Teen Burned Alive

[Esanta]

It will continue for as long as Islam exists. The problem IS Islam. That said, I'm all for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and just firewalling the whole area. We're spending trillions over there and it's mostly to protect our need for oil and to fund the powerful military-industrial complex. The U.S. is projected to be energy independent by 2035 and it will be interesting to see how Middle Eastern politics changes as a result of both domestic energy independence, an insane national debt by 2035, and a growing Muslim population of voters in Western countries.

I actually agree with getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a fairly substantial amount of evidence that would suggest that controlling the oil was a consideration for Bush when he invaded Iraq, and I find this to be a very unscrupulous, unnecessary consideration if we take into account the sums of money required to sustain a military prescence versus the sums of money required to build solar fields in the uninhabited desert-lands of the states.

It would be cheaper, quicker, and less costly to build solar farms across miles of wasteland over several years than it would be to maintain an economic and military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only that, these fields would be easier to manage, defend and maintain than oil rigs.

Forcing energy companies into building renewable resources and reducing dependency on oil would definitely be detrimental to their profits for two to three years, however the rewards reaped thereafter would effectively see the solar farms pay for themselves in a matter of years.

Not to mention the environmental benefits of forcing such a change in energy policy.

When there are human lives at stake, alongside the environmental health and economic stability of a country, I believe we must take the course of action that most benefits the entire population and the entire ecosystem for the longest period of time. That course of action is, in my opinion, a push for renewable energy.

That said, the war was not just about oil, as we've discussed, it was about several things, one being preventing a spread of extremist Islam, but the irony there is that by killing so many innocents in these countries, the West has effectively catalysed the reactionary adoption of an extremist viewpoint by so many Iraqi and Afghan Muslims.

It seems the more the West try to push the advance of Islam back, the harder it becomes to accomplish.

 

[Sirk]

I actually agree with getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a fairly substantial amount of evidence that would suggest that controlling the oil was a consideration for Bush when he invaded Iraq, and I find this to be a very unscrupulous, unnecessary consideration if we take into account the sums of money required to sustain a military prescence versus the sums of money required to build solar fields in the uninhabited desert-lands of the states.

It would be cheaper, quicker, and less costly to build solar farms across miles of wasteland over several years than it would be to maintain an economic and military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only that, these fields would be easier to manage, defend and maintain than oil rigs.

Forcing energy companies into building renewable resources and reducing dependency on oil would definitely be detrimental to their profits for two to three years, however the rewards reaped thereafter would effectively see the solar farms pay for themselves in a matter of years.

Not to mention the environmental benefits of forcing such a change in energy policy.

When there are human lives at stake, alongside the environmental health and economic stability of a country, I believe we must take the course of action that most benefits the entire population and the entire ecosystem for the longest period of time. That course of action is, in my opinion, a push for renewable energy.

That said, the war was not just about oil, as we've discussed, it was about several things, one being preventing a spread of extremist Islam, but the irony there is that by killing so many innocents in these countries, the West has effectively catalysed the reactionary adoption of an extremist viewpoint by so many Iraqi and Afghan Muslims.

It seems the more the West try to push the advance of Islam back, the harder it becomes to accomplish.

Of course it was a consideration....but less about oil and more about propping up the dollar by keeping it pegged to oil.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Good comment.. finally lolol. Though the U.S. dollar is fiat money, the Nixon administration created “petro-dollars” that, although intrinsically worthless, were implicitly backed by foreign crude oil. This was accomplished by persuading foreign oil-producing nations to sell their crude oil for only U.S. dollars which meant that before the other nations of the world could buy crude oil on the international markets, they had to first have U.S. dollars. The resulting international demand for dollars imparted an implied value that bolstered the U.S. dollar.

Obviously, the U.S. wants that situation to continue lest our fiat currency lose the benefit of oil producing countries charging customers in U.S. dollars. But this arrangement cannot last forever. China has become a big customer of Middle Eastern oil producing nations and they are making moves to engage in direct currency transactions while calling on the U.N. to create a world currency to replace the dollar. On the side, they are pushing their own partner nations to accept the renminbi.

One of the biggest blunders the U.S. ever made was diverting it's wealth, jobs, capital investment, invention/innovation, etc... (while negligently dropping our national security to the level of a second tier nation allowing the Chinese to hack us almost at will until they had most of what we didn't give them outright) to China after the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. We literally raised the enemy that's now committed to supplanting us.

It reminds me of that old rap lyric, "never show love to a young man, let him live and he'll try to take your stand."

