So that's it for the election.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Doesn't the world trade oil in dollars?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...eat-to-america

The last time anyone threatened to start trading oil in currency other than US dollars was when *cough*saddamhussien*cough* was going to do it. hmmmm....

That was when the Euro really posed a threat to the dollar. Chinese currency based in gold on the other hand...

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, instead we're just in the dark ages, when the Chinese were first learning the disaster of paper currency.



Except the dollar is not like any other good. It fails 4 of the 5 criteria I listed as necessary for a currency. The core of it is that people must value whatever is being used as currency. The dollar has lasted longer than any paper currency before because people still trusted that it would maintain a relatively stable value. That trust is being rapidly eroded. Inflation is on the tongues of nearly every businessman these days. We've only been spared the worst thus far because the Europeans are doing a worse job of managing their paper currency than we are. We are able to export a lot of our inflation abroad, but this will not continue for very long.

People do value the dollar? You seem confused

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People do value the dollar? You seem confused

Yes, people do value the dollar. Things change. This is one thing we should hope doesn't change, as the global dollar standard for the past 40 years has been a huge benefit for people in the US. But if we keep on printing dollars like the Monopoly man on cocaine, we're in for a serious crash. First people outside of the US will dump the dollar, then massive inflation in the US will cause people here to dump it. Look at the history of pretty much any fiat currency to see the rest.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We arent in the stone age anymore. The value of the dollar is just like any other good. Supply and Demand. If we went to a gold currency the supply would be minimal thereby increasing the value of 1 dollar. This would just change how many dollars you would get paid at work. Its all about what you can get with what you have. Gold would mean you could fill your tank with (bullshittin) 5$. However, this matter little if you are making .50C an hour.

Supply and demand is at work with the US dollar. That's why there's inflation. It's value is being kept artificially "high" by the Federal Reserve. Fact is, they keep pumping more and more money into the system and pretty soon they won't be able to hold inflation down.

http://demonocracy.info/infographics...2012-2013.html

Unless the government stops borrowing printed money with artificially low interest, our dollar is going to do what the paper mark did in the Weimar Republic.

[Autumnbow]

I'm glad Obama is going to win, if only because 4 more years of his healthcare plan being in action will (hopefully) make it so ingrained in the country as to make it nearly impossible to kill.

It really is time for the younger people in this country to step up and force a third party to be taken seriously, though.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The last time anyone threatened to start trading oil in currency other than US dollars was when *cough*saddamhussien*cough* was going to do it. hmmmm....

That was when the Euro really posed a threat to the dollar. Chinese currency based in gold on the other hand...

Actually, the last time anyone threatened to get off the dollar standard for oil was the Iranians. Any wonder why we're constantly calling them part of the axis of evil? And before them, was Gaddhafi. Look where he is now. The government understands well what would happen if any major oil producer stopped taking dollars for the oil. But our military power is not infinite, and we won't be able to prop up this house of cards for long.

[Diggles]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you are underestimating the power of really really stupid people.

>implying people actually have an effect on elections and the entire thing isn't decided by the electoral college

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, he didn't get better, and education doesn't "destroy" religiosity. Plenty of people as educated or more educated than Shermer are still religious.

He was an unbearable zealot that tried to force his religion down other peoples' throats, then he grew disillusioned and became an unbearable zealot that tried to force his anti-religion down other peoples' throats. The common theme is that he's an unbearable zealot. He's not some enlightened genius leading the unwashed masses to rationality. He was once just as fervent for religion as he is now fervent against religion.

Also, lulz at a degree in Psychology. A master's degree in experimental psych takes one year to complete. He completed a shitty master's program at a shitty state school.

Ad hominum. Attack his arguments, not him personally, and I might take you more seriously. My suggestion to educate yourself was an invitation to examine the other side of the argument, and make an informed decision. Don't like Shermer? How's Sagann? The point is if you get all of your Science from the Discovery Institute you're willfully remaining ignorant.

Regards,
Mg

[Diggles]

ad hominem

that's cool, i learned about that in my communications class too

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ad hominum. Attack his arguments, not him personally, and I might take you more seriously. My suggestion to educate yourself was an invitation to examine the other side of the argument, and make an informed decision. Don't like Shermer? How's Sagann? The point is if you get all of your Science from the Discovery Institute you're willfully remaining ignorant.

Regards,
Mg

Haha -- okay, chief. You referred to people with religious beliefs as batshit crazy with their heads shoved up their asses. Let's not get too sensitive about personal attacks (or pretend you're open-minded).

I'm plenty familiar with "the other side of the argument", as if there is anything to argue. There is a discussion going on in this thread that deals with whether or not a belief in god is rational -- not whether or not that belief is true or provable. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god if you do not, and certainly no conclusive evidence to prove any such existence. By referencing Sagan, you are arguing a point that is not being contested. Sagan was an agnostic -- not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, but that's not the discussion in this thread. He routinely explained that no man could possibly be certain whether or not a god exists. His contribution to the subject was to point out that an inability to disprove a god did not mean that the god in question exists. We all agree about that.

Again: the issue at play is the rationality of belief, not whether a god actually exists. There is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility of a god, or creator. It is a perfectly rational -- although untestable and perhaps unlikely -- hypothesis. If you are hostile to the notion, it is you that is being unscientific. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance to take. There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic theist.