brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

[Parse Tree]

"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:ovL29.56937$Fq6.5011400 at news2.west.cox.net...
>
>
> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_Fd29.2384$sI2.1286077 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
> > news:o5a29.2422$Fl.214228 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> > > Dear Parse Tree,
> > >
> > > Really, even the most highly credit-worthy homeowners in the USA do
NOT
> > > entirely own their own property.
> >
> > That's their fault, not the a result of the cost of homes.  My parents
own
> > their house, and it's certainly higher than the median house listed in
> that
> > index.
>
> parsetree, you and lojbab seem to have a REAL problem comprehending the
word
> "average".  One single anecdote doesn't and cannot invalidate the AVERAGE
to
> which Mr. August is referring.

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

A single case counter example is enough to invalidate this statement.

> If you need someone to explain this to you [again], just ask, but it's
> counterproductive for you to dispute a statement about the *average* in
this
> country with one single possible outlier.

He should have said the average then.  Regardless, I haven't seen any stats
to support this, even for the average.

> > > 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!
> >
> > I'm not charged interest for purchases.  You shouldn't be either.
>
> If you're on this planet, you ARE being charged interest, every day.  If
> you're in the US, your share of the debts is $77,000 per household
AVERAGE,
> which means that our putative 15% gross savings rate isn't even enough to
> pay the interest on those debts (which is why we have a NEGATIVE personal
> savings rate).

The national debt is paid for by taxes.  Those are usually taken throughout
the year, and usually don't come from savings.


> > > 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.
> >
> > Gold really isn't used outside of electronics and jewelery.
>
> An infinitesimally small percentage of gold is used commercially.  The
vast
> majority of it is STILL used as national deposits.
>
> The value of the dollar against an ounce of gold barely changed for the
141
> years between 1792 and 1933, then all of a sudden it fell by 33% (not too
> long after women began to vote and right when jews took charge of our
> national bank).  The next year it fell another 10%.  But it stayed at that
> level for 9 years, when it fell another 3% (in 1944).  It fluctuated
around
> $35 an ounce for the next 22 years, then suddenly dropped 14% in 1969, and
> it's been on a downhill slide ever since.  In 1987 it was worth 1/25th as
> much as it was worth for the entire 141 years right up to 1933.

It shouldn't of changed at all until it was deindexed.  The dollar was
supposed to represent a specific quantity of gold.

> You're DEAD WRONG to think this isn't a problem.  It wouldn't have
happened
> if women didn't vote, because men would never have permitted the jews to
> take charge of our national bank.

Gold is worthless.  An abtract number is a safer situation then a physical
unit.  Also, gold is limited because there is a finite amount of it.  Money
shouldn't have such a constraint.

> > > 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?
> >
> > I'd take the cash.  The value of gold is based on perceived value, since
> it
> > has no intrinsic use.  Since money has the confidence of a nation, and
is
> > fiat currency, it would be safer to go with it.
> >
> > Regardless, I can buy a can of pop for a dollar.  Evidently dollars are
> not
> > worthless, else that could not happen.
>
> A can of pop was 5 cents for as long as many living Americans could
> remember, which should be another clue to you that the vulcanized
jewdaized
> US dollar isn't worth anything near what it was worth before the jews
became
> our "bankers" and judges.

A can of pop has been a dollar for my entire lifetime.

> A thousand ounces of gold in 1932 was worth $20,670, but today it's
> supposedly "worth" $271,000.
>
> What changed about that 1,000 ounces of gold?  Nothing.  It's intrinsic
> value is identical to what it was in 1932.  The difference is only  in the
> 13 fold decrease in the value of the dollar--nothing else.

Gold has more uses now then it had then.  It's intrinsic value HAS
increased.  Gold wasn't really used in electronics in 1932.