NortonH

Trumps book details his biography it is in there. I am not sure why you are arguing. The fact is that Trump is now worth about 5 billion and his dad ended with 200M so he is still more successful than the guy who you claim gifted him everything. I asked you WHAT it was that Obama did that you claim are the cause of the current economic status. You cannot give anything other than vague platitudes. WHAT were the policies that led to this economic situation? Expensive energy? Is that the cause of the economic boom? You seem to imply that the economy is determined by the mere presence of a person rather than being able to define any particular policy. 3 - What Obama did for his success is a complex of things. Great answer!! If you do not know whether the ridiculous fish feeding story is fake news then that shows that you have deliberately avoided watching the full three minute video. An utterly trivial story but indicative that the MSM will misepresent even the most trivial story and so clearly cannot be trusted on ANY story now. So now you want three fake news stories? Well there was the story of Trump snubbing the autistic kid that sent J. K. Rowling into a tizzy before she finally apologized. There is the story of the Russian hookers that was given massive worldwide coverage despite the total lack of any evidence. (Odd that salacious stories about Obama and Larry Sinclair in the back of a limo never got the same coverage, despite Sinclair testifying in person before a news conference) There is the whole Russia Collusion story. Still waiting for evidence on that one. The claim that Trump refused to accept the election result if he lost - fake news. He said no such thing. The claim that he asked Russia to spy on clinton - fake news. He suggested he provide the stuff that they had probably already taken. In both cases the reality is slightly adjusted to misrepresent the easily verifiable facts. As you well know. Glad you at least concede that he has never been bankrupt and Chapter 11 is not the same thing.

No. I'm stuck. I missed something else and now i think i am in a state beyond repair.

Ten Oz, I suggest you read the descriptions of Trump in the media and from the 'celebrities' if you want to know what smears I mean. Or are you saying that this is the first you have heard of Trump being smeared, insulted etc? You neglected to mention in your employment stats that there was a major adjustment by Obama in the way that the stats were measure when part time employment was lumped in with full time employment and given equal weight. ie a fudge. In any case the fact remains that employment really is up despite the claims that Trump would trash the economy. I have to admit to an error earlier. The Democrats did actually manage 100% black employment a while ago before their scheme was destroyed by a republican president (Abe Lincoln) You are desperate to play down Trumps success in DPRK. I guess it is all you can do. The fact is that Kim is already in ful control of DPRK and any progress we make there is a lot more than was achived by any previous administration. You seem to think that none of the problems you list even existed prior to 2016. Airbrush, As you well know Trump gets plenty of abuse. Why would you try to deny it? ODonnel calls him a traitor a racist and a pig so he responds in kind. What is the problem? You don't like it when someone pays back?? Misrepresented? One example from above - he was a self made bilionaire before he inherited anything. So why the need to misrepresent that fact? YOu have just done it again with your point 4. Trump was worth a billion when his dad died and left him 200M. You just cannot deal with the fact that someone you hate (despite not being able to tell us why) is also someone who is successful. So you seem to be saying that Trump is building on the 'success' of Obama? So what exactly did Obama do to create this 'success'? Was it by making energy more expensive? Was it all the extra government workers? Was it be making healthcare more expensive? Banning gas fracking? Giving money to Iran? What was it?? Fake news? What area? General? OK, the 'news' that Trump dumped all the carp food in the pond in Japan. That was memorable because apart from being false it showed that even the most trivial and unimportant detail is still going to be misrepresented by the media simply because they see that as their job. SO they have no credibility when it comes to more important stuff like the whole 'Russian Collusion' fiction. Two years and still not a shred of evidence! Once again John is desperate to convince himself of the inheritance story. Trump was loaned a million dollars and he turned it into a billion before his dad died. Putting it in a bank would NOT have delivered that return. Trump has not been bankrupt so that is another popular misrepresentation. Five of his businesses have failed. That is what happens sometimes. Given that he has started about 400 that is not a bad rate. In any case the smear is all that matters to you. The fact that you can tell me that a self made billionaire is not a financial success is just ridiculous and goes back to what I said earlier - some people are so deranged that they cannot accept simple facts. Trump is a billionaire and he did it himself, no matter how much you wish it were not so! The family of servicemen asked him to intervene. The fact that you have to misrepresent that is just beyond lame. And finally you try and tell us that the economy is doing nothing. Well, if it makes you happy to convince yourself then keep clinging to it.

