When Will The End-Times Be And How Will We Know?

Phat writes: Percy writes: We all, liberals, conservatives, and the entire spectrum in between, want our nation to be strong and prosperous, which requires that the individuals making up our nation also be strong and prosperous. Wishing some portion of our citizens ill only makes the nation as a whole weaker. I agree. But I agree more with the libertarians than I do with the liberals.

You just earlier quoted a libertarian manifesto that was a recipe for anarchy.

Percy writes: you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker the Republican story that treating other races fairly means that you'll suffer, and besides that other races are lazy, immoral, thieves who will rob the public coffers dry and then out-reproduce you to vote into office people who will make your situation even worse. I am not a Republican.

You're a Republican, a member of a growing proportion of Republicans who claim Libertarian leanings to distance themselves from the crazy Donald Republicans who have taken over the party, as if it fools anyone. All you Libertarians-of-convenience are actually conservatives who largely vote Republican. It's not a very effective ruse.

I agree that there is far too much Racism.

Then stop practicing racism yourself. Other races becoming better off makes the entire nation wealthier, not you poorer.

My beef is with government control over my stuff, however.

Like what stuff?

Percy writes: traditionally the way governments reduce inflation is by raising interest rates to tamp down economic activity thereby reducing demand. This also tends to put downward pressure on wages and employment. Based upon the opinions I follow,...

Stop basing your opinions on other people's opinions. You're a sucker for emotional appeals.

...the Fed is trapped. If they raise interest rates, the interest on the debt skyrockets.

Rising interest rates do not affect the interest rate paid on existing treasuries, and treasury values fall when interest rates rise.

As far as what the government has to pay out, rising interest rates only affect new debt and the refinancing of maturing debt. If we finance $4 trillion in debt this year and interest rates rise a percentage point then the cost of financing the debt will increase by $40 billion, which is less than 1% of the current federal budget. Please explain how your term "skyrockets" applies here.

Or are you imagining that interest rates will skyrocket for some reason? Let's examine that scenario. Let's say interest rates rise twenty percentage points. That means the service on our debt will rise $800 billion. That's quite a lot, but it still won't break our budget, plus sky high interest rates mean the Fed is responding to sky high inflation, so the treasury will be paying off debt in cheaper dollars to our creditors. China is a creditor, so this scenario would make it much easier for us to pay our debt to China.

Many of the Libertarians I follow say that they feel the interest rates will actually go negative.

That would require a severe recession, which could force conditions where we'd need negative interest rates to encourage spending. Do your Libertarians see a severe recession happening?

Percy writes: What we could do with less of is the claptrap someone's filling your head with. Lets examine some of what I DO listen to. The War on Cash Is Here, Gold Will Be the Only Road to Freedom Says Renowned Columnist This Is How the Financial System Dies: Protect Your Money Now Urges Lynette Zang The Great Reset And Your House Neil Oliver: ‘The West is firmly in the grip, not of a virus, but of delusional madness’ Is The Dollar Going To Crash? Interview with @Peter Schiff

You're listening to claptrap. You're filling your head with garbage.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : liberal => libertarian up near the top

Phat writes: You ignored my questions.

No he didn't. He showed they were irrelevant by challenging your underlying assumption, that government control is becoming overarching.

We have government to provide for the public good. That's why Libertarian philosophy is hogwash. We need a military, traffic lights and garbage pickup, just some of the many responsibilities of government. And just as our humanity has become more enlightened over the centuries, so have our ideas of governance. In Libertarianism all men are islands and the world is impoverished, while modern government creates a world of plenty.

A Libertarian world would have fewer rules, but most of us appreciate that people stop at red lights and don't dump their garbage in the town square. Libertarianism is idealistic and utopian, impossible in reality.

Do you want to hear a modern lie? Inflation Is Transitory.

The only person who's expressed this thought is you. The reality is that like all elements of a modern economy, inflation varies over time in response to changing circumstances.

--Percy

Phat writes: ringo writes: And you've never been able to demonstrate that YOUR god is real. Well if you think i'm simply going to sell all that I have in order to prove it to you or anybody else, you will have a long wait.

You seem incredibly and blissfully unaware of how severely that statement undermines your own position. How can you expect to persuade people of the reality of a God you yourself refuse to follow? "Oh, I'm so impressed by this powerful God that even his followers don't listen to."

Besides I think I figured this out...you refused to pay taxes and justified it by giving money to your street friends. Then when the government came to seize the house...you justified walking away from it because you were listening to "the message". Problem solved. And now you want me to do the same thing if I had half a heart. Sucker

This is an incredible wad of mischaracterization.

