My people are impoverished for lack of knowledge

08 May

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

The Atlantic magazine recently published an article entitled “Most People in the World Have No Idea How to Manage their Money”.  That article was republished on Yahoo! Finance.  Excerpts from that article are:


“Do you understand money? Let’s see how well you do with the following questions.

“1.  Suppose you had $100 in a savings account and the interest rate was 2 percent per year. After five years, how much do you think you would have in the account if you left the money to grow? A) more than $102; B) exactly $102; C) less than $102; D) do not know; refuse to answer.

“2.  Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account is 1 percent per year and inflation is 2 percent per year. After one year, would you be able to buy A) more than, B) exactly the same as, or C) less than today with the money in this account?; D) do not know; refuse to answer.

“3.  Do you think that the following statement is true or false? “Buying a single company stock usually provides a safer return than a stock mutual fund.” A) true; B) false; C) do not know; refuse to answer.

“The correct answers are 1-A; 2-C; and 3-B.

“How did you do? Did you respond correctly to all three questions? If you did, then you belong to a surprisingly small global minority.

“In Russia, 96% of those surveyed could not answer the three questions correctly. While that might be expected of a post-communist nation, the mecca of capitalism didn’t exactly yield glowing results—only 30% of Americans aced the quiz.

“The best-performing respondents were the Germans (53% got a perfect score) and the Swiss (50%), but this still leaves almost half of each country’s population without a basic understanding of financial matters.

“In countries with relatively strong economies, the numbers are sobering: 79% of Swedes, 75% of Italians, 73%of Japanese, and 69% of French couldnot respond correctly to all three questions.”


I’m amazed and appalled by the results of that study.

Those three questions are simple.  They shouldn’t require an advanced degree as prerequisite for answering correctly.  An 8th grader should have enough education to answer those questions.   And yet, 70% of Americans can’t answer all three simple questions correctly.  That’s chilling.

The Bible warns that “My people perish for lack of knowledge.”  I submit that God’s people are also impoverished for lack of knowledge.

The majority of Americans who do not understand the nature of money will be exploited, robbed and impoverished by those who do.  Taking wealth from people who don’t understand the nature of “money” is truly like taking candy from a baby.  Bankers and governments do it all the time.  They are successful in those taking because their people are incredibly ignorant about money and currency.

Those who’d rather spend their time watching Dancing With the Stars than learning the nature of money and fundamental economics will eventually find themselves “Dancing With the Homeless” in dark alleys.

I’ll bet that the primary reason for income inequality in this country is the fact that vast majority of Americans don’t know a thing about currency except how to count it–while the top 1% have an extensive understanding of currency.  Money is hard to defend if you don’t know what it is.  It’s likewise easy to steal from those who are ignorant.

I’ll bet that the surest way for most people to become wealthy, is to first understand money.  Without that understanding, their poverty will be all but certain.  With that understanding, they’ll have a much better chance to prosper.


Tags: , ,

21 responses to “My people are impoverished for lack of knowledge

  1. Adrian

    May 8, 2014 at 12:52 PM

    If you are sick and tired of being a slave get your damn ass head out of those religious books.
    Learn some science and technology and be prepared to face the new reality.
    The monster can only be defeated with knowledge and skilled action.
    America has been impoverished not by the lack on natural resources in general but by the poor quality of human resources.
    The quality of the people determine the quality of the place.
    Think about that!

    • moon

      May 8, 2014 at 3:39 PM

      Adrian, please help me in my quest for knowledge. What is “the monster” that can “only be defeated with knowledge and skilled action”?

      • Adrian

        May 8, 2014 at 4:33 PM

        Moon,the monster is our fear and lack of knowledge of reality.
        Some past thinkers were referring to The Grand Illusion.
        Religious dogma brought about this monster.
        Trying to know GOD is like chasing a ghost,from here to eternity.
        The question is: what is the purpose?
        Wouldn’t be better to acquire knowledge and good skills to get a better grip on reality?

        For examle,look at the bankers,they got the gold and the mob got the shaft.
        Who’s ruling who?

        Another one,the pope spreads the message of GOD,the mob gets it.
        Who’s better off?
        Nothing happens by chance.

      • moon

        May 8, 2014 at 10:50 PM

        Adrian, thanks for your response.

        So, you’re saying that science and technology will overcome fear and lack of knowledge of reality?

