Sunday, July 19, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Americans marry other species, ethnics and other..
Wow, neo-nazi much? I'm at a loss of words, what is Fox thinking!?
Fiat Money - This is what your money is.. Really..
Fiat Money
What Does Fiat Money Mean?
Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith.
Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith.
Investopedia explains Fiat Money
Most of the world's paper money is fiat money. Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value.
Most of the world's paper money is fiat money. Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value.
How Money Is Created
Now that we've discussed why and how money, a representation of perceived value, is created in the economy, we need to touch on how the central bank (the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) can manipulate the money supply.
Among other things, a central bank has the ability to influence the level of a country's money supply . Let's look at a simplified example of how this is done. If it wants to increase the amount of money in circulation, the central bank can, of course, simply print it, but as we learned, the physical bills are only a small part of the money supply.
Another way for the central bank to increase the money supply is to buy government fixed-income securities in the market. When the central bank buys these government securities, it puts money in the hands of the public. How does a central bank such as the Federal Reserve pay for this? As strange as it sounds, they simply create the money out of thin air and transfer it to those people selling the securities! To shrink the money supply, the central bank does the opposite and sells government securities. The money with which the buyer pays the central bank is essentially taken out of circulation. Keep in mind that we are generalizing in this example to keep things simple. (For more information, see the Federal (the Fed) Reserve Tutorial.)
Conclusion
Remember, as long as people have faith in the currency, a central bank can issue more of it.
Now that we've discussed why and how money, a representation of perceived value, is created in the economy, we need to touch on how the central bank (the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) can manipulate the money supply.
Among other things, a central bank has the ability to influence the level of a country's money supply . Let's look at a simplified example of how this is done. If it wants to increase the amount of money in circulation, the central bank can, of course, simply print it, but as we learned, the physical bills are only a small part of the money supply.
Another way for the central bank to increase the money supply is to buy government fixed-income securities in the market. When the central bank buys these government securities, it puts money in the hands of the public. How does a central bank such as the Federal Reserve pay for this? As strange as it sounds, they simply create the money out of thin air and transfer it to those people selling the securities! To shrink the money supply, the central bank does the opposite and sells government securities. The money with which the buyer pays the central bank is essentially taken out of circulation. Keep in mind that we are generalizing in this example to keep things simple. (For more information, see the Federal (the Fed) Reserve Tutorial.)
Conclusion
Remember, as long as people have faith in the currency, a central bank can issue more of it.
Definitions provided by www.investopedia.com.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
"Don't as don't tell" or is it "Run and Hide"?
I've heard the argument by conservatives regarding "Don't ask Don't tell" that goes like this "Well the bottom line is your sexuality is irrelevant in the armed forces so it shouldn't be advertised nor communicated hence don't ask don't tell, all it will do is create tension and be a distraction".
I totally agree! Of course sex is a distraction. This is to be expected for both hetero and homosexuals. So to blame sexual tension on one side of the sexual preference playground is simply unfair, it's a human condition not a gay one.
Now I'm not saying I'd want to see a gay soldier swirling a baton, with rolled up sleeves and his t-shirt turned into a bikini top or using any other sexually gleeful expression declaring his/her sexuality, straight or gay, I do however highly doubt this is the case.
What I feel is unfair is that one group of people have to essentially "hide" their sexuality and/or "run" from any subjects that would expose them. In addition they have to carry the burden of knowing that if they are exposed they will be dishonorably discharged and lose GI benefits. All because of choices they make in their personal lives that do not effect their ability to do their jobs.
Not only does this cause injustice towards gays and lesbians but it also costs U.S taxpayers millions of dollars every year due to the costs of supporting this policy.
What it costs us:
Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and professors from West Point U.S. Military Academy concluded that figure is close to $363 million, including $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs.
Military Opposition of the policy:
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.) and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen spoke against the policy publicly in early
January 2007:
"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,"
General Shalikashvili wrote
"Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy. They cited evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.
Public opinion:
Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.
I agree sexual remarks, slurs and innuendos are a distraction and should be looked down upon and penalized up to and including dismissal, but until that soldier does so gay or straight, they should have the right to not have to hide their sexuality in the fear that they will lose their careers because of it.
I totally agree! Of course sex is a distraction. This is to be expected for both hetero and homosexuals. So to blame sexual tension on one side of the sexual preference playground is simply unfair, it's a human condition not a gay one.
Now I'm not saying I'd want to see a gay soldier swirling a baton, with rolled up sleeves and his t-shirt turned into a bikini top or using any other sexually gleeful expression declaring his/her sexuality, straight or gay, I do however highly doubt this is the case.
What I feel is unfair is that one group of people have to essentially "hide" their sexuality and/or "run" from any subjects that would expose them. In addition they have to carry the burden of knowing that if they are exposed they will be dishonorably discharged and lose GI benefits. All because of choices they make in their personal lives that do not effect their ability to do their jobs.
Not only does this cause injustice towards gays and lesbians but it also costs U.S taxpayers millions of dollars every year due to the costs of supporting this policy.
What it costs us:
Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and professors from West Point U.S. Military Academy concluded that figure is close to $363 million, including $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs.
Military Opposition of the policy:
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.) and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen spoke against the policy publicly in early
January 2007:
"I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,"
General Shalikashvili wrote
"Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy. They cited evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.
Public opinion:
Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.
I agree sexual remarks, slurs and innuendos are a distraction and should be looked down upon and penalized up to and including dismissal, but until that soldier does so gay or straight, they should have the right to not have to hide their sexuality in the fear that they will lose their careers because of it.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Charge a tomato? Sure why not.
So the charge does diminish quite a bit but does settle out approximately 3% above the original charge. I'm not suggesting any applications of any sort, I just think it's cool that you can charge a tomato! Of course this could be recreated with most fruits and vegetables as well and would be a fun experiment for kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)