"the same benefits coming in early or late."

The earlier money buys more than the later money.

Every fractional reserve loan inflates the money supply a little, and once the new money makes its way into the marketplace, it devalues by a little all the rest of the money people are holding.

Loans have to be paid back with interest. The loan amount is conjured from thin air, but who creates the money for the interest payments? Paul's interest payment has to come from money Peter borrowed. Maybe Peter gets his from Pat. But somewhere along the line somebody won't be able to get the money for his interest from another guy, and that guy goes bankrupt.

It's actually mathematically impossible for everybody to meet their interest payments; for one guy to make the payments, another has to lose money he borrowed.

"The bank has the capital, but not the idea."

In fractional reserve banking, the bank does not have the capital, by definition.

You and I earn money by selling our labor. Fractional reserve banks get money by selling ledger entries.

You're being snarky, I take it. The old scoff-instead-of-rebuttal trick?

The specter that "developed" economies would collapse without growth is a pretty strong clue that those economies are real pyramid schemes.

Fractional Reserve Banking is nothing but a legalized pyramid scheme. That's not sensationalism, politics or hyperbole, it's irrefutable fact.

In what way was the technical revolution a pyramid scheme?

"There haven't been ANY hyperinflation episodes in developed countries for more than 50 years"

To put that in context, Dona Branca's pyramid scheme lasted only 14 years, Lou Pearlman's lasted only 20 years, and Bernie Madoff's lasted only 30 years.

Central bankers are obviously way better.

"Ignorance" can mean simply that one does not know, and that's no vice. I think the ignorance mentioned here is a disinterest in learning.

If Faith is belief without verification, then Faith is the enemy of science, because science is based entirely on the idea of observing, hypothesizing, and testing. Religious faith stops at the hypothesis.

"These words have specific meanings"

And all those words have multiple meanings.

From the context it seems clear that OP was saying, but I'll attempt to clarify:

1) the scientific method historically has proven a better vetter of hypotheses than believing really hard in religious orthodoxies' explanations of natural phenomena;

2) the scientific method requiires rigorous and objective standards, and is incompatible with the subjective/feel-good/suspension-of-disbelief approaches believers take toward religion.

It's not about cell phones.

Who would be so stupid as to signal what they're about to do to all their opponents?

If memory serves, Sheldon was in the String Theory camp.

So what's that, Bazonks?

"it not coming through with what was hoped"

I think Science is not about confirming what we want to believe, but more just learning how things work.

You're right that the LHC does it's job; the Higgs Boson is one of the century's biggest discoveries. And, incidentally, that confirmation was exactly what many hoped for. And disproving string theory was also something some hoped for.

So I don't understand where the grumpy comes from. It's been a spectacular success.

I'll try. Supersymmetry predicted the existence of subatomic particles which the LHC would detect. The LHC hasn't detected them.

Hi your spitefulness, I think you skipped the part where the foreign workers were subsidized by their government, and the tariffs were intended to negate said subsidy.

Better not even say that. Giving them the idea you might have something they could turn into a prison sentence is probably enough to interest them even more.

Here's how the ACLU says to handle the cops:

http://www.aclumontereycounty....

Well, you're absolutely right. Perhaps things could actually work this way were it not for news media that has no interest in putting things in context and a populace that ooh look, Justin Beeber, pretty, shiny.

"Is that hour worth 60 of those newly employed people?"

No.

In the first place you have a dimensional analysis problem of non-matching units.

In the second place, one CEO can't do the work of 60 people. That's why he had to hire them.

You're right that his job isn't easy. No interesting job is. Lots of people work hard.

The average CEO makes 340 times his average employee. The CEO does not work 340 times harder than his average employee. He doesn't know 340 times more than his average employee. He doesn't single-handedly bring in 340 times more productivity than his average employee.

Instead he gets the credit (and sometimes blame) for what every other person in the organization accomplished.

Good CEOs deserve respect. Not worship. And not money disproportionate to his contribution.

The reason CEOs get paid so much is not because the free market prices them so high. It's because they are on each others' Board of Directors and they all figured out they could overcharge their companies and share the spoils amongst themselves.