currency. Some say this could happen as soon as this summer, in which case we are fucked. Hyperinflation will happen. Gas prices will quickly double, matching the rest of the world, and other commodities such as food and clothing will quickly follow suit. I hope that I am being ridiculous and that as some say, "the rules of economics don't apply to the US," but in case I'm not I intend on buying plenty of nonperishable foods, some silver and gold, and a gun and ammo, feel crazy just thinking this. Anyone else on here doing the same, or already done so?

This would not be the first time that a nation as great as the US fell flat on it's face. It happened to Rome and England with eerily similar circumstances.

I used to believe that we could turn things around, but now I believe that it is inevitable when a country takes the top slot that the govt will eventually over extend itself in one way or another until its people can no longer hold it up and it collapses, given that outside force or revolt does not take it down before that happens.

 No, you're right on. I've been watching it spin down the toilet as well. You have heard they already want to raise the debt ceiling again, right? A large out-of-control government always destroys things for everybody as you mentioned Rome previously. I'm just hoping after it crashes it isn't replaced by another corrupt backwards system with central banking.

Don't forget about the economic collapse and political dissolution of the former Soviet Union. It spent itself into oblivion.


Either Americans must adapt and change their expectations of comfort, security, and an appropriate lifestyle, or it will be thrust upon us. Maybe a bit of both.

I prefer Kennedy: "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

as Sun Tzu wrote in his tome "The Art of War," "no country has ever benefited from a protracted war." We have had two protracted wars with no exit strategy. Prior to the Soviet Union's collapse, they spent themselves into oblivion on their protracted war in Afghanistan.

Short, successful wars actually boost an economy.
It creates demand for labor, goods, and allows us
to bleed off some hostility and feeds national pride
which can be an important motivater.

Long, unsuccessful engagements choke the life
out of a nation through debt, distrust for the
decision making process (since it fails logic),
reduced feeling of national identity.

edit to correct a spelling error

I was thinking you guys was a perfectly blend of mixed bastards from all over the world, and it had to be chaos?

Sorry

exhibit A:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdFVu-s_97E

I disagree, even those cartoon bears (QE explained, xtranormal/youtube) know demand-side economics (a cornerstone of keynesianism) does not work. It's like the gov't building a bridge to nowhere; it doesn't increase production. Hostility and national pride are BS like the cows of one farm wanting to hurt the cows of a neighboring farm... for what? As if the slave cattle from a different farm really have anything to do with the problems of local slaves.

Ah fuck, here I sit on a rainy day with a knee 2-weeks
post surgery, trying like hell to not take the meds which
call my name and taste oh so good... and now some guy
thinks he is Pussie Big as well as Period and Old School
wants to use Hitler to explain to me Keynesian economics
inspite of the fact that I suffered through TWO graduate
classes of Intermediate Macro Theory with the late
Gapinski who was weirdly in L O V E with Keynes....

Here, please read, Keynes was gay but
not really known for DEMAND side economics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Keynesian_economics

Yes sir, we agree, national pride is total shit BUT
it is a very strong incentive, hence and therefore,
it does affect human behavior.

How about the douche bags who pay lots of money
for sport shirts, cry when their team does poorly,
and so on.

Did you know that there is an observed trend of
increased spousal abuse following football games
that end in an upset?

Husband loses money on the game, wife is being
a pain in the ass, bada bing he smacks her, she
calls 911, cops, gas, lawyers, bail bonds... did
emotion affect decision which affected real life
which affected money, services, economics?


Right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor many
young American males enlisted. Japanese pilots
called KamaKazee did suicide missions. The first
Russian SKY jumpers were not issued parachutes,
they were expected to land in deep snow... so
yeah, I will stick with my original idea that most
people are stupid and easily swayed by emotion
which in turn affect their purchase patterns, say
texting $10 to Haiti or buying a yellow ribbin or...

Where the fuck is that bottle of pills

edited to correct 2 spelling errors and add:

Disclaimer - my posts are exaggerated for
humor's sake so please do not be offended.

 
I'm so sorry, I must mention you need those pills because:
you paid for 2 graduate courses in Keynesian econ (my entire econ is an intro college course and reading Schiff's recent book)...
and I just made a jump on Sunday (not sure which is worse). I probably shouldve said, 'hey, take those pills and let them kick in before reading further.'
arbitrary note: 'in spite' is not a single word
-BASE 6000

What's intriguing to me is that 40% of the economy defined by net worth is based on financial services. I interviewed today to get involved with their shenanigans, mere shell games and gambling, rather than what I spent more than a decade of training to do - build novel technologies. How can an economy be based on Las Vegas style methods and how can a country expect to economically survive attempting to do nation building in two of the most fucked up places in the world? G.W. Bush announced in the beginning that he did not believe in nation building abroad.

Trust me on this: we have built up the DoD budget so dramatically, half a trillion a year, for 8 years or more, along with the costs of two war campaigns (not in the budget due to what were called emerency spending measures and were (may still be) off the books) that are going no where, that we are in true danger of financial collapse. Please watch Eisenhower's last speech regarding the Military Industrial Complex. I should know. I'm in it.

That is the equivalent of saying that I can boost my income by robbing you at the point of a gun. Doesn't justify it my friend, not morally, ethically, etc. The ends do not justify the means. Everyone loses in war! It is very unsettling to me that you have apparently forgotten the "guns and butter" of economics. The common perception that destruction can be a benefit to the economy is false.

Here are some resources that you may be interested in:

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

And I know you already know about http://Freedomainradio.com

Good Morning Adam,

I remember and teach "guns and butter"
except now text books call it the Production
Possibilities Curve (PPC) or Frontier, for all
the non-econ geeks, I will explain.

Basically it is a graphical representation of
the output an economy is capable of making
at full capacity given their current factors of
production (land, labor, technology, etc.).

The two big things to be learned from the
PPC is that output increases over time with
the help of more people, better processes,
etc. and the instrinsic nature or trade offs.

For example, every minute one spends on
mowing the lawn is one minute they do not
spend studying ballet. The economy can
make tanks for war or trucks to carry H2O.

Adam, I agree with your statement of that
the short term economic benefits of a war
do NOT justify it ethically or morally.

BUT you and most of my students make the
same mistake, which is to place your own
value judgements upon a discipline that is
not concerned with them.

War, in the short run, creates demand,
mobilizes production, causes workers to
shift from factories to the trenches such
that marginal workers move from the
sofa to the burger counter, and so on,

Again, I am anti-war in my own politics
but I do not confuse that with economics.

Oh, and look at the divorce rate, obesity,
eating habits, diabetes, some newer BASE
jumpers, and the actions of the Federal
government and you tell me honestly
that most people today are not focused
mostly on the short run, to of course
the detriment of the long run and real
efficient optimization.

~Tom

 
Thanks Adam; good reading there. Hazlitt's Chapter 3, "The Blessings of Destruction" addresses the point of merely diverting resources away from more productive activities.

You misunderstand me, what I say is that there are no economic benefits to war. The perceived benefits of increased production that you speak of can easily been seen in the form of new tanks, planes, weapons, military supplies, etc. This is only part of the equation; however, you must look for what you don't see to get a clearer picture of the situation. This is very difficult to do, and is a reason why there is much confusion on the issue. What you don't see are all the clothes, cars, electronics, and everything else that would have been produced (in the absence of the war), if the resources had not been shifted to military purposes. Opportunity costs, my friend. War does not increase production, but rather shifts production to other areas. Wars cost money. War destroys wealth. The only way in the short-term that one side can economically "benefit" from war is if the intent of the war is to pillage the wealth of the other side. This would be not only an unsustainable economic "policy", but would be the equivalent to theft. It is theft that I say can not be justified. War uses resources to inflict destruction. If you think that destruction creates wealth, as many people do (I'll post some videos of "prominent" USA politicians claiming it does), all you need to do is destroy some of your possessions, and then see if you feel more wealthy.



Please clarify what you mean by this. What "value judgements"on which "discipline", and how does it not concern me? I seriously am not following you here.



How can you separate politics and economics?

 
I don't see your argument. I don't think any economy runs at 100% of production. I can tell you that in any factory there is a good bit of standing around thumb up ass. Employment is not 100% production is not 100% and sales are never 100%. So basically your going to sell the same number of toasters regardless. But that new defence contract... Yah baby lets make some bombs! And a lot of this stuff is expendable so it's like an ongoing contract for as long as the war runs. It totally stimulates the economy and gets some of that money out of the goverment and back into the real world.

