Better listen to this guy. I never thought i would have been so educated.
http://youtu.be/EgMclXX5msc
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman predicted it back in 2006.
Quote from: JimB on June 06, 2012, 05:28:14 AMNobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman predicted it back in 2006.
And Paul Krugman's answer to the meltdown ?
SPEND MORE MONEY !!!As if adding up more debt to pay debt makes sense
... and btw, Mr. Krugman wasn't the only one who predicted the meltdown ...
If you can check usenet, you'd see that there were other people who had predicted the meltdown, even before 2006
Quote from: penang on June 06, 2012, 07:23:50 AM
Quote from: JimB on June 06, 2012, 05:28:14 AMNobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman predicted it back in 2006.
And Paul Krugman's answer to the meltdown ?
SPEND MORE MONEY !!!
As if adding up more debt to pay debt makes sense
... and btw, Mr. Krugman wasn't the only one who predicted the meltdown ...
If you can check usenet, you'd see that there were other people who had predicted the meltdown, even before 2006
is it the Mayans?
Quote from: inkydigit on June 06, 2012, 01:23:04 PMQuote from: penang on June 06, 2012, 07:23:50 AMQuote from: JimB on June 06, 2012, 05:28:14 AMNobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman predicted it back in 2006.
... and btw, Mr. Krugman wasn't the only one who predicted the meltdown ...
If you can check usenet, you'd see that there were other people who had predicted the meltdown, even before 2006
is it the Mayans?
If the Mayans got access to Usenet, that is
Quote from: penang on June 06, 2012, 07:23:50 AM
And Paul Krugman's answer to the meltdown ?
SPEND MORE MONEY !!!
Sure, why not? Krugman explains it very lucidly here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r-AKruzmkk
And here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/speaking-of-people-whose-models-have-failed/
Here, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcuAOdXD0Go&feature=related
Just because Krugman got the Nobel prize doesn't mean he is right all the time
But anyway, that Krugman's argument just does not gel - you can't pay debt with more debts, and then repeat it time, after time, after time
Keynesian Economics will never work. You just can not keep printing money until it looses it's value to the point of being nothing more then worthless paper. It has been getting at that point over the decades now anyways. You can Tax the rich into oblivion and it still will not fix the problem. When will we get it that the current ways of doing economics does not work. Suppose it will take a global crash possibly. Look at Europe. They are not getting it over there. The Greeks are now using Gold, Silver and Bartering and it seems to be working quite well. The inception of the FED in 1913 started this mess, FDR extending The Great Depression, Nixon getting rid of the Gold Standard and on and on. I will trust Peter Schiff any day of the week over a Twat like Krugman, Greenspan and Bernake.
You know, i just want Obama to go away.
http://youtu.be/oSFqfVJvT8g
Mr. Schiff Returns to Washington
http://youtu.be/UvMGHzB37lo
Quote from: ChrisC on June 10, 2012, 02:57:58 AMKeynesian Economics will never work. You just can not keep printing money until it looses it's value to the point of being nothing more then worthless paper. It has been getting at that point over the decades now anyways. You can Tax the rich into oblivion and it still will not fix the problem. When will we get it that the current ways of doing economics does not work. Suppose it will take a global crash possibly. Look at Europe. They are not getting it over there. The Greeks are now using Gold, Silver and Bartering and it seems to be working quite well. The inception of the FED in 1913 started this mess, FDR extending The Great Depression, Nixon getting rid of the Gold Standard and on and on. I will trust Peter Schiff any day of the week over a Twat like Krugman, Greenspan and Bernake.
I have a feeling that most here do not want Keynesian economies to go away
It is in human nature that we are lazy, and lazy people always want easy money - and printing money is always much easier than having to work for it
Same as those in perpetual welfare - why do you need to go to work, and work hard, everyday when the government will give you free money anyway?
It's "I need to get my share of Free Lunch" syndrome, and most will prefer to believe in Krugman's idiotic ideology than to use than own brain to think
Even the Nobel prize committee is filled with those who do not mind to get money for nothing - they gave Krugman a Nobel Prize for economy, didn't they?
I do not foresee a bright light at the end of the tunnel - and at the rate we are going, with near zero interest rate and governments creating billions and trillions of dollars out of thin air - this whole thing is getting worse by the day and one day this thing just gonna crash
What will happen I do not know.
I don't have a crystal ball for that, but I can tell you that it will not be pretty
Even stock markets are getting in the act - Asia's stock market indexes have shot up today after learning of the so-called "good news" - that the European Union gonna lend Spain yet another 125 Billion dollars (100 Billion Euros) to shore up their banks
Don't they ever learn that what they are doing is to pile more and more cards on a house of cards?
But I digress ....
Quote from: ChrisC on June 10, 2012, 03:43:35 AMYou know, i just want Obama to go away.
http://youtu.be/oSFqfVJvT8g
Sad news for you
Obama gonna win this November
That Massachusetts guy Romney just do not have the stuff to beat Obama
Instead of getting Ron Paul the the GOP representatives sold out to Romney's mighty wealth
Quote from: ChrisC on June 10, 2012, 03:43:35 AM
You know, i just want Obama to go away.
http://youtu.be/oSFqfVJvT8g
Sorry the headlines do not agree:
"Big business sitting on vast cash reserves, refusing to hire. GOP stalling economy."
"Companies Sitting On Record Surpluses of Cash"
" Mar 19, 2012 – Apple is sitting on nearly $98 billion dollars in cash and securities. ..."
"March 1, 2012 - Hundreds of Billions Sitting on Tech Companies' Balance Sheets"
So lets all blame Obama. Doesn't fly with me!
Obama is out.
It matters not who is elected. Since Bush, Congress has become the number one enemy of the people. The next iteration of Occupy is going to be more ugly and violent.
The more violent leftists become, the better it is for the right. There have already been 6 murders directly related to the occupy movement. And the planed bombing in Chicago by some of the protesters really hurt their cause.
Unless Romney totally screws himself, it is a near certainty that Obama will loose. Look at the Wisconsin recall. Waker won BIG.
I am not embracing Romney at all, but in the last 4 years Americans have lost nearly 40% of their personal wealth. Obama cant over come that. So unless Romney gets caught giving a blow job to a dead male hooker, he will win.