What did you say that was hyperbolic? How about the claim that Israel slaughters children? Of course you throw such allegations around so often that they hardly register with you. Israel won all that land in battle in a war they did not start. Same as the land won from Germany. If you are so concerned about international law then why do you not even mention it in regard to the terrorist organizations bent on genocide? I am not sure which picture you are referring to regarding the child being slaughtered. Where is it? Is a child being targetted and deliberately murdered (as the Pals do when get a chance to catch some in Isreal) or are we talking about some kid who has been sent into an active battle area with the hope that he will be 'martyred'? Israel send bombs to bump off terrorist. They do not target civilians. That is a fact that you well know but avoid mentioning. When they bomb a fixed target they usually give the inhabitants a two minute warning. When has that even been done by anyone else in history? Until you are prepared to discuss the concept of targetting you are just evading the issue. If Palestinians wanted to house and feed their people then they would spend the money on that. Instead they spend tens of millions on rockets and tunnels for the purpose of targetting Israeli civilians. The tunnels are destroyed and the deaths of a few Israeli civilians benefits the Palestinian population on no way. The 'leaders' of Gaza do not care about that, of course. When was the last time they had an election?? I often wonder why pampered western leftists are so keen to support terrorism in Israel and other places. The more depraved the acts of terrorism the more effort these people make to excuse them. It seems to me that they prefer to side with the thing they fear rather than oppose it. It is certainly safe to be pro-Pal in a western university these days but imagine what would happen if you were pro-Israel! No. Much easier to just oppose the benign democratic state. Well at least you are honest enough to admit you support terrorism. By the way, the state of Israel does not target civilians for the purpose of wanton murder. People get killed in battles but if Israel really wanted to do what you claim then they have the power to eradicate all the Pals in about 24 hours. The Pals have stated that they would like to remove ALL the Jews. As a matter of interest do you also have a benign view of Alqaeda and ISIS? They can also claim legitimate grievances if you want to listen. SO I guess you have no problem with them murdering people on the streets of Western cities. Not sure how you label Churchill a liar simply using your own speculation as if it were evidence. Please explain that one. I suspect the answer is ZERO. Palestinian houses only get bulldozed when they are responsible of suicide attacks. So tell us how much land the Jews lost in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Iran etc when they were forced out once Israel was established. I notice you never mention that. Israel gave the whole of Gaza back to Palestinian control and what have they got in return? Rockets. What have the palestinians done with all the agricultural land they got? Nothing. If Israel disappeared the Pals would have nobody to blame for their state. In addition they would have no water and no electricity. They would also have nowhere to send their seriously ill patients. Did you know that Israel provides all of those to Gaza? I doubt you did! Again John Cuthber tries to weasel out of the point. It is quite safe for any person of any race or religion to walk around Israel. A Jew in Gaza is likely to be murdered because he is a Jew. Israel is a liberal democracy as opposed to a terrorist run enclave, despite what the leftist terrorist sympathisers will claim. I suggest we do an experiment. I will go to Israel and stand around eating bacon sandwiches and drinking beer whilst peacefully denouncing the Jewish religion and the local government. John Cuthber can then do the same experiment in Gaza.

Funny reading this thread that people are dismayed that when they attack someone that person might push back. What sort of mindset do you grow up with when you cannot even see the obvious? Everyone sees it as a right to abuse, smear and misrepresent facts about Trump but are shocked when he responds. I guess that has never happened before. You see your political foes as punchbags with absolutely no right to retaliate. Well it seems that things have changed since the days of GWB so you had better get used to it. What is also odd is that you seem to think that if someone is your political enemy then he has to be a cartoon baddy in all possible respects. Absolutely no positive qualities allowed. Well here is some bad news - Trump was a self made billionaire long before he inherited 200M from his dad. That is just a fact. Can you deal with it or do you feel you have to misrepresent reality? But it gets worse. Much worse. Under Trump the economy is booming and unemployment is way down. But it gets worse still. Unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics and Youth are all at all time low. So many of the people who have never worked before have now got jobs for the first time in their lives and most of them are NOT from privileged pampered middle class graduate communities who have the leisure to gripe about Trump on a website. Oh, and also, his dealings with Kim Jong Un have already yielded up the remains of some US servicemen who fell seventy years ago. But of course the real problem is how he described Rosie oDonnel and that congresswoman who was trying to incite violence against republicans.

