so this thread is still goin...
Personally, I don't think nuclear is over. And as far as algae is concerned, it might have a bigger part to play in biofuels than anything else.
Yeah, and some of you probably think Phil Schneider if full of it too. But he might have been the last decent American who could at least see clearly. He's dead now but his story should be known and there's even some good architecture details too:
Richard Souder, a Ph-D architect, has risked his life by talking about this. He worked with a number of government
agencies on deep underground military bases. In around where you live in Idaho, there are 11 of them." "The average
depth of these bases is over a mile and they again are basically whole cities underground. They are all between 2.66 and
4.25 cubic miles in size. They have laser drilling machines that can drill a tunnel seven miles long in one day.
You might think an alien firefight is ridiculous and maybe it is but at the very least it is a good metaphor for what has gone wrong in the United States.
The Truth Behind the Republican Contract with America
"I don't perceive at this time that we have too much more than six months of life left in this country, at the present... <snipped for length> .... The Contract with America is a last ditch effort by our federal government to tear away the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
So vote. And vote for the democrats. Or else the government is going to get you.
Also, there is a guy with a PhD in Arch in that story, as you mentioned. I wonder if the Gov't paid off his loans before they killed him? I think we have a forum topic here somewhere about PhDs. Anyway, building underground government cities seems to me like good work if I could get it. Maybe our financial mess is currently all of the world's governments hoarding money to stock up on military stuff because the alien invasion is imminent. That could explain Executive Order 11110 too. I'm glad my president and my country are protecting me and looking out for my best interest. I'd much rather have President Obama, who killed Bin Laden, rather than Romney who killed GST Steel Corp.
Other than that, there isn't much damning in that story. We know there are black budgets. That's what the Oliver North trials were about right? Also that movie about the Taliban with Tom Hanks, 'Charlie Wilson's War'. We also know about secret government bases. I'm pretty sure there are some old ones that have been decommissioned and tourists can go in now. They have a shower at the beginning for congresspeople to strip and clean any radiation off, bunk beds, a press room, etc. Sure it was rude for the government to kill the guy, but if he really had some sort of top secret clearance and ran his mouth, that's kind of rude too. In perspective, Bradley Manning is going to get life in prison for an inconvenient thumb drive.
I will close with another quote from your link:
"I want you to know that these United States are a beautiful place. I have gone to more than 70 countries and cannot remember any country that has the beauty, as well as the magnificence of it's people, like these United States."
"I'd much rather have President Obama, who killed Bin Laden, rather than Romney who killed GST Steel Corp."
WAKE UP PEOPLE WAKE UP!!! Why there was a Bin Laden in the first place? Because of the US imperialism and occupation of other countries. The 9/11 was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia and that spineless shrub sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan instead. Obama didn't stop the war. If the US didn't get involved in other countries' internal politics these terrorists wouldn't exist or their numbers would be less. If the US minded its own business there would be less anti-American sentiments in the middle east. Just to clarify, I'm neither blaming Americans nor Iranians or all the Israelis for their governments' actions. Unfortunately the governments act independently and without considering what's good for their own people. There is a way to stop wars and it is up to the Americans to stand up and stop these wars. The government should be afraid of its people not the other way around. "They attacked the US because they hate our freedoms." is total BS. The majority of Afghans couldn't even point US on the world map let alone know how American people live. Why don't they bring democracy to Saudi Arabia? Because everything is about oil. Now they're trying to bring down Assad. Why? Because they can't control him, not because he is a dictator but because he doesn't take orders from Washington. The US should stay away from Syria and it is going to be a disaster if it wages a war with Iran. When it comes to foreign policy Obama is no better than Bush. The military industrial complex controls everything, even Obama. The US needs to get the troops out of the middle east and use that money to improve the infrastructure, help the poor etc. That's why I'll be voting for Ron Paul. He has been consistent from the beginning, he knows exactly what's going on and how to improve it and he is the only one who wasn't bought by corporations.
which side of the alien battle is ron paul on? Apparently, after reading Handsum's article and googling that guy and his architect friend, there are 2 larger groups of aliens. One wants to enslave us and the other more or less wants to leave us be. The freemasons and UN support those that want to enslave us, while apparently the US Navy for whatever reason has sided with the other group. Has Ron Paul clarified his position on the upcoming alien threat? Obama has already pretty much shown his hand.
You know, if we fixed the economy I would have more work to do and wouldn't be reading about alien invasions. Probably part of the conspiracy.
Jul 11, 12 9:54 am ·
·
I'm glad we are talking about Ron Paul now but unfortunately he is an outsider and Americans will never vote for him. The mainstream media won't touch this angle of course but there is evidence that Paul was one of the few Americans to survive the Las Dulce firefight with aliens and it is believed that it was because he struck a deal with the aliens. This is the only reason why he is alive and Phil Schneider has now been found DEAD.
But the silly aliens are literally the only stupid fucking people more fucking stupid than the stupid fucking American voters !!!
Well, come on. I do understand Paradox's feeling about this. I do agree, in principal, our military deployment is, as a geopolitical strategy, designed to ensure we have access to cheap energy. I don't agree removing troops from the middle east will completely assuage actual terrorists. Even if we are gone, they will need us as a boogieman, and there is plenty enough genuine resentment to fuel that long after we have left. But in general principal, the deployment Bush left us with, occupying two countries, was stupid and did more to exacerbate the problem than to solve it.
By the way though, Obama's central foreign policy drive has been to end this, and he has done so as fast as is logistically, politically, and responsibly possible. Obama has made massive cuts to military spending, cuts which even Ron Paul, dependent on a fairly ravenous pro-war party, could not have achieved himself.
If libertarians were really as principaled as they pretend to be, they would never vote republican again. This is what is so discouraging to me about the Republican party as it now stands. They use homophobia and islamaphobia to scare evangelicals into voting for them, they use conspiracy theories and fear of non-existent government plots to destroy their freedom to fool libertarians into voting for them, and then use them to behave in the most un-christian, autocratic way they can get away with. They've fooled christians into thinking men in speedos are more of a threat to their way of life than poverty and war. They've fooled libertarians into voting for two wars, the patriot act, and the department of Homeland Security. That's what Ron Paul is there for. To keep you in the party and voting for the exact opposite of what you want.
If you don't believe me, go back and watch the Republican primary debates. Notice Ron Paul, in between wooing you with promises of "freedom" and "sound monetary policy" washing Romney's golden ass for a speaking spot at the convention. Mitt Romney invented Obamacare, that apparently didn't bother Ron Paul enough to mention? Does Mitt Romney have any intention of instituting a gold standard? That wasn't worth asking him about? It's a con my man, and you are the mark. You exist to ensure that Mitt Romney can continue to pay 15% in taxes, and that banks can behave like numbers rackets, and coal companies can dump toxic sludge in rivers without worrying about pesky "regulation". And great! Write in Ron Paul at the top of the ballot. Who are you voting for for congress? Do they have an R next to their name? Because if so, you've just endorsed a massive increase in military spending and probably invading Iran.
If libertarians were really as principled as they pretend to be, they would never vote republican again.
I would like to point out that the republican party has not always been this batshit crazy. I think it's likely that, if we survive into 2013, the republican party will someday moderate again. So libertarians should be able to someday vote republican again. It's just in their interest, as well as intelligent republicans like Due's Massachusetts 'r,' to not support he republican party during this particular period of history. There is hope for both the party and the traditional conservative belief system, but to get there you guys all have to vocally stop supporting the nuts so your party can go back to a more reasonable centrist position a little faster.