Speaking of American's loosing there wealth...
http://youtu.be/byhHWoTK1AI
There might be some hope even if Romney wins as explained here.
http://youtu.be/ERI52UndhE4
Thinking about this logically without emotions as this makes sense to me.
Quote from: penang on June 10, 2012, 01:10:57 AM
Just because Krugman got the Nobel prize doesn't mean he is right all the time
Straw man argument? I don't think even Krugman would say he gets it right all the time.
Quote from: penang on June 10, 2012, 01:10:57 AM
But anyway, that Krugman's argument just does not gel - you can't pay debt with more debts, and then repeat it time, after time, after time
Whereas all that's happening under the current neoliberal economic system is the debt's being constantly shifted around the globe, and keeps coming back to haunt us.
Quote from: ChrisC on June 10, 2012, 02:57:58 AM
Keynesian Economics will never work. You just can not keep printing money until it looses it's value to the point of being nothing more then worthless paper. It has been getting at that point over the decades now anyways.
And we've had thirty years of neoliberal/Chicago School/Austrian School economics. Coincidence?
Quote from: TheBadger on June 12, 2012, 09:55:51 PM
The more violent leftists become, the better it is for the right. There have already been 6 murders directly related to the occupy movement. And the planed bombing in Chicago by some of the protesters really hurt their cause.
Sources for these claims? Bloggers? I've seen no evidence of the Oakland shooters being part of Occupy, for example, and Oakland city haven't blamed Occupy for the crimes, only for perhaps impeding police because of manpower allocation. The 15 year old kid clearly had issues, just as Gabrielle Giffords' assailant had.
Quote from: matrix2003 on June 12, 2012, 07:17:02 AM"Big business sitting on vast cash reserves, refusing to hire. GOP stalling economy."
"Companies Sitting On Record Surpluses of Cash"
" Mar 19, 2012 – Apple is sitting on nearly $98 billion dollars in cash and securities. ..."
"March 1, 2012 - Hundreds of Billions Sitting on Tech Companies' Balance Sheets"
I do not know whether to laugh, or to cry
What does billions or trillions sitting in corporate's vault has to do with anything ?
Or you mean that those corporations must emptied their vaults and distribute all their money to the lazy bums who are disgusted at any notion of "work" ?
Quote from: JimB on June 13, 2012, 06:26:27 PMQuote from: penang on June 10, 2012, 01:10:57 AMJust because Krugman got the Nobel prize doesn't mean he is right all the time
Straw man argument? I don't think even Krugman would say he gets it right all the time.
Krugman does NOT have to say "I am right all the time" out loud
In almost every single article that Krugman wrote, in almost every single interview that he gave, - on the air or online, - anyone, even a 3rd grader, can sense Krugman's arrogance, that he is right all the time, and anyone who disagree with him must be brainless
I listened to one interview he gave when he visited BBC's studio in London, and in that interview, he was selling his "SPEND, SPEND, SPEND SOME MORE" ideology
But when the BBC interviewer told him that Germany would never subscribe to his view, especially Angela Merkel, Germany's Chancellor, and Wolfgang Schaeuble, Germany's Finance Minister, would dispute Krugman's idea, you know what Krugman said?
"They are wrong !!"
Quote from: penang on June 14, 2012, 01:01:36 AM
Quote from: matrix2003 on June 12, 2012, 07:17:02 AM"Big business sitting on vast cash reserves, refusing to hire. GOP stalling economy."
"Companies Sitting On Record Surpluses of Cash"
" Mar 19, 2012 – Apple is sitting on nearly $98 billion dollars in cash and securities. ..."
"March 1, 2012 - Hundreds of Billions Sitting on Tech Companies' Balance Sheets"
I do not know whether to laugh, or to cry
What does billions or trillions sitting in corporate's vault has to do with anything ?
Or you mean that those corporations must emptied their vaults and distribute all their money to the lazy bums who are disgusted at any notion of "work" ?
I think you miss Matrix's point, and lazy bums has nothing to do with it, nor is anyone asking for corporations to
empty their bank accounts. A capitalist economy requires capital to circulate for it to remain prosperous and healthy. When an ever increasing share of the means of trade is locked away to gather dust in bank vaults, a capitalist economy stagnates (look around). If those accruing more and more of the capital refuse to circulate the money, and the vast majority have effectively seen their wages drop worldwide (and unable to reinstate their wage levels due to increased curbs on their ability to organise their labour to pressure corporations to release more money to them),
something must happen to stimulate the economy, right?
Quote from: penang on June 14, 2012, 01:08:42 AM
Krugman does NOT have to say "I am right all the time" out loud
Actually, he does.
Quote from: JimB on June 14, 2012, 03:42:12 AM
Quote from: penang on June 14, 2012, 01:01:36 AMQuote from: matrix2003 on June 12, 2012, 07:17:02 AM"Big business sitting on vast cash reserves, refusing to hire. GOP stalling economy."
"Companies Sitting On Record Surpluses of Cash"
" Mar 19, 2012 – Apple is sitting on nearly $98 billion dollars in cash and securities. ..."
"March 1, 2012 - Hundreds of Billions Sitting on Tech Companies' Balance Sheets"
I do not know whether to laugh, or to cry
What does billions or trillions sitting in corporate's vault has to do with anything ?
Or you mean that those corporations must emptied their vaults and distribute all their money to the lazy bums who are disgusted at any notion of "work" ?
I think you miss Matrix's point, and lazy bums has nothing to do with it, nor is anyone asking for corporations to empty their bank accounts. A capitalist economy requires capital to circulate for it to remain prosperous and healthy. When an ever increasing share of the means of trade is locked away to gather dust in bank vaults, a capitalist economy stagnates (look around). If those accruing more and more of the capital refuse to circulate the money, and the vast majority have effectively seen their wages drop worldwide (and unable to reinstate their wage levels due to increased curbs on their ability to organise their labour to pressure corporations to release more money to them), something must happen to stimulate the economy, right?
