The Political Measuring Stick

[Teancum-Old]

I loan your family $500 bucks with $100 interest charge. Your family members work for each other - pay each other money for goods/services to your hearts content. Only $500 goes in the door to your home and $600 has to come out....where do you get the extra $100???

Where do I get the extra $100? From you! You pay me $100 to mow your lawn B-) problem solved.

Glad to see someone else chiming in, and catching on to what I see as a hole in the theory presented...

To summarize... Mummy, you are saying it's mathematically impossible, without new debt or new money printed/pumped into the system, to pay off all the debt and interest.

The problem I see is that while you're saying it's "mathematically impossible" you're only using the scenario's that make it impossible and not the scenario's which reveal it is possible... if we're just trying to see what's mathematically possible we can use any scenario, however unlikely or unrealistic, so long as it is also possible scenario.

What has been presented by myself, and teancum, is that there are possible scenario's which reveal the hole and show that it is in fact mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest without taking on new debt, or feeding more money into the system.

One more simple example...

Mr. Smith owes $130,000 to Mr. Banker. This is the total of his loan plus interest... Mr. Smith built a huge slide, and people pay him $100 to slide down his slide. Mr. Banker happens to love slides, he loves them so much, he slides down the slide about 10 times a day - thus Mr. Banker is giving Mr. Smith $1000/day! Mr. Smith takes that $1000/day and gives it right back to Mr. Banker... Thus we see that the same $1000 continues to circulate between Mr. Banker and Mr. Smith... No new money into the economy, no additional debt, just a circulating exchange... Therefore the debt Mr. Smith owes to Mr. Banker is decreasing by $1000/day, and within 130/days Mr. Smith is debt free! No new debt, no new money into the economy... And all the other people in the community also happen to offer a product or service that Mr. Smith loves just as much, so eventually they too have their debts paid off. Everyone is debt free, and the money continues to be exchanged for the various products and services available in the community. Oh, and Mr. Banker had to switch professions after all the debts got paid off.

You see - It is mathematically possible, under certain possible scenario's, while maybe not likely or realistic, it is mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, without new debt or new money.

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

You say Mr. Smith owes 130K for a slide. Full stop right now, you've made a massive error.

Hold on! Did I read that right? Is this supposed to say, "Fool, stop right now?" I hope this is not what was meant. If so, it is extremely arrogant and unChrist-like (as is the "grade 5 math" comment), as well as poor spelling on your part.

You say we cannot have debt, but you belong to a church which holds you in perpetual debt to Christ with a debt that can never be paid. Well surprise surprise, you also belong to another organization on this planet to whom you also owe a debt that can never be paid, and how does it feel?

I never knew this forum was a good source of anti-Mormon rubbish! If I was really looking for that sort of thing, I would talk to Jerald and Sandra Tanner or Ed Decker.

900 years ago, anyone practicing usury was excommunicated from the Christian church. With that in mind, I can only say God help you all that continue to sustain this bastard financial system child of the devil, because if I was in a position to do so, I would start purging in the same way that old Christian church did.

Aaahhh... So during the Great Apostasy, the corrupt Christian Church of the Dark Ages was holding fast to the Iron Rod on their way to the Tree of Life, while the Restored Church today is somewhere in the mist of darkness??? More anti-Mormon rubbish...

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

[ithink]

Mr. Smith owes $130,000 to Mr. Banker. This is the total of his loan plus interest... Mr. Smith built a huge slide, and people pay him $100 to slide down his slide. Mr. Banker happens to love slides, he loves them so much, he slides down the slide about 10 times a day - thus Mr. Banker is giving Mr. Smith $1000/day! Mr. Smith takes that $1000/day and gives it right back to Mr. Banker... Thus we see that the same $1000 continues to circulate between Mr. Banker and Mr. Smith... No new money into the economy, no additional debt, just a circulating exchange... Therefore the debt Mr. Smith owes to Mr. Banker is decreasing by $1000/day, and within 130/days Mr. Smith is debt free! No new debt, no new money into the economy... And all the other people in the community also happen to offer a product or service that Mr. Smith loves just as much, so eventually they too have their debts paid off. Everyone is debt free, and the money continues to be exchanged for the various products and services available in the community. Oh, and Mr. Banker had to switch professions after all the debts got paid off.

