socred

Wow! Too bad I'm not Muslim, so I'm not sure what your point is?

Small point of order, the Nazis did try to "show them the door", but nobody would take them. Hence the term "the FINAL solution".

That's exactly what Adolph Hitler said about the Germans compared to other "races", and he had all sorts of German scientists doing studies to prove it. Seems the Zionists and the Nazis have something else in common. I'm not anti-semitic. Are all semites Jews? Are all Jews semites? Are all Zionists Jews? Are all Jews Zionists? Seems you need to take an introductory course in set theory.

I undestand that these responses can get too choppy when presented in this format, so I'm glad you narrowed down to a brief discussion again. Yes, we seem to be in agreement on this point. This is usually a point of contention between Libertarians and I, but you seem to understand that gold is not a sound basis for money. That's "essentially" correct. The means of calculation of the size of the rebate and dividend are dependent on certain other factors, but in essence, that's what I'm saying. I'd like to add that the balance is issued in the form of a national dividend and a price rebate. Essentially. All domestic production of goods and services, whether capital goods or consumer goods. All production creates costs. Prices and taxes are the methods for recouping those costs. Governments are essential for the operation of any economy. They provide law and order, military protection, and infrastructure.

I read your entire post. And I spent as much time in response as it deserved.

Yes, they are "God's chosen people". Talk about selective history. Oh I forgot, those countries wanted to expel Jews because they were jealous. They must have been jealous of the ghettos. . I wonder if the people in this thread who think that countries were made so much better by the Jews are in fact Jews themselves?

LMFAO! When did I say the Shoach was justified?? You lie! But that does not suprise me. I merely stated that the Germans weren't the first country to show their Jewish "tenants" the door. Now Marx is a shelf hating Jew, so that doesn't make him "loyal"? Is "loyalty" to the Isreal and Judaism the ultimate goal? Is any Jew who criticizes Israel or Jews "disloyal"? Very interesting. Only a fool does not know the difference between Zionism, Judaism, and semitism. However; I'm sure it's in your benefit to confuse the three.

I'm sure the Zionist lobby would like us to think that there is little distinction between being critical of Isreal, and being critical of the followers of Judaism. However; there are many Jews themselves who are critical not only of Isreal, but Jews themselves (but I guess these Jews are also "antisemitic" ). The label "antisemitic" is just an attempt to deflect any criticism by claiming that those who criticize have an irrational hatred of all Jews: of course, anyone who has reasonable intelligence knows this a logical fallacy, and one being perpetrated for political reasons. Traditional Jews Are Not Zionists Protest at Zionist Fair in Teaneck, New Jersey Benjamin Freedman Speech On The Jewish Question THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY: REFLECTIONS ON THE EXPLOITATION OF JEWISH SUFFERING I guess these Jews are all "anti-semites" as well? Interesting that you compare Israel and the US. There's no doubt that their policies are very similar, especially in light of of this document, which was created prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Project for a New American Century I would call it something other than a Project for a New American Century. I'm sure these "Straussians" are Zionist supporters.

There have always been people willing to receive the Jews. Turns out that they often don't make good tenants, and are shown the door. If you think Germany was the first country to try to rid itself of its Jewish population, you are sadly mistaken.

You want to know what I find despicable? I find it despicable that anyone who criticizes the Apartheid/Military state of Israel is labelled an anti-semite. I also find it despicable that as soon as there is any criticism of Israel, there are people who automatically start bringing up the holocaust. If you think that Jews were the only people to have lost their business or home during WWII, then you must live in some fantasy land.

Are the Jews always the victim?

Do Christians around the world have the 'right of return" to any of these nations?

You can't understand it? Quite simply the event is being used for political purposes, particularly the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, and the continued expansion of borders in that region.

And I commend you for that. I never said every Zionist, or every Jew favored these laws.

