This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly - Part 3

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly - Part 3

“You see in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.” -  Blondie – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

“There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend. Those who
have a rope around their neck and those who have the job of doing the
cutting.” –
Tuco – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The economic peril that we find ourselves confronted with, has been
ninety-eight years in the making. The confluence of debt, demographics,
delusion, and denial has left the country at the precipice of
annihilation. There are two kinds of people in the world, those who
control the money and those that are controlled by those who control the
money. The last century has been marked by a methodical looting of the
good (working middle class) by the bad (Federal Reserve & bankers)
and supported by the ugly (Washington D.C. politicians). When historians
pinpoint the year in which the Great American Empire began its downward
spiral they will conclude that year to be 1913. In this dark year for
the Republic, slimy politicians, at the behest of the biggest bankers in
the country, created a private central bank that has since controlled
the currency of the United States. This same Congress staked their claim
as the most damaging group of politicians in US history by passing the
personal income tax in the same year. These two acts unleashed the two
headed monster of inflation and taxation on the American people.

The government began keeping official track of inflation in 1913, the
year the Federal Reserve was created. The CPI on January 1, 1914 was
10.0. The CPI on January 1, 2011 was 220.2. This means that a man’s suit
that cost $10 in 1913 would cost $220 today, a 2,172% increase in
ninety-eight years. This is a 95.6% loss in purchasing power of the
dollar.  The average American does not understand the insidious nature
of central bank created inflation. It makes you think you are wealthier
while you are driven into abject poverty. The Federal Reserve and
politicians have pulled the wool over your eyes. The CPI was 30.9 in
1964. Today, it is 223.5. This means prices have risen 723% since 1964.
The only problem is your wages have not risen at the same rate, even
using the government manipulated CPI. Using a true CPI figure, average
weekly earnings are 64% below what they were in 1964. This explains why a
family of five could live well with one parent working in 1964, but
even with both parents working and accumulating debt in prodigious
amounts, the average family cannot live as well today.


It is not a coincidence that the percentage of the working age
population employed bottomed in 1964 at 59%. The participation rate rose
steadily for the next thirty six years, topping out in 2000 at 67.1%.
The employment to population ratio also bottomed at 55% in 1964. It rose
to 64.4% by 2000. It seems that future historians will mark the year
2000 as the peak of the American Empire. Apologists for the Federal
Reserve and politicians who have steered this country since 1964 would
argue the increase in the percentage of the population working was a
positive development. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The American middle class was forced to send both parents into the
workforce just to keep up with the ever declining real weekly earnings.
The Federal Reserve created inflation has methodically destroyed the
American dream for the middle class. As both parents had to go into the
workforce, American children were left to fend for themselves or be
raised by strangers in daycare centers. The pressure of trying to keep
up with inflation strained families to the breaking point. The number of
divorces per thousand marriages was 10 in the early 1960s. It more than
doubled to 22.6 by 1980 and still resides at 17 today. There are many
factors for the disintegration of the traditional family unit, but the
financial strain on families to maintain a consistent standard of living
due to relentless inflation has been a key factor.


From the founding of our country there had been constant conflict
between corrupt bankers trying to control the currency of the nation to
further their own enrichment at the expense of the people and a few
courageous leaders willing to fight them. The bankers won the century
old battle in 1913. 

Den of Vipers & Thieves

“I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of
the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am
convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the
breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits
amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank…You are a den
of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out and, by the
Eternal, I will rout you out.” -
Andrew Jackson


The First Bank of the United States was created in 1791. Alexander
Hamilton, the 1st Secretary of the Treasury, proposed this bank and
convinced a hesitant President Washington to agree. John Adams and
Thomas Jefferson were against the concept. It favored the moneyed
classes of the North versus the agrarian South. The bank was given a 20
year charter and President James Madison let it expire in 1811. He
understood the true nature of the banking interests:

“History records that the money changers have used every form of
abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their
control over governments by controlling money and its issuance”.

Madison had to renew the charter in 1816 as the War of 1812 resulted
in large government debts. Politicians always turn to bankers when
funding wars and programs to get them re-elected. As usual, once
unshackled, the bankers immediately caused a boom through their loose
monetary policies. The Bank created a fake boom by 1818 through its
reckless lending, which encouraged speculation in land. This lending
allowed almost anyone to borrow money and speculate in land, sometimes
doubling or even tripling the prices of land (remind you of another time
in recent history?). In the summer of 1818, the national bank managers
realized the bank’s massive over-extension, and instituted a policy of
contraction and the calling in of loans. This recalling of loans
simultaneously curtailed land sales and slowed the U.S. production boom
due to the recovery of Europe. The result was the Panic of 1819. There
was a wave of bankruptcies, bank failures, and bank runs; prices dropped
and wide-scale urban unemployment struck the country. By 1819 many
Americans did not have enough money to pay off their property loans. Do
you see any difference between 1816 – 1819 and 2005 – 2011? Central
banks don’t eliminate financial panics, they cause them. Booms and busts
have always existed. They have become more common and extreme since the
unleashing of greedy corrupt central bankers in the U.S., going back
two centuries.

Andrew “Old Hickory” Jackson became President in 1829 and proceeded
to declare war on the Second National Bank. He was the first and only
President in U.S. history to pay off the National Debt. He worked
tirelessly to rescind the charter of the Second Bank of the United
States. His reasons for abolishing the bank were:

  • It concentrated the nation’s financial strength in a single institution.
  • It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
  • It served mainly to make the rich richer.
  • It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
  • It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

President Jackson believed that only Congress should be responsible
for the issuance and control of the currency. Delegating that duty to
powerful New York bankers was distasteful to him:

“If Congress has the right to issue paper money, it was given to
them to be used … and not to be delegated to individuals or

President Jackson vetoed the extension of their bank charter in 1832.
He redirected government tax revenue to other state banks.  The Second
Bank of the United States was left with little money and, in 1836, its
charter expired and it turned into an ordinary bank. Five years later,
the former Second Bank of the United States went bankrupt. Those who
believe that a central bank is essential to economic progress need to
examine the “free banking” period from 1837 to 1861. In the last five
years of the Second Bank’s existence prices rose by 28%. Over the next
25 years, prices in the U.S. fell by 11%. We experienced the dreaded
deflation. Did deflation destroy America? Not quite. GDP grew from $1.5
billion in 1836 to $4.6 billion in 1861. Deflation is only fatal to
debtors. Inflation is the friend of lenders and the moneyed classes.

The American Civil War brought about the National Banking Act of
1863, which created a network of national banks. Politicians always need
bankers to fight their wars and Abraham Lincoln was no different. By
1870 there were 1,638 national banks. This did not eliminate the booms
and busts that punctuate human history, but the booms and busts were not
scientifically created by a small cabal of bankers. With thousands of
banks, those who made bad lending decisions failed. The economy
withstood the periodic panics and continued to grow. The GDP of the U.S.
grew from $7.6 billion in 1863 to $39 billion by 1913, with virtually
no inflation. The Federal government ran surpluses or very small
deficits during this entire time period. These facts refute the argument
that a strong central bank was necessary to keep our economic system
operating smoothly. It seems the Big Lie was not invented by the Nazis.


Creature from Jekyll Island – Control the Money, Control the Country

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A
great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our
system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore,
and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. No longer a
government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and
vote of majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small
group of dominant men.”
President Woodrow Wilson

Any impartial assessment of inflation throughout the history of the
United States confirms that from the beginning of our nation through the
War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Civil War, the Spanish
American War and the Industrial Revolution, the country experienced
virtually no inflation as bankers were kept from controlling the U.S.
currency and our legal tender was backed by gold. The creation of the
Federal Reserve in 1913 and the closing of the gold window by Richard
Nixon in 1971 unleashed a tsunami of inflation that continues to
inundate our country today, killing the once prosperous middle class.


The Rothschilds of London understood that a fiat currency system
would benefit the few (bankers & politicians) who understood it and
the masses would be too ignorant to understand they were being screwed:

“Those few who can understand the system (check book money and
credit) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on
it favors, that there will be little opposition from that class, while
on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of
comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the
system, will bear it burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even
suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

The House of Rothschild had been the dominant banking family in
Europe for two centuries. They were known for making fortunes during
Panics and War. Some claimed they would cause Panics in order to take
advantage of those who panicked. American bankers learned the lesson
well. The Panic of 1907 was the used as the reason for creating the
Federal Reserve. A small cabal of powerful U.S. banking interests
understood that if they could control the currency of the U.S., they
could control the country, its politicians, and its people.

