The cost of sending our military into combat.

[Gregory Matthews]

For something to think about go to:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158912,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

[Dr. Shane]

Is this any different than past wars? From what I understand, it is not. I am a member of our local American Legion and I know we sponsor programs to help returning combat vets to adapt to civilian life.

[Gerr]

I personally believe that financial bankruptcy as a result of the huge debts the gov't has accumulated from Washington's idiotic economic policies & our expensive military adventures will ruin our country.

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

WW2 was a much greater financial burden than the Iraq War has been. That is not to slight the financial cost of he war. It has been a very expensive war. However if we are going to suggest that the cost might ruin our country, than we ought to compare its cost to that of past conflicts in contrast to our GDP.

[fccool]

First of all you have to understand the current financial situation in US. Without this understanding any talks on cost of WAR are meaningless IMO. People have no clue as how terrible the economic system was for the past 40 years, and really USA pretty much robbed the rest of the world by means of the dollar.

Please understand that my purpose is not to stir up the controversy or make you angry, but to explain how things are. If these make you angry... so be it, but I did not set up this system.

I would not say that everything started in 1944, but the world economies took a huge step on the way downhill after Brenton Woods agreement in NH. What happened was a meeting of the the "winners" of the WWII to discuss the stabilization of the ruined economies of the world. What really happened was a HUGE step to the global economy we have today. Since US suffered the least amount of damage during the war it was handed the leading currency of the world - the dollar. The dollar was to be valued in gold, while every other currency was pegged on dollar. Thirty years later President Nixon took dollar off the gold standard, yet the world got so used to dollar hegemony by that time that they could care less. They took paper instead of gold just as well.

Ever since then the US economy was "blooming" and "booming". Mainly due to expansion of unlimited credit... i.e. borrowing dollars from Fed, which made it out of nothing (because they could not without gold peg) and purchase of chap labor and goods from overseas with that unlimited credit. Of course there was a price to pay. The debt that the US was accumulating it does not owe to itself... but to a collection of banks dubbed The Federal Reserve banks, which are private institutions that collect HUGE amount of interest on the loans to government and other nation banks. But, once again the world could careless, since the big interests profited vastly. The rich got mega rich, and the poor... well nobody really cares about the poor as they slave away for pennies an hour.

BUT once again there's a catch. The banks that land out all of the money, and surprise... surprise... Virtually all of the money supply since 1977 was printed, or typed into digits and backed up by nothing by promise of the borrowers (you) to pay it back. That goes for both consumer credit card debt, and government debt too. But in order to pay back the interest they have to get the money from somewhere else. Interest money is not created as debt unless it is borrowed again. So the system was created to collapse under its weight of debt and thus take the world with it. We are entering the very first stages of that worldwide financial collapse.

As you probably have not noticed , the gold has risen 20% in price in merely 3 months. The overprinted money which is now the debt of the world (of which US holds the largest portion) is starting to devaluate world currencies and the "economists in charge" can not hide behind the Consumer Price Index anymore. Something big is coming... I don't know what it is, but instead of taming the credit expansion the banks of the world keep pumping money into the system thus accelerating collapse and making things worse when things happen. The war spending is also being stacked on top of this... and really is the minor portion of the problem... which some estimate total of 90 trillion dollars of debt when all future derivatives are calculated. And that's in US alone.

All I can say is that when economy goes, the people will do anything to get it back. Anything to get their comfortable lives back under control. What will that "anything" be. Could it be a new global currency agreement just like Brenton Woods was? Will the paper money be blamed for all of this and digital will be introduced? I can only speculate. But understanding the past and now... will give you some sight into the future and why. We will wait and see.

[fccool]

Also... economic figures such as GDP and CPI are so skewed that it's both horrifying and ironic to watch US economists hide behind these "proofs" that US economy is doing great.