The window has closed for the U.S. to return to fully return to the gold standard (despite Austrian economics propaganda) for reasons I'll be happy to explain if you don't already know them; however, we can implement a market basket approach and bring our deficit into balance. This would go a very long way to shoring up the U.S. dollar for a long time to come. But, of course, the current crop of politicians in DC are useless and simply going to ride the train off the rails. It is unavoidable because of what they are.

Of course it was a consideration....but less about oil and more about propping up the dollar by keeping it pegged to oil.

 

[Sirk]

The window has closed for the U.S. to return to fully return to the gold standard (despite Austrian economics propaganda) for reasons I'll be happy to explain if you don't already know them; however, we can implement a market basket approach and bring our deficit into balance. This would go a very long way to shoring up the U.S. dollar for a long time to come. But, of course, the current crop of politicians in DC are useless and simply going to ride the train off the rails. It is unavoidable because of what they are.

Would love to hear you expound on the gold standard comment. Thanks in advance.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

See, this is what I've been talking about: Muslims Take 20,000 Christian Families, Torment And Torture Them, And Force All Of Them Into Major Underground Islamic Slavery | Walid ShoebatWalid Shoebat

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The place to begin that complicated discussion is firstly to understand who owns the gold and where the gold is.

For example, as of 2007, China is presently the world's largest producer of gold. Look at that sharp increase in gold production into the foreseeable future:

The Bureau of Raw Material from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology assets there certainly are sufficient gold resources in China to retain their position as the world's number one gold producer into the foreseeable future.

And, as of 2013, China is also the world's number one gold consumer buying gold from all over the world and transporting it into China another perk associated with being the beneficiary of the massive transfer of 'real' wealth from West to East that began with "free" trade at the end of the Cold War.

As for holdings, China has been quietly building up its government controlled gold holdings beyond what it's reporting to the IMF. It's believed that China is now the world’s number two holder of gold, ahead of Germany whose central bank retains around 3,387 tonnes.

The U.S. is comfortably in first place with holdings somewhere around 8,133.5 tonnes; however, independent analysts are reporting that China aims to ultimately exceed this figure in line with their domestic view that gold reserves will stand it in good stead in any changes which might be forthcoming in the world financial order and particularly with respect to their desire to see the U.S. dollar replaced as the world’s reserve currency.

It should be obvious, in light of all this, that a return to a pure gold standard would only weaken the U.S. and empower China further.

It's better to take a market basket approach and support the dollar with valuable resources the U.S. has in abundance which others do not have in abundance yet need. This can be combined with using our (albeit diminishing) dominance to control associated markets exactly as Nixon did with 'petro dollars.' And, if we end the national deficit, this would put the dollar in a very good position moving forward.

Yes, gold can be a part of that basket but as you can see it is a reserve of diminishing returns moving forward into the future for the purpose of shoring up the dollar.

But, of course, the U.S. will simply drive the car into a wall. While, it is possible to defang the dragon by out maneuvering it, we're presently doing exactly the opposite and there are no signs that we'll ever do anything else. We're presently on course to end like Greece.

These things deteriorate from the inside out over time. One day, the crumbling foundations finally buckle and the structure crashes. And, like is commonly said, the bigger they come the harder they fall. You can bet ours will make the history books.

Would love to hear you expound on the gold standard comment. Thanks in advance.

 

[Sirk]

The place to begin that complicated discussion is firstly to understand who owns the gold and where the gold is.

For example, as of 2007, China is presently the world's largest producer of gold. Look at that sharp increase in gold production into the foreseeable future:

The Bureau of Raw Material from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology assets there certainly are sufficient gold resources in China to retain their position as the world's number one gold producer into the foreseeable future.

And, as of 2013, China is also the world's number one gold consumer buying gold from all over the world and transporting it into China another perk associated with being the beneficiary of the massive transfer of 'real' wealth from West to East that began with "free" trade at the end of the Cold War.

As for holdings, China has been quietly building up its government controlled gold holdings beyond what it's reporting to the IMF. It's believed that China is now the world’s number two holder of gold, ahead of Germany whose central bank retains around 3,387 tonnes.

The U.S. is comfortably in first place with holdings somewhere around 8,133.5 tonnes; however, independent analysts are reporting that China aims to ultimately exceed this figure in line with their domestic view that gold reserves will stand it in good stead in any changes which might be forthcoming in the world financial order and particularly with respect to their desire to see the U.S. dollar replaced as the world’s reserve currency.

It should be obvious, in light of all this, that a return to a pure gold standard would only weaken the U.S. and empower China further.