I would say that giving speeches praising terrorism counts as support. Making efforts to harm Israel counts as support for her enemies. Of course people like yourself who make outlandish hyperbolic claims are also part of the problem. It seems you object to Israelis living on land that they won in battle but for some reason I doubt you expect France, Czech or Russia to return land to Germany. Israel does not 'slaughter children'. Kids and civilians are killed in battle but unlike the pals, Israel never targets civilians and makes great efforts to avoid harming them. (Perhaps you might compare their efforts to those of your own country the last time it was under existential threat. Ever heard of Dresden?) Israel does not send people over the border for the specific purpose of killing innocent civilians but Hamas boasts of such operations. Do you really think that it benefits the Palestinian population when tens of millions of dollars are spent by their government on digging tunnel into Israel and firing rockets?? That simply satisfies the egos of their self appointed 'leaders'. Why do they not spend the money on building some infrastructure etc? My claim that Corbyn supports terrorism stands. Claiming to be a 'pacifist' is easy. Anyone can do it. It does not disprove the fact that he gives vocal, moral and financial support to terrorist organizations. I suspect that you have never been anywhere near Israel or her neighbours and get all your info from the sensationalist media and the student activist clubs. Sorry pal, but I have been to many of the countries in that region and it is pretty clear that Israel is the only democracy for miles. I really wonder what you think Hamas and Hezbollah are like. Take a trip to Gaza sometime and find out.

Blair negotiated with the IRA but he was in no way a supporter as Corbyn was to the IRA and the Hamas terrorists. He can claim that he wants to be a neutral partner to peace but he is clearly a solid supporter of terrorism.

Anyone who supports a terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah is beyond being a 'critic' of Israel. Both those groups are quite clear and unambiguous about their desire to remove all Jews from the area. Not Israelis, JEWS. The only reason people do not immediately call these groups out is because they are intimidated by them.

Thanks WTF, you make a good point. I have not chosen a probabilistic argument but, following your advice, I have given my proof some extra scrutiny. I have identified a weakness in my proof and so am in the process of buttressing it. Everything hangs on the properties of prime numbers and how they relate to even numbers. It seemed obvious that even numbers can be composed of the sum of two primes but then i realised that i need to prove that for my overall proof to be rigorous. Watch this space.

This is a simple but elusive problem that has been around for years and defeated some of the best mathematicians who have attempted it. It is also known as the hail stone problem, for obvious reasons. I think I might have a proof of it but need to check that I have not missed anything. For those who are interested i believe that i have proved it in the affirmative and that no counterexamples exist. Are there any experts out there who can lend a hand checking my work?

Yes. And you end up with inflation for precisely that reason. If you create more money without creating anything else then you find that the amount of energy you can buy per unit monetary unit decreases. eg the price of petrol goes up. What you will find though, is that the cost of all products using, say, a liter of petrol as the numeraire remains pretty much unchanged. In short - You are confusing money with cash. Of course, if I am wrong, and my claims are 'outlandish' then someone should be able to give some examples of commodities in which the price on the free market is unrelated to the amount of energy that has gone into the fabrication of such commodities. The reason all this is relevant is because quite often we hear of someone trying to decide whether to spend $20,000 on a solar panel system which will somehow save CO2 by reducing consumption of coal powered electricity. Nowhere do they take into account what the $20,000 was actually spent on. Well now we have an answer - it was spent on energy, most of it fossil fuelled.

Thanks Sensei. Amazing how many people should know this but do not seem to.

Sorry studiot, I am not playing these games. If you have anything substantive to say then just get on with it. The point of this thread is to discuss the 'outlandish' claim that the real value of money is determined by the energy it can buy you. It covers also the concept that the cost of stuff is determined by the energy expended in the creation of that same stuff. If you want to troll away in the hope of getting the thread closed then you will most likely be successful. If I keep responding to your increasingly irrelevant posts I will be banned for "trolling/counter-trolling" and if I do not respond I will be banned for "refusing to answer relevant questions". So, one last time, please tell us where money is measured in camels and has no relation to energy.

