Fast Food workers protest and demand more money.

[The Barbarian]

I thought this was kind of neat,, http://www.1960sflashback.com/1960/economy.asp "If you click at the top of the page 1970,80,90,ect.,,and follow the food,gas prices ect. and then compare them to the min. wage http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm and match them with each other is gives a good picture of what happens each time the minimum wage is raised.

That's kind of like thinking that a rooster makes the Sun come up by crowing. Take a look...

In fact, the minimum wage lags behind inflation, and generally has not increased as fast as inflation.

Now so what will raising it to 15.00 hr.,well probably the same that happened each time they ever raise it,that is within a few years the prices will all creep up and they will need to raise it again,,till were at (372.57 an hour and paying 223.00 a gallon for gas?),,,,

That's the rooster/sun misunderstanding. It's not the minimum wage that does it.

 

[whitestone]

That's kind of like thinking that a rooster makes the Sun come up by crowing. Take a look...

In fact, the minimum wage lags behind inflation, and generally has not increased as fast as inflation.



That's the rooster/sun misunderstanding. It's not the minimum wage that does it.

yes!,thats why I say the "option c portion",,,the min. wage is raised to adjust the rise in cost,,or as in the same chart you gave(2009) it was raised and inflation rose at the same rate because of it.

What you are saying is the min. wage rose because prices rose,which is correct(option A). what I am saying is if min. wage is raised then prices will soon after be raised(option B),,,,,Option C would prove to be interesting because if the u.s. attempts a % increase that follows inflation then the higher the wages go and the higher inflation rises the more the U.S. will separate its-self from the worlds economy.

So the higher our inflation gets, and the higher our wages become the more we will loose the ability to export U.S. goods(made in America)e.g. a man in another nation who earns 300.00 a month cannot buy a car that we make and sell for 50,000.00 and pay a worker 23.00 an hour to make. Eggs,cow's,t.v.'s,ect. all apply.

So in the end, because of a world economy in the u.s. our leading export then becomes (U.S. jobs),that is instead of us building car parts,t.v's,ect. it is more profitable to open a plant in Taiwan for example and pay them .30 min wage and ship the things back to the U.S.,,(and is the only way for us to build them and ship them from Taiwan to Peru,the Congo ect. and them be able to buy them at their min. wage),,,,

which narrows down the job market left needed in the U.S.(employees we need to hire) to fast food workers,stockers,clerks,lawn service,maids butlers ect. (that is food they must eat and always will),,you will always need doctors,lawyers and a host of other services,,,but the fact that we(in the U.S. do not need),craftsman who build/make with their hands ect. is the reason that Jobs like Fast food workers are in the news.

I DO NOT SAY THIS TO OFFEND FAST FOOD WORKERS,LAWN CARE PEOPLE ECT.,,,,,,,,but the issue is that we are fighting for "WAGES FOR FAST FOOD WORKERS" as if we are arguing over a contract to build ships for the U.S. navy,,,,,,

The reason why we are is because "fast food workers" at least have a job and so to them,us,the media,the government (IT IS WORT FIGHTING FOR,BECAUSE ITS ALL THAT'S LEFT),,,,That is in days past these jobs were jobs we took at the beginning of our careers(kids saving to get a drivers license,working until they got a diploma ect.),,,,,,,,but today,unlike yesterday "MEN AND WOMEN ARE TRYING TO RAISE FAMILIES AT THESE JOBS",,Instead of beginning their careers at these jobs they are ending them at these jobs,,,,,,,"option C is the only solution"

,,but I partly agree a wage increase is needed now,,but it is equal to having a cut,we should only wear a band-aid for a while. The answer is to drive inflation back down to where it is competitive to the other nations,and then the wages,and then set back up our industry and go back to work.

 

[quip]

So the higher our inflation gets, and the higher our wages become the more we will loose the ability to export U.S. goods(made in America)e.g. a man in another nation who earns 300.00 a month cannot buy a car that we make and sell for 50,000.00 and pay a worker 23.00 an hour to make. Eggs,cow's,t.v.'s,ect. all apply.

So, who's the greedy bastard at fault here....the guy who simply wants to have an easier time meeting his monthly bills, or the billionaire who attempting to squeeze every bit of profit from his enterprise?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Does needing more $ entitle a person to having it or are there more things to that?

 

[rexlunae]

Does needing more $ entitle a person to having it or are there more things to that?

