Geez. This thread got jacked. Even if the illuminati still exists, they carry far less weight and influence than the CIA and other American shadow ops. So no, my opinion is that the illuminati does not exist in the way depicted by some conspiracy theorists.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I like how you even let a single post define the direction of this thread.[/quote]
Replace the word Jesus with Muhummad & the same people bitching about the post would have got a hard on from it.
BTW, what he said is actually a very apt comparison.[/quote]
I don’t get it, Muhummad was a real person.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t consider the Christians posting on this forum to be disingenuous. I think they are earnest in their beliefs, and have said many times that I don’t judge them for those beliefs. I understand where they are coming from, and was a devout Christian myself for many years.[/quote]
Sadly for you, I see through your clumsy ruse. Your schtick is simple - you demand pious and repsectful treatment of yourself, only to gratutioulsy take potshots at those you disagree with. Your constant, unprompted and broken-record refrain of Christianity as a “fairy tale” gives the game away, and no amount of sudden desire for etiquette will save you.
Not only myself but others saw it instantly in this thread.
Which is fine, that is your want - just fess up to it and stop pretending that you actually have an interest in a respectful dialogue. You don’t.
I’m not too impressed with your “integrity”, largely because of your consistent pattern of dishonesty since day one. It’s nothing new for you - not so long ago, you sermonized everyone here about the values of respectful open-mindedness and honest debate while at the same time slandering every person who disgreed with you a frothing bigot. Comedy gold. Second verse, same as he first.
You haven’t changed, Forlife, nor have you grown up. That we keep reminding you of that isn’t unfair or off-limits.
[quote]I’m a bit torn when it comes to you, because unlike most of those who engage in personal attacks, you are intelligent, educated, and are usually willing to keep the discussion focused on the topic. You’re at a different level than a clown like Zeb, and I actually value your perspective.
Feel free to criticize my points; I look forward to it. But I do ask that you forgo the personal comments about my sincerity and my character. You’re better than that. [/quote]
Don’t be torn by me - I am as simple as they come. But I am educated, I think, and part of any true education is spotting phonies and charlatans and outing them, and thus, helping the cause of seeking out the Truth amidst a sea of posers and foolishness. Telling you so in the name of preserving what good is left of discussions in PWI (or what’s left of it, which ain’t much these days) is within that mission and isn’t a “personal attack” any more than one your garden variety slanders.
Have it your way, Thunder. I’ve never questioned your character, and in fact have complimented you several times. It’s obvious that you are unwilling to do the same, and I won’t ask again.
To everyone else, although I stand by my original point, I apologize for my role in subsequently derailing the thread.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Why is it so hard for people to accept that there is a lot of fiction around Jesus, when most of the Christians complaining in this thread have accused one another of exactly that over the past few weeks? It’s hardly a far stretch, since they are convinced that many who claim to be Christians mistakenly believe in a great deal of fiction and false doctrine about Jesus, his nature, his teachings, and his requirements for salvation.
They accept that fiction exists about Jesus. That isn’t the issue. The reason their panties are in a wad is because they mistakenly assumed I was criticizing their particular beliefs about Jesus, rather than the beliefs of others whom they criticize themselves.
Don’t blame me for their defensiveness. I was making a simple point that historical facts can be twisted, augmented, and supplanted over time, even when there is a kernel of truth to the original claim. I believe this is the case for the Illuminati, and I believe it is the case for Christianity.[/quote]
Okay, I got ya. Thanks for clearing that up. I misunderstood.
Luke
Off topic kinda
Did the financial meltdown just happen on it’s own or did a group of conspirators set the act in motion?
Was is just greed that got outta control or an actual plot?
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Off topic kinda
Did the financial meltdown just happen on it’s own or did a group of conspirators set the act in motion?
Was is just greed that got outta control or an actual plot?[/quote]
My opinion is that macro-economical crisis is a part of the economical system of today, so in other words meltdowns, crisis or whatever you want to call it, are not caused by a plot by a secret group, some greedy guys at wall-street, failed government policy etc.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Off topic kinda
Did the financial meltdown just happen on it’s own or did a group of conspirators set the act in motion?