As to the rewards of war. I'd say they can be pritty good if it's run right. Now in point of fact I have a lot of issues with how this and the last few wars have been run. For example why don't we own all the oil wells Irac and Kuwate? Or at least have a very faverable trade deal with them as part of the peace settlement. Why aren't they paying for this war them selves with oil? Where the fuck is my 50 cent gasoline? I really don't have a probblem with fighting wars but I want to see the spoiles. Where are my spoiles? I have concluded that the US just has no freaken clue how this is suposed to work. We have frogoten that the whole purpouse of war is to take the shit you want. Not all these high minded pansy ass libberal ideals about freedom and human rights bla bla bla etc.

Here's how it's suposed to go first you villify them untill they are preceaved as subhuman animals. Then you concoct an excuse to invade them. The next step involves big holes filled with bodies. Once those are filled in and planted with flowers they make wonderfull parks for your children to play in. and then you have every thing you want. See the indean wars. Notice that we now own the whole fucking country, manifest destiny just as god intended... etc. Tell me that didn't pay off. Other examles. When the british, dutch, etc killed the fuck out of all the africans and just took south africa and what ever else they wanted. Tell me tht didn't pay off. Tell me the conquest of indea didn't turn a proffet.

To be absolutely blunt ths whole war could be over with total victory in six months if all the whiny libberals would just get out of the way and we were realistic about our objectives. And the whole thing would be in the black in just few years. Put me in charge. I'll show you how to turn a proffet. But it's going to involve holes. Lots and lots of big holes.

Lee

I agree with your economic theory. I do not know of any business that could not satisfy it's customers because of the current wars. There has never been any rationing. Pres Bush encouraged people to continue to buy things. We seem to have plenty of idle labor, and many idle factories. If production has been displaced by the war, I've missed (or forgotten) it.

knowing your from Texas, I chuckled when I read:

wasn't the war started by a Texas Republican?
did not the Republicans control BOTH houses of Congress from 2003-2007?
are you saying these Republicans have been inflicted with "high minded pansy ass libberal ideals?"

I was hoping that Lee was joking.


Maybe this will refresh your memory:
http://www.usdebtclock.org

What is 100% production, and why is that desirable?

Why would it be when some people are paid to not work, and others are priced out of the job market entirely by minimum wage laws.

You can shit on some canvas and call it art, but it don't mean anyone's gonna buy it.

I don't get the connection.
sure governments take in more than they spend. hocking the crown jewels sure improved the economy of Queen Isabella's Spain.

care to explain?

No pills, knee hurts, several drinks...

Please, everyone, hold tight,

I will reply soon, thanks

 
I do not dissagre with the decision to fight these wars. I'd have to say that strategic resorces are some of the best rasons to go to war. Oil is a perfectly good justificaion for a war, better then most reasons. I am however profoundly embarest by the poor performance of my fellow states man. I can offer no espination or excuse. I see the war in a very simple light. It seem very clear to me. Perhaps the country or the world as a whole is not ready to face the reality of the situation. I do predict that one day it will come to a head and at that time we will have to lance it just like a boil.

I really don't have problem with neosavages, ie muslims. I don't care if your women go to school. Beat your wife, stone your daughter to death, live in a cave with goats. Go to town, i don't care. What ever makes you happy. Pray five times a day, ten times if you like.

You see the only problem is they are setting on a signifagant percentage of the worlds oil. If it wasn't for that no one would care. They could go back to liveing in 1100 AD which is what they seem to want. I for one am not willing to go back to liveing in the dark ages just to make them happy. And they wont let it go. They wont be happy till they drag every one in the world down with them. Name some one they haven't pissed off? They just bombed sweaden! Sweaden? Who the hell bombs Sweaden? Even the Neatherlands are sick of them. Do you reallize what it takes to piss them off? We're talking about the most tollerrat country in the world.

Mark my words there is another Crusade coming. Yes I used the C word. And wont be sarted by us. The west doesn't want a war. We just want to drive cars and make money. It will be forced on us by thoses Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad assholes.

Lee

Then you wouldn't mind me taking your wallet for the purpose of liberating some strategic resources, would you?

 
Texas not europe. We have CCL's here.

Lee

So, would you liberate my strategic resources (i.e. my wallet)?

Hi Adam,

The companies that build planes, tanks, guns, etc.
have employees who use their paychecks to buy
chicken nuggets and carnival rides out of planes
and off of the Perrine. Plus they pay taxes.

However, if America got really excited and amped
up and willing to deficit spend to clean up ghettos
or plant flowers or teach people math we could
also get the exact same outcome:

Reduced unemployment, more people working,
being productive, making stuff or providing a
service, collecting a paycheck, paying taxes,
buying their wife flowers, getting laid, and
basically a happier country.


As for the discipline, I was referring to Economics.
One of my favorite economists is EF Schumacher
who wrote a book you would love called:
Small Is Beautiful and the tag line underneath
of it says: Economics As If People Mattered.

Economics, in my opinion, is the study of
consumption and production patterns. It is
called the dismal science because it's ability
to predict behavior is limited since humans
are fickle and sometimes irrational.

Consumer Sovereignty, people vote with their
dollars, sometimes those votes are wise and
see things change: no one makes B&W TVs
or rotary telephones. Sometimes the vote
is arbitrary: clear colas do not sell hence
colas are dark thanks to colorings added.
Sometimes the votes are wrong: such as
crystal meth purchases, however that shit
keeps getting made because some redneck
somewhere wants be wide awake in trailer
for days on end.


The health of an economy can be measured
using a few economic indicators: unemployment,
interest rates, GDP, the stock market, inflation,
and perosnal favorite Per Capita GDP.

GDP = Gross Domestic Product, which is the sum
all goods and services made in an economy in
one year measured in that country's currency.

Per Capita is latin for per head, you divide GDP
by the population, which basically indicates gives
you a country's standard of living theoretically,
because obviously Oprah's share is bigger than
the average citizen.


You asked:
How can you separate politics and economics?

Modern politics has some strange bedfellows,
for instance: how can one party be for capital
punishment AND smaller government, AND
freedom BUT also be against pot & abortion?

In my book politics is the game of words on
TV and the deals behind the scenes that sadly
affects who wins elections and takes offices...

BUT that bullshit, which I have seen first hand,
is NOT economics. Yes, the winners control the
economy, they make rules that affect business,
they tax, spend, decide the quantity of money in
circulation, bank reserves, and regulate financial
intermediaries, all of which is basically the heart
of Macro Economic policy but all of the banter and
arguement is politics, not economics.

Yup, the USA is screwed.

How much did the Savings and Loan crisis cost the U.S. back in the late 1980s through the 1990s? In dollars back then, I read $200 billion. Maybe increase that to $300 billion when accounting for inflation to relate to today. Back when it happened, everyone was terrified since the crisis was considered so large as to be on par with the GDP. However, I don't think that $200 billion number is correct. I think it is closer to $1 trillion in today's dollars. So two expensive protracted wars and one S&L crisis. Where else is did the money go to account for our enormous debt? Military expenditures? Medicare? Social Security? Military is >$500 billion annually. That's more than 10 times more than any other country's expenditures for military stuff. Amazing don't you think?

Because it fabricates 10x the number of 'national security threats' than any other country and maintains ~700 foreign bases (that number has got to be much more than any other country as well). It's an addiction to violence and solving social problems with guns.
" Humans are savage in nature. No matter how much you try to dress it up, to disguise it." -Watchmen

there was a song known as "paranoia will destroy ya." I think this thread has been really cool since we've all said something interesting and enlightening. And I hope it continues. It's encouraging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXB-tvUF4w

this reminds me of the joke - do this for your own fun: ask at the drive through if they take Hawaiian money. They will say no, look at you weird when you say "Ok, here's my credit card." Then they will say "Umm... Isn't Hawaiian money the same as American money" and then you say "yeah, of course, what were you expecting, 5 foot diameter stone coins, bah humbug!"

The only reason America MAY be screwed is because the people have allowed it.

Many say it's the government that is bringing down America but I disagree. How can a government/corporation, which is a fictitious entity even with all of it's policies and practices, control an actual living breathing man... how can the creation control the creator??? Only by consent.

