Make a Comment

Comments in Response

Comment by Jet Lacey
Entered on:

Thanks for the feedback.

I**Q**m glad you don**Q**t think I**Q**m a Satanist any more. It was making things uncomfortable between us.


Comment by Jet Lacey
Entered on:
I know Chuck, I know.

It**Q**s obvious you don**Q**t fully understand what I say oftentimes. You can**Q**t grasp that I have a wicked sense of humor and not a wicked heart. You are so quick to judge me and others, it makes me wonder how personally unhappy you must be. I feel for you brother, I really do.

I only quoted Alex Jones insofar as that he made a brilliant insight regarding the depth of the scam that is being perpetrated on all of us by the elite.

When one is **QQ**awakened,**QQ** as the those who understand the situation we are in refer to the process of becoming enlightened, the world really is like the Matrix. The reality we once believed in is one based on complete lies.

For me personally, and I don**Q**t speak for anyone else but myself, I feel that religion only serves to further muddy waters that are already polluted and brackish.

My relationship with the Creator is personal. It is my own, belonging to no other, and I don**Q**t need anyone trying to tell me what is going to happen to my mortal soul. If you really believe in what Christ and the Bible says you know damn well that it isn**Q**t your place to judge me.

I**Q**m not angry with you Chuck, you just need to understand that your judgments are unwelcome and unappreciated. Whether I go to hell or not (I don**Q**t believe in it anyway) is frankly none of your business, but may the Creator bless you anyway.



Comment by Edwin Sumcad
Entered on:
I rather find it odd that anyone without a religion can say in a condescending way that his relationship with **QQ**his Creator**QQ** is strictly his own business and not anybody**Q**s business. It is clearly a statement of arrogance of one**Q**s own self-belief on **QQ**his Creator**QQ** with a total disregard and disrespect of the others**Q** belief in religion!

In my opinion – formed after a long investigative excursion on religious studies in the academe – one cannot live without a religion, for religion is life itself. I cannot say and will not say that those who have no religion have no life even though this might be true. But even atheists believe on some gods – themselves. They believe that the universe starts from them -- that is at least jointly they believe there is no need of God because they are God themselves. The public had a good opportunity of reading author Sumcad**Q**s editorial on this mystic thinking in **QQ**When Reason Is God So Is The Media**QQ** [read latest editorials/opinions in the Archive button].

Religion is actually belief on the existence of the **QQ**Creator**QQ**… the wise said this a million times since the first man walked the earth. You can ask anyone from kindergarten to the brainiest wizards of the land, and they will tell you so.
If you reject the religious belief in the existence of the **QQ**Creator**QQ** on one hand, and on the other you accept that your **QQ**Creator**QQ** exists, this oddity is worse than Obama**Q**s foible when he rejects Bush**Q**s war policy in Iraq as robbing the people of billions of tax money not to speak of an unacceptable number of military casualties and yet continues Bush**Q**s war policy in Afghanistan, which requires even a more spending binge that milks Americans dry to the bone, and more graves to dig in the Arlington cemetery!

To the Godless, belief in God is purely **QQ**theoretical**QQ**, this I grant arguendo. Since to the disbelieving mind, belief in the Supernatural Being is nothing real because it is merely assumptive, I am amused by this article that professes belief in the theory of Austrian economics as more real than in the principles of neoclassical economics, and yet rejects the existence of God when it is also based on same ground – only a theory. Isn**Q**t this not strangely anomalous?

Austrian obsession in orthodox economics has become a comedy of errors in many false assumptions. It is **QQ**heterodox economics**QQ** rejected by mainstream economists. Heterodoxy is not based on tested economic principles under which the Austrian School is one of them; it includes a variety of **QQ**social economics**QQ** of which Marxism and Bill Ayers**Q** Socialism [the American Bomber] are among them. It **QQ**fails the test of falsifiability.**QQ**

In the case of Ayers**Q** economic socialism, the theory argues with the explosion of the bomb that destroys buildings and kills people.

