Trump Shows The He Too: Is Better At Making Lunacy Even Greater Again(?)!

[mascale]

Putin likes to invade territories, Sarah Palin knows enough to keep the new drone at some distance above a bare-chested, spear-fishing, Vladimir Putin, and North Korea can now arm a missile with a smaller size nuclear warhead. The President of the United States, not to be left out, actually takes his stance with basis in the famous ranting of a Disney Cartoon Duck(?)! Clearly the world is left. . . .trembling, some might call it.

Donald Trump warns North Korea 'will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen'

Lunacy has now prominently been made even greater, again!

Even in Genesis, Humans emerge from the famous self-service forest: An do farming, about 5000 years ago. Jewish Israel puts the earth age a human history countable, 6000 years, or so. Wandering into ancient Sumer, one human can borrow three measures of barley, raise a crop, become a neighbor, and repay the loan of three with four measures. A stable food supply happens. Neighborhood identity happens--a first ghetto(?). Easily, then barley beer can happen.

Technically: That is not modern economics, developed with basis in a scarcity assumption, and with need of public works spending to bail out the participants, from the impact of the usury arithmetic. Beer can be better.

Humans were not skilled at arithmetic. Code of Hammurabi creates a remedy for aggravated dads everywhere: To sell the (wife) and kids into slavery, to satisfy debts. So they get fed, clothed, housed, "educated," and put to useful community activity. Welfare has happened, and after a few years there is freedom.

Moses was an educated man of Imperialist Egypt, skilled at all its arts, (Acts 7). He could denigrate, subjugate, eviscerate, flog, enslave, brutalize, demean and degrade with the best of them! Indirectly, it is in the Bible.

So Israel is set to reject civilizing usury, and to charge it to everyone foreign, (Deut: 23:19-20)

Denigration becomes economics without so much as a decent, screaming, Republican Town Hall Meeting.

Jesus ben Joseph, Son of Mary, Called, "Oh Christ!" would demonstrate the arithmetic in Matthew 25:14-30: And effectively cement economics into. . .many would say, Jewish accountants: In the era of the creation of the Roman Empire. The Imperial arts of Egypt were famously widely admired. Jesus would set himself up as another Caesar on the earth--destined to reign in heaven. Into subjugation went the poor, even in "The Kingdom of Heaven," in the story.

And so even now, the nations can Sanction one another, and promise "Fire and Fury," against one another.

Famously, even in Israel people let the rabbis in the building, and celebrate some lethal concept of a deity.
"To the boxcars, they must go," all the peoples forever.

Alternative arithmetic, Matthew 20:1-16, shows a usury of community applied. Maybe grandma and the infants cannot be set to work all the day: But equally in the community they are participants alike--even at some blessed table.

"Is it me, Lord!?" "Is it me, Lord?" never comes up, even: Ranting Jesus screaming back at all the others!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great White Yellow Hair In Washington. . .going maybe now to baseball games in. . .New Jersey(?), or across some bridge(?)!"

 

[usmbguest5318]

..."Fire and Fury,"...

Regarding Trump's "fire and fury" assertion, I have more problem with it because the man has lied about so many things and so often that I have no idea of whether he means it or whether it's just bellicose bluster. That is, of course, the key problems I have with Trump:

• There's simply no way to know whether to believe, to take in earnest, what he says, notwithstanding that he routinely uses the phrase "believe me."
• The man is given to making vague, ambiguous and incoherent remarks; therefore I have no idea of what specifically Trump means by "fire and fury."

Were his "fire and fury" remarks both credible and clear, I then might have a publicly-expressible opinion about them. Of course, I can speculate what exactly Trump means, but given the context of the situation that gave rise to that remark, "random" speculation and sharing those notions is not a responsible thing for me to do prior to Trump clarifying his statements or prior to his acting and then averring that his actions are what he meant.