Was is just greed that got outta control or an actual plot?[/quote]
Hanlons Razor:
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Clarkes Law:
Sufficiently advanced ignorance cannot be distinguished from malice.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Off topic kinda
Did the financial meltdown just happen on it’s own or did a group of conspirators set the act in motion?
Was is just greed that got outta control or an actual plot?[/quote]
You should check out Money as Debt, and the Secret of Oz.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Thunder, I’m not going to give your attacks on my character and motivation any more attention than they deserve. Feel free to ignore me if you’re so convinced that I’m being disingenuous.[/quote]
Though you would prefer it, your schtick will not be insulated from criticism. And, you seem to think there is great value in assailing frauds, false prophets and phoniness, hence your “crusade” appearing even in threads that don’t warrant it - well, certainly I do, too, and if you are uncomfortable with a door swinging both ways, oblige yourself not to walk through it.[/quote]
I don’t consider the Christians posting on this forum to be disingenuous. I think they are earnest in their beliefs, and have said many times that I don’t judge them for those beliefs. I understand where they are coming from, and was a devout Christian myself for many years.
I don’t get into personal attacks on their integrity, and I don’t appreciate the same attacks on my own integrity.
I’m a bit torn when it comes to you, because unlike most of those who engage in personal attacks, you are intelligent, educated, and are usually willing to keep the discussion focused on the topic. You’re at a different level than a clown like Zeb, and I actually value your perspective.
Feel free to criticize my points; I look forward to it. But I do ask that you forgo the personal comments about my sincerity and my character. You’re better than that. [/quote]
I can’t imagine why you’re unhappy with me forlife. Could it be because I caught you in several lies in a prior thread? And when caught you did the same thing that you’re doing here. Twisting and turning rationalizing your actions trying to slip the hook but not quite being able to. Also, I was the first one who called you on your nonsense in this thread. I’ve always been able to see clean through you and it’s not been a pretty site. You’re far less about good debate as you claim and more about constantly pushing your personal agenda. It’s nice that everyone got to see you in your natural state.
This sort of reaction from people should not surprise you.
So, basically it just happened by chance. I don’t know…
grabs tin foil hat and blows the dust off
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
So, basically it just happened by chance. I don’t know…
grabs tin foil hat and blows the dust off[/quote]
to explain my opinion I added a link to a wikipedia article, but it did not go trough. I try again.
"Please read:
A Thank You from
Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales
Read now OverproductionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This article is about the economic concept of overproduction. For the musical term, see overproduction (music).
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)
In economics, overproduction, oversupply or excess of supply refers to excess of supply over demand of products being offered to the market. This leads to lower prices and/or unsold goods.
The demand side equivalent is underconsumption; some consider supply and demand two sides to the same coin â?? excess supply is only relative to a given demand, and insufficient demand is only relative to a given supply â?? and thus consider overproduction and underconsumption equivalent.
Overproduction is often attributed as due to previous overinvestment â?? creation of excess productive capacity, which must then either lie idle (or under capacity), which is unprofitable, or produce an excess supply.
Contents [hide]
1 Explanation
2 Inevitability
3 Solutions
4 Say’s Law
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
[edit] ExplanationOverproduction is the accumulation of unsalable inventories in the hands of businesses. Overproduction is a relative measure, referring to the excess of production over consumption. The tendency for an overproduction of commodities to lead to economic collapse is specific to the capitalist economy. In previous economic formations, an abundance of production created general prosperity. However in the capitalist economy, commodities are produced for profit. This so-called profit motive, the core of the capitalist economy, creates a dynamic whereby an abundance of commodities has negative consequences. In essence, an abundance of commodities disrupts the conditions for the creation of profit.
