DOes this make sense to anyone else?
I found this another line of gibberish designed to justify another end run around the constitution (not that I think the constitution is worth two squirts).
Has anyone else ever heard of this “statutory limit on the amount of money in circulation?”
HAHAHAHA
“Ironically, there’s no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.”
hahahahhahah
What I also would like to know is that if the government has $2 trillion in platinum laying around to make those two coins with, why not just sell the platinum and pay down the debt?
“What I also would like to know is that if the government has $2 trillion in platinum laying around to make those two coins with, why not just sell the platinum and pay down the debt?”
They don’t. They would make two platinum coins and denominate it as a trillion dollar coin.
Andrew is right. The constitution still says that a “dollar” is defined as a weight in gold, silver, nickel, and copper. We all know they ignore these laws. All this would mean is that timmy G. at the treasury would take a platinum halfouncer and stamp a giant number on it, then give it to the fed so they can collateralize more loans.
No, you’re right. It’s total gibberish. I couldn’t read anymore after about 2/3rds through. Once he got to “If the president reasonably believes that the public debt will be put in question for either reason, Section 4 comes into play once again” I couldn’t take any more. The moron talks with such authority but is so confused on the Constitution (let alone economics) that it’s just not worth it. And when I get to the bottom after skimming the rest, and notice over 10,000 people have recommended it on facebook, it makes me sad.
Yea, i’m getting really disillusioned with people’s priorities.
In my english class (fiction lit) we went over ‘snow crash’ and ‘promethea’ and ‘the matrix’ and ‘truman show’ and the only thing people wanted to relate any of them to was reality tv shows…“Cause it makes them feel better aboujt themselves” AKA it lowers ambitions. I had to tell them that reality tv shows are literally televised skinner boxes
One of my friends here majored in journalism, but does nothing related to it. He takes pictures and all of the girls he has introduced me to majored in some kind of ‘art’ field. Cause i know most “artists” get ALL of thier inspiration from other artists art.
But everyone wants their political opinion. Which, to my estimation, is why we hear democracy plugged all of the time. It is simply the politically correct way to let people think that they matter, no matter how fu^king stupid and ignorant they are.
I don’t think reality tv is so much a skinner box as it is simply a reflection of what people find entertaining. It’s mindless stimulation. It doesn’t require any real thought or consideration to enjoy. It’s like Jackass. I think this is appealing to people because it’s become so difficult (i.e. it takes so much effort) for most people to exert any sort of mental energy to assess virtually anything…or for that matter enjoy something that isn’t basically slapstick. (I think Neil Tokar offers an excellent theory as to why this is in his recent Mises Daily.)
I think this is why you can so often hear someone say “you’re too serious” anytime a conversation gets deeper than the weather. I think it’s too taxing for people of low thinking skill and low information to engage in activity that requires even a minimal amount of those things. In other words, things like reality TV and Michael Bay films have evolved out of a desire to be entertained, and an inability to be engaged in—let alone entertained by—anything much more than appeals to basic primal instincts…namely sex and violence. And fart jokes. Even a small amount of thinking is so difficult and/or exhausting, that people who work all day don’t have any interest in doing it…because few people are interested in doing more work in their discretionary time. (And of course people who don’t work tend to not have the skill or the ability to do enough thinking to hold down a job…so of course they aren’t going to be doing it).
So what you end up with is a largely ill-infomed, uninterested populous…or in other words, a “don’t know, don’t care” society. It’s far easier to be told what to believe than to have to think for yourself…especially when you aren’t very good at thinking to begin with. I think this is why you see such an extreme gullibility and willingness to believe the easiest, least complicated story. I also think people are uncomfortable talking about things they don’t believe they know much about. And if you combine that inability to think critically with the discomfort of feeling ill-informed, you start to understand why it’s so easy for people to buy into obvious nonsense…whether it’s the notion that spending money gets you out of debt, or that a jumbo jet and all it’s passengers can disintegrate after crashing into a field, leaving literally no trace of man or machine…aside from a bandana, three driver’s ID cards and a hotel card…all completely intact.
And ironically, after being enticed (and possibly even having a need) to believe whatever an authority says, it seems people actually begin to believe they do know what they are talking about, and feel the need to not only loudly defend the “official” assessment, but also to attack those that question it.
the producers on some of the reality shows (eg. Jersey Shore) withhold the participants from food and sleep. That is why it is a skinner box.
watch this. There is an ad for Soma in the middle of it, hilarious.
Nice find Mark. If that is what this clown is advocating then why not just stamp a hubcap or man hole cover with $10 trillion on it and borrow against that?
I also found out that this limit on money in circulation the clown is refering to is the limit on the total value of federal reserve notes in circulation. Which has nothing to do with the actual money supply.
How is it that smart people can be swayed by idiots that write this kind of rubbish?
Really. And why have these producers not been imprisoned?
probably because they signed contracts and will put up with the abuse because they are paid millions of dollars in return for their wretched behavior…‘people’ like to watch that stuff.
Oh so you mean the people on those shows are willing participants, voluntarily choosing to be there, and could leave at any time to go eat whatever they want or sleep as long as they want?
well, you are missing the point. Most people will sacrifice well being for money. It’s called prostitution.
Be careful justifying ANY actions simply through contractual arrangements. Chomsky makes good points around this issue; people like Paul and Rothbard are simply optimistic in these situations.
You likened human beings engaging in voluntary activity to rats in a box, with virtually zero justifying support…and I need to be more careful?
