Most Christian churches defend the Trinity, that the father, the son and the holy ghost are not exactly one and the same, but are part of God. But the Church argues that this is perfectly compatible with a monotheism.

Basically, Jesus on the Olive Garden and on the Cross wasn't exactly talking with him self, but something similar.

I guess ancient Greeks could argue that they also had a father, Zeus, and their sons and parents, all part of a divine family. That the difference was of grade, and not nature, and so that they too were basically monotheists, because they too had a father, a supreme God, he just had a bigger family. Thinks get a little more complicated, because Zeus had screw the Supreme God, Cronus, his father, to become supreme himself. But that is a detail.

The Jews have a history of resistance against the Romans with pretty defiant situations.

Think about Masada (73 CE). Josephus wrote a vivid description, saying that, after a stubborn resistance, the defenders, about 1000, decided to kill them selves in order to avoid being captured alive.
Archaeological findings didn't confirm this numbers, but found structures used by the Romans to breach the walls.

Unfortunately, because of ebay, I still have to use these scam bags.

But I never have much money there. I'm always expecting another freeze of my account and a blackmail on sending personal documents or something.

Many people don't have patience to see videos, it would be better if people just posted a summary of the ideas the author is arguing for, then readers could decide if it was worthy of their time.

I'm crossing my fingers about the survival of the euro, only extreme nationalists might be hoping for the end of it.

But the Euro zone still doesn't fulfil the criteria to be a perfect monetary union where a united currency can work on a balanced way.

I wonder if we need God, the Pope (even if he seems a nice guy) or the inquisition to respect the golden rule (and I don't mean the one that says who has the gold make the rules).

I don't have a clue how the global economy survived all this years, after the golden standard and before bitcoin. It has to be a miracle how it grew so much during all this period and why it is still standing on our days.

Anarchism is that lovely political system no one knows what it means, but some of its defenders (specially, on the beginning of the XX century) did knew how to get it, bombing their way on.

Typical, a self-moderated thread on religious issues.

This is a bitcoin forum, supposedly here "No one expects the (spanish) inquisition".

The source of the energy in the plant isn't the "stuff" it takes from the soil, but the Sun.
Anyway, until now, all attempts to extract biodiesel from corn and other plants has been a transfer (with some loss) from energy spent growing the plant (mainly, electricity, based on natural gas) to biodiesel.

The problem is that the Greeks didn't stop there and, commanded by the Macedonians (I'm not going to enter the fight on the issue of the autonomy of ancient Macedonia from Greece), did to the Persian what they did to them: in 334, invaded them, burnt their capital and conquered their Empire.

The Saudis can't be qualified as puppets of the Americans.
I dislike very much Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a democrat compared with those guys, but they have autonomy against the USA: they keep an horrible political system, resisted pressure on the issue of women rights, they didn't allow the americans to use their territory to invade Irak in 2003; they support armed groups (think on Syria) that the americans wouldn't support; several times they kept oil production rates against the interest and will of the americans, etc.

I think we can agree at least on the fact that inflation is the actual increase in prices in life, not the conceptual description of it. That is a notion, a concept, a linguistic description.

The notion you pasted is the consensual notion I was talking about.

You saying that inflation is rooted on the increase of the monetary mass is different than saying that inflation is the increase of the monetary mass. On your opinion, one is the cause, the other the effect. But cause and effect are different things.

There are theoretic disputes about inflation being the sole effect of an increase of money in circulation. The first is the question of velocity of money in circulation. The same money can be used to buy more things in a certain period, then the same monetary masse can cause inflation in certain circumstances, but not in others.

But that wasn't my point. My point was, there was no inflation, therefore Quantitative Easing was good, not bad.

I think a few members are suggesting that Satoshi is indeed the incarnation of Jesus, that came back for save us again, this time from the sinners that are managing central banks and are responsibles for the most ruthless sin of all, Quantitative Easing.
Super Mario (Draghi) seems to be the next sinner in line.

That is your notion of inflation, not the one you will read in most textbooks on economics.

Without justification or evidence, anyone can write all the opinions he has and it will be hard to prove him wrong.

Even if that kind of change was made, the lack of banking records, the relative anonymity of bitcoin and of several exchanges, would make very hard to tax services, digital goods or small companies that don't have organized accountability. If bitcoin reaches the masses, the state will have to fight for their financial survival, probably adopting measures of online control of the use of cryptocurrencies.

And take in account that consumption tax is unfair, because taxes rich and poor on the same terms. Alright, the rich spend more money, but he will be paying under the same tax rate of the poor.

Go tell the judge that if you get caught avoiding taxes on your bitcoin profits...

Inflation is sustained and general rise of prices, not an increase of the monetary mass. There was no inflation. If you want to put in question the official numbers on inflation on a scale that show there was big inflation you will have the burden of showing evidence.

Anyway, since the banking money, created thanks to fractional lending, was limited because of the credit crunch, probably the global monetary mass didn't increase. If there was an increase there would be big inflation.

It's so easy to criticize someone that saved us from a very serious depression, claiming that there wouldn't be any depression, yada, yada; they did the same against Roosevelt's New Deal in the thirties.

Why spoil a good story with facts or evidences? It's much more easy to write some tails, copied from some blog.

I won't say nothing about Qatar or the Saudi Arabia, they are crazy enough for that, but I wouldn't call them "west".