(AP) Regulators on Friday shut down Silver State Bank, saying the Nevada bank failed because of losses on soured loans, mainly in commercial real estate and land development.

It was the 11th failure this year of a federally insured bank.

Nevada regulators closed Silver State and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was appointed receiver of the bank, based in Henderson, Nev. It had $2 billion in assets and $1.7 billion in deposits as of June 30.

Andrew K. McCain, a son of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, sat on the boards of Silver State Bank and of its parent, Silver State Bancorp, starting in February but resigned in July citing “personal reasons,” corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show. Andrew McCain also was a member of the bank’s audit committee, responsible for oversight of the company’s accounting.

The younger McCain, who is the chief financial officer of Hensley & Co., the beer distributorship of which Cindy McCain is chairwoman, is the Arizona senator’s adopted son from his first marriage.

The closing of the “gold window” on August 15, 1971 by President Nixon ended the convertibility of the US dollar into gold and triggered the collapse of the Bretton Woods international monetary regime. The crisis was caused by a persistent US balance of payments deficit, which was the result of inflationary US fiscal and monetary policies.

The US dollar was the sole reserve currency in the Bretton Woods international monetary system and the only currency to be pegged to gold. Other currencies set a par value to the dollar, which remained “passive” in the exchange markets and let other currencies determine parity rates. The dollar, in turn, could be exchanged for gold at the fixed rate of $35 per ounce. This last institutional feature would prove to be an important one, for it explicitly took away US policy autonomy in the sphere of setting exchange rates. Other countries could change and/or manipulate their exchange rates against the dollar, but the US was unable to effect a devaluation (or a revaluation) of its currency against others.

As the only reserve currency in the Bretton Woods system, the US was obliged to maintain price stability as the primary goal of its monetary policy. Over the course of the previous decade, US officials had become increasingly unwilling to pursue price stability as they grappled with the problems of financing the Vietnam War and domestic Great Society programs. US deficits put severe pressures on the dollar, requiring US policy makers to jack up interest rates and/or decrease the money supply in order to restore market confidence in the strength of the dollar.

no you cant…

you cant destroy an economy… you can change it till everyone exclaims its destroyed, but its still there.

its like the concept of polution. you really cant pollute things. all you can do is cahnge the situation in some way that you judge you dont like it.

wait 1 million years and there is nothing remaining of what you call pollution..

you cant destroy the planet…

all these things are not things, and so cant be destroyed.. they can be cahnged in a way in which those who live in them dont like it or it doesnt favor them, but that is not destroyed, only changed.

the point being is that in order for the economy not to be destroyed, it must produce at an even level in perpetuity… a condition that cant exist, ever.. its a utopian pipe dream.

you cant destroy the economy, you can only change it for a short time…

give me an example of one destroyed economy..

remember, destroyed means destroyed… stopped working.. no one did deals… etc…

its the difference between the real economy, and the construct… the real one is still an economy thats different when the model is destroyed!

and again, thats the point… its only destroyed when the model is broken.. and we dont say our models are broken, we say that the economy is destroyed and our models dont work anymore!!!!

We have some idea of what works and what doesn’t: free markets with individuals each contributing their decisions) versus ‘markets’ with people running with the herd, where individuals are not contributing by their decisions, and command economies of whatever kind.

we have ideas of principals that create an environment that is better for all.

we label the outcome of these principals economy and discuss what they create, but the thing doesnt exist… its an abstract construct in our heads…

what makes a better economy?

kings think that a better economy is when they rule totally and their subjects have little..

socialists think that its when no one owns anything and a few in state control everything.

and you can go down the list..

all of them are referrring to economies, but in reality all they are truly focusing on is what principals cause what outcomes, and all outcomes they call economies and then argue benifits.