Not that in itself, no. But there is a basic minimum that should be expected by everyone, and I would say demanded for everyone by society at large to avoid exploitation.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Not that in itself, no. But there is a basic minimum that should be expected by everyone, and I would say demanded for everyone by society at large to avoid exploitation.

Which is why there is a minimum wage to begin with. If you are so concerned about people being exploited, why do you support illegal immigration?

They are exploited all the time - it would be much harder to do it if they came here legally.

 

[rexlunae]

Which is why there is a minimum wage to begin with.

Exactly.

If you are so concerned about people being exploited, why do you support illegal immigration?

Why do you think that I do? I support treating immigrants of all statuses as human beings, with due process rights. I support granting asylum to legitimate refugees. And I support reforming our system to make legal immigration easier. But I don't want people breaking the law.

They are exploited all the time - it would be much harder to do it if they came here legally.

Or if they were legal in any case. Which is why so many of the labor unions have signed on in support of immigration reform. It isn't in anyone's best interests to have shady off-the-books workers in the economy.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Exactly.



I support treating immigrants of all statuses as human beings, with due process rights.

Why do you believe illegals have rights in this country? They dont, which is how and why they are exploited.

Citizens have due process rights.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes, that good old "general theory". I recall it well from the "general theory class" in "general studies".

That's a cute answer, but it doesn't refute anything more than my ability to write clearly. It doesn't take much understanding to figure out that I'm talking about the general trend of products to cost more when costs are raised and the general trend of government to become more tyrannical as it intrudes more often and to a greater extent in private contracts.

If you believe government is bad in every case, I assume you are then an anarchist?

The government has, in general, a single job. That being the justice system.

Yes, it's a terrible imposition on personal freedom. The government says that you cannot enter into an employment contract that pays less than minimum wage.

Right. So those people want a contract below the minimum wage cannot negotiate one because the government crumpled that negotiation under its boot. Again, you are hurting the people you claim to help, not the supposedly greedy rich people that employ them.

Right, because government is some sort of quantity that can be examined as if it were a commodity. How many government interferences are healthy in a day?

The fewer the better. If a government intrusion can be removed without stopping the justice system, then it should be removed.

I really don't see what this has to do with morality in the first place. Seems like an economic question, and only an indirectly moral question.

You've got it backwards. It's a moral question directly, and an economic question directly. According to morality, before the economic results have played out, it's wrong to stop 2 people from publicly entering a desired contract. The economics of the situation comes later.

So, the first question you have to answer is whether it is moral for 2 people to publicly enter a mutual contract.

Sometimes being sure is the enemy of knowledge.

Are you sure it is right for the government to stop certain public mutually agreed to contracts?

Yes. Objectively mistaken, by the math.

Then show us the math where increasing costs on a product generally doesn't raise the cost of the product.

It can make a product more expensive. It doesn't always.

"Doesn't always" is irrelevant. Show us where increasing costs on a product generally doesn't raise the cost of the product.

Well, you'd be taking a hit to your profit margin.

That's not possible in a highly competitive market. So what will happen is that the people you are trying to help will be avoided.

Yeah, they never bother with branding. Or product differentiation. Or advertising. Or anything else. Just squeezing the margins.

Product differentiation must be done under the rubric of controlling costs in the form of value. Advertising is an expense, it has to be controlled for a company to survive.

In other words, raising labor costs will not allow companies to differentiate their product, nor will it improve their advertising. The response will be to mitigate the labor costs by avoiding the labor that causes it.

But that isn't necessarily true. I'll give you a practical example. McDonald's pays a fair percentage of their workers minimum wage. In-n-Out Burger pays a company-imposed minimum of $11/hour. If the government forces a minimum wage hike, McDonald's will have to raise many of their worker's wages, which will cut a lot deeper into their profits than In-n-Out, which may see some increase in costs from suppliers, but won't necessarily have to raise anyone's wages.

Great. So now you've exposed your tyranny. You aren't really interested in helping the entry level workers, you are interested in controlling the companies you think should be run differently.

And beyond that, since a couple examples are irrelevant, can you insure that there aren't companies that will be driven out of business (not McDonalds or Burger King) because of your vendetta against McDonalds? You're just a mean person.

All companies exist by government protection.

And that's your license for government to control all contracts. It's really tyranny. Perhaps we don't live under tyranny at the moment, but you certainly are trying to make it happen.