It's better to take a market basket approach and support the dollar with valuable resources the U.S. has in abundance which others do not have in abundance yet need. This can be combined with using our (albeit diminishing) dominance to control associated markets exactly as Nixon did with 'petro dollars.' And, if we end the national deficit, this would put the dollar in a very good position moving forward.

Yes, gold can be a part of that basket but as you can see it is a reserve of diminishing returns moving forward into the future for the purpose of shoring up the dollar.

But, of course, the U.S. will simply drive the car into a wall. While, it is possible to defang the dragon by out maneuvering it, we're presently doing exactly the opposite and there are no signs that we'll ever do anything else. We're presently on course to end like Greece.

These things deteriorate from the inside out over time. One day, the crumbling foundations finally buckle and the structure crashes. And, like is commonly said, the bigger they come the harder they fall. You can bet ours will make the history books.

Thank for the description. One thing you didn't mention is how our current debt driven financial system is being propped up. For every $100 dollars that an individual has on deposit in bank...some banks are able to loan up to 90% of it. Not to mention that this "money" is created out of thin air at the federal reserve. The Federal Reserve literally has a balance of zero dollars because in tangible assets....it is only as good as the interest that is being paid on it. The truth is that our current financial system depends 100% on people borrowing money and on the promises of the politicians who are voted in and given a check to dole out to their favorite social programs.

These endless wars in the middle east are the last gasp of a waning superpower who has watered down its currency to the point of worthlessness.... in the hopes of kicking the inevitable crash down the road to the next batch of bought and paid for politicians. I do however think that our way out of this is for us to become the breadbasket of the world once again thru the implementation of policies favorable to small business and to the family farm. We have the capability to feed the world and bolster our national defense. We must get rid of crony capitalism...send the wall street criminals to jail and elect leaders who interested in defending our country from this very dangerous islamonazi Axis that is rising.

 

[Esanta]

Good comment.. finally lolol. Though the U.S. dollar is fiat money, the Nixon administration created “petro-dollars” that, although intrinsically worthless, were implicitly backed by foreign crude oil. This was accomplished by persuading foreign oil-producing nations to sell their crude oil for only U.S. dollars which meant that before the other nations of the world could buy crude oil on the international markets, they had to first have U.S. dollars. The resulting international demand for dollars imparted an implied value that bolstered the U.S. dollar.

Obviously, the U.S. wants that situation to continue lest our fiat currency lose the benefit of oil producing countries charging customers in U.S. dollars. But this arrangement cannot last forever. China has become a big customer of Middle Eastern oil producing nations and they are making moves to engage in direct currency transactions while calling on the U.N. to create a world currency to replace the dollar. On the side, they are pushing their own partner nations to accept the renminbi.

One of the biggest blunders the U.S. ever made was diverting it's wealth, jobs, capital investment, invention/innovation, etc... (while negligently dropping our national security to the level of a second tier nation allowing the Chinese to hack us almost at will until they had most of what we didn't give them outright) to China after the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. We literally raised the enemy that's now committed to supplanting us.

It reminds me of that old rap lyric, "never show love to a young man, let him live and he'll try to take your stand."

The window has closed for the U.S. to return to fully return to the gold standard (despite Austrian economics propaganda) for reasons I'll be happy to explain if you don't already know them; however, we can implement a market basket approach and bring our deficit into balance. This would go a very long way to shoring up the U.S. dollar for a long time to come. But, of course, the current crop of politicians in DC are useless and simply going to ride the train off the rails. It is unavoidable because of what they are.

I never did believe fiat currency was any good and of course, considering the current banking powers, a return to gold standard will probably mean mass boycott. There's a third option though - make money to the value of work. It'll be state capitalism and of course the government would have to create legislation to take power away from the Fed and give it back to the government but last I checked Americans work pretty long hours and love Abe Lincoln so it's all a win!!

(That last part was flippant)

Green-back to work!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That wasn't related to the gold standard discussion. Obviously, I could write a series of books if I'm going to go in depth in many different directions. If you want to see something interesting, read this:

Federal Reserve's 'astounding' report: We loaned banks trillions - CSMonitor.com

Now notice that banks have pushed $2.633 trillion of that on deposit with the federal reserve:

FRB: H.4.1 Release--Factors Affecting Reserve Balances--July 10, 2014



Now the Fed is engaging in deficit spending (e.g. borrowing) to pay interest on escalating bank reserves sitting in the Federal Reserve which they lent the banks to begin with.