For example, in 1960 services as % of GDP constituted 55-58% (depending on the source you go to). Today services as % of GDP are about 78-83% (once again depending on the source). Either way, when services constitute near 3/4 of your domestic product... what does it tell you about your economy? But then again, US does not need to make actual product because it makes money . It's funny how people say "time to make money", because in USA this expression is true. People do facilitate "making money" when they borrow, or when their business borrows that money into existence. BUT, if every time that money is made and all of the money is devaluated as a whole.. then somebody just stole something from somebody! Governments were entrusted protecting scarcity of money, yet they turned around as started to steal from their own people without peoples consent. No government which steals from its people could be considered Godly. Repugnicats... Democraps... just names. These have been pushing the same agendas ever since 1913. Did not matter if it was Ron or Bill.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't buy into conspiracy theories but I know they abound. There are so many problems with these two previous posts I wouldn't know where to start. Those that want to believe the sky is falling is going to believe it regardless what the facts say.

[fccool]

If you don't believe in conspiracy theories, then I don't think you can call yourself Christian , especially adventist Christian. The sky is not falling yet .. not until Christ returns. But... If Satan is really in control of many functions on this planet, which ones do you think he would control? Are you really so naive to believe that he would not go for money? Especially creation of money ? The history of this world is a history of manipulation of money. If you think I am way on the fringe conspiracy side of understanding of the issue... can you clear out for me a couple things here?

1) Where did the trillions of dollars worldwide come from... who issued it?

2) What caused devaluation of dollar so much that today it's worth %5 of its value.

3) How do you explain enormous polarization of world wealth over the past 100 years to such degree that top 2% of population own more than half of world's wealth, and top 20% population own near 80% of wealth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

so you don't think I'm pulling it out of nowhere

But above all, believe what you want as we all for the most part do. I understand that this is hard stuff to swallow. It took me years before I came to this conclusion

[fccool]

PS... I would like to hear the problems with the posts too. I am open-minded person... well I have to be to believe the stuff I do

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

PS... I would like to hear the problems with the posts too. I am open-minded person... well I have to be to believe the stuff I do

You are open minded? The following sure sounds lik you are:

Quote:

If you don't believe in conspiracy theories, then I don't think you can call yourself Christian , especially adventist Christian.

[fccool]

Let's not build up a straw men to attack here. Open mindedness does not exclude statements of belief. Otherwise I would have no statement to make at all . I would have to say we really don't know anything and no way of knowing anything outside of ourselves. Having an open mind is ability to take the argument claim at face and evaluate it agains certain information and make conclusions that either change your current view or would not. Dismissing something as a "conspiracy theory" without providing any info as to why... does not constitute open minded reasoning. It's a straw man fallacy.

[jasd]

>>I don't buy into conspiracy theories but I know they abound.<<

Hmm, I must have been terribly mistaken to have received the .Org’s read on Daniel – as one, to a large degree, describing conspiracy of and by – the Papal System :-(

Ah well, another of my misunderstandings.

>>There are so many problems with these two previous posts I wouldn't know where to start.<<

I find myself in agreement with fccool, to wit:

Quote:

Quote: fccool

PS... I would like to hear the problems with the posts too.

Please, by all means..., delineate.

>>Those that want to believe the sky is falling is going to believe it regardless what the facts say.<<

Umm, like it’s never happened before, that is, the fact of unstable monies? and we’re of a certainty that we’re immune from related calamities overtaking us? and...,

Holy Writ simply misstates anything smacking of a calamitous nature befalling?

Then again, I may have misread and fccool’s post didn’t refer to such as

Quote:

Quote:fccool

All I can say is that when economy goes,

That’s kinda Biblical, ain’t it?

Gen 47:15 And when money failed in the land of Egypt,

Hmm, from Genesis to Revelation...: the more things change the more they remain the same.

(this post does not contain any perceived inflection: only rhetorical query)

[Dr. Shane]

Problems in the post.