But here's the difference between protection for a monopoly and protection for businesses in a highly competitive market. With a monopoly, the government has to be large to have enough control to stop normal market responses to an attempted monopoly. In a highly competitive market a business only needs a justice system that can insure contracts (if the need ever arises) between the parties involved.

The government doesn't tend to create the monopolies though.

Really? You've never heard of copyright and patent? It's monopolies created in large numbers continually. You need to learn how politics reacts with the economy.

Also note, every monopoly ever seen has always continued to exist by some policy or action of government.

Superfluous profit is profit made that can be spent on higher costs without changing the way one does business.

What profit isn't superfluous by that definition?

Pretty much all of it. If profits are down, from mom and pop stores to McDonalds, the businesses will have to change what they are doing to mitigate or reverse the problem.

But that's exactly what you're missing. Not everyone costs more to employ. Only some people do, a fairly small percentage of the overall economy.

It doesn't matter. Increasing the minimum wage will only increase costs, it will never reduce costs.

Prove it. Show me the number on that, without cherry picking. I'll tell you that I've been through the unemployment figures, the GDP figures, and compared those to the points where we hiked the minimum wage, and as often as not, the unemployment curve bends down after a hike. So I would like you to show me the math, with actual numbers and graphs if possible, that supports your claim.

http://americanactionforum.org/rese...unemployment-and-reduced-job-creation-in-2013

It's pretty simple. McDonald's has a 19% (wow!) profit margin.
http://ycharts.com/companies/MCD/profit_margin

This would only matter if McDonalds was the sum total of all businesses that had the minimum wage raised by force.

I'm not sure how you can be trying to drive someone from the market, and also be ignoring them.

That's because you have a poor understanding of economics and business.

Because, as mentioned, it would cost both of them their profits, and it isn't clear that there would be a clear winner even if they wiped out their entire profit margins.

It sure is a lot easier to make a profit when your competition quits.

No. You interpreted it incorrectly. You assumed that either they are trying to eliminate each other entirely, or not competing at all.

I've never said anything of the kind.

The way I suggest business act toward competition is the only way a business can stay in business.

No, it isn't.

Since you demonstrate you don't understand business, you aren't qualified to say so.

 

[quip]

Does needing more $ entitle a person to having it or are there more things to that?

Are you referring to the fast-food worker or the billionaire?

 

[resurrected]

Are you referring to the fast-food worker or the billionaire?

how about the customer in this?


why shouldn't the government mandate what a burger should cost me?

i demand that the government force mcdonalds to sell me a fifty cent quarter pounder

 

[quip]

how about the customer in this?


why shouldn't the government mandate what a burger should cost me?

i demand that the government force mcdonalds to sell me a fifty cent quarter pounder

You'd just get fat and infirm...then complain about the cost of gym memberships. (and pepto)

 

[Lighthouse]

That's kind of like thinking that a rooster makes the Sun come up by crowing. Take a look...

In fact, the minimum wage lags behind inflation, and generally has not increased as fast as inflation.

That's the rooster/sun misunderstanding. It's not the minimum wage that does it.

Again you are foolish. Comparing the rate of inflation at the exact same time as the increase in minimum wage proves nothing either way.

Not to mention the inflation is not broken down into individual products, which really proves nothing.

how about the customer in this?


why shouldn't the government mandate what a burger should cost me?

i demand that the government force mcdonalds to sell me a fifty cent quarter pounder

:chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

Why do you believe illegals have rights in this country? They dont, which is how and why they are exploited.

Citizens have due process rights.

That's not true in any light. They may not have all the rights of legal residents of the United States, but they do have rights, as every court recognizes. Without due process of some sort, you can't even be certain who is legally in the country and who is not. But frankly, this is a tangent, and I'm not really interested in discussing these people with anyone referring to them in dehumanizing terms.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That's not true in any light. They may not have all the rights of legal residents of the United States, but they do have rights, as every court recognizes. Without due process of some sort, you can't even be certain who is legally in the country and who is not. But frankly, this is a tangent, and I'm not really interested in discussing these people with anyone referring to them in dehumanizing terms.

You need to look up what due process means and what strawman means, since you are throwing them out so often in this discussion.

If you think that saying that "people take advantage of illegals because they do not have legal rights and why they should come legally instead" is dehumanizing them, then you are throwing a strawman and flat out make things up out of your backside, or you are retarded, and without comprehension skills. Take your pick. You know you have no argument there which is why you really do not wish to discuss it.

Share: Cite / link:
Due Process of Law

A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government. Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.