        Who’s science? Which technology? Isn’t that generalizing a bit too broadly to be beneficial for readers of this blog…or anyone?

        Would you say that those generalizations have been bastardized about as much as the generalization known as religious dogma?

        Would you be more specific?

        @ Adrian:

        For examle,look at the bankers,they got the gold and the mob got the shaft.
        Who’s ruling who?

        Another one,the pope spreads the message of GOD,the mob gets it.
        Who’s better off?

        Is this an explanation you’re using to say that through knowledge and good skills, the bankers and the pope have a better grip on reality than the mob?

        I’m not sure I followed your thought there.

    • henry

      May 8, 2014 at 4:21 PM

      Apple Computer doesn’t exist. The United States government doesn’t exist. If you behave like Apple Computer and the United States government exists then it exists for you. The same is true of other shared conceptual structures like spiritual beliefs. Religions are a collection of values, beliefs, rituals, customs, and one, or more, faith statements. The faith statement of Christians is that by following the teachings of Jesus Christ one can reach eternal salvation. The Catholic faith has an additional faith statement: the Pope is God’s vicar on earth. The reformation split off of the Catholic faith with the statement that you can reach salvation by reading the Bible by yourself. America also has a faith statement: that governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of each man. The coup against America also has a faith statement: There should be a separation between church and state. Which means that nobody can challenge the one true faith – the corporatist state. Adrian, it sounds like you are of this belief. That’s OK. I’m an American, I accept the fact that you have a faith different than myself. But, your condescending attitude to others who don’t share your faith sounds like intolerance to me.

      I suppose that a football fan could teach a NFL quarter back something about throwing a football. Al’s history and his works you see listed to the right of this post are impressive. Do you have anything comparable?

      Even if you do not accept that a higher power endowed you with unalienable rights, wouldn’t it be prudent to act like it did? If government’s purpose is not to secure your rights but to grant you rights then how could you change it’s behavior when you don’t like it’s actions? If the corporatist government accepts ideas from “damn religious books” then shouldn’t you see if you can use these ideas to benefit yourself and those you care about?

  2. Adask

    May 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM

    Think about this: I stopped a lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General where I was threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million a year). The Texas AG had invested six years and nearly $500,000 in pretrial investigation and pretrial hearings. (See, ) I stopped that lawsuit with the grace of God and a Freedom of Religion defense.

    I couldn’t have made that defense if I’d followed your advice and kept my “damn ass head out of those religious books”. If I’d followed your advice, I’d be in debt-servitude to the government to Texas for the rest of my life.

    It’s precisely because I’ve kept my “damn ass head” IN “those religious books,” that I was able to stop the Texas AG’s lawsuit.

    Think about that, smart guy. The Texas ATTORNEY GENERAL–after investing 6 years and nearly $500,000, DROPPED HIS CASE because I advanced a Freedom of RELIGION defense. That’s powerful evidence that your contempt for God is not shared by the Attorney General of Texas and his staff.

    More, I defy you to name any other pro se litigant who’s enjoyed a similar victory after relying on your godless philosophy.

    You’re a fool to advocate entering this “war” without God. I don’t feel sorry for you. Perhaps I should. But I will predict that you are destined to find God or find find personal catastrophe.

    • moon

      May 8, 2014 at 3:17 PM

      Hmmmmm…Al, I’m suspecting that your response to Adrian’s comment was a knee jerk reaction to an expression of some kind of frustration on Adrian’s part. I’m not sure I follow your attempted chain of evidence.

      According to some of your past writings, you’ve said you didn’t know exactly why your case was dropped. Now, you’re raising the idea that the case was dropped because of your freedom of religion defense and the Texas AG not sharing a contempt for God. How do you know that’s true at this later date?

      Do you know for sure that no other defense would have worked?

      How do you know that God’s grace had anything to do with the outcome?

      Are you now privy to the AG’s thoughts?

      What was said in Adrian’s comment to indicate that he has contempt for God?

      What war is Adrian a fool to advocate entering into without God?

      What words did Adrian use to advocate entering some war without God?

      By what valid authority are you justified in pronouncing Adrian to be a fool?

      Maybe you want to chill and try that again?

      Hmmmm…Al, not your best logical progression.

