Ominous prediction indeed.

[PayDay]

Original Muppets > Disney




THE CRAZY PERSON MONEY THEORY YO

I didn't figure this one out until I read 'yeah we can turn lead into gold, but not worth it' ::

Sean_Renard posted this in #581: So for you non-readers, here ya go:
#581: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=62295863&postcount=581
the link for Scientific American is:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-lead-can-be-turned-into-gold/

This is 'we can not worth it'

But what of the fabled transmutation of lead to gold? It is indeed possible—all you need is a particle accelerator, a vast supply of energy and an extremely low expectation of how much gold you will end up with. More than 30 years ago nuclear scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California succeeded in producing very small amounts of gold from bismuth, a metallic element adjacent to lead on the periodic table. The same process would work for lead, but isolating the gold at the end of the reaction would prove much more difficult, says David J. Morrissey, now of Michigan State University, one of the scientists who conducted the research. “We could have used lead in the experiments, but we used bismuth because it has only one stable isotope,” Morrissey says. The element’s homogeneous nature means it is easier to separate gold from bismuth than it is to separate gold from lead, which has four stable isotopic identities.
*
Using the LBNL’s Bevalac particle accelerator, Morrissey and his colleagues boosted beams of carbon and neon nuclei nearly to light speed and then slammed them into foils of bismuth. When a high-speed nucleus in the beam collided with a bismuth atom, it sheared off part of the bismuth nucleus, leaving a slightly diminished atom behind. By sifting through the particulate wreckage, the team found a number of transmuted atoms in which four protons had been removed from a bismuth atom to produce gold. Along with the four protons, the collision-induced reactions had removed anywhere from six to 15 neutrons, producing a range of gold isotopes from gold 190 (79 protons and 111 neutrons) to gold 199 (79 protons, 120 neutrons), the researchers reported in the March 1981 issue of*Physical Review C.
*
The amount of gold produced was so small that Morrissey and his colleagues had to identify it by measuring the radiation given off by unstable gold nuclei as they decayed over the course of a year. In addition to the several radioactive isotopes of gold, the particle collisions presumably produced some amount of the stable isotope gold 197—the stuff of wedding bands and gold bullion—but because it does not decay the researchers were unable to confirm its presence. “The stable isotope would have to be observed in a mass spectrometer,” Morrissey says, “but I think that the number of atoms was, and is still, below the level of detection by mass spec.”

Now, the post:

They would adjust accordingly.

Money is a medium of exchange, but it represents something. Paper does have ultiarian value, I can wrap with it, I can write on it. But in the case of paper money no dang fool was ever sitting around in his backyard and stumbled upon a secret mint of dollar bills marked from the Treasury. Unlike gold where yeah. . .every so often some idiot just stumbles on a vein when he's putting in a septic tank. So in that way gold is WORSE. Also we can make lead into gold. It's not worth it but we can actually do it if we care.

However it is a medium of exchange. Currently it basically represents a debt. It's an IOU that everybody has agreed to accept that someone in the future will use their time and energy to serve you if you have one of these IOUs.

Ok. Yes. Money and the idea of a monetary system are completely made up. I agree.

But: Functional Monetary Systems do exist and did exist when they were based off of real objects deemed to hold value within a society.

That society can choose any system they want. To explain Sean's, and those that think like him's, en toto perception of money, believe it not, you have to watch cartoons.

But he is not looking at the inflation, he is looking at the bottlecaps, trying to figure out why they matter and why all the ducks can talk and he doesn't give a wild and crazy flying fuck about the cost of running a municipality in the middle of a hidden valley, because they told him there's no money there, and he believed them.

The problem to some (maybe not Sean) is to figure out how to give everyone the same bottle caps, or to make it look that way, or to how to give away all of your bottlecaps and live at the same standard. Also stealing.

This is the only way.... you don't have to trust me... but... you should.

ANYWAY: this cartoon, of all things, comes from disney....
...which I why I think it's evil. Muppets are better. Scratch that, Original Muppets.

****WARNING: BRAINWASHING MAY OCCUR****
TAKE HEEDS OF THE MANY LESSONS NOT IN THIS CARTOON OR YOU WILL BE A MUPPET IN A LOCKER
...AT THE BUS STATION...
/me points at USA

The scenario: Scrooge the duck loves money but doesn't suck because he raises his nephews even though he hates them. There's this idiot guy in the show too. Well they're all idiots. Just watch the cartoon:

THE LAND OF TRA LA LA
Text synopsis:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1052603/synopsis

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1_fwGUtdY
or
http://ishare.rediff.com/video/others/ducktales-096-land-of-trala-la/5892803

AHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[Que]

I had a thought about a starting point for economic discussion. Your cartoons are apt, but on a (slightly) more scholarly note, I often recommend to people who do not claim to KNOW everything about economics and sincerely want a starting point, "Economics in One Easy Lesson" by Henry Hazlett.