You see - It is mathematically possible, under certain possible scenario's, while maybe not likely or realistic, it is mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, without new debt or new money.

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

You say Mr. Smith owes 130K for a slide. Full stop right now, you've made a massive error. Mr. Smith may owe 130K, but what was the principal he received? Was it 100K? If so, the economy received $100K, but Smith owes $130K. Where does Smith get the other $30K? The answer is he does not. The impossible cycle is broken and Smith is bankrupt. Interestingly, Smith is bankrupt the day after he receives the loan, because after he owes 10 cents in interest he still can't pay that back...

Sorry, but it is you who have failed in the math here, seems you don't understand how money can continue to circulate so long as it is not held onto by one person... you must re-read and re-read and re-read the example(s) I have given and you will see the truth, that the math is sound, despite the example not being realistic or at all likely... My point is not to argue the reality of the system as it is today but only to show that there is a possibility to pay back all the interest and debt without acquiring new debt or injecting new money into the system - the point is to show the mathematically possibility, not the chances of that scenario actually happening in real life. Take a step back, re-read, and just think. And if you respond, don't stray from the example scenario given, as you have done. How can you hope to disprove something if you stray from the scenario being used to prove it?

First fix your "example", it is flawed. Tell us the principal issued by the bank, not what is owed by Smith.

[Jason]

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Yes, I have seen your point the whole time! I also saw the hole, which makes it mathematically possible under rare circumstances.

But glad to see you've finally come around to admitting there is a mathematical possibility under the right circumstance that circumstance being that the banker spends all the money back into the economy. Though the end of your sentence revealed you're not thinking in terms of mathematical possibility, you're thinking in terms of the corrupt reality we face today, I'm simply illustrating a mathematical possibility, not even trying to address babylon.

Brian: Good to see you have brought most to agreement on this. If the banker puts his money back into the system with no IOUs attached, the loan's principal + interest can indeed be paid off -- definitely a mathematical possibility. However, this is not what is going on today through central banking. (

But it doesn't resolve the flow of assets to the banker for creating money out of nothing....it just depicts the level of control the banker has over the economy.

[ithink]

Just to clarify -
the money has to do more than just change hands between people.....has to go back into the economy from the bank without an IOU attached (for example - payment for goods/services)....otherwise ithink is correct. See scenario 1 in previous post. If scenario 2 changes from Mr. Banker sliding down the slide (goods/service) to just offering another loan....back to no money to pay interest.

No, you need to go deeper. If you wish, you can think of paper money "circulating" so to speak, but in reality, the loans that allow that paper money to be in circulation do not. Those loan dollars are created and destroyed! However, the part of the loan repayment that is interest, is destroyed only. There was no creation of the interest by the bank, but since the bank requires interest to be paid in dollars which can only be loaned into existence, it requires more loans to cover this interest portion.

[ithink]

Just to clarify -
the money has to do more than just change hands between people.....has to go back into the economy from the bank without an IOU attached (for example - payment for goods/services)....otherwise ithink is correct. See scenario 1 in previous post. If scenario 2 changes from Mr. Banker sliding down the slide (goods/service) to just offering another loan....back to no money to pay interest.

Yes, I do realize that, but in my scenario the money changes hands and goes back into the economy without IOU's attached.

There is no money that enters the economy without an IOU attached.

[ithink]

I measure everything against the Constitution which was handed to the Founding Fathers by the Lord. That is why I vote for Constitutional Party Candidates. Not that they could ever be elected, but as a show of respect for the Constitution.

I think politics is meaningless at this point. President Benson was quoted many years ago as saying we had already passed the point when the Constitution could have been saved by peaceful means. Now it will cost blood to save it. An enemy hath done this. We shouldn't be surprised, everything is on schedule like the prophesies indicate.

You have a lot of learning to do. Politics are going to be messing with you in short order, we have no more time to screw around with "is the call out coming" and other such ridiculous posts. Unless you consider this thread being a call out, because it is. I'm calling you all out for wasting your time with frivolous topics when we should be banding together over the only viable solution available.

First we have the law of Moses, but now something better. First there was the gold standard, but now something better. Just because it "was this way", does not mean there is not a better way. The founding fathers used gold to bind men down in the wild west, but the world is so sophisticated today that the bankers already control all the gold and can manipulate the economy as they wish. MPE would not allow this manipulation. The difference between gold and MPE is the same as the difference between a camel and a jet airplane.