In 1906, Frank Vanderlip, Vice President of the Rockefeller owned
National City Bank, convinced many of New York’s banking establishment
they needed a banker-controlled central bank that could serve the
nation’s financial system. Up to that time, the House of Morgan had
filled that role. JP Morgan had initiated previous panics in order to
initiate stronger control over the banking system. Morgan initiated the
Panic of 1907 by circulating rumors the Knickerbocker Bank and Trust Co.
of America was going broke. There was a run on the banks creating a
financial crisis which began to solidify support for a central banking
system. During this panic Paul Warburg, a Rothschild associate, wrote an
essay called “A Plan for a Modified Central Bank” which called for a Central Bank in which 50% would be owned by the government and 50% by the nation’s banks.

In November 1910 a secret conference took place on Jekyll Island off
the coast of Georgia. Those in attendance were: JP Morgan, Paul Warburg,
John D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Colonel
House, Frank Vanderlip, Benjamin Strong, Charles Norton, Jacob Schiff,
and Henry Davison. From this meeting of the most powerful bankers and
politicians in the country came the plan for a Central Bank. This
conference was unknown until 1933. In 1935, Frank Vanderlip wrote in the
Saturday Evening Post: “I do not feel it is any exaggeration
to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of
the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve

Behind the scenes these powerful men were formulating the plan for a
Federal Reserve System. There was no outcry from the public to implement
this plan. The public knew nothing of this. The Aldrich Plan was
renamed the Federal Reserve Act and pushed forward by Paul Warburg and
Colonel House. Warburg essentially wrote the Act and pressured
Congressmen to see his way or lose the next election. Colonel House, who
had socialist leanings, was the top advisor to President Wilson.

The Glass Bill (the House version of the final Federal Reserve Act)
had passed the House on September 18, 1913 by 287 to 85. On December 19,
1913, the Senate passed their version by a vote of 54-34. More than
forty important differences in the House and Senate versions remained to
be settled, and the opponents of the bill in both houses of Congress
were led to believe that many weeks would elapse before the Conference
bill would be taken up. The Congressmen prepared to leave Washington for
the annual Christmas recess, assured that the Conference bill would not
be brought up until the following year. The creators of the bill then
pulled the ultimate swindle on the American public. In a single day,
they ironed out all forty of the disputed passages in the bill and
quickly brought it to a vote. On Monday, December 22, 1913, the bill was
passed by the House 282-60 and the Senate 43-23. This meant that the
single most important piece of legislation ever passed by the Senate was
missing the votes of 26 Senators because it was passed during the
Christmas recess. President Wilson, at the urging of Bernard Baruch,
signed the bill on December 23, 1913.

File:Fed Reserve.JPG

The Road to Hell is Paved by Central Bankers

“Banking was conceived in iniquity, and was born in sin. The
Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power
to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen, they will create
enough deposits, to buy it back again. However, take it away from them,
and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to
disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But
if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your
own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.” – Sir Josiah Stamp (President of the Bank of England in the 1920′s, the second richest man in Britain)


The results speak for themselves. The Federal Reserve has been in
existence for ninety eight years and over that time the U.S. Dollar has
lost 95.6% of its purchasing power. In other terms, the bankers who have
controlled our currency since 1913 have generated 2,172% of inflation
in just under a century. In the prior one hundred years, when the
country was growing by leaps and bounds, there was virtually no
inflation. I’m not sure the average person fully understands this
concept. To put it in layman’s terms, something that cost $4.40 in 1913
will cost you $100 today. A pair of boys’ school shoes cost 98 cents in
1913. You could purchase three loaves of bread for 10 cents. You could
purchase six rolls of toilet paper for 26 cents. The truly frightening
impact on the American middle class has happened since Richard Nixon
closed the gold window in 1971 and allowed the Federal Reserve to print
money unfettered by consequences and slimy politicians to make
irresponsible unfulfilled promises as bribes for votes. This chart
should worry even the most ignorant of the masses.

Items 1971 2010/11 % Increase
Average Cost of new house $28,000 $273,000 975%
Median HH Income $10,300 $47,000 456%
Average Monthly Rent $150 $750 500%
Cost of a gallon of Gas $0.40 $3.80 950%
Average New Car Price $3,430 $29,200 851%
United States postage Stamp $0.08 $0.44 550%
Movie Ticket $1.50 $7.89 526%


Even with the proliferation of two worker households since 1971,
household income has not come close to keeping up with the costs of
daily living. The average American’s standard of living has declined
dramatically over the last forty years and they don’t even know it.
Americans have become the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of their
own slavery through inflation and debt. It is not a coincidence that
consumer debt, which was virtually non-existent prior to the 1960s,
began to take off in the 1970s and went nearly parabolic from the early
1990s until the 2008 financial collapse. As the Federal Reserve and
political class created inflation, which reduced your standard of
living, the bankers who own the Federal Reserve and control the
politicians used their slick marketing machine to convince you that
acquiring goods using vast quantities of debt was just as good as buying
things with cash you saved.

Who benefits from inflation and the issuance of trillions in debt to
average Americans? Based upon the decades of gargantuan Wall Street
profits, mammoth bonuses paid to bank executives, and fact that
Washington politicians absconded with trillions from American taxpayers
to save their Wall Street masters, it appears that bankers and
politicians are the beneficiaries. A gutted, indebted, jobless,
demoralized middle class were the recipients of the downside of
inflation and debt. Without a Central Bank issuing a fiat currency, with
no constraints, none of this could have happened.

The Federal Reserve is primarily responsible for the destruction of
the American middle class. In 1915, according the Federal Reserve annual
report, they operated with 35 total employees. Today, they operate with
over 20,000 employees and the cost to operate the system exceeds $3.3
billion. The Federal Reserve has failed on every one of its stated

  • It was created to stabilize the banking system and keep bank panics
    from occurring. Within sixteen years of its creation it caused the near
    collapse of the banking system and the Great Depression. The stagflation
    of the 1970s was caused by Fed policies. The Savings & Loan crisis
    was created by their policies. The internet bubble, housing bubble and
    eventual financial collapse were caused by Federal Reserve blunders.
    There have been 18 recessions since the creation of the Federal Reserve.
  • The stable prices mandate has been a wretched failure, as the Fed
    has manufactured 2,171% of inflation and destroyed 96% of the currency’s
    purchasing power. This manufactured inflation has enabled the creation
    of our welfare/warfare state.  
  • The Federal Reserve mandate of moderate long-term interest rates has
    clearly not been met. The Fed Funds Rate has plotted a path of extremes
    over the decades, ranging from 0% to 19%, not exactly stable. The
    Federal Reserve has consistently set rates too low, leading to credit
    bubbles, which always pop and end in recession or depression.
  • The mandate of maximum employment has also been a miserable failure.
    The easy credit policy of the Federal Reserve during the 1920s led to
    the Great Depression with unemployment rates exceeding 20%. Unemployment
    has averaged between 5% and 15% consistently since the formation of the
    Federal Reserve. The true unemployment rate today exceeds 15%.
  • The Federal Reserve was supposed to supervise and control the
    activities of banks. Instead, under Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke,
    they stepped aside and let banks take preposterous risks while giving an
    unspoken assurance that the Fed would clean up any messes they caused
    with their debt based enrichment schemes. This total dereliction of duty
    and gross regulatory negligence led the greatest financial collapse in

The American working middle class (Good) have been deceived by the
Federal Reserve, the banks that control them (Bad) and the Washington DC
political class (Ugly) into believing that a fiat currency, un-backed
by gold, supported by systematic inflation is beneficial to their
wealth. This has been the Big Lie for the last century and has
positioned the country for an epic collapse. Presidential candidate Ron
Paul has been the lone voice of sanity in Washington DC for the last two
decades and his assessment of the Federal Reserve while questioning Ben
Bernanke in 2009 needs to be understood by every American:

“The Federal Reserve in collaboration with the giant banks has
created the greatest financial crisis the world has ever seen. The
foolish notion that unlimited amounts of money and credit created out of
thin air can provide sustainable economic growth has delivered this
crisis to us. Instead of economic growth and stable prices, (The Fed)
has given us a system of government and finance that now threatens the
world financial and political institutions. Pursuing the same policy of
excessive spending, debt expansion and monetary inflation can only
compound the problems that prevent the required corrections. Doubling
the money supply didn’t work, quadrupling it won’t work either. 
up the bad debt of privileged institutions and dumping worthless assets
on the American people is morally wrong and economically futile

I’ve now completed three parts of the five part series, documenting the downfall of the great American Empire. Part four, Outlaw Josey Wales, will
scrutinize the looting of America by a small group of powerful,
connected, super rich men lurking in the shadows, but pulling the
strings on our puppet politicians. Lastly, Unforgiven  will detail the impending collapse of our economic system and the retribution that will be handed out to the guilty.