Are you a "holocaust denier"? Better watch where you say that, because you could end up in jail. If certain Zionists had their way, there would be no debate on this subject. Makes you wonder what purpose it serves?

"Priming the pump" is an attempt to increase people's incomes by engaging in capital production or through increased government spending. It can eliminate the gap temporarily, because there is a time delay between the income disbursed for capital production and its cost showing up in the price of some consumer good. There are two types of goods: 1) capital goods, and 2) consumer goods. The difference between the two is that a capital goods cost is carried forward upon purchase, wheras; a consumer goods cost is defrayed upon purchase. For instance, take a potato. If I purchase a potato to eat it, then it is a consumer good, because once I pay for the potato, it's cost ends, and I consume the potato. However; if a restaurant purchases the potato to make french fries, the potato is a capital good, and the french fries are a consumer good, because the cost of the potato is carried forward and form part of the cost of the french fries. The cost of the french fries are defrayed upon purchase. Some capital projects may take years before their cost shows up in the cost of some consumer good as a depreciation expense. The income disbursed on these capital projects can be used to close the gap on consumer goods in this accounting cycle, but will only create a further gap down the road when the cost of the capital project does make its way into the cost of the consumer goods it helped create, but the income disbursed will be gone because it will have been used on previous consumer goods at a prior time. They have a "fantasy" understanding of money, because money has never been those things (at least in the last several centuries). Even under a supposed "gold standard", the vast majority of money was bank created credit. Gold was simply a "reserve currency" acting as cash does now. Money's value is not determined by its composition. People don't want gold for its own sake (unless they're making jewellry or some electronics). They want to use the gold to purchase the things they do want (food, clothing, shelter, luxury items....) I've heard some "gold bugs" call for an end to fractional reserve banking. These ideas are not well thought out. An end to fractional reserve banking would collapse the economy. One of the main reasons we have the prosperity that we do is through the advent of fractional reserve banking. I agree that it's not perfect, but eliminating it would force us back to the dark ages. One of the reasons that empires like Rome and Spain were forced to pillage other societies was their search for gold. The gold standard is archaic. That's the only purpose of money. A means of acCOUNTING. It's a ticket. Money itself is not wealth. Consumer goods and services are wealth. The purpose of production is consumption. Absolutely; because the vast majority of money is created by private commercial banks through loans to individuals and businesses. The truth is that they can increase and decrease the amount of cash and coin at will. Cash and coin represent a small proportion of the money supply. Again, this is assuming a 1:1 correspondence between income and prices. Yes, if there was this correspondence, there would be no need to increase incomes, and doing so would only bring about inflation. I see you avoided my question in a previous post, because the whole argument rests on it: I have yet to see anyone seriously refute Douglas's A+B theorem which is reproduced below: “In any manufacturing undertaking the payments made may be divided into two groups: Group A: Payments made to individuals as wages, salaries, and dividends; Group B: Payments made to other organizations for raw materials, bank charges and other external costs. The rate of distribution of purchasing power to individuals is represented by A, but since all payments go into prices, the rate of generation of prices cannot be less than A plus B. Since A will not purchase A plus B, a proportion of the product at least equivalent to B must be distributed by a form of purchasing power which is not comprised in the description grouped under A.” (C.H. Douglas, “The Monopoly of Credit”) Perhaps you would like to point out the error in reasoning in the theorem? You're confusing psychological demand with effective demand. There's going to be production in a Social Credit society which is not purchased. However; that production is up to the individual consumption habits of consumers. The point is that they should have the ABILITY to purchase that product with sufficient effective demand (income). That does not mean they WILL purchase that product. By guaranteeing a shortage of income, your are guaranteeing that a percentage of production will go unconsumed even if the consumers acutally WANT IT. That's WASTE! In fact, Social Crediters would argue that society engages in all sorts of wasteful production in order to obtain incomes to purchase the products that they do want, with the resulting degradation to the environment. If people were actually given the freedom to consume leisure, I'm