The overproduction of commodities forces businesses to reduce production in order to clear inventories. Any reduction in production implies a reduction in employment. A reduction in employment, in turn, reduces consumption. As overproduction is the excess of production above consumption, this reduction in consumption worsens the problem. This creates a “feed-back loop” or “vicious cycle”, whereby excess inventories force businesses to reduce production, thereby reducing employment, which in turn reduces the demand for the excess inventories. The general reduction in the level of prices (deflation) caused by the law of supply and demand also forces businesses to reduce production as profits decline. Reduced profits render certain fields of production unprofitable.
Henry George argued that there could not be any such thing as overproduction in a general sense, but only in a relative sense:
Is there, then, such a thing as overproduction? Manifestly, there cannot be, in any general sense, until more wealth is produced than is wanted. In any unqualified sense, over- production is preposterous, when everywhere the struggle to get wealth is so intense; when so many must worry and strain to get a living, and there is actual want among large classes. The manner in which the strain of the war was borne shows how great are the forces of production which, in normal times, go to waste; proves that what we suffer from now is not overproduction, but underproduction.
Relative overproduction there, of course, may be. The desires for different forms of wealth vary in intensity and in sequence, and are related one with another. I may want both a pair of shoes and a dozen pocket-handkerchiefs, but my desire for the shoes is first and strongest; and upon the terms on which I can get the shoes may in large measure depend my ability to get the handkerchiefs. So, in the aggregate demand for the different forms of wealth, there is a similar relation. And as, under the division of labor characteristic of the modern industrial system, nearly all production is carried on with the view, not of consumption by the immediate producers, but of exchange for other productions, certain commodities may be produced so far in excess of their proper proportion to the production of other commodities, that the whole quantity produced cannot be exchanged for enough of those other commodities to give the usual returns to the capital and labor engaged in bringing them to market. This disproportionate production of some things, which is overproduction in relation to the production of other things, is the only kind of overproduction that can take place on any considerable scale, and the overproduction of which we hear so much is evidently of this character.[1]
[edit] InevitabilityKarl Marx outlined the inherent tendency of capitalism towards overproduction in his seminal work, Das Kapital.
According to Marx, in capitalism, improvements in technology and rising levels of productivity increase the amount of material wealth (or use values) in society while simultaneously diminishing the economic value of this wealth, thereby lowering the rate of profitâ??a tendency that leads to the paradox, characteristic of crises in capitalism, of â??poverty in the midst of plenty,â?? or more precisely, crises of overproduction in the midst of underconsumption.
[edit] SolutionsJohn Maynard Keynes formulated a theory of overproduction, which led him to propose government intervention to ensure effective demand. Effective demand are levels of consumption which corresponds to the level of production. If effective demand is achieved then there is no overproduction because all inventories are sold. Importantly, Keynes acknowledged that such measures could only delay and not solve overproduction.
[edit] Say’s LawFurther information: Say’s Law
Say’s Law states that “The more goods (for which there is demand) that are produced, the more those goods (supply) can constitute a demand for other goods”. Keynes summarized this “law” as asserting that “supply creates its own demand”, though this interpretation has been criticized. The consumer’s desire to trade causes the potential consumer to become a producer to create goods that can be exchanged for the goods of others, goods are directly or indirectly exchanged for other goods. Because goods can only be paid for by other goods, no demand can exist without prior production. Following Say’s law, overproduction (in the economy as a whole, specific goods can still be overproduced) is only possible in a limited sense.
[edit] See alsoDemand shortfall â?? microeconomic form, focused on demand side
Underconsumption â?? macroeconomic demand side
[edit] References^ George, Henry. (1883). Over Production. The North American Review, Vol. 137, Issue 325.
