Creating money does not necessarily decrease buying power.  You seem to have an oversimplified understanding of monetary policy.  Yes if you increase money supply without increasing economic output then you decrease buying power, but in this context, that only happens once the economy is already running at full capacity. Running at full capacity means all of the economy's resources are already put to use and you have more money chasing fewer goods.   When the money is being used to put people to work and create businesses, you won't see this effect until no more resources (employees, buildings, or raw materials) are available to be purchased.   You should fear deflation just as much as inflation and having resources sit idle is not a good thing for the economy.  Also, the our purchasing power has been in steady decline for decades.  Have you never noticed the debt?  People only mention it as a doomsday scenario when we talk about using the new money to help people instead of using it to help large corporations.   Its really not that big of a deal if the economy is doing well.


Yes the reform policies I am suggesting would take place within the current system.  Thats the point. Its within reach.  Current tax code is not very cooperative friendly and actually makes them pretty much illegal in a lot of states.    Those would need to be updated as well to treat worker cooperatives as nonprofits.  There aren't many lawyers who have the training to deal with cooperative disputes either.  Very unfavorable right now yet there are still very successful worker cooperatives because the model is so superior.

Unrealistic hypothetical. In the real world, large amounts of real estate sits idle.   Real estate developers don't operate businesses. Thats just not the way our specialized economy is set up.  Landlords just want reliable tenants.  They gain nothing by letting their property sit idle while they continue to pay taxes on it.  Once the cooperatives starts accumulating money, they can put profits into a fund to buy their own building. 

People aren't going to take the 5 dollar jobs.  Its an illegal wage and those businesses would fail anyway.

Some people should wake up to the threat that China poses, and the non-threat that Russia poses.

s/Capitalism/Capitolism/ig

Just to be honest, stupidity of the government has nothing to do with its declared economical policy.
Just compare china to north korea or japan to mexica, and you will see what do I mean.

This thread is not about ''you couldn't argue against this proof that the government is breaking the law'' It's about vaccines, I thought you were actually smart, my bad. I don't need to argue against it, we already established that yes, they did not have those reports. Those reports are however not the only safety reports for vaccines, the government has provided thousands of other safety reports throughout the years.

I don't think we should take people's property at all.

Resources already exist.  
Goods and services come from labor.
Money is created with a key stroke.  

1. The supermarket in a community closes down
2. All workers are out of a job
3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan
4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs
5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay.

Notice the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it.  Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses.  Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down.

Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community.

That's not an argument. The government doesn't meet its legal obligations regarding many things many times, it doesn't mean vaccines are harmful on purpose which is what is being argued here. I still don't know what your position is at all, you just came here and said some stupid things about scientific theories and then went on saying the same thing over and over again, thinking that you are way smarter than the others LUL :^)

Stick to your other discussions, this isn't for you...

*Entitled to* has a specific meaning. You have now changed the quote to fit what you meant which is fine, you clarified it, but don't act like I made up the original quote or you saying it was already true.

Capital can be purchased.  New capital is always purchased.  Land can be purchased.  Anything currently owned by one person can be purchased by a group of people.    Yes if you wanted to instantly transform into a socialist economy and quickly move towards communism, then the government needs to take pre-existing capital but socialists in my school of thought realize that fast transitions are not feasible. 

I already explained government financing but you skipped over it.   The government finances capitalism all of the time.  TARP, the auto bailout, and amazon is getting 2 billion dollars to build an HQ2 they were already going to build. 

Its not adequate for determining the things its supposed to determine.  If it only works for 80% of the population, then it is failing a lot of people. 

You are arguing on behalf of the current system of measuring age, which assumes everyone ages exactly the same rate.  Everyone turns 18 in exactly the same amount of time.  Everyone turns 35 in exactly the same amount of time.  If we are using those ages to determine when someone has reached, cognitive and psychological maturation, we are assuming everyone matures at exactly the same rate.

 By you being so absolute in your suggesting that this never be changed, it is not putting words in your mouth to say that you agree with the archaic system of exactly 18 or 35 laps around the sun representing maturation.  You are saying at 17 and 364 days everyone is a child then magically on their 18th birthday and no a minute sooner everyone instantaneously becomes an adult. 

Which argument did I skip?  I know you skipped mentioning telomere length as a measurement of aging.