In other words (and this is as hard as a tongue twister to follow so read carefully): the Federal Reserve is borrowing money (which increases the annual national deficit) to pay interest to banks on money the Federal Reserve previously borrowed (which increased the annual national deficit) to lend to the banks so that the banks don't lend the money out. *face palm*.

Don't try to tell me my government is not royally screwed up... lol.

See: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See: Excess reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank for the description. One thing you didn't mention is how our current debt driven financial system is being propped up. For every $100 dollars that an individual has on deposit in bank...some banks are able to loan up to 90% of it. Not to mention that this "money" is created out of thin air at the federal reserve. The Federal Reserve literally has a balance of zero dollars because in tangible assets....it is only as good as the interest that is being paid on it. The truth is that our current financial system depends 100% on people borrowing money and on the promises of the politicians who are voted in and given a check to dole out to their favorite social programs.

These endless wars in the middle east are the last gasp of a waning superpower who has watered down its currency to the point of worthlessness.... in the hopes of kicking the inevitable crash down the road to the next batch of bought and paid for politicians. I do however think that our way out of this is for us to become the breadbasket of the world once again thru the implementation of policies favorable to small business and to the family farm. We have the capability to feed the world and bolster our national defense. We must get rid of crony capitalism...send the wall street criminals to jail and elect leaders who interested in defending our country from this very dangerous islamonazi Axis that is rising.

 

[Sirk]

That wasn't related to the gold standard discussion. Obviously, I could write a series of books if I'm going to go in depth in many different directions. If you want to see something interesting, read this:

Federal Reserve's 'astounding' report: We loaned banks trillions - CSMonitor.com

Now notice that banks have pushed $2.633 trillion of that on deposit with the federal reserve:

FRB: H.4.1 Release--Factors Affecting Reserve Balances--July 10, 2014



Now the Fed is engaging in deficit spending (e.g. borrowing) to pay interest on escalating bank reserves sitting in the Federal Reserve which they lent the banks to begin with.

In other words (and this is as hard as a tongue twister to follow so read carefully): the Federal Reserve is borrowing money (which increases the annual national deficit) to pay interest to banks on money the Federal Reserve previously borrowed (which increased the annual national deficit) to lend to the banks so that the banks don't lend the money out. *face palm*.

Don't try to tell me my government is not royally screwed up... lol.

See: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See: Excess reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is truly astounding how this ginormous ponzi scheme is right there for everyone to see yet we just keep racing toward financial ruin. Its not like this hasn't happened before.....countless times.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

If you create a fixed exchange-rate system where the dollar's value is tied to labor, that would put us in even a worse position than if we created a fixed exchange-rate system where the dollar's value was tied to gold (see my previous post on why returning to the gold standard is a bad idea).

The Marxist labor theory of value has been discredited and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. Read British economist Alfred Marshall's 'The Law of Supply and Demand' as one suggested starting point. Labor does contribute to cost, but so does the wants and needs of consumers and a whole host of other things. But even more importantly, especially in this technological age, are a plethora of considerations such as capital investment and the Austrian school's (I know but they have some good points) assertion that value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.

But even if Marx was correct, which he wasn't, we have 330 million people while China has 1.351 billion and India has 1.237 billion in an economic environment in which they practice protectionism via VATs and we don't. Have you learned nothing from "free" trade?

I never did believe fiat currency was any good and of course, considering the current banking powers, a return to gold standard will probably mean mass boycott. There's a third option though - make money to the value of work. It'll be state capitalism and of course the government would have to create legislation to take power away from the Fed and give it back to the government but last I checked Americans work pretty long hours and love Abe Lincoln so it's all a win!!

(That last part was flippant)

Green-back to work!

 

[Esanta]

If you create a fixed exchange-rate system where the dollar's value is tied to labor, that would put us in even a worse position than if we created a fixed exchange-rate system where the dollar's value was tied to gold (see my previous post on why returning to the gold standard is a bad idea).

The Marxist labor theory of value has been discredited and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. Read British economist Alfred Marshall's 'The Law of Supply and Demand' as one suggested starting point. Labor does contribute to cost, but so does the wants and needs of consumers and a whole host of other things. But even more importantly, especially in this technological age, are a plethora of considerations such as capital investment and the Austrian school's (I know but they have some good points) assertion that value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.

But even if Marx was correct, which he wasn't, we have 330 million people while China has 1.351 billion and India has 1.237 billion in an economic environment in which they practice protectionism via VATs and we don't. Have you learned nothing from "free" trade?