sure alot of goods and services would stop being produced, because there is very limited psychological demand for them (Chia pets come to mind). What keeps the seller from charging $125 now? Or $200? Or $300? I guess you don't believe in competition? I already demonstrated the fallacy of this argument. Money can be increased and prices can fall if the money is used to cancel costs (i.e. through a price rebate). I don't think it's a nice idea at all. I think its a form of slavery. However; people need income if they are to choose not to work. Without a dividend, people are forced to engage in production. I don't gain my sense of self-worth from work. I gain it from all sorts of activities. I'm not saying I would choose to quit work entirely, but I would probably decrease the amount of hours I engage in that activity. However; that's an individual decision. The point is that as technology replaces physical effort with machine effort in the productive process, people should be able to consume more leisure. Technology and its effect on unemployment is a release, not a curse. Pehaps you are a puritan and believe that "idle hands are the work of the devil"? I'm not a Puritan, and in fact find that ideology very dangerous. Read the quote by Soren Kierkegaard which forms my signature. You will find that there are some similarities between libertarians and social crediters; however, one is not money. I think that mandatory government education is a form of brain washing. Many Canadians are socialists, even some of the ones who consider themselves "conservative". Canadians in general are more socialistic than they American counterparts. You will find that Albertans, such as myself, are less socialistic. In large part due to the fact that we had 35 years of "Social Credit" government in this province (even if the government under Ernst Manning especially was more socialist than social credit). I want to be specific here, because not all money is income, which is the basis of Douglas's A+B theorem, and the fallacy of the "quantity theory of money". I seek to increase incomes, because it is essential that people have sufficient incomes in the aggregate to be capable of clearing all of production. Otherwise, we're purposefully engaged in a wasteful and useless activity. We're discussing macro economics, not micro. If people choose to consume more than their income after the price rebate and dividend are given to them, then they will go in debt, and if they do so continuosly, they will have to declare bankruptcy. I hope you are able to see the forest through the trees? An accounting flaw. "Capitalism" died a long time ago. What remains is more aptly described as "creditism". Socialism will result from capitalism unless the Social Credit principles are applied. We see this trend everyday through increasing taxes and government spending, redistribution programs and the like. These will continue to get worse, not better, unless this fundamental accounting flaw is rectified. The socialists don't want to rectify it because it is used as a tool to further their power. The libertarians hide their head in the sand like an ostrich and claim it doesn't exist, but nobody seriously considers their economic proposals because they would result in revolution as the unemployment capitalism naturally creates would force people into starvation, and the return to a gold standard without fractional reserve banking would shut down the entire economy due to a shortage of money, and return us to a standard of living equivalent to the dark ages. We are at a turning point in time, and I hope it's not too late, because slowly but surely our freedoms are being eroded through socialists attempts to "solve" this problem. Their "solution" is worse than the disease.

That's probably true. You still not have explained to me what makes these nations "Christian"?

Really, I'm sure the non-Christians living in those countries might have something to say about that. The Vatican is really a small part of a city where the pope lives. To call that a "nation" is certainly a stretch; although I do realize they are granted status of a nation. Christians cannot immigrate there based upon the fact that they are Christians. Specifically, what makes these nations "Christian"?

To be equal, means to lack quality. I'm sure every communist seeks this ideal. Personally, I don't believe any of us are equal, because we all have quality.

I'm talking about right now. What nation do the Christians have?

That's probably because no other groups persecution has been given so much "press". Do you know how many Ukranians died at the hands of Stalin, and the persecutions the Ukranians have endured from the Russians and the Turks? Or the persecution of Protestants by the Catholics and how many people died in Germany during the 30 years war? I could go on and on. Unfortunately, these don't get much "press".

Really, what nation do "Christians" have?

Do you think that the followers of Judaism are the only people to ever suffer persecution?

Why should there be a state for the followers of Judaism?

How does the the non-existence of the state of Isreal prevent the followers of Judaism from self-determination?