The smell of revolution is in the air.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 05/16/2011 - 18:54 | 1280960 SilverDoctors
SilverDoctors's picture

MASSIVE Xenon-133 Radiation Cloud About to Slam Western US/ Canada!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:29 | 1281401 CPL
CPL's picture

It's been doing that for a month now, put idodized salt on your food fool.  Unless your ancestors were coal miners it's a 50/50 chance anyhow.


Seriously...the warnings are just now being understood?  fucksake.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:02 | 1282009 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

alternatively you could always move...

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:19 | 1282040 old naughty
old naughty's picture

Where to, if you don't mind me asking?

Planet Mars?

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:49 | 1282156 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

You could try the East coast, for a start...

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:56 | 1282160 Michael
Michael's picture

I just thought of something;

The complete and total economic collapse of the USA and the world is going to render economic and business degrees from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale completely and totally worthless. Not to mention all other business degrees from Wharton School of Business and all other colleges.

Now I can get a good night's sleep.


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 03:49 | 1282177 Michael
Michael's picture

Another thought just popped into my head;

With people like DSK, their brains only see Goyim, Goyim, Goyim and their initial reaction is to go sexual deviant on them and think they can get away with it.

1.  Goyim 
Non-Jews, in Hebrew and Yiddish. Literally, the "peoples." Sometimes pejorative. See shiksa and shaygetz
They'd rather watch football than study for finals. Well, whaddya expect? They're goyim.

2.  goyim 
1. A Hebrew word used in the Jewish Scriptures (a.k.a. the Old Testament). The word literally means "nations," and is always used within these scriptures to refer to the nations of the world. Significantly, within the Old Testament, Judah (the Jewish nation) itself is called a "goy."
2. In the Old Testament, the Jews were called to be a nation separate from the other nations, which were all Pagan. And so, colloquially, all non-Jewish nations came to be called "goyim" as in "the nations" from which the God of the Old Testament had called upon the Jews to separate themselves.

3. A word used by some Jews to refer to Gentiles (non-Jews). The word can have derogatory connotations, such as the word "black" when used to refer to a persons of African descent. It can be neutral or negative depending on the context and the intent of the speaker.

Singular = goy
1. "Gather together, gather together O shameful goy" - Zephaniah 2:1 (Referring to the Jewish nation)
2. Jews don't eat pork, goyim eat pork.

3.  goyim 
Means cattle. How the jews and the Zion master sees all non jews in particular whites. Said with contemption.
Those goyim will send troops to the middle east and fight a war for us or we'll call them anti semites.
4.  Goyim 
1. Used by racist Jewish supremesists against Christian whites. Used to strike anger within and start up wars (like when an angry white calls a black a "nigger"). When used, it means that you are lower than the scum at the bottom of a well.

2. To Jews, white straight Christians are to be used as slaves, goyim, when the ends times come.

Do what I say, not what I do, you goyim!

5.  goyim 
1. Those who pay happily pay retail for neccesary items such as gold, diamonds and fur coats. They also allow their daughters to marry schmucks who are not rich and uneducated. These people are neccesary members of our society who do not become doctors, lawyers, and accountants and never visit New York City.

2. A non-Jew.
You hear Christina's daughter's fiancee bought her engagement ring from Tiffany's? Oy... the Goyim... what was she thinking?

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 05:10 | 1282226 Pondmaster
Pondmaster's picture


What is all this drivel for . Have not you read the Pauline Epistles - NO DIFFERENCE , THERE IS NO JEW NOR GREEK , BOND NOR FREE , FOR WE ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST .

So get off the idea that somehow God views Jews in this dispensation as special and set apart. The Jew and their religious leadership scoffed at thier Messiah and murdered him . They as a nation were offered a three chances to "repent" in the Book of Acts ( Peter twice , Stephen once . ( hmmm , which of the prophets have you fathers not murdered  ?) Yeah Jews a great superior people . NOT!!!! Salvation has been sent to the Gentiles !!!!!!!!!!     And they will receive it .


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 06:50 | 1282256 New World Chaos
New World Chaos's picture

I think Michael is saying that the Jews see themselves as special and set apart.  That's why they created an elaborate philosophy to justify killing and generally screwing over the goyim.  But their plotting may soon blow up in their face.  America has overdosed on Jewish fiat credit, so the Jews might have to fight the Arabs by themselves for once.  Grab some popcorn. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 07:01 | 1282267 sub Z
sub Z's picture

The radioactive materials remain confined to the northern hemisphere as the equator acts as a dividing line between the northern and southern air masses.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:25 | 1282049 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

my ancestors were not coal miners and i do not fuck sake. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:42 | 1282151 CPL
CPL's picture

Yer problem then isn't it?  Don't mine for king and country and the commonweath will fail.  That what I understood Catholic, Christain and Irish...and that bitch is doing a tour now.  She has more of a chance being shot by gypsies at this point.  Nobody cares about the old squat, she got two generation of bung holes to fuck it up.


To be blunt, can't throw a bomb at someones mum.   After she kicks the bucket though, the rest of them are on tape.  Royality...seriously...why!!??

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:51 | 1282158 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

so that we don't have to have an Obama or a Bush... seriously...

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 11:46 | 1283194 molecool
molecool's picture

Iodine will do nothing to prevent uptake of radioactive Xenon.

Thu, 05/19/2011 - 09:19 | 1290958 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

...or cesium. Or plutonium. Tipping point reached and passed, all with a enourmous YAWN.

"Nuclear power is cleaner than coal," I was told, by a Los Alamos nuke head. Yeah, right. That's like saying Russian roulette is a cleaner bad habit than smoking...

Thu, 05/19/2011 - 09:19 | 1290959 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

...or cesium. Or plutonium. Tipping point reached and passed, all with a enourmous YAWN.

"Nuclear power is cleaner than coal," I was told, by a Los Alamos nuke head. Yeah, right. That's like saying Russian roulette is a cleaner bad habit than smoking...

Tue, 08/16/2011 - 07:23 | 1564617 mediahuset
mediahuset's picture

If you find that more classes need that functionality, then extract it.PFS Realty

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 18:57 | 1280967 FOC 1183
FOC 1183's picture

Hope Alan and Ben are proud of that dollar purchasing power chart. At least it wasn't made by McBride

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:25 | 1281387 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

"The man who rides with an outlaw, dies with an outlaw."Captain Woodrow Call, Lonesome Dove.

Great piece.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:23 | 1282052 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

"the dog sprung me."  Silverado.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:29 | 1281400 illyia
illyia's picture

More internet influence on the public mind...

Alan and Ben may answer Yet.

Thx J.Q.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:02 | 1280971 jm
jm's picture

whatever, bitchez

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:33 | 1281640 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Does that stand for "John Maynard"?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:02 | 1280980 Misean
Misean's picture

A man's gotta know his limitations.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:09 | 1280989 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

everybody has a right to be a sucker once...........

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:14 | 1281015 augie
augie's picture

my mother made me a sucker once...

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:16 | 1281350 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

Johnny Dangerously is a cult classic. Love that movie.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:33 | 1281060 DavidPierre
DavidPierre's picture

"everybody has a right to be a sucker once..........."

............ And yet SmokeyQuinn keeps proving himself the ultimate sucker over and over... rehashing all the Known Knowns of history as if his repeating the same things over and over will make the slightest difference.

