I think too hard working is a good thing. It keeps you straight.

But how would have your ancestors felt if the government would have taken their land? That is a violation of their property rights and has nothing to do with your ancestors being lazy.

The problem is that this is not true. The bankers adquired control of the money supply through government intervention. Some times the government intervention meant imposing some kind of gold standard (never a free market gold standard, and btw I dont support the gold standard). In the free market the bankers never managed to control the physical gold. They used all kind of regulations to control the money supply, sometimes under the name of godl standard.

The problem with the idea of "gold standard" is that it can refer to may systems who are completely different from each other, just because they have some kind of relation to gold. But, f.e. Bretton Woods, a "gold standard", is more similar to the present system, than to a gold based free banking system, that could be called a gold standard too. In reality, "gold standard" means nothing and everything because each person refers to a different thing by it.

Yes, but this is not the case. And I agree that denouncing industrialization of those countries is stupid, but a real libertarian would denounce the violation of the individual rights of those people that foced them to accept those conditions.

Also, in a free market there would be much more welfare (in the sense of people enjoying a better standard of living) and hiring people for those jobs would be more difficult, promoting automatization of those kind of jobs, or higher wages for the ones that needed a human.

+1

Or point to that telecommunications company at France whose employees sucided a lot too. I guess social-democracy does not work as proven by France... 

While it is certainly better to work on a factory than being forced to prostitute or die of hunger, the problem is taht the sweatshops are not a product of free market. In the majority of those countries there is no respect for property rights, the governments have confiscated big parts of the land and distributed among a few people. This situation sends the majority of the people into poverty and forces them to sell their labor cheaper than they would in a free market. By removing all their options they take their bargaining power for better wages.

It is true that girls working at sweatchops statistically get schooled more and get independent quicker than the ones that reamin in the country side, but again, this does not mean that they could not be in a better position if the governments would not have violated their individulal rights so they had better bargaining power, or maybe even save and start their own business.

Ok, you are right. But I did not insult you. The thing is that I believed the nutjob because his movies are very well done and seem very real to someone not educated enough in economic and economic history. He sells you a dream and then become uncritical to him becose you get addicted to that dream. I felt so ashamed when I started reading economic history books that I just cant understand if the guy is very dishonest and has an agenda or he is really a complete nutjob. Its confusing people with stupid ideas and stopping real change.

Please read a real history book.


Who knows? maybe the southern states would have get independent as its their right under the constitution of the USA. Maybe the slaves would have been freed like in Europe by paying the slave owners, which would have been cheaper than the war and would have avoided a lot of deaths.

Btw, why The Money Masters does not explain how Lincoln passed the National Banks Act at the end of the civil war which centrallized the credit around teh big banks of New York? Because it does not bode well with the nutjob wanting to promote Lincoln as an anti-banker and insinuating his death was because he opposed the bankers, when in reality Lincoln gave them control of the credit.

No, a nutjob is a nutjob. There is people I disagree with who are not nutjobs. Bill Still is a nutjob. I am still ashamed that I believed tThe Money Masters when I saw it. Im glad I decided to learn more about central banking and started reading history books about it so I could learn what really happened and the lies that are on his videos. Believe it or not I understand the feelign of enlightment you get after watching those videos. I went through the same. The problem is that its false, and if you read some history books you would realize.


I already asnwered to this. Its amazing the capacity of this videos of making people incapable of logical thinking. Let me quote myself:


The debt in the present system does NOT come from savings. Please take a moment to understand this. It comes from the banks enjoying the monopoly on credit that the government has granted them. Please read and try to use the logical part of your brain. Forget about the stupid dream the charlatan has sold you and use your rationallity.


Another fallacy promoted by the nutjob. You could pay a debt of $11.000 with only $10.000 in the money supply because money circulates. Lack of money is not why credit crunches happen. You are learning stupid ideas from the nutjob.


Well, you are making some sense here, but its not that simple. First, the gold was not confiscated by the bankers, Roosevelt did it. Second, he could not remove the gold standard because it would have created big distrust towards the dollar and heavy price inflation. Back then the gold standard was not a free market system, but a government regulated gold standard, usually called the gold-exchange, and the politicans and the finantial elites were beneifting from it so they wanted to keep it. But in reality as you say it was all a sham because they end up devaluating the dollar so they could keep printing.

Its funny how governments always use inflation to pay for wars and yet some keep defending it. It will be use for good, it will be used for good. They are sold a dream and loose the habitility of thinking critically.

Ok, you follow the nutjob. That movie is pure nonsense and the peole who follow him become ilogical. I have dealt with the few of you enough to know there will be no logical discussion. For example, you are admiting that your early point about inflation distributing the wealth was not true, but then keep defending inflation because supposedly it keeps money in the economy and that magically creates new resources. And you dont care that it hursts the people who earn a wage! Anyway, good luck.