Regardless of the merits of our views, our commonality is in the clear recognition that fiat currency simply compounds debt. Now, there has been a point in time, in fact, several points in time were leaders tried to remedy this by opposing the fiat system, and what happened:

Hitler with state capitalism and labour work value, created a genuine non-currency trade system with South American nations: Boycotted and forced into war.
Lincoln: Issued greenbacks and years later the Fed was given absolute power. He was assassinated.
Gadaffi: Pushed for African gold standard and was killed.

Of course, two of these guys are 'baddies' and so none of this ever gets much of a second look, but nobody will deny that Hitler's financial model, if it weren't for the banking powers, would have revolutionized trade and government, Gadaffi's system would have created a genuinely workable socialist state and Lincoln's plans would have put the American people first, before the banks.

You're talking about this in terms of planetary proportions, but one nation with state-capitalism can survive exceedingly, just like Nazi Germany before WW2 could. Their economic model before the war was remarkable, even if Hitler was a psychotic extremist in other ways.

Marx was right about one thing. The valuation of purchase power under a capitalist system is tailored to privelage those who already are privelaged people.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I didn't mean to suggest that the reason why the Fed is paying interest on the excess reserves is because they don't want the banks to lend. No. What I meant was simply the Fed is paying interest rates on the excess reserves and the bank isn't lending that money out. I should have been clear on that point. But obviously, the Fed borrowing money to give to banks who put it on account with the Fed who then borrows money to pay them interest isn't helping the American people or the national interest. That's the point I was making.

Technically speaking, only the Fed can reduce the amount of base money (cash + reserves) in circulation. Banks actually can't lend out reserves (see http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/upload/Ratings_US/Repeat_After_Me_8_14_13.pdf) and even if they could simply convert it to cash and lend it out then you have inflation as trillions rush into public circulation.

But the American taxpayer shouldn't have to borrow money, increasing the national debt which is simply being passed on to their progeny, to pay banks interest on their excessive reserves (which did not happen before the bailout).

Of course, the analysts will argue that loan growth is slower than deposit growth and that the Fed (which instituted QE originally to pay for the massive increase in Treasury supply that resulted from the crisis in 2008) will now reduce its purchases to conform with the rate of new Treasury issuance and deposit growth will follow that curve downward while loan growth continues at a slow but steady upward pace based on the rate of loan demand that the economy can generate sans-repo lending and everything will normalize in time.

But what's the benefit to the American taxpayer who went from $10 trillion in debt in 2008 to 18 trillion in debt by the end of this year and still incurring enormous debt annually?

While executives lined their pockets, financial institutions got a hand out, and wealthy investors became wealthier: the American taxpayer got screwed royally!

Three words: free market economy. Risk is the chance that an investment's return will be different than expected. Risk includes the possibility of losing some or all of the original investment. The government should have implemented capital controls and let the inept financial institutions sink and the successful non-inept financial institutions grow into the space they left.

But they did the opposite. Now we're almost $20 trillion in debt and the annual interest payments on the national debt have soared so high that they are about to surpass our annual entire military budget!

Guess where we're going to get the money to make those ballooning interest payments? Can you guess? That's right, we're going to borrow it!!!

^That's full retard mode. Rule #1 in economics is to never go full retard.

And what's the Obama Administration's 2015 budget impact going to look like? That's right, you guessed it: higher government spending with a bigger deficit and greater national debt combined with higher taxes on the American people.

Seriously, did you expect anything else? Read: 'How Government Expansion Will Limit Opportunity, Slow Economic Growth, and Erode Financial and National Security' by the Heritage Foundation.

Not hard to see where it's ultimately heading...

It is truly astounding how this ginormous ponzi scheme is right there for everyone to see yet we just keep racing toward financial ruin. Its not like this hasn't happened before.....countless times.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The valuation of purchase power under every Marxist system ever implemented benefitted/benefits the privileged party elite who control the Marxist system. Every single one as in ALL of them. From the old Soviet Union to North Korea to the Vietnamese Communist Party’s Politburo to the Chinese nation's richest occupying the coveted seats in China's Great Hall of "the people."

AND, under Marxism, you get severely persecuted by a totalitarian atheistic state too ESPECIALLY if you're religious.

No thanks. Saw it in the 20th century. It was terrible. People traded away their liberty to become human chattel of a state that abused them on behalf of a super wealthy, super powerful party elite.

And I've already tried to correct your national socialistic economic false assertions but you're not listening.

Nazi Germany and the Economic Miracle

Marx was right about one thing. The valuation of purchase power under a capitalist system is tailored to privelage those who already are privelaged people.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Regarding Obama's 2015 budget, did you see this:

"Moreover, President Obama’s proposed policy is explicitly anti-marriage. Under the policy, a man who fathers a child and neither marries the mother nor supports the child will receive a cash bonus of up to $1,000 per year from the taxpayer. However, the moment the man marries the child’s mother and begins to support the family, the taxpayer subsidy will be eliminated.