“You see in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend. Those with functioning brains, those who understand the Truth about 9-11... And You, SmokeyQuinn, a 9-11MORON, who digs in the manure piles of amerKlan's Hollywood pop culture looking for answers.  There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend. Those who have a rope tied tight around their feeble minds and those who have the never ending job of doing the cutting.”  DP

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:56 | 1281525 CPL
CPL's picture

Doesn't matter how tight the tin foil hat is.  Eventually an infinite amount of monkey's on typewriters will be right.  This time is no different, no change and will zero interest other than the typical regurgitation of idea that any idiot with a library card can find out.


He's looking for validation.  Instead of validation, most should be chasing actions.  Not running off into the sunset, guns blazing.  Fuck that.

Reason I enjoy the Anonymous projects.  They aren't there to do anything but get people to act in their own nature.  Freak them out.  Do it for the Lulz.  While baby anons fuck with assholes of their own age posting nonsense on youtube, the more adult of us do other things mainly because we understand a project isn't done all at once.


It's not the human condition.  Move the environment one inch at a time, fuck with banks web pages, knock down the largest super computer in history (PSNetwork) and have it attack it's closest management ally.  That is alot more fun.  Then there is the aspect of helping people that are really fucked, like talking an egyptian techie on setting up a cell phone tower to get around telco nonsense or finding someone that is missing from nothing but EXIF data in a photo from an asshole that decided they are going to eat them.  That's how it works.  An inch at a time.  The revolution isn't about how it all burns down or killing the "foe".


It's about making sure that when they turn around to look for something they had, it's gone...just, simply, gone.  Poof!  Gone.


Think about when you misplace something....let's say car key's, you'll tear the house apart looking for it.  Not because you are OCD, but because you are in NEED of those FUCKING keys.  Same thing with projects.  Most are all in time with crap we knew about months ago because even ape blue bloods need a scheduel, we just "offset" that scheduel.  Fucks up the timing on their projects, which causes a chain reaction on other projects they are running.  Then like quicksand, it collapses.  Bing, bang, boom...gone. 

We can watch near misses, narrow escapes, but that all requires a hairs breath of luck.  Help yourself by removing their lucky escape if you have talents in IT.  Instead of a scratch...make sure their hand comes off.  A black eye becomes a crushed skull.  Anon has LOTS more projects in mind btw.  My favorite one is coming up in August this summer from this past weekend's nonsense with a certain IMF bank manager.  Dumbfuck, left his laptop in the public domain of police lock up...clone...clone...clone.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:58 | 1282109 cbxer55
cbxer55's picture

And every time The Mighty Quinn posts, its to be expected that Dipshit Pierre will chime in.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:38 | 1281665 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

"deserve's got nuthin' to do with it..."

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:09 | 1280990 wirtschaftswunder
wirtschaftswunder's picture

It was so good I read it again

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:51 | 1281498 Mec-sick-o
Mec-sick-o's picture

The article was posted twice ;)

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:23 | 1281021 Clampit
Clampit's picture

Are you sure the public voted on this? I was under the impression they were off enjoying the holidays. And besides I didn't vote for it, nor I imagine did anyone alive - so I don't see how this contract applies to me exactly.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:25 | 1281027 Rynak
Rynak's picture

hamy has no point. He's just trolling.... same for wirtschaftswunder aka zing / The Axe / mogul rider / long juan silver / William the Bastard.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:27 | 1281037 HamyWanger
HamyWanger's picture

Yes they did. There was a democratical vote, with elected representatives of the American people. Which puts the Honorable Doctor Ben S. Bernanke Ph.D. in perfectly legitimate control of the national US currency. 

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:36 | 1281066 FOC 1183
FOC 1183's picture

Please pass the pipe

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:15 | 1281169 Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

Slavery was legal for a time as well. 


Time for a generational change. 


Our ancestors who thought slavery was a good idea were as wrong as our ancestors who thought a federal reserve was a good idea. 



Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:14 | 1281588 CPL
CPL's picture

I think you are talking about the same people right now and confusing yourself.  Here, have a beer it gets easier.


//come sit on the deck chair and we'll watch it burn together and tell each other bad jokes.  Here I'll start.


Jesus walks into a hotel, puts three nails on the table and asks the clerk "can you put me up for the night." 

This was all told to me by an old man in a dress that wants me to call him Father.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:48 | 1281695 Alienated Serf
Alienated Serf's picture

righteous anger! i like it.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:39 | 1281074 DavidPierre
DavidPierre's picture

"...democratical..." ???

You sure like to just make shit up!

Now you're making up new words...MORON!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:48 | 1281469 wirtschaftswunder
wirtschaftswunder's picture


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:46 | 1281084 Clampit
Clampit's picture

Why bother paying for democratical representatives now that modern data collection methods can easily query the public directly? Costly tradition it would seem.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:47 | 1281095 graneros
graneros's picture

"There was a democratical vote"


Is that something like "the pompotous of love."

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:30 | 1281412 BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

You, sir, are an idiot of the highest order.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:53 | 1281510 pods
pods's picture

"There was a democratical vote, with elected representatives of the American people. Which puts the Honorable Doctor Ben S. Bernanke Ph.D. in perfectly legitimate control of the national US currency. "


Of course, a simple vote of CONgress may override the constitution.  No need to amend it, for a simple vote may override:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Pretty good tonight Hamy!  Maybe CONgress may delegate all of their responsibilities to some private corporation?


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:13 | 1281765 Pepe
Pepe's picture

democratical? Ok, I guess we are not speaking about the same thing. How much did you spend in your graduate program?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:36 | 1281059 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Sometimes Hamy, your sense of sarcasm is really misplaced.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:45 | 1281088 Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Consent also implies trust, that money and matters relating to money and management of such will be executed judiciously, ethically and accountably.  This has not happened at the level of this private banking institution nor in the government that supports its corrupt practices.  Thus affording an illegitimacy as pertains to the fed.  If you choose to rape, pillage and plunder you lose on both moral and literal authority rule.  And that Hamy Hamster is why the system is now becoming rent asunder, and we can only have hope that all bureaucrats, financial sodomizers, and purveyors of the elitist, greed stricken, and incompetence driven ruling class are enjoined with them when all this manipulated shit comes crashing down.  And yes Hamy Hamster, we wouldn't want to miss watching the ship with you in it. 

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:09 | 1281153 OldTrooper
OldTrooper's picture

The sock puppet has spoken - it must be so.  You've convinced me Hamy.  I'm going to change my spots...right after I sign up for another course at and make another donation to Ron Paul's campaign.  Oh, and I've got to catch the latest Lew Rockwell interview.  But right after that I'm getting on the statist band-wagon!  You are so convincing!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:23 | 1281191 penisouraus erecti
penisouraus erecti's picture


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:04 | 1282014 JR
JR's picture

speaking of Lew...

Parasites on the Beach by Lew Rockwell on May 16, 2011

California government lifeguards are paid between $100,000 and $200,000 a year, and can retire with a 90% pension after 30 years, at—say—51. Like all government employees, they do far better than the hosts they mooch off. Time for a revolution?


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:28 | 1282057 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

no.  but i should have married that baywatch chic when i had the chance.  who knew?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:27 | 1281206 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Was blowing JFKs brains out in public perfectly legitimate too???




Anyone that supports the private fed reserve and the banking cabal deserves to drown on their own blood.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:21 | 1281360 clymer
clymer's picture


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:16 | 1281364 clymer
clymer's picture

God, Ham-bone..

What's with you and robo constantly sucking the collective dick of the power-establishment? You're like stockholm-stricken enablers that never gained any sense of freedom, fairness and independence.

You must be a government contractor, or a federal employee, or some other section-8 welfare recipient.

kindly fuck-off, puke.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:17 | 1281371 clymer
clymer's picture

Oh! and your entire family thinks that you're disgusting

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:58 | 1281533 pods
pods's picture

Hamy just has that unique satire that this place needs.  A Satire dripping with pomposity.  Reminds me of sf3006 from the old daily reckoning board.

(Can I get a boom?)

He is the yang to SDs style of hit you in the head sarcasm.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:28 | 1281397 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

It was passed on Christmas Eve, with great secrecy,and many members of Congress gone, just like Obamacare. Does that explain why you are  a Wanger idiot?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:08 | 1281735 latcho
latcho's picture

Presidents that opposed the FED and were killed, was that also with the concent of the American people ?

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 06:23 | 1282248 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Consent? People? American?

Strange words. They don't mean much anymore. not for a long time anyways.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:09 | 1280998 Seer
Seer's picture

There was a significant middle class prior to 1913?

