brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Richard C. August raugust at ptd.net
Thu Aug 1 07:47:16 EST 2002


Dear Parse Tree,

Really, even the most highly credit-worthy homeowners in the USA do NOT
entirely own their own property.

I am a loan application taker for a local Home Improvement Co. which also
assists clients through mortgage refinancing and debt consolidation, in
order for them to "afford" more expensive but badly needed or highly desired
home improvements.  When I am taking the credit application, I ask, "Is your
name the only name on the deed?", many times the clients respond, "Mine and
the Bank's."  They answer this way because they KNOW that the Mortgage
Lenders have placed LIENS on their homes in case of "default" on the
mortgage.  Of course, "default" means FORECLOSURE on the home.

Welcome to the United Kibbutzim of Amerika, Reb Parse Tree.  Your Goy butt
is OWNED by the very BANK that charges you INTEREST on the GDP of your anus.
Personal Property is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.  Your rights of owning
private property are only "covered" with a thinly veiled THREAT that if you
don't dance to the high interest rate tune that you're charged for every
purchase, then you have no right to YOUR property that YOU may have
purchased outright!

Here's why this condition exists.  Our DOLLAR used to be on the GOLD
STANDARD.  That meant that you could trade a dollar for an equivalent weight
in gold, and you could sell that gold back for that same dollar.  Now, our
dollar is OFF the gold standard.  Gold prices fluctuate as a commodity, only
usable by the very wealthiest people.  Our dollar, meanwhile, isn't worth
the paper on which it's printed.

Let me put it to you in layman's terms.  You own a store, and I come in to
buy something from you.  I have two items in my hand which I can use to pay
you for your item.  One is an ingot of 99.9% pure gold.  The other is a
highly artistically decorated piece of paper with a dollar sign and a
denomination value written on it, with nothing more than a "written"
guarantee that it will buy the denomination's value of a good or service.
Knowing that you can use the gold for everything from trade value to costume
jewelry, and that that piece of paper can be consumed to light your
cigarette, which would you choose?

Ding, dong, the bells are chiming...  Isn't this exactly why property values
are OVERINFLATED based on a WORTHLESS DOLLAR whose tax base is SUPPORTED by
WELFARE and SOCIAL SECURITY recipients and whose WELFARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY
FUNDS are plundered by the very CONGRESSMEN they elect, to be used for pet
pork-barrel projects ostensibly to employ people in THEIR districts (read:
cause for them to be re-elected at $150,000/year salaries)?

Welcome to the United Kibbutzim of Amerika, Parse Tree.  You don't really
think you OWN your home, do you?