I would like to point out that the republican party has not always been this batshit crazy. I think it's likely that, if we survive into 2013, the republican party will someday moderate again.
I sincerely hope this is true. Who knows, maybe someday. Even as a liberal I would love to have a sincere broker on the other side of the isle. Having healthy markets is vital to our country, and someone does need to be there to be really strict about spending to reduce government waste. Obama has spent the last 2 years in deficit fights desperately begging republicans to help him on those very issues. The problem is no one is there to say yes to anything. After 2010 there is nothing left but but wingnuts and pathological hatred for him as a person. The ideological cohesion of the entire party is stitched together by resentment and empty promises and sloganeering. I'm just not entirely convinced libertarians and evangelicals and foreign policy hawks actually belong in the same party anymore. And worse, I cannot recall a time when the party they have all voted for has ever given them what they actually want. Reagan practically invented deficit spending and fed manipulation, and he did it to massively and pointlessly expand the military. He signed amnesty bills and raised taxes. Bush exploded the deficit, and did so by expanding the federal government and engaging in the most brazen military adventurism this country has seen in decades. And now they've nominated Mitt Romney? What in God's green earth leads republicans to believe their party will ever actually do anything they wish it would do?
They need their voters for one reason and one reason only: to ensure high margins for their donors. Regress the tax code, reduce regulation on large companies, and preserve loopholes for those that pay them to. They have no intention of cutting spending. They have no intention of cutting the deficit. They never have.
And granted, totally, democrats often do things I wish they would not, but when it comes to foreign policy and healthcare and financial regulation and gay rights Obama has moved generally in the direction I had hoped. It just seems like when progressives vote for Democrats they get what they want, just less of it than they wish, whereas when Libertarians support republicans they end up voting for the exact opposite of what they were hoping for.
LOL at the idea that the Republicans are "radical" or "crazy" or "extreme." All they do is advocate liberalism from thirty years ago. If that's "extreme", then what does that make present-day Progressives?
"That word, it does not mean what you think it means." ~Inigo Montoya
aww, gwharton found a website called "The American Conservative" that looks completely believable and unbiased. Since in your mind liberalism 30 years ago involved giving money and other competitive advantage to the wealthy at the expense of the working class, here's an ad from the 1982 democratic party to jog your memory:
If republicans of today want to end trickle down economics, why are they fighting so hard to protect tax cuts on the wealthy, subsidies to oil companies, etc.?
Also, Handsum I'm interested in learning more about the impending alien war. Do you have any links to explain more about the 2 sides, and what us regular people should do if we pick a side? Or do we duck and cover and wait until it's over?
Also, Handsum I'm interested in learning more about the impending alien war. Do you have any links to explain more about the 2 sides, and what us regular people should do if we pick a side? Or do we duck and cover and wait until it's over?
If they have the tech to get here, they will have no problem kicking our asses.
You guys really crack me up. Curt, your brain just immediately shut down and started spouting talking points as soon as you looked at that URL, didn't it. The mental virus that pwns your belief system wouldn't even let you consider for a moment that there might be something worth looking at there. Didn't even bother to look at the article it links to. Not part of your echo chamber == crimethink.
Here's a hint: since you consider these evil RETHUGLIKKKANS to be horrible ignorant troglodytes who are hell-bent on destroying all that is good in the world (which is not terribly inaccurate, come to think of it), it might do you some good to pay attention to what they are ACTUALLY saying, rather than your fantasy constructs of what you want them to be saying.
Know your enemy, dude. They've been learning a lot about you.
I read the article, but I don't see your point. The article says "in the Senate, the most conservative Democrat was slightly more liberal than the most liberal Republican, and nearly the same was true in the House." So isn't that kind of the core of this article? That there are still some moderates if you look hard enough?
There really is a long list of people in the Republican party who have lost touch with reality. I don't think this happened, at least not the same extent, 30 years ago. Not in either party. Those people don't seem to be included in the article you link. Those are the people that lead me to think the more moderate and reasonable Republicans need to separate themselves from their party until these elements can be tempered.
I honestly don't think my 'enemy' has been learning much about me (unless you mean the aliens. they're clever). I've been trying to talk to them. I've been trying to reach across the aisle. I've been trying to explain why favoring the ultra-wealthy is a bad idea. I've been trying to explain why some environmental regulation is a good idea. I've been trying to have a dialogue so we can find common ground. My 'enemy' has been far too worried about birth certificates to create an intelligent discussion. The real problem is that President Obama has been trying too, but there are too many nuts in the Republican Party so he can't have a discussion. There are a few moderates that are willing to work him, but not enough to get the votes needed to pass meaningful legislation.
So anyway, that's my point. While I understand that a lot of President Bush's actions were focused on uncontrolled spending and expansion of government, I think it's really hard to jump to the conclusion that his party today is equivalent to the democrats 30 years ago.
By the way, I don't live in Massachusetts, I live in the midwest where the cooks are, so it might just be closer to me than some of you.
^^^ According to this poll 40% of American people identify as independents, this makes sense because there is a growing population of people disappointed with both parties. This is actually good although a good number of independents will vote for Romney and there are some independents like me who are disappointed with Obama. It is not just libertarians who support Ron Paul. The two party system is not really working because people are more diverse than they were in the past. I like some of the things Obama did such as advancing gay and women's rights, establishing universal health care etc. I actually have several conflicts with Ron Paul's ideas since I'm pro union, pro-choice and want the corporates to pay their fair share but at the same time looking at the big picture the biggest danger is the global banking cartels: http://voices.yahoo.com/ron-paul-wants-abolish-federal-reserve-why-10932682.html?cat=37
It is a global scheme. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy will have a domino effect. Iceland has been doing fine since they told the banksters to shove it. Ron Paul predicted the financial collapse back in 2003 and says he will solve this problem,end the corporatism etc. and I stand by the Founding Father's principals so I can't help but side with him.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson
It is certainly a dilemma for me. I'm sure lots of people feel the same frustration, that's why they consider people like Ron Paul to make a statement, to tell they're fed up with the corruption and the undelivered promises.. I wish Ron Paul ran as a third party candidate..I have a feeling Obama will win a second term and I hope he wins instead of Romney. Otherwise we're truly screwed.
I'm super confused, Paradox. You do realize going back to the gold-standard is a monumentally terrible idea, right? The chairman of the Fed is appointed by democratically elected officials. That's the point. In that quote Jefferson is saying, directly, do not hand your currency over to the free market. You say you dont want banks to hold power over you, and then you want to hand our currency over to the mercies of the commodities market? Who do you think controls that? Unicorns?
Anyway,.. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul drives me nuts. Hes a pseudo-nostalgic lunatic parading around under the constitution as if he has a clue what it really says.
I'm super confused, Paradox. You do realize going back to the gold-standard is a monumentally terrible idea, right? The chairman of the Fed is appointed by democratically elected officials. That's the point. In that quote Jefferson is saying, directly, do not hand your currency over to the free market. You say you dont want banks to hold power over you, and then you want to hand our currency over to the mercies of the commodities market? Who do you think controls that? Unicorns?
