|
On October 06 2008 17:16 ahrara_ wrote:
ya guys
fuck education
that shit is so old school
get it
old school
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Indeed.
On a more serious note there would appear to be a serious but subtle difference between education and indoctrination. How would you describe the 'education' being delivered in the Islamic schools springing up like wildfire in Pakistan's tribal areas which border Afghanistan? Education is fundamentally important, and indeed if the quality of education in the United States was better (America compares roughly to Slovenia on international scales) then their economic and political situation would probably be far better.
It was realised around the turn of last century (though possibly far earlier) that education is a great method of indoctrination, the Japanese taught their students that it was honorable and necessary to die for the emperor. They were very effective at proliferating this belief.
Education is the key to increasing ones understanding and personal prosperity, but just taking in what is told to you unquestioningly will achieve only the opposite.
|
History has shown such people are wrong more often that they are right but there is nothing which will change their mind and the more evidence you provide the more violent their attempts to protect the falsehood.
Please please please please please please please continue making such baseless claims. They make you so much more credible than you already are!!!111[/QUOTE]
How about burning scientists at the stake for claiming the world is round? There are so many examples of what I suggested here I took it as common knowledge and did not bother to provide qualification.
|
yea....a point I always drill to people. I guess economics is technically a science.
+ Show Spoiler [scientists who faced this problem] +"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts
which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and
seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic
character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual
material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual
tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably
given; something having an objective value of truth which
is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be
doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over
and over again to engage in the critique of these
fundamental concepts, in order that we may not
unconsciously be ruled by them."
-Albert Einstein
"…science is not the danger; scientists encouraged to do
bad science to survive are.” … "…changing the way
modern science is funded is an enormous undertaking, but
it is a necessary one if we want to protect our future. Call
it managed risk."
-Smith
"Anybody who has studied the history of science or
worked as a scientist knows that whenever something
novel is discovered or proposed, there is a polarization of
scientists, with hostility and bitterness that may last for
generations. What wins arguments is scientific fact, and
that may change as the years go by. A good example of
this is the geological theory of continental drift, as
proposed by Wegener in 1912. When I studied geology
around 1950, continental drift was acknowledged in my
undergraduate textbook as a crank theory. The first
serious confirmation was in 1956, and it was finally
established as the dominant theory in the early 1970s.
Until that time, anybody who admitted that he or she
believed in continental drift was the subject of derision
and scorn. Sorry, folks, science is not and has never been
the 'idealized portrait painted in textbooks'."
-Allan Blair
"…I suggest that most revolutions in science have taken
place outside the lofty arena of the refereed journals, and
with good reason. The philosophy by which these journals
govern themselves virtually precludes publication of ideas
that challenge an existing consensus."
-William K. George
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way
by gradually winning over and converting its opponents:
it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does
happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that
the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from
the beginning."
-Max Planck
"We used to be able to say things once; if the message
was reasonable, it had a good chance of becoming a
permanent part of the structure of the field. Today, a
single publication is lost; if we say it only once, it will be
presumed that we have changed our mind, and we
therefore must publish repeatedly. This further fuels the
large publication volume that requires us to repeat."
-Rolf Landauer
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
something is possible he is almost certainly right. When
he states that something is impossible he is very probably
wrong."
[Clarke's First Law]
|
you are telling us to not just swallow what's being taught by technocrats who study teh economy for a living and want us to replace that education with a 2 hour movie that also argues about 9/11 and some jesus conspiratorial shit. hm. it's one thing to argue very well and reasonably (jgad did a great job in the other thread), it's another to come in here ranting baselessly about how the fed generates money out of thin air. when you educate yourself, i'll educate myself thanks.
please do not equate galileo and copernicus to the makers of zeitgeist and ron paul.
|
On October 06 2008 17:30 ahrara_ wrote:
please do not equate galileo and copernicus to the makers of zeitgeist and ron paul.
I'm not doing that.....lol. I'm just saying always question the fundamentals.
|
well, ya. no hostility intended. i'm really only annoyed with Choros and his habit of making wild baseless claims.
|
The whole point i make is that one should not 'swallow' the movie, nor should one 'swallow' the sayings of technocrats. It is interesting that you use this term as it is a pet hate of mine, they say I am a technocrat, I understand economics, If you do this then this will happen. This correct under certain economic circumstances but simply wrong under others. This obsession of theirs in their own omnipotence, their overwhelming belief that they have solved economics is a terrible thing. We should never assume we have solved economics. The fundamental reason that economic policy failed in the 1970's was that they assumed they had solved economics. And now we repeat their great error.