Sincerely,


Richard C. August

"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tpE19.59$9g7.22300 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> You have your date set incorrectly.
>
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> news:8cC19.45114$Fq6.4020271 at news2.west.cox.net...
> >
> > So tell us, parsetree, do you think we should believe the affirmative
> action
> > hirees at the CIA who pad their figures with "purchasing power parity",
or
> > would you prefer ACCURATE data from independent, industry sources which
> use
> > REAL data?
>
> Corporations use figures that reflect PPP.  It costs $299 for a PS2 in
> Canada, and $200 in the US.  That's not the literal exchange rate.
>
> > If you want to know how misleading "purchasing power parity" really is,
> take
> > a look at Asia Week Magazine's "Bottom Line" at
> > http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0818/bottomline.html
>
> Do you honestly think that $783 is an accurate depiction of China's GDP
per
> person?  I know that in NA you can't live off of that much money in a
year.
> It's literally impossible.
>
> > To be specific, Japan has a higher GDP per capita than the US, but the
CIA
> > and other feminized American sources use ppp to penalize Japan to reduce
> it
> > from $34,715 to $23,480, based on the most senseless excuses, like how
> long
> > students are in school, and a whole bunch of irrelevant tricks.
>
> It is incredibly expensive to live in Japan.  Just like it is more
expensive
> to live in new york, rather than some little village.
>
> > The CIA doesn't report ANY data correctly, as they always use this ppp
and
> > other "tricks" [read: LIES] in their reports.  Where they report
> > Switzerland's GDP to be $22,600, their REAL GDP per capita is $37,145,
> much
> > higher than ours at $28,600.  Germany is penalized $3,000 for WHAT?
Their
> > cost of living certainly isn't higher, though their savings rate of 22%
is
> > literally *infinitely* higher than ours, since our personal savings rate
> is
> > NEGATIVE after all the interest on the humongous debts is paid.
> >
> > http://christianparty.net/bottomline.htm
> >
> > http://christianparty.net/personalsavings.htm
> >
> > The countries with the highest per capita incomes, like Kuwait and
Qatar,
> > aren't even on these lists.  Why not?  What does "planet101" hope to
hide
> > from you?   Lookit how easy it is to LIE to you with statistics.
>
> "Purchasing-Power Parity (PPP) takes into account price differences
between
> countries to provide a more accurate picture of national wealth"
> From your vaunted Christian Party website.  It seems even they understand
> PPP.
>
> > The fact that we have a NEGATIVE personal savings rate means that we
have
> NO
> > private ownership of property, because the state now owns it all, and
you
> > don't even realize it.  This is FAR more important to determining who is
a
> > "rich country" and who is not than "purchasing power parity".
>
> So now the United States has no private ownership?
>
> You just don't stop, do you?
>
> > John Knight
> >
> >
> > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:DYn19.64$dn3.26502 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > http://www.planet101.com/richcountry.htm
> > >
> > > The United States has the highest GDP per capita in the world.
> > >
> > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ZHn19.42217$Fq6.3845211 at news2.west.cox.net...
> > > > Well said, Mr. August!
> > > >
> > > > The loss to women employees really is incalculable.
> > > >
> > > > The dollars that had to be lost in order to go, in only 3 decades,
> from
> > > the
> > > > world's undisputed highest per capita income to a shaky 17th place
and
> > > > falling fast, are truly incalulable.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, not only are we dealing with a "bell curve" that's so
> > flat
> > > > that it makes pancakes look like mountains, but we're way down the
> left
> > > side
> > > > of that "bell curve" where liquid nitrogen freezes.  Trying to get
an
> > > > electron to wriggle at this sub-zero IQ is like trying to get a
> > "liberal"
> > > to
> > > > quote something besides a TV commercial in his "critique".
> > > >
> > > > But we still must attempt to make that electron wriggle, in the slim
> > hope
> > > > that their brain washing can be mitigated.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:XSa19.1395$Fl.162231 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> > > > > Dear Parse Tree,
> > > > >
> > > > > The actual percentages of the rise of the cost of homes vs. the
rise
> > in
> > > > > median incomes doesn't matter a stitch.  The fact is that an
> > increasing
> > > > > number of working class poor are rendered UNABLE to own a home,
new
> or
> > > > not,
> > > > > because of their INCOMES, DEBT-TO-INCOME RATIO, and CREDIT SCORES.
> > > > >
> > > > > Point blank, many people can barely afford an old trailer.
Usually,
> > an
> > > > old
> > > > > trailer is what they end up buying, especially when they live in
my
> > > area.
> > > > > My area is known for depleted savings, paltry incomes, no
retirement
> > > > > pensions, and a tax base supported by elderly, handicapped, and
> > retarded
> > > > who
> > > > > have no place else to go or stay.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am working for a living, and living with my 64-year old mother,
> > whose
> > > > > income can barely feed a canary let alone pay a mortgage.  She
> cannot
> > > > afford
> > > > > to pay her homeowners' insurance or her taxes this year.  She
could
> > not
> > > > > refinance her mortgage despite the fact that she put a new roof,
> > siding,
> > > > and
> > > > > windows on the house, because property values plummetted.  Median
> > > incomes
> > > > in
> > > > > my area range between $7 and $8 an hour for semi-skilled labour.
> > > Doctors,
> > > > > lawyers, plumbers and electricians and contractors earn more, but
> > their
> > > > > incomes are swallowed up in insurance bills and lawsuits.  What's
> left
> > > are