Anyway,.. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul drives me nuts. Hes a pseudo-nostalgic lunatic parading around under the constitution as if he has a clue what it really says.
hahahah So true! I love the Unicorn part. It is just essentially switching from one pimp to the other. You’re still f**ked. No kidding. I'm a libertarian. But I still think the gold standard idea is as stupid as you can get. Gold standard is good for one reason and the reason is you can’t print money as much as you want. That is the only positive thing. The moment you turn back to gold standard you’re at the mercy of commodity traders. Some people are just too lazy to read history. Before revolution, the US colonies has some form of currency which was not backed by gold standard, and then British tried to impose G.S. The economy collapsed. It wasn’t a fun thing. Currency should be currency. Fed needs strict monetary policy like Deutsche Bundesbank not gold standard.
Unrelated question. Is it too difficult to figure out basic economic stuffs? I just get irritated about it.
No I don't think switching to the gold standard is a good idea either. All I'm saying is banks got us into this financial mess and Ben Bernanke, like a lot of elected officials doesn't sound like a guy we can trust I mean he was called out by Jon Stewart, it is actually quite funny: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-7-2010/the-big-bank-theory
"In that quote Jefferson is saying, directly, do not hand your currency over to the free market."
I didn't interpret it that way. Since private banks are for-profit organizations, their main concern is maximizing earnings. I guess we can all agree that bank CEOs don't have the Americans' best interests at heart. They value profits over people. Credit unions on the other hand are non-profit so I think they would be a better choice.
By the way, Ben Bernanke's son graduated from medical school with $400,000 of student loan debt. If we are to be free we should get rid of the debt as much as possible and he is really not setting up a good example huh? :)
we got into this mess because the government meddled with the free market by subsidizing the home loan market by guaranteeing tons of mortgage loans and creating assets that because of this meddling, were extremely opaque in terms of how fair market pricing.
we got into this mess because people are really dumb and bought homes they couldn't afford, without taking into consideration that a rainy day fund is a higher financial priority than buying a home (dumbfucks everywhere).
OMG, I can't believe people are *still* arguing that the housing crisis was caused by people buying more house than they could afford rather than realizing it was caused by the financial industry urging the little guys to default so that they - the bank - could profit on the bet they had already made against that little guy succeeding.
Seriously, no one should be buying more house - or more higher education! - than they can afford but the far, far higher problem is the credit default swaps that allow brokers to pretend a risk is good (which is fraud, BTW) when they are actually running a side bet on the fact that it's bad.
we got into this mess because the government meddled with the free market by subsidizing the home loan market by guaranteeing tons of mortgage loans and creating assets that because of this meddling, were extremely opaque in terms of how fair market pricing.
we got into this mess because people are really dumb and bought homes they couldn't afford, without taking into consideration that a rainy day fund is a higher financial priority than buying a home (dumbfucks everywhere).
You should quit calling people 'idiot' and other derogatory terms. I'm going to put 3 links at the end of this post. If you want to hold a somewhat intelligent opinion on our current financial situation, especially as it relates to the housing market, you should read them. Read the whole articles, not just the first 4 lines. You're going to be introduced to a lot of terms that go well beyond blaming fannie and disruptions to the free market.
Before you read them, please note that this information may not be perfectly correct. This is people's opinions on what they think contributed. It's complicated. In fact, it's considerably more complicated than 'fannie did it.' So if some parts either don't fit with your free market fantasy, or you don't understand some parts, then research those areas at independent sources. I'm not telling you what your opinion should be, I just want to help provide a general outline of some of the contributing factors to the recent financial collapse including the housing market.
To put it short simple terms, what the Levin-Coburn Report said is "“the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products, undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street." Tom Coburn, who helped create that report, is not a liberal. Thanks.
5:39 pm: troll "i r giv up" has counteracted with a veiled insult, Note: Excessively berating others of differing opinion is young troll behavior, easily observable. It requires no imagination.
Ad hominem is the fatty tissue of productive collective discourse.
No I don't think switching to the gold standard is a good idea either. All I'm saying is banks got us into this financial mess and Ben Bernanke, like a lot of elected officials doesn't sound like a guy we can trust I mean he was called out by Jon Stewart, it is actually quite funny: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-7-2010/the-big-bank-theory
Oh my Lord! Are you still believing the B.S. from ppl in D.C ? Com’ on now. We got into this mess because people were not thinking far enough! Period! What on earth they were thinking when they bought the properties they can’t pay. Real estate is the most dangerous investment you can make. You can't move, you can't slice, you can't dice. "In that quote Jefferson is saying, directly, do not hand your currency over to the free market."
I didn't interpret it that way. Since private banks are for-profit organizations, their main concern is maximizing earnings. I guess we can all agree that bank CEOs don't have the Americans' best interests at heart. They value profits over people. Credit unions on the other hand are non-profit so I think they would be a better choice.
I don’t have any problem with more traditional banks like Wells Fargo. But I absolutely despise the ones like JP Morgan, Citi. Banks like JP, Citi take money from average Joe from front door and gamble at the back yard by buying all these OCCDs, and betting against currencies, gov bonds. Just plain nasty. When they got into trouble, they will choke tax payers and ask money.I wouldn’t mind letting these banks fail. Let them go.
I like credit unions. If you have one in your area, use it. However, credit unions are not equipped to deal with large clients like institutions. They’ve limited abilities. By the way, Ben Bernanke's son graduated from medical school with $400,000 of student loan debt. If we are to be free we should get rid of the debt as much as possible and he is really not setting up a good example huh? :)
I would rather prefer to look up carpetbaggers for my inspiration. When I saw that article about BB’s son. All I can say was WTF!
Tee002: "Real estate is the most dangerous investment you can make. You can't move, you can't slice, you can't dice."
Long term, real estate is also one of the best ways to create true wealth. The problem in the recent past -- as it has been off-and-on over the years -- is that the decisions to fund real estate projects were driven more by greed than any real OBJECTIVE assessment of the sustainable need for those projects. Hence, we get this boom/bust cycle that whipsaws our profession, with truly destructive results.
Over the course of my career, the smartest -- and the most successful -- RE developers I've known have been extraordinarily risk-averse individuals. They are careful investors, who exercise extraordinary due diligence, and find appropriate ways to manage -- if not control -- risk before they pull the trigger.
sounds like tee's comment was focused on real-estate like your house? You can buy 80 acres of agriculture land, re-zone it for residential, and slice and dice into small lots pretty easy. It should be fairly easy to buy and sell real-estate, but if by 'move' you mean pick up a half acre, then yes that is quite difficult.
I expect the RE developers, or REIT people as the case may be, are going to be risk-averse because it's a pretty stable investment. If they were risk-taking type individuals they would likely be investing in other areas. Even now, imho, even with the screwed up market turmoil, I think it's still about the best conservative investment there is. When all else goes to shit dirt can make watermelon. Dirt with a little bass lake would be even better. Gold will just sit there looking pretty.
Long term, real estate is also one of the best ways to create true wealth.
You're not creating true wealth. You're just betting against inflation by using an immovable asset. You may win your bet, and you could lose it too. In the cases of underwater mortgages, the bet was put in wrong place. When there are too many bad hands, it causes the crisis. However, many people won't recognize the fact that their prized asset can turn into cursed liability. House is not a gold mine or factory. It cannot create any wealth. If you're saying rise of property value as wealth creation, so be it.
It is the gov and fed job to mitigate the boom/bust cycle. U.S economy is Interventionism. It is not a free market. So, what is the point of pretending like it is. Just intervene.