I was not sure what sort of nonsense there is out there attempting to "refudiate" his pretty simple concepts. There are millions of google hits in support of Keynes theories and even when the likes of Krugman are trashed in debate by an Austrian, the Keynes crowd claims victory anyway.

I was surprised when I googled <Debunk "Economics in One Easy Lesson"> only two pages of hits. None critical of the book.

 

[PayDay]

As far as the repair market, look at all of those contractors and skilled tradesmen out of work when the new built market fell out.

The new housing market was/is flooded. It's totally separate from repair until the housing market crashes and floods the market with job seekers.

...which never should have happened. Look at the construction material sales numbers and the minimum wage hikes. No one wants to do that comparison. It 's scary.

Construction materials covers DIY to new housing. Look at when those industries started to drop and work backwards.

There were a few spikes here and there (especially elections), mostly seasonal.

You can even use other issues to prove the 'Bush Recession' never happened and that it was minimum wage's fault:
cell phone bills, auto parts sales, paper products, any staple product that everyone needs unless it's highly popular like Victoria's secret. Those things dropped after 2008. You could have used gas prices... but someone will scream OPEC as if that matters... Look at when persons actually stopped spending money, not when they stopped buying big tickets or when they began listening to the TV.

Don't forget, most of America was kissing BO'S ass two years ago. 4 years ago he was christ on Big O. Why wouldn't the TV make that up a recession. What was the #1 camapign slogan after hope and change? "getting us out of this recession" or IRAQ!!

It's called a plot. No joke.

Here, look at this post: #72: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=62003691&postcount=72
From this thread: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1104523

There is no reason to believe they are fictional an dif they are there is no way for us to know the truth and should stop worrying about it.

How can the deficit decrease while the total debt increases? Very simple. ANY DEFICIT OF ANY SIZE INCREASES THE DEBT.

You can know the truth. Just do the math. The dems have had congress since 2004, just do the math. The true number is easy to find. Take the number reported and add the 'adjustments' back into it.
You cannot rely on disinformation:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/disinformation-how-it-works

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As callous as this is, JBJ's got a point.

Capitalism is self regulating (to an extent) as long as government does stick it's fingers in.

GM could have bit the farm and we'd be no worse for wear:

Here's what JBJ said in a much nicer form---v
http://www.debate.org/opinions/shou...t-private-companies-that-are-close-to-failing

Its true. Its capitalism that imposes discipline on all. David Halberstam wrote a book on how it works IRL. The book title is THE RECKONING. In a nutshell it details how the Japs ate our lunch starting about 1967 with a cheapo Datsun. By 1980 Detroit was on its knees. Detroit responded for a while but now virtually all business in America is part of an oligarchy where the market is segmented, dominated by a few, and policed by the government to restrict entry and innovation. Our present business model is identical to the old USSR model. Russia always allowed private enterprise but only for shit industries the oligarchs didn't care about....dry cleaning, hot dog carts, doggie sweaters, etc. As long as you hired a VIPs stupid fuck nephew all was well.

 

[PayDay]

Its true. Its capitalism that imposes discipline on all.
... for a while but now virtually all business in America is part of an oligarchy where the market is segmented, dominated by a few, and policed by the government to restrict entry and innovation.

Ogliarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been*tyrannical*(relying on public obedience and/or oppression to exist) though others have been seen as relatively benign.*Aristotle*pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4]*for which the exact term is*plutocracy. However,*oligarchy*is not always rule by the wealthy, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by either wealth or by bloodlines - as in a*monarchy.

Our present business model is identical to the old USSR model. Russia always allowed private enterprise but only for shit industries the oligarchs didn't care about....dry cleaning, hot dog carts, doggie sweaters, etc.

Russian Ogliarch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch

A**is a near-synonym of the term "business oligarch" or "business magnate," borrowed by the English speaking and western media from Russian parlance to describe the huge, fast-acquired wealth of some businessmen of the*former Soviet republics*(mostly*Russia*and*Ukraine) duringprivatization in Russia*after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. Businessmen with great wealth from these countries were commonly labeled (simply) "oligarchs" in Russian regardless of whether they had real political power, as the term "oligarch" would imply. Analysts have drawn comparison between the current Russian system of oligarchs, and the system of powerful*Boyars*that had emerged in late-Medieval*Muscovy.[1]

As long as you hired a VIPs stupid fuck nephew all was well.