Dumping the Fed isn't going to rectify the fundamental problems, that being we've exhausted growth.  Sure, pointing at the elephant in the room who is eating the remainder of our food overlooks the fact that the food was always limited: shoot the elephant and we'll still be scrambling for food, though without the elephant it would last a bit longer.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:23 | 1281029 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

eat the elephant

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:45 | 1281082 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

We've exhausted growth? Really. People are still capable of producing goods and services. There is every reason we can have a healthy economy. You merely have to get rid of fiat currency and the central banking system.

When you remove the creation of currency and credit from thin air and replace it with the exchange of goods in a free market- you have economic activity that is organic and capable of growth. There could be small movements of adjustment aroung an actual equilibrium, but that is the purpose of a market.

Credit will still exist, but it will be priced properly. Capital will result from savings and investment. That capital will be put to use and the entrepreneurs will be able to determine profit or losses on production.

Eliminate government and you could really loose the tiger of economic growth. The FED isn't the elephant in the room, it is the black sucking vortex of doom. It consumes all wealth and leaves a landscape barren of opportunity.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:49 | 1281104 Seer
Seer's picture

Logic failure- Production does NOT equal growth!

When you and others can explain how there can be infinite growth on a finite planet I'll be open for discussion, otherwise you're only barking at the wind (and are no less delusional than the Keynesians).

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:04 | 1281137 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

If you produce something that didn't exist before and adds to the current inventory- that is growth. There doesn't need to be infinite growth on a finite planet, there can be infinite growth within the available universe. It may not last for eternity, but I'm willing to wager it would last a long, long time.

Do you know what logic is?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:45 | 1281237 Seer
Seer's picture

"If you produce something that didn't exist before and adds to the current inventory- that is growth."

So, on one hand you agree that there are physical limitations to the earth, and then on the other you (basically) imply that there's no limits on available inventory space?

"There doesn't need to be infinite growth on a finite planet, there can be infinite growth within the available universe."

WTF? There CANNOT be infinite growth on a finite planet, PERIOD!  Further, there could not be infinite growth within a finite universe.  The math holds up only to the point that you specifically introduce infinity.  Go ahead, ask any person educated in astronomy and he/she will tell you that the reason why they use terms like "planets" and "universes" is to denotes a contained set.  Again, the basic logic/argument that there can be inifinite growth on a finite planet is FALSE.  Whether you believe that growth can go on for a long time or not does not invalidate the math/logic of growth!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:32 | 1281428 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Can you even read for comprehension?

The first statement refutes your statement regarding growth. Your definition is a fail. 

The second statement is a new idea, not associated with the previous statement. It implies there are other areas of growth as well(space, oceans).

I never said there was infinite growth on a finite planet. I said there could be infinite growth in the available universe. There is no proof that the universe is finite. So, again, growth could be infinite here as well. 

More important, nothing you said defends your original argument. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:26 | 1282138 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The 'debate' has been turning like the 'debate' over the existence of god.


It implies there are other areas of growth as well(space, oceans).


It sounds like US pulp novels in the 1950s. The human species would conquer space and the underseas.


No, the US space program was not to defeat the communists. The US program aimed at the conquest of space: pionneering the space frontier, as the US ancestors did for the Indian frontiers.

The return is a negative. Humanity does not know how to colonize space. For this reason, the original goal was dropped and remarketed as a superb victory over the communists. Because it is a failure. Space is a new vaccuum to consume Earth matter in. 


Better to assess the situation under the current possibility rather than relying on a hypothetical.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 03:01 | 1282166 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

silly fucking argument if you ask me...

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:00 | 1281715 pods
pods's picture

The only reason that growth is needed is precisely because we now issue P and have to pay back P+I, and the whole system is dependant on this.

Remove this, and you do not need "growth".  The entire reason that growth has been pushed is because if we stop growing, the interest on the debt will catch up to us and crush us in a deflationary collapse.

Market based specie and no fractional reserve lending would have no need for incessant growth.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:20 | 1281775 johnnynaps
johnnynaps's picture

It's amazing that someone will actually argue for the validity of the GDP concept. What will happen when the population doubles and humans become even more efficient at producing things(crap)? You will likely end up with MASSIVE competitiveness to produce more and your family will be living on top of a landfill. I give the Ocean alone another decade or two......then it will be too toxic to swim in. New generation here......time for a new concept, and default of the old generation's debt. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 07:49 | 1282304 SirPlayomic
SirPlayomic's picture

New ideas triumphing over inertia caused by the current Order is the most important thing for growth, not natural resources. But by growth, what I am talking about is progress - improvements in quality of life. We are all living in a box we call society, we need new ideas to make the box bigger or blow it apart. Unfortunately, education in the sciences and engineering is not what it once was...

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 07:46 | 1282311 SirPlayomic
SirPlayomic's picture

Double post - and no, I didn't press the save button more than once.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:51 | 1281099 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

'we've exhausted growth... the food was always limited"

This statement is completely idiotic, for the following reasons:

1. Subjective value, and hence economic "growth", is a question of each individual's opinion. It is devoid of objective scientific meaning.

2. Whining about limits to growth is absurd when the truth is we have an economic system thoroughly hampered by acts of aggression (e.g. socialism) and accompanied by endemic malinvestment, fraud, and waste.

3. The Earth is of negligible size, and consumes a tiny fraction of the Sun's emitted energy, and represents a tiny portion of the solar system's mass. Only a small-brained Luddite cannot see the growth potential.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:58 | 1281128 Seer
Seer's picture

Apparently your brain has no limitations on how much space is in it, but that still doesn't violate the basic premise that the earth is finite and our access to energy is limited.

Anyone saying that there are NO limits (on a finite planet) is a fucking idiot, plain and simple.  Math fail!

Because there is lots of energy out in SPACE doesn't mean  that the energy required to obtain it is available.  The universe is in somewhat of a stable arrangement because of the balance of energy: I say "somewhat stable" because it could be a whole hell of a lot more unstable (as in when it formed).

People can't even understand exponential growth and they claim that they can fix an economic system?  Who is the fucking luddite?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:11 | 1281149 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

NO limits is a change in the terms of your argument. A convenient attempt to reduce a relative question to one with extreme limitations. 

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:48 | 1281216 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Anyone saying that there are NO limits (on a finite planet) is a fucking idiot, plain and simple.  Math fail!

Again, you show a lack of knowledge of economics. There is no known physical limit to how beautiful a piece of music can be created, or how delicious a dish of food can be made, or how ingeniously a CPU can be designed, or how much an economic good can be valued. There is no known physical limit to how much I can enjoy spending time rebutting your inane posts. There is no objective means to quantify subjective value or to sum or compare the subjective valuations of two different people or to even compare the subjective valuation of the same person at different times.

>The universe is in somewhat of a stable arrangement because of the balance of energy

This is a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo.

>People can't even understand exponential growth

What is growing exponentially? The population? In some places, it is shrinking. The economy? By some measures, like inflation-adjusted GDP, the economy has gotten worse for the last few decades. And if you are talking about exponential growth of the money supply; i.e. how many zeroes are printed on a dollar bill, then there is no limit to exponential growth there. Check out Graham's number.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:00 | 1281289 Rynak
Rynak's picture

or how ingeniously a CPU can be designed

Actually, in the case of CPUs, there are physical limits, and they are approached right fucking now. It is physically impossible to manufacture at significantly higher precision. All they can do now is:

1. Just quantitatively add more (including the cpu being built in mulitple layers). So, in principle just adding more of the same. This of course will at some point exceed size and power-usage limits.

2. Overhaul the way a cpu works. This would break backwards compatibility completely - any current applications would need to be emulated.

3. Abortion of the "circuit-board" approach. Good luck with that! This would be total nomansland - an entirely new type of electronics. Humans don't do stuff this big overnight.

P.S.: This is why you have seen the slowdown in CPU speed increases in recent years. They are approaching a physical brickwall, and besides of just making cpu's larger (also vertically), they cannot get around it without a rootlevel overhaul that would kill backwards compatibility.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:12 | 1281312 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

Wow, you deserve an award for being the first person to predict an end to technological progress.