Over the course of my career, the smartest -- and the most successful -- RE developers I've known have been extraordinarily risk-averse individuals. They are careful investors, who exercise extraordinary due diligence, and find appropriate ways to manage -- if not control -- risk before they pull the trigger.
If 40% of home buyers are half as smart as your clients, we won't get into this mess.
Addendum to my response.
Wealth created from home is just mirage. You can compare Germany and Spain. During the last decades, wealth in Germany has been created by manufacturing and factories. Spain totally relied on the housing. Which country is doing better now? Just a vivid example.
curtkram, you're clearly not interested in "common ground," so don't feed me that passive-aggressive concern trolling. You're interested in getting your way, promoting your team and its various orthodoxies, and silencing or humiliating your opposition. Anybody who doesn't buy what you're selling is ignorant and acting in bad faith, amirite? You and your teammates are enlightened and intelligent, and anybody who disagrees with you is an evil troll, nazi cross-burner, low-class prole, ignorant snake-handler, or maybe all together.
And if rejection of biological evolution is your qualification standard for wingnuttery, then I'm willing to bet that more than 90% of the participants in this thread qualify, including you. I doubt there are even a handful of people here who actually understand evolution and its consequences, even if they did skim a chapter or two of The Selfish Gene on a plane that one time. Your team is chock full of people who completely reject evolutionary principles while loudly proclaiming how "scientific" their belief system is ("social justice" "glass ceiling" "institutional racism" "blank slate" etc. etc.). Pretty much anything associated with any sort of egalitarianism is a doctrinal rejection of evolutionary theory, so spare me the more-scientific-than-thou pose. They're just creationists of a different feather, so to speak.
oe, you ARE aware that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private institution owned by private parties and private banks, right? It's not a public agency or in any way part of the government or any political process.
99% of U.S population think Fed as gov organization and they will try to look under gov. sections when they open city directory. Oh Boy! They won't bother to look up numerous Supreme Court Rulings either.
Speaking of court rulings: Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
In which the court clearly acknlowledged and upheld that the Federal Reserve Banks are private corporations, not governmental agencies.
Of course, the list of who actually owns the Federal Reserve Banks has never been made officially public, and since they are private corporations they are not subject to things like FOIA. From time to time, the Senate or Congress have attempted to get this information. They have never succeeded. Nor has there ever been a public audit of any part of the Federal Reserve system.
Tell me how this means the goverment controls the money supply and banking system again?
I tell you one thing. If I was to become President tomorrow, my very fist act on taking office would be the immediate, forcible nationalization of the Federal Reserve Banks.
you sound mad gwharton. I will clarify that my position is to promote 'my team.' That's why it's 'my team.' If you have some sort of sound evidence that the opinion I hold is not sound, I will change my opinion and promote the other team. "Getting my way" sounds short sighted. I think that implies I have something to gain? I don't, unless we all work together to vote in better leaders for our various communities. Then we all gain.
I believe that science is different from, let's say faith, in that it generally involves a system of observing, measuring, testing, verifying tests, etc. It's very mundane. The thing about evolution as a theory that makes it valid in a school science class is that it's more or less based on those things. You can't measure god and any sort of proof of creation comes from speculation or reading historic texts. If you want to teach that in a history class or something that's fine, but teaching kids that science includes making shit up is irresponsible in my opinion.
If you believe that acting on faith is the same thing as studying science, then yes I would suggest you somehow don't fully understand what I'm talking about or you don't understand one of topics involved. I could see how you would interpret that as ignorance on your part. I would be happy to speak with you more on whatever it is you don't understand, and through that dialogue we could both understand each others position better. Does it make sense how "common ground" can actually help us both? The goal was never to get ahead, or feed my ego. The goal was just to either teach or learn. If I were able to bring you over to 'my team' I don't get paid, or a gold star or anything, so I don't think "getting my way" would apply, at least not in a context I would normally use that phrase.
What does social justice and all that other stuff have to do with evolution anyway? Are you suggesting that in a natural state, survival of the fittest creates the strongest gene pool and therefore I should believe it's best to let sick kids die? I don't believe that. Do you need me to go into more detail as to why I think society and government can operate in a manner different than natural selection?
You really haven't understood a single thing I've written here, have you.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe that disparate impacts, such as the over- or under-proportional representation compared to the general population of certain groups in an organization are prima facie evidence of unfair discrimination?
gwharton: first my opinion on the federal reserve system related to your post above my long one:
Regarding who owns the federal reserve bank, that's clearly indicated in the court decision you mention above: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region."
Ben Bernanke is on the Board of Governors, not part of one of the banks. So when people say 'Federal Reserve' they are often times not talking about one of the 12 member banks, rather they're talking about the board of governors or the collection of banks or something like that. Each reserve bank is 'owned' by it's member banks, which is all nationally chartered banks and any state charted bank that chooses to join the reserve. Something like 38% of banks are members of their regional reserve according to wikipedia. The board members of a Reserve Bank could be appointed by the Board of Governors or elected by member banks (a mix of both).
This is where you could point out the fact that court's ruling on 'owned' is different that federal reserve's opinion on the word 'owned.' I bet there is a reason for that, but ultimately I have no strong opinion on that right now and I don't really care. It probably has something to do with odd laws that ultimately mean the Reserve Bank is not subject to private ownership/corporate law or government institution law.
Government controls money supply by appointing a board of governors. Make a bad decision there and bad things happen. It should be noted that the Federal Reserve cannot choose to print money; that comes from the treasury department. The federal reserve can 'make up pretend money' by increasing a bank's balance. It's essentially the same, but still kind of different sometimes.
If you do become president, I would hope your nationalization of the Reserve Bank is done in such a way as to avoid it's politicization. It would suck to have Fed Policy determined by a congress that acts the way ours is currently acting. Or, if the Fed is an Executive branch like the treasury dept., then it would be someone like President Obama controlling fed policy.
------------------------------------------
second, your other post. Nope, I don't think I'm following you. If a certain group is over- or under-represented, I do not believe that is, on it's own, evidence of discrimination (unfair or otherwise). I do not see the connection between that question and any other post you've made. It could be my ignorance.
But how could we have things any other way? Beyond the venting, all I hear is that there is no solution and that we shouldn't vote because it's all a big nothing. cheer up bro.
Why are the vast majority of architects liberal?
why are architects so fucking dumb?
so this thread is still goin...
Personally, I don't think nuclear is over. And as far as algae is concerned, it might have a bigger part to play in biofuels than anything else.
i r giv up,
I find myself often wondering the same thing. It remains a mystery.
Please don't feed the trolls:
Yeah, and some of you probably think Phil Schneider if full of it too. But he might have been the last decent American who could at least see clearly. He's dead now but his story should be known and there's even some good architecture details too:
Richard Souder, a Ph-D architect, has risked his life by talking about this. He worked with a number of government
agencies on deep underground military bases. In around where you live in Idaho, there are 11 of them." "The average
depth of these bases is over a mile and they again are basically whole cities underground. They are all between 2.66 and
4.25 cubic miles in size. They have laser drilling machines that can drill a tunnel seven miles long in one day.
You might think an alien firefight is ridiculous and maybe it is but at the very least it is a good metaphor for what has gone wrong in the United States.
Truth, yo!
I read that whole article Handsum.