We have allowed ourselves to become the property of the government so they can pretty much do whatever they want to the country and us. We lose all of our substantive rights when we agree that we are Citizens of the corporate United States.

The government is a corporation and corporations have only one purpose... to make a profit.

They supply their citizens/property with lots of great distractions/benefits to mold their minds into lazy unthinking drones who rely on the government for most everything and blame everything and everyone for their problems. They create fighting amongst ourselves to keep us occupied and unaware of what is really happening. "It's those damn Democrats that are ruining the country... non, no, no it's the republicans who are the bad ones!! WAR is the answer... the economy, healthcare, social security, TERROR, blah, blah, blah" They do so many things to confuse it's citizens and keep them distracted, all the while formulating new codes and laws to tax/control it's citizens/property and keep them producing revenue. We agreed to be controlled and most don't want to even learn the rules of the game by which we are controlled by. What happens when we break one of their corporate rules/laws? We go to their court and hire an attorney whos first loyalty is not to us, their clients, but to the BAR, their society... the law society. Hell we are not even their 2nd or 3rd loyalty, I think that goes to the state and the courts. How can we come out ahead with help like that? All we can hope for is a smaller fine... which sometimes is ok it's just more revenue for the corporation and they know it's only a matter of time that we will be back again for breaking another of their "laws". More oil for the machine.

We the people can still take back america by realizing just WHO THE HELL WE ARE!

We are not a fictitious entity and cannot be controlled by one. We are the energy that runs this whole game, so we need to start acting like it!! If we are going to play in their game we need to learn the rules and start turning things around!

WE ARE THE CREATOR NOT THE CREATION!!!

(well that's what I heard anyway... you can go back to your discussion about the economy now )
Oh, I do have a question you smarties may be able to answer... According to Blacks Law dictionary a "Note" is a written promise by one party to pay money to another party or to bearer.
If a note is a promise to pay money at a later date, what the hell is a Federal Reserve Note? I guess it's not money, huh?

I would have to disagree...



Firstly... the Federal Government is not a corporation.

However... The Federal Reserve Bank, IS... it is a completely private business and separate from the federal government.

"He who controls the money supply of a nation control the nation."

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace, and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor and prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated into a few hands and the republic is destroyed."

We have tried to stop it...

http://www.govtrack.us/...l.xpd?bill=h111-1207

...Pelosi blocked a vote on it. With 320 Cosponsors...

We'll see what happens in 112...


Where would you start?

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson



We've been going down this road a long time.

OK maybe they unknowingly allowed it to happen but in any case ignorance of the law is no excuse.... right? If the laws, codes, treaties, acts, etc. were actually read and understood no one would be giving their rights away as they are now.

Speaking of corporations, a few months ago
the Supreme Court handed down the most
serious decision in years, it ruled that freedom
of speech applies equally to corporations.

I see this as the death of individual Human
rights and as such wore all black for a few
days and explained why to anyone who
would listen, mostly my students.

Over time corporations have been given all
of the rights we humans were born with
according to our own Constitution, mainly
the Bill of Rights.

http://www.gangsofamerica.com/

This book is FREE and Awesome, READ IT.
It chronicles the birth and rise of corporations!

dont forget to ask to get your food "to go" from the drive-thru attendent.

 
this was good:

How Government is Unraveling Civilization by Force | Jeffrey Tucker
http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related


"Insects are the only known thing on this planet that have killed more people than governments."

Some words to ponder by
Friedrich August von Hayek

"The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals."

and
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."

okay, edited to add one more:
"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."

-what does that say about our views of distributive justice...

In Reply To:

preservation of individual freedom is
incompatible with a full satisfaction of
our views of distributive justice

Whoa, who's view of distributive justice?
Wouldn't the word RE-distributive be more correct?
And really that only applies to money right?

I mean:
Miles is more talented than me.
Brad Pitt is better looking than me.
Ron Jeremy has a bigger dick than me.
Most of you had better parents than me.

No rule/law/committee/government can
do anything about those very important
things, and let's hope they never try...

Kurt Vonnegut wrote some great stories
that involve a futuristic society where if
you are too smart you are killed, people
who were strong had to carry weights, etc.


YES, the wants of the INDIVIDUAL are often
at odds with the wants of the COLLECTIVE,
hopefully the goal is still to balance the
rights/desires/rules such that there is a
happy-medium of sorts...

YES, you can sing "Pop that Coochie" and
it is protected under freedom of speech.

YES, you can have a KKK newsletter.

NO, you may NOT shout FIRE in a theater
nor may you shout NIGGER in harlem, if
you are not black of course.

The point being that all laws/rules/rights SHOULD
be set such that a person is allowed to do as much
as possible, so long as their actions do not impact
a third party in a negative way, as illustrated by my
two classic examples of where freedom of speech are
curtailed for very logical reasons.

Your enjoyment of screaming FIRE in a theatre is
not worth the potential hurt caused to others from
the likely stampede of frightened fatties fleeing.

Yes redistributive and yes to money (but I didn't write the quote so can't speak on its original intent). I was suprised about what you wrote after that, but I can see how you would have gathered that (it is what's most talked about in schools). I interpreted that from a different viewpoint as a voluntarist, where individual freedom and justice are not diametrically in conflict with each other, so having both is OK and even preferable.

lol @ tom "frightened fatties fleeing. "
sounds like a dr seuss.

five frightened fatties fleeing four fiesty fox

Exactly... through Education.


That's fine... Wasn't fully aware of that before, but yeah, I get your point.

However, with Pelosi out of the chair, and with Ron Paul chairmen of the Monetary Policy subcommittee... we have the best chance we can possible have at turning things around.

Even with the passage of HR 1207, the FED can still take Bankers Privilege (their 5th amendment) written into the Fed Reserve Act, as Paul himself has said. But it starts the process of eventual abolition.

Hamilton was wrong, about central banks...


I partly agree... we are no longer the Constitutionally Limited Republic that the Founders gave us... but Paul will Force things into the public eye, and with more and more people waking up... we will make, CHANGE


Agreed...

If Americans knew their Founding Principles... we would not only know our rights, but how to protect them... and how to RESTORE the Republic.

I don't want to Fundamentally Transform America, as our president has said several times... nor do I wish to Rebuild it, as he has also said.

I wish to RESTORE it... to its original greatness. To before Andrew Jackson... which is when our country began to go terribly Awry.

It was when our Founders began to die off...

They already have... FDR - 2nd Bill Of Rights.


Hopefully, their goal is, the original intent...

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"


Since when could you not use the N word if you're not black? You may very well get a beat down, but its not illegal.

I think this is a great place to start...

http://www.amazon.com/...294975341&sr=8-1

That looks like a decent book although I don't think it covers half of the real story. Corporations being designated as a 'person' is a huge piece of the puzzle of understanding though.

It's no wonder the US SUPREME COURT ruled the way it did with the freedom of speech issue.
This page may help you understand why....
http://www.manta.com/...dx2/us-supreme-court

I appreciate your enthusiasm about Ron Paul and politics in general... I was there at one time too, until I did more in depth studying. I feel you are failing to see the big picture though.
Let me put it bluntly for everyone.... Everything you think about the government may be wrong. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just think too many people are stuck believing a lie.
Everything that you perceive as a governmental agency is actually a private corporation. When I say everything I mean everything.
Go to http://www.manta.com. This is a website that tracks businesses and business information. Do a bunch of searches on any 'governmental agency'. What you will see is that nearly ALL of them are private companies.
Put in Ron Paul and you come up with 39 entries. While some are legitimate companies for his campaigns and such, some are not. Here is some of the info from one of his pages...
"Representative Ron Paul is a private company categorized under Government Offices-Us and located in Washington, DC." and Representative Ron Paul also does business as Congressman Ron Paul, United States House Of Representatives

try lots of agencies... you will be surprised at what you find.
IRS, DEA, CIA, US Supreme Court, all courts, all State agencies, all congressmen, all senators, all branches of military, US Senator Barack Obama also does business as Barack Obama Us Senator Office, Senate, United States. and as Senator Fitzgerald, Senate, United States????
Even our friends the NPS(Dept of the Interior) are a private company... funny thing that they are listed in Janitorial services???