[ithink]

I see your point....do you see mine?

It is mathematically impossible to pay the debt (without the Banker spending that money back into the economy - thus transferring assets/labor to the banker along with complete control over the economy - is that better?)....

Yes, I have seen your point the whole time! I also saw the hole, which makes it mathematically possible under rare circumstances.

But glad to see you've finally come around to admitting there is a mathematical possibility under the right circumstance that circumstance being that the banker spends all the money back into the economy. Though the end of your sentence revealed you're not thinking in terms of mathematical possibility, you're thinking in terms of the corrupt reality we face today, I'm simply illustrating a mathematical possibility, not even trying to address babylon.

Brian: Good to see you have brought most to agreement on this. If the banker puts his money back into the system with no IOUs attached, the loan's principal + interest can indeed be paid off -- definitely a mathematical possibility. However, this is not what is going on today through central banking. (

Good to see the forum members are fawning at Brian's feet because he runs the forum? Good to see that everyone has bought into his flawed thinking? Just because Griffin says it is possible, does it make it so? I have other authors who say it is not. I have the math that says it is not possible. What do you have besides the flawed voice of your defacto leader?

[Teancum-Old]

Brian: Good to see you have brought most to agreement on this. If the banker puts his money back into the system with no IOUs attached, the loan's principal + interest can indeed be paid off -- definitely a mathematical possibility. However, this is not what is going on today through central banking. (

But it doesn't resolve the flow of assets to the banker for creating money out of nothing....it just depicts the level of control the banker has over the economy.

Mummy: I think most of us agree with your concept of all/most of the assets ultimately going to the banker due to the high level of control he has over the economy (since that is what is happening today under the Fed and their buddies). However, I may differ from Brian on this, my point in showing that it is mathematically possible for the principle + interest to be paid off (although definitely unlikely in our current system) is to support the idea that interest, in and of itself, is not evil (I believe ithink disagrees vehemently with this though). Evil comes when men use the concept of interest to achieve their own evil goals. I believe interest could be used righteously (although historically it has been wickedly abused). Else why would the Savior refer to interest in a positive way in some of his parables??

[ithink]

Yes Brian is indeed correct .... So on the one hand you have an unpayable debt,

Well which is it? You say Brian is right, but then you say the debt is not payable. Are you confused?

What profiteth it a man if he gain the world but loses his soul? The Global conspiracy is very close to achieving the first part of that equation.

How close they are you do not know or you would be wrestling with this much more than you are.

[ithink]

Ithink your annoying. :ymapplause:

Apparently not annoying enough, as I see you are still unconverted from the gross darkness which covers your mind.

[Jason]

Ithink....could you put MPE in a simple scenario for the rest of us to chew on?

[ithink]

Hold on! Did I read that right? Is this supposed to say, "Fool, stop right now?" I hope this is not what was meant. If so, it is extremely arrogant and unChrist-like (as is the "grade 5 math" comment), as well as poor spelling on your part.

You say we cannot have debt, but you belong to a church which holds you in perpetual debt to Christ with a debt that can never be paid. Well surprise surprise, you also belong to another organization on this planet to whom you also owe a debt that can never be paid, and how does it feel?

I never knew this forum was a good source of anti-Mormon rubbish! If I was really looking for that sort of thing, I would talk to Jerald and Sandra Tanner or Ed Decker.

900 years ago, anyone practicing usury was excommunicated from the Christian church. With that in mind, I can only say God help you all that continue to sustain this bastard financial system child of the devil, because if I was in a position to do so, I would start purging in the same way that old Christian church did.

Aaahhh... So during the Great Apostasy, the corrupt Christian Church of the Dark Ages was holding fast to the Iron Rod on their way to the Tree of Life, while the Restored Church today is somewhere in the mist of darkness??? More anti-Mormon rubbish...

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

1. Find me doctrine that says we can pay Christ back for his sacrifice for us.
2. Actually, usury was forbidden by God back in the time of Abraham. Abrahams father, of Ur of the Chaldees, was an apostate idol worshiper, and was cast out because he was a proponent of interest, as you are. Is that what you are referring to as the Apostate church?
3. I don't think I'm smart at all. But I never quit until I get to the bottom of every question I endeavor to ask. Some of the questions I have been answering on this forum remained unanswered in my mind for 33 years. I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

[Teancum-Old]

You see - It is mathematically possible, under certain possible scenario's, while maybe not likely or realistic, it is mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, without new debt or new money.