> > > > > retirees from local businesses and also NY and NJ, who have built
> > their
> > > > > homes and are waiting to die.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you honestly think that you can buy a new home in an area where
> > jobs
> > > > are
> > > > > scarce, the commute to work is at least one hour and at most 4
> hours,
> > > and
> > > > > incomes are pitiful, do the math again.  That, by the bye, is
> > happening
> > > > more
> > > > > and more often in more and more places nationwide, as jobs dry up
> due
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > "giant sucking sound" from Mexico, about which H. Ross Perot
warned
> us
> > > in
> > > > > 1992 if NAFTA/GATT were signed.  NAFTA/GATT were signed, and the
> > vacuum
> > > > > cleaner just got running.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to remain competitive, and keep jobs in the USA, Union
> Labour
> > > > will
> > > > > now be FORCED to take pay and benefits cuts or else lose their
jobs
> > > > > entirely.  Pay and benefits cuts to keep jobs already happened in
> the
> > > Auto
> > > > > Industry.  Where will it happen next?  Will it be your job, and
will
> > it
> > > > > happen to you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Parse Tree, remember this FACT.  The American News Media are
> > CONTROLLED
> > > BY
> > > > > JEWS!!!  They have taken their lesson well from their Doctor of
> Style
> > > > Josef
> > > > > Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda.  Soothe the Public.
> > Lull
> > > > them
> > > > > to sleep.  Tell them the good news first.  Make it all glossy and
> > shiny
> > > > and
> > > > > pretty looking.  Lie to them, because Jew Hitler said that the
> people
> > > will
> > > > > never swallow the Big Lie unless you break it down in little
pieces
> > and
> > > > feed
> > > > > it to them in spoonfuls.  Can't you figure out that that is
EXACTLY
> > what
> > > > the
> > > > > American News Media have done to you?  Or will it take a hit in
YOUR
> > > > wallet,
> > > > > a loss of YOUR house, or YOUR JOB, before it cracks your skull?  I
> > think
> > > > > you'll lose your job first.
> > > > >
> > > > > Concerning the negative productivity of women, the loss due to
them
> is
> > > > > really incalculable.  Everything from lack of female physical
> strength
> > > to
> > > > > lengthened employee break times to equalization of gender in the
> work
> > > > force
> > > > > to sexual harrassment complaints/suits attest to this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard C. August
> > > > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:6x219.346$sI2.279017 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:a3T09.34142$Fq6.3318011 at news2.west.cox.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7mJ09.26204
> > > > > > > > > Sorry, all requests for free research (which we now
> understand
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > neccessary when ONE THIRD ...) must be funneled through
The
> > > > > Christian
> > > > > > > > Party.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But you're in luck--the urls at
> > > > > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm
> > > > > > > > > are direct references to the original FEDERAL data (which
> > > because
> > > > of
> > > > > > CYA
> > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > not be the most accurate, but it
> > > > > > > > > will put you in the ballpark).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That doesn't demonstrate, in any way, that women workers are
> > > > > negatively
> > > > > > > > productive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Try again.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, parsetree, we do know the problem now, which is that
> you're
> > > > > > literally
> > > > > > > incapable of doing the math yourself, so you'd just as soon
> insist
> > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > was done incorrectly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have a degree in mathematics?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your complete ignorance of statistics, linear algebra and
calculus
> > > > > > demonstrates that you do not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Find someone who can do it for you and tell me HONESTLY if
they
> > get
> > > a
> > > > > > > different NEGATIVE figure for the "productivity" of American
> women
> > > > > workers
> > > > > > > than the one below!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your assumptions are wrong, yet again.  See below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Home Prices Increase 4X More Than Incomes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Median household incomes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.census.gov/income/cdrom/cdrom00/Historical%20Tables/Income/cpi-u-
> > > > > > > rs/household/h11.lst
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This link refutes most of what you say below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can quite clearly see that the median rose from $31,397 in
> 1967,
> > > to
> > > > > > $42,151 in 2000.  This is properly adjustted for inflation,
unlike
> > > your
> > > > > > stats below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Median home prices
> > > > > > >
> http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/winter2001/histdat08.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Labor force participation rates
> > > > > > > http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This link is broken.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > While feminazis, jews, niggers, muds, sodomites, and other
> > > "liberals"
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > jumping for joy over our recent putative "economic boom", most
> > > > Americans
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > can read and add and subtract are wondering why median home
> prices
> > > > > > increased
> > > > > > > by four times more than median incomes increased.   And why
the
> > > > percent