My point is that private corporations have infiltrated and taken over everything and are posing as our government. NOTHING will change with politics because what the people want is usually not good for business. Plus, like I said.... as a US Citizen we are their property and they can do what they please with their property.

True, it doesn't, not supposed to... but:

The problem is... you aren't going to get anywhere with... "the Corporations Man!"

Especially when we elect presidents like Bush and Obama who are in bed with Corporations the same... Ron Paul said that Obama isn't a socialist... he is a corporatist.

Obama <3 GE

For one... I don't agree that corporations shouldn't have freedom of speech.

What about the Huntsman Corporation... he created the Huntsman Cancer Center.

A most honorable man, the closest I have seen to a Washington of our day...

http://www.amazon.com/...8/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

He shouldn't be able to use his business to support the Republic and push Founding Principles?

We already have 501C3 groups like Acorn influencing elections... and that cluster came from, campaign finance reform. But that's another issue...

Either way... We still have the Constitution, and the Courts.


You brought up Treaties...

Well... what is the most important one of all?

Ya sure about that...?

I haven't really said much, yet...

Though, I've said quite a bit more over on dorkzone.

Ok... How about this...?


What are your feeling on this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSfB3Bne2VQ

see attached

Sounds like they are trying to get the people to believe they are working for them when in reality they are not. "with every right we have passed to the american people..." Gee thanks for giving me rights... The Creator forgot to do that
health care is not an inalienable right... they are just trying to get people to believe that.
An inalienable right is also termed a Natural right. The definition from Blacks Law of Natural Right is: "A right that is conceived as part of natural law and that is therefore thought to exist independently of rights created by government or society such as the right to life, liberty, and property."

Ron Paul is the biggest political lunatic that I know of. God help us if we have to rely on that guy to turn things around. He's a physician with no legal training. I saw him speak when he happened to have a Tea Party rally near the dog park where I was. He represents the Galveston, Texas region. He actually fights against his own district, which is nuts.

I’m stunned...

I was simply hoping for Natural Rights... so that we were on the same page, but you went way past that!

Life, Liberty and... Property. You are the first person I have seen on either forum, to write that, properly.

Lets see if you can impress me though...



Considering you brought up, treaties...

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

A certain someone on the dorkzone said this:



A rather hastily put together document... really?

Would you agree with that first paragraph? Or can you tell me the, “treaties”, that were used as the basis for the Declaration of Independence?

Lunatic and Nuts... Personal Attacks.

Whenever someone like Ron or Rand is criticized, its always personal attacks.
But hey, at least you acknowledged God...


Yup, only a crazy person would want Small and Limited Government...

Yet on the dorkzone... not one person could give me the definition of Small and Limited Government as understood by our Founders. Can you?


So, how is Ron Paul a lunatic? Please do elaborate...

I find it somewhat amusing that a few of you want to have discussions involving detailed history and legal groundings. Laws and regulations can be quite dependent on punctuation. Misplace a comma, and legislation can have a totally different affect.

The part I find amusing is that in the above quote, I can not easily discern your original content from quoted content. Feel free to accuse me of being ignorant of a lot in this discussion, but it feels like the seriousness of these ideas demands a precision your post lacks. (Although, you may still be quite right.)

<unofficial & personal commentary only>

a public figure suffering "Public Attacks?" <shock> <horror>

more seriously, the US Founding Fathers rejected the notion of a King receiving their authority to rule from God. they effectively said, "Nope, not going to do it that way anymore."

they established a legal precedent of keeping what they wanted and tossing out what they did not. or am I wrong?

sure, they used all sort of high-minded language and rational, but they chose to discard the status quo. (by definition: Revolutionaries)

why get upset if people continue to do so?
are we no longer permitted to challenge the status quo?
if you want to start dialing things back, where do you stop?

(oh, and kings have been indebted to banks and individuals far longer than the US has existed, but that is tangential.)

care to give a time period that really was just plain spiffy? I bet a cursory read of that era's newspapers would reveal some upset people. it matters little the year you choose. I doubt the vast majority sat back and thought, "this is a golden time!" thus, turn back to what?

feel free to pursue happiness by making your arguments. arguments that most either do not understand or care about. it strikes me as a rather ineffective way to pursue happiness, but what do I know?

I do give him credit for some things, such as a desire to overturn the patriot act. This things that disturb me about him are:

His bizarre views on states rights versus federal rights, in an age where people constantly travel across the country. We no longer are born and die in the same state as might have been the standard over 200 years ago.

His unintelligible views on monetary policy and the gold standard. They don't match any established evidence on how central banks stabilize major economies.

His weird claims regarding civil rights and homosexuality. It has a style in the theme of the book The Turner Diaries that fueled white power movements and Timothy McVeigh. From Wiki: Controversial claims made in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." Another notable statement that garnered controversy was "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" An issue from 1992 refers to carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos." In an article title "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that " "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

His adamantly opposing any federal assistance when his own district, Galveston, was destroyed by Hurricane Ike a little over two years ago. Same old BS - it's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is deliberately short to allow a lot of leeway. Why would anyone pay taxes or have anything to do with any level of needed government organization and not expect some assistance from a natural disaster? His view in my mind is one of promoting anarchy.

I accept everything you have said about the corporations...

Yet, if the corporations could do absolutely anything they wanted... we would have some serious 2nd amendment limitations right now.

And last I checked, the courts have done pretty good on that issue... I still have my ar15 and my glock 19, and PLENTY of ammo. In fact I might go buy some right now... maybe pick up two 31 round mags for my glock as well. Little pricey!

Yup, still legal!

And we will always have Inalienable Rights... God is far more powerful than corporations!

Though they haven’t done so good on drugs, but all in due time...



Treaty wise:

Nope... You either know it or you don’t.

570? I can’t really give hints... it would give it away.


If you think the constitution is nullified by the corporations, then how would you go about returning us to the Constitutionally Limited Republic that we were...???

spelling

This alone shows you have an enormous misconception of the Federalist system.

What is the difference between a National Government and a Federal Government?


Central Banks don't stabilize economies!

Hamilton was very wrong... and where we are at today with the Fed... proves Jefferson was correct.

Do you not agree we should abolish the FED?

Regardless of the Gold Standard. Should a private business control our nations currency, where we can't even know what they are doing? Or should it be in the hands of We The People, through our Representative Democracy.

Note: Any time a politician says... Democracy... like "this is bad for our democracy" That is Coding...

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! Democracy's fail. And the Founders knew this very well. We are a Republic for very specific reasons.

They would love it if we were a democracy though... we are in between right now... and falling apart because of it.


I'll have to reference a book, for a story about that...

Very good story about a Flood... that the President at the time, refused to lend support... Congress wanted to give 10K... the community raised over 100K.

Well... when it is lies... its either slander and libel.

But the most important point is... why?

If he is a lunatic... why? What has he actually said? Because most people say... IDK I don't listen/watch that person.

So how would you know then? Oh... so you say that, from what you have been TOLD.

I was told all about Manifest Destiny in High School... but learned in the last few years, that it came from Andrew Jackson... it is a perversion of Divine Providence.

"With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Hm...


Yeah, sorry... quite wrong. Natural Rights don't set a legal precedent. All laws are based from Natural Rights. From God's Law.

They are Self Evident Truths... Common Sense (Kinda... when you are educated properly)


Very simple answer if you understand Small and Limited Government as understood by the Founders.

Very Simple...


There has never been a perfect time, and there never will be... and the Founders knew that things would need to be changed as times changed... that's why they gave us the Amendment Process.

They did not want Judicial Usurpation of the Constitution...

The Founders knew that mistakes would be made... but they trusted that Americans were good people, and would eventually get it right.

That's why repealed amendments are not erased, but crossed out... to remind of our mistakes. Our Scars!

spelling

I don't understand what you are trying to say. This is very strange trying to distinguish between a Federalist system, a National Government, and a Federal Government. This seems more like rhetoric from Lyndon LaRouche.

The concept of the Federalist papers too is weird, since it tries to to interpret what the founders meant but, in my opinion, if they wanted that to be important, they would have added bios and signing statements to a Constitutional appendix.