Well this looks to me like a claim that money is being measured in camels somewhere. Outlandish? Is that an opinion or a fact? Are you here to debate or moderate? Anyone one who thinks that my claim is 'outlandish' is welcome to explain why. So far that does not seem to be happening.

I did read your post. You mentioned countries where money is measured in camels. You said that in such countries the link between money and energy is very weak. I would like to know which country you are talking about but now you admit that you know of no such country. So I repeat my original statement. The value of money is directly related to the energy it can get you. If you think I am wrong then please give an example we can discuss.

Why does it need them and what is the money going to be spent on? Can someone explain how this works? Do the watts add up over the week?

Can you give an example of a country where 'money is measured in camels'? I know of no such place. The value of a currency is determined by how much energy it can get you. Here we are trying to discuss science, not idiom.

Pavel Cherepan, if indeed that really is your name, you seem to have made exactly the same mistake as John Cuthber. That is sad because I have already explained once where John went wrong. If you order a dozen bottles of Perrier Water and try to burn them like gas you will get ZERO energy. Are you saying that that means that there was NO ENERGY consumed in the process of making the bottles, filling them with purified aerated water and delivering them to your doorstep? For the second time on this thread I point out that the cost of the product is related to the energy that went into producing the product not what you can later extract from it. If you are providing a service and someone wants that service provided then they have to pay. What they pay you ends up being consumed as energy. Eventually even strippers and psychologists need to eat. Good psychs can earn top dollars and buy expensive cars etc. ALL the goods consumed represent energy consumed. Of course if i am wrong then surely someone can show me how it is possible to produce things without consuming energy. Your best bet might be to try and point to the vast sums paid for a couple of brush strokes by Picasso but that is as close as you can get to refuting what I write and even that is not immediately clear. Energy is a conserved quantity, that is all that matters.

Gas and electricity are different products and so I contend that the cost of each of them is a good measure of the energy that has gone into getting them to you house. Not sure why you think you have refuted that.

Well I say it developed. Doing OK was understating it. You say that wealth was extracted from colonies. It was also PRODUCED there and plenty of it stayed behind. Have you noticed how much infrastructure was created in that time? It was designed to benefit anyone who invested, time, money or effort. The economies were no less 'sustainable' than any other economies. If what the colonists did was so wrong (ie developing the countries) then why are we now encouraging those same countries to do exactly the same thing? ie build roads, factories, commercial farms? etc What is 'Euro-centric' about development in Africa and what is wrong with it? If you lived in Africa what would you want? Would you want the same standard of living as you currently enjoy or would you feel that that was 'Eurocentric' and opt for something more closely resembling pre-colonial Africa?

http://www.citigroup.com/citi/news/2015/150218a.htm If it has to have $100Bn poured in then it is really sustainable? It is a bit like filling the car with a full tank of petrol and then claiming it is running without fuel...until the fuel runs out. That $100Bn represents energy being added to the 'sustainable' system. Energy produced by fossil fuels. If the system is running by itself after 10 years AND is able to produce a big enough surplus to provide for its replacement AND pay back the capital it absorbed then it counts as sustainable. Otherwise I cannot see how it qualifies.

Relevance? I was told to produce evidence for my claim that Dr Viner had declared the GW would mean the end of snow. I did so. The fact that we have had loads of snow since 2001 is why we now have all the rewriting of history. Now, suddenly, global warming theory has been adapted to include as features most of the events which only a decade earlier were understood to be falsifying events. So tell us, BeeCee, what would falsify the theory now?

If you don't even understand what my point is but still argue then that demonstrates clearly that your ONLY purpose on this thread is to bicker and squabble and contribute nothing. No problem. I can use the guff you spout to illustrate my points. If you have a lot of money around and little in the way of goods for it to buy then you get inflation simply because the exchange of one for the other results in a price measure. All the money exchanges maps to all the goods exchanged.

And what might be the cause of that? Would it be to do with the fact that increasing amounts of increasingly worthless money is needed to buy a fixed amount of energy?

This is the article in the independent http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries … Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community … According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said Of course the Independent might have just fabricated the claims by Dr Viner. You are the mod so it is not worth me arguing...