--Percy

Phat writes: How do you know that all whom I listen to are conmen? Is it the fact that most of them sell investments? Is it simply because what they say is so out of line with mainstream economic wisdom? Is it because I also (as you claim) fall for the Christian apologists...who coincidently are also *all* seen to be conmen?

We've read tons of your posts and have observed you being sold a bill of goods time and again. You're like a sponge for scams.

And how do you know that what you are taught by mainstream economic wisdom is in fact accurate or wise?

Most of us apply the same method we've been suggesting to you, underpinning what we believe with facts.

I will admit that as AZ says, most of whom I listen to corroborate my gut feelings.

And how is that working for you?

I will tell you this much. I smell a rat in global finance.

Why would anyone listen to you?

This all could be triggered by my metabolic health and mood swings. It could be psychological. I may be mentally unstable and off-base. (I doubt it, but how would I really know?)

You can be pretty sure you have a problem because practically everyone is telling you you have a problem. I think stirring up dust storms here, which did not used to be your habit, and dipping into dubious financial practices and political ideas must be a form of escapism for you.

My mission now is to lower my blood sugar and re-evaluate my mental conclusions once my blood sugars settle at a stable lower level. I need to rule out that I am being affected by my own mental stability.

Finally, some sanity.

--Percy

Phat writes: ...China (which owns 3 times the gold they are attributed to have)...

Why do you care how much gold the Chinese have? We think they have around $120 billion of gold. Let's say it's much more and that they actually have $500 billion. So what? Explain why you think it matters.

And is it any coincidence that COVID happened shortly after Trump initiated a Trade War against China?

And don't forget that the CIA shot JFK, and that the moon landings and 9/11 were faked.

--Percy

And how do you know that what you are taught by mainstream economic wisdom is in fact accurate or wise?

I don't actually spend a lot of time listening to what economists say. I have better ways to spend my time than thinking about money.

Yes, there are some people who do very well with investing. But they do their own careful research. They don't just buy into what the hucksters are selling. And, even then, they know that they will sometimes lose. They depend on having a good statistical picture so that the gains will exceed the losses. I would find that boring, so I don't get into risky investments.

quote:

---

And is it any coincidence that COVID happened shortly after Trump initiated a Trade War against China?

---

The sane answer is “yes”. Releasing a virus on their own population is hardly a sensible way of attacking the US. America wasn’t even the first country outside Asia to be badly affected. The idea that it’s somehow a response to Trump’s silly trade war makes no sense at all.

I don’t know who you got that idea from, but they’re obviously a conspiracy nut.

And is it any coincidence that COVID happened shortly after Trump initiated a Trade War against China?

Could you please be specific about just what "Trade War against China" you are talking about. And what you mean by "initiated"?

Trump is infamous for making big announcements and then never following through, or else completely reversing himself when he thought nobody was looking. For example, after suddenly pulling out of Syria and abandoning our Kurdish allies to be slaughtered by the Turks (sound anything like current accusations against Biden?), Trump announced sweeping sanctions against Turkey, but then he sent in Pence to negotiate with Erdogan and ended up lifting all the sanctions and giving him everything he wanted (typical of Trump's "deal making" when he cannot bully the other guy).

Over and over again, Trump would make public announcements first reviling China and then praising China, back and forth. Indeed, Obama had been negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement which would have formed a trade alliance with several Pacific Rim countries that would have also cut out China, thus placing China at a trade disadvantage.

One of the first things that Trump did when he took office was to pull the USA out of the TPP, thus doing China a huge favor. With Trump doing China favors like that and praising them (punctuated by public accusations with virtually nothing behind them), why would China have felt the need to unleash a biological weapon? Plus, if they had decided on such an action, they would have done a far better job of deploying that weapon.

I assume that you will bring up the tariffs that Trump imposed on China. I also assume that your sources will have repeated Trump's claims of China having paid us billions of dollars through those tariffs. Is that the case? Do we need to discuss yet again just what tariffs are and how they work? And who actually pays them?

This is why I stated that after 100,000 years (probably closer to 50,000) no C-14 is detectable in fossils. The soil has nothing to do with this. It is ludicrous to believe that significant amounts of C-14 is still present in 75,000,000 year old fossils, regardless of the soil or the presence of iron in the soil.

SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS????? Stop evading the question!

Any C-14 incorporated into the organisms through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on would indeed all be gone after 50,000 years. In addition, in most fossils all the organic material has been replaced by minerals (including any C-14 that had been incorporated in that organic material through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on). You are familiar with what fossilization is, aren't you?