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > men who are working decreased 7% while the percent of women
who
> > are
> > > > > > working
> > > > > > > increased 19%.  Median prices of homes increased from $22,700
in
> > > 1967
> > > > to
> > > > > > > $169,000 in 2000, a $146,300 increase, while median incomes
> lagged
> > > WAY
> > > > > > > behind, increasing by only $35,008 (from $7,143 to 42,151).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is the percentage increase that is relevant.
> > > > > > You should have said that house prices increasd by almost 7.5
> times,
> > > and
> > > > > > that income only increased by just under 6 times.  When you're
> > trying
> > > to
> > > > > > illustrate a point, at least use pertinent infomation.
Increases
> in
> > > > > > absolute terms are essentially meaningless in this situation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incidentally, Japan, the country you're complimenting
excessively,
>
> > had
> > > a
> > > > > > Comparative Cost Index of 145.62 as compared to 97.22 for the
> United
> > > > > States,
> > > > > > according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook, June 2000.
It's
> > > > cheaper
> > > > > to
> > > > > > live in the US.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If living in a house wasn't important to you, as it must be
for
> > > > > > "liberals",
> > > > > > > this might be neutral or even good news, but if you're a
normal
> > > > person,
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > not a good sign.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The number of houses sold is increasing.  So evidently more
people
> > are
> > > > > > beginning to live in them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The real fun is when you point out that the problem was caused
> the
> > > > > > > unprecedented entry into the labor force of the American girls
> who
> > > > > scored
> > > > > > > lower on TIMSS than if they'd just guessed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Firstly, you can demonstrate no causal connection between female
> > entry
> > > > > into
> > > > > > the workplace and this supposed 'decrease'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Secondly, I have already demonstrated that you really mean that
> they
> > > > > > PROBABLY scored lower than if they had guessed.  One is certain,
> one
> > > is
> > > > > not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > When the mostly single-worker
> > > > > > > families of 4 decades ago had four times the purchasing power,
> and
> > > > when
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > almost exclusively single-worker families in Japan have two to
> > three
> > > > > times
> > > > > > > the incomes, of the mostly two-working parent families of
today,
> > > > > > feminaziism
> > > > > > > appears as a huge festering boil all over everything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, the purchasing power seems to be properly adjusted in
> the
> > > > stats
> > > > > > above, and it seems to be increasing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This four fold plunge in family purchasing power occurred as
the
> > > > percent
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > men in the labor force decreased 7% aand the percent of women
> > > > increased
> > > > > > 19%.
> > > > > > > Put simply, purchsing power of American families in 1967
> [P(1967)]
> > > > when
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > labor force consisted of 81.5% of men working and 39.3% of
women
> > > > working
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > four times higher than in 2000 [P(2000)] when only 74.1% of
men
> > and
> > > > > 58.7%
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > women were in the labor force.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many other things happened during this time that could be
equally
> to
> > > > > blame.
> > > > > > The fact that you are blaming it on women seems to illustrate
that
> > you
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > truly believe prayer increases productivity, or that the
education
> > > > system
> > > > > is
> > > > > > getting worse at all.  Nice backpedalling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > X = productivity of men
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Y = productivity of women
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > P(1967) = 1967 Purchasing Power = X x 81.5% + Y x 39.3% = 1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > P(2000) = 2000 Purchasing Power  = X x 74.1% + Y x 58.7% =
0.25
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/.815
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 74.1% x (1 - 39.3%Y)/81.5% + 58.7%Y = 0.25
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.9092 - 0.3573Y +.587Y = 0.25
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .2297Y = -0.6592
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Y = -2.87
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/0.815 = (1 + 1.1279)/0.815 = 2.61
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nice try, but you're wrong again.  Purchasing power was lower in
> > 1967.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, your math applied to the correct figures would
> demonstrate
> > > > that
> > > > > > women are MORE productive.  Something to think about, isn't it?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > > your math is wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As it is, the US median household income in 1996 of $35,172 is
> ONE
> > > > THIRD
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > that of Japan, which was $9,819 in December 1999.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, Japan is one third of the US, if you take your figures
> > > above.
> > > > > > Isn't that impressive?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Snipped unreadable stats, since most of it seems to be
available
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > links above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list