The constitution and bill of rights applies to US citizens

 

[quip]

You need to look up what due process means and what strawman means, since you are throwing them out so often in this discussion.

If you think that saying that "people take advantage of illegals because they do not have legal rights and why they should come legally instead" is dehumanizing them, then you are throwing a strawman and flat out make things up out of your backside, or you are retarded, and without comprehension skills. Take your pick. You know you have no argument there which is why you really do not wish to discuss it.



The constitution and bill of rights applies to US citizens

It applies to foreigners while on US soil as well.

 

[rexlunae]

If you think that saying that "people take advantage of illegals because they do not have legal rights and why they should come legally instead" is dehumanizing them,

That wasn't what I was objecting to. Referring to human beings as "illegals" is dehumanizing.

The constitution and bill of rights applies to US citizens

You should have reread that before you post it. Even the text you posted doesn't agree with you. You will note that it refers repeatedly to "people", as does the Constitution, not "citizens".

Here are some Supreme Court cases affirming the rights of immigrants, regardless of legal status or citizenship.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

 

[rexlunae]

The government has, in general, a single job. That being the justice system.
...
The fewer the better. If a government intrusion can be removed without stopping the justice system, then it should be removed.

That's so thoroughly unprecedented that it borders on downright delusional. And I simply reject it. What possible reason could I have to wanting to live in a society like that? For the return of rights that no one in their right mind would want?

Right. So those people want a contract below the minimum wage cannot negotiate one because the government crumpled that negotiation under its boot. Again, you are hurting the people you claim to help, not the supposedly greedy rich people that employ them.

:rotfl:

So, insisting on a living wage is hurting people, but allowing them to be employed at the lowest wage an employer can negotiate is helping.

:help:

So, the first question you have to answer is whether it is moral for 2 people to publicly enter a mutual contract.

Are you sure it is right for the government to stop certain public mutually agreed to contracts?

Depends on the contract. It's well established that you can't sell yourself into slavery. You also can't sell your children. But I just gave you those examples, and you ignored them, so I assume that you just aren't prepared to deal with them, and you aren't honest enough to admit it.

Then show us the math where increasing costs on a product generally doesn't raise the cost of the product.

We have a $16.8 trillion economy. There are currently 3.3 million people making minimum wage or less. Even if we assume that all of those people are working full time (which they aren't), and promote them all up to the minimum wage, at most they make up $49.7 billion dollars of the economy, or 0.29% of the total economy. Thus, if you average the cost of their wages across the entire economy as you were doing earlier, even if you were to double their wages, it would cost the economy less then a third of a percent.

My position is that for the tiny amount that anyone would be harmed by that minuscule fraction of a percent of price increases, and for the huge benefit that it could make in their lives, that would be well worth it.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

That's not possible in a highly competitive market. So what will happen is that the people you are trying to help will be avoided.

The cost increase in any case would be negligible.

Product differentiation must be done under the rubric of controlling costs in the form of value.

What?!?!

Advertising is an expense, it has to be controlled for a company to survive.

But it isn't cost controlling. It's profit raising, and spending money to do it. Face it. Your paradigm is way too simple to describe actual businesses.

In other words, raising labor costs will not allow companies to differentiate their product, nor will it improve their advertising.

For a lot of companies, it won't raise their labor costs one cent.

The response will be to mitigate the labor costs by avoiding the labor that causes it.

How many extra employees do these minimum wage employers currently employ?

Great. So now you've exposed your tyranny.

I don't make any secret of my position. And what you consider to by tyranny is so thoroughly deranged that I must wonder if you are really serious.

You aren't really interested in helping the entry level workers, you are interested in controlling the companies you think should be run differently.

That's just plain stupid, but I can understand why you would want to try to recast my argument.

And beyond that, since a couple examples are irrelevant, can you insure that there aren't companies that will be driven out of business (not McDonalds or Burger King) because of your vendetta against McDonalds? You're just a mean person.

I never claimed that no company would be driven out of business. But any company that is isn't making anyone any money. No worker should be exploited in order to save an already-failing business.

Pretty much all of it.

Great. Then you aren't making any actual distinction.

If profits are down, from mom and pop stores to McDonalds, the businesses will have to change what they are doing to mitigate or reverse the problem.

And what would they do? Raise prices? That's a great way to boost sales.

It doesn't matter. Increasing the minimum wage will only increase costs, it will never reduce costs.