All I am saying is there has to be a better method and that better method will be developed and implemented in the future. 

You never made any statement, this thread is about vaccines and if they work or if the government is poisoning us, you never made your position clear, you are clearly afraid to do so, sorry to say but you are almost worse than badecker at this point, at least he is not a pussy.

Rofl, I don't think you understood what he said. It's like me saying the average height in USA is 5'9 and frogs are animals and then yelling HARD FACTS!!111 But what was the point of any of those ''hard facts'' what's the conclusion?

1.  It was you who said this is ALREADY being achieved.  Please explain how it is being achieved.

2. Socialism doesn't require taking property rights of some to go give to others.  Some socialist systems use that means to the end of worker ownership, but the one I subscribe to only distributes new wealth to the workers who generated it.  Over time, it is the workers who accumulate wealth.  

When you have absolute beliefs about things and say something always happens, it leads you to being close minded regarding said issue.  The idea that you just happened to be born at a time where society has reached a point where everything functions optimally and cannot be improved is naive.

For the sake of aurgument, let's grant that you have this unique ability to emit exclusively rock solid facts and nothing but.  So what?  What are they even good for without some sort of a hypothesis to test?

You've got some puzzle pieces to play with but you don't know what to do with them because you don't understand the concept of a puzzle...or more likely are conditioned to deny the existence of such a thing or at least have an allergy to the act of working on one.

You many get lucky and live to be my age, but it is more likely if, somehow, you become a little bit more skeptical.

---

BADecker is coming through with more and more hard-hitting facts.  I followed one of his links to a story about the so-called 'Spanish Flu' of 1918.  Even before I was a 'conspiracy theorist' I'd read about some oddities with that one.  Some years ago I was reading a hypothesis that since it originated in Ft. Riley where they where raising a lot of livestock for the war effort it probably came from that operation.  It was news to me that the Rockefeller Institute was also there and busy injecting some of the troops with horse pus in order to see what happened to them.  Not terribly surprising news though.

I didn't say anything was irrefutable or proof nor did I say we should be revamping laws.  Remember "start to think about"....

The article and graphs do show that our current system of measuring age is adequate by averages only and inadequate for many individuals.  The last graph shows % of each age group scoring at or above mean level for 25 to 30 year olds.  How is it adequate for the 20% of 10-21 year olds scoring at the 25-30 year old mean level?

Yes cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence develop differently and very important which is another reason I said they should be viewed separately.  I already outlined that in the previous post.   I completely agree with you that experience is acquired with passing of time and interacting with others.  I just strongly disagree with you on the notion that the specific time necessary is exactly the same for every individual.  Keep in mind that the source is speaking in generalizations not absolutes as demonstrated by the data in their graphs.  This debate really boils down to if we want to treat people as statistical generalizations or individuals. 

The study argued that this dilemma manifests itself when our system claims a young teen is capable of making  a cognitive decision like abortion but not capable of making a more psychologically complex decision like murder (to be tried as an adult). 

I can see only one difference (in general) and its the wannabe's - wannabe capitalists struggle to be socialists or even want to even entertain the fact, because they cant be fully capitalist because they are failing at it terrible and cant believe they need help.

Let's start off by reducing the population that denies climate change.

Ahahaha, then the rest of us can actually take care of the problem without morons like him holding the rest of society back.

I don't know any science? Fuck off with that shit you dumb cunt. I'm formally educated with a scientific degree. What fucking qualifications do you have you? Fucking internet troll degrees?

Alright guy; you refused to look at the evidence that I presented after stating "no evidence". You didn't refute the existing evidence and you cannot deny the evidence exists. You shoved your head in the sand. That's the reason people are skeptical about climate change because they REFUSE to see the evidence.

I have no idea how you think people can do that when most people don't even own fields, animals, or modern capital (the means of production).  Our entire criticism of capitalism is based around the disconnect between labor and capital.    

@Spendulus:  I meant to say that if some kind of war happens in the future over any issue.(not on the basis of this killing! sorry for the confusion) Saudi Arabia vs Western country(Christian) or Hindus/Jews. the reason I mentioned religion here because Saudi Arabia has a key to holy places "Mecca and Medina" All they have to do is Shout " Islam is in Danger" and I can bet my life on this when I say this, Muslims around the world go bonkers on this and significant amount of people will join them for this so-called Jihad.