1. Since WW2 the US robbed the rest of the world.

Correction: After WW2 the US rebuilt much of the world which had been devastated by the war.

2. The US was handed the leading currency of the world after WW2.

Correction: The dollar became dominate because of the size of the US economy. The US was never "handed" the leading currency. Now that the EU has formed the Euro, it is doing quite well in the international market. No one has handed the EU a dominate status either.

3. Since WW2 the US economy has been "blooming" and "booming".

Correction: The economy in the US has continued to be cycler since WW2 as it was before. We have not had another Great Depression but we have had several slow downs and recessions.

4. Since WW2 the rich have gotten richer and the poor... no one cares about.

Correction: All classes of people have seen a dramatic improvement in lifestyle since WW2. The Great Society programs designed to help the poor didn't even exist before WW2.

5. The US national debt is unsustainable.

Correction: While recent deficits are troubling these are not at record levels. See graph below:

6. Banks making unsecure loans is a bad thing

Correction: Banks loaning out money is how an economy grows. Money is created when loans are made. High risk loans are not a good path to economic growth has our current ARM crisis is showing as did the S&L crisis 15 years ago did.

7. Money is printed to pay off interest on loans which were previously made.

Correction: Money is itself a commodity. The amount the Federal Reserve prints is based on many factors such as current economic growth, fears of inflation and fears of recession. As an economy grows more people go to work and make more money. Obviously more money needs to be printed. If it was only printed to pay off interest from accrued debt, it would be worthless.

[jasd]

Problems in the post.

>>1. Since WW2 the US robbed the rest of the world.

Correction: After WW2 the US rebuilt much of the world which had been devastated by the war.<<

True, as far as it goes. Several things: the question obtains regarding “the US rebuilt...” – that is, to/for whose immediate benefit was it rebuilt? Did we not benefit? I’d say we did in that we needed a viable post-war market to purchase goods produced and services originating in America. Moreover,

Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber wrote in “The American Challenge” – that corporate American presence in Europe constituted a Second Europe – an American Europe within Europe, and almost as large in most aspects – larger in others. Our corporations did to Europe what certain International Investment Consortiums did to Germany after the signing of the Versailles Treaty post WW1.

Now, that is not to say I think America did wrong in utilizing a New Imperialism for expansion but – the fact remains that though we did rebuild Europe – it may not have been for truly altruistic reasons. Anyway,

I believe fccool noted that world currency, post-war, was pegged to the American dollar rather than gold, silver, or other. That would have meant that every tick of the inflation index upward afterwards – effectively constituted an American tax upon practically every citizen of the world.

Biblically speaking..., we should have remained the head of the world instead of currently witnessing a significant descent to the point of becoming wagged by its tail (note current developments vis-à-vis other nations).

(select influence seems to have been equally employed in the devastated and bankrupt post-war Japan; that is, though proscribed by Gen Douglas MacArthur, our corporations through multiple legal maneuvers seemed to have circumvented MacArthur’s good intentions and through investments made immediately after the war – insinuated themselve$ into the Japanese keiretsus. An example may be the purchase of Rockefeller Center in ’89 by Mitsubishi Estate – at a grossly inflated price. Lame explicatives aside,

it remains that the deal indicated, simply, a legal transfer of cash from Japan to the Rockefeller Group bypassing what, otherwise, would have attracted the attention of Uncle Sam’s revenooers)

[fccool]

Shane, I really appreciate your reply and I see where you are coming from and agree on many points that you are making. Let me clarify a couple of things from my previous post, thus addressing some misunderstandings that we may have here.