Rather, the C-14 to be found in those fossils (as well as in all kinds of non-fossils) has not decayed away yet because it is of recent origin. And that recently formed C-14 has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.

 
Now, answer my question/request! What possible significance can teh presence of that recently formed C-14 have on radiocarbon dating?

In order to answer that, you need to understand what radiocarbon dating is based on and what it depends on. You claim to know that, so demonstrate your knowledge!

If you have no clue, then simply admit it and allow yourself to learn something for a change.

Otherwise, you are lying not only to us, but also to yourself. Do you really believe that lying is the Christian thing to do?

Reminds me of a story relating to the oracle at delphi. A king of a newly established empire (can't remember which one) wanted to invade the Persian Empire. Before the invasion, he went to the oracle to ask for advice. The oracle said something along the line of "if you invade Persia, a great empire will fall." The king went back to his army with a big smile on his face. It turned out that the invasion was a complete failure and the Persians took the opportunity to invade his country. While fighting for his country's survival, he sent a messenger to the oracle at delphi to ask why she said Persia was going to fall. The oracle's priest answered, "the oracle really meant your empire, not Persia."

It was Croesus, the King of Lydia in the 6th century BC. The story is told in Book 1 of the 'Histories' of Herodotus.

Percy writes: Why do you care how much gold the Chinese have? We think they have around $120 billion of gold. Let's say it's much more and that they actually have $500 billion. So what? Explain why you think it matters.

It evidently matters to them. It is a fact that Central Banks own gold---lots of it. According to bullion star.com, central banks claim to hold 33 thousand tons of gold. As an American, I would feel more comfortable if we had more gold than China, just as they would feel more comfortable if the US dollar was *not* the primary Global Reserve currency. In fact, Russia and China are both now trading for oil and resources bypassing the US dollar altogether. You and I disagree on why it matters, and I am still trying to formulate a cognizant argument.

Why it matters to you personally has no bearing on anything. The point is why do you think it matters? In what way will the US holding more gold affect the US economy or our standing in the world?

It evidently matters to them. It is a fact that Central Banks own gold---lots of it. According to bullion star.com, central banks claim to hold 33 thousand tons of gold.

There are very good reasons why we no longer base money on gold. Do some basic research.

For one thing, there's only a limited amount of gold, so countries end up in a game of trying to get other countries' gold away from them. In that game, we would want to keep other countries, especially our competitors, from getting their damned dirty paws off on our currency since they could then use that to take away some of our gold (exchanging promissary notes, which is what paper money is, for the gold behind it). The most common and widely used US currency is the thousand dollar bill, which is almost exclusively being held overseas by wealthy foreigners as easily transportable cash (should they need to suddenly bug out).

In addition, if we were to move to make our money inaccessible to other countries in order to protect our gold, then that would devalue the US dollar, making our money worth less, which is not a good thing.

And what FDR realized in the Great Depression (which I seem to recall is when we went off the Gold Standard) was that since we have a limited amount of gold, then that also limits what we can do as a country to get ourselves out of serious difficulties (such as the Great Depression).

And finally, if owning gold is such a wonderful solution, then why are they working so hard and spending so much money for commercials to sell you gold? Why aren't they just hoarding it all for themselves if it's so wonderful and all that?

This is an updated response from all prior replies in this thread, based on how I see the world today.
There are basically two ways that an end-times scenario could develop.
1) Human-caused by either nuclear or biological war.
2) Naturally caused through an act of nature such as a super-volcano.I suppose we couldn't rule out an alien attack though for all practical purposes I will not include that scenario.The Ukrainian War, though not yet a major war, has two nuclear powers involved. People these days tend to forget how powerful nuclear weapons now are, and any attempt to minimize or ignore the sixties conclusion of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) had best brush up on their homework! A limited nuclear exchange would also be quite dangerous due to the radiation and possible effects on the global climate. Putin is a terminally ill despot, and in my opinion, has more of a capability of a first strike than do our leaders. We are flirting with danger by playing politics around his borders. (Remember the Cuban Missle Crises?) That being said, I think that NATO has set the bar as to how involved they will in fact get in that conflict, and I am cautiously optimistic that Zulensky is right when he stated in the press today that Only diplomacy can end Ukraine war, says ZelenskyFor the record, I don't like this war one bit. Humans should have learned by now...

A more troubling comment that I found mentioned by Ratzinger is the fear of a globalist humanist "one world religion". I will admit to being nervous over the possibility of a one-world secular manifesto. I will try and discuss it, but keep in mind that humans, in general, tend to lie. Look at today's politics. I would go so far as to say that in any diplomatic situation, lies and exaggerated falsehoods are usually involved by at least one party.