[edit] External linksWhat is a crisis of overproduction? Prepared by Patrick Bond
This economics or finance-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
v â?¢ d â?¢ e
Retrieved from “Overproduction - Wikipedia”
Categories: Macroeconomics | Economics and finance stubs
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from April 2010 | All articles needing additional referencesPersonal tools
Log in / create accountNamespaces
ArticleDiscussionVariantsViews
ReadEditView historyActions
Search
Navigation
Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaInteractionHelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact WikipediaToolboxWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkCite this page
Print/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version
LanguagesDeutschEspañolFrançaisItalianoNederlandsÐ Ñ?Ñ?Ñ?кийThis page was last modified on 29 October 2010 at 23:20.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimers"
from wikipedia.
I think I can resolve this thread in one fell swoop:
The global economy began to deteriorate when the carpenter from Nazareth(JC) and the Illuminati had a falling out. I’ve heard there had been some tensions already but the final straw was when the Illuminati came home and saw that JC had left his dirty dishes in the sink AND left the refrigerator door open. They stopped communicating at that point and therefore were unable to have their regularly scheduled meetings on handling the Earth economy. Lately they’ve been becoming more civil with each other. JC baked a batch of the Illuminati’s favorite cookies and that seemed to warm their relations. Unfortunately the economy might be in for another dip because word on the street is that the Illuminati left a log in the toilet and didn’t flush. JC hates that.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Off topic kinda
Did the financial meltdown just happen on it’s own or did a group of conspirators set the act in motion?
Was is just greed that got outta control or an actual plot?[/quote]
It was these guys-
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Replace the word Jesus with Muhummad & the same people bitching about the post would have got a hard on from it.[/quote]
Utter BS.
The bigger difference is that no one here would throw in an unrelated bash on Muhammad. And further, if someone did, no one would defend them.[/quote]
I disagree.
I haven’t been following the board that closely lately, but when I was posing a bit more often a couple of years ago, every second thread seemed to have an anti Islam theme. Generally it was always Lixy versus about ten “conservatives”. The comments were typically on a completely different level to what has been said in this thread.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I like how you even let a single post define the direction of this thread.[/quote]
Replace the word Jesus with Muhummad & the same people bitching about the post would have got a hard on from it.
BTW, what he said is actually a very apt comparison.[/quote]
I don’t get it, Muhummad was a real person.[/quote]
What’s not to get?
I think you must have misread the post I’m talking about.
Forlife said “They probably exist in a strictly historical sense, minus all the fiction that has been created to supplement the actual facts. Kinda like Jesus.”
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Yeah, the illuminati have been a real bitch – constantly interfering with evil Joo plots to take over the world.
[/quote]
Everyone know that the illuminati is just a myth created by teh Joos to take the heat of themselves.
Fun fact - Did you know that teh Joos actually sank the titanic?
I’m not normally one to post this type of thing, but there’s a lot of mad on this thread. Where’s dixiesfinest to help us out?
Anyone else notice that there was a “I can find out who you are” threat-looking thing on this thread? Did I mis-read that? Creepy as fuck.
PS, the “joos” jokes from jewbacca and gonzales had me LOLing pretty good. jewbacca, you are one funny dude sometimes.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Replace the word Jesus with Muhummad & the same people bitching about the post would have got a hard on from it.[/quote]
Utter BS.
The bigger difference is that no one here would throw in an unrelated bash on Muhammad. And further, if someone did, no one would defend them.[/quote]
I disagree.
I haven’t been following the board that closely lately, but when I was posing a bit more often a couple of years ago, every second thread seemed to have an anti Islam theme. Generally it was always Lixy versus about ten “conservatives”. The comments were typically on a completely different level to what has been said in this thread. [/quote]
Swing and a miss. Talking about Christianity or Islam in threads about that subject is not equivalent “to throwing in an unrelated bash” on Jesus or Muhammad. reading fail.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Anyone else notice that there was a “I can find out who you are” threat-looking thing on this thread? Did I mis-read that? Creepy as fuck.
[/quote]
I did. I couldn’t tell if it was a member of the Illuminati issuing the threat or receiving it. Either way though, whether you are willing to delve into the underground Dallas/Ft.Worth gay sex scene to find someone or hide your agenda, there are bigger forces at work than meet the eye.