virtue

Thanks for the clarifications Nina.

I'm no expert on this either... but if the fed creates $100 (the first $100), and you assume it all ends up in private banks, and you know the fractional reserve requirement (say $10 or 10%), then you know exactly the maximum money the banks (all of them) can create on the initial $100. 90 + 81 + 72.9 + 65.61..+ = $899.99 Of course, this assumes the banks can only create money based on the fractional reserve. As far as I understand, when you buy a house, the bank creates the money out of nothing (it's not based on the fractional reserve). Even if the banks only create money based on the fractional reserve, your question is still valid... how does the fed know the national debt, at any given moment, given that people might not borrow all of the $899.99 in our example. What if only 4 people borrow money from the bank? That means (in our example) the national debt is only $309.51 and not the maximum $899.99. If all the money was deposited and created in one private bank, which is not the case, how does the fed learn of the bank's books to update the nation debt?

Now I wish I read that article before watching Keen's presentations. Love the clear conclusions. I'm still wrapping my head around the banking system and the economy. I saw that Steve made a virtual (computer) model of the economy which he run live. I was in awe for a while that someone can do this and show the degree to which the economy is predictable. I gotta tell you, I want get my hands on that model, learn it, learn the principles and math behind it, and play with it. I guess once you get over the "magic" or rather how money comes out of nothing and disappears into nothing, and the misconceptions we've been fed, it's quite easy to comprehend the whole thing. Not to mention this knowledge has given me a new perspective on government and politics - and in sense shine light on the good guys and the bad guys. What books would you recommend, especially for a beginner to learn more about MMT? What's the best place to start?

I watched the whole thing...and then some more. Thanks for that link. I end up watching a lot of Steven Keen presentations.

Great point. Well presented. This is an argument from taxation rather than a monetary system. I like it. It's more permanent. Few more questions, if you don't mind - mostly for my own curiosity. 1) Isn't the more basic issue taxation - and by that I mean, shouldn't we question the chief's the right to impose a tax in the first place (and in that way)? 2) Suppose taxation and the right to a job are justified - for arguments sake. Have you solved the problem of raids? Why can't you do this... you announce a daily tax of 1 NimaBuck and give people a job, but pay them 1 NimaBuck a week. Now are your raids are justified. How about... you announce a daily tax of 1 NimaBuck and give people a job and pay them 500 NimaBucks a week. Then you gradually increase your tax until it exceeds 500 NimaBucks. 3) How many ways are there for you to cheat in this system? 4) Do you have any good arguments for taxation (as a chief)?

It's not a formal theory. It's the idea that the brain might be a like a radio that receives consciousness like a radio receives radio frequencies. More specifically, it's the suggestion that the brain does not have consciousness just like the radio does not have radio frequencies as its own property. The implication is that like a radio, the brain accesses consciousness by it does not posses it, it's not a property of the brain, but perhaps a function.

The sentiment sounds good to me, but something about it also rubs me the wrong way. I can't quite put my finger on it right now. I'm not talking about your article. I'm referring to the idea "right to a job" in itself. Here is why it sounds good to me. These are not arguments, but rather the mental primordial soup I would use for further reflection on the idea. It seems to me, at least for the basics of life, a man can provide for himself in the wild. He can live off nature (or the land). If he's hungry he can hunt. If he's thirsty he can get water. Nature provides for him the same way it provides for the animals. Will he starve at times? Yes. But for the most part if he's in tune with nature, he'll do alright. Unlike the city man, the man in the wild can build himself a house, rip the benefits of his labor, work when he needs to and rests when wants to. In many ways he's more efficient and self sufficient. More importantly he determines the value of things - which is the effort he wishes to put to obtain them. If he wants meat, the price to get it is hunting (all that goes with it), but no more (like license to hunt or other bureaucracies) The city man arguably loses what nature provided him for free in the wild. Since his new home is the city (rather than the wild), if one can show that a man in the city can do better in the wild, then one can potentially make the argument that such a man has a right to a job that will allow him to get that which he himself, if he were in the wild, can get from nature. Your argument as I understand it is based on the fiat monetary system. Monetary systems change. What happens to the "right to a job" when the reason for it, namely the fiat system, changes? Aren't you justifying a permanent thing by a temporary thing? I don't mean to diminish your argument. I do want to point out that perhaps an argument from nature, rather a monetary system, might be better for something as permanent as a "right to a job". It's easy to give a right, but try taking it away once given.