Central banks are critically important for stabilizing economies. It's established fact. To say otherwise indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how economies work. This has been learned time and time again throughout history. Some of the South American countries had hyperinflation (1 million percent inflation annually) prior to the stabilization of their monetary systems with a central bank. The Great Panic of 1884 and the Great Crash of 1873 were motivators of the creation of the Fed circa 1917, in addition to all the other economic volatility that followed all the way through the world war one. Some economists believe that the Great Depression may not have happened if the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, last name Strong (I forget his first name), had not died prior to the the Great Crash of 1929, that he could have put measures in place to prevent or vastly reduce the painful economic contraction. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul, the monkey wrench in the gears, might affect any monetary policies.

So, if the Fed is a corporation, can it contribute money to elections? No, they cannot.

Interestingly, the concept of democracy is strange. Some economists won the Nobel prize in economics for proving the "no democracy theorem" a few years ago. They proved that what most people call a democracy cannot exist by any standard. I find that intriguing.

BTW, the federal aid thing... The local community rebuilt itself primarily on its own. However, the analogy with your book reference is weak. When the third largest natural disaster in U.S. history from a 500 mile diameter hurricane destroys an area, some help will obviously be needed.

What did Jefferson say and how does this relate to Hamilton?

How then do you account for all the instances of hyperinflation that were directly caused by central banks? Do you believe the economy of the United States of America to be stable (after nearly 100 years of having a central bank)? Is stability of greater importance to you than liberty?

I don't understand your questions.

Can you cite some periods of history where central banks have caused hyperinflation? It would be interesting to know what their monetary policies were.

Part of England's incredible rise to power was an early understanding of banking and how to run a national bank, aka, an independent government reserve bank.

As to your last question, you cannot have liberty for long without some semblance of financial stability. Any country that loses financial stability eventually turns chaotic; their people become desperate and their liberties are eventually quashed. The rise of fascism in Europe and Asia in the 1930s was a result of financial instability. Those people's liberties were crushed.

an interesting article paralleling your thoughts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...environment-12186245

scientists are using tree ring analysis to determine that poor weather frequently coincided with political unrest. of course, poor weather = economic instability in any pre-industrial economy.

to 460:
Not to mention our economy did better before we had a central bank. But to statists, that doesn't matter. Our central bank has been the cause of our problems, not the solution.

It is consistent that people that are for central banking believe in central planning and keynesian economics, those against such as the Mises Institute (mises.org) believe in economic freedom (anarchy) through free market policies and 'Austrian' economics.

So this is the classical Hamilton vs Jefferson, you can google it. Hamilton wanted big gov't and central planning, Jefferson didn't and wanted the States to do their own thing:
"Jefferson advocated a decentralized agrarian republic. He recognized the value of a strong central government in foreign relations, but he did not want it strong in other respects. Hamilton's great aim was more efficient organization, whereas Jefferson once said "I am not a friend to a very energetic government." Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom."

Hamilton got the snowball of our downfall rolling with central banking.

God's law is not mentioned in either the Declaration or Constitution. you are welcome to believe in it, as surely as did some founders, but it still was not part of those 2 founding documents.

the "We hold these Truths to be self-evident..." part is more of a cultural thing as well. visit the far flung corners of the globe and you'll fail to find a consensus view amongst the people of the world. if there is no consensus, the discussion of "self-evident" proves faulty. do you honestly think that jives with people who believe in karma? really? (plus men who wrote those words really did not act like the "savages" were included either... did not the "savages" have "self-evident" rights as well? and if it is so obvious, why has most of the world STILL not embraced these ideas?)

so, any well traveled agnostic will disagree with your basic premise.

the harsh light of realty reveals all the beautiful legal structure you hold dear to be an illusion.




there is the crux of this. you've bought into the pretty picture painted in civics class of an ideal that never existed. you haven't presented an argument (that I understand) rooted in any reality.

if there is no basis in fact, it is called a belief and can't really be debated. the scientific method is to present countering facts and debate which apply best. belief does not permit modifying one's thinking.

there is a concept that the mind is the source of all suffering. if you stop fighting for a fictitious ideal, you might achieve a bit more happiness.

so those who don't want a central bank prefer an agrarian system? we all need to put down our keyboards and raise up plows?

still not seeing the logic here...

Funny joke... let me requote:
"Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom."

Being against a central bank, to me, means being against central planning. It means no depressions and recessions. Our prosperity is proportional to our economic freedom, and we all know what's happened to prosperity overall.

There's a ranking at http://www.heritage.org/Index/ called the Index of Economic Freedom, not surprisingly we're much lower ranked (and have been losing rank) than most people would expect.

The DOI was written in a short time frame... Thomas Jefferson spent 2 weeks drafting it, then the continental Congress took another week to revise, but that doesn't mean that the underlying ideas were not well thought out. It may have been hastily presented like most of the "laws" passed today... in order to get less scrutiny. I have read evidence which suggests that some of the founding fathers were agents working for the king and the BAR association which hold an oath to the Crown. How many of the signors were Attorneys?
I'm not sure what you mean by what treaties were used as the basis of the DOI unless you are referring to the Two treatises of government by John Locke. Of course a treaty and a treatise are different animals so I'm guessing you are alluding to something else. Please clarify.

You are correct, in legal documents every capitalization and punctuation mark is very important. However, in everyday colloquial speech it is less important. My form and style may be flawed but I believe the substance is there.
I will do a better job at conveying the message so you may better understand... although I sense you are just being picky because you like to stir the pot

I never said the constitution was nullified by the corporate US. I am saying there are 2 constitutions, both in effect right now. We have the option to choose which one we want to follow, or both if that suits us, however breaking free from all the invisible contracts we have entered into that bind us to the corporate constitution is a little difficult and most people do not want to give up the benefits and privileges that they get from the corporate US. The solution is not an easy one. It involves seeing through the smokescreen and knowing when you are operating in their jurisdiction and when you can step outside it. Their wording and definitions are critical in all their documents and need to paid very close attention to. One hint when you are reading the US Code (funny it's called the Code when one definition of code means - a system used for secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings.) is to know that you are not a 'person', you HAVE a 'person'.

One last comment in reference to your statement about "if the corps could do absolutely anything they wanted..." They are not stupid, they are only going to push so far. They don't want a revolution on their hands. Do you know the boiling frog story? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

This thread is interesting.

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions regarding the fed.

I am convinced the country was far worse off without a central bank. There were a large number of economic panics and economic volatility prior to the creation of the fed. The fed did make mistakes though in its handling of the great depression, which lead to major reforms in their policies and responsibilities.

With the central bank's role in the TARP, the economy would have easily slipped into another depression.

Also, I find no evidence that the Fed is a corporation.

You're completely correct there.

http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related

I don't see how Ron Paul "schooled" Bernanke here. This video seems innocuous.

here is an article/story you may find interesting... http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

It explains the problem with the banking system and offers a solution called social credit, first proposed by C.H. Douglas in the early 20th century. It may not be THE answer but at least it is an alternative.

This thread is about as tortured of a discussion as they get. Everyone's spouting viewpoints but no one has offered anything objective. Videos from some fucknut on youtube don't count as research, people... they don't count for shit, unless you can explain why the author isn't more retarded than bag of bricks. Hey, I could post a video explaining, "Aliens invaded your mom's vagina." Just because I link to it in a forum discussion, it doesn't mean it's smarter than using a fucking car battery as a packing weight! (hint: <--bad)

No one has even defined what they mean by, "the fed stabilizes the economy." If someone says, "Low inflation, positive growth in GDP," they're dumb, and i'm going to throw my cock at their forehead. (Yes I can hit you from here)

How about this: relative economic stability over a given period of years is defined by the number of years of recession within that period, divided by the total number of years in that given period.

That might be a shitty definition, but it's something we can at least debate. Maybe some econ teacher out there can school me on it.

ANYWAY. I did 20 minutes of wikipedia research, and added up the number of years of recessions before and after the federal reserve was established.


My method:
I considered the period 1789 (Ratification of the constitution) until present. I divided this period into "Pre-Federal Reserve," the beginning of 1789 thru the end of 1913... and... "Post-Federal Reserve" was 1914-Present. I put the years from the wikipedia page, "List of recessions in the united states," into a spreadsheet. (http://en.wikipedia.org/...in_the_United_States)

I considered the recession of 1913-1914 to be "Pre-Federal Reserve," because the federal reserve act was passed in LATE 1913 (according to Wikipedia.) Therefore I assume that the Federal Reserve did not help to precipitate this recession. I am not currently qualified to comment on the prolonging or foreshortening effect of the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act on the recession in progress at the time.