Russian Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia

*describes the series of reforms that resulted in the large-scale*privatization*of state-owned assets immediately after the collapse of the*Soviet Union, most importantly in the industrial, energy, and financial sectors. Most privatization took place in*Russia*in the early and mid-1990s, during the presidency of*Boris Yeltsin, who assumed the presidency immediately after the*dissolution of the Soviet Union. Although*Mikhail Gorbachev relaxed restrictions on*private ownership*in the mid to late 1980s, private ownership of enterprises and property had essentially been illegal throughout the Soviet era. Privatization enabled Russia to shift from the deteriorating Soviet*planned economy*towards a*market economy, but, as a result, a good deal of the national wealth fell into the hands of a relatively small group of so-called*business oligarchs*(tycoons), and the*wealth gap*increased dramatically.[1]*It was described as "Catastroika"[2]*and as one of the "most cataclysmic peacetime economic collapse of an industrial country in history".[3]*A few "strategic" assets, including much of the*Russian military industry, were not privatized during the 1990s. The mass privatization of the 1990s remains a highly contentious issue in Russian society today, with many Russians calling for significant revisions or even a general reversal of the reforms. Indeed, many Russians view the privatization quite critically and hold strongly negative views towards its chief architects, notably*Anatoly Chubais*and*Yegor Gaidar.

Ok... So your talking Stalin era USSR? or that----^

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ogliarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy




Russian Ogliarch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch




Russian Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia



Ok... So your talking Stalin era USSR? or that----^

My interest in Russia ends with Kruschev. I got my info from his memoir.

 

[Ishmael]

Oh yeah? 'Climate Change' is a funny phrase:
Coincidental that this is happening?:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...768504-69e6-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html


+this one: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/climate-rules-obama-112792.html

With realistic economics in the toilet and oil as thenonly real standard of value...

Why now if it's easily debatable science? Just sayin...

The devil's in the details. Exactly what has been agreed to and what is the respective costs to each economy? Is this a case of, "I'll cut my pinkie toe if you cut your femoral artery." Given Obama's track record with foreign agreements you're going to have to excuse my skepticism. My skepticism that this is an equitable agreement and skepticism that he'll ever get the senate to ratify it.

He has threatened to use his executive order prerogative on this issue as well. All of which is easily undone. And where is the money for implementation going to come from? He's not going to get it from this congress. He can veto his ass off re. the budget but who's going to take it in the shorts politically speaking?

Ishmael

 

[NickiC]

My interest in Russia ends with Kruschev. I got my info from his memoir.

Why? Russian history is interesting but why him? I am genuinely interested.

 

[PayDay]

The devil's in the details. Exactly what has been agreed to and what is the respective costs to each economy? Is this a case of, "I'll cut my pinkie toe if you cut your femoral artery." Given Obama's track record with foreign agreements you're going to have to excuse my skepticism. My skepticism that this is an equitable agreement and skepticism that he'll ever get the senate to ratify it.

He has threatened to use his executive order prerogative on this issue as well. All of which is easily undone. And where is the money for implementation going to come from? He's not going to get it from this congress. He can veto his ass off re. the budget but who's going to take it in the shorts politically speaking?

Ishmael

Agreed, they could try to ram it down our throats, I mean he did get his funding budget passed already...but BO aside, why did China agree to the carbon stuff? Makes no sense unless China knows it'll never happen, to me at least, unless they're evil, but that doesn't really make sense either.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Why? Russian history is interesting but why him? I am genuinely interested.

Because the others are irrelevant also-rans. Breshnev was a hitman for the Politburo, the others were less. Theyre like Carter, Ford, both Bushes, and Obama compared to FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Nixon.

Krushchev was a Ukrainian country bumpkin all thought was dum and timid. Stalin didn't need to kill him when Krushchev embraced every fuckup (Stalin made) and begged for mercy. Krushchev had no ego, and it eventually cost him his job without costing him his head.

 

[Ishmael]

Agreed, they could try to ram it down our throats, I mean he did get his funding budget passed already...but BO aside, why did China agree to the carbon stuff? Makes no sense unless China knows it'll never happen, to me at least, unless they're evil, but that doesn't really make sense either.

Well, what did China agree to? They agreed, if the press is correct, to a 2030 cap. They could actually over-pollute their ass off because they agreed to a number that doesn't exist yet and one that they can exert some control over. It would be in their best interest to make certain that that number is inflated beyond their projected energy needs. While Obama has committed to numbers that do exist. "Buy me a hamburger today for which I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday." China has agreed to nothing that could potentially cripple their economy.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You probably wouldn't recall but when I first tromped my muddy boots through the GB chasing a troll that I correctly guessed the warm welcome of the GB would cause him to implode...

Since I read everything that passes by me, I browsed the political threads. Thinking then (as now) what a retarded location to engage in such debate!