The phrase "you are stardust" comes to mind. All the elements that make us were made in stars first. Also the phrase "You are the big bang" and "Where there are rocks, watch-out!" by Allan Watts. Watts on the "rocks" stuff: Again, food for thought. Good point. Proving (or disproving) the radio theory of consciousness might be difficult, maybe impossible. But in some way, it doesn't matter if it is a stepping stone to another or better thought experiment.

I'll connect the dots, some of them at least, between the first and last claim for the sake of extending the discussion. It was Socrates who said, "Know Thyself" and "The unexamined life is not worth living". In other words a good life might be one of reflection (examination) and one of personal refection (studying oneself). Arguably, self improvement is the result of self knowledge - the more you know yourself the more you can improve yourself. One can conclude then that "Self improvement is masturbation" and "Self knowledge is masturbation" - as self improvement is a product of self knowledge. If by "is" Tyler meant identity, in the sense that A is B, then I say he's wrong. If by "is" he meant an analogy, namely, masturbation and its affects on a person are equivalent to self improvement and its affects on a person, then I think there is room for an argument. I will present one. The issue with self improvement is that the person in need of improvement is doing the improvement. That's very much like trying to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. Or, trying to get a woman pregnant by masturbating when she's on the other side of the world on a webcam. I personally don't buy this argument because we can improve. There was a time I could not write a single line of computer code. I now can. I managed to lift up myself by own bootstraps so to speak. Of course, one might argue that's really not self improvement, but rather skill improvement. Fair objection, no doubt. Suppose that we were born perfect but life breaks us in some ways. In this case self improvement is doing that which returns an individual to their original perfect state (or as close as possible). It's restoration. It's fixing the personal dents. That which does that can be called self improvement. Of course, we don't have to be born perfect in the sense that we get X-Ray vision and all the super powers. "Perfect" can simply mean "self preservation and excellence" - any skill, belief, ability and capacity that helps you stay alive and fulfill your potential as a human being. That said, I've seen some "self improvement" that fixes dents that aren't there and makes use of "tools" which are wrong for the job. Affirmations, in my opinion are one such tool. Affirmations are you trying to convince yourself of something other than what you believe - not by logic, not by reflection but the brute force of your own voice and a mirror. Which if it works, if you think about it, is great for brainwashing your self - just make sure you use the right soap. Food for thought.

I understand. It's a great point. And you are justified on calling him out. But why stop at "consciousness is just a function of a living human brain"? Why not make the next step and say the living human brain is just a function of it's environment, for without air, water and food you can't have one. Well, the environment is just a function of the planet. The planet is function of the solar system, and so forth. At some point you have to admit to yourself that it might be that consciousness is a property of the universe for it, the universe, makes brains much like an apple tree makes apples. If so, conciseness might persist as long as the universe does. Sure, it's not the best argument, but it is food for thought. Also, in a way you too are begging the question by qualifying "human brain" with "living". What is "living"? Isn't that another way of saying "conscious"? "Living" can't just mean a functioning brain, as someone's who's asleep (or sleep walking) has one, but is not conscious. If the living brain can turn on and turn off conciseness why can't we say that the living brain is like a radio? When it's on, it receives the radio stations (conciseness), when it's off it does not. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's certainly a possibility and to justify without a doubt that "consciousness is just a function of a living human brain", you need to address the possibility that the brain is like a radio as it is an equally good explanation for why we might think conciseness ends when the brain ends (just like someone who doesn't know about frequencies and radio stations might think turning off the radio turns off the radio stations).