Your simple example is a joke, and sorry, but you fail grade 5 math.

You say Mr. Smith owes 130K for a slide. Full stop right now, you've made a massive error.

Hold on! Did I read that right? Is this supposed to say, "Fool, stop right now?" I hope this is not what was meant. If so, it is extremely arrogant and unChrist-like (as is the "grade 5 math" comment), as well as poor spelling on your part.

You say we cannot have debt, but you belong to a church which holds you in perpetual debt to Christ with a debt that can never be paid. Well surprise surprise, you also belong to another organization on this planet to whom you also owe a debt that can never be paid, and how does it feel?

I never knew this forum was a good source of anti-Mormon rubbish! If I was really looking for that sort of thing, I would talk to Jerald and Sandra Tanner or Ed Decker.

900 years ago, anyone practicing usury was excommunicated from the Christian church. With that in mind, I can only say God help you all that continue to sustain this bastard financial system child of the devil, because if I was in a position to do so, I would start purging in the same way that old Christian church did.

Aaahhh... So during the Great Apostasy, the corrupt Christian Church of the Dark Ages was holding fast to the Iron Rod on their way to the Tree of Life, while the Restored Church today is somewhere in the mist of darkness??? More anti-Mormon rubbish...

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

A re-post just for ithink. Any response?? Your behavior on this forum is sick.

Good to see the forum members are fawning at Brian's feet because he runs the forum?

More degrading insults ithink? You never stop. =; =; =; =; =; =; =; =;

No fawning here. We just happen to agree that it is a mathematical possibility to payoff principal and interest.

[Teancum-Old]

Hold on! Did I read that right? Is this supposed to say, "Fool, stop right now?" I hope this is not what was meant. If so, it is extremely arrogant and unChrist-like (as is the "grade 5 math" comment), as well as poor spelling on your part.

You say we cannot have debt, but you belong to a church which holds you in perpetual debt to Christ with a debt that can never be paid. Well surprise surprise, you also belong to another organization on this planet to whom you also owe a debt that can never be paid, and how does it feel?

I never knew this forum was a good source of anti-Mormon rubbish! If I was really looking for that sort of thing, I would talk to Jerald and Sandra Tanner or Ed Decker.

900 years ago, anyone practicing usury was excommunicated from the Christian church. With that in mind, I can only say God help you all that continue to sustain this bastard financial system child of the devil, because if I was in a position to do so, I would start purging in the same way that old Christian church did.

Aaahhh... So during the Great Apostasy, the corrupt Christian Church of the Dark Ages was holding fast to the Iron Rod on their way to the Tree of Life, while the Restored Church today is somewhere in the mist of darkness??? More anti-Mormon rubbish...

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

1. Find me doctrine that says we can pay Christ back for his sacrifice for us.
2. Actually, usury was forbidden by God back in the time of Abraham. Abrahams father, of Ur of the Chaldees, was an apostate idol worshiper, and was cast out because he was a proponent of interest, as you are. Is that what you are referring to as the Apostate church? Actually I was referring to the Church you initially referred to above when you said: "900 years ago." That would make that "church" either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church around the year 1100 AD. You never mentioned Abraham on this thread until now
3. I don't think I'm smart at all. I guess we are to ignore your use of "fool" and the reference to grade 5 math. But I never quit until I get to the bottom of every question I endeavor to ask. Some of the questions I have been answering on this forum remained unanswered in my mind for 33 years. I have no problem with questions until they are being used in a condescending fashion. I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

[Teancum-Old]

I refuse to respond further to ithink until he clears up the anti-Mormon rhetoric above and acknowledges the poor, elitish methods he has chosen (as quoted above) to illustrate his position.

[ithink]

Ithink....could you put MPE in a simple scenario for the rest of us to chew on?

Alright. What is MPE?

Before the solution, we identify the problems.

1. Inflation and deflation
2. Inherent and irreversible multiplication of debt
3. Systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money

The solution?