But the people who set the rules (the regulators) and the people who rule the rulers (the congresscritters) aren’t rewarded on the long-term function of the economy.

this kind of statment is kind of funny… did anyone inform you of the ‘rules’? the principals of trade? do people that come from a communist system not know how to live in a capitalist one? according to the milliionaire next door, russians are one of the most successful immigrant groups… and they were taught rules.

and thats why you dont see that the thing we call economy is false. everyone lives their lives trying to figure out how to do better. our model of economy doesnt include the black market… we dont sample for that… but the undermarket where people trade work, money, and other things witout tax interference is a large part of the market. and the drug trade is part of the REAL economy, but the model the state uses, doesnt include the moneys and outlays and traffic of that part of the economy… and i could go on.

no one sets the rules… the rules are set by biology… which is why the state rules by a monopoly on deadly force.

deadly force woudlnt be needed if we all just accepted and followed rules, and not acted our own way as individuals.

and thats why the economy isnt real from the political control sense… the difference between and ocean and a sea are what? they are arbitrary symbols.. which is why pluto isnt a planet anymore.

did that declaration change anything in reality?

the illegal drug trade is a 100 billion a year part of our economy that is ignored in the model economy, and yet you can assert that the model economy is real and that we can use it to contrl the real economy.

again… we love our models more htan we do reality, and we think that like putting a needle into a voodoo doll that if we do things according to a very incomplete and simplefied model (The doll) we can cause control changes in the real one.

perhaps sergey can give a shorter explanation than i of feed forward non linear dynamic systems with autocatalytic events generated by the disordered interaction of feed back loops (and augmented by random events in nature).

dont worry though.. they have hammered away at people all their lives convincing them that they have control and that this model gives them the knowlge they need to mold outcomes..

when most of the time all they are doing is claiming victory when it works, and claiming blame when it doesnt. and we add up that and through a false view, think they know whats happening.

the problem stems from believing this cut down thing we create is an accurate model that we can use to exact control

however there is a diffeernce between living by a set of principals (we have an idea of what works), and changine the appearance of reality to get a large group of people to be coerced to behave in a certain way that one only believes will create the outcome.

we can monitor things in the economy that can give us an idea of how things are in the areas we want to focus on.

but thats a world apart from how our politicians pretend to use this information and how it defines the economy. a few years back they changed the numbers we used to see the economy, and they changed the commpanies they used too…

if you could go back and run those twho things in parallel… you would see that they would describe two different economies… ecven though they are supposed to be a description of the same economy!

and both groups using this data would swear that the data was more true to the economy..

by changing these rulers, we get an economy that looks more like what we want… but did the real thing change at all? it cahnged as much as pluto did.

the smallest distance in our universe is thought to be the plank length… its about 10**-33 centimeters… the width of our observable universe is about 10**28 centimeters… the difference between the two sizes is about 10**61 plank lengths. thats 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion..

through Andrie Linde’s work, we know that the universe is larger than 10*1,000,000,000 times what we can see (which makes the big bang a local effect).

a measurment so large that the lengths we use are not even relevant… the unit of visible universe is so small that it cant even be used as a unit in this measure.

10**61 isnt even a rounding error in that number… the number is so large that whether you use units of plank length or units as large as the width of the observable universe that they are nothings…

and he and others arent done… their figures on inflation are showing that it may be even larger…

with such a universe… and the fact that it could be one in infinite parallel ones… and there could be structures above that…

and all that is for no purpose at all… 🙂

its all real and not real…

schrodinger shows us that with is dead cat.

athiests have no explanation for the universe existing at all… none… empty… its all meaningless…

which is kind of interesting that they care about anything because thats a waste in such a universe. though they cant see the end of their reasoning.

in a universe with no purpose there is no morals, there is no reason… all those are empty concepts… not that they acn be alternatively defined… they cant…

as soon as this is invoked, all meaning and purpose ceases to exist…

dawkins says there is no god… fine… there is none.. and there isnt a purpose to the universe…

if you accept that, then is anything i do wrong? oh there are things that i do that others do not like, but in a universe so wide there is no more units to measure by, it has no meaning.