I was amazed, not just at the easily "refudiated" points of view expressed, but that those having them refudiated, did not seem to grasp how rhetorical argument works. This was beyond the familiar maxim, "never argue with a liberal because if they were capable of logical debate, they wouldn't be liberals."

This was just insane levels of chest-thumping pronouncements of "victory" when often a cogent argument hadn't even been posed, much less defended.

I started a thread pointing out things like logical fallacies are just guideposts to help you see and refute the other guys actual argument. But you still have to refute the premise he proposes, not just announce the name of the fallacious device used.

That went over like a lead balloon.

If I could find some "clean" threads and print them out for a 7th grade debate team, they would entirely dismiss some posters wholesale. Those same posters are quite sure they could hold their own with William F. Buckley.

It's weird.

I'm still laughing.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ok: Someone explain bit coin, it's a subject I know nothing about. I thought it collapsed?

Go to Mises.org and search on bitcoin.

It is just electronic money, which, is not surprising, for almost all of our money is electronic anymore, it is just, like in the past and the gold standard, the purview of the private sector.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, what did China agree to? They agreed, if the press is correct, to a 2030 cap. They could actually over-pollute their ass off because they agreed to a number that doesn't exist yet and one that they can exert some control over. It would be in their best interest to make certain that that number is inflated beyond their projected energy needs. While Obama has committed to numbers that do exist. "Buy me a hamburger today for which I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday." China has agreed to nothing that could potentially cripple their economy.

Ishmael

Is it not embarrassing to us as a nation to see such a poor negotiator speaking on our behalf?

While Obama stonewalls Keystone, Vlad is building a pipeline to China. Like the afterword to Yalta, where we got to the Saudis first, now we're like every one else and getting to the Chinese last. Putin's meeting with China was actually productive, ours a joke.

 

[Ishmael]

Is it not embarrassing to us as a nation to see such a poor negotiator speaking on our behalf?

While Obama stonewalls Keystone, Vlad is building a pipeline to China. Like the afterword to Yalta, where we got to the Saudis first, now we're like every one else and getting to the Chinese last. Putin's meeting with China was actually productive, ours a joke.

In a way that's kinda funny. Obviously it solves part of China's energy problems. But just thinking ahead, what do you think China would do if Vlad just shut the pipeline off to try to exert political pressure?

Ishmael

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Because the others are irrelevant also-rans. Breshnev was a hitman for the Politburo, the others were less. Theyre like Carter, Ford, both Bushes, and Obama compared to FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Nixon.

Krushchev was a Ukrainian country bumpkin all thought was dum and timid. Stalin didn't need to kill him when Krushchev embraced every fuckup (Stalin made) and begged for mercy. Krushchev had no ego, and it eventually cost him his job without costing him his head.

Nikita did a good job at Stalingrad, which would have cost his head if he hadn't. Likewise the Moscow subway.


He let Uncle Joe have the credit.


And he also let Iosef lie on the floor in his own piss-n-shit after he stroked out, calling it right the he'd not recover. Imagine if he had . . . .

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In a way that's kinda funny. Obviously it solves part of China's energy problems. But just thinking ahead, what do you think China would do if Vlad just shut the pipeline off to try to exert political pressure?

Ishmael

Formalize their de-facto annexation of the east by breeding them out in the same way Vlad is trying to formalize his claims in the Ukraine...



Time for some jus primae noctis...

 

[Libsam]

A hiphop battle, Keynes vs. Hayek

 

[Que]

A hiphop battle, Keynes vs. Hayek

The best part is the look on Hayek's face...he knows he won on points and the crowd still follows Keynes.

 

[PayDay]

Well, what did China agree to? They agreed, if the press is correct, to a 2030 cap. They could actually over-pollute their ass off because they agreed to a number that doesn't exist yet and one that they can exert some control over. It would be in their best interest to make certain that that number is inflated beyond their projected energy needs. While Obama has committed to numbers that do exist. "Buy me a hamburger today for which I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday." China has agreed to nothing that could potentially cripple their economy.

Ishmael

Good point. Like "Yeah ok smart guy..."

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Good point. Like "Yeah ok smart guy..."

I caught a sound bite on the PBS evening news where they referred to this agreement as "momentous." I didn't stick around long enough to find out if they meant that the agreement was a good thing or that such a display of mental derangement was unprecedented.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama is not interested in negotiating in our interests, only in the interests of his agenda.

And one of his centerpieces has always been higher energy prices in order to modify our 'bad' behavior and habits.

 

[kbate]

And one of his centerpieces has always been higher energy prices in order to modify our 'bad' behavior and habits.

Where are those higher energy prices? The world wonders.