Celestiall Nightfire

Hi Pamela! I've missed you...and so many of the others from the old SLX days. I currently have to login to Facebook to see Kenn's posts (if you remember my fellow Libertarian... : ) ...and I loathe FB. (I think a bunch of us on FB are switching to google+ ) Would love to see you post here a regular...or even semi-regular basis. 

Maylily, I need to get inworld and work on a build, so I am not able to post here for a while. But, I'll post one last comment here. The credit worthiness of a nation (or in the case of the EU) determines whether lenders will loan money. Just like our indivdual credit worthiness determines whether we can borrow money to buy a car, house, or boat. Thus, the strength of currency helps decide the credit worthiness of nations, as do financial reserves, like gold bullion, etc. Now, the US dollar is falling and has done poorly, because the US does not have enough reserves to give our currency power. Too much paper money floating around, and nothing backing it, combined with low confidence in the US goverment to curb spending. So, the dollar is weak. Our weak dollar bolsters the Euro, because those who want to invest in currency look elsewhere...such as to the Euro. So, the Euro has been rising, and with that rise they become a better credit risk and lenders are willing to give them money. So, Greece, and the other Euro countries are coming out of their financial morass. (See article below dated July 25, 2011) http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-softer-dollar-saved-the-euros-bacon-2011-07-25?reflink=MW_news_stmp Now, that article is referencing the monetary climb of the Euro which has been going steadly up since 2003. The direct result is that lenders jumped in to provide money for Greece, and they will be able to escape their financial situation. (see article below dated June 21, 2011) http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9O03EPO0&show_article=1 Remember that formula I posted? Formula: gold reserves per person Well, Greece is on a par with the US, for gold reserves per person. Greece has gold reserves of 78.7%. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2080813,00.html

Mayalily wrote: SL is my escape from ecomomics in many ways. lol I also use SL for entertainment. The internet is a fabulous medium, and SL provides a form of immersive entertainment, that is unique. Mayalily wrote: (not sure on whether it's a paying website or not, but at first glance it looked like a subscribing deal). I took off my Wall Street Journal online subscription because it just wasn't very good, imo. It wasn't worth the money. Plus I get CNBC and Bloomberg included with my cable. The "The Economist" actually is paid magazine, and the online version is too. But, anyone can read the articles after they have been posted for short while. The subscriptions just provide a current feed to the most recent issue. (You're right about the WSJ...they have always been rather pricey) The http://mises.org/ website is free. They have a daily feed with free articles. http://mises.org/daily/

Ceka Cianci wrote: print more money and the paper loses value..people see the devalue and buy up value holding gold..this increases the price of gold. Ceka, you have very elegantly summed up the fall of the dollars value and the rise in gold prices. Ceka Cianci wrote: Congradulations on the directors position..I will be sure to look up the group for sure when i log in next.. =) Thanks. : )

Mayalily wrote: And no I really don't want to read internet blogs either written by who knows who? That economist website sounds like propaganda to me. I don't read those things nor give them any credence. I don't know why people do, but they do. As for me, no thanks, I don't care to read any blogs. Blogs? What are you talking about? "The Economist" is one of the world's oldest financial media organizations. (founded in 1843) http://www.economist.com/ Newspapers, magazines, books, etc. They now have a website, as the internet is the newest form of media.

Mayalily wrote: I never said the U.S. was in good financial shape with it's gold now. I said "there is hope"... hope eluding to the future as gold appreciates further. And, I heard it said on CNBC that the U.S. holds 60% of the world's gold. I do btw listen to CNBC just about every day and have for years. I don't like TV much. I'd rather watch and listen to CNBC everyday. It depends on what formula CNBC came up with their figure as to how or why the USA owns 60% of the worlds gold. There are differing formulas, but I highly doubt CNBC lied that the USA owns 60% of the world's gold. That was said oh about six months ago, not years ago on CNBC. All I can do is try to write CNBC on how they arrived at that figure. But do I really want to do that? No. I want to go decorate my SL home right now. I doubt that CNBC lied either. What I do suspect is, that you either did not pay attention to the news that you were listening to, or did not understand it. This is neither good nor bad, but just...is. I'm actually impressed that you've contributed so much to the discussion of economics in this thread. I'd be happy to meet with you inworld sometime...and we don't have to talk about economics.

