Designed to be confoundingly confusing, Goldman Sachs structured these “debt instruments” so that if they made a profit, most of it would be skimmed off by Goldman Sachs. If they lost money, the buyer would take most of the loss. That’s why they were so confusing-to hide this structure.
I think the point of this one is that if we continue on our current route we will have to add a few zeros to our bills to make it so we can pay off our debt, much like Zimbabwe did.
goldman sachs shorted 8 BILLION in deal w/customers.
WOW!
before the rt wingers go mad abt geo soros shorting the pound for ONE billion…..check out goldman sachs,
8,000,000,000.00!
its time to nationalize the banks….we can not do any worse than they have.
It’s a very simple path from a Darwinian view of mankind to deciding who should and shouldn’t have a stake in the future of the world. Might makes right. If you don’t want a particular race to exist, why not just take the issue into your own hands?
Regardless, it really comes down to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC and our entire economic system. It’s all fiat, fractional reserve banking…it’s a house of cards, everyone knows it in their hearts, and it will eventually crush us to the point of losing our independence entirely. They steal money from our pockets while it’s still in our pockets!
“It’s a very simple path from a Darwinian view of mankind to deciding who should and shouldn’t have a stake in the future of the world. Might makes right. If you don’t want a particular race to exist, why not just take the issue into your own hands?”
For one thing, because Darwinian evolution (“survival of the fittest”) also places importance on variation within the strain. The more diverse your pool of traits, the more likely some individuals will survive in case of catastrophic events. Why would anyone in their right mind “want a particular race” not “to exist”? Cooperation is as valid an engine towards survival as competition; that’s why many species (including the vast majority of simians) have developed into social organisms. When the community thrives, an individual within the community is more likely to thrive. If one individual rises to dominate its community by force, taking a disproportionate share of resources for itself, yeah, that’s consistent with Darwin. If the weaker individuals band together to banish or destroy an oppressive leader, that’s also consistent with Darwin.
Evolution by Natural Selection is the clearest explanation that’s been offered for how things got where they are, it doesn’t follow that unnatural selection is a reasonable strategy to point things towards how we’d like them to be. That things such as eugenics, “racial purity” laws, selective sterilization, and other attempts to “improve the breed” have found popularity or even respectability by attaching Darwin’s name to themselves - “Social Darwinism” - in no way excuses their reprehensibility, and neither can they in any way be considered evidence against the idea that Evolution by Natural Selection accounts for the present variety of life on Earth.
With what we now know (which Darwin didn’t) about how genes mutate during replication, it would take divine intervention for Evolution by Natural Selection NOT to occur at some level. The only reasonable difference in opinion is one of degree, and for that reason it seems to me that the ID people, if they had any sort of commitment to being taken seriously as scientists, would make common cause with Darwinists against the willful know-nothingness of the Young Earth Creationists.
Arguing whether Natural Selection is unjust or ought to be operant is as pointless as arguing whether gravity is unjust. It simply IS.
SuperGriz about 14 years ago
Tom, who knows? Maybe if it’s hemp based paper?
WarehouseEyes about 14 years ago
Designed to be confoundingly confusing, Goldman Sachs structured these “debt instruments” so that if they made a profit, most of it would be skimmed off by Goldman Sachs. If they lost money, the buyer would take most of the loss. That’s why they were so confusing-to hide this structure.
Jaedabee Premium Member about 14 years ago
I think the point of this one is that if we continue on our current route we will have to add a few zeros to our bills to make it so we can pay off our debt, much like Zimbabwe did.
glenbeck about 14 years ago
Zimbabwe slashed 10 zeros of its currency in Augest and still it is worhless to carry
jaxaction about 14 years ago
goldman sachs shorted 8 BILLION in deal w/customers. WOW! before the rt wingers go mad abt geo soros shorting the pound for ONE billion…..check out goldman sachs, 8,000,000,000.00! its time to nationalize the banks….we can not do any worse than they have.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member about 14 years ago
I think the GOP really want to do something about that, but they just don’t feel like they can question deregulation or Reaganomics.
Motivemagus about 14 years ago
Ben Stein? Really? Of course, he is also a creationist who links Darwin to Nazism, so this must have been a moment of sanity.
HabaneroBuck about 14 years ago
It’s a very simple path from a Darwinian view of mankind to deciding who should and shouldn’t have a stake in the future of the world. Might makes right. If you don’t want a particular race to exist, why not just take the issue into your own hands?
Regardless, it really comes down to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC and our entire economic system. It’s all fiat, fractional reserve banking…it’s a house of cards, everyone knows it in their hearts, and it will eventually crush us to the point of losing our independence entirely. They steal money from our pockets while it’s still in our pockets!
Carolo1 about 14 years ago
RETHUGNICAN PARTY I LOVE IT RADISH–I AGREE
fritzoid Premium Member about 14 years ago
“It’s a very simple path from a Darwinian view of mankind to deciding who should and shouldn’t have a stake in the future of the world. Might makes right. If you don’t want a particular race to exist, why not just take the issue into your own hands?”
For one thing, because Darwinian evolution (“survival of the fittest”) also places importance on variation within the strain. The more diverse your pool of traits, the more likely some individuals will survive in case of catastrophic events. Why would anyone in their right mind “want a particular race” not “to exist”? Cooperation is as valid an engine towards survival as competition; that’s why many species (including the vast majority of simians) have developed into social organisms. When the community thrives, an individual within the community is more likely to thrive. If one individual rises to dominate its community by force, taking a disproportionate share of resources for itself, yeah, that’s consistent with Darwin. If the weaker individuals band together to banish or destroy an oppressive leader, that’s also consistent with Darwin.
Evolution by Natural Selection is the clearest explanation that’s been offered for how things got where they are, it doesn’t follow that unnatural selection is a reasonable strategy to point things towards how we’d like them to be. That things such as eugenics, “racial purity” laws, selective sterilization, and other attempts to “improve the breed” have found popularity or even respectability by attaching Darwin’s name to themselves - “Social Darwinism” - in no way excuses their reprehensibility, and neither can they in any way be considered evidence against the idea that Evolution by Natural Selection accounts for the present variety of life on Earth.
fritzoid Premium Member about 14 years ago
With what we now know (which Darwin didn’t) about how genes mutate during replication, it would take divine intervention for Evolution by Natural Selection NOT to occur at some level. The only reasonable difference in opinion is one of degree, and for that reason it seems to me that the ID people, if they had any sort of commitment to being taken seriously as scientists, would make common cause with Darwinists against the willful know-nothingness of the Young Earth Creationists.
Arguing whether Natural Selection is unjust or ought to be operant is as pointless as arguing whether gravity is unjust. It simply IS.