The Truth Behind the Republican Contract with America
"I don't perceive at this time that we have too much more than six months of life left in this country, at the present... <snipped for length> .... The Contract with America is a last ditch effort by our federal government to tear away the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
So vote. And vote for the democrats. Or else the government is going to get you.
Also, there is a guy with a PhD in Arch in that story, as you mentioned. I wonder if the Gov't paid off his loans before they killed him? I think we have a forum topic here somewhere about PhDs. Anyway, building underground government cities seems to me like good work if I could get it. Maybe our financial mess is currently all of the world's governments hoarding money to stock up on military stuff because the alien invasion is imminent. That could explain Executive Order 11110 too. I'm glad my president and my country are protecting me and looking out for my best interest. I'd much rather have President Obama, who killed Bin Laden, rather than Romney who killed GST Steel Corp.
Other than that, there isn't much damning in that story. We know there are black budgets. That's what the Oliver North trials were about right? Also that movie about the Taliban with Tom Hanks, 'Charlie Wilson's War'. We also know about secret government bases. I'm pretty sure there are some old ones that have been decommissioned and tourists can go in now. They have a shower at the beginning for congresspeople to strip and clean any radiation off, bunk beds, a press room, etc. Sure it was rude for the government to kill the guy, but if he really had some sort of top secret clearance and ran his mouth, that's kind of rude too. In perspective, Bradley Manning is going to get life in prison for an inconvenient thumb drive.
I will close with another quote from your link:
"I want you to know that these United States are a beautiful place. I have gone to more than 70 countries and cannot remember any country that has the beauty, as well as the magnificence of it's people, like these United States."
Prometheus is on it, no worries.
"I'd much rather have President Obama, who killed Bin Laden, rather than Romney who killed GST Steel Corp."
WAKE UP PEOPLE WAKE UP!!! Why there was a Bin Laden in the first place? Because of the US imperialism and occupation of other countries. The 9/11 was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia and that spineless shrub sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan instead. Obama didn't stop the war. If the US didn't get involved in other countries' internal politics these terrorists wouldn't exist or their numbers would be less. If the US minded its own business there would be less anti-American sentiments in the middle east. Just to clarify, I'm neither blaming Americans nor Iranians or all the Israelis for their governments' actions. Unfortunately the governments act independently and without considering what's good for their own people. There is a way to stop wars and it is up to the Americans to stand up and stop these wars. The government should be afraid of its people not the other way around. "They attacked the US because they hate our freedoms." is total BS. The majority of Afghans couldn't even point US on the world map let alone know how American people live. Why don't they bring democracy to Saudi Arabia? Because everything is about oil. Now they're trying to bring down Assad. Why? Because they can't control him, not because he is a dictator but because he doesn't take orders from Washington. The US should stay away from Syria and it is going to be a disaster if it wages a war with Iran. When it comes to foreign policy Obama is no better than Bush. The military industrial complex controls everything, even Obama. The US needs to get the troops out of the middle east and use that money to improve the infrastructure, help the poor etc. That's why I'll be voting for Ron Paul. He has been consistent from the beginning, he knows exactly what's going on and how to improve it and he is the only one who wasn't bought by corporations.
Ron Paul is a con. He's there to keep you voting republican, when clearly, you are not one.
paradox, lay off the crack pipe.
which side of the alien battle is ron paul on? Apparently, after reading Handsum's article and googling that guy and his architect friend, there are 2 larger groups of aliens. One wants to enslave us and the other more or less wants to leave us be. The freemasons and UN support those that want to enslave us, while apparently the US Navy for whatever reason has sided with the other group. Has Ron Paul clarified his position on the upcoming alien threat? Obama has already pretty much shown his hand.
You know, if we fixed the economy I would have more work to do and wouldn't be reading about alien invasions. Probably part of the conspiracy.
I'm glad we are talking about Ron Paul now but unfortunately he is an outsider and Americans will never vote for him. The mainstream media won't touch this angle of course but there is evidence that Paul was one of the few Americans to survive the Las Dulce firefight with aliens and it is believed that it was because he struck a deal with the aliens. This is the only reason why he is alive and Phil Schneider has now been found DEAD.
But the silly aliens are literally the only stupid fucking people more fucking stupid than the stupid fucking American voters !!!
Yo!
Well, come on. I do understand Paradox's feeling about this. I do agree, in principal, our military deployment is, as a geopolitical strategy, designed to ensure we have access to cheap energy. I don't agree removing troops from the middle east will completely assuage actual terrorists. Even if we are gone, they will need us as a boogieman, and there is plenty enough genuine resentment to fuel that long after we have left. But in general principal, the deployment Bush left us with, occupying two countries, was stupid and did more to exacerbate the problem than to solve it.
By the way though, Obama's central foreign policy drive has been to end this, and he has done so as fast as is logistically, politically, and responsibly possible. Obama has made massive cuts to military spending, cuts which even Ron Paul, dependent on a fairly ravenous pro-war party, could not have achieved himself.
If libertarians were really as principaled as they pretend to be, they would never vote republican again. This is what is so discouraging to me about the Republican party as it now stands. They use homophobia and islamaphobia to scare evangelicals into voting for them, they use conspiracy theories and fear of non-existent government plots to destroy their freedom to fool libertarians into voting for them, and then use them to behave in the most un-christian, autocratic way they can get away with. They've fooled christians into thinking men in speedos are more of a threat to their way of life than poverty and war. They've fooled libertarians into voting for two wars, the patriot act, and the department of Homeland Security. That's what Ron Paul is there for. To keep you in the party and voting for the exact opposite of what you want.
If you don't believe me, go back and watch the Republican primary debates. Notice Ron Paul, in between wooing you with promises of "freedom" and "sound monetary policy" washing Romney's golden ass for a speaking spot at the convention. Mitt Romney invented Obamacare, that apparently didn't bother Ron Paul enough to mention? Does Mitt Romney have any intention of instituting a gold standard? That wasn't worth asking him about? It's a con my man, and you are the mark. You exist to ensure that Mitt Romney can continue to pay 15% in taxes, and that banks can behave like numbers rackets, and coal companies can dump toxic sludge in rivers without worrying about pesky "regulation". And great! Write in Ron Paul at the top of the ballot. Who are you voting for for congress? Do they have an R next to their name? Because if so, you've just endorsed a massive increase in military spending and probably invading Iran.
If libertarians were really as principled as they pretend to be, they would never vote republican again.
I would like to point out that the republican party has not always been this batshit crazy. I think it's likely that, if we survive into 2013, the republican party will someday moderate again. So libertarians should be able to someday vote republican again. It's just in their interest, as well as intelligent republicans like Due's Massachusetts 'r,' to not support he republican party during this particular period of history. There is hope for both the party and the traditional conservative belief system, but to get there you guys all have to vocally stop supporting the nuts so your party can go back to a more reasonable centrist position a little faster.
I would like to point out that the republican party has not always been this batshit crazy. I think it's likely that, if we survive into 2013, the republican party will someday moderate again.