Reading what you've written, I admit that you do have a point
However, you may have mis-read the economic theory
You see, for the things to go true, according to what you say, the world's economy must be limited to only a certain amount of dollar bills
Or put it another way, what you say will be true if this world only works in a "Zero-Sum game"
In the zero-sum-game scenario, a dollar locked inside a vault will be a dollar lost in circulation, and the multiplier effect of the loss of that one dollar may even resulted in a "bufferly flap its wing that determines formation of a hurricane"
Unfortunately, the world we live does not obey the rules of Zero-Sum game
Heard of "Value-Add" ?
A piece of rock that may worth only 10 cents, may be turned into a piece of metal that worth $1, and in turn, may worth $100, or $1,000 if the metal is turned into an art piece, or part of a high-tech gadget
Viewing from this angle, that dollar locked inside the vault of a corporation, while may not generate any beneficial effect for the market of a whole, does not play such a significant role on the overall health of the economy
For the economy has its own way to generate even more dollars than that one dollar that is locked inside that vault
And one other thing - apology for my digress --- the BILLIONS that stays in the bank accounts of the corporations are not static.
The banks, which the billion-dollar corporate accounts reside, do "re-circulate" those money, using them as basis for loan that they give out to other customers, and so on
I am not a German, but I do admire Angela Merkel - she has guts and she has principle
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18438402
"Mrs Merkel .... repeated that growth should not be financed by more debt."
"We must all resist the temptation to finance growth again through new debt," she said.
Quote from: penang on June 14, 2012, 05:01:32 AM
However, you may have mis-read the economic theory
You see, for the things to go true, according to what you say, the world's economy must be limited to only a certain amount of dollar bills
Which need to be in circulation. The model is pretty straightforward. Without being in circulation the dollar bills may as well not exist, so you therefore have a deficit of dollar bills in the economy making everyone poorer.
Swings both ways.
Quote from: penang on June 14, 2012, 05:23:35 AM
"Mrs Merkel .... repeated that growth should not be financed by more debt."
A third of Sweden's workforce are employed by government with 70% of the total workforce unionised, and only an average 40% take home on wages after tax. Sweden is weathering the financial storms very well compared to most, with a consistent decline in public debt, a high standard of living, and with what seems to be a very rational mix of capitalism with extensive welfare benefits.
Sweden also has the weakest families and highest divorce rate in the world. A culture that is nearly completely dead. And with little exception, produces very little innovation in any discipline.
On proof of murder relating to the occupy movement, you are right that it is difficult to directly tie the murders to the movement. However, other violence can be and is, directly tied to the movement and its participants. The attempted bombing in Chicago would have killed many, and the mob did hurt many people last month.
A news report on rape in the movement
http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assaults-occupy-wall-street-camps/story?id=14873014#.T9nyZ46BKbw
http://nation.foxnews.com/wall-street-protests/2011/11/02/now-silent-occupy-wall-st-sex-assaults
Quote from: TheBadger on June 14, 2012, 10:19:44 AM
Sweden also has the weakest families and highest divorce rate in the world. A culture that is nearly completely dead. And with little exception, produces very little innovation in any discipline.
A high divorce rate usually just means that women have the option to do so - in many other countries they simply can´t. Sweden has a higher fertility rate then germany for example and is almost on same level as US for example. And sweden is rated as one of the top innovators in europe, they just don´t make money of it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to hate on Sweden.
But the state of the family unit there is the subject of many many many sociology papers. Researchers nearly all say that the state of family has a direct relationship with the extent of the welfare provided by the government. Families are just not economically necessary for people in sweden. If the system ever breaks down there, it will be a nightmare. People throughout the West can divorce as they see fit, but it happens in sweden more than any other place in the world.
My parents divorced when I was 6. I can tell you I would have rather had my family intact, than to have had free doctors visits.
I felt a little lazy, so I used wikipedia to check your statement that sweden is an innovator. I don't see how what you said is possible. Their main industrial exports are medicine and weapons. Also bad furniture.
I think swedes are good people, smart people. But it seams like their social system holds them back. Although, sweden is not a very good example for this conversation, because the populations there is so small. You can't really tell what the truth of the economic arguments are until you see it played out on a massive scale; All of europe, the US, Russia, China, and so on.
What I said about swedish culture is true. What developed as a way to make sense of reality and create identity is no longer necessary anymore. The social system defines who the people are. The government is Mother and Father.
Stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
Quote from: TheBadger on June 14, 2012, 10:19:44 AM
Sweden also has the weakest families and highest divorce rate in the world.
What Walli said.
Quote from: TheBadger on June 14, 2012, 10:19:44 AM
A culture that is nearly completely dead. And with little exception, produces very little innovation in any discipline.
Really?
http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Business/Innovation/
http://www.swedishwire.com/nordic/4840-how-sweden-became-an-innovation-frontrunner
Cardiac pacemaker, three-point seatbelt, the zipper, safety matches, dynamite (think Nobel), nicotine gum, drinks cartons, ball bearings, the adjustable wrench, the artificial kidney, Bluetooth. 3% of GDP invested in research.
Their are very smart people in sweden, but thats a very short list.
Lets make a list of everything that has been invented in sweden and compare it to a list of everything that has been invented in the U.S., or Germany, or...
Let us not forget that Sweden is not the USA and the USA is not Sweden. It is comparing Apples and Oranges. What works for Sweden will not work for the USA. We left King George to escape tyranny, taxes and big government. To be more free to pursue our liberties and dreams, to run our own lives, to trade freely and protect our private property, both ourselves and our land ownership. However, over the last several decades, the corruption of centralized power and control has taken hold of what was once of great nation, weather it the Military Industrial Complex, Corporatism, Fascism, the government butting into our lives through agriculture, education, property, banking and so on. This alone defies The Declaration of Independence and not what our Founders had wanted and they warned of such occurances and were right.
The people are starting to see this as the Liberty Movement grows and both parties are being called out. Libertarians and Independents are being taken more seriously now.
Sweden is lovely, i would visit in heartbeat but if they survive the European onslaught, then good luck to them. Greece, Spain, France, Italy may be going down and the USA has no business bailing them out what so ever. Bad behavior should never be rewarded, ever.
This is great.
http://youtu.be/W_F4I-pUgSE
Nigel Farage is added to my Hero list.
if you have a "free" country, who does pay for the streets then? Who builds and runs schools? I think it´s not as simple as people like to put it.