When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of American children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is 42 percent.[55] The dramatic collapse in marriage has been caused at least in part by the welfare state, which for 50 years has belittled marriage and penalized low-income couples who do marry.

Most welfare programs penalize marriage by substantially reducing benefits whenever couples marry. President Obama’s new policy intensifies that anti-marriage bias. Rarely has the welfare state’s anti-marriage bias been as explicit and obvious as it is in the new Obama policy. An anti-marriage campaign in low-income communities is a good way to lose the war on poverty."

Read the entire report: How Government Expansion Will Limit Opportunity, Slow Economic Growth, and Erode Financial and National Security

In addition to a societal breakdown of the family and morality, note the quadrupling of social security liabilities over the next twenty years combined with a rapid escalation of the national debt and ballooning interest payments.

Our present policies have gone past the point of diminishing returns and are now incurring serious liability to our society and our economy moving forward. Eventually, domestic social and economic upheaval and chaos will result if this not turned around. Mark my words.

 

[Sirk]

Regarding Obama's 2015 budget, did you see this:

"Moreover, President Obama’s proposed policy is explicitly anti-marriage. Under the policy, a man who fathers a child and neither marries the mother nor supports the child will receive a cash bonus of up to $1,000 per year from the taxpayer. However, the moment the man marries the child’s mother and begins to support the family, the taxpayer subsidy will be eliminated.

When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of American children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is 42 percent.[55] The dramatic collapse in marriage has been caused at least in part by the welfare state, which for 50 years has belittled marriage and penalized low-income couples who do marry.

Most welfare programs penalize marriage by substantially reducing benefits whenever couples marry. President Obama’s new policy intensifies that anti-marriage bias. Rarely has the welfare state’s anti-marriage bias been as explicit and obvious as it is in the new Obama policy. An anti-marriage campaign in low-income communities is a good way to lose the war on poverty."

Read the entire report: How Government Expansion Will Limit Opportunity, Slow Economic Growth, and Erode Financial and National Security

In addition to a societal breakdown of the family and morality, note the quadrupling of social security liabilities over the next twenty years combined with a rapid escalation of the national debt and ballooning interest payments.

Our present policies have gone past the point of diminishing returns and are now incurring serious liability to our society and our economy moving forward. Eventually, domestic social and economic upheaval and chaos will result if this not turned around. Mark my words.

It really makes you wonder how seriously these people are taking the Georgia guide stones. It seems as tho the elites are in the process of making the western world part of the serf class by enslaving it through the use of monetary policy favorable to themselves.........am I wrong?

I would bet that the current world order and its agenda can be traced back to the Napoleonic wars and the Rothchilds enrichment of themselves through not only funding the war but through manipulation of the stock market and subsequent profit from the lie perpetuated that Napoleon won the battle at Waterloo.

I think the New World Order is a family owned enterprise and is very deliberate. It's all a scripted play and we are its audience and its extras.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I don't think you're wrong with respect to what's occurring; however, I think you are wrong in your assertion that it's a deliberate conspiracy to impoverish the American people for the purpose of obtaining totalitarian economic control over them that has been underway for centuries... lol. That's kooky nonsense.

What I'm seeing is colossal negligence and ineptness, sweeping deception and ignorance, the wrong political ideologies implemented, greed to a fault, systemic corruption, escapism and denial, etc... etc... etc...

It's possible that the result of economic, social, and political upheaval in the wake of stark economic decline and deep depression may accomplish putting almost all of the power in the hands of a very few but then again maybe not. That really depends on how the people react in their pain and loss.

If they lose their minds and replace their constitutional republic built on democratic principles with a Marxist system that allows a small cadre of party elite to run everything as totalitarian rulers as is the case in every Marxist government ever implemented in this world then they are royally screwed with a new status as that of peon subject to persecution for any step out of line with the party.

If they come to their senses, then reform can begin. Lord knows, we're already in desperate need of it. Imagine if they change nothing for the better in thirty years what the country will look like.

It really makes you wonder how seriously these people are taking the Georgia guide stones. It seems as tho the elites are in the process of making the western world part of the serf class by enslaving it through the use of monetary policy favorable to themselves.........am I wrong?

I would bet that the current world order and its agenda can be traced back to the Napoleonic wars and the Rothchilds enrichment of themselves through not only funding the war but through manipulation of the stock market and subsequent profit from the lie perpetuated that Napoleon won the battle at Waterloo.