1. Since WW2 the US robbed the rest of the world.

US and world economy has just suffered huge set back some years prior to post WW2 agreement. To say that economies were doing well would be a huge overstatement, as the devastated German economy was a huge cause of rise of Nazi regime. As you well know that US has suffered through one of the largest economic calamities in its history since the civil war. The New Deal basically trying to accelerate economy by way of government spending (going into immense amount of debt) . So to say that US was ahead of anybody else was only due to the fact that US hardly took any part in WWI. As WWII came around all of the countries went into substantial deficit spending (as with any wars). US once again did not experience any infrastructure damage and thus it was decided that US would lead the world economies because of its capability. Did US take advantage of the situation? Sure it did. As long as the currency amount was locked by amount of gold US had in possession, printing excess money would only encourage run on gold that US had. So the bills were taken off the gold standard, and printed liberally while allowing US to use its prior economic prestige to throw paper around getting actual goods in return. So fast forward to today, US hardly produces anything and imports quite a bit. The foreigners hold a lot of digits surplus dollars on their hands in form of government securities. All they they have to do to take US economy for a spit is to yell SELL.

As far as stealing is concerned … I’ll give you a simple illustration to make it a bit more clear. Don’t worry, I have a degree in International Business (which does not really mean a lot)… but I am not a complete imbecile when it comes to modern economic theory (and what you talking about here is Keynsian one of course). Yet there are always tons of unanswered questions that we just except at face value without ever thinking about these.

Imagine a farmer who has a troublesome year with no harvest. Let’s call him Bill. He grows apples and he trades some with his neighbor Steve who is a dairy farmer. Bill writes up a couple IOUs and brings it to Steve. He says that he will redeem these in apples next year. Steve agrees. But the next year comes and still no luck for Bill he once again brings in IOUs to Steve, who gladly trades these for some milk and cheese. 5 years pass and Bill has not been doing too well and he has been handing out IOUs to Steve as means of survival. Steve really would finally like to have some apples. So he takes these IOUs to his neighbor Jim, and says that he’d like to trade these with Jim for some apples in return for Bills apples once he finally gets some harvest. Bill agrees under a stipulation that he will only redeem 90% of the value of the IOU in apples to account for some risks. Steve agrees. Years pass, and Bill has been handing out IOUs left and right as means of survival, and he noticed a strange thing. People were using his IOUs to trade things in the market. They forgot about Bill altogether and genuinely believed that he will reimburse these once they ask for apples which were always in demand. So Bill got an idea, he decided to take down his farm and build a golf course with IOUs that he wrote, and he hired more people to work for him using more IOUs. And people were all but happy to accept these as Bill still was thought of as a reputable farmer that would redeem these IOUs once asked. But people did not ask.

So examining this case. Is Bill stealing from people? Yes he does. Although people enjoy the convenience of holding IOUs. These are nothing more than representation of real wealth which Bill has monopoly over issuing. By natural laws of scarcity, the more IOUs Bill issues… the less they will worth down the road. So Bill has a high power IOUs to spend for himself first, while after some time in circulation these IOUs will devalue the total supply. But it was only partly Bill’s fault as people abandoned common sense for convenience.

So let’s compare this with US and dollar. Is every dollar issued as IOU? Yes, but it is more sinister than this. Bill (the Fed and Banks) issues it and he expects people to pay it back in the same IOUs + interest payments. Since there is no interest created in the first place more money has to be borrowed into existence to cover it and therefore the money supply has to be constantly expanding and to avoid hyperinflation the GDP has to expand likewise as well as consumption of the GDP. US right now is the largest debtor nation in the world. How is that good? I don’t know how anyone can see debt as being good thing &#61514;

2. The US was handed the leading currency of the world after WW2.

Correction: The dollar became dominate because of the size of the US economy.

Size of the economy is NOT an indication as far as the economic health. If I borrow a million dollars all could be shiny on the surface, but I am in negative. The New Deal was that growth thanks to government spending (borrowing). It was artificial, and not natural. It’s like raising a comatose baby in an incubator. NOT by any stretch of imagination healthy economy.

3. Since WW2 the US economy has been "blooming" and "booming".

Correction: The economy in the US has continued to be cycler since WW2 as it was before. We have not had another Great Depression but we have had several slow downs and recessions.