want to know the mental change that can allow one to send 10 million to starve?

athiesm… the ability to realize that the universe has no meaning no purpose, nothing… and so there is no reason to choose one action over another action because of some false abstraction called morals.

the impetus to remove religion is the impetus to reinstal on the thrown the provisino that might makes right… and bring in a new neo feudalism which will literally be able to do anything it wants to create an end that it wants…

this is why they are so selfish… that is what happens when you construct your own meaning and you live in a world in which your mind has constructed it through social constructivism.

life only has the meaning we give it…

atheism gives life no meaning
religion gives life some meaning

we are religious because otherwise why struggle to live at all? the religious impulse is the impulse to live and meaning in life agasint a universe that has no meaning.

religion gives us meaning, and meaning gives us purpose and direction. atheists dont dominate becasue their argumetns are neutralized by their core argument.

the universe has no meaning, so why then should i listen to a person that believes this telling me what i should do? it has no meaning, so he has no meaning, and if he has no meaning then anything he suggests has no meaning, so if i do it or dont, it has no meaning… so the only reason to suggest it is that, is that it gives his meaningless life a distractoin in pretending to have meaning through wanting, while forgetting it violates the tenets of the belief.

the result of all this is nihilsm… and as neitsche said, the inversion of the virtues…

chastity becomes lust
Abstinence becomes gluttony
liberality becomes greed
diligence becomes sloth
patience becomes wrath
kindness becomes envy
humility becomes pride
justice becomes injustice, dishonesty

notice how we dont even get it in our political races now..

obama uses envy to whip up the crowd to vote for him in favor of sloth, while he will do the work and become wrathful of those doing something else, and that we can take pride, as we seek social justice (as the new definition of justice), etc

you cant touch economy. you cant hold it, divide it, and do much with it, other than influence the proportions of transactions by skewing our view of reality.

You can destroy it or severely damage it, which is as near to ‘touching’ as I need.

We have some idea of what works and what doesn’t: free markets with individuals each contributing their decisions) versus ‘markets’ with people running with the herd, where individuals are not contributing by their decisions, and command economies of whatever kind. And we have other ‘what works’ and ‘what doesn’t’ knowledge. All imperfect, and yet if it had been applied here we wouldn’t be in this mess. (We might be in another mess, of course.) But the people who set the rules (the regulators) and the people who rule the rulers (the congresscritters) aren’t rewarded on the long-term function of the economy. They are rewarded for things like how many extra votes a particular Congressional district will produce.

dont forget that all this came out of a time that was much more religious where religion had a lot more power, and it didnt stop it…

its convenient that the philosophers have pawned off the responsiblity to their cousins in religion, because that means you may side with them and not side with empiracism.

after all, it was philosophers that are dominating with multiculturalism (and against science that proves it cant work), releativism against impericism, tabula rasa against evolution (and lots of other feminist things too).

did you notice that no one yells about stem cells because there is no more chance of them beingn used to justify abortion? that we have lots of stem cells and not from fetus’s precisely because we didnt go that way.

but the minute that the science wouldnt back up a ideological eugenics point, teh noise dies..

and the evolution battle has more than just religion around it because of dialectical materialism… or havent you noticed the other side in the fight are communist secularists? a religion in itself too.

by the way… remember who discovered gentics? a priest… and the gun? a priest..

the whole idea is ideological by making religion and science uncompatible (ignoring histotry anr revising it and our view), they get to abolish religoin and put in dialectical materialism through SCIENCE…

communism and fasism have always sought to manipulate science to its ends, even if that end is the removal of religion and morals so that leaders are free to do whatever they want to the others under some scientific excuse.

