i honestly believe that when a company's profits skyrocket, people should get bonus'

[gwb72tii]

Yes

care to explain?

[LBJefferies]

Powerful and corrupt people may use the guise of religion to control people, but that doesn't mean they represent the religion, either in fact or spirit.

I've heard this excuse so many times it makes me want to puke. It's like calling yourself a Nazi but claiming that you don't believe in racial superiority, or totalitarian government. Well those ideas are fundamental to Nazism so no, you're not a Nazi. Likewise, corruption and control are fundamental to religion so no, you're not religious otherwise.

Just look at what the Bible says. Do not lie, do not kill, do not work on Sundays, do not talk back to your parents, do not resist your husband trying to rape you, DO NOT QUESTION. The very basis of religion is rules and control. If you think it is meant to be open for interpretation then you are completely missing the point. Ask the Pope what he thinks about your personal interpretation of Revelation, and he will tell you you're wrong then tell you what "God" told him Revelation means.

Free thinking and subjectivity are great things, but people need to come out of the closet already. Stop calling yourself religious, stop calling yourself a Christian. Stop supporting the corruption and control that religion has in the world.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^I'd like to sit down face to face and have a convo about this topic. I see/know where you are coming from, but I think your issue is with Man-Controlled Organized religion.

In a watered down, lite version, think of the bible as a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, two people can sit side by side and read a different story from the same book, the story you read is the one you understand at the end, it may not be what the other person got from the book, but does that make what one read right, and what the other read wrong?


It's not about rules, it's about a relationship. Not one with your fellow man, but one with a creator/parent figure.

[LBJefferies]

^I'd like to sit down face to face and have a convo about this topic. I see/know where you are coming from, but I think your issue is with Man-Controlled Organized religion.

In a watered down, lite version, think of the bible as a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, two people can sit side by side and read a different story from the same book, the story you read is the one you understand at the end, it may not be what the other person got from the book, but does that make what one read right, and what the other read wrong?


It's not about rules, it's about a relationship. Not one with your fellow man, but one with a creator/parent figure.

The Church would tell you that there is only one way to interpret the Bible. That is the fundamental basis of religion. It is about absolute, never changing truths. Free thought, subjectivity, relativism, etc. are anti-religion. That's why I am saying that people who are free thinkers should stop calling themselves religious because they are not. You don't need a priest or a book to tell you what to believe. You only need your own mind and your own subjective experiences of the world to form beliefs.

[Farbin Kaiber]

You do know that "Church" is a word translated that is "kyriakon" in the greek, which means "of the Lord" which is also defined as "out-called one's", the people that make up the so-called Church, not the governmental or ruling body. Right?

And I agree with what you are saying, I consider myself spiritual, not a member of a "religion". I have a relationship that is vertical, not horizontal on the plane of earth with my fellow religious-folk.

[LBJefferies]

You do know that "Church" is a word translated that is "kyriakon" in the greek, which means "of the Lord" which is also defined as "out-called one's", the people that make up the so-called Church, not the governmental or ruling body. Right?

Yeah and as a group those people form an institution with set rules and common beliefs. It's a herd mentality.

Belief should be 100% personal without any influence from authority figures such as people or books or institutions.

[mar1t1me]

That would be the popes of the dark ages, and keeping people intentionally blind lead to a lot of death and war. Obviously not good, but not representational of any major form of religion before or after. Powerful and corrupt people may use the guise of religion to control people, but that doesn't mean they represent the religion, either in fact or spirit.

Hmmm......American slavery wasn't all that long ago, and that was pretty much the song and dance then. "You are a degenerate species, but we will show you our religion, and if you work hard, you will get to see our god someday. Where do you think those Negro Spirituals came from?

The common denominator here is religion, traditionally a significant means of control.

It's fun to remind bankers, especially these days, who consider themselves Christian that "the Bible commands them to cancel all debts after 7 years. To do otherwise is to go against God. It also treats usury rather harshly." I then ask "how can you go to work everyday knowing you are being paid to go against your God's Word? Sit back, watch rationalizations ensue. Great fun, I tell ya.....

[herbivor]

Hmmm......American slavery wasn't all that long ago, and that was pretty much the song and dance then. "You are a degenerate species, but we will show you our religion, and if you work hard, you will get to see our god someday. Where do you think those Negro Spirituals came from?

The common denominator here is religion, traditionally a significant means of control.

It's fun to remind bankers, especially these days, who consider themselves Christian that "the Bible commands them to cancel all debts after 7 years. To do otherwise is to go against God. It also treats usury rather harshly." I then ask "how can you go to work everyday knowing you are being paid to go against your God's Word? Sit back, watch rationalizations ensue. Great fun, I tell ya.....