It would be better if you could temporarely move your files to somewhere else and then install Ubuntu and copy them back, but you can probably install Ubuntu in just a part of the hard drive if that is what you want. The Ubuntu isntallation will offer you that option.

What you might want to do is buy a USB device of at least 4Gb and install Ubuntu on that USB.

Welcome to the forums

Charity over the Internet is very complicated. Scamming is very easy.

I dont see how you can do charity outside of your local zone and be effective, but I will be glad if wrong.

I, for once, agree with you. The problem is that he is lying. Technological improvements is not what created this crisis and/or is causing the unemployment. Both are caused by the capital structure distortion (the housing bubble).

Yes, there is a study from some local Fed from around 1992 that studies this issue and shows how the money expansion comes frist from the banks and the Fed comes later.

Please read again what I said.


Wikipedia? There is no intrinsic or absolute value. Value is subjective. According to that definition all money is fiat. It makes no sense.



Not this stupid fallacy again... Why do people believe this nonsense. Let me explain again:

This "theory" is based on the idea that wealthy people save their wealth in money, therefore if there is inflation they will see their savings eroded. The problem is that in the real world the weatlhy people dont save in money. They basically invest, even with diverse degree of leverage. Therefore inflation benefits them because their assets go up in price, while the wages of the workers go down in value (because they get actualized late). So basically inflation is what concentrates the wealth in a few hands and fucks the poor.

By the way, you can check this empirically as well. Since the 70's there has been more inflation and the gap between rich and poor has increased. During the 2008 deflationary crash the gap diminished. Its because the wealthy save in assets not in money!!!

So please, can we stop this nonsense? Who the fuck is promoting this lie? Its evil, it says that the workers benefit from what its hurting them. Whoever is promoting and teached you that idea is pure evil.


Yes there is a debt problem, but that is not how it happens. The excessive debt happens because the government regulates the banking system allowing the banks to overextend credit. The debt in the present system is not based on savings, its based on the government money monpolly and the banking cartel it creates.


Yes, and that happens because the government imposes a money monopolly.


Do you realize that all bubbles tend to happen in capital intensive sectors? How do you explain that?


I dont see how this is important. The government could tax and build the tractors. The real important issue is if the tractors are neeed or not. Financing them through direct taxes or through the inflation tax has some implications but at the end of the day the big issue is wheteher the tractors are needed or the resources are better spent somewhere else.

You seem to think that just because the money was printed the resources appear out of nowhere and it does not affect.


Can you point one example in history when money printing was not abused?


Again, history is not on your side.


It is. You are not letting the price system work. Certainly is not stalist communism, but it does affect the price system and distorts it. It is central planning.


Then go and try it please.

It does not matter what the money is, all that matter is that nobody controls the quantity.

Some hours ago I got an odd share numer so I guess it did not yet.

I am very happy with AMDOverdriveCtrl but its lackign some things. You can not check the tempreatures of the card other than the core and it does not tell you current as for example a windows program like gpu-z does. Its the only thing Im missing in linux.

Google AMDOverdriveCtrl.

Also you are not counting electricity.

I have not read the book, but from talking to people that has read it, I think its mostly true, just some things are debatable. But at the end it was written some decades ago, there are new discoveries and no book is perfect.

It is true that the manuscript to create the Fed was written in a reunion of politicians and bankers at Jekyll Island. Some of the people at that meeting have written about it and explained how they went incognito. But keep in mind that the bankers were trying to get the government to create a central authority to manage money way before that. During the first decade of the XX century they managed to have the Treasury act as a sort of central bank for some years. And the USA had three central banks before the Fed.

The meeting at Jekyll Island was in 1910. You know what the Fed did at 2010, a hundred years later? They celebrated a meeting at Jekyll Island. You know what the name of the conference by the Federal Reserve of Atlanta? 'A Return to Jekyll Island: The Origins, History, and Future of the Federal Reserve'. These suckers have a wicked sense of humor.


Yes. I actually believe governments exists to favour special interest. Its not a situation that can be ammended, its what governments are.


Well, they are separate things even if they "love" each other. The government has its own dinamics and while its objective is to pander to the special interests, it has to give the appearence of worrying about the people. So its a "game" of smoke and mirrors, and while the people get usually the short stick, some very few times you can get something out of it.


Absolutely.


Just a detail. The banks create money first, and then, later, the central bank creates money if the banks need it to cover the reserve requirements. So basically its not the central bank that creates money first, but the commercial banks, and later the central bank creates the money so they stay solvent. Supposedly the central bank will only create money and give it to banks that have worhty assets, but we have seen during this crisis that "worthy asset" is a extremely relative concept when it comes to save the big banks.

At the end what you say is more or less correct, because if the commercial banks know they dont have the central bank covering their backs they will not lend so much money. So even when they commercial banks are the ones lending the money first, they only do because they know the central bank is behind them.