Invisible Man
Member

That still doesn't explain everything. If it's a year over year percentage change, then all the nations should start at the same place. All the black dots should be lined up at 100% (or 0%). And the blue dots should diverge from there.

Great questions. At first it looked incredible. Then you start asking, wait, what even is this? Why is the USA's GDP less than Nigeria's?

Exactly.

What do you mean "compensation"? You mean dollars? The stuff that was produced that they buy with those dollars is the true compensation. The changing values of dollars per item isn't what matters. They now work fewer hours to get more stuff. That isn't less compensation, it's more.

Look what happened to Hong Kong throughout the 20th century. They became incredibly wealthy on this tiny strip of land with no natural resources all because of free markets and relatively unfettered trade.

So get your share of it. That will be a function of what you do to contribute to that productivity. People in America today are getting more stuff in exchange for fewer hours worked than in the past. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvuHREm5jg

Higher productivity is the opposite of impoverishment.

Only on the issue of free trade. That seems to be the one thing they all agree on, and something you think 100% of them are wrong about.

So we're getting higher productivity at lower cost, and you think that's a bad thing.

Donating money to campaigns of politicians in exchange for passing laws to spend stolen money on their products.

Anybody remember the show Jericho? Man, they were way off.

I can't think of anything that isn't a violation of natural law that should be punished. But as I see it, your words, "by the government," are superfluous. If something should be punished, then the government isn't specially tasked as the only entity that can legitimately dole out that punishment. The government can only justly punish anyone if that is delegated to it by private people who already have that right themselves. What I am concerned with here are violations of natural law that the government not only fails to punish, but actually performs itself. Those government agents who participate in these violations of natural law deserve to be punished, and along with them so do private citizens who engaged in various forms of legalized bribery to get the government to perform these violations of natural law on their behalf. Naturally, if any punishment is ever to be doled out for this kind of crime, it won't be the government who doles out the punishment, but someone else.

I see your point of view. And I agree that the best way to neuter the ability of private corporations to manipulate the government to do unethical things in their favor is by weakening the government to the point where it can't. But I don't think that lets them off the hook. If they lobby the government to use force to do for them what would be unethical for them to do on their own if they could, then it's still unethical. This is one of the big problems with democracy. It spreads around responsibility so diffusely that nobody ends up being accountable for anything.

Who knows any details about this allegedly 3D printed gun? What actually was this? The innards of a regular gun with some 3D printed plastic parts attached to it? Did he machine the metal parts? This is the kind of thing that media will report all kinds of wrong things about because they don't have a clue what they're talking about. Edit: Here's the most I've been able to find so far: They mention the metal parts and then just go on like that's not a significant detail. They go on:

It sounds like you think that 100% of economists from every school of thought don't understand economics.

Yeah, but that deaf, dumb, blind kid sure plays a mean pinball.

Would you make the same defense of the role private companies play in the MIC?

Have you seen some posts here saying that staying out of other countries' wars is not the liberty position?

Because they're content with the land they have already conquered and would be able to make use of the ceasefire to strengthen their position there and to acclimate the inhabitants of these areas to their new status as Russians.

I'm all for holy traditions, as long as they go all the way back to the apostles. If something is a later accretion to the faith, it may well be a valuable and worthwhile thing for Christians and churches to practice, and I may well be won over to it, but it can never be an essential to the faith. And if a church treats any of these later accretions as essentials, saying, "If anyone does not join us in affirming and doing such-and-such and in condemning those who differ from us on this, let him be anathema." then while that tradition itself may have been of value, this extra step of calling it an essential, so as to disqualify the apostles themselves from what is declared to be the sole true catholic and orthodox Church cannot possibly be right. And this alone is proof that the Church that does it cannot be the sole true catholic and orthodox Church.

So the guy in this picture went to a McDonald's in central Pennsylvania, and a worker there thought that he looked enough like the person of interest in the other photos to call the police?

I am pointing to the same sources the OP used. Those sources never supported the conclusion the OP relied on them for.

Here is a good article on Zohar from a standard reference work that I would trust to give more authoritative information than Rosanne Barr could on this subject. https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8818-joseph-de-avila

Did you not see how I explicitly addressed that precise point in the words that you quoted?

I think it's possible. The first impression created by those pictures, especially if they're not put side-by-side is that they are thought to be the same person. But this impression is created by the similar clothing. Apart from that, there's little to go on. And once you look at them side by side with any attention to detail, it becomes clear that the clothing is different. That said, I'm not sure if it is even alleged that they are the same person. It's possible that he's a person of interest even if it's known that he's not the same guy. And it's also possible that the similarity of the clothing is just a coincidence and that the cops recognize that the clothes are different and believe that the guy changed clothes. Who knows what they do and don't know and aren't talking about publicly.

When you say "the shooter" are you talking about the guy in the coat with the pockets? The masked one is the shooter. We can't see much of his face.

The coat and hood are definitely different. That is 100% certain. It's less clear to me that the face is different. But it looks different to me.

Oh really? See post #13.

I have no prejudice against red state Americans. I am one myself. Edit: Notice how your first paragraph in this post expresses the exact thing that I attributed to people which you called prejudice and generalizations against them. Somehow, when you say the same thing, its not prejudice and generalizations against them. And somehow when I say the very thing that you do about them, for me it means that I have no feel for the pulse of the nation.