      • Adask

        May 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM

        Because I don’t know the AG’s thoughts, I have to infer what those thoughts might be. I do know that the AG’s office spent 6 years and nearly $500,000 on pretrial investigations and hearings. I know that because the Assistant AG handling the case told us that was true. I infer from the considerable time and considerable cost that the AG expended that they would not drop that case for light and transient reasons.

        I know that they did stop prosecuting the case without ever explaining why. I therefore assume that they dropped the case for a very powerful reason. We advanced several lines of defense which I thought were significant, but only one was potentially explosive: the insight that the drugs only apply to animals and government had presumed We the People to be “We the animals”.

        I therefore concluded that the reason the Texas AG dropped the case is that they wouldn’t dare confront that issue in court.

        My conclusion was justified by statements by the Assistant AG that I’ve mentioned and others that I haven’t mentioned.

        I advanced other lines of defense that might or might not have worked in court, but none of them were so strong that the Texas AG would drop the case rather than face those arguments in court. We had only one explosive issue (“MOOA”) that could cause the Texas AG to non-suit the case without any further prosecution.

        But you’re right in saying my reaction to Adrian was knee jerk. I’m kinda funny that way. When somebody tells me to get my “ass dumb head out of those religious books,” I understand that I’m being insulted and, more, logic suggest that my adversary is looking for a fight. If he wants a fight, I’ll usually accommodate–especially since I KNOW that “those religious books” actually work in court.

        I called Adrian a “fool” because I’ve posted something like 40 different articles on this blog that deal with MOOA (“man or other animals”) that was the key to my Freedom of RELIGION defense in the case brought by the Texas AG. MOOA is a persistent theme on this blog. It’s hard for me to understand how Adrian (assuming he follows this blog) has so far overlooked the fact that a Freedom of RELIGION defense stopped a suit by the Attorney General of Texas after the AG had invested SIX YEARS and nearly a HALF MILLION DOLLARS.

        The fact that the AG simply dropped the suit is good evidence that: 1) “those religious books” are powerful; 2) that my “head” is not “ass damn”; and 3) Adrian’s argument that we should abandon all religious principles in court and rely only on secular expertise is absurd.

        Even if some secularist doesn’t believe in God, they might still have enough brains to realize that there is a 1st Amendment to the Constitution that offers some powerful legal and political arguments that might be useful in defending against government. But Adrian, in his secular wisdom, apparently sez “to hell with that”. He has apparently developed so much secular expertise that he can win all of his cases without ever bothering to consider a Freedom of Religion line of defense.

        I regard that attitude as pragmatically foolish. Why would anyone go to war with the “monsters” without jamming every possible arrow into his quiver? If Freedom of Religion is available and has been shown to work, why not use it?

        Which brings a question to mind: How many seat belt tickets has Adrian personally defeated with his “secular expertise”? How many times has he been to court? How many times has he won his case in court?

        Has his “secular expertise” ever stopped a state Attorney General (especially after the AG invested six years and $500,000 in the case)?

        And then, I’m curious about you, Mr. Moon. Why are you seemingly upset about me calling Adrian a fool (even though he behaves like one), but you’re not similarly concerned about Adrian referring to my “ass dumb head”?

        Why do you suggest that I’m obligated to respond “logically” to a man who refers insultingly to my “ass dumb head”?

      • moon

        May 8, 2014 at 10:55 PM

        Uh-oh, did you refer to me as “Mr. Moon”? If so, why did you do that? Did you intend some disrespect toward me? Did you intend disrespect toward Adrian by calling him a fool? Why did you misquote what Adrian said and apply the misquote to you personally?

        Al, it appears to me you’ve let your inner drama queen out again.

        After I read your comment, then looked back over my questions to you, I’m not sure you answered any of my questions. Maybe that wasn’t your intention.

        I know of the defense you used and the details concerning the case as you’ve shared them. However, nothing you said in this comment proves that your defense was the reason the case is no longer being pursued. You’re still speculating as to the why.

        Try this speculation: Suppose there was a meeting of the AG and others to discuss your case. The others say that too much money had already been spent on the case, and to pursue it further would cost even more without a clear win in sight. Then the AG says, “come on guys, I know I can whip Adask, that ass dumb head” (your misquote doesn’t even sound right, does it?).