I am totally with you, it´s pretty crazy what they are doing, and I think there indeed has to be more "liberty" - but I think it´s the state and politics that have to be freed.
I mean, they don´t do decisions that are good for the state. In my opinion a free market, capitalism is still the way to go. But there need to be rules, effective rules. And I think politicians have to be independent from cooperations.
Why can it be possible that large companies earn tons of money, that they always cry out for free market - but as soon as they have losses, the public has to pay for losses.
They try to hide the money they earn from state, but in case of losses they want money from state.
But this is only one part of the equation, as the problem is a lot more complex. Another point is that politicians and economists probably should take some lessons of physics. In general I think that really nobody knows what to do, but everyone claims to have the solution.
I agree walli.
But as things are, its a choice between lesser evils, not right and wrong. I wish I could choose whats right on my ballet, but they don't put that as an option.
Its either vote for one crook or the other. So really fixing the things you mentioned does not seam possible now. Most of us just want to survive our leaders and the companies that get them elected.
They don't even let us vote "No confidence" here.
Streets can be privately owned and payed for. If we were allowed to keep more of our money to do with it as we please, we can be better at spending it then any government ever could. Large companies, charities and small businesses can add roads. (People seem to underestimate how much money goes into charities alone) It is not so impossible. There is and should be no mandate for the government to pay for the streets. Resources can be privately allocated and ran locally. If education can be ran privately which at one time in early US history it was then why not everything else. Man has a knack for such things. I have a hard time explaining such things as i am still learning so much.
Yes, rules but the market can regulate itself easy enough, Austrian Economics explanes this quite well. If you behave badly, you will not be bailed out. Insider trading needs to be eliminated. No lobby group connections. No banking bailouts. None of that. Get rid of all tax loop holes. Make the Tax Code very simple. Get rid of most taxes. Get government out of bed with businesses.
The real solution is less government and something more along the lines of Anarcho-Capitalism, eliminate the party system, give the folks back there private property rights, end the wars and close the world bases, get rid of taxes because we have to much government to pay for, get rid of the welfare state, allow gun ownership, end the war on drugs. In the end this is all about individual freedom of choice, to live out one's dreams, keeping the fruits of one's labor, opting out of the system as much as possible, just to be left alone and have liberty.
Human's want to be free but there are those who want power, greed and control. This is why big governments do not work and leads to serfdom and misery. Ultimately the system implodes upon itself as history always shows. Some may last longer then others but for how long. Europe is coming apart, The US is following, China continues to embrace capitalism in spite of there big state control which will have to change at some point. However, every day i see people waking up so there still lies hope. Most here in the US know the game is up.
The solution is simple. Does man want to dominate man to his injury or are we free agents to choose and do no harm to others, to trade freely and progress forward with our liberties. We either vote for the more liberty minded folks, wait it out, let the system implode and start over or start a fight.
This all sounds very nice Chris,but
Quote.....but there are those who want power, greed and control
messes it up. i don´t think that less or even no government will solve the problem. Only thing that happens would be a bunch of landlords and the small guy has to work for them. Probably I am to pessimistic.
At this stage we might have to much government and I think this only can change if politicians stop to do politics to get mighty. I think election systems would have to change.
QuoteThey don't even let us vote "No confidence" here.
Thats one point I would like to see on election cards A)PartyA; B)PartyB; C)PartyC; D)none oy you cause you suck
Quote from: Walli on June 16, 2012, 08:09:18 AM
D)none of you cause you suck
LOL! I would check that box this year just for spite! Good one ;D
Quote from: JimB on June 14, 2012, 07:42:33 AM
Quote from: penang on June 14, 2012, 05:23:35 AM"Mrs Merkel .... repeated that growth should not be financed by more debt."
A third of Sweden's workforce are employed by government ...
Sweden ?
Why suddenly you bring up Sweden as an example ?
Or has Sweden become your strawman ?
Why only Sweden ? Why not Singapore ? Or Hong Kong ? Or Haiti ? or Rwanda ?
Quote from: Walli on June 16, 2012, 08:09:18 AM
This all sounds very nice Chris,but Quote.....but there are those who want power, greed and control
messes it up. i don´t think that less or even no government will solve the problem. Only thing that happens would be a bunch of landlords and the small guy has to work for them. Probably I am to pessimistic.
At this stage we might have to much government and I think this only can change if politicians stop to do politics to get mighty. I think election systems would have to change.
QuoteThey don't even let us vote "No confidence" here.
Thats one point I would like to see on election cards A)PartyA; B)PartyB; C)PartyC; D)none oy you cause you suck
What Chris describes would end up in Feudalism. Exactly what the rulers of the world want. That's not to say that smaller government isn't a good ideal but government is meant to be there to represent the interests of the people. Sometimes it's in the interests of the people for the government to have a large active role in something if the people are clever enough to choose a government that does the right thing. The problem is that they haven't done this so government is seen as the problem - just what the bankers and all the other tyrants actually want. They want "Governance" not Government. You've probably heard this term being used often now. The system that the US government is meant to operate within has nothing wrong with it i.e. the constitution. It is (was) the best system invented.
People fled to America to escape European tyranny. Now Americans talk of Austrian Economics, Keynesianism, even Democracy which isn't what the USA is supposed to be. It's mean't to be a Republic which once had an American system of economics. The government is supposed to create the money as credit not private banks with European Oligarchs as shareholders creating debt. The Fed, Wall Street and various other remnants of the old British Empire are back in charge. I've even seen Americans celebrating British Royalty - their absolute enemy. This is really incredible.
Ron Paul is no good anymore. He'd have been worth voting for in the past but it's a more serious situation now. You can't pay off the debt by cutting government spending. However, you can probably expect the Austrians to be utilised when the Oligarchs decide it's time For the US to get the Greece treatment. Just like always they will play the people like a deck of cards.
It has to be seen as a war situation but nobody identifies the enemy to be fought. It's the bankers who operate in the old Oligarchical European Empire way in case anyone hadn't realised that by now. Still largely centralised in the City Of London and headed up by the British Crown - who control the banking system along with a whole load of other things. They will simply asset strip every country. The PIGS (bankers talk for Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) are essentially already destroyed even more than if an invading army had been sent in. The bankers have no need for armies anymore in Europe or the US because the people there are so stupid they willingly give up all the independence and freedom that their ancestors fought for. No need for puppets with armies such as Napoleon or Hitler etc anymore. All you need to do is create worthless money from nothing and make the people reliant on it.