Mayalily wrote: Europe isn't a country; it's a continent, btw. Dogboat's correct. The largest gold reserves are held by the greater EU. Economically, the are considered "one unit" with their gold reserves, as the countries have united under a common currency. Mayalily wrote: However, there are way for you too look up who owns what gold and it's current worth and such and such and it's called google. http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/who-owns-worlds-gold/2491 Hmm, well looking up articles is not the same as understanding the articles. The article that you've cited, (which is one of the articles I cited) clearly states that the US holds 8,133.5 (tonnes) of gold bullion. Which is 26.6% of the world's gold bullion and only 15.4% of the world's total mined gold. When you read that article, the number "78.3%" is not the amount of gold that the US has. That number is the percentage of the total foreign reserves. Why do you post links to articles that you do not understand, and subsequesntly try to ignore links that others post? In the past on this forum I posted links to reputable University research and US government websites. Yet, you chose to ignore them. If you're going to cherry-pick your sources, and skim articles with lack of comprehension, then it is futile to discuss issues with you.

Mayalily wrote: Not to mention that the U.S. owns 60% of the worlds gold. That is a lot to say the least. That's leaves 40% for all the other world countries combined. This is an astronomical amount of gold for one country to hold and it's already mined and pressed into bars. It's good to see a discussion on economics. But, if we're talking about gold held in reserve by governments, then the US holds in reserve approximately 8,133.5 (tonnes) in gold bullion. Currently, all nations of the world currently hold 30,562.5 (tonnes) of gold bullion. So, the US holds 26.6% of the worlds' gold bullion reserves. http://www.gold.org/government_affairs/gold_reserves/ Now, the gold bullion held in reserve by the world's governments is not the total of the world's mined gold. The US holds about "15.4% of all the gold ever mined."...that's total mined gold. Which includes gold bullion held by the US federal reserve, and gold held privately by individuals in the form of coins, jewelry , and gold objects. http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/who-owns-worlds-gold/2491 So, the US actually holds (held by government and privately) 15.4% of the world's gold. Many other countries hold large reserves of gold bullion, with Germany being the individual country that holds the next highest percent after the US. http://www.cnbc.com/id/33242464/The_World_s_Biggest_Gold_Reserves?slide=16 Having a large bullion reserve is good, but the US is not at the top of the list for financial stability based upon it's gold reserves.  The financial stability and credit worthiness of the US, is based upon the pecentage of total reserves that the US has. That percentage is derived by a particular formula. The formula is: gold reserves per person.  The US has a large population, and the gold reserves are factored (divided) by the total population of it's given country. For an example, Germany is in a much better financial position, because their gold reserves are higher percentage-wise compared to their total population. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/04/gold_reserves (see above link) With gold reserves per person, Switerland tops the list and far exceeds the US for financial stability. Credit-worthiness is crucial to the US being able to secure funds on the global lending market, as the US government is currently unable to sustain itself with the tax revenue generated by US total production. An analogy for this situation would be a family that spends money that far exceeds their income, and they are forced to borrow to make ends meet. Yet, since their assets (gold reserves) are less than what would be needed to support the number of people in the family, they are a higher credit risk. This is the basic credit dilemma that the US has managed to spend itself into. For anyone reading this thread: I've recently been appointed to the position of Mises Institute SL Director, and plan to set-up some information displays inworld, regarding economics and finances. (after the new inworld location is built) Contact me inworld if you'd like a LM to the new SL location once it's built, or you may join the Mises Institute SL group for further information.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Its not religion that leads to such danger - but extremism. Yes, of course it's the extremism that is dangerous, and not religion per se. That's why I said : "Sadly, this terrorist act in Norway was done by someone who is a self-professed "Christian"...which underscores how identifying people's values, actions, compassion, and ethics through group-labels often yields wrong conclusions". Because in my mind, the values, actions, compassion and ethics of a true Christian, would preclude the possibility of such a heinous murder spree. By "true Christian", I mean someone who embraces and follows the message of love and inclusion that was at the core of Jesus's teachings. Pussycat Catnap wrote: We have only to look to Stalin and Pol Pot to see that there is such a thing as Atheist-extremism that kills in the name of 'anti-religion.' Like the purges that Stalin did, Pol Pot used "anti-religion" as a political weapon. He was not concerned with the actual intellectual reasoning behind the atheist mind. What he did was to identity those current power factions that would stand against him...and he systemically eliminated them. I think many of us posting in this thread agree, that it is the propensity for power, which fuels much evil in this world. When you couple that propensity with a deranged mind, and extreme ideologies, then acts such as Okahomal City and this Norway tragedy will happen, and on a bigger scale the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot and many others. I think it behooves each of us to judge others as individuals, and not jump to conclusions based upon politics, religion, and nationality. The qualities of good and evil span the globe, and all groups contain people that fall within those two realms, and many that straddle the fence between.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: I'm a lot more furious that after they learned it was a white right-wing Christian, some of at least the American media stopped calling it a terrorist attack, and instead are calling him a 'disturbed individual'. ....Its like the news in the US is trying to keep us locked in racial conflicts that are artificial by this careful choice of language. Pussycat, can you provide some links to media that is not calling this a terrorist attack? Or links to media that has changed from saying "terrorist attack."...to saying "disturbed indivdual"? I've only seen media describe this as a terrorist attack.