I sincerely hope this is true. Who knows, maybe someday. Even as a liberal I would love to have a sincere broker on the other side of the isle. Having healthy markets is vital to our country, and someone does need to be there to be really strict about spending to reduce government waste. Obama has spent the last 2 years in deficit fights desperately begging republicans to help him on those very issues. The problem is no one is there to say yes to anything. After 2010 there is nothing left but but wingnuts and pathological hatred for him as a person. The ideological cohesion of the entire party is stitched together by resentment and empty promises and sloganeering. I'm just not entirely convinced libertarians and evangelicals and foreign policy hawks actually belong in the same party anymore. And worse, I cannot recall a time when the party they have all voted for has ever given them what they actually want. Reagan practically invented deficit spending and fed manipulation, and he did it to massively and pointlessly expand the military. He signed amnesty bills and raised taxes. Bush exploded the deficit, and did so by expanding the federal government and engaging in the most brazen military adventurism this country has seen in decades. And now they've nominated Mitt Romney? What in God's green earth leads republicans to believe their party will ever actually do anything they wish it would do?
They need their voters for one reason and one reason only: to ensure high margins for their donors. Regress the tax code, reduce regulation on large companies, and preserve loopholes for those that pay them to. They have no intention of cutting spending. They have no intention of cutting the deficit. They never have.
And granted, totally, democrats often do things I wish they would not, but when it comes to foreign policy and healthcare and financial regulation and gay rights Obama has moved generally in the direction I had hoped. It just seems like when progressives vote for Democrats they get what they want, just less of it than they wish, whereas when Libertarians support republicans they end up voting for the exact opposite of what they were hoping for.
LOL at the idea that the Republicans are "radical" or "crazy" or "extreme." All they do is advocate liberalism from thirty years ago. If that's "extreme", then what does that make present-day Progressives?
"That word, it does not mean what you think it means." ~Inigo Montoya
Here's a fun little link for you from the opposite perspective: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-myth-and-reality-of-republican-radicalism/
aww, gwharton found a website called "The American Conservative" that looks completely believable and unbiased. Since in your mind liberalism 30 years ago involved giving money and other competitive advantage to the wealthy at the expense of the working class, here's an ad from the 1982 democratic party to jog your memory:
http://youtu.be/pgk72eN0yfU
If republicans of today want to end trickle down economics, why are they fighting so hard to protect tax cuts on the wealthy, subsidies to oil companies, etc.?
Also, Handsum I'm interested in learning more about the impending alien war. Do you have any links to explain more about the 2 sides, and what us regular people should do if we pick a side? Or do we duck and cover and wait until it's over?
Also, Handsum I'm interested in learning more about the impending alien war. Do you have any links to explain more about the 2 sides, and what us regular people should do if we pick a side? Or do we duck and cover and wait until it's over?
If they have the tech to get here, they will have no problem kicking our asses.
Indigo Montoya from the Princess Bride.
Sorry but it's hard to believe fairy tales these days.
You guys really crack me up. Curt, your brain just immediately shut down and started spouting talking points as soon as you looked at that URL, didn't it. The mental virus that pwns your belief system wouldn't even let you consider for a moment that there might be something worth looking at there. Didn't even bother to look at the article it links to. Not part of your echo chamber == crimethink.
Here's a hint: since you consider these evil RETHUGLIKKKANS to be horrible ignorant troglodytes who are hell-bent on destroying all that is good in the world (which is not terribly inaccurate, come to think of it), it might do you some good to pay attention to what they are ACTUALLY saying, rather than your fantasy constructs of what you want them to be saying.
Know your enemy, dude. They've been learning a lot about you.
I read the article, but I don't see your point. The article says "in the Senate, the most conservative Democrat was slightly more liberal than the most liberal Republican, and nearly the same was true in the House." So isn't that kind of the core of this article? That there are still some moderates if you look hard enough?
The nuts in the republican party are the people who think creationism is an equal science to evolution and that god should be taught be taught in public schools (but definitely not the jewish god), that it's acceptable for a senator to block votes on every district court nominee (which was happening before the election year), the sharp increase in filibusters in the senate, their inability to play nice and fix the budget, the people yelling at Palin rallies and similar events, the birthers and the people who think Obama is a Muslim, etc.
There really is a long list of people in the Republican party who have lost touch with reality. I don't think this happened, at least not the same extent, 30 years ago. Not in either party. Those people don't seem to be included in the article you link. Those are the people that lead me to think the more moderate and reasonable Republicans need to separate themselves from their party until these elements can be tempered.
I honestly don't think my 'enemy' has been learning much about me (unless you mean the aliens. they're clever). I've been trying to talk to them. I've been trying to reach across the aisle. I've been trying to explain why favoring the ultra-wealthy is a bad idea. I've been trying to explain why some environmental regulation is a good idea. I've been trying to have a dialogue so we can find common ground. My 'enemy' has been far too worried about birth certificates to create an intelligent discussion. The real problem is that President Obama has been trying too, but there are too many nuts in the Republican Party so he can't have a discussion. There are a few moderates that are willing to work him, but not enough to get the votes needed to pass meaningful legislation.
So anyway, that's my point. While I understand that a lot of President Bush's actions were focused on uncontrolled spending and expansion of government, I think it's really hard to jump to the conclusion that his party today is equivalent to the democrats 30 years ago.
By the way, I don't live in Massachusetts, I live in the midwest where the cooks are, so it might just be closer to me than some of you.
I'd also like to mention Obama didn't repeal the Patriot Act and I sense a coming danger to individual privacy and freedoms. This is very recent:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/cellphone-surveillance-up_n_1662081.html?ir=Technology
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
^^^ According to this poll 40% of American people identify as independents, this makes sense because there is a growing population of people disappointed with both parties. This is actually good although a good number of independents will vote for Romney and there are some independents like me who are disappointed with Obama. It is not just libertarians who support Ron Paul. The two party system is not really working because people are more diverse than they were in the past. I like some of the things Obama did such as advancing gay and women's rights, establishing universal health care etc. I actually have several conflicts with Ron Paul's ideas since I'm pro union, pro-choice and want the corporates to pay their fair share but at the same time looking at the big picture the biggest danger is the global banking cartels:
http://voices.yahoo.com/ron-paul-wants-abolish-federal-reserve-why-10932682.html?cat=37
It is a global scheme. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy will have a domino effect. Iceland has been doing fine since they told the banksters to shove it. Ron Paul predicted the financial collapse back in 2003 and says he will solve this problem,end the corporatism etc. and I stand by the Founding Father's principals so I can't help but side with him.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson
It is certainly a dilemma for me. I'm sure lots of people feel the same frustration, that's why they consider people like Ron Paul to make a statement, to tell they're fed up with the corruption and the undelivered promises.. I wish Ron Paul ran as a third party candidate..I have a feeling Obama will win a second term and I hope he wins instead of Romney. Otherwise we're truly screwed.
people who can't spell principle should not be allowed to post on these boards.
I'm super confused, Paradox. You do realize going back to the gold-standard is a monumentally terrible idea, right? The chairman of the Fed is appointed by democratically elected officials. That's the point. In that quote Jefferson is saying, directly, do not hand your currency over to the free market. You say you dont want banks to hold power over you, and then you want to hand our currency over to the mercies of the commodities market? Who do you think controls that? Unicorns?
Anyway,.. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul drives me nuts. Hes a pseudo-nostalgic lunatic parading around under the constitution as if he has a clue what it really says.
Somewhat apropos, this was an enjoyable discussion:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000101427&play=1
I'm super confused, Paradox. You do realize going back to the gold-standard is a monumentally terrible idea, right? The chairman of the Fed is appointed by democratically elected officials. That's the point. In that quote Jefferson is saying, directly, do not hand your currency over to the free market. You say you dont want banks to hold power over you, and then you want to hand our currency over to the mercies of the commodities market? Who do you think controls that? Unicorns?