Money has no value whatsoever. Only productivity has. Notice how all the manufacturing in most of the west is quickly reducing to nothing. Eventually all the people will have is bits of worthless paper. Germany is the biggest exception in Europe but that's why they were conned into the Euro trap.
@efflux - Very cool insights. I have a couple of questions, though (with your quotes in bold) -
The government is supposed to create the money as credit not private banks with European Oligarchs as shareholders creating debt. -- It all starts with someone loaning someone money as far as I can see. The U.S. borrowed from Holland, didn't they, to start up?
All you need to do is create worthless money from nothing and make the people reliant on it. -- Peter Schiff has said just this. But, he thinks Big Government is the issue. How do you see this?
Quote from: penang on June 17, 2012, 12:28:00 AM
Why suddenly you bring up Sweden as an example ?
Why troll a CGI discussion forum with partisan political threads? Get a room.
Speaking of CGI Jim...anything to show of your recent works using TG?
Quote from: calico on June 25, 2012, 10:43:21 AM
@efflux - Very cool insights. I have a couple of questions, though (with your quotes in bold) -
The government is supposed to create the money as credit not private banks with European Oligarchs as shareholders creating debt. -- It all starts with someone loaning someone money as far as I can see. The U.S. borrowed from Holland, didn't they, to start up?
All you need to do is create worthless money from nothing and make the people reliant on it. -- Peter Schiff has said just this. But, he thinks Big Government is the issue. How do you see this?
I didn't reply here until now. Not really using TG2 often. It comes in phases. I've got a new Mac Mini quad core. I may try TG2 on that.
Anyway. The present world situation is dire. People in the US and Europe have become so utterly stupid it is unbelievable.
Yes, I guess the US started by lending money from Europe but they soon found that they were essentially a slave colony. The breaking away of the US from financial slavery from Europe by them printing their own money meant that they could build their own industry. Invest in the creativity of their own people. Banks are only interested in rent return. They will happily simply kill off the population or put them into slavery after they have stolen everything. The government is supposed to represent the people so they should also do that by deciding how money is released into the economy to do good for the people. Bankers don't care about this.
Yeah, I think Peter Schiff is generally an OK guy. The problem is that he sees things on too naive a level. Yes, Big government is usually bad but what would have happened if Roosevelt hadn't built up US infrastructure thus enabling the war machine against Hitler? A lot of people critique Roosevelt. Schiff would for sure but it depends if the government is doing right by the people or not. If your country is under attack the government needs to take charge. If it's an attack by Bankers then this is also applicable.
Obama is literally a nutjob narcissist (in the style of Nero) put in charge of the US to make sure the US can't do what Roosevelt did. The US is not alone. We have sewer rats in Europe running things.
Most psychologists will tell you that around 4 in every hundred people are psychopaths. Politics is their favourite occupation along with banking. I just don't get why people can't see this. It's at the heart of most of our problems. People seem to be very emotionally stupid. To pick up on psychopathic tendencies you need to be able see through peoples behaviour in an emotional way. Psychopaths fake emotional responses concerning things like empathy because they have none. To them everything is just business. Killing millions of people means nothing to them.
The US needs to reinstate Glass Steagall and shut down the Fed. Write off the banking debts and release money from the government to start rebuilding the economy. Shutting down the Fed would kill the current total Euro tyranny as well because the Fed is keeping that alive. Exactly as the Bankers once supported Hilter. There is no difference in general policy here.
There are even calls in the UK to use Glass Steagall style rules and this is coming from some bankers!
Obama and the other puppets in the US (Romney etc) will not reinstate Glass Steagall because they are banker puppets same as most of the scum running things in Europe. Instead they will take the US down maybe via war with Russia and China. That is the present direction.
One thing that needs to avoided is this country versus that country. If you critique Obama or Cameron or Merkel or whoever it doesn't mean you are critiquing the people of those states except in general, people in Western counties have become very stupid as far as I can see. The bankers love one nation against another because they can benefit best from these nations waring with each other but they will be quite happy with civil war everywhere as well or even nuclear war. They are psychopathic so full scale nuclear war is not beyond them at all.
It was the same lobby who succesfully managed to have the regulations of banks being released. That happened in the late eighties and nineties.
Before that the Glass Steagall Act regulated speculation and the size of the banks and the volume of currency they were allowed to put on the market.
Then upon installation of several acts, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act for instance, the banks were basically allowed to do anything they like.
Speculation and flooding the market with cheap money were the result.
In combination with "clever" tricks like fractional reserve banking, bonds and what not there developed a ginormous amount of non-existent money.
It wasn't backed up by anything, it was just created out of thin air. Who started it and still performs this in eerie perfection? The Fed.
Read more here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/
Indeed, the Fed should be shut down.
For christ sake (excuse me), the Fed is a frikkin' private bank. Better said, 100% of the Fed's shareholders are private banks.
It's not a government institution. Yet they determine whatever happens financially on global scale.
So the next part is considered tin foil hat stuff by everybody who only watches TV and consumes mainstream stuff ;)
These tin foil hat people warned us for the past 10 years and so far when it comes to this crisis and banksters stories they were more often right than wrong it seemed eventually.
How on earth is it possible that ONE private corporation completely owns the world economy?
The owners of these private banks are families like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers etc. These banks are major shareholders for virtually every large energy/oil/weapons/financing company in the world. It literally all branches upwards to these handful of families.
They control *everything*.
Since this is what the banksters wanted themselves it will *never ever* happen that these changes will be reverted in the financial system.
It is instigated by the banksters lobby and they are the only ones capable of reverting it as they are puppeted by the banksters themselves.
A central world government is their agenda as they want to further expand their control and power.
I don't believe they want to decimate the population like many conspiracy dudes think, but one large world government isn't unthinkable.
For instance, current president of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy, announced he wants to start negotiating to put the complete European Union under one budget. "In order to reshape economical and monetary operations so that countries like Greece and Spain won't be able to affect the Euro as a whole anymore" is his motivation. Basically enslaving all the other 'debt-less' (figuratively speaking) countries is what it means.