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Yes. Sadly, acts of killing are routinely perpetrated by those who embrace religion. (I'm an atheist and a libertarian...and self- identify as such. Strangely, people routinely condemn atheists and libertarians although neither group is known for acts of violence) Well, if Prok were here . . . (if you say his name three times, does he appear?) . . . he would undoubtedly remind us all that the Soviets, and all manner of Communists, were atheists, but reasonably handy at the employment of terror too. And he'd be right. I think that there can be a political or ideological "fundamentalism" too, which is every bit as dangerous. Prokofy, has quite a brilliant mind, and I admire much that Prokofy stands against...and stands for. Well, all communists were not atheists. To say that Communists were "atheists" is really to say that Societ-Communists were anti-Czarist. It was a direct backlash against the Czarist-regime which was the true reason they followed an "atheists" appellation. They were atheist only as a weapon against the czarist regime. It was more politically motivated and against what was the the current power structure. The Communist "atheist" was concerned with leveraging the movement against their political enemies...and dismantling the Church and it's power base were their methods. The problem is, that there are always those who wish to place themselves in charge of other people. They will use whatever political or ideological tools they can to achieve this end.

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Unfortunately, Norway a country with a small population, has had numerous terrorist incidents over the years. (population of around 4.9 million) Here is the Global Terrorism Database's statistics maintained by the University of Maryland: http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=151&charttype=line&chart=overtime&ob=GTDID&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table( That data is separate from crime statistics. Sadly, this terrorist act in Norway was done by someone who is a self-professed "Christian"...which underscores how identifying people's values, actions, compassion, and ethics through group-labels often yields wrong conclusions. I think that one of the things that this will do is alert Norwegians to the prevalence and dangers posed by the far right there. From what I've been reading, it's been growing as a force there even as it has been waning somewhat in other Scandanavian countries. Much of Europe right now is struggling with xenophobia and a sometimes militant anti-Muslim backlash that is, in part, a legacy of our tendency to associate terrorism with Islam. You are, of course, absolutely right: terrorism is not the sole property of any given religion, creed, ideology, or culture. It's a "way of doing things" that was being practiced long before there was an al-Qaeda. I'm reminded of how appalled I was when I heard about France, in an effort to stifle Muslim identification and ideologies, passed laws forbidding the wearing of the hajji by female students in public schools. That they also forbid the wearing of all religious garb, does not lessen the repulsion I felt by this invasion of personal liberty. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3474673.stm I was in Paris in the spring of 2007, and had lunch with a Jewish Parisian woman, who expressed great concern over the immigrants, the non-French, and anyone who did not fit her definition of being part of the French-national-pysche. We discussed many things, and this woman was educated, worldly, and sophisticated. I was surprise to hear her state such animosity toward those that had immigrated to France to seek a better life. This sentiment was expressed over and over by people I talked to in France, both in Paris, and other parts of the country.