Anyway,.. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul drives me nuts. Hes a pseudo-nostalgic lunatic parading around under the constitution as if he has a clue what it really says.
hahahah So true! I love the Unicorn part. It is just essentially switching from one pimp to the other. You’re still f**ked. No kidding. I'm a libertarian. But I still think the gold standard idea is as stupid as you can get. Gold standard is good for one reason and the reason is you can’t print money as much as you want. That is the only positive thing. The moment you turn back to gold standard you’re at the mercy of commodity traders. Some people are just too lazy to read history. Before revolution, the US colonies has some form of currency which was not backed by gold standard, and then British tried to impose G.S. The economy collapsed. It wasn’t a fun thing. Currency should be currency. Fed needs strict monetary policy like Deutsche Bundesbank not gold standard.
Unrelated question. Is it too difficult to figure out basic economic stuffs? I just get irritated about it.
only idiots that can't understand fiat currencies are pro-gold standard.
No I don't think switching to the gold standard is a good idea either. All I'm saying is banks got us into this financial mess and Ben Bernanke, like a lot of elected officials doesn't sound like a guy we can trust I mean he was called out by Jon Stewart, it is actually quite funny:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-7-2010/the-big-bank-theory
"In that quote Jefferson is saying, directly, do not hand your currency over to the free market."
I didn't interpret it that way. Since private banks are for-profit organizations, their main concern is maximizing earnings. I guess we can all agree that bank CEOs don't have the Americans' best interests at heart. They value profits over people. Credit unions on the other hand are non-profit so I think they would be a better choice.
By the way, Ben Bernanke's son graduated from medical school with $400,000 of student loan debt. If we are to be free we should get rid of the debt as much as possible and he is really not setting up a good example huh? :)
bullshit.
we got into this mess because the government meddled with the free market by subsidizing the home loan market by guaranteeing tons of mortgage loans and creating assets that because of this meddling, were extremely opaque in terms of how fair market pricing.
we got into this mess because people are really dumb and bought homes they couldn't afford, without taking into consideration that a rainy day fund is a higher financial priority than buying a home (dumbfucks everywhere).
^^^ troll overdrive someone doesn't agree with a troll, there is a troll among us. ^^^
awww, i know this might be hard for you to fathom, but i'm quite pretty irl.
Who's the troll? Maybe I have a higher tolerance for this stuff but I though we were having a pretty decent discussion.
OMG, I can't believe people are *still* arguing that the housing crisis was caused by people buying more house than they could afford rather than realizing it was caused by the financial industry urging the little guys to default so that they - the bank - could profit on the bet they had already made against that little guy succeeding.
Seriously, no one should be buying more house - or more higher education! - than they can afford but the far, far higher problem is the credit default swaps that allow brokers to pretend a risk is good (which is fraud, BTW) when they are actually running a side bet on the fact that it's bad.
bullshit.
we got into this mess because the government meddled with the free market by subsidizing the home loan market by guaranteeing tons of mortgage loans and creating assets that because of this meddling, were extremely opaque in terms of how fair market pricing.
we got into this mess because people are really dumb and bought homes they couldn't afford, without taking into consideration that a rainy day fund is a higher financial priority than buying a home (dumbfucks everywhere).
You should quit calling people 'idiot' and other derogatory terms. I'm going to put 3 links at the end of this post. If you want to hold a somewhat intelligent opinion on our current financial situation, especially as it relates to the housing market, you should read them. Read the whole articles, not just the first 4 lines. You're going to be introduced to a lot of terms that go well beyond blaming fannie and disruptions to the free market.
Before you read them, please note that this information may not be perfectly correct. This is people's opinions on what they think contributed. It's complicated. In fact, it's considerably more complicated than 'fannie did it.' So if some parts either don't fit with your free market fantasy, or you don't understand some parts, then research those areas at independent sources. I'm not telling you what your opinion should be, I just want to help provide a general outline of some of the contributing factors to the recent financial collapse including the housing market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007-2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_late-2000s_financial_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_and_the_Financial_Crisis:_Anatomy_of_a_Financial_Collapse
To put it short simple terms, what the Levin-Coburn Report said is "“the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products, undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street." Tom Coburn, who helped create that report, is not a liberal. Thanks.
5:39 pm: troll "i r giv up" has counteracted with a veiled insult,
Note: Excessively berating others of differing opinion is young troll behavior, easily observable. It requires no imagination.
Ad hominem is the fatty tissue of productive collective discourse.
paTROLLwatch over and out.
No I don't think switching to the gold standard is a good idea either. All I'm saying is banks got us into this financial mess and Ben Bernanke, like a lot of elected officials doesn't sound like a guy we can trust I mean he was called out by Jon Stewart, it is actually quite funny:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-7-2010/the-big-bank-theory
Oh my Lord! Are you still believing the B.S. from ppl in D.C ? Com’ on now. We got into this mess because people were not thinking far enough! Period! What on earth they were thinking when they bought the properties they can’t pay. Real estate is the most dangerous investment you can make. You can't move, you can't slice, you can't dice.
"In that quote Jefferson is saying, directly, do not hand your currency over to the free market."
I didn't interpret it that way. Since private banks are for-profit organizations, their main concern is maximizing earnings. I guess we can all agree that bank CEOs don't have the Americans' best interests at heart. They value profits over people. Credit unions on the other hand are non-profit so I think they would be a better choice.
I don’t have any problem with more traditional banks like Wells Fargo. But I absolutely despise the ones like JP Morgan, Citi. Banks like JP, Citi take money from average Joe from front door and gamble at the back yard by buying all these OCCDs, and betting against currencies, gov bonds. Just plain nasty. When they got into trouble, they will choke tax payers and ask money.I wouldn’t mind letting these banks fail. Let them go.
I like credit unions. If you have one in your area, use it. However, credit unions are not equipped to deal with large clients like institutions. They’ve limited abilities.
By the way, Ben Bernanke's son graduated from medical school with $400,000 of student loan debt. If we are to be free we should get rid of the debt as much as possible and he is really not setting up a good example huh? :)
I would rather prefer to look up carpetbaggers for my inspiration. When I saw that article about BB’s son. All I can say was WTF!
Tee002: "Real estate is the most dangerous investment you can make. You can't move, you can't slice, you can't dice."
Long term, real estate is also one of the best ways to create true wealth. The problem in the recent past -- as it has been off-and-on over the years -- is that the decisions to fund real estate projects were driven more by greed than any real OBJECTIVE assessment of the sustainable need for those projects. Hence, we get this boom/bust cycle that whipsaws our profession, with truly destructive results.
Over the course of my career, the smartest -- and the most successful -- RE developers I've known have been extraordinarily risk-averse individuals. They are careful investors, who exercise extraordinary due diligence, and find appropriate ways to manage -- if not control -- risk before they pull the trigger.
sounds like tee's comment was focused on real-estate like your house? You can buy 80 acres of agriculture land, re-zone it for residential, and slice and dice into small lots pretty easy. It should be fairly easy to buy and sell real-estate, but if by 'move' you mean pick up a half acre, then yes that is quite difficult.