What follows are merely some remarks I feel are worth sharing. They have nothing to do with what I think is the central theme of the post -- Trump's "fire and fury" comment reflects some degree of the existential insanity Trump has -- and I think your analogies do not suffer by dint of seeming not giving credence to what I've below shared.

Technically: That is not modern economics, developed with basis in a scarcity assumption

Clarifications:

• Modern economics is not something that was created. Like the theories (scientific sense of the word) of other modern natural and social sciences, modern economics' foundational theories are things that were discovered and tested, not created.
  
  Also like the other sciences, the body of scientific theory, laws and principles is incomplete; there remains more to be discovered. Be that as it may, it would take a discovery an economic "supernova" to upend the foundational laws of economics we've thus far discovered. Accordingly, one must realize that what remains to be discovered in economics are things that build upon, not alter, the existing foundational principles of economics. Analogically, one might think of it in terms of the differences in impacts between changing a car's tires and changing the car's chassis.
  
  What are the foundational principles of economics? Everything one finds explicitly and tacitly indicated here: Principles of Economics. (One can choose any similar text; all "principles of economics" texts say the same things.)
  
• Economics has three core assumptions,and scarcity is a component of one of them rather than being an assumption unto itself. Economics' core assumptions collaborate on every economic event. The assumptions are:

1. People, in the face of scarcity and having/wanting to choose how they deploy their resources, make rational choices/preferences when selecting among the range of possible outcomes they can achieve by expending their resources (land, labor, capital and entrepreneurial thought).
2. When making their choices about the nature and extent of resource expenditures in return for "something," that something individuals seek to obtain is utility, and for firms, it's profit. In choosing, individuals maximize utility; firms maximize profit.
3. Individuals and firms make their choices based upon the information that is available to them, information that ideally is perfect and germane, but that often enough, for a variety of reasons, is not.
   
   In light of this assumption, the reason people/firms make bad/"the wrong" choice is because they don't have information that, were they to have had it, could have led them to make a better choice. (Economics doesn't care that one might be too stupid to soundly use the information even if one has it. In that regard, positive economics is very Darwinist; it tacitly says that if one makes enough poor decision -- no matter why they were poor decisions -- one will perish, or in economics parlance, "exit the marketplace.")

 

[mascale]

So anyone sees, following modern economics, how Guam becomes a target(?)! (1) There isn't much of it, so it is probably scarce(?), and so an object of desire(?). (2). The seashell market is probably hot at this time of year, and dropping any billions of them, like Manna from Heaven, just naturally leads to the matter of increase of profits(?), for a drop-a-teer(?). (3) The absurdity is perfect, just like the information(?)!

All digressing aside, (?). Humans have been obsessed with the usury shown in Matthew 25:14-30. That is usual rich-get-richer economics. Human have not been obsessed with the usury shown in Matthew 20:1-16. That would be an inverse computing, wherein the proportions of abundance are skewed to equality of distribution. Humans talk "re-distribution" instead. Lincoln could free the slaves, with no clear planning for an, "Equality of distribution" kind of outcome. The slavery of the "Welfare" type of Hammurabi transition was not proposed. The Hammurabi transition is said to have been three years. Owners would not be set to creation of a source of new-tech labor. Asset-values of banking and finance were abruptly terminated, all through the South. No replacements were proposed or intended. A renewal of Southern Commerce--including of apparel supply sources--was not promoted.

In fact, famous Mohammed, the Prophet, makes no note of the Jesus stories. Adam Smith, the pricey economist: Makes no note of the Jesus stories. Karl Marx, the asset-values challenged revolutionary: Makes no note of the Jesus Stories. "Credit Economics" was proposed, without clear value on which to rely. Keynes was gay, and so can be said to have, "Bade the people bend over. . .And await the public works!" That is the not-stated direct outcome of his famous economic arithmetic, usury-based.

We have an Ivy League, instead.

So aren't we lucky. . .to be living through it all(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great White Yellow Hair in Washington, maybe now headed to Guam itself, making even Beer Belly, Great Again!" Where leadership happens, many can follow!)