I never said it would reduce costs.

http://americanactionforum.org/rese...unemployment-and-reduced-job-creation-in-2013

It's interesting, but there's something that I don't understand about it. The links to their supposed sources are dead, and the unemployment rate in 2013 was dropping, but they show it as rising, which makes me wonder where they're really getting that.

Have a look.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/srgune.nr0.htm

This would only matter if McDonalds was the sum total of all businesses that had the minimum wage raised by force.

It's called "an example".

 

[The Barbarian]

Again you are foolish.

Nope. Just your reading comprehension problem, again.

Comparing the rate of inflation at the exact same time as the increase in minimum wage proves nothing either way.

Which was my point. The people who imagine that rises in minimum wage raise inflation rates don't know what they're talking about. You can't really be that dense, can you?

And yes, inflation can be broken down into individual categories.

 

[whitestone]

So, who's the greedy bastard at fault here....the guy who simply wants to have an easier time meeting his monthly bills, or the billionaire who attempting to squeeze every bit of profit from his enterprise?

well clearly the average person has very little in the matter other than at times they either "get more money" or they "feel the effects of inflation". This was not always the case,it is interesting to look at the charts and links posted on the last two pages of this thread. That is if we take the same charts and notice the events that took place during the same time-frame and compare the effects on the economy several things stand out.

I should begin at 1928 because it is the first minimum wage .25 cents/hr. but it makes more sense to back up a few years(1828 for example) in 1828 if we look at census records we could go page after page in almost and county in any of the then states 80-90% of the population were,,"farmers" it is listed as "farming" on most census records under "occupation",in each we come across other occupations also "teacher,sheriff,preacher,(miller,"mechanic" built mills),doctor,blacksmith ect.", but there no large industries so the majority of the population made their living "farming".

This is very important to see in the economy(both today and then),that is "the economy to a farmer was everything that happened or did not on his farm and nothing else". If the dollar was worth .92 cents or if it was worth .31 cents it effected only the rich in the matter. On the farm the dollar could fall to a value of .00 worth and a farmer could still get water out of his well and grow tomatoes,corn,beans ect. light a fire in the fireplace and cook the chickens,cows,pigs he grew or hunt deer,squirrels ect. (but the economy could have completely collapsed and they could still live).

At the end of the 1800's began the industrial revolution and many of these farmers stopped farming and took jobs in factories(biggest mistake of their lives) because they then were dependent on the value of the dollar when before they were not. By the early 1900's there were several devices invented "automobile,airplane,radio,ect." and so jobs were even more popular and again more farmers left/sold their farms and took jobs(mistake again).

By 1928 there was a type of vacuum in the ratio of farmers/employees and the minimum wage was given at .25 cents/hr.,,(notice the depression begins here),and the charts/graphs/records involved in "depression/recession", and that it is directly related to the farmers leaving farming and the influences it has on the value of the dollar,(e.g."inflation/depression).

At first the economy was boosted by different factors ww1,ww2,more new inventions and the need for more employees telephone,electronics,a.c.,refrigeration,,,so at first there was a huge demand for craftsmen/employees to build these things and so there were a period of "good economy" that lasted up to about the 60's and then we began the period of recession/inflation and minimum wages needed to be re-adjusted several times again or vise-verse(?),,

In the 70's farmers(and public) made the final deadly mistake "they mortgaged their farms" and most of the remaining "working farms" became a thing of the past. This was a result of the "new fad" driven by the invention of "credit cards" and the fact that most people had "a steady job" and could establish "the Smith and Jones effect",,, http://history1900s.about.com/od/1950s/a/firstcreditcard.htm And as we know then one after the other began to get credit cards,take out loans ect. and we evolved into the system we know today where we are "rated" and judged in matters such as "housing,jobs,insurance rates ect." completely based on our "credit score".

If we take the same charts/graphs and compare them to "the woman's rights movement"(not meant as an attack) and compare it to the same sets of years(late 60's-70's) it also had a huge impact on the economy, that is we instantly went from a job market where there were about 150,mil. mostly men working and then doubled this to about a 300 mil. men and women "workforce" so the value of "inflation/min. wage" also went through a series of adjustments "up,up,up,,",,this is because "big business" no longer needed to entice people with retirement,insurance,good pay,good working conditions ect. to find employees they immediately had twice as many options so they could look at the people and say "take it or leave it,I have a stack of applications".