There were slow downs and recessions, but mainly due to nature of the system. If you don’t pump enough money into it to cover debt… you will have recession. If people start saving… you will have recession in this system. Today average savings rate is negative! How can anyone call this a healthy economy?

4. Since WW2 the rich have gotten richer and the poor... no one cares about.

Correction: All classes of people have seen a dramatic improvement in lifestyle since WW2. The Great Society programs designed to help the poor didn't even exist before WW2.

All of the dramatic improvement in lifestyle since WW2 I would accredit to current buy now pay later system. The countries which were allowed to adapt the system turned out to be prosperous. Those that which did not, did not do so well. Once again, like in Bill’s case… USA was trusted to repay its debts and thus were allowed to run a substantial debt in IOUs. While on the surface everything looks good and prosperous…

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080103/OPINION/801030719/1029

While I think that 102 trillion of debt might be overstated, even at modest 60 trillion that’s A LOT of money to be spent in interest payments as a society. That means that somebody gets richer and somebody gets poorer at the same time. Everybody can’t be a winner in the Interest game.

5. The US national debt is unsustainable.

Correction: While recent deficits are troubling these are not at record levels. See graph below:

First of all you have to take debt at face as debt. GDP is hardly an asset in the same sense as debt is as it today comprised of nearly 80% of services produced (By world bank estimates). Also GDP counts borrowed assets as a part of it, so comparing deficits in terms of GDP is useless in that terms because these would logically cancel each other... as debt grows... GDP would naturally grow. Thus the graph is not telling the whole truth. Taking the the debt at face value will tell you the truth. Considering that Bush administration has borrowed as much as all of the previous put together, and that current interest payment on the debt is .5 trillion alone (with 9.1 trillon of debt and growing)… is overshadowing the cost of Iraq war. Once social security folks start to collect their payments, which is about now… where will that money come from? The government found a way to “borrow” money from SS funds too apparently.

6. Banks making unsecure loans is a bad thing

Correction: Banks loaning out money is how an economy grows. Money is created when loans are made. High risk loans are not a good path to economic growth has our current ARM crisis is showing as did the S&L crisis 15 years ago did.

IT’S NOT THAT BANKS MAKING UNSECURE LOANS IS BAD THINS. BANKS CREATING MONEY OUT OF NOTHING AND DEMANDING TO PAY IT BACK WITH INTEREST IS A BAD THING! &#61514;. It’s nothing more than legalized counterfeiting and creating of representational wealth by one nation which other nation trust protection of scarcity of money.

7. Money is printed to pay off interest on loans which were previously made.

Correction: Money is itself a commodity. The amount the Federal Reserve prints is based on many factors such as current economic growth, fears of inflation and fears of recession. As an economy grows more people go to work and make more money. Obviously more money needs to be printed. If it was only printed to pay off interest from accrued debt, it would be worthless.

Today money is a necessary commodity. The problem is that it is created out of thin air and not interest free, thus allow certain group of people in charge of creation reap immense profits. The Fed is a privately owned bank. It may appear to follow some of the government policies, the truth is that there has not been an audit of the bank's assets, neither to my knowledge the bank is subjected to income tax. The problem is not the expansion and contraction (90% expansion) policies of the Fed, but in a way they carry out the expansion in the system of fractional reserve banking they set up. If they expanded interest free money… all would be well. But every single dollar that was printed was printed by them and landed out at interest which is expected to be paid. So it is only logical to as where would the interest payment money come from? If (almost) no money ever issued as interest free money then there naturally be need for something to pay the interest off with. Where would that come from? I understand your point that expansion policies are in anticipation of recession and inflation, but it is their policies that create inflations and recessions! Inflation is increase in money supply (by definition) that they create, and recession is due to lack of money in circulation to pay off the interest payments. It’s as simple as that. M3 has been on a steady rise ever since this system came into place. Every healthy economy has to have real GDP (in actual products) increase accordingly. As I've mentioned before I don't think that we as nation produce so much more than in 1970. Much of the production is being outsourced and counted as GDP because the money is coming back in terms of savings on labor. So the corporate profits rose tremendously.