The Post-World-War-I Recession (of 1918) Is the first one I consider to be "Post-Federal Reserve"

I added lines for 1914 and 2010 to my spreadsheet so that the math would properly add up the numbers for the desired time period. These lines do not represent new recessions.

Results:
From 1789 (Year of ratification of the constitution) until 2010, the fraction of years spent in recession was 0.346. In other words, 34.6% of the time, the country was in a recession.

Between 1789 and approximately the end of the 1914 recession, the country was in a recession 44.5% of the time.

Between 1914 and 2010, the country was in a recession 34.6% of the time.

Over our country's history, we have had an average interval of 3.03 years between recessions.

Before the federal reserve, we had an average interval of 2.33 years between recessions.

After the federal reserve, we had an average interval of 4.16 years between recessions.

Discussion...
These calculations support the hypothesis that, since the inception of the federal reserve, our country has spent less time in recession, and recessions have been of shorter average duration.

The Federal Reserve was not the only government bank the government ever enacted, but prior ones were all pretty fucking wimply. If you disagree, that's awesome, but show your fucking data. By my relative definition of stability, the post-Fed era was more stable than the pre-Fed era. This is further supported by the observation that recessions are further apart in the post-Federal Reserve era.

What's that, someone asks? "OK, you mention the time between recessions, but what about the duration of each recession? huh, smart guy?" WHACK!! That "whack" was the sound of my dick hitting you in your eyeball from across the internet. This question is basically answered by the way I defined "relative stability."

Ok, I probably fucked some shit up, and overlooked some important things. I expect you bitches to call me out on it. Here's a spreadsheet of my work. It's in OpenOffice format, but Excel can probably import it. (Google Docs certainly can)

Have fun.

My first fuckup:


Typo: That should be 21.5% of the time.

 
From what you've gathered it would appear that the Fed has done a better job than the earlier central banks (since the Fed was not the first central bank). Bank of North America, 1st Bank of US, 2nd Bank of US followed by gov't regulated nationally chartered banks that ran monetary policy nationwide. So it's not quite so simple to distinguish.

Of course, being the longest running central bank now, the Fed has destroyed more of our money's value than any other. By Wikipedia's dollar value chart, in 1850 during the Free Banking Era was when the buying power of a dollar hit its all-time peak of 1.03 relative to a 1774 dollar. By contrast buying power of a 2009 dollar was equal to 4 cents of a 1774 dollar.

Colm,

Do you have any data on the severity of those recessions?

Yes, as I mentioned, there were earlier federally chartered banks. And they had various degrees of power. But can you explain your "From...So:" statement a bit more?


Ok, you've convinced me that inflation has happened. Is that the fault of the fed, or of congress over-spending? Or maybe the existence of the fed allows to congress to over-spend? What's your interpretation?

What was different about the fed, compared to earlier central or national banking systems, that made it responsible for this decline? Simply the fact that it has been in power for so long? (real question)

(And thanks for bringing some more objective content in)

I can refer you back to the wikipedia page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...in_the_United_States

Looking at recession severity before and after the great depression, it seems striking to me. Perhaps someone else would like to look at it and write up their interpretations. Tom, are you our first volunteer?

I believe the Fed supports Creationist Science and Global Cooling ideas. Just kidding.

By that I meant that since there were on and off periods of central banking before 1913, it makes tallying the statistics more complex than if there had been no central banking prior to 1913. So I see those previous attempts, specifically the nationally chartered banks as not so wimply as to be inconsequential. I surmise this by looking at corresponding inflation levels for the decades they were around (2 different wiki pages).

I see this as asking whether inflation is caused by monetary policy or fiscal policy, and by 'over-spending' that you mean an expansionary fiscal policy. The symptom of inflation is inflated (rising) prices due to a falling currency. My interpretation is that spending cannot change the value of the currency; only monetary police can affect it (Fed). Monetization by the Fed allows for an expansionary fiscal policy, yes, and has led to our total federal obligations of around 65 trillion, exceeding global GDP -http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=88851

$22.10 in the year 2009 has the same "purchase power" as $1 in the year 1914. From
http://www.measuringworth.com

Wow, that's a big one, but I'll take a stab. Thinking back to the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting, I'd say that this last time the central bank really had alot more backing. There was a senator, a Treasury Dept rep, and several elite bankers who probably had enough of the gov't bought and paid for in cash. In earlier times central banking attempts were shortlived. I think those earlier attempts taught the banksters how much they stood to gain from the scheme such that they decided colluding was in their best interest.

You're welcome. It's always better than merely shouting opposing assertions back and forth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MM8dbWZ8Xw&feature=player_embedded#!

am i that transparent??

ok i see what you are saying now, i think. the trick is whether or not you can differentiate their impact from the impact of random chance.

But what are we talking about here... the duration of recessions, or the trend of inflation? with regards to the duration of recessions, hard to say what the earlier national banks impacted. And maybe you can make a case for it, but it hasn't been made here yet. Compare that to the effect of the Federal Reserve system on the duration of recessions, where i think you can make a case for it. (and I made some semblance of an effort)

With regards to inflation and national banks... yeah it appears by inspection, that you might be on to something. now comes the harder work of collecting the data and looking for mathematical correlation.

But, as GreenMachine pointed out separately, most economists consider "a little bit" of inflation to be a good thing. And I'm fairly persuaded by that. Over decades, naturally a little bit of inflation will result in a vast change in the purchasing power of the dollar. That's fine with me, because someone's $1 worth of production value from 1790 doesn't really benefit me today. I'd pay him about $0.04 for his $1 worth of labor, because it's not worth that much to me... and to me, that's inflation. If he had invested his $1 in gold, then that's different...

http://www.youtube.com/...U&feature=autofb

A friend shared this with me and I thought of your discussion on here. He simplifies it all in a minute worth of explanation on video.

 
Bernanke, BLS Lie About Inflation: Dr. Doom Faber

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41385143

Wow!

DEFINED: Small and Limited Government
http://www.dropzone.com/...;;page=unread#unread


Sorry... Been a little busy, and this post took a while.

DEFINED: Small and Limited Government

Nature's God = Natural Law = God's Law


Same Link


Yup... Same Link

My apologies... I didn't mean it like that.

I post on DZ in SC... a lot! And it gets frustrating... especially with those like billvon and quade. Very outspoken, very arrogant... yet very, very wrong.

Disheartening frankly...

So... when you said Life, Liberty, and... Property. I was honestly stunned, but in a wonderful way!


Exactly... and Yes. I was talking about the Two Treatises of Government. The DOI was for the most part copied straight out of the treatises... it didn't take long, because it was pretty much, already done.


Yeeeeah, was gonna do a play on words thing as to not give it away, but I jacked it up. Never mind... you know your shit, you clearly knew what I was talking about.

Look forward to seeing what you have to say about my dorkzone post.

I could post it here, but its a pretty good thread.

Isn't that kinda like... if you are married, and you get married again without getting divorced. Well, yeah, you're married to two woman... but its illegal.

Its a marriage, but not really...

I see what you are saying... but where is the authority to pass another Constitution.


So, we educate people and repeal it... (or Supreme Court)

Well... some say, Fuck the Finns...



I SAY, FUCK THE FED!!!!





But Yeah, Fuck the Finns too!

please summarize the links. I don't want to spend my time following threads with links.

Then just read my OP, that will do and answer your questions. I can't sum that up by any means...

if you go by Nature -> evolution
if you go by God -> creation

you can't always link Nature to God.
(Nature also fails to yield stone tablets of commandments.)

someone of your reputed intelligence should understand.

sadly, you really made zero effort to address my thoughts. it shows a lack of courtesy and respect. (IMHO)

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

That... is Natural Law.



The 10 Commandments are fully based off Natural Law... not the other way around.

The reason... "thou shall not kill", is because my life comes from God. So only God, technically, can take my life.

That is why you can kill someone in self defense and not go to jail... because you are protecting your God given right to life.

Every bit of our legal system is based on Natural Law.

Justice... is an inalienable right.

Religion is simply a way to interpret God. You can have God without religion. You can fully discuss Natural Law, and never talk about religion.


I'm sorry, its been a rough day... didn't sleep well last night (3 hours) and have been studying all day... and my OCD is literally killing me.