I don't wish or intent to defend God or anyone's views. I've long ago given up on that. Everything I say is food for thought. Maybe someone can benefit from the logic, the connections or the perspective I offer. I can equally take the other side and argue that God is just an extreme version of Santa Claus, expect the naughty kids go to hell. Suppose you're right. Suppose mind or soul can be changed into a different form without consciousness. Doesn't that beg the question? Why not the opposite way? Why not from no access to consciousness to some or full access? We're conscious, aren't we? If we were once unconscious, and now conscious, we somehow "got" consciousness. If you think about this for a bit you might ask another question. What about the very first consciousness? Did it come from nothing? Once you do that you're back to a choice - either it has always been, or it come from nothing. Of course, you might object to this type of reasoning. You can point out that if I apply this type of reasoning to apples instead of consciousness or God I have to conclude that apples have always been or come from nothing - and for apples both conclusions sound ridiculous. Apples go away in the winter and come back in the sprint/summer. Fair argument. I would point that for the apples go away in the winter and appear back in the sprint/summer they require a constant, like the apple tree. If you take that as an analogy and push it to its limit the conclusion is that everything that changes requires a constant on which the change can take place. I'll go one step further. If existence is defined as "that which has a beginning and an end" which is another way of saying "it changes", then there is a constant on which a "beginning" transitions/changes to an "end" - for an apple that's the apple tree. For existence that constant is _______ . It's the nature of that constant that interests me. The constant on which this universe changes also interests me.

Mark Twain said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education"? Newton invented Calculus when he was 23. Learning must be an innate skill, as without it, nothing can be learned. Education therefore is, if good, a means to learn or get the facts faster. If you don't have to rediscover everything for yourself, you get to know a lot more facts and truths than otherwise you would in a life span. But education is not the same as the skill to learn - although it can improve it. The education system in the US and Canada is basically daycare with the sprinkle of few, often useless, facts. I learned the Pythagorean theorem (and later how to prove it), but not about money, the banking system, loans, investing or for that matter how to do my damn taxes. If money represents labor (and therefore life) and we spent most of life laboring away we should teach kids business and money the moment they can walk. Those damn triangles can wait.

What he means by God is probably much different than the God of the Bible. He should have been asked for a definition of God. He does say though that: 1) "The essence always remains preserved" In other words, the soul is immortal. Socrates made the same claim. Also, an eternal essence is a Platonic form - Plato's theory of the forms. 2) "Nothing in this universe is wasted. Nothing seizes to exist." A bold claim given that everything we observe does exactly that - it dies, and therefore is arguably wasted. Even galaxies die. Things die, granted. The problem is that you can't get something from nothing. If you accept this premise, the logical conclusion is that everything is and has always been - which frankly f*cks with the mind even more. Nevertheless this already suggests "God" or "God is all". Or as Spinoza claimed, there is nothing but God. I think even Leibniz claimed that man is a small God, which really follows from "All is God", and then, with that other asexual genius, invented Calculus - arguably because Calculus, specifically the limit function, and more specifically its proof, like God, requires an understanding of infinity. I guess the joke here is, "Thank God for Calculus" Of course, even if all this is true, coming up with a definition of God isn't easy. The problem is that we know of things in relation to other things/parts - much like we know a word in a dictionary by other words. In technical terms, "Things", at least to minds, are "Relationships" - "IS" and/or "IS NOT" like X... which is "likeness" or Plato's first principle, or the Bible's, "In God's image". We know of black because of white and vice versa. We know of background because of foreground. In other words, our empirical knowledge is dual in nature. The question then is, "What's the background, the black, the context, to God?" There isn't one, if there nothing but God. How can one understanding something in itself, by itself, without any reference, context or relationship to anything else? If one can make that jump, solve that problem, she or he is a step closer to discovering God - or perhaps closer to being admitted to a mental hospital. Another major obstacle is time, or rather the meaning and understanding of "eternal". Eternal, if anything, means the opposite of time - no time. In particular you have to show that this universe has no time, otherwise it's not eternal and therefore will seize to exist. This is not that difficult if you can transition your thinking from "parts" to "whole" and realize that time is motion and more generally change, and therefore a relationship between "parts". The "whole" has no time, as there is no reference point, no other "part" to use to measure it by. In more basic terms, time is the universe measuring change in itself, much like a "meter" is distance measuring distance. This is why, for instance, Alan Watts once claims that the universe will expand when we look through our telescopes, and become smaller when we use our microscopes. Why? Because, quoting Watts again, "You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself." Or as he often put it, "You are it" - which is Spinoza echoed. Believable? I don't know.