Oh but that's the Old Testament. Jesus somehow made those rules disappear when he died for our sins... well some of them. You know like, the ones where it's not cool for men to have sex, that's obviously a no no. But it's ok to eat shellfish now, and not have a beard, or not wear tassels or all white clothing made of specific blends of natural fibers. Those were just silly rules that Jesus decided we didn't need to follow, even though God commanded it before. I guess he changes his mind often. He's kind of an asshole like that.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Fucking Herbi, you can be a homo, no problem. All sins, not some of them. The people that say otherwise are still twisted up, trying to live under the law.

The Old Testament "contract" was paid by Jesus, not the rules changed. His actions created a New Testament, or an new contract with mankind, anyone who imposes the law upon you, themselves or others is bound to the entire old contract. Think of it as your rich uncle deciding he accepted you are gay, and put you into his new, rewritten will. The old one, where he said your bitch ass gets nothing is meaningless.


BTW, you can eat meat now too, even of the cloven hoof.

[BraveUlysses]

It's fun to remind bankers, especially these days, who consider themselves Christian that "the Bible commands them to cancel all debts after 7 years. To do otherwise is to go against God. It also treats usury rather harshly." I then ask "how can you go to work everyday knowing you are being paid to go against your God's Word? Sit back, watch rationalizations ensue. Great fun, I tell ya.....

I'd bet dollars to donuts that those bankers at the very top don't even pretend to be Christians.

[herbivor]

Fucking Herbi, you can be a homo, no problem. All sins, not some of them. The people that say otherwise are still twisted up, trying to live under the law.

The Old Testament "contract" was paid by Jesus, not the rules changed. His actions created a New Testament, or an new contract with mankind, anyone who imposes the law upon you, themselves or others is bound to the entire old contract. Think of it as your rich uncle deciding he accepted you are gay, and put you into his new, rewritten will. The old one, where he said your bitch ass gets nothing is meaningless.


BTW, you can eat meat now too, even of the cloven hoof.

Seams legit.

[frankenbeemer]

I fear I cannot afford the cloven hoof. Please redistribute some of your income to me.

[Kershaw]

interesting article on consumers creating jobs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnthar.../job-creators/

Today on Face the Nation (hosted by fellow Horned Frog, Bob Schieffer), I heard Mitt Romney add his voice to the chorus of those saying that economic recovery would follow if only we relieved the terrible burden that the government has placed on the nation’s job creators: business. Were taxes and regulations relaxed, this would reduce costs sufficiently to allow firms to do what they are already dying to do, which is expand operations.

But even if we grant the argument that business taxes and regulations are high (which is by no means clear–in fact, it’s easier to make a case for the opposite), this ignores two crucial facts. First, as my friend Mike Norman has pointed out, employees are a cost, usually the most significant one faced by firms (Mike Norman Economics). For that reason, every rational entrepreneur’s goal is to reduce, not increase, the number of workers they have to pay. And quite right. Entrepreneurs have families, too, and they need to feed and clothe them. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Second and more fundamentally, no matter how much you lower costs, if you don’t have more customers, you won’t hire more workers. If the demand for goods and services stays where it is today and we only cut industry taxes and regulations, there is absolutely no reason to think that firms would expand employment. Rather, they would continue to produce at the same level and simply earn higher profits. On the other hand, if we leave taxes and regulations untouched but increase demand, entrepreneurs will happily add workers. And that is the root of the problem today. The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers. The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs.

Ask yourself this question: what do you really think caused firms to lay off so many workers that unemployment jumped from 4.4% in May 2007 to 10% in October 2009 (remaining at 8.2% today), a sudden spike in business regulations and taxes, or a collapse in demand? It is impossible to imagine that anyone truly believes the former to be the case. In reality, the reason we are stuck where we are is because the middle class lacks jobs and incomes–something that will get markedly worse if we continue to try to cut government spending and balance the budget (many of my other blog posts cover this issue so I’ll say no more here).

In conclusion, let me add my voice to the chorus of those who actually understand what’s happening in our economy: WE DEMAND AGGREGATE DEMAND!

very relevant to this topic. unlike religion. which is not going to turn around our economy.

[gwb72tii]

We should regulate that businesses hire more workers;)

Seriously, the federal government created the conditions, with regulations, that created the asset bubble that exploded in 2008/9.
Massive loss in family wealth is not a good way to create confidence in consumers to demand (spend) more. And Obama wanting to increase taxes, on everyone, doesn't spur demand also. And I mention the word everyone because everybody knows taxing the "rich" alone will not do anything to solve the messiah's spending habit.

[z31maniac]

Kershaw, what do you think consumers would do if they had more money (in other words lower taxes)............spend more, creating more demand?

Lowering business taxes (US has the highest in the world) would not simply just let businesses earn higher profits. All it would take is one manufacturer lowering his price to grab a bigger market share and the others would follow.


Look at the high speed internet market in Britain.