So everything,even things we wouldn't consider will effect the economy as many I notice are pointing out about the graphs/charts posted on the last several pages of this thread by their statements saying "all of the factors are not given on these charts",meaning the events,changes in workforce,new rights ect. are not also included in them,they only give the two things "inflation/wages",,so the cause is left to us to figure out.

Option C,I always speak of but never include in my post,this is because I myself do not want it,or to suggest it as a solution. Well,that is there are only two directions to "option C",one is that the people return to farming and get themselves into a position where they are not affected by the rise or fall of the value of the dollar(like they were in the early 1800's),,or else #two, "a one world economy/Government" where the value of goods and wages are equal in every country(which we all know now why I don't like that,lol),,that is the one suggestion "go back to farming" is not a reality land averages 2-3000.00 across America so a 100 acre farm would be in the area of a quarter million dollars and out of the scope of most Americans.

We as Christians knew/know that something to do with money would one day bring us to our knees (Rev. ch.13 and others),,but we still walked into the trap. Today if the devil,beast,booger-man whoever we choose to call him decided that the day after-tomorrow he will pull the rug out from under the people and conquer them by force none could resist.

All of us would beg to differ,but in fact/practice if the economy crashes next Monday morning how much food can a man grow on his apartment balcony? When we look at things from that point of view we will see we "are not walking into a trap,we have already walked into it",,,and the battle is lost. Where will we get water from,do any of you have a water well in your back yard where you can drop a bucket in and draw up water? Can any of you clean a deer? What would you do when the things we all know God said he(the beast) would do,he(the beast) goes about doing it,dig up the parking lots and plant a garden? You see most of the world,90% will cave in and obey just to get to drink water and eat,,especially when their children are starving and have no water.

The whole world changed in leaps and bounds from the industrial age till now and no one paid any attention. Or we did but we were enticed into believing the good life with all the modern things were a gift from God. We never explored the issue of "is it the trick of the devil?",,,and we fell for it hook,line and sinker,we walked into the trap.

Mankind could go backwards,but they wont,they could reverse this,but they have a fascination with trinkets and precious things. This is of no concern to anyone but the Christian faith,that is you as a christian were given the New testament,so you are the ones who are warned about this. Ask a Jew if he would take the mark and he will tell you "I am a Jew,I don't follow the book of Revelation",so he will see the mark as nothing "he will take it". A Muslim is not concerned with the "mark of the beast" either,he also does not believe in it and so will take it. The Buddhist,the atheist the list of who will receive it because they don't believe in it goes on and on,it is only warned to a Christian about the mark.

Look long and hard at the link about the first "credit card",,notice where and when they were given to the world and match it to the events,inventions,rights ect. given and match them to the charts/graphs. In an economy where you give rights to people and you expect both men and women to hold jobs,what else do they need? Match up the out of the box products and look at when they became popular,,see women went to work and so they were tired when they got home and so needed to have quick meals t.v.dinners,boxed foods,canned foods ect.,,,,"the Achilles heal to a man is the woman the Achilles heal to God is the thing he loves,Mankind",,,thats why the serpent launched his attach on her in the garden,it is the key to the man,and then to God,and why he followed the same path in the end.

So how will you buy and sell,how do you buy and sell?,,,We all fantasize and debate over the dreaded mark and we evaluate every detail of the way we buy and sell. One thing is thought to become it one day and others are never questioned,lol,we just use them because they say it's safe and "not the mark".

We know it is tied into economy and so it is how we buy and sell. We don't spend much time looking at the peso because it (isn't how) the whole world buys and sells things,or for the most part any other nations currency,pounds,yin ect.,,,We always narrow it down to the U.S. currency and look at it and all the images all over it,thats fairly well smart because if it's something we buy and sell with its most probably is going to be in your purse or wallet.

We were always told in the scripture not to "owe any man,not to use usury(credit)",,well we kinda fell from this and men who didn't use it now really have little choice. The economy's world-wide are now facing certain collapse because of inflation. well the old "option C" thing I don't like mentioning "one world economy.Government" seems to be the thing that we are told the devil will push for,but how?

How in the world will he get you and everyone on the planet(not just one nation,the whole world) to be able to take something and make it to so every man,woman rich,poor,kings,slaves and have them be able to buy and sell with a number in their forehead,that represents a man and the best at the same time and them not notice it?,,,, https://www.google.com/search?q=wil...fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp "oops,we walked into the trap",,,,and it sticks out like a sore thumb why they play with our wages and recession and why they will collapse it and bring us to our knees