Posts by MeanMrMustard

41

Cambridge professor just went full retard ...

by LoveUniHateExams in

ever heard of david runciman?.

he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.

according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.

MeanMrMustard

What Professor Runciman has done with some success is that he has got people to talk about the subject. I doubt that if he had simply said our democracies have become structurally unbalanced there would be any discussion of it on this board or elsewhere. Hyperbole was often used in the Bible to get people to think.

@Earnest, he is not using hyperbole. It’s not like he is exaggerating the claim that youth are underrepresented (as in, “The youth are not represented at all in this country”). This is a policy suggestion - a proposed course of action. He says it is to draw attention to a problem. It is not. He wants to shift the voter base to younger, less responsible, more pro-government voters. He wants to get the political result he believes in. And if the stupid, dumb old people can’t get with it and vote for what is clearly the best policy, then maybe we aught to get the six year olds to do it.

And really, what useful discussion has this spurred? The only discussion this seems to have started is on the topic of his apparent mental retardation.

41

Cambridge professor just went full retard ...

by LoveUniHateExams in

ever heard of david runciman?.

he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.

according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.

MeanMrMustard

So what was the reason for Professor Runciman's suggestion?
It seems like a frivolous suggestion. It is partly frivolous because it's never going to happen in a million years. But as a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our democracies have become, seriously, why not?

This doesn’t make any sense.

As a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our alcohol consumption has become, why not allow 5 year old children to buy and consume? I mean, it wouldn’t happen in a million years, of course. But just as a way of illustrating that we have a completely underrepresented population when it comes to alcohol consumption, why not?

We don’t need that illustrated in any way. We don’t need to “capiture” that fact in any way. We know it’s the case, and that is the way it should be ( in both voting any alcohol consumption parody ). They are kids. They don’t vote... they don’t drink.

Just come clean - we can see through the bull shirt. The younger the person, the less able that person is to make responsible decisions for the future - which is why kids don’t vote. It also happens to be the reason the left wants them to vote.

This is another permutation of the same crap that followed the Hillary loss: “But But But if we just had a popular vote, she would have won. That’s what we should do!” Except this is: “But But But ... kids are misrepresented and if we give the vote to kids, THEN we get the result we want. That’s what we should do.”

59

Joke Sharing Thread

by Vanderhoven7 in

got a good joke or two?

why not share them.

here is a fun one.. retirement can be fun.

MeanMrMustard

Crowded elevators smell differently to little people.

21

It would be nice if this forum went back to the basics

by nowwhat? in

not to offend or impose my opinion.

but simply i would like to see just news and insights from the local congregation to the top organization level of: downsizing, closings, c.s.a.

personal experiences,unscriptural doctrines of the org.and direct commentary of the above.

MeanMrMustard

Since the WTB&TS is a cult, and as such, the leadership, doctrine, norms, and language tend to set up perminant residence in a member’s head. Given that, don’t you think it would be beneficial to have topics that have nothing to do with the cult? The world is pretty big after all.

41

Cambridge professor just went full retard ...

by LoveUniHateExams in

ever heard of david runciman?.

he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.

according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.

MeanMrMustard

So are they also eligible for the draft?

72

Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

banks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.

in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?

banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.

MeanMrMustard

@_Morpheus:

Looks like you just left one cult only to eagerly join another... damn globalist

(Note: by “globalist” I am not implying what might be referred to as an “internationalist”. I mean a person that believes in the globe. Anyone ‘woke’ knows the earth is flat)

72

Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

banks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.

in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?

banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.

MeanMrMustard

But they can loan money that they don't actually have deposited....

Technically, they can only loan from the deposits, or possibly if the bank borrows from somewhere. If the bank has no deposits, it can’t loan. With fractional reserve banking, the banks loan out a certain percentage of deposits, but also keep that money on the accounts of the depositors. (That’s where the increase comes from... I have all my money, by 90% has been loaned out as well...)

You are on pretty good footing if you say that banks, through FRB, cause a growth in the money supply. You can’t say they just print money or increase an account balance and then loan it out.

Now whether you want to argue if FRB is fraud or not, that’s a different story. (How can I have my money and yet someone else has it too?)

If you are willing to burn an hour, this lecture is pretty good. Notice Salerno doesn’t make value judgements on FRB. Rather, he just lays out what it is and gives examples:

https://youtu.be/33RXhv0IuPc

72

Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

banks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.

in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?

banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.

MeanMrMustard

@Terry:

Dodd-Frank had nothing to do with fractional reserve banking or the money supply.

It was passed in response to the financial crises in much the same way leeches were applied to disease (bad blood) hundreds of years ago.

The financial crisis was caused by banks reacting to government policies - risky home loans backed by government agencies, loans that banks had to give out to appear not to “discrimate”. Add a healthy dose of fuel from the Fed, and you get a massive bubble. The air for the bubble came from the Fed, the government policies funneled it into the housing market. If the same crisis hit today, the same banks would fail - even though Dodd-Frank was recently repealed.

https://youtu.be/Pq8yrtM2PL4

72

Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

banks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.

in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?

banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.

MeanMrMustard

As Simon suggested, when you finance a car, guys with fake beards are not carrying around suitcases full of crisp $100 bills.

But there ARE definitely guys with fake beards and hair on the lot.

72

Did you know Banks create money out of thin air?

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

banks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.

in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?

banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.

MeanMrMustard

Not sure how I missed this thread. I’ve gone through the thread a bit - just to be clear : we aren’t talking about the money created through fractional reserve banking, correct?

FRB does increase the money supply through loans. It, however, does not mean banks “print” money. If the bank’s loans start to fall through, they can’t just adjust the numbers. Nor can they keep loaning. If they have the minimum reserve and their loans (assets) start to evaporate, it can get really ugly for the bank.