Maybe it's just me, but that piano melody is depressing. Even the very first note produces melancholy in me. Suggestion: Consider changing the main video to something more positive. Really, politics, truth and reason aren't that depressing.

I've seen talks by Richard Spencer, and I doubt his view of white nationalism is that of white supremacy - as some in the media want to suggest. Even if he is a white supremacist he is, in my opinion, smart enough to cover his tracks if he wanted to, and so an interview isn't going to expose him. Of course, an interview is a good idea, not as means to expose him as something I believe he's not, but for the intellectual value. +1 for an interview

It's horrible that innocent students were injured (some critically), and it's equally horrible a young Somali-born student is dead. These type of attacks have lose-lose outcomes. That said, the US needs to stop immigration from unstable countries, at least temporarily, and permanently stop interfering and getting involved in their business and politics, including by proxy - even if the intention or goal is to help. A lot of these unstable countries are religiously and politically divided. When the US tries to help one side, it inevitably makes an enemy of the opposite side. Half of those people love us and the other half hate us. And we open our doors to both - which is not the best idea.

I read your first post and that's what I responded to. I did not see a link to an article.

Greetings!

I've not been called crazy. However I've been call an a***hole, not because I did something wrong, but because I did not behave according to the woman's expectations. The last woman I dated, for example, was furious at me because I didn't tell her, "I love you" on the third date - and only casual conversation occurred on the first two dates. She was surprised when I didn't ask her out on another date. Sidebar: This behavior from women is one reason, and there are plenty of others, why Stefan is only half right when he claims women have the eggs, and they decide who's genes continue. A man has an equivalent, and arguably even a greater power over whether a woman's genes continue. The power of "No" is not exclusive to women yet Stefan continues to present a one-sided view. It will take male-birth control in the form of a pill to really see that women only have half the power Stefan claims they do. My advice to you, if you don't care about the woman's opinion, is to say "Thanks. Have a good day" and go about your day. If you do care about the woman, engage her in conversation, by saying some thing like, "Okay, say I'm crazy.... help me improve, help me understand what's crazy about me". And then listen, and only ask questions that further the exploration of the topic. Take nothing personally. Take some time to think about what she said, and make a decision whether you think she right, or she's wrong. If she's right you need to thank her for her time and honesty and make the changes you need to. If she's wrong, tell her why, as nicely as you can, and just move on.

Those definitions of morality and ethics come across, to me at least, as forced - someone pushing or forcing something on someone. It seems wrong to associate external force with morality or ethics. Morality is to a person as a light house is to a ship at night. It can help you to take certain paths and avoid others. Although there are many aspects to morality, I often think about it in terms of a set of true beliefs about the nature of reality. There has been times I thought about morality as the cause of the inclination to do good. To throw a wrench here, it was Alan Watts who once said the source of morality is selfishness. I think even Stefan said, in one of his videos, that morality comes from self preservation or biology. Kant equated morality with a good will. Interestingly, Noam Chomsky said that to be a moral agent, a person must, at the bare minimum, act according to the golden rule. I realized, and so did Noam Chomsky, the golden rule fails miserably when a person applying it is corrupt or has a compromised judgement to begin with. If, for example, I have a death wish and wished others to kill me, I can easily justify to myself killing other people. I satisfy the condition of the golden rule. Hence why Noam Chomsky considered it the bare minimum. As for the difference between ethics and morality, ethics is the philosophical study or examination of morality, and morality is a set of true beliefs about the nature of reality. One is a study, the other a set of beliefs.

I've heard that the major backbone routers and switches in USA & Canada send a copy of every packet that goes through them to the NSA. The NSA also intercepted routers and switches from Cisco to Cisco's customers to install backdoors. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-upgrade-factory-show-cisco-router-getting-implant/ http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/internet-privacy/snowden--the-nsa-planted-backdoors-in-cisco-products.html Cisco routers and switches basically run the internet. Another word for Cisco is "Ethernet" as one Cisco employee said.