That's where things come full circle with the above.
Once Europe has reshaped his economical and monetary operations in this way then everything will be centrally operated.
The mechanism by which this idea from van Rompuy needs to succeed is by deliberately keeping the crisis alive by the Fed. Otherwise there would be no need to reshape.
van Rompuy himself isn't necessarily aware he's being puppet in this.
This gives rise to "the need of a centralised solution" which otherwise wouldn't be accepted that easily, because souverignty needs to be transferred to a single party.
Naturally that gives a lot of resistence, for a good reason, but if you suffocate countries long enough in a crisis then they will accept this eventually.
The Fed and families fully control and own every dollar in the world and they want to keep it that way, because the world economy still uses the Dollar as standard/reference. The Euro is a strong competitor of the Dollar and potential danger to their economical and monetary power.
Transferring the Euro operations to a single entity only means they will need a single puppet to pull its strings.
The puppets are already in place. Van Rompuy, Draghi, Monti etc. etc.
The latter two are from Goldman Sachs, also a private bank from those families which is shareholder of the Fed.....coincidence of course!
The latter also member of Bilderberg conference group, a group of bankers, industrialists and selected politicians who annually meet....coincidence of course!
Like with every conference in any field of work you meet people and discuss your work, the problems and how you can help each other out.
The same happens at those conferences. It's not unthinkable, nor unlikely, that a lot of decisions and agreements are made there behind closed doors.
That's why democracy isn't working anymore. The significant and 'big things' has been decided about long before you realize or think you can have any influence on.
Which you can't anyway.
It really makes me wonder when people wake up and see/realize how WRONG and sad the world is and how we're manipulated in such brutal manner and on such a massive scale.
But hey, as long as we have our iDevices, Facebook, MTV, Macdonalds etc.we're all fine and don't care...don't we? ;D
...unless however, we have a mass failure of the power grid (solar flares) - then we have almost nothing for a long, long time!
WOW! We all actually agree on something!
One thing we all seem to agree on (me included) is that the federal reserve bank is evil. And that bankers in general are pieces of shit.
I am not talking about the tellers at your local banks or even the leaders of your local banks. I am talking about the world bankers. These people have proven them selves over and over to be dishonest at best. And demons from hell at worst. But they not even the real problem.
The real problem is that all of our countries are divided against them selves. And no matter who runs for office or what party says what, we cant believe a word they say.
We are all in real trouble. I am almost thankful for the economic difficulties. Because when everything is good in our wallets, we don't pay attention. for 40 years we have not been paying attention. And now we are all on the brink.
I dont know if taking our money from the gold standard was good or not. I mean I just don't know. I don't know about any of the individuals at the fed. I don't know what the real motivations of the people at the fed are, or the leaders in any party in any part of the world are for that matter.
But what I do know is that putting wolves in charge of the hen house is stupid, stupid, stupid.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on September 13, 2012, 01:59:23 PM
It was the same lobby who succesfully managed to have the regulations of banks being released. That happened in the late eighties and nineties.
Before that the Glass Steagall Act regulated speculation and the size of the banks and the volume of currency they were allowed to put on the market.
Then upon installation of several acts, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act for instance, the banks were basically allowed to do anything they like.
Speculation and flooding the market with cheap money were the result.
In combination with "clever" tricks like fractional reserve banking, bonds and what not there developed a ginormous amount of non-existent money.
It wasn't backed up by anything, it was just created out of thin air. Who started it and still performs this in eerie perfection? The Fed.
Read more here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/
Indeed, the Fed should be shut down.
For christ sake (excuse me), the Fed is a frikkin' private bank. Better said, 100% of the Fed's shareholders are private banks.
It's not a government institution. Yet they determine whatever happens financially on global scale.
So the next part is considered tin foil hat stuff by everybody who only watches TV and consumes mainstream stuff ;)
These tin foil hat people warned us for the past 10 years and so far when it comes to this crisis and banksters stories they were more often right than wrong it seemed eventually.
How on earth is it possible that ONE private corporation completely owns the world economy?
The owners of these private banks are families like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers etc. These banks are major shareholders for virtually every large energy/oil/weapons/financing company in the world. It literally all branches upwards to these handful of families.
They control *everything*.
Since this is what the banksters wanted themselves it will *never ever* happen that these changes will be reverted in the financial system.
It is instigated by the banksters lobby and they are the only ones capable of reverting it as they are puppeted by the banksters themselves.
A central world government is their agenda as they want to further expand their control and power.
I don't believe they want to decimate the population like many conspiracy dudes think, but one large world government isn't unthinkable.
For instance, current president of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy, announced he wants to start negotiating to put the complete European Union under one budget. "In order to reshape economical and monetary operations so that countries like Greece and Spain won't be able to affect the Euro as a whole anymore" is his motivation. Basically enslaving all the other 'debt-less' (figuratively speaking) countries is what it means.
That's where things come full circle with the above.
Once Europe has reshaped his economical and monetary operations in this way then everything will be centrally operated.
The mechanism by which this idea from van Rompuy needs to succeed is by deliberately keeping the crisis alive by the Fed. Otherwise there would be no need to reshape.
van Rompuy himself isn't necessarily aware he's being puppet in this.
This gives rise to "the need of a centralised solution" which otherwise wouldn't be accepted that easily, because souverignty needs to be transferred to a single party.
Naturally that gives a lot of resistence, for a good reason, but if you suffocate countries long enough in a crisis then they will accept this eventually.
The Fed and families fully control and own every dollar in the world and they want to keep it that way, because the world economy still uses the Dollar as standard/reference. The Euro is a strong competitor of the Dollar and potential danger to their economical and monetary power.
Transferring the Euro operations to a single entity only means they will need a single puppet to pull its strings.
The puppets are already in place. Van Rompuy, Draghi, Monti etc. etc.
The latter two are from Goldman Sachs, also a private bank from those families which is shareholder of the Fed.....coincidence of course!
The latter also member of Bilderberg conference group, a group of bankers, industrialists and selected politicians who annually meet....coincidence of course!
Like with every conference in any field of work you meet people and discuss your work, the problems and how you can help each other out.
The same happens at those conferences. It's not unthinkable, nor unlikely, that a lot of decisions and agreements are made there behind closed doors.