A couple things I have to note as some problems with GDP.

First of all it treats all economic events as positive. For example Hurricane Katrina was an enormous contribution to the GDP. GDP adds up the costs of non market related activities such as prison maintenance, drug rehab, counseling and etc. And the biggest one is that GDP ignores debt that comes from abroad. Once again, If I borrow a million dollars my economic activity will increase by a million if I spend it. But I’m definitely not better off if my borrowing trend continues. I don’t care how big my economy is… I’m broke!

I really appreciate your discussion and as I said… I understand where you are coming from as I was once a firm supporter of Keynsian economic model, until I started to ask the above questions.

....But as the song states "In the end it does not really matter"

[Dr. Shane]

I have a business degree and work in international business. I live on the US/Mexico border. I don't know how much that means but I am quite familiar with international markets as they are part of my every day life.

The beauty of American capitalism is that it doesn't have to be altruistic to work. The fact that the US profited from rebuilding the world doesn't negate the fact that the US rebuilt the world. It did not rob it.

The US dollar is not a voucher for apples in an orchard that doesn't produce. It is a voucher for any goods and services produced in nations that use US dollars as an acceptable currency. That includes oil-producing nations. So the size of the US economy has a lot to do with the attractiveness or desirability of the dollar.

Prior to WW2 poor people lived in homes with dirt floors. My mother was raised in a home with a dirt floor. Today the poorest among us live in government housing with carpet, refrigerators, air conditioning and microwaves. The system of loaning out money is excellent and yes, it has been key to American prosperity. Those that disagree show their own lack of understanding in financial matters. How many Americans would own homes today if they were not allowed to borrow money to buy them? How many people would buy cars if they could not borrow money to buy them? Imagine the economy if the housing and automotive sector were not what they are today.

The amount of money being borrowed must be compared to the GDP in order to honestly judge it. Which is riskier, an 18 year old boy earning $15,000/year borrowing $25,000 to buy a car or a 35 year old man earning $80,000/year buying a $60,000 car? This illustrates the relationship between our national deficit AND debt and the GDP. We cannot have an honest discussion about one without the other.

[fccool]

Shane, I'm glad that unlike I you actually work in the area of your expertise.

Biblical principle is to owe nothing to anyone. When talking about Satanic deception that's exactly what I'm talking about here. Kids today are taught that it is impossible to live without debt, while it was not always so. Although you did not get instant gratification... you learned the actual worth of you labor. The economic truth is that THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. So if you borrow money from the bank which creates it out of nothing... somebody has to pay for that money. You can't create wealth out of nothing! It's economic impossibility. Sure this debt system which is now being utilized worldwide on president's scale is attractive to anyone, BUT it enslaves people under guise of helping them IMO. Especially young people who have to start from 0. They have understanding that it's OK to be 200k in debt and pay it off the rest of your life. This absolutely contradicts the principles of God, which strictly opposes usury and warns us to be against falling into debts. It's ludicrous that people think that debt free living is impossible.

My parents, and their parents never had credit available when they were growing up and they managed to live fine and bought our place as a whole and we never starved, yet they did not make much money. It was not a huge house, but we did not need a huge house. We never lived beyond our means. But they saved, which is the key to the true economic prosperity. You can never spend your way into prosperity! Read any economic fundamentalists such as Smith and Mises... these are their ideas, not mine. Sure the credit system creates accelerated booms, but it also causes a whole lot of problems which we are already experiencing not only as a nation, but as a world. Would you say that Biblical principle is to avoid debt at any means possible, because the debtor is a "slave" to the creditor? What if the creditor is not a Godly person and would demand you to break God's law? If debt is a good thing, then why Apostle Paul warns us...