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: ... Sadly, this terrorist act in Norway was done by someone who is a self-professed "Christian"...which underscores how identifying people's values, actions, compassion, and ethics through group-labels often yields wrong conclusions. The kind of far right, culturally conservative, and deeply xenophobic political ideology that Breivik apparently subscribed to always seems to go hand in hand with religious ideals. Just look at the KKK or white supremacist groups like Christian Identity. Or think of... well, I don't want to Godwin this thread. Yes. Sadly, acts of killing are routinely perpetrated by those who embrace religion. (I'm an atheist and a libertarian...and self- identify as such. Strangely, people routinely condemn atheists and libertarians although neither group is known for acts of violence)

Unfortunately, Norway a country with a small population, has had numerous terrorist incidents over the years. (population of around 4.9 million) Here is the Global Terrorism Database's statistics maintained by the University of Maryland: http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=151&charttype=line&chart=overtime&ob=GTDID&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table( That data is separate from crime statistics. Sadly, this terrorist act in Norway was done by someone who is a self-professed "Christian"...which underscores how identifying people's values, actions, compassion, and ethics through group-labels often yields wrong conclusions.

Jacki Silverfall wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Jacki Silverfall wrote: Alls I gotta say is they better not mess with the older folks. If my Momma has to go hungry because of greedy politicians there's gonna be hell to pay. AARP is already after them.:smileymad: You said, " they better not mess with the older folks". Who is "they"? you ask who is they then mention politians in the next question? Also, what do politicans have to do with your mother's acquisition of food? They are cutting SS Who would this retribution of "hell to pay" fall upon? And why? The voters will see that its paid BTW this was a dumb if not mean response. Why? Because I'm scared for us, me my family. Maybe you'll be alright but some of wont. More power to ya. But every day I see a terrified 84 year old cry because her country that in her day was so proud. Fail her. I'm freaking sorry I posted this question that essentially didn't get answered anyway. I'm leaving with Dres So, call me both "dumb & mean" for asking questions? Hmmm, do you see the oxymoronic nature of your comment? Social security was never meant to be someone's sole retirement coverage. That has been made clear to the US population for over 50 years. Social Security is a supplement to add to whatever money and retirement funds that the population as acquired. It has also been made clear and explained to the US population that social security is an upside-down pyramid..with more people drawing out then there are people paying in. It is an unsustainable pyramid scheme. It is not the US government’s responsibility to fund your mother's retirement...the country has not "failed" her. If you study history, you know that until very recently elderly people were taken care of by their own families. So, if your mother is upset with her financial situation, then her family should be the ones to step in and help...not the US government. Because, as this thread clearly illustrates...the US government does not actually have any money of it's own. The ONLY money that the US government can acquire is acquire by taking it from the US working and producing population. So, I ask you... who is responsible for your mother? Are *my* aging parents responsible for your mother's finances?