That's why democracy isn't working anymore. The significant and 'big things' has been decided about long before you realize or think you can have any influence on.
Which you can't anyway.
It really makes me wonder when people wake up and see/realize how WRONG and sad the world is and how we're manipulated in such brutal manner and on such a massive scale.
But hey, as long as we have our iDevices, Facebook, MTV, Macdonalds etc.we're all fine and don't care...don't we? ;D
Yeah. This is all true and it's not even that hard to work out. People who say this stuff is conspiracy theory are stupid. Do they actually think that these politicians and bankers don't conspire? The Romans used to talk about giving the people bread and circuses to keep them occupied with nonsense so they hadn't a clue what was going on. Same story today.
I was watching Cameron and Clegg the other day. These guys actually physically behave like puppets with all their fake arm gestures etc. It's really incredible.
They are constantly whittling down the UK armed forces at the moment. Why is this? It's not rocket science. They want a European army as step to world army. Always the same aims with these people.
The US army pretty much seems to be taking orders from the UN these days. The US Congress and other governments act like they are just ceremonial.
Quote from: choronr on September 13, 2012, 05:40:12 PM
...unless however, we have a mass failure of the power grid (solar flares) - then we have almost nothing for a long, long time!
This is an important point that leads on to other issues. One day we will get hit by an asteroid which will wipe out a large amount of life on this planet. That is a definite. It's happened many times before. We do have the capability to develop technology to avoid that. Instead our leaders value money and control, not safeguarding the future of the human species as a whole. All species on this planet go extinct eventually. Mankind is an exception in that we have the capability to continually develop our creativity in dealing with these problems right out into the universe. If we don't do that we will become extinct like every other species that can not move ahead. That's why big lizards died out and were replaced by mammals who had better survival capability in changing environment. Notice this term "sustainability". Species that simply sustain themselves die out. We need new technologies to generate power. Windmills and such nonsense are a way to keep the population "sustained" i.e. under control of Oligarchs.
The ultimate aim of Oligarchs is to constantly cull the population and keep them in "austerity". Look at every policy currently being adopted and that is the aim.
One major hurdle the bankers have is that the American people are armed. You can bet they will do everything possible to end this because if they collapse the economy and America descends into chaos, whatever military they send in will get a wake up call. They will not be keen on fighting that war.
One of the main objectives of any tyranny is to disarm the people. It's obvious to anyone with any brain cells left why this is a prime objective. You don't bully armed people into submission.
The traitors all signed up to a UN non proliferation of small arms treaty. This gives nation states the right to hold arms but not the people. Meanwhile everyone is busy watching the usual smokescreens on TV.
The brainwashing of people is incredibly effective.
In the UK we used to have arms. I even remember some relatives of mine had shotguns. My grandfather had a pistol because he was a vet. It wasn't unusual to see guns. Now ask anyone if they should be able to buy a gun and they invariably think this is wrong and even look at you like you are mad. What changed?
We have a Bill Of Rights in the UK.
William Blackstone 1707:
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
Now even Obama says that owning guns is not for self defense, it's for hunting. That is not why the American Constitution gives rights to bear arms.
Freedom means being responsible, not having your rights stripped away due to being irresponsible.
The Guardian UK. Liberal (1984 double speak these days) newspaper. Did this reporter bother to check any facts? There is more crime in the UK per person than the US and gun crime has doubled in the last 10 years. Gun control in the UK has not stopped gun crime. In fact it has had the opposite effect. The US isn't even a good model for gun crime compared to gun ownership. There is still more gun crime in the US than UK but in the UK it's rocketing up. In Australia it has multiplied dramatically since they recently took away their arms. The Police are not armed in the UK, at least ordinary Police. Of course the solution that gets discussed is that the Police should be armed. So Police are responsible enough to have guns but the people aren't. You can be sure you are in a Tyranny when the Police have guns but the people don't.
Here the Guardian appears to lecture the US about gun crime while ignoring facts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/james-holmes-us-gun-laws
^^ interesting read efflux. Did not know some of those gun statistics you mentioned. Thanks for the info!
I like everything you said about disarming the population and tyranny, because its historically true.
Its sad... People who end up in death camps always ask what they did wrong. Its obvious that they did not learn from history, thats what people in mass graves did wrong.
People who end up in death camps also do not usually believe what is happening. It's often said why didn't anyone do anything to stop the Nazis? Because people didn't think it could happen. Like they now can't believe that our governments could tell such massive lies and have such evil intentions which will lead to the same sorts of results we have seen time and time again.
As for the people being armed, the Swiss are. They don't get invaded (and the EU is essentially an invasion). It's not the only reason they stay out of wars but it's one of them.
Jed Bartlet for president!
Quote from: efflux on September 26, 2012, 03:31:02 AM
Did this reporter bother to check any facts? There is more crime in the UK per person than the US
Not so fast.
The Daily Mail article that's thrown this out into the blogosphere compares the UK's
TOTAL crime to US
VIOLENT crime. Make of that what you will. Specifically on the subject of firearms offences, in England it's classed as a firearms offence if a replica gun is waved around or used to hit someone with, or even if an air rifle is discharged in a public place. Carrying a concealed weapon in any shape or form is also a criminal offence, such as a hunting knife or even a pen knife (without a really, really, really, really, really, good reason for carrying them), and will be classed as a crime involving a weapon. Furthermore, crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence (according to the UK Home Office themselves).
I don't know what the daily mail article says but I can't find anything that really suggests banning guns reduces crime. Of course if they suddenly changed the law in the UK so anyone could go and buy a gun, you may well get a mass of gun crime but in a state where people are used to not taking take full responsibility for their own freedom you'd likely get irresponsible behaviour if this responsibility was suddenly with the individual again.
You could look at this on a higher level. If government criminal activity was a measure of crime then over history you'd probably find that having everyone armed would be a big deterrent to crime. This is really the most important reason for any population to be armed. The biggest criminals are in government.
Often the argument is used that we live in different times. Owning guns is not relevant anymore. So suddenly now the human race is all good, no evil politicians, bankers or whoever is running the show? I think it's obvious that argument is a fail.
Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!
Who, for president?
(http://newkidsonthenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/martinsheen.jpg)
Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president!Jed Bartlet for president! :D
^^He was a douche too.