1. Eradicate interest, and pay off obligations comprised of principal only at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the asset.
2. Interest is the singular cause of inherent multiplication of debt, which is not repayable. It must be abolished.
3. Manipulation of the money supply is solved through the combination of 1 and 2.

This is MPE in a nutshell. To prevent collapse and a terminal cycle of deflation setting in, there are a number of other items which would need to be implemented immediately, which I will not lay out here.

If the readers cannot grasp this, then here is what you need ask yourselves: "Is it possible to solve inflation / deflation under any form of currency subject to compound interest?"

[ithink]

I am willing at every point to receive more knowledge.

Really?! That does not appear to be the case from your unChrist-like behavior illustrated above. ithink, you may think you are smart but I am sure you are far from perfect (as are most of us--including myself). Your elitish behavior just makes me say =;

1. Find me doctrine that says we can pay Christ back for his sacrifice for us.
2. Actually, usury was forbidden by God back in the time of Abraham. Abrahams father, of Ur of the Chaldees, was an apostate idol worshiper, and was cast out because he was a proponent of interest, as you are. Is that what you are referring to as the Apostate church? Actually I was referring to the Church you initially referred to above when you said: "900 years ago." That would make that "church" either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church around the year 1100 AD. You never mentioned Abraham on this thread until now
3. I don't think I'm smart at all. I guess we are to ignore your use of "fool" and the reference to grade 5 math. But I never quit until I get to the bottom of every question I endeavor to ask. Some of the questions I have been answering on this forum remained unanswered in my mind for 33 years. I have no problem with questions until they are being used in a condescending fashion. I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

I think you owe me an apology, comparing me to the Apostate Deckers et al. My reference to the primitive church was to show that the Old Testament doctrines lasted until just a few hundred year ago. That is a long time! And as for the integrity of that church, I thank them for what they did. Your attitude smarts of "And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them?... O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them." I don't know what part of the ancient church this applies to, but I'm speaking of the attitude.

And as for those who reject me because "I rub them the wrong way". Get over it. Here is what I wrote the author of a famous money video most of you have seen, about my attitude to everyone else: "I don't care about the appearance of the messenger, good, bad, ugly, proud, humble, a$$hole, or saintly nun. I only care about the message." If you don't adopt that attitude yourself, you'll be forever stuck and constantly missing out on the pieces you need to put it all together.

About the grade 5 math. I'm sorry, but it is grade 5 math. If someone can't do it, they fail grade 5 math. Shall I lie about it, or shall you, or shall we be honest men admit who is wrong and continue a frank (albeit painful) and honest discussion, or shall we derail the thread and never resolve our minds to the issue at hand?

Finally, you say here that I used the word "fool" against the site owner. I object and impeach you as a liar. I said no such thing, but you libeled me by changing my words and falsely saying I did.

[Jason]

[Teancum-Old]

I think you owe me an apology, comparing me to the Apostate Deckers et al. OK, so let's call it even; your condescending statements for my comparison to apostates. My reference to the primitive church was to show that the Old Testament doctrines lasted until just a few hundred year ago. That is a long time! And as for the integrity of that church, I thank them for what they did. Your attitude smarts of "And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them?... O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them." I don't know what part of the ancient church this applies to, but I'm speaking of the attitude. I can thank many individual Christians during this period for their extraordinary work in preserving the Bible (Tyndale, etc.). On the other hand I know that God had a lot to do with making sure the said church didn't take too many "plain and precious parts" from the Bible as well. The general leadership of this said church committed many atrocities and trampled all over individual agency. Its difficult for me to thank them for much, especially when they were instrumental in preventing the Bible's release to the "unwashed" masses and for the removal of many plain and precious parts.

And as for those who reject me because "I rub them the wrong way". Get over it. Continuing with this elitish, condescending attitude will give you a hard time getting anyone to listen to you wholeheartedly. Here is what I wrote the author of a famous money video most of you have seen, about my attitude to everyone else: "I don't care about the appearance of the messenger, good, bad, ugly, proud, humble, a$$hole, or saintly nun. I only care about the message." Goes much too far for my taste (especially with your choice of vocabulary). I would not recommend playing with evil. We are supposed to steer clear of it as did Joseph with Potiphar's wife. If you don't adopt that attitude yourself, you'll be forever stuck and constantly missing out on the pieces you need to put it all together. Agree to disagree (and recommend others to stay away from this advice).

