Just What IS a Trillion Dollars, Anyway?...

[Dreamer]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Rule!

But a parting shot if I may: how many millions of civilians were killed by the atomic bombs exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I'll take this one...

This is a trick question, because there were WAY less than one million directly-caused deaths in the combined total casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, EVEN if you are working off the "extended death figures" based on long-term health issues.

Most estimates are about 70,000 deaths in Hiroshima, combining instanteneous deaths from the blast and subsiquent deaths from the immediate after-effects.

Immediate death tolls in Nagasaki are estimated from 45,000 to as high as 70,000.

Even if you count EVERY single person who lived in these two cities at the time, whether they died from direct or indirect effects fo the explosions or not, you get a grand total of about 400,000, according to statistics on what the Japanese call "Hibakusha", a term that translates literally to "explosion-affected people".

So, to answer your question, even if we use the most loose definition possible for "people directly effected" by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's about 0.40 million people.

And you don't need to be educated in the USA to know this. All you need is access to Wikipedia.

Get thee to a library...

 

[twich54]

But a parting shot if I may: how many millions of civilians were killed by the atomic bombs exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I prefer to look at it like this........how many American /Allied lives did it save !! .........12/7/41...09/11/01...NEVER forget !

 

[Tube60]

I don't have a strong enough opinion to argue this too much, but that train of thought strikes me as being more than just a little bit paranoid!

The founding fathers no doubt had legitimate historical and contemporary precedent to set that law, and in consideration of completely unknown potential situations into the future. If the founding fathers based what they wrote, and the country they founded, in general, on paranoia and fear, the United States would've lasted about as long as the Soviet Union did.

There are far easier ways to pervert the course of democracy. A few million in bribes would be about enough, methinks...

Bribery is too easily found out and traced. Long term agendas are easily kept quiet with the distractions of rumour, hyperbole, and conspiracy theories. Or put another way, the best way to hide is right under an enemy's nose.

 

[Tube60]

I prefer to look at it like this........how many American /Allied lives did it save !! .........12/7/41...09/11/01...NEVER forget !

I'm not comfortable at all with the U.S. pulling the cork off the genie's bottle, but it was inevitable regardless of what country would've developed nuclear weapons. If either Germany or the Soviets got there first, at the very least, most of our cities on the eastern coast would be gone. If the Japanese got there first, most of the cities on the west coast would be gone.
But for what actually happened in history, also consider how many Japanese lives were saved in avoiding a direct, conventional war on Japan's home turf. The Emperor told the populace to fight the Allies to the death, all the way down to kindergarten level, and they would've done it to serve him.
Many of the people who cry about the bombings present the situation as though some sicko American scientists decided to exercise their new creation, and decided to use them on two cities in poor innocent Japan. As more than a few WWII vets have said, no Pearl Harbor, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki. One can also throw in the atrocities the Japanese committed in the territories they took over. All of that was taken into consideration at the time.
And don't forget in the present day, if Iran or North Korea develop tactical nuclear weapons, either they WILL use them, or they WILL sell them to a group or country who WILL use them, and it will be to deliberately kill millions of people with no noble cause for deploying them.
I can only hope that the current administration continues the good fight to prevent that from happening. Placation and diplomacy in the end may not be enough.

 

[Rich]

I honestly can't begin to express my dismay at the ever deepening rants that you've continued to spew forth with regard to the seperation of the classes and the sinister conspiracy you believe the uber-rich are hatching against the vermin that embody the rest of us. I can't believe that you wake up every day and have to carry that burden on your back as you actively participate in the very society you are condemning. If you really eschew the trappings of wealth I'm stunned you actually even own the audio equipment that brings you to this forum. As for me, I've never felt that there was anyone or anything preventing me from achieving whatever I wanted out of life other than my own abilities and perseverence.

Have to agree with MiTT here.

 

[Dreamer]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Rule!

And in response, I invoke "Quirk's Exception", with the following caveat.

Comparing these soul-less, golden-calf-worshiping, self-annointed "ruling class" neo-nobility types to the Nazi's is really more of a redundancy than a comparison.

It's like comparing the Martin Logan company to Arthur Janszen. They are just different historical iterations of the same idea...

I just have seven words for anyone who says these people are not on the same page as the above-mentioned "Austrian Dictator": Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, John Davison Rockefeller.

Prove me wrong, I dare you...

 

[Dreamer]

Have to agree with MiTT here.

Rich and MiTT,

Prove me wrong, and I'll stop...

 

[MiTT]

Rich and MiTT,

Prove me wrong, and I'll stop...

I doubt I could prove you wrong any more than you could prove you're right.

I just tire of hearing things like "a small cadre of inbred, inter-married, and sociopathic elitists, who have been engaging in a systematic dismantling of the middle class for nearly 100 years in the West" or "Show me an "altruistic" billionaire and I'll show you a REALLY good actor with blood on his hands...".

I sometimes actually agree with some of what you are saying, but far more often I feel like the gross generalizations and pseudo-intellectual rhetoric actually just derail the salient points of your argument. Truth be told I thought your original post was the most effective of the entire thread. There is something to be said for subtlety sometimes.

 

[Pcar928fan]

Here is another way to look at one trillion dollars...remember this is just ONE trillion! Obama is already on the hook for $3 trillion in his first year when it is all said and done...

You don't need to be a creationist or a evolutionist to play this one, just understand that Jesus was a good man, profit, or Son of God and that he WAS born a little over 2000 years ago...you can choose which of those suits you best...here we go.