>Actually, in the case of CPUs, there are physical limits

Yeah, this one:

>Abortion of the "circuit-board" approach. Good luck with that! This would be total nomansland - an entirely new type of electronics

Intel 3D transistor:

>This is why you have seen the slowdown in CPU speed increases in recent years.

Nah, I goosed my desktop CPU up to 4.4 GHz without any problems and its at low voltage and a low temperature with air cooling. It's much better than my old 2.4 GHz CPU from about 4 years ago: it's faster, with additional cores, hyperthreading, a bigger CPU cache, and the new AVX instruction set.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:24 | 1281349 Rynak
Rynak's picture

You deserve a "failure to read" award. Adding more of the same == abortion of the circuit board approach....... riiiight, did you fucking moron even notice how i listed exactly that "3d approach" when i talked about "just adding more (also vertically)"?

Oh, and your wikipedia link has nothing to do at all with the problem.

Here, let me explain the problem to you in laymans terms (and more importantly, to other more intelligent readers):

A cpu is a circuit board, meaning that you have signals travel along clearly defined paths. To "define" those paths, you need channels.... and to define the borders of those channels, you need "walls". A cpu basically is a highly complex labyrinth of such "channels", with water (signals) flowing through them.

The problem is that the walls of those channels are by now so thin, that the "water" is leaking through them. We are talking about a thickness in tens of atoms, no more! However, up til now, this "leakage" could be kept in check by noticing when such a leak happens, and then just retry (error correction). This until now has worked, because the amount of "leaked" signals was still way lower than the amount of signals that correctly followed the path. The problem is that at this point, any further reduction in the thickness of the walls, will rapidly increase the leakage.

So in short, the walls of the "channels" in circuit boards have in CPUs become so thin, that any further reduction in thickness would result in high leakage - thus defying the point of a circuit board. The only way to get around this limitation, is to not expect a circuit board.... so, no channels that direct the flow of signals, but instead something entirely different.

P.S.: The previously mentioned "3d approach" is nothing more than stacking multiple of such circuit boards on top of each other. It doesn't solve the problem, but just increases the size of a cpu vertically.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:45 | 1281465 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Oh, come on - now you're logging in with multiple accounts to prove your point, but are too clueless to reply? To the fucking troll list with him...

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:52 | 1281490 wirtschaftswunder
wirtschaftswunder's picture

You are tmosley and you spilled bin Laden porn brain proves it.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:55 | 1281515 Rynak
Rynak's picture

hello wirtschaftswunder, aka zing / The Axe / mogul rider / WorthlessShaftUnder / long juan silver / William the Bastard

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:51 | 1281500 robobbob
robobbob's picture

and the width and speeds from photonic computing would be how many magnitudes better?


limits are for the malthusian doomsayers who can't open their minds to anything better. or worse, those who are intentional choosing that path.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:06 | 1281553 Rynak
Rynak's picture

You missed the point where i said that circumventing this, would require something else than a circuit board. You have just mentioned a non-circuitboard technology.

I did say what i did say. I did not say what i did not say.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:42 | 1281456 stollcri
stollcri's picture

Your arguments are silly and I doubt that you have ever designed a CPU. Regarding your 'any current applications would need to be emulated' hypothesis - Does a change to the hardware really mandate a change to the ISA? How can programs run on both the Intel and AMD processors today? (Intel and AMD have different hardware designs but share a common ISA)

Maybe you should just stick to the topic at hand.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:50 | 1281471 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Actually, i'm an assembly programmer across multiple architectures and VM designer.

Yes, a fundamental change to how a computer works, does require emulation of software. I'm not talking some stupid different instructions. I'm talking about the abortion of the von neumann machine (which's definition in principle is seperation of instruction and data, plus typically a central processor).

My arguments are not silly, i simply have more understanding and a wider horizon than you.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:03 | 1281731 malek
malek's picture

You argumentation is at least incoherent.

A CPU in its broadest defintion is an array of logic gates. Even the CLK signal could counted as an implementation feature.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:23 | 1281793 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Well, then let me explain the problem in more detail, to make it more obvious why emulation would be necessary.

Current machinecode is a list of instructions that operate on ONE memory space and ONE cpu-core at a time. Furthermore, this code is hand-tailored to an OS via kernel calls, and this OS in turn is handtailored to hardware architecture.

What happens, if the computer for example no longer consists of one central memory and one central processor (with multiple core), but instead the computer is a network of modules, each with its own memory and mini-processor? Or what happens when processors become reconfigurable on the fly (dynamic FPGA)? How do you run existing software on this, without an emulation-abstractionlayer? There are many more such examples.

Heck, currently applications even require emulation or recompilation for architectures like x86, ARM and PPC even though all those architecture are in the big picture still very similiar?

The reason why people do not realize that any big innovations would break backwards compatibility, is because current mainstream computer is such a monoculture. Phrased another way, the only reason why so far backwards compatibility hasn't been broken, is because no groundbreaking innovation has happened precisely to keep backwards compatibility.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:31 | 1282062 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

actually i've been studying the Venus flytrap based on a theory that it represents some type of biological "computer."  it does appear to have an on/off switch of some sorts which i really do find fascinating.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:20 | 1281779 Mec-sick-o
Mec-sick-o's picture

Until the next computing technology emerges, I would recommend you to explore FPGAs.

CISC processors are hungry of GHz to process all the serial instructions.  Interpreted languages (Java, python) are killing those CPU's performance.

FPGAs are able to process very complex computations in a single clock cycle (massive gate parallelism).

Although FPGAs are still relatively slow, power hungry and used to substitute ASICs and DSP processors, one can process a pretty complex logic algorithm in the MHz range.

Each electronic technology still has its virtues.  I still work with vacuum tubes (160kWatts @ MHz), feat not achievable yet by FETs, BJTs, IGBTs nor SCRs.

When Intel/AMD were shrinking 90-60nm, there were a lot of skepticism about further shrinking the transistors due to the leakage you mention until IBM developed the high-k/metal gate for AMD 45nm/32nm process.

There are more semiconductors material types, insulators and further transistor shrinking in the near future.

I forgot to mention the advances on extreme paralellism on NVIDIA cuda and AMD stream GPUs

Have fun!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:42 | 1281796 Rynak
Rynak's picture

:-) I fully agree that FPGAs are very interesting, and i've frequently talked with co-devs about all the cool things that would be possible, if FPGAs could be reconfigured on-the-fly.

P.S.: As for the leakage.... i think they may via more advanced materials be able to get down to perhaps a thickness of 20 atoms. After this, they will have to do something else than circuit boards, or just make cpu's larger (as they have already started now, with the multilayer approach). Problem is that the mentioned thickness will already be reached in a few years - so, they're running out of time. So, i expect them to just make cpu's larger vertically, until a transition to something else than circuitboards is ready.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:07 | 1281316 Seer
Seer's picture

"Again, you show a lack of knowledge of economics."

Yeah, right... Someone who thinks that there can be an inifite amount of something within a finite boundary is telling me that the basic premise of this is invalid because I don't know economics!

So, tell me, how do you and the Bernank differ?  The Bernank believes that the economy can operate merely by printing IOUs.  And you believe that the economy can generate growth because, well, because it's the economy (it can defy physical limitations)?

"What is growing exponentially? The population? In some places, it is shrinking. The economy? By some measures, like inflation-adjusted GDP, the economy has gotten worse for the last few decades. And if you are talking about exponential growth of the money supply; i.e. how many zeroes are printed on a dollar bill, then there is no limit to exponential growth there. Check out Graham's number."

Ah, finally!  You attempt to lessen the impact of that egg on your face by shifting my premise of REAL growth with economic growth, then to the growth in printing money...  Well, although both economic and currency numbers can be increased, they too are not infinite (at some point things collapse; well, yeah, you can use the infinity sign, but I highly doubt that people, even as gullible as they are, will accept that).

I fully understand (and appreciate the fact) that economics is the mechanism whereby we ration resources.  I also fully understand that centralized entities can not peform this function without resorting to (eventual) outright market distortion.  I also fully understand (and appreciate) the notion of inflation and hyper-inflation.  But people need to understand that all of this is predicated on the physical world; as much fun as the virtual world can be, it cannot overcome the physical world's limitations (of being unable to support perpetual growth).

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:34 | 1281430 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Yeah, right... Someone who thinks that there can be an inifite amount of something within a finite boundary is telling me that the basic premise of this is invalid because I don't know economics!