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: I don't know about other Western European countries, but the unemployment rate in Germany is currently 7.4% (versus 9.2% in the USA). I have to admit that our numbers are a bit polished and don't include unemployed people who are participating in vocational training programs, but the real number is still below 10%. "Over the last 30 years, the unemployment rate has risen by more than 7 percentage points in the EU, and just by 1.3% in the US". http://www.jstor.org/pss/1344723 Ishy, that researched document is from 2000, but at the point in time there had been three decades of increasing unemployment in the larger EU area. This was directly tied to socialist economic policies. Then, in the last decade, many EU countries tried to reverse the ever-increasing socialist-economics...and not surprisingly, the unemployment rate has dropped in the EU. Contrast that to the US, which has gone in the opposite direction with more socialist economic policies, and the US unemployment rate has risen dramatically. So, historically, the US has had low unemployment, and higher prosperity. But, as the US pursued an increasingly socialist-economics we have become plunged into the same squeeze that the EU countries are trying to dig themselves out of. Also, you mentioned that Germany's rate is "polished". Here is an interesting bit of statistics which attempts to show the difference between the "officially" reported unemployment rates and the "polished" ones. This data identifies: "Unemployment rates in 2005 (people officially looking for work). Explaining that the numbers for people actually looking for work, is not the same as the numbers of "unemployed" Interesting data on this link: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?24192-Employment-vs-unemployment-rates-in-the-EU Ishtara Rothschild wrote: I'm a libertarian too as far as social matters and the freedom of the individual are concerned. But when it comes to the market economy, there is no way around government regulation. I think part of the problem in the USA is this outright war of rigid political ideologies. There is no single ideology that could solve all problems. As society and the world market evolve and face new challenges, one has to look everywhere for solutions and can't be afraid to borrow ideas from other parts of the political spectrum. Unfortunately for those in the US, the economic polices that have been borrowed from the greater EU have worked to the detriment of the US economy.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: The hell would be paid by the majority of voters that don't want to see their security net, which they've paid into all their lives, dismantled and turned over to corporate entities that are only concerned with making a profit instead of what's in the best interest of the people that can no longer look after themselves. Dresden, the US social security system was only a backup...a supplement to someone's retirement. It was never intended to be a sole provider. Also, you have injected the notion of corporate entities taking over social security, I can tell you that if I had been had control and had been able to invest all the money that I had paid in to social security over the years...into private investments....I would have substantially more money set aside for retirement then I do currently. Social security funds are not invested on behalf of the taxpayer. There is no SS fund with my name on it...that contains the money I have paid into social security. On the contrary...the money goes into a black-hole of government spending. The money flows into the general fund. *poof* It's gone. I cannot access the money, I cannot withdraw it...nor is it anywhere attached to me or my name. SS can only speculate that if future generations pay into the system...then there *might* be some money to pay me in my old age. Now, lets' compare that to a situation whereby a private corporation were managing the SS funds, and actually creating retirement accounts where the money is invested for a financial return. We would each get statements like our other retirement accounts, we could switch the funds and around, we could increase the amounts, etc. The money would be used to generate more money...which is the key to investing. What's in the best interests of the people, is to assist them to be financially stable and independent. So, my private investment corporations have far exceeded that goal....and the US government has not even come close to achieving that. Yet, you malign the private corporations and say they are *only* concerned with making a profit. When that profit is tied to superior performance with my invested money, I welcome the private corporations to manage my investments.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Instead of raising the taxes on corporations, the USA could follow the example of Western European countries and force employers to pay higher wages as well as half of the social insurance fees of their employees, and give more paid vacation days to boot. That indirectly levies money from corporations and leaves the wage earning consumers more time and money to buy things they don't really need. Basically trickle up instead of trickle down economics Yes, but you forgot to add that it creates high unemployment. Which has plagued Western European countries for decades. Resulting in many more people on the dole, people being subsidized, and the smaller percentage that are working, being squeezed to keep everything afloat.

Jacki Silverfall wrote: Alls I gotta say is they better not mess with the older folks. If my Momma has to go hungry because of greedy politicians there's gonna be hell to pay. AARP is already after them.:smileymad: You said, "they better not mess with the older folks". Who is "they"? Also, what do politicans have to do with your mother's acquisition of food? Who would this retribution of "hell to pay" fall upon? And why?