Do you mind clarifying what you feel I didn't answer?

I'm honestly not sure what I didn't answer without looking back... I was way behind, had a lot to read.

spelling

I read it and it doesn't make that much sense to me.

Nature's law and God. I am an athiest. God is the imaginary friend of adults.

thank you for the response.

I still fail to see how the following sprout from nature:



and yes, I'm too lazy to list a bunch of the others that have no basis in nature. thievery is actually common in the animal world. animals frequently "covet your neighbor’s house."

believe what you want, but I don't see a logical foundation to your comments. (I see a fervent belief that can be admirable, but NOT logical. yeah, call me retarded or Spock...)

I can definitely answer you both... there is a lot to it, but I have posted on those things before on dz, so I can reference them and re-post.

But the brain isn't really working right now...

And ah, correction... I have been up since 8pm yesterday, on 3 hours.

Time for bed...

I don't get on there much but I will check it out, although it may be a while because I will be away from the computer for a few weeks.

It's not about repealing anything... it's choosing and understanding who you are. Which, from some of your posts, your understanding is that all authority emanated from the divine, which is the only real authority. therefore all men and women are created equal and no one has any power or authority over anyone else. Right?
So how did we get into the mess that we are in now and how does the the government take control and start to usurp power from the people?
You asked where did the authority come from to pass another constitution...
The authority came from you and I and everyone else. Even though it may be hard to believe, the government is doing most everything correctly according to the law form we are currently operating in. We are not under Natural law as you may think but in fact are instead under commercial law. We have actually contracted away all of our rights... knowingly and unknowingly
Check out the terms
de facto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

and de jure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure

these terms tell a lot... the original federal government (wife #1) was the de jure but due to some sly wording and maneuvering, the current government/corporation (wife #2) contracted with us to follow their de facto constitution starting with the 13th amendment. Who's going to argue with wife #2? You won't since you agreed to be in the contract and aren't really sure what your have agreed to but you know life is comfortable and not worth looking into at the moment, even though wife #2 is getting bigger and more demanding everyday. Wife #1 needs you to acknowledge her existence before she can begin to help and even then you are the current that is running the show. The one who has a choice. the one with the only true power.

I don't have the time to elaborate right now but this information is a start and it may lead you down some interesting roads... some you may not be ready for..

People tend to lose me when they start writing stuff like, [fail] "the founding fathers were deeply religous." [/fail]

and the phrase "we are a christian nation" (whatever the fucking christ that means)

and if god's law = nature's law, why please is it the christian god and not the muslim god or hindu god or the baha'i god or the "flying spaghetti monster"

it's cool if people want to believe stuff on faith. whatever. i have my own indefensible hypotheses. but i don't want it taught in public schools, and i don't tell people they shouldn't get married over it, or who to vote for based on it, or that its ok to kill doctors because of it...

if something helps you understand the world and be a good person, that's cool! religion is like a gun, it can do good or bad, depending on the person (etc etc various versions along this theme). but some things are demonstrably false, and it's good to know the difference

not trying to offend anyone here... i'm just trying to follow the lead of those evangelists who knock on my door.

(glen beck is still a fuckstick though)

Nowhere have I said all the Founders were deeply religious.

Many of them were... like Benjamin Rush, one of the three most important Founders, yet he is never commented upon.

But all of them, including the two who were the least religious... Jefferson and Franklin, believed in God.

God... Not Religion... Religion is a way to interpret God.

YOU DON'T NEED RELIGION TO HAVE/BELIEVE IN GOD!

Seriously... I don't understand how people can not separate the two.

Maybe...?

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirits of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. - Einstein


We are not a christian nation...

And I said that several times in the DZ thread I posted.


"Clearing throat" ITS NOT!

Jesus Christ!



And as I said in that same thread... I am not a Christian.


George Washington would disagree with you... and when Ron Paul was in school... they were still reading the Two Treatises of Government.



And those would be.....?

Last time I checked... M theory was the closest we have gotten to figuring out the origins of the Univese.

Because, cosmic inflation... "the big bang"... is flawed.

Having a hard time understanding what your question is...

You want me to explain how each of the 10 commandments are based from Natural Law?


That's funny... that's basically calling Jefferson and Franklin illogical.

You really should just read the... Two Treatises of Government

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/

It is if you are talking about the Commerce Clause... one case is specific.

And let me fix something... Repeal --> Overturn

We need to get the case overturned by the SC... and the Feds would no longer be able to get their hands into things that are not of their concern.

Minus - no one has any power or authority over anyone else.


Started with Andrew Jackson and Manifest Destiny...


If the people knew their rights... it never would have happened... through education that will change... and it will be easy to reverse what you are talking about.

Aside from that, I don't really know how to respond.

Its no different than the controlled substances act... well, yeah, they did it. But they are violating the constitution, and able to do so because people don't know their rights, nor how their government words.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

If we weren't ignorant... we wouldn't have what you are talking about.


Looking forward to your elaboration...

I don't have a clue what is being said or claimed here. It's completely fragmented and links to other threads only make it more confusing.

Sorry if I have mis-interpreted you. The cultural dialogue on this topic (in my experience) is so stereotyped, that the two concepts are usually equated. i respect that you distinguish them. a large population in the US does not separate them.

Some would say that jefferson, et. al., were "deists," which i think is consistent with your position.


If he said we should teach a religion in public school, i'd still disagree with him. But that's different that teaching about religions in general.


where to start... under the "spirituality" umbrella,
-eastern medicine, and westernized versions of it
-astrology/psychic/ESP stuff
-pretty much any scientific claim attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the bible/koran/etc
-looking for signs in tea leaves and dried chicken bones (i know some weather forecasters that do this though)


and i'm not sure how you could prove or disprove things like reincarnation or the existence of a soul. and there's no "miracle" that doesn't have a better natural explanation.

...So, who created the creator?

No worries... yes, the majority of people have been wickedly indoctrinated.

I was one of them...

And I plan to go back to Kempsville HS and debate my 12th grade Government teacher... who never taught us about the Two Treatises of Government.

Fucking ridiculous...

He used to call us hotdogs and would say, "the world is sick with lust". And that his liberal ways would change us. Though I don't really remember what his liberal ideas were... since I didn't really give a shit back then.

Of course... I was being lied to.

Now that I've learned true history... its like, Crack!

Mmmmmmmmmmmm.... Red Balls!


Progressive lies.

Same as: Franklin was out having sex with all kinds of woman. And that the Founders were evil rich white slave owners.

Benjamin Rush and Franklin were two of the most outspoken abolitionists of the time.

Jefferson was not religious, but he fully believed in God. So he would be a theist by dorkzoners classifications, after they called me a theist.

I don't need titles... I believe in God. Simple.


Let me know how you feel after I post about, the "religion of America."

I think you'll be surprised at how ingenious our Founders were.


Well... flat out, when speaking about Principles... those things don't really matter.


EXACTLY!

And I have asked the same question... dorkzoners didn't have much to say...

God... and Gravity
http://www.dropzone.com/...2;page=unread#unread

dude, make this a term paper because we're trying to figure out what your thesis is. Consolidate your thoughts into one short article. If the themes change dramatically, do an outline, like chapter headings, appendices, etc. Do not link to youtube videos since they come across as propaganda. If you do, at a minimum, point out the time in the video to click to. Otherwise, being academically trained, The expression of ideas, concepts, well accepted historical facts is the essence of argument.

 
Stephen Hawking on Larry King tells that with the latest M Theory, no theology or god is necessary in explaining the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related

"When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant and accidental human life is in it, that seems most implausible. There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." (From his recent interview with ABC News)

Irrational and Deranged, ey? And then you edit your post...?

Nice... I was working on a response too.

How about putting that back up.

Never said it did.


Question: So if M-theory is correct... because the Big Bang is clearly flawed... where did the 10 dimensions come from? How did it start?

Because, same with the big bang... you can't have nothing, and then have something.

Inflation of the singularity... created space and time.

Nice... again... Stephen can't separate God and Religion, taking only into account, your quote.

An academic who doesn't like to read...

Is that not an... oxymoron?



Psst... I did give the times for the video.
Intro... till 11m11s -- Gravity - through pt. 2... till 5m15s

My 8th grade English teacher used to say. "Reading is Fundamental."