Yes, as I mentioned, subjective value cannot be quantified. There is a yawning gulf between the sciences of human action and of physics. One is teleological, the other causal.

>well, yeah, you can use the infinity sign


Yes, you can:

And since infinitesimals are valid numbers (, so are their reciprocals, i.e. infinities.

Theoretically there's nothing precluding infinity-denominated fiat.

>But people need to understand that all of this is predicated on the physical world; as much fun as the virtual world can be, it cannot overcome the physical world's limitations (of being unable to support perpetual growth).

There is virtually no limit on how large virtual worlds can be.

Your bias toward valuing only physical things and not virtual things (e.g. information technology, knowledge, or virtual goods) is not logical. There is no basis for such a dogmatic bias in the science of economics. It's all in your mind.

I recommend you invest in air futures. It's a fact that people cannot survive without air to breath. It will all come crashing down if we run out of this crucial good.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:40 | 1281446 Rynak
Rynak's picture

You know someone is lost in fairytale land, when he starts appealing to infinity. Something that has NEVER been observed and is purealy a theoretical mathematical concept. Next he'll try to tell you that mathematical points actually exist, and cite some physics theories, made by people who's profession for "some reason" only is concerned with results, rather than the path to the results.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:37 | 1281433 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Give him a break - techfreaks need an excuse to believe in infinite growth in a world detached from physics and ressources. They need to believe than buying a new computer every 2 years is "green", and that density of information and processing is not limited by plain old physics.

After all, it worked in the last 50 years, so it must be able to continue forever, right?

And never mentioned is the concern, what purpose said "growth" even has...... growth == good.... because you know, unlimited consumption for no reason or need == good. Fucking parasites.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:54 | 1281501 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>They need to believe ... that density of information and processing is not limited by plain old physics.

No, computers are limited by the Bekenstein bound as the physics is currently understood. Did you even read my link?

>After all, it worked in the last 50 years, so it must be able to continue forever, right?

When our posthuman descendants create a resurrected version of you, you will see how foolish you sound.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:54 | 1281502 wirtschaftswunder
wirtschaftswunder's picture

whatever tmosley you are so smart no one can tell its you

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:59 | 1281521 Rynak
Rynak's picture

hello wirtschaftswunder, aka zing / The Axe / mogul rider / WorthlessShaftUnder / long juan silver / William the Bastard

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:25 | 1281800 Mec-sick-o
Mec-sick-o's picture

Moore's Law fault.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:51 | 1281485 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Again, you are attempting to change the argument with the words "finite boundry". This was never part of your original post. Further, chaos theory would give an easy explanation for the opportunites of growth from the status quo. 

The are micro and macro worlds we have yet to explore adequately. The opportunities abound for new growth. 

Your argument only works in absolute terms- and they were not the original terms of engagement. 

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 02:32 | 1282143 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

There is no known physical limit to how beautiful a piece of music can be created, or how delicious a dish of food can be made, or how ingeniously a CPU can be designed, or how much an economic good can be valued.


Of course there is. Rhetorical question: do you realize how cheap your argumentation is and contemptful of others it shows you are?


No resources, no production.

Put your most marvellous person in each of situation without the resources to undertake their activity and there is nothing going out of it.

No food, no marvellous dish made out of it.

No painting material (and I include everything that could be imagined as painting material), no painting.

No material to build the processor, no processor.

All of them are physical limitations on how a marvellous, dish, meal or processor can be produced.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:50 | 1281102 Forgiven
Forgiven's picture

Yes, eat the elephant, then skin it.  Sell the hide, bones, and tusks.  Use it's dung for fuel.  Find the elephants family, eat it, skin them, and sell their hides, bones, and tusks.  That is growth!

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:02 | 1281134 Seer
Seer's picture

Yeah, funny how so many believe that this is the case...

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:29 | 1281207 Amish Hacker
Amish Hacker's picture

The elephants may have a different opinion.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:22 | 1281189 mt paul
mt paul's picture

the nose is the best part

trunk tartar...

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:21 | 1281920 CPL
CPL's picture

Ban hammer this fucker

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:40 | 1282073 jomama
jomama's picture

someone fails at the internet.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 19:59 | 1281113 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

Seer, you don't see much do ya??  Rather than deciding whom should be culled to make room for your elite ass, let's ditch government controlled, corporated Ag industry and all the panzy-assed EPA regulations that keep Americans from growing, drilling, digging and working their way to prosperity, hmm?

We have exhausted GOVERNMENT!  End .gov and watch people thrive.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:38 | 1281223 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

In a normal world you would be correct.

In our present world of 2011 USA, government exists to serve the HAVE NOTS and the HAVE MORES. If you do not belong to either of those groups you are the fuel and the fodder for them. Government will take from you to provide for them.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:37 | 1281225 Derpin USA
Derpin USA's picture

Fact: The US has 3% of the world's oil reserves and uses 25% of the world's oil production.

We could destroy our landscape to take every ounce of oil out of the ground and it wouldn't have a meaningful impact on energy prices or the quandry we face.

The growth of our economy is hampered by the fact that oil production will never be higher than it is now combined with the fact that our economy revolves around the use of oil products (gasoline, plastic, petrofertilizers, trucking system).

My take is that the true key to actual growth and a higher standard of living is to eliminate the bankster cartel and change our oil-dependent economy. We will not survive, let alone grow, if we insist that a dying fuel is the future.


Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:55 | 1281240 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

I wholly concur that energy is the key going forward.  That 3% number represents the U.S. with both hands tied behind its back.  I also believe that 25% number is going south in a big way over the next decade or so, thanks to the coming mega-depression.  Sucks to lose lifestyle...

The Bakken field under MT and ND is much larger than the Saudi Ghawar field.  When the dollar loses its reserve currency status, I wonder if all that oil will suddenly become cost effective to tap?  Not to mention all the shallow coastal water and Alaskan fields that lay waiting..

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:57 | 1281300 Derpin USA
Derpin USA's picture

The MT and ND fields have not been tapped because it doesn't make financial sense. Oil will have to rise in price substantially with solid fundamentals, and for a good amount of time.

By the time oil gets to that price and the fields are tapped, we will have reached the point where the oil-based economy no longer makes sense.

My idea is crazy, but it might work. You know how electric toothbrushes charge? What if we applied that idea to our interstate system and our vehicles? Imagine a US vehicle fleet, fully electric, which was charged as it was used.

Imagine using nuclear power as the stepping stone with solar as the end goal. Imagine a world with abundant electricity and very little pollution.

If you can imagine it, we can do it.

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:07 | 1282018 Milestones
Milestones's picture

A very simple concept; but at first blush has some interesting potential.     Milestones

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 02:45 | 1545344 mediahuset
mediahuset's picture


Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 23:33 | 1281821 Mec-sick-o
Mec-sick-o's picture

South Africa currently converts coal to gasoline.  Counting USA has massive carbon reserves, that can be converted too.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:18 | 1281357 Seer
Seer's picture

Listen, dumb fuck, I didn't say anything about culling!  It was YOU who brought it up.

I stated the basic FACT that you cannot have infinitite GROWTH* on a finite planet.  How fucking tough is that to get through your head?

* Try this exercise- keep piling shit into your closet, if it never gets full THEN you can call me stupid, but if it DOES get full then you're the stupid one.

"keep Americans from growing, drilling, digging and working their way to prosperity, hmm?"

LOL!  So, strength through exhaustion?  We will dig out every last ounce of coal so that we can prove that we have MORE?

All you idiot knee-jerkers are the same, you ASSume that because someone refutes something that they are enviro-whackos (or whatever it is that your programmers program you to use).  Fucking wrong!  You're swatting at nothing!

"We have exhausted GOVERNMENT!  End .gov and watch people thrive."

Not quite sure what "exhausted GOVERNMENT" means, but I don't support ANY governments.  As far as people thriving... well, unicorns and skittles I suppose... I'm a realist, I see an end to paper pushers, Google-like companies etc and a return to REAL basics (that's why I'm embarking on farming [of the small kind]).

Thanks for playing!