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. Romans 13:8

PS. The natural expansion of wealth will always result in better way of life. I'm not against debt as long as it has substance behind it. So if bank owns something of substance, then by all means people borrow it. But allowing banks create substance out of nothing will evidentially lead to devaluation of the currency as a whole, which is a hidden tax on people and in US terms it is US taxing not only its own people ... but the entire world through devaluation of the currency. That's what Roman Emperors did until they brought their money to ruin and their nation followed.

[Dr. Shane]

A creditless economy certainly could function and boom however borrowing money to buy or build a home really isn't going into debt since the house has enough equity to pay for itself if the owner wants to get rid of it. We are to be good stewards with our money and purchasing a home on credit is being a much better steward than renting a home in order to be debt-free. Debt makes one a slave because they must work to pay off the debt. However when we buy a home we work to pay it off as a choice not an obligation. If we didn't want to work, we could simply sell the home and pay the debt. So the Biblical principle of living debt free doesn't apply completely to buying a home. That said, when buying a home, one should purchase a home they can buy on a 15-year loan rather than a 30-year loan. 30-year loans carry so much interest on them that it is wasteful to have one.

Sister White did write that there are times we (as a group) should borrow money so that the work can go forward. So the principle of being debt-free can be taken too far. As far as the national deficit goes, I have long favored a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget with exceptions for times of war or recession. A balanced budget is achievable simply by freezing spending at our current level and allowing the revenues of a growing economy to catch up.

[fccool]

however borrowing money to buy or build a home really isn't going into debt since the house has enough equity to pay for itself if the owner wants to get rid of it.

As you have pointed out it depends. In perfect world debt could be a good thing as in ancient Islael it was used to build people up and not drag them down (no interest charged domestically). Today, as you well know, nothing substantial is handed to you when you get the loan out. What is handed out is new money, which depreciate the overall supply. It would be all good if people bought a house and accumulated equity, unfortunately the artificially hiked up prices make it more equitable to rent in many cases than to buy. Not only that... but there's a magic of "compound interest" which makes is possible for people pay 50-60% of the total price in interest payments. That's what I call unnecessary economic servitude. So, in effect 50-60% of that money is yanked out of the total supply and go back to bank which should only serve as facilitator and does not produce any consumable commodities and goods at all (money is the only product that is not being consumed in economy). Thus fractional reserve banks act as a economic parasite in a way... providing nothing of REAL value and diminishing the real wealth in hands of people. People willingly conform to these way of things simply because the only alternative given is saving for future . Once again, I don't mind sound banking which uses long-term ceedee (emoicons!!!) money to make loans and then make profit on difference of intererest, but using 5-10% reserves to cover the total deposits is not what many people are understandably signed up for and is a way to culture of debt. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Once again... I did not just dream this up one day and believe it to be so. I just listen to what "dead" are saying... that helps (by dead speaking... I mean read what they said ).

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs...

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. Thomas Jefferson

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. Woodrow Wilson

The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. Abraham Lincoln

If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money

and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.

Andrew Jackson

But I guess, all of the above people coupld be dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't disagree with any part of the previous post but it doesn't contradict what I have previously posted either.

[Gregory Matthews]

Responsding in a different direction in regard to the cost of the current war:

We are all aware of the deaths that are caused by IEDs and how vulnerable the Hum-Vs are.

In order to protect our soldiers from these IEDs and to save lives, the military is buying special vehicles designed to protect from the IEDs. One of the companies building these vehicles is producing some 300 a month. The base price of that vehicle is $450,000 and with options it goes up to slightly in excess of $1,000,000 per vehicle.

For those of you who would like to know the specifications: It has 45 inch tires, weighs 38,000 pounds, and carries 6 people. So far the only serious injury occured because one person in the vehicle was not wearing the seat and shoulder belt and received head injuries when the vehicle drove over an IED.

[Dr. Shane]

We had a thread about that vehicle some time ago.

MRAP