What one must do in terms of economics is to sit there and look at what problems you face, then create policies in response. Often times we have seen those problems before and can use old solutions i.e Keynesian economics is appropriate today. But often problems are new and require new responses in order to deal with them. I advocate open mindedness above all and I have not argued against those who say this film is wrong because they say it is wrong, but because I believe their claims are based upon close mindedness above all else.
|
wow... what a terrible movie... : /
|
On October 06 2008 17:27 fight_or_flight wrote:
I guess economics is technically a science.
Economics is 25% bs, 25% ideology and the 50% left are math for newbs.
+ Show Spoiler + i guess i'm trolling a bit.
|
The claim that bothers me is "the fed creates money by waving the magical wand of inflation!!!11"
|
Imo money is not the problem in itself, its great, if we lived in a utopia we would probably have tickets, or chips, or something to trade for food.
You cant really expect a world with evil, greed, selfiness to even begin to accept a message that portraits money as the problem, because the problem is what we, as flawed human beings, do with it.
Money is power, you can use it for good, and you can use it for evil. (in a really broad sense)
|
On October 06 2008 19:21 D10 wrote:
Imo money is not the problem in itself, its great, if we lived in a utopia we would probably have tickets, or chips, or something to trade for food.
You cant really expect a world with evil, greed, selfiness to even begin to accept a message that portraits money as the problem, because the problem is what we, as flawed human beings, do with it.
Money is power, you can use it for good, and you can use it for evil. (in a really broad sense)
Yeah I agree. I have some serious issues with their Utopian society, money can be used for good or bad, I believe good can be done through competent economic policies.
I agree with them with the idea that huge supply side increase will be a tremendous benefit to people this is effectively what i argue for.
The biggest problem I have is that they think you can just abolish the police and laws and everyone will be nice. Utter bogus. Some people are born psychopaths, some people are probably born psychopathic killers. We need protecting.
These people in general are really quite naive.
|
I was wondering why in first part goldsmith loaned money (loan agreement) something he didn't own himself (isn't this a big fail?). Sure he kinda owned house but what happens if house burns down and now everybody wants gold back?
But yeh I can't get let say loan for new house because I need something to bank to get hold of it. Easiest way is to get someone co-sign (who then pays back if I fail to pay back) the loan but who the fuck does that, I wont ever (even to my maybe future childrens) do that.
|
everything will be ok, cause there is an invisible man in the sky, watching us..
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
Uhm, i'm a noob at economic, but this is how I understand, sorry for lack of technical terms:
Let's say, when we produce goods or perform service, we create "value".
Now the purpose of money is to carry "value". Say you worked 1 month in McDonald, you created some value and money is used to carry those value in order to trade-in for other value u need like food.
Money cannot create value. When money is created from thin air, these money must worth nothing. However, in fact, the created money steals value from the current money in the system. Hence the inflation.
Money demand: when we create more value and the needs for value trading increase. As money is used as a value carrier, if the current volume of money in the system is not enough, it is a money shortage. Value trading cannot establish due to the lack of the carrier, therefore money must be created for this purpose.
So who decides when to create money? What about destroying money when the total value in the system is decreasing?
Given how important the decision is. The process of making decision to create/destroy money must be made by expert economists supported by reliable statistics?
|
Someone needs to explain to me this whole money out of thin air concept.
|
Just finish watching
The whole movie is what communism is all about. It's time to move to communism people. Or should i say, modern communism because the old one cannot be applied anymore.
In Vietnam, we used to use ticket or some sort instead of using money. In fact, we tried to get rid of money but it failed for some reason. But after the war, our economy was fucked up anyway, anything would fail.
|
On October 07 2008 04:10 mahnini wrote:
Someone needs to explain to me this whole money out of thin air concept.
You (the big money lenders) dont have money,
You lend it anyway because all you need to do is print/emit credit.
Tons of things involved in the process but i guess its pretty much it.
|
On October 07 2008 04:27 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2008 04:10 mahnini wrote:
Someone needs to explain to me this whole money out of thin air concept. You (the big money lenders) dont have money, You lend it anyway because all you need to do is print/emit credit. Tons of things involved in the process but i guess its pretty much it.
If you don't know what you're talking about, stop posting like you do. seriously. it's not a hard concept to grasp. Because you watched a movie doesn't make you a goddamn expert.
On October 06 2008 15:31 ahrara_ wrote:
1.) The federal reserve does not print money. yes you can argue that it causes net inflation. but the next person to arbitrarily claim that the fed prints money or makes money appear through a secret incantation known only to the federal reserve chairman and that is passed down through an ancient rite of dance and ritual will a.) be humiliated at the revelation of their UTTER FUCKING IGNORANCE of how the fed works b.) have their testicles forcibly stapled over their hands to force them to think harder before they post. Printing of currency is not even under its jurisdiction. That's managed by the treasury. The federal reserve lends money by drawing from its own funds which are unrelated with the rest of government spending. This revenue is from government securities, its lending operations, and other esoteric shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7878/23347349av5.png)