What will America do?

Create another monster? Like Rambo type more Osama Bin Laden. We all know how that road ends, don't we? America 2 Allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. You know what I am talking.


What other enemy?
ISIS ? I am sure you have a good idea about What ISIS is and who created the vacuum in the first place.

Iran ? Who overthrown their democratic gov and installed the Dictator? Even supporting him for almost 27 years just for oil and in the end, Americans surprised that Why they hate the USA. Please google if you have time "operation ajax"


That's why no country likes American's Foreign policy except few (partners in crimes) and consider America a bigger threat to world peace.

So how is the goal of
already being achieved?


You still didn't give any explanation of this.  I read that quote as the goal of socialism and am aware of the obvious contradiction of the socialist ideal already being achieved without socialism.  I interpret the two quotes to have the same meaning and have no explanation from you to get insight to your interpretation. 

Theres no way for me to understand what you are talking about when you say something is being achieved with no supporting explanation or reasoning for why you think it is being achieved.  The cryptic one liner leaves me to assume it is because you have a different definition of "everyone", "entitled"  ,or "own". 

First, please reconsider the important phrase from my original post here.


"starting to think about" changing something isn't the same thing as "change it and see what happens" and it literally costs nothing and is zero risk.  You act as if by having this conversation I have created a national ballot referendum "replace age with (TBD)".  You don't need mountains of evidence to "start to think about" something.  Its purely an intellectual discussion.  Remember, none of what we have would have been possible if not first imagined.

As for your evidence:  

Before knowing what type of evidence to look for, first we need to think about the important things age gives us, separate them, and measure them each individually.  This means that in the future, we could end up with multiple ages for the different things we are measuring.  Perhaps they would look something like this (feel free to jump in and tell me what age really should tell us.

1. Decline-increases with age after a certain point
2. Development- increases with age until a certain point
     a. biological development
     b. emotional/social maturity
     c. cognitive ability


For #1, we can certainly replace it with telomere length.  The telomere length gives us a way of measuring cellular age or more specifically, the degree your DNA has deteriorated.   There are already companies like Teloyears that sell kits and send you your cellular age according to statistical regression.  


This could be very useful for people who age at rates that are far different from the average.  Instead of arbitrarily saying someone is getting old when they have done 65 laps around the sun, why not say an old person is a person whose telomere length is at the point where you have determined it affects them too much?  Lets just say 6500 for now.  As you can see from the survey, there is so much variation amongst 65 year olds that it cleaerly doesn't mean much to be 65.  I'm not saying telomere length is the be all end all but that is an example of the type of thing we could use instead of time.  

For 2a there are indicators for the start and end of puberty and these are used for age of consent laws around the world but you can notice how difficult it is to pinpoint a specific number of years because of individual differences.  This, along with the same issue in 2b is why age of consent laws vary so much around the world.  This is an example of how using time actually hinders our ability to have universal agreement in society.  Some say as low as 14 and some say as high as 18.  The reality is probably that some 14s are ready and most 18 are ready.

For 2b, you could determine what it is you are looking for and replace age with the y value on the graph instead of trying to "guess" or "assume" everyones y value based on their number of trips around the sun.


  This is similar to the types of arguments used to try teens as adults.  Take a look at the 3rd graph.  Many teens have fully developed mental capacity.  Why should they be lumped in with children just because they have been around the sun fewer times?  Currently, some laws are setup to make sure no one who is immature is included while some laws are setup to make sure no one who is mature is excluded.  This dilemma could be solved if we grouped people based on cognitive and psychological ability instead of trips around the sun.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Are-adolescents-less-mature-than-adults%3F%3A-minors'-Steinberg-Cauffman/0d968616ce5fe93bf2a25f32da1cd107567cbdfd
Explains the dilemma with age and the need to separate mental development into different areas



Fair enough that is your stance so it seems you would have no issue with everyone referring to you with the opposite pronouns (i assume "she her") right?

The good news is most major institutions have already made the switch voluntarily.  Its really just the internet, and conservative media where the resistance is coming from.

Another solution for both sides is to just degender everything.  Gender neutral restrooms have always made sense anyway from an economic/architectural point of view.  Small buildings don't need two bathrooms.