Gravity... leads into gravitons, and the Grand Unified theory.

And the man who discovered the possible equation... doesn't believe in God.

Very interesting as well.

Some collated replies:


Deist, not theist... You have just stated the definition of a deist in your description of Jefferson.



"something from nothing" happens all the time, everywhere in the universe. It explains the Casimir effect, vacuum energy, and why black holes evaporate over time (Hawking radiation)


These things do matter, because people get hurt and killed because of stupid beliefs in wrong principles, like those I mentioned above...


no comment!

How does any of this relate to the government?

As an academic, there is a saying "too much information is no information." There is a lot of garbage information out there and it is part of the debate to actually contribute something meaningful. I'm done with this thread. It's going nowhere.

I'm with 460 here.

I'm looking for YOU to explain YOUR opinions. instead, you state broad generalities. there is no consistent thread of thought. you verbally dance about.

footnotes (or links) are not the same as opinionated, defended, arguments. your adherence to "read this link" reminds me of a cult member that can not explain their opinions. they just point to their leader's words, assuming that the leader is free of all errors or mistakes.

for example, separating God from religion seems overly clever. religion defines what someone means when they say "God." (realize "God" is capitalized, while god is not. ever consider the difference?)

your style of argument frees you of the burden to create something that can be understood, and expects the reader to put in far more effort than you.

I'd call that demanding, inconsiderate, and rude. but that's just me.

I can't discern if he wants people to understand his opinion.


he surely want people to read other people's opinions!

 
Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

http://www.youtube.com/user/EconStories#p/p

http://www.youtube.com/...ayer_embedded#at=229

 
Very good technical lecture on Keynes and Hayek:

http://www.youtube.com/...O0&feature=feedu

Not saying anyone in here has committed this atrocity, because I simply just don't have time to read through it all. So nothing personal if you feel this applies.

What is destroying America is well mentioned by 460 ad wwarped.

Most of the time I engage in debate with Americans (and see debates), there seems to be a trend of reciting pre-determined talking points instead of a logical argument. What I mean by this is throughout our reliance on the media we have learned how to sit down, shut up, and accept truth without challenge. It's sad because rarely will someone go through the logical steps of thinking when presenting a standpoint on politics. They take the shortcut of what appeals to their emotional and subconscious bias. I also have never met a population that is so quick to categorize people ideologically as a majority of Americans do. Usually most of these arguments are ridden with fallacies and merely defended with comfort statements such as cliched sayings. It's sad, but becoming more and more accepted on both RIGHT and LEFT.

A short essay, in which a libertarian urges taxation of the rich says some unkind things about Ayn Rand.

http://www.samharris.org/...without-even-trying/

 
Poor guy; I had more respect for him until I found out he still thinks government is the answer, which stated more simply is 'violence is the answer'. For governments and other violence addicts, cooperation and negotiation are the last resort if ever 'might makes right' happens to not work out.

Politicians routinely will give lip service to jobs that have been lost. Rarely, if ever you hear of any solutions other than cut taxes/spend on stimulus projects with the few exceptions where they talk about the new high tech jobs. As a high-tech worker it's a little scary to me just how clueless they are. Just five years ago if I were to start a tech related business that existed online, I'd need a team of hardware people to build the underlying infrastructure. They'd have to order computers and servers and spend lots of time maintaining and setting these things up. I'd also likely need an IT department to maintain the email and phone systems as well as a file server so my employees can share information with each other. Fast forward to today and you don't even need the same staff. You can build a whole online infrastructure on Amazon Web Services needing a fraction of the employees you once would. You can buy a Dropbox account for $9 a month, they maintain the backups and files for you as well as automatically sync information anywhere it needs to go. Instead of having an employee setup an email and phone system in house, you can use Google's Business Email and Skype for telephone. Setting up and using these things are within the grasp of any modern office employee. In short, over five years a whole class of jobs for the small business has been eliminated that most people would consider high-tech. What do you think will happen in another five years? No one wants to pay for tasks that a machine can do, in both high-tech and low-tech sectors. We must illuminate what it is that cannot be outsourced/automated, the creative tasks, that led to the creation of these new services and industries. Steve Jobs created 100,000s of mobile application developer jobs by introducing the iPhone (not to mention the billions of Asian dollars flowing to Apple by the Asian consumer market). The world is continually running faster, we need to learn to run or remember how to plant a garden.


In short patent reform, make it easier for college kids to get venture capital (as opposed to paying $20K to lawyers to get $100K in capital), and aggressive remodeling of education. In the spirit of the thread abolish religion.

we need to learn to run or remember how to plant a garden.

...aggressive remodeling of education.

In the spirit of the thread abolish religion.

Change the word abolish to TAX and I'd say:

BASE698 for President!!

So you're an anarchist?

Yes, most certainly . I just saw this nice and short presentation mentioning socialism as Harris alludes to in his article earlier in this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/...e=feedrec_grec_index

There are a lot of different levels of being an anarchist...

I'm just sad that the supposedly "freedom-loving" american public isn't nearly so riled up about this, this, this, and this, but they have a crazy fucking shit-fit if someone suggests something like this. (Edit to add: or, this)

It doesn't surprise me one bit that, for example, 460 is so fed up with immoral, power-tripping dick-bags in this country that he talks about moving to Europe, where taxes are even higher.

But oh right, taxation = stealing or something like that. So fuck the fact that we benefitted from roads and the court system and national security and that you actually do have a debt to society simply by living in it. I don't like taxes either but the alternative is not very realistic. Not ragging on you personally. Just being rhetorical.

I've never met a real anarchist before... I think it's kind of neat. Do you guys hold conventions?

That's cool... how do you gain levels? Is it something similar to this system?

Yes, that's right. However, the name changes; when a common thief does it, it's called theft/robbery. When a gangster does it, it's called protection money or racketeering, when the president does it it's called taxes.


No, I don't agree you owe anyone anything just by existing, also there are peaceful and voluntary ways to provide transportation and conflict resolution services.

Then I presume you're happy enough with the current system to not look for ways to make it better? Once you take a serious look at methods of social organization which increase cooperation and peaceful interaction it's not that hard to figure it out.
I understand that unlike the brainwashed sheeple masses, you're smart enough to already know the current system is immoral and hypocritical, but that you figure there's no better way or no moral/peaceful way. To me that's like saying we're not civilized enough to discard violence as the primary way of resolving conflicts (or, that the best way to get things done is still to use guns to coerce people). As a primer I offer this technical but lengthy presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/...#p/a/f/2/AQmMe2IeGPU.

I've heard in NH there's a whole lot of them organized into the Free State Project.

Thanks, I'll check that out. Hadn't heard about it before.

I admit I've only watched about 1/2 of your youtube video. Finding it awfully specious so far. I won't presume to squander anyone's time by elaborating. But I've no faith that a pure "private law" society is tenable in the long term.

Not adding anything to the conversation . Just thought this funny .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FY5i2GvSGU
.

This Is An Awesome Thread!

I just skimmed over everything again, quickly... and I couldn't stop laughing.

Wicked!



I stand by everything I have written. But it is true... I have, Omitted, quite a bit... partly because, I simply don't have time.

Once I post about the "religion of America", and a few other things... I will be spending a good deal of time at the keyboard. But right now... I am simply too overwhelmed, and have way too much on my plate to do so.

I am, still, about 8 months behind on, everything... and if not for these cards I've been dealt, I'd easily have over 600 jumps by now.

Oh well... Karma is making up for it, very nicely.



So... to liven this thread up, in the meantime:

Shall we discuss, Principles... instead of policy and politics?
http://www.basejumper.com/...;;page=unread#unread

This will answer many of the above questions.

Why does one need legal training...?

Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a fight to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this fight, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman.

I missed this before...


If the Constitution was like a new electronic gadget in 1787... the Federalist Papers, were like it's user manual. Sure, you can jump right in and try to use the gadget, but to get the most of it--to really understand how its designers and manufacturers intended for you to use it--you've got to read the manual.

And ah, two of the three writers, who were, "Publius", WERE Founders... if not for the Federalist Papers, the Constitution would not have been ratified.

No offense, but your understanding of what the Federalist Papers were... is very, very wrong. Part of, "Why America is Screwed"

But... we'll get there too.

See attached exception/technicality.

No worries... I'll answer for you.

So you can find ways to subvert the Constitution.