For EVERY SINGLE DAY since the birth (or is it death? I can't remember what they said, but I think they said birth...it really matters almost none for this argument) you would have to spend $1 MILLION and you would only just now be reaching $1 TRILLION! $1 MILLION per day for over 2000 YEARS! That is INSANE! And to think with the current outstanding debt to the Americans that are alive today (not even considering those to be born in the future) is $53 TRILLION in obligations such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid!

Of course what will happen is anyone in their early 40's or younger today that has ANY money set aside for retirement the gov. will use that to defer how much SS you get. So, if you are pulling $40,000 out of your 401k and your normal take from SS would be $20,000 then guess what...you will get NOTHING from the Gov. If you are pulling $10,000 out of your 401k and you would normally get $20,000 in SS, then they will pay you $10,000. Get used to that thought, it is coming!!

Oh, FICA...that big amount that they take out of your paycheck every pay period that is NOT income tax, that amount will be going up AND today that stops when you get to $100,000 of income in the calendar year (or something close to that), it will be extended to include most of and eventually ALL of your income... Even still if you have a 401k you won't see ANY of that money you have put in!

I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it...there is just no other way to pay $53 Trillion (and growing I might add)...

 

[RichTeer]

Prove me wrong, I dare you...

I'll respectfully decline. This thread is already getting a bit too heavy, and I'd rather not inadvertantly offend someone, which is especially likely to happen if I play devil's advocate (as I am wont to do).

 

[Rich]

Prove me wrong, and I'll stop...

Prove what wrong? Your crackpot conspiracy theories which are based on nothing but your own supposition and your own personal class bias? That's like me saying that our government has been taken over by aliens who are controlling everything that happens in order to destroy us. Prove me wrong!

I agree with MiTT. You make some salient points occasionally. But then you go so far off into left field as to make any logical person just ignore most of what you say.

 

[Dreamer]

Prove what wrong? Your crackpot conspiracy theories which are based on nothing but your own supposition and your own personal class bias?

My own personal bias? You mean like official policy memos from the Federal Reserve Board Of Governors?...

OK, let's start with some "primary source" proof of what I've been saying. I've maintained that these evil classists at the top have a twisted ethic that requires them to tell us how they are going to screw us in advance, so that when we don't object, they can then defend themselves in the future when they do it and we cry foul, by saying "well, we TOLD you we were going to do this, and you said nothing"...

Conspiracy theory? You be the judge...

From the Federal Reserve's own website, posted in 2002, from the pen of then Governor of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm


Pay special attention to Paragraph 22:

"...the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation. "


Of course, some of you folks would rather think this is just a coincidence. Who are you going to believe, these "banksters" when they tell you they never saw this coming (when they were, in fact, making plans SPECIFICALLY for this sort of thing 7 years ago!), or your own eyes?

So is there a conspiracy among the uber-elite bankers to wreck our economy? Depends on how you define "conspiracy"...

It's not a conspiracy if they do it in plain sight...

More to come...

 

[Rich]

Richard,

First of all, thanks for the link to a very interesting and informative article by an intelligent and well-respected economist.

Second of all, shame on you for trying to support your ridiculous conspiracy theories by pulling one paragraph out of context and pretending that shows what the mystery "elite classicists" have planned for us all along.

Did you even try to understand the article? He argued against the dangers of deflation (which are very real - just ask Japan) and discussed how the Fed is positioned to prevent or stop it. The paragraph you quoted was an intentionally exaggerated example of how the Fed can stimulate a deflationary economy even if interest rates are near zero. Neither this paragraph, nor the article as a whole, provide any support for your theories.

Tell me, what would you prefer the Fed do when faced with a potential deflationary environment? Ignore it and let the economy slide into deflation for ten years like Japan's central bank did? Yeah, that would be real smart.

If you want to gain any credibility in this argument, you are going to have to do a better analysis than this. Pulling one paragraph out of context, with no analysis at all, and pretending it somehow supports your ideas is just silly.

 

[User211]

Richard,

First of all, thanks for the link to a very interesting and informative article by an intelligent and well-respected economist.

Second of all, shame on you for trying to support your ridiculous conspiracy theories by pulling one paragraph out of context and pretending that shows what the mystery "elite classicists" have planned for us all along.

Did you even try to understand the article? He argued against the dangers of deflation (which are very real - just ask Japan) and discussed how the Fed is positioned to prevent or stop it. The paragraph you quoted was an intentionally exaggerated example of how the Fed can stimulate a deflationary economy even if interest rates are near zero. Neither this paragraph, nor the article as a whole, provide any support for your theories.

Tell me, what would you prefer the Fed do when faced with a potential deflationary environment? Ignore it and let the economy slide into deflation for ten years like Japan's central bank did? Yeah, that would be real smart.

If you want to gain any credibility in this argument, you are going to have to do a better analysis than this. Pulling one paragraph out of context, with no analysis at all, and pretending it somehow supports your ideas is just silly.

Absolutely Rich. And this isn't the first time... Richard quoted an FT article a while ago, and completely mis-intepreted it. I was going to reply in detail, but didn't bother in the end.

Why? At the end of the day, the FT article spoke for itself - all anyone needed to do was read it to realise Richard's interpretation was invalid.

Richard - I implore you to consider that you are just not seeing things objectively. Don't take that as a personal assault - just consider it as a possibility. From various posts, I think most people around here think that's the case.

Some of your posts are just plain excellent... but some stretch the bounds of even vague credibility.