I think the New World Order is a family owned enterprise and is very deliberate. It's all a scripted play and we are its audience and its extras.

 

[Sirk]

I don't think you're wrong with respect to what's occurring; however, I think you are wrong in your assertion that it's a deliberate conspiracy to impoverish the American people for the purpose of obtaining totalitarian economic control over them that has been underway for centuries... lol. That's kooky nonsense.

What I'm seeing is colossal negligence and ineptness, sweeping deception and ignorance, the wrong political ideologies implemented, greed to a fault, systemic corruption, escapism and denial, etc... etc... etc...

It's possible that the result of economic, social, and political upheaval in the wake of stark economic decline and deep depression may accomplish putting almost all of the power in the hands of a very few but then again maybe not. That really depends on how the people react in their pain and loss.

If they lose their minds and replace their constitutional republic built on democratic principles with a Marxist system that allows a small cadre of party elite to run everything as totalitarian rulers as is the case in every Marxist government ever implemented in this world then they are royally screwed with a new status as that of peon subject to persecution for any step out of line with the party.

If they come to their senses, then reform can begin. Lord knows, we're already in desperate need of it. Imagine if they change nothing for the better in thirty years what the country will look like.

I really enjoy your insightful world view and I have learned much from you already.

On the point of of conspiracy theory though I disagree not only with the choice of words (deliberate conspiracy) but in your assertion that the push toward a world govt is not deliberate. One point I will agree on however is your assertion that a conspiracy of that magnitude could not be carried out over centuries as you put it. I think a more fitting substitution for the term you used "deliberate conspiracy" would be just simply stated as a "business plan"..... thats been in the works at least since Woodrow Wilson's term if not 50 or so years previous. In my opinion, the creep toward totalitarianism in the current age is patient and slow because this time it intends to fully encompass every nook and cranny of our lives and for the first time in history, the technology is available to completely bring under its control, every human being on the planet, 24/7/365. The new world order is Satan's doing. There are just certain men who are willing participants in his business plan and for what its worth....satan HAS been at this game for centuries.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

On the conspiracy issue, I will concede that there is an observable and quantifiable push by the politically correct crowd backed by powerful special interests toward a one world government which will, if successful, result in much less liberty for Americans specifically, more persecution for Christians in the West, and a much lower standard of living for the U.S. and the West.

Historically, I would state the situation as Wikipedia does:

"During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history characterized by a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II.

They all saw the period as an opportunity to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination.

These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States and to regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. These creations in particular and liberal internationalism in general, however, were regularly criticized and opposed by American ultraconservative business nationalists from the 1930s on.

Progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes in the aftermath of the two World Wars, but argued that they suffered from a democratic deficit and were therefore inadequate not only to prevent another global war but to foster global justice. The United Nations was designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and State Department planners, and was always intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states, not a transition to democratic world government. Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement, hoping in vain to create a "real" new world order."

What's being left out, of course, is the critical fact that the "progressives" in the U.S. and Europe have joined America's enemies to work to denude the influence of the Christian worldview the U.S. was founded on and replace it with their atheistic relativistic anti-Christian worldview which they greatly wish to implement and enforce in a totalitarian manner on every human being in the world.

The truth is they need the U.S. more than the U.S. needs them (hint: their political ideology is greatly injuring the U.S. which doesn't need them or their ideology whatsoever) for the political elites of China and Russia are not going to act magnanimously against their own self interests on behalf of the good of mankind whether it be legitimately as in the worldview the U.S. was founded on or the spiritually bankrupt fallacious deceived counterfeit the progressives fabricated and are deeply committed to.

This is why I believe they aren't interested in destroying the U.S. so much as transforming it into their own image and leveraging it to accomplish their objectives. Unfortunately for them, their political ideology is absolutely flawed to the point of failure and the deterioration we are witnessing is literally a result of the nation implementing their ideology (and that of the neo-cons).

Now extrapolate that to the entire world and what do you have? That's right, a world (not just a nation) in crisis. China and Russia see this clearly and simply aren't going to do anything other than talk a good line to them and continue to act in their own self-interest and move to exploit the West's decline caused by progressive and neocon ideology.

Ultimately, the success of the progressives is tied to an ideology that is doomed to fail and failing before our very eyes. Their only hope is to dump their ideology for one that results in immense desirable outcomes and use that position of strength to dominate the rest of the world to accomplish their objectives. But they aren't going to do that because that would mean scuttling their ideology... lol.