Lysenko did more harm to gentics than religion ever did in the soviet union.

ideology wants things to be decided through ideology. so science is under assault to comply…

take a look at this response to someone requesting a blogger to add a link to a social test on liberals and conservatives..

want to see who has been assaulting science? who had larry summers thrown out of harvard? who has destroyed the career of Watson of genetics fame? who has fought to remove results of study on gender interactions, partner abuse, tabula rasa, genetic determinism, etc? who poisoned the social sciences with false work (meade)? who poisoned the science of sex (kinsey) for political reasons? who created the false concept of the authoritarian mind (adorno)? who is arguing about genetics evolution and the abolition of religion (dawkins)?

if yout ake a lot more time to see who is actually hurting things, you will fidn its the same old game of do the harm and shift the blame.

ALL those above meade, kinsey, dawkins, etc.. ALL are working towards a communist controlled state where they, the intelligentsia, will control everything with science and ignore or remove the spiritual.

why?

because if our rights dont come from a higher power than the state, then the state declares what is rights. .. then they can declar kulaks have no rights. enemis of the state hae no rights.

command economies which live on the theft of labor of the slaves they call proletariats need to abolish morals or esle the proletariats will revolt, they will not comply… they will fight and act as if this is not the only life they ahve, and that dying for a higher purpose is a goodness.

here is the response of ACE

With all due respect, why bother? I’ve read these studies before. You already know all the answers: Liberals vote out of rationality and hope; conservatives vote out of irrational prejudice and fear. There’s no point collecting data when the conclusions have already been drafted. Thank you for your interest, but I can write your paper for you without bothering with the middleman of data collection.

But I know in advance — well, I know to a 99% certainty, based on the all of the similar studies I’ve read previously — that it’s going to be CONSERVATIVES FEARFUL. Why bother? Let’s just skip the whole pretense of faux scientific rigor and get right to the money graf: Conservatives suck, liberals are better and smarter. And like trying out new foods and listening to “World Music.”

after you have been reading hoaky thing after hoaky thing and always tying it back to 5th column groups with ideology as their goal, it gets rather tiring.

it gets most bothersome when people believe the common knowlege, and dont realize that that has been skewed to misdirect them.

left ideology seeks to control things.. what it cant control it destroys…

religious people answer to a higher morals than the state, and so the state either controls religion (as russia tried) or it destroys it (as russia tried).

eitehr way, it cant let this social force exist as a contrary idea to communism/socialsm.

for the one argumetn as to allow the concept of creation to be discussed on the table i can show the most attacks are the left all over the place.
AND the left has control of schoosl and research departments and journals… which is why we dont see what they do.

for all that you worry about a discussion, you arent worried at all about the vastly more philosphical attacs byt he side distracting you with religion.

Thus, undergraduates in women’s studies courses are routinely introduced to the notion that, for instance, Newton’s “Principia” is a rape manual. Even odder is the movement to create a feminist mathematics. The authors discuss at length an article along these lines entitled “Towards a Feminist Algebra.” The authors of that piece don’t seem much concerned with algebra per se; what exercises them is the use of sexist word problems in algebra texts, particularly those that seem to promote heterosexuality. The single greatest practical damage done by feminists so far, however, is in medical research, where human test groups for new treatments must now often be “inclusive” of men and women (and also for certain racial minorities). To get statistically significant results for a test group, you can’t just mirror the population in the sample, you have to have a sample above a mathematically determined size for each group that interests you. In reality, experience has shown that race and gender rarely make a difference in tests of new medical treatments, but politically correct regulations threaten to increase the size of medical studies by a factor of five or ten.

how about environmentalism?

do you really think that discussing the possiblity of creation is more harmful to all of science than the false science and consensus for political reasons that global warming theocracy is doing?

i dont see articles all over the place (yesterdays daily news kids science section) working to convince anyone of creation… nor people realising that the way the world is and behaves including evolution was the intent of creation… (so its not compatible)

personally i think that using one author to rewrite all the sex based laws and education materials to fit communist luckaks stuff was a lot more harmful than wanting people to discuss creationism.

after all, all the groups i am mentioning never wante iot to be discussed, they only want their position to be IMPOSED… and that imposed position is also to be for religion too.

postmodernism and social constructivism has hurt science much more than creationists wanting their ideas to be honestly discussed.

dont you think?

