Quoi_Tu

I once stole a pack of gum from the grocery store when I was 3 years old because my mom wouldn't let me have it. My mom, of course, found out and made me return it and apologize to the manager. Haven't stolen anything since.

^For some reason that reminded me of the land rights and land use issues in Brazil. In Brazil, the government has the right to expropriate land that is not in use, so this has led farmers (who own most of the land) to sometimes cut down trees to prove they are using their land. Unfortunately, they don't always plant trees in place of the ones they cut down and the rain forest makes up some of the trees they cut down. It's a horrible mess with many other issues related, including over 4 million landless peasants and the ability to legally squat almost anywhere.

Nipples are regenerative? Thank god, now I don't have to send that card apologizing for... well, yeah.

When I was a kid and got home from school, I dropped my stuff at the house then ran around outside (playing with other kids, climbing trees, just generally moving around) until dinner time. Now I see a lot of kids come home, drop their stuff at the house, then sit inside and play video games or watch TV. When did people start fearing the outdoors? That was kind of unrelated, but I do agree that the amount of busy work (useless/minimally productive homework) seems to be increasing with the idea that it is "preparing" kids for the future.

It worked when I did it...

I'm sure I've said it many times on this thread, but I'm slightly bored, so: Allegory.

To add to what dusqi said, the rich can make money easier than the poor. This would lead one to think they could make money at a greater rate than the poor assuming the poor have to spend most of their money (which they do) to stay within reasonable living conditions. This leaves the poor with very little money afterwards to invest or put towards education. The rich on the other hand can easily pay for comfortable living, leaving them with plenty left over to invest or pay for ivy league education. Pretty common sense stuff really.

Pretty much the same here. Our Christmas' are always focused around food and as many people fit in our house. :P

Time to go threaten to kill people and blow up a church on their official forums. Maybe I'll buy a few guns first...

How is it taught now? I quite like learning about religion and I'm a completely atheistic, nonreligious heathen. Edits in (bold). What!?

Yeah, it is, that was a typo on my part. I'm not sure scais is even a french word. So, yeah it's "Que sais je?"

How do you kill a moose without a gun? Hunting is good, hunting people is bad (but makes for a great movie). You lure it out of it's igloo and run it over with your skidoo, duh. Tourist. ... Awesome! What do I lure it out with?

Essentially, what he said. Although I don't remember much, so when someone asks me to say something in french, I always respond with Montaigne's, "Que sais je?" ("What do I know?")

How do you kill a moose without a gun? Hunting is good, hunting people is bad (but makes for a great movie).

Homework is just a way to force kids to study. Most won't study on their own, so homework as an incentive (or punishment, however you want to look at it).

But what I'm saying is that the money supply can be changed in large amounts. It could be doubled in a day. I think you're saying something else, but money can be changed in a great amount. So, what do you mean? Edit: I think I know what you're saying. Something involving the terms real and nominal, perhaps? ;)

I would think that immigrants would be seeking to escape the undesirable governments of the Middle East. It's not likely the immigrants are going to overthrow the government and create a new European Middle Eastern regime. From your post before, what's wrong with Palestine? I'll go ahead and say I don't approve of the creation of Israel, but that's history so now I advocate peace between Israel and the Middle East.

You can make more capital and you can decrease it or, more specifically, the Fed can. They do this by increasing or decreasing the % of required reserves banks hold, which affects the amount banks can lend out or invest. When the Fed decreases the money supply ("destroys money"), they decrease the rate of inflation and in some cases can cause a recession (Fed chair, Volcker, in 1981 or 82). Note though, that inflation commonly exists at a greater rate than the rae of growth of the money supply (think 2.5% growth in money supply and 4% inflation). So, there are other factors that affect the value of money. Hopefully, this explains some things.

Or, just ask her to go to Australia with you. Heh. Anyways. You're a baby, and you're stepping. EDIT: Crap, didn't know Ginger brought up babysteps. Well, he's in more detail. I just wanted to make a jokesy-poo. I did that once. She thought I was kidding 'til I showed her the plane tickets. However, when we were on the plane, snakes started coming from the back and we had to be saved by Samuel L. Jackson. Australia was boring after that... :(

Oh and how can you increase the amount of capital in a market? the economy just doesn't work that way. Capital has to come from somewhere, if what you say is true then everybody could get rich, which doesn't even make any sense. This is what I like about TIF, the people here are actually fairly well informed and at least have a decent grasp of these types of things. What are you talking about? Capital is the value or wealth of something or someone (not to mention there are all sorts of types). If you're talking about money, the fed increases the money supply all the time. The fed can inject money straight into the market as well; basic macroeconomics. In fact, there is a small following of people called Monetarists who believe in a constant rate of growth of the money supply. If you're talking about my example, you should note who exactly I'm talking about. Rich and poor people. Who's missing? Hint: Middle class. Please be more specific when you address issues because right now, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Edit, didn't notice this statement, so I'll comment: The only time money has run short was in the bank runs of the Great Depression. The result of that? Banks closed and people lost their money. What do we have to prevent that from happening again? FDIC snow, I and any others who are just as or more informed than me will gladly explain basic economic concepts to you, but don't make stuff up or you will look foolish. Mindless hate of the rich goes nowhere; at least develop some intelligent points behind your hate.

Hypothetically speaking, you can wait in an alley and stab an infinite amount of people without ever having to load it or worry about attracting attention like what gunshots do. They each got their pros and cons. My point is if you think guns are the source of our problems then just take a look at what things were like even without guns. Murder might be a little worse, but the invention of guns wasn't the only thing that changed since then - we now have drugs, violent media, the gangster culture, banks, etc. So just basing the trend on guns alone doesn't sound right to me. Therein lies my confusion, I never said guns are the source of our problems. Guns are tools used to make killing easier. C'est tout.

Your grasp of economics must be pretty weak to think thats possible. If the rich get more money that means that SOMEBODY has to have less money. Sure the federal reserve can print more money, but for every dollar you print the value decreases in proportion to the amount printed. But your not tottaly wrong, and that mainly due to how you worded your statement. If you define the poor as people who make a certain income or less, then no, they cannot get "poorer" but the number of poor people can decrease. You're saying the example I used is impossible? What's impossible about it? Impress me with your superior economics knowledge. The fed can increase the money supply without printing money; in fact, there is more money there than is printed money. For those thinking opprotunity trumps skill, then shouldn't anyone be able to be the president? Shouldn't anyone by able to go to MIT economics graduate school? Shouldn't anyone be able to become head of a multibillion dollar company?

I can walk into a mall full of people and kill as many people as there are bullets in my gun. If I had a knife, I would not be able to kill the same amount of people in the same time. A weapon is a weapon, but a gun is not a knife. This is why I'm confused.

banning religion? thats probably the best idea ive ever heard. =D> Even though the United States was based on the very idea of having freedom of religion, yeah, great idea bro. It was built on SEPERATION of religion and state. I think Pope Urban II showed how great it is to rule with God instead of mind, though. Can you say 100,000 troops mobilised to Jerusalem? You don't understand. Freedom of religion is like freedom of speech not church and state combined.

See my response to Venomai above. What are you talking about? Seriously, you're not making any sense.