The comedy of errors is a non-issue to pseudo-economists outside of the economic realm. For example, the **QQ**government**QQ** and **QQ**unions**QQ** are blamed for distortions in the failure of the economy in the free market system. This is not only false but also delusional. There are countless **QQ**market-based impediments**QQ** which to discuss them here will require ample space we do not have. But don**Q**t mess up reality with what**Q**s happening – that the exercise of **QQ**freedom**QQ** in the economic system is abused. There is greed in it.
Adam Smith warned about greed that distorts the market equilibrium. When economic players could no longer **QQ**govern**QQ** themselves because of greed, Smith himself recommended the intervention of the Government to restore order.

By the way FYI, Smith was the **QQ**inventor advocate**QQ** of the free enterprise system. It was not Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard of the Austrian orthodoxy who originally said that the economy is not the government**Q**s business to interfere with. These guys are but Smith**Q**s copycats who stubbornly and foolishly argue that the need for the Government to regulate a chaotic market is Hitler**Q**s demon reincarnate!

Think for example how atypical orthodox economists argue their protests against the Federal Reserve. They want the country**Q**s central banking abolished for any reason at all under the sun – you name it! But the Federal Reserve is the U.S. Congress itself! Like in all civilized nations, this country**Q**s central bank is but the shadow of Congress. Only Don Quixote would stab a shadow to death. If they want to kill the Federal Reserve, they must kill Congress. But can they? It is laughable.

It is not hard to explain why knowledgeable Americans are folding over when they laugh hard it hurts. In this published **QQ**economic analysis**QQ** that bangs the gavel with authority, the Federal Reserve is looked down as some kind of a disease in our body politics. It prescribes a cure to get rid of this disease. Think of this body as your own with such kind of disease, and you receive a medical advice from someone who does not have a medical diploma!! Sounds familiar? And why do Americans laugh? That**Q**s because they know that there is still this kind of **QQ**doctor**QQ** that practices medicine in the deepest jungles of the Great Amazon River in Africa, a strange primitive world untouched by civilization!

If I am talking to economist colleagues worth their salt right now, I must say that the orthodoxy**Q**s objection to the neoclassical utility theory would lead to the total rejection of **QQ**the pervasive use of calculus in economics**QQ**. I was incredulous when I learned for the first time that they foolishly ridiculed the assumption of continuity. While I was in the graduate school of economics I thought it was a joke. But it was not a shaggy dog story strictly for fun. If you are an economist, you will know that an economic mathematician [econometrist] can only differentiate a function based on the assumption of continuity …!! There is a lot more of rebellious arrogance out of the mainstream economic theories that had been proven ludicrously wrong.

Here is the problem: One who has not gone to school in economics reads all the books of economic theories he can in one day or two, comes out publicly to demonize the long established theory of neoclassical economic principles [NEP] and beatify certain economic orthodoxy -- which schooled mainstream economists who labored for a number of years to earn their Ph. Ds -- reject, is to me the greatest surprise of the day!

The success of the NEP and the failure of the Austrian advocates to prove their assumptions are not out of this world, have been examined thoroughly and tested accordingly in the academic lab and proven by historical experience for years before a pundit would dare to challenge certain economic imperatives with impunity like this article which deceptively persuades the public to believe as economics**Q** gospel truth.

Let there be no mistake about it: The government in a free enterprise society is not without a weakness, just as there is this weakness in the free economic system without the government. The economic debacles we are experiencing right now are those weaknesses that challenge our free-for-all democratic market system supposedly ideally free of government intervention.
Austrian school Nobel Laureate awardees like Friedrich Yayek, Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard, have their talents brilliantly exposed on those weaknesses as responses to the call of the time. But their school of thoughts **QQ**currently contributes relatively little to mainstream economics.**QQ** [Caplan]

If such is the case, how much do you think this unschooled philosophy of one who gets educated by reading books – which is laudable and persevering, we must admit – contribute to the better understanding of the already confused public? Would average right-thinking Americans believe one who does not believe in the gospel of any religion because God is but an assumption and therefore not real but believes in orthodox economic preaching as real even though this is nothing but also just an assumption?
Knocks me out!

Here, there is no offense intended to anyone living or dead – just a cerebral exercise in the discussion of multiple issues disconnected or not, raised in the article.



Make a Comment