About the grade 5 math. I'm sorry, but it is grade 5 math. If someone can't do it, they fail grade 5 math. Again, elitish and condescending. Makes me say =;. Shall I lie about it, or shall you, or shall we be honest men admit who is wrong and continue a frank (albeit painful) and honest discussion, or shall we derail the thread and never resolve our minds to the issue at hand? Fine with me if you can stop with the elitism and condescension.

Finally, you say here that I used the word "fool" against the site owner. I object and impeach you as a liar. I said no such thing, but you libeled me by changing my words and falsely saying I did. I may be wrong, but you have never corrected me until now. I still cannot tell what was meant by:

Full stop right now, you've made a massive error.

Still appears that "fool" was the word sought for.

So, I will listen to you when you quit the elitism. It's really tough to take anyone seriously when they degrade left and right, accusing people of:

fawning at Brian's feet

I am ready for a civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion where all can learn together if you are. If I am to take you seriously, you will agree to be civil. If not, then I have had enough. A civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion requires mutual respect or else it will lead to nowhere.

[ChemtrailWatcher]

Teancum, have you never heard of the expression "full stop"? It's another word for "Period" -- you know, like at the end of a sentence. Must be a "British" thing....

ithink, it's great to see a fellow Canadian participating on here.

[Jason]

Teancum, have you never heard of the expression "full stop"? It's another word for "Period" -- you know, like at the end of a sentence. Must be a "British" thing....

ithink, it's great to see a fellow Canadian participating on here.

Glad to see you are still around!!!

[creator]

Mummy: I think most of us agree with your concept of all/most of the assets ultimately going to the banker due to the high level of control he has over the economy (since that is what is happening today under the Fed and their buddies). However, I may differ from Brian on this, my point in showing that it is mathematically possible for the principle + interest to be paid off (although definitely unlikely in our current system) is to support the idea that interest, in and of itself, is not evil (I believe ithink disagrees vehemently with this though). Evil comes when men use the concept of interest to achieve their own evil goals. I believe interest could be used righteously (although historically it has been wickedly abused). Else why would the Savior refer to interest in a positive way in some of his parables??

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

[creator]

...I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

Just stop, ithink, you're embarrassing yourself. My analogy was not supposed to be realistic at all, simply to illustrate math that shows in completely controlled la-la-land scenario it is possible to pay of all the interest and debt. You're comments reveal you didn't quite grasp every aspect of the scenario, if you re-read and re-read my simple scenario you'll see the math, it's possible. Anyways... let's get back on track here, no need for the kind of behavior your displaying here.

[Teancum-Old]

Teancum, have you never heard of the expression "full stop"? It's another word for "Period" -- you know, like at the end of a sentence. Must be a "British" thing....

ithink, it's great to see a fellow Canadian participating on here.

Thanks for the note ChemtrailWatcher. Would have been helpful if ithink would have just explained that. Never heard that expression before. I was wrong... not the first time of course :p .

So, does anyone excuse ithink's elitish and condescending behavior?? I absolutely do not. I simply can not and will not bother participating in a discussion when someone behaves that way. I would rather quit the discussion than blow my lid over it. X(

[ChemtrailWatcher]

That's OK, Teancum.

I just found this explanation for the term "full stop" on a website:

The term full stop is rarely used by speakers in Canada, and virtually never in the United States. In American English, the phrase "full stop" is generally used only in the context of transport to describe the process of completely halting the motion of a vehicle. See, e.g., Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Blackwell, 244 U.S. 310 (1917) "under the laws of the state a train is required to come to a full stop 50 feet from the crossing", and Chowdhury v. City of Los Angeles, 38 Cal. App. 4th 1187 (1995) "Once the signals failed, the City could reasonably foresee that motorists using due care would obey the provisions of the Vehicle Code and make a full stop before proceeding when it was safe to do so".

from this website: http://www.answers.com/topic/full-stop

I researched it further online and it appears that "full stop" is a British expression.

From my experience, the term is sometimes used for emphasis. You could compare it to this:

"I've had enough of this weather. Period."/ "I've had enough of this weather. Full stop."

On further thought, ithink might have been using the term in the sense of coming to a complete stop. Kind of like saying "Quit it!"

Hope this helps!