For the observant Christian, the mystery here are end time prophecies which speak of God removing His invisible hand of protective restraint as the world rejects Him and the devil exploiting that. The chaotic result, of course, is chronicled in scripture.

It's not clear to me if this is their "salvation" allowing these well-intentioned but deceived immoral relativist/pluralist progressives who hide behind the spiritually bankrupt counterfeit mask of secular humanism to exploit the turmoil to finally create the "new world order" they dream of under a powerful anti-Christ with the devil's help and "winnow" (e.g. severely persecute and deny the right to buy and sell) the world's Christian population in a very real but short lived "new world order."

Let us hope not.

I really enjoy your insightful world view and I have learned much from you already.

On the point of of conspiracy theory though I disagree not only with the choice of words (deliberate conspiracy) but in your assertion that the push toward a world govt is not deliberate. One point I will agree on however is your assertion that a conspiracy of that magnitude could not be carried out over centuries as you put it. I think a more fitting substitution for the term you used "deliberate conspiracy" would be just simply stated as a "business plan"..... thats been in the works at least since Woodrow Wilson's term if not 50 or so years previous. In my opinion, the creep toward totalitarianism in the current age is patient and slow because this time it intends to fully encompass every nook and cranny of our lives and for the first time in history, the technology is available to completely bring under its control, every human being on the planet, 24/7/365. The new world order is Satan's doing. There are just certain men who are willing participants in his business plan and for what its worth....satan HAS been at this game for centuries.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Dr. John Nash stated in his Nobel Prize interview, "The U.S. dollar is not what it was. The dollar used to be the gold standard [of the world]."

Now pay attention because it's none other than John Nash who is talking here:

"A Keynesian would favor the existence of a manipulative state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve economic welfare objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency and the associated effects of that on the reputation of financial enterprises domestic to the state. And indeed a very famous saying of Keynes was '...in the long run we will all be dead.'"

^ Did you get that? That's exactly what we are observing occurring in the U.S.. Nash continues:

"There perhaps will always be politics, like also death and taxes, but it is sometimes remarkable how political contexts can evolve. And in relation to that I think that it is possible that the Keynesians are like a political faction that will become less influential as a result of political evolution.

The Keynesian view of things did not come into existence until after the time when what we can call Bolshevik communism had become established in Russia. And by this label we wish to differentiate between any theoretical or ideal concept of communism and the actual form of governing regime structure that came to exercise state power in Moscow.

The Keynesians implicitly always have the argument that some good managers can do things of beneficial value, operating with the treasury and the central bank, and that it is not needed or appropriate for the citizenry or the customers of the currency supplied by the state to actually understand, while the managers are managing, what exactly they are doing and how it will affect the pocketbook circumstances of these customers.

I see this as analogous to how the Bolshevik communists were claiming to provide something much better than the bourgeois democracy that they could not deny existed in some other countries. But in the end the dictatorship of the proletariat seemed to become rather exposed as simply the dictatorship of the regime.

So there may be an analogy to this as regards those called 'the Keynesians' in that while they have claimed to be operating for high and noble objectives of general welfare what is clearly true is that they have made it easier for governments to print money.

So I see the Keynesians as in a weak sense comparable to the Bolsheviks because of the support of both parties for a certain lack of transparency relating to the functions of government as seen by the citizenry. And for both of them it can be said that they tend to think in terms of government agencies operating in a benevolent fashion that is, however, beyond the comprehension of the citizens of the state.

And this parallel makes it seem not implausible that a process of political evolution might lead to the expectation on the part of citizens in the great democracies that they should be better situated to be able to understand whatever will be the monetary policies which, indeed, are typically of great importance to citizens who may have alternative options for where to place their 'savings.'"

One must love the great John Nash. He then goes into...

(1): Games with transferable utility.

(2): Games without transferable utility

stating:

"In the world of practical realities it is money which typically causes the existence of a game of type (1) rather than of type (2). And generally if games can be transformed from type (2) to type (1) there is a gain, on average, to all the players in terms of whatever might be expected to be the outcome... money, as an efficient practical means of transferring utility, naturally links directly with the game theoretic idea of games with transferable utility.

So how do 'good money' and 'bad money' differ, if at all, for the valuable function of facilitating utility transfer? If we view money as of importance in connection with transfers of utility, we can see that money itself is a sort of utility. We can consider the quality of money as comparable to the quality of some public utility like the supply of electric energy or of water."

From there, he discourses on game theory principles that explain why we are rapidly losing while our competitor China is rapidly winning. Lol. You just have to love John Nash. He truly does have a beautiful mind.