Incredible hostility towards a fictional character there Badger, do you often have trouble differentiating fiction from reality? :D
QuoteIncredible hostility towards a fictional character there Badger, do you often have trouble differentiating fiction from reality?
I dont understand your statement. There is nothing in my comment that suggests that I believed the character in your post to be real. But I doubt very much that we have the same perception of reality anyway.
For example, the character in the image you posted was the president of the united states in a hit TV show. It was mostly viewed by people of a certain political or philosophical persuasion that watched in order to have their own views of reality validated.
They needed their views validated from the programs fictions, in oder to feel better about, or reinforce their believes, that there ideas are right and good. They needed to do this in order to counter act the impact of the reality of the over whelming failure of their ideas in the "Real world".
Ultimately the show was canceled.
But, then again, you were calling for Jed Bartlet to be elected. I imagine that you were doing this in oder to dismiss the conversation that everyone else was having.
Insults in place of arguments is a strategy born out of the notion of a will to power, and post modern politics. The primary group in the US to employ this strategy is the progressive left, for whom the character Jed Bartlet was a kind of porn star.
But to answer your question, no. Not ever.
Are you always a dick?
No, never a Dick I find that particular name is reserved for people of a particular political persuasion and those who have no sense of humour and do not know thier place in the scheme of things. You know, the kind of people that think an Art forum is a sensible place for a political discussion and think that ranting about the worlds problems can be solved on an ART forum.
Regardless, get your facts straight, the show was not cancelled, it had run it's course in portraying Bartlet's term in office and oh by the way I have no political affiliations nor bias towards any american political party, why....I'm British!
Now, instead of calling me names why don't you run along, I'm sure you have a bund meeting to attend.
Quote from: Andrew March on November 12, 2012, 11:42:05 AM
No, never a Dick I find that particular name is reserved for people of a particular political persuasion and those who have no sense of humour and do not know thier place in the scheme of things. You know, the kind of people that think an Art forum is a sensible place for a political discussion and think that ranting about the worlds problems can be solved on an ART forum.
Regardless, get your facts straight, the show was not cancelled, it had run it's course in portraying Bartlet's term in office and oh by the way I have no political affiliations nor bias towards any american political party, why....I'm British!
Now, instead of calling me names why don't you run along, I'm sure you have a bund meeting to attend.
Questioning whether an Art forum (or basically any other forum other than a political based one) is a sensible place for political discussion is not very relevant I think.
We gather here because we share the same interest, but the forum also allows for discussion other than our main shared interest.
This place is offered by the Open Discussion subsection of the forums and that's where we exactly are.
If you don't agree to that then simply avoid this part of the board or these kind of topics.
Of course we won't solve it, nor will people who discuss it on an appropriate board I think.
I think it doesn't hurt in the sense that how different opinions, visions and the ability to accept facts are, you can still learn a bit from it.
Despite I don't share the same ideas and thoughts
I think it's good to know other's opinions. No matter how different they are, but it doesn't need to be put here to the level of being straight obnoxious with fact-twists/denial and such.
QuoteNo, never a Dick
90% of your own posts over the last few months would disagree with you.
Quote...I find that particular name is reserved for people...do not know thier place in the scheme of things...the kind of people that think an Art forum is a sensible place for a political discussion
Hilarious!
Yes, Andrew, please tell us our proper place. Decide for the rest of us where we can and cannot talk, and what we can and cannot talk about.
An art forum is not a "sensible" place to talk about politics? For the last 10,000 years art was focused on two things,
politics and religion.
Its only recently that art became a form of personal self expression for ordinary people. If you knew anything about art you would know that.
"Art forums" are the most appropriate place to talk about politics.
QuoteRegardless, get your facts straight, the show was not cancelled
The show was cancelled due to a continual decrease in the ratings. If it was still popular at the end NBC would have brought in a new character to play a new president, or created a spin off series. According to NBC the network that made the show, the show was cancelled because it was no longer popular.
"
The presidential drama, a onetime critical and audience darling that has seen a precipitous ratings drop, will close this spring with President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) leaving and a new president" (
USA Today/AP/NBC)
Get my facts straight? Hilarious!
QuoteI have no political affiliations nor bias towards any american political party, why....I'm British!
I never talked about parties here. Or are you saying there is no progressive left in England? If you are, your blind.
QuoteNow, instead of calling me names why don't you run along, I'm sure you have a bund meeting to attend.
Thats funny too. You single me out by name with an insult and get offended when I respond. By the way, placing a smiley face next to your insult does not make you funny, it makes you a gimp.
These threads only get harsh when guys like you start with the personal attacks. The rest of us seem to get along just fine despite disagreeing passionately on just about everything.
The problem here is not this thread, the problem is you.
When the government tries to help people buy houses when those people aren't financially responsibile, you know we are in for a crash. The government is essentially being used by lobbyists put there by construction companies who don't think they are selling enough houses so they want to make more money by building houses that aren't needed. These companies don't care that the buyers can't pay for them because the banks pay them up front and leave everyone who has money in those banks holding the bag. I'd like to ask everyone on this forum "How many of you have paid off your mortgage?"
Quote
For the last 10,000 years art was focused on two things, politics and religion.
Ahem.... and sex. ::)
Quote from: Andrew March on November 12, 2012, 11:42:05 AM
No, never a Dick I find that particular name is reserved for people of a particular political persuasion and those who have no sense of humour and do not know thier place in the scheme of things. You know, the kind of people that think an Art forum is a sensible place for a political discussion and think that ranting about the worlds problems can be solved on an ART forum.
Regardless, get your facts straight, the show was not cancelled, it had run it's course in portraying Bartlet's term in office and oh by the way I have no political affiliations nor bias towards any american political party, why....I'm British!
Now, instead of calling me names why don't you run along, I'm sure you have a bund meeting to attend.
I think it's more useful to have at least some dicsussion on these topics on a forum like this rather than going somewhere that only discusses this sort of thing. These things are discussed on all sorts of forums just like this. This way, ideas and info gets spread more effecyively rather than putting it where everyone already knows or where people spend all their time arguing about this stuff and often they have extremely inflexible opinions. I also think people who are into any form of creating art tend to think more carefully.