This is not true, either. They are forced into the behavior because of the signature.
You are not making the same inference as me you are thinking in terms of law. I am thinking in terms of human nature. Anyone can be tricked into signing a contract if that number at the bottom is large enough. That is what Chomksy says and what Rothbard is , imo, too optimistic about
Think if you’re oin “survivor” and cannot (or do not know how) to find or clean water for drinking and cannot get help from anyone, but the producers will not let you have a water bottle or do anything outside of the parameters that you signed a contract saying you’d do…
Here’s one example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90406338
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVFzT18sOrs - “Blindfolded and led onto a plane, 12 contestants are dumped in a house in Berlin. Deprived of food or money, they must use their initiative to survive. Yet they don’t even know which country they are in. With no prospect of food, the contestants are reduced to begging or stripping in seedy clubs. The producers claim it’s a useful social experiment depicting the migrant experience. But outraged German politicians have called for the programme to be banned. “It is absolutely terrible and disgusting,” complains politician Heidemarie Fischer. And inside the house the pressure quickly becomes too much. “You take our souls and torture us,” cries one tearful contestant. But it seems that the public has a taste for torture and the show is a big hit.” - This is a little bit different cause it sounds like the show is about food and sleep deprivation. The woman makes a joke that harkens to “Network” - people dying for ratings.
I’ll post more as i find them. Open your eyes. What is wrong than putting people in situations where you can legally deny them food and sleep based on a signature because someone didn’t read the fine print? (sarcasm) It’s like singing away two of your natural rights based on a property contract hahahahah. The are prioritized Life, Liberty, then property. Just like the Bill of Rights tells a story of jurisdiction for someone in trouble…
So lemme get this straight. You’re asserting that if a contestant on Survivor complained of thirst and feelings of nausea or other symptoms of dehydration and demanded a bottle of water or something outside the parameters of the contract they signed, it would be denied them? The producers would say: “Sorry. You signed a contract”?
A woman was awarded $2.86 million by an American court jury after spilling coffee on herself and subsequently suing the company that sold her the beverage for gross negligence because the coffee was allegedly “unreasonably dangerous” and “defectively manufactured”.
A 27 year old man from Michigan was involved in a rear-end collision and four years later sued the owners of the truck that was responsible for the accident, citing a deterioated sexual relationship with his wife, stating the accident turned him into a homosexual. He was awarded $200,000 (and his wife received $25,000).
Two carpet layers sued the manufacturer of a carpet adhesive that ignited after they placed it near a hot water heater that eventually turned on. They claimed the warning label containing words like “flammable” and “keep away from heat” didn’t prepare them adequately for the danger. They were awarded $8 million.
And you’re telling me a tv production studio would willingly deny a contestant water on the grounds that “she signed a contract.”
And I need to open my eyes?
haha you are simply over looking my point IN THIS CASE. to make your own ideology feel well foundated. Yes i do think hollywood producers would say that. The Devil’s Advocate?
Did you even look at those links? That is exactly what the video shows that they did. They tricked them in all kinds of ways.
And what do those cases have to do with the point i made? You are throwing red herrings.
No, your point is that people on reality shows are equivalent to rats in a box. And while I’m fully aware of the idiocy of the people who end up getting on those shows, as well as the fishbowl nature of the programming, I’m arguing that people are not rodents. I don’t care how dumb you are. And the lush pads the casts of Jersey Shore and The Real World and the like, are not prison cells. The people come and go as they please.
And the point I was making with the frivelous lawsuits (that were all won by the plaintiff, btw) was to show what companies are up against in terms of liability. If a company can be sued and have to pay out millions of dollars and be dragged through the media for months because some idiot spilled coffee on themself, it affects the way the owners of the company behave, and the way they instruct their subordinates to run their departments.
Heidi Montag was a contestant on a Survivor-like tv show. The whole point of the show is for the contestants to survive in a Costa Rican jungle without modern world comforts. The minute she began vomiting she was put in a jeep and rushed to a hospital.
Survivor contestants Michael Skupin, Paschal English, and Bruce Kanegai have all been evacuated to hospitals. Probably would have made for more compelling television had they been left to fend for themselves. I wonder why the medical team that provides “over 1500 medical consultations for each show” would be so apt to break the namesake of the show, and treat people with the best medical care available.
Justin Sebik was expelled from the Big Brother house after he held a knife to a girl’s throat (with her encouragement) and they continued kissing. That doesn’t seem like a smart move on the producer’s part according to you. They claim the man “violated the rules”, but it could easily have been argued she wasn’t genuinely threatened. She did encourage it…and continue kissing him, after all. That certainly makes for good tv. But instead the show’s producers stretched the incident in the complete opposite direction, saying he threatened her with physical violence so that they could justify kicking him off the show.
Another Big Brother houstguest Scott Weintraub was expelled after angrily tosseing furniture around the House and ranting in expletives. Sounds like exactly the kind of behavior they’re going for. He didn’t hurt anyone. He was just “irritable” and “screaming”. Perhaps “on the edge.” Didn’t hurt anyone. Didn’t even threaten anyone. Just threw a temper tantrum. Makes for good TV. Why in the world would they deprive him of sleep to “make people crazy”, “put people on edge” “make them irritable. Screaming” to “heighten the drama” and then the minute they get the drama they need to make for good tv, they remove the source?
These show producers don’t seem to be acting in the way you claim the should be.