I expect the RE developers, or REIT people as the case may be, are going to be risk-averse because it's a pretty stable investment. If they were risk-taking type individuals they would likely be investing in other areas. Even now, imho, even with the screwed up market turmoil, I think it's still about the best conservative investment there is. When all else goes to shit dirt can make watermelon. Dirt with a little bass lake would be even better. Gold will just sit there looking pretty.
Long term, real estate is also one of the best ways to create true wealth.
You're not creating true wealth. You're just betting against inflation by using an immovable asset. You may win your bet, and you could lose it too. In the cases of underwater mortgages, the bet was put in wrong place. When there are too many bad hands, it causes the crisis. However, many people won't recognize the fact that their prized asset can turn into cursed liability. House is not a gold mine or factory. It cannot create any wealth. If you're saying rise of property value as wealth creation, so be it.
It is the gov and fed job to mitigate the boom/bust cycle. U.S economy is Interventionism. It is not a free market. So, what is the point of pretending like it is. Just intervene.
Over the course of my career, the smartest -- and the most successful -- RE developers I've known have been extraordinarily risk-averse individuals. They are careful investors, who exercise extraordinary due diligence, and find appropriate ways to manage -- if not control -- risk before they pull the trigger.
If 40% of home buyers are half as smart as your clients, we won't get into this mess.
Addendum to my response.
Wealth created from home is just mirage. You can compare Germany and Spain. During the last decades, wealth in Germany has been created by manufacturing and factories. Spain totally relied on the housing. Which country is doing better now? Just a vivid example.
I like the alien subplot better than the main story here.
I hope it all climaxes together at the TIMECUBE!
the TIMECUBE?
yes, the TIMECUBE,
curtkram, you're clearly not interested in "common ground," so don't feed me that passive-aggressive concern trolling. You're interested in getting your way, promoting your team and its various orthodoxies, and silencing or humiliating your opposition. Anybody who doesn't buy what you're selling is ignorant and acting in bad faith, amirite? You and your teammates are enlightened and intelligent, and anybody who disagrees with you is an evil troll, nazi cross-burner, low-class prole, ignorant snake-handler, or maybe all together.
And if rejection of biological evolution is your qualification standard for wingnuttery, then I'm willing to bet that more than 90% of the participants in this thread qualify, including you. I doubt there are even a handful of people here who actually understand evolution and its consequences, even if they did skim a chapter or two of The Selfish Gene on a plane that one time. Your team is chock full of people who completely reject evolutionary principles while loudly proclaiming how "scientific" their belief system is ("social justice" "glass ceiling" "institutional racism" "blank slate" etc. etc.). Pretty much anything associated with any sort of egalitarianism is a doctrinal rejection of evolutionary theory, so spare me the more-scientific-than-thou pose. They're just creationists of a different feather, so to speak.
oe, you ARE aware that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private institution owned by private parties and private banks, right? It's not a public agency or in any way part of the government or any political process.
@gwharton
99% of U.S population think Fed as gov organization and they will try to look under gov. sections when they open city directory. Oh Boy! They won't bother to look up numerous Supreme Court Rulings either.
saw this movie the other day.
private fed? really. I've never really delved further into this, at least after realizing Ron Paul was kind of looney.
However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."
Speaking of court rulings: Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
In which the court clearly acknlowledged and upheld that the Federal Reserve Banks are private corporations, not governmental agencies.
Of course, the list of who actually owns the Federal Reserve Banks has never been made officially public, and since they are private corporations they are not subject to things like FOIA. From time to time, the Senate or Congress have attempted to get this information. They have never succeeded. Nor has there ever been a public audit of any part of the Federal Reserve system.
Tell me how this means the goverment controls the money supply and banking system again?
I tell you one thing. If I was to become President tomorrow, my very fist act on taking office would be the immediate, forcible nationalization of the Federal Reserve Banks.
you sound mad gwharton. I will clarify that my position is to promote 'my team.' That's why it's 'my team.' If you have some sort of sound evidence that the opinion I hold is not sound, I will change my opinion and promote the other team. "Getting my way" sounds short sighted. I think that implies I have something to gain? I don't, unless we all work together to vote in better leaders for our various communities. Then we all gain.
I believe that science is different from, let's say faith, in that it generally involves a system of observing, measuring, testing, verifying tests, etc. It's very mundane. The thing about evolution as a theory that makes it valid in a school science class is that it's more or less based on those things. You can't measure god and any sort of proof of creation comes from speculation or reading historic texts. If you want to teach that in a history class or something that's fine, but teaching kids that science includes making shit up is irresponsible in my opinion.
If you believe that acting on faith is the same thing as studying science, then yes I would suggest you somehow don't fully understand what I'm talking about or you don't understand one of topics involved. I could see how you would interpret that as ignorance on your part. I would be happy to speak with you more on whatever it is you don't understand, and through that dialogue we could both understand each others position better. Does it make sense how "common ground" can actually help us both? The goal was never to get ahead, or feed my ego. The goal was just to either teach or learn. If I were able to bring you over to 'my team' I don't get paid, or a gold star or anything, so I don't think "getting my way" would apply, at least not in a context I would normally use that phrase.
What does social justice and all that other stuff have to do with evolution anyway? Are you suggesting that in a natural state, survival of the fittest creates the strongest gene pool and therefore I should believe it's best to let sick kids die? I don't believe that. Do you need me to go into more detail as to why I think society and government can operate in a manner different than natural selection?
You really haven't understood a single thing I've written here, have you. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that disparate impacts, such as the over- or under-proportional representation compared to the general population of certain groups in an organization are prima facie evidence of unfair discrimination?
gwharton: first my opinion on the federal reserve system related to your post above my long one:
Regarding who owns the federal reserve bank, that's clearly indicated in the court decision you mention above: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region."
Ben Bernanke is on the Board of Governors, not part of one of the banks. So when people say 'Federal Reserve' they are often times not talking about one of the 12 member banks, rather they're talking about the board of governors or the collection of banks or something like that. Each reserve bank is 'owned' by it's member banks, which is all nationally chartered banks and any state charted bank that chooses to join the reserve. Something like 38% of banks are members of their regional reserve according to wikipedia. The board members of a Reserve Bank could be appointed by the Board of Governors or elected by member banks (a mix of both).
This is where you could point out the fact that court's ruling on 'owned' is different that federal reserve's opinion on the word 'owned.' I bet there is a reason for that, but ultimately I have no strong opinion on that right now and I don't really care. It probably has something to do with odd laws that ultimately mean the Reserve Bank is not subject to private ownership/corporate law or government institution law.
Government controls money supply by appointing a board of governors. Make a bad decision there and bad things happen. It should be noted that the Federal Reserve cannot choose to print money; that comes from the treasury department. The federal reserve can 'make up pretend money' by increasing a bank's balance. It's essentially the same, but still kind of different sometimes.
If you do become president, I would hope your nationalization of the Reserve Bank is done in such a way as to avoid it's politicization. It would suck to have Fed Policy determined by a congress that acts the way ours is currently acting. Or, if the Fed is an Executive branch like the treasury dept., then it would be someone like President Obama controlling fed policy.
------------------------------------------
second, your other post. Nope, I don't think I'm following you. If a certain group is over- or under-represented, I do not believe that is, on it's own, evidence of discrimination (unfair or otherwise). I do not see the connection between that question and any other post you've made. It could be my ignorance.
I guess gw is just frustrated.
But how could we have things any other way? Beyond the venting, all I hear is that there is no solution and that we shouldn't vote because it's all a big nothing. cheer up bro.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.