Tue, 05/17/2011 - 01:30 | 1282063 Milestones
Milestones's picture

I went on that journey in the 70's. Be prepared to work as hard as you've ever worked at the start because every mistake you are going to make is going to cost you massive amounts of repair work. Farming is not about being Johnny Appleseed throwing around seeds and things grow. It is bone weary work, but when you sit on a ditch bank with a salt shaker'a couple of tomatos, a pepper, a cuke and a cold beer---man you look out and say, shit man, I grew this stuff and people are going to stay alive. And people come in and say--wow, this is really great fresh food!! There is a difference between that and your boss givin you a thumbs up for screwing some family for the next 30 years over a turd mortgage.

It'is ultimately asking yourself--what the hell is it that makes life worth living. Tour value structure will change--not always for the best-but the world gets a little clearer.   Milestones

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:27 | 1281198 Derpin USA
Derpin USA's picture

Would you say the problem of stalling growth is one of population limitations or energy?

I believe it is energy. We must tackle the energy problem once and for all so that our children may be tasked with tackling the resource problem.

Or, ya know, just nuke it and be done with it.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 20:59 | 1281287 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

The Earth is grossly underpopulated. If you ever drive through United States or Canada you will see the vast amounts of land that go unused. Factories and machines idle all the time. There is always a need for more people as long as there are material factors of production waiting to be transformed into economic goods.

Energy is not a problem either - according to a multitude of shrewd speculators with their fortunes on the line. They have an incentive (the profit motive) to estimate correctly and preserve scarce resources for urgent future uses. But speculators haven't changed the price of oil futures in 60 years. Nominally, of course, the price has exploded along with the money supply, but the price hasn't increased when measured against gold. Unless you have a crystal ball or are willing to gamble your own fortune, why should your opinion be more trusted than that of a multitude of market participants?

>We must

"We"? Do you mean you and your friends? Or do you mean other people you'll point guns at to compel them to invest in your wacky socialist experiments like corn ethanol?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:08 | 1281317 Derpin USA
Derpin USA's picture

You make a lot of assumptions and resort to old rhetoric to make your points. There's no need to be hostile.

I'm in favor of nuclear power. I despise corn ethanol.

I'm just not blind to the fact that oil production has peaked and that our economy will not grow so long as it's so heavily dependent upon oil. Additionally, our stability and peace are threatened by our dependence upon a bunch of crazy people in a hot desert. It is a matter of national security to remove that umbilical cord.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:22 | 1281374 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>our stability and peace are threatened by our dependence upon a bunch of crazy people in a hot desert

Yeah, they're a bunch of murderous loons.

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it"

> It is a matter of national security to remove that umbilical cord.

OK, but can I still perform voluntary exchanges with them? Or will you shoot me or put me in a cage for doing business with the "crazy people"? Also, what other socialist policies do you want to enforce on other people?

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:31 | 1281417 Derpin USA
Derpin USA's picture

Look, your attitude seems to be "government should do nothing because it's unfair to make people pay taxes for things they don't agree with."

If so, we can't have a rational conversation because you're going to accuse me of being a wacko environmentalist or some socialist utopian who thinks government is the answer to everything. You seem wholly incapable of actually discussing points, and instead want to rage against an enemy you presume is me.

Did it ever occur to you that our conflicts with people like Hussein, and the sanctions that occurred there, were a direct result of our thirst for oil? Did it occur to you that the wars we fight there and the troops we position there are a direct result of a policy which puts the flow of oil above all else? Did it ever occur to you that people resent those things and decide to fight against us (9/11)?

I have no problem with people doing business with anyone who we are not at war with.

If you want to converse like an adult, I'm OK with that. Otherwise, please don't respond. You act like a child.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 21:47 | 1281473 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>You act like a child.

And your posts make you seem thin-skinned and namby-pamby. You really haven't attempted to refute any of my arguments.

>your attitude seems to be "government should do nothing because it's unfair to make people pay taxes for things they don't agree with."

Yes, acts of theft are unfair and immoral. Whether it's one person mugging you on the street or 1 million people deciding to mug you. And my position is not radical or childish whining but rather reflects an entire branch of political science with decades if not centuries of study and powerful arguments to back it up. If you delve deeper into this subject you may find it shatters your current views.

>Did it ever occur to you that our conflicts with people like Hussein, and the sanctions that occurred there, were a direct result of our thirst for oil? Did it occur to you that the wars we fight there and the troops we position there are a direct result of a policy which puts the flow of oil above all else? Did it ever occur to you that people resent those things and decide to fight against us (9/11)?

Sounds about right to me.

Mon, 05/16/2011 - 22:50 | 1281696 Derpin USA
Derpin USA's picture

It's not a matter of being a pussy or a namby pamby. When someone is as hostile and presumptuous as you are, it indicates that your goal is to speak rather than converse. Your approach doesn't make people want to listen to you. In a twisted irony, this reaction you must often run into only further strengthens your resolve because it's evidence that everyone else is retarded and you are supremely correct. Your approach serves only to engorge your ego, not further your cause.

What I can tell you is that I know that libertarians such as yourself are generally only as smug and self righteous as you are because they have guns. Most of them are not capable of a physical fight. Their only edge, the only thing which makes them powerful, is their great equalizer. If they didn't have that edge, and the edge of society's general disapproval of physical violence, they would quickly clamor for collectivism to save them. In other words, libertarians are nerds with guns. If you weren't cloaked with anonymity, your bark wouldn't be so loud.

That being said, I'm a libertarian with leftist leanings who owns guns. I don't like big government, but there are some things which I believe it should be used for. One of those things is reasonable protection of the environment. Another is sane energy policy. Unfortunately, both have been corrupted by crony capitalism. You might say this is the inevitability of involving government, and I would agree that a degree of corruption will always be present in any government endeavor. I simply find that, in those cases, I prefer some corruption over letting the market decide.

You see, the libertarian ideal of property rights protecting the environment is fallacious in its presumption that the courts aren't corrupt. It fallaciously presumes that the courts provide equal access and that, for instance, the little farm owner will have the ability to take on a megacorporations cadre of lawyers. Most importantly, the libertarian ideal erroneously presumes that all decisions made by every person are rational, when the inverse is closer to the truth.

If you want evidence, I point you to the fact that far more people are interested in American Idol than their role in civil government. They are far more interested in shiny things than the truly important matters.

So yes, there are times when those who do involve themselves may decide what is right for the rest who are too consumed with chasing pussy and watching TV. They have consented to as much by refusing to involve themselves.


Tue, 05/17/2011 - 00:49 | 1281988 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Your approach doesn't make people want to listen to you.

I don't care if people listen to me. I enjoy tempering my knowledge through logical argumentation; I do not have grand delusions about changing the world. But anyway, please stop with ad hominem remarks and instead discuss the issues at hand.

>[without guns] your bark wouldn't be so loud

Again, please try refuting my points instead of posting nonsense.

>Most of them are not capable of a physical fight.

I'm not sure if you even know what libertarian means. Libertarians abhor acts of aggression against others.

>the edge of society's general disapproval of physical violence

It's not surprising that most people disapprove of violence, seeing as how prosperity depends on respect for property rights. But statists love violence. States are more efficient than the private market at providing security services - for example, when they're securing you in an oven.

>I don't like big government, but there are some things which I believe it should be used for

If you want to force me at gunpoint to pay for your government, then you aren't really a libertarian. Why not make your "government" something I want to buy services from? Clearly you haven't delved into the theory of libertarianism but only brushed the surface. Libertarians support voluntary exchanges and not acts of aggression or theft.

>Another is sane energy policy.

What does that even mean. If I want to buy loads of energy at high prices and waste it for my own amusement, what business is it of yours.

>a degree of corruption will always be present in any government endeavor.

Especially when the word "government" is defined as an organization using stolen funds and using coercion to enforce monopoly power over a given region.

>I simply find that, in those cases, I prefer some corruption over letting the market decide.

Fine, then use your money to pay for the corruption; don't force other people to do the same.

>the libertarian ideal of property rights protecting the environment is fallacious in its presumption that the courts aren't corrupt.

Of course the courts are thoroughly corrupt. Try setting up a competing system providing arbitration and enforcement services in your town and see what happens to you.

>If you want evidence, I point you to the fact that far more people are interested in American Idol than their role in civil government.

That sounds like a rational decision if you enjoy American Idol and not politics. FYI, you're more likely to die going to a polling station than to affect the outcome of an election.

>They have consented to as much by refusing to involve themselves.

So anyone who doesn't vote in your system deserves to be victimized. That's a really nice attitude.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!