Dresden Ceriano wrote: If you want to equate governmental finances with personal finances a more accurate statement would go something like this: You take out a loan to put yourself through school... thereby, not only bettering yourself, but making it possible to get a better job where you'll make more money to eventually get yourself out of debt and be in a better financial position in the long run. Stupid, right? Well, your analogy stops short of the total scenario. To more accurately equate, government and personal finances, it would go something like this: You take out a loan to put yourself through school... thereby, not only bettering yourself, but making it possible to get a better job where you'll make more money to eventually *attempt to* get yourself out of debt and be in a better financial position in the long run.  Then you find out you're not in a better financial position, so you again borrow money and create a bigger debt for yourself. Hmm, still not achieving a better financial position. What could be wrong? Hey, maybe borrowing *more* money will solve it! So, you borrow, and borrow, and borrow. Next thing you know...you are trillions in debt, and can't even begin to pay the interest, let alone the actual debt. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Now what do you do? Do you continue to borrow money?

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: What configuration is being referenced? Why does it require a purchase? What needs to be purchased? A purchase per se is not needed. You only need to make a *purchase* if that step helps verify that your payment information on file is valid. It works this way: In order for you to upload Mesh into SL, you will need to have payment information on file...and have that information verified. One of the ways to verify payment information is to make a purchase.

If someone is harrassing you by naming you in their profile picks...then file an abuse report. Include a screenshot, and make sure to list what that person is actually posting in their profile. (quote them in the abuse report) Also, please do note that when I see something like that in a profile...I do not have a high opinion of the person who's profile has this sort of defamation posted. So, the person doing *this* is really just trashing their own reputation by particpating in such tasteless emotionally immature harrassment. It doesn't make *you* look bad....it makes *them* look bad.

Rusalka Writer wrote: Did some building in Sandbox 28, went back a couple of hours later, and the last half-hour of work is gone. Mesh and prim. I won't be paying for any mesh on the maingrid until this sort of thing stops. Rusalka, so sorry to hear that. Frustrating, I know. Try contacting Oskar Linden...see if he has any insight.

Mayalily wrote: Unless it's in the American Journal of Psychiatric Medicine, I do not wish to have dueling websites with you nor anyone on this subject. As I said, I am not googling anything on this topic and I do not wish to read your googles nor engage in dueling websites about this either. Do I believe the internet can teach? In a word: No. Anyone can write a website. So, as I trust the American Journal of Psychiatric Medicine, all I came up with is this: The Deviant Mind: when I googled American Journal of Psychiatric Medicine and rape fantasy. It gave me the deviant mind. Nuff said for me. If you can find something in this link about rape fantasy, good luck on your search. http://www.deviantcrimes.com/articles.htm I'm done with this discussion. Hope that spells that out for you. Oh, it spells out that you wish to live in ignorance. Which is "bliss" for some folks. How in the world do people carry on through life ignoring facts, information and documented research is beyond me. IF you have anything close to an actual University of higher education in your area... I urge you to take some classes. Or go to a library and read some actual books. There is nothing good about remaining ignorant.

Marianne McCann wrote: Really? Do we need yet another child avatar thread? Isn't this particular amaretto horse already a flattened sculpt? http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Child_avatar ::steps out:: Hi Marianne. I was actually thinking of your avatar when I got ready to compose a reply to the OP. @ Bactine. Marianne plays a child avatar in SL, and her avatar is not "creepy" She looks, dresses, and acts like a child. I recently spotted her at the SL Machinima Festival, where her nicely-done Machinima was one that was shown. I'm not creeped-out by Marianne's avatar, as she has done an great job of creating a child persona. and playing it in SL. She even has a RL picture of herself (as a child) on her SL inworld profile. (Which I think she has closely modeled her SL avatar from this RL image and has done excellent in the recreation) Now, if I see a miniature sexualized avatar wearing adult looking clothing and saying that they are a "child", then yes, that is going to raise an eyebrow with me, as, they have contradicting elements of adult/child. Part of being a child avatar is being true to the "child" part. In RL children do not do, or go, and say things that adults do. So, I'd recommend getting a good avatar that actually looks like a child. (not a shrunken adult) Stay away from sexy clothing, actually play SL as if you were a child. Behave appropriately to the role that you wish to play, and you'll do fine.