The basic notion behind the postmodern treatment of science is social constructivism, the notion that our knowledge of the world is just as much a social product as our music or our myths, and is similarly open to criticism. The authors have no problem with the fact that cultural conditions can affect what kind of questions scientists will seek to address or what kind of explanation will seem plausible to a researcher. What they object to is the “strong form” of social constructivism, which holds that our knowledge is simply a representation of nature. The “truth” of this representation cannot be ascertained by reference to the natural world, since any experimental result will also be a representation. Constructivists therefore say that we can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. This, as the authors correctly note, is batty.

that there is no such thing as impiracism is a much more harmful thing than arguing that impiracism cant prove or disprove the existence of god.

while your out there arguing the interpretations of impericism, they are taking impericism off the table completely!

here is anothe excerpt…
The postmodernist critics of science usually ply their trade by studiously ignoring what scientists themselves actually think about. The anthropologist Bruno Latour, for instance, has made a name for himself by subjecting scientists to the kind of observation usually reserved for members of primitive tribes. Once he was commissioned by the French government to do a post-mortem on their Aramis project. This was to be a radically new, computerized subway system in which small trams would travel on a vastly complicated track-and-switch system along routes improvised for the passengers of each car. The idea was that passengers would type their proposed destination into a computer terminal when they entered a subway station. They would then be assigned a car with other people going to compatible destinations. The project turned into a ten year boondoggle and was eventually cancelled. The French government hired Latour to find out what went wrong. Now, the basic conceptual problem with the system is obvious: the French engineers had to come up with a way to handle the “traveling salesman” problem, the classic problem of finding the shortest way to connect a set of points. This seemingly simple question has no neat solution, and the search for approximate answers keeps the designers of telephone switching systems and railroad traffic managers awake nights. Latour did not even mention it. He did, however, do a subtle semiological analysis of the aesthetic design of the tram cars.

you can find all kinds of things like this.

but you wont find the newspapers hollering how they are destroying the nations abilitu to think…

religion is the scapegoat… its influence is minimal compared to the socialists of the left, and postmodernism, social coolectivism, etc.

you forget that newton and leibnitz did their work in search of affirmation of devine order…

It may be right for a state to have peaceful existence with communism. I do not know. That is a question for Johnson and Goldwater to decide. But the church can never have peaceful coexistence with atheism. Everybody would laugh if I would say that health can peacefully exist with the microbe of tuberculosis, that the FBI can coexist peacefully with gangsters, that the church can peacefully exist with drunkenness, but communism and atheism is much worse than drug addiction and drunkenness. You drink a little wine and the next day it passes, but communism poisons youth and our children since 50 years. How can there be peaceful existence with this on the side of churchmen and the church leadership I cannot understand. Reverend Wurmbrand in his testimony to senate.

remember that until america became secular, religion didnt block education…

remember that the majority of the best schools before the state made them with stolen taxes, were all religous schools…

if religion hated science so much then why did religion teach it when it owned all the schools?

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell and Dartmouth, were all training grounds for christian missionaries and ministers…

and you claim religion and science cant mix…

well, is religion the creator of this list?

Marxism, Darwinism, Freudianism, Higher Criticism, communism, multiculturalism, relativism, naturalism, positivism, socialism, liberalism, egalitarianism, feminist studies, gay studies, transgender studies, transvestite studies, outcome-based education, radical environmentalism…

do you think all those are helpful and consistent with the absolute reality that religion teaches?

or are these religions of the state vying for control of the older system? [after all, liberatin theology is seeking to attack the church from within, and those things above are attacking science and religion from without]

they seek to remove all other power..

or havent you and others figured out yet what totalitarian really means?

most do not get it till they live under it, and then its too late.