        You know much more about your case than I. However, from what you’ve shared, I see the money issue just as plausible a speculation as the speculations you’ve offered. You may be confident enough to use the same defense at another time, but you can’t possibly know for sure that it will win for you, get a dismissal, or even cease prosecution.

        Could it be that you’re over speculating about Adrian’s intentions?

        As for calling someone a fool, isn’t there a reference to that and burning in hell in the King James project?

        Have we decided to fight rather than engage in discussion?

  3. Mike

    May 8, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    I aced the quiz but have also realized I prosper only when money is not part of the equation.

  4. donmako

    May 8, 2014 at 2:22 PM

    Al is right. I pray everybody gets right with the Lord. That’s all our problems ever stemmed from.
    YHWH bless you Al, keep up the good work

  5. Adask

    May 9, 2014 at 11:27 AM

    Mr. Moon, Adrian decided to fight when he referred to my “ass dumb head”. If Adrian wanted a “discussion” rather than a fight, he might’ve resisted the temptation to refer to my “ass dumb head”. Insofar as he did not resist that impulse, he instigated a fight.

    Insofar as Adrian has visited this blog for some time, you might suppose that he’s familiar with my oft-told story about the confrontation with the Attorney General of Texas. That story is powerful and perhaps unprecedented evidence of the power of religion in modern American litigation. That story refutes Adrian’s apparent predisposition to ridicule all things “Godly”. In light of that story, Adrian’s determination to cling to his atheism seems foolish. Thus, Adrian is playing the fool.

    More, Adrian’s participation on this blog seems odd since spiritual issues are a persistent theme on this blog. Why does an apparently avowed atheist hang out on a blog that’s clearly based on a religious foundation?

    Can’t he find another atheistic’s blog that provides a comparable or superior level of insight into how the legal system works? Why waste his time on a spiritually-motivated blog like this one? Could it be that he occasionally finds information and perhaps technology here that he regards as worthwhile that he can’t find on atheistic blogs? If he’s finding info/technology here (on a blog that has a persistent religious theme) that he can’t find on atheistic blogs, do suppose that creates a conflict of values for Adrian? Do you suppose any value he might find on this blog is evidence that his atheism may be impotent and foolish?

    I do. And thus, I see Adrian as playing the fool (or perhaps the hypocrite) by mining a spiritually-motivated blog for information he may be able to use in his atheistic wars.

    Insofar as you have taken Adrian’s side in this fight, you have chosen to defend a fool. What does that make you? A young hero? Or just another fool?

    And you want to “discuss” things rationally and logically, while you defend a fool?

    Oh, and you want to amp up the insults to refer to my “inner drama queen”? I can put up with that sort of crap for a while. Just ask J.M. (Les Fuchs, or whatever). But I won’t put up with it forever.

    This is my blog. I run it. I make information available for free to anyone who wants to read and consider it. I recognize no obligation to accept any disrespect on insults in return for my efforts.

    If people appreciate my efforts, they’re welcome to stay. If they don’t like what I do, they’re welcome to leave. But if they feel entitled to insult me on my blog, I am absolutely entitled to ban them.

    Next insult, Mr. Moon, and you’re bye-bye.

    I see no reason to suffer fools.

    • Roger

      May 9, 2014 at 2:31 PM

      “Why does an apparently avowed atheist hang out on a blog that’s clearly based on a religious foundation?”

      It depends. Usually the purpose is to evangelize atheism. Adrian fits this pattern. A few others of this type have passed through this blog in recent months. I’ll leave it to you to decide if this is a form of trolling and/or spamming.

      However, regarding contrarians in general, often they are just providing counterpoint in order to stimulate debate which further explores the topic, like on The McLaughlin Group, which most readers think is a good thing.

    • moon

      May 9, 2014 at 6:47 PM

      Yep…and there it is…the dreaded threat of being banned from this blog…hmmmm…

      Al, where in this thread did Adrian refer to your “ass dumb head”, as you have accused? Unless you can cite that, you’ve misquoted him at least four times. That’s clearly an over dramatization. Some of us refer to it as the inner drama queen. In this situation, it’s more of a revelation of fact, than an insult. If you want to ban me from your blog because of a perceived insult based on your distortion, knock yourself out…that’s certainly your choice. However, it will reveal more foolishness about you than me.

      All the questions you’ve asked me about Adrian, I’d suggest that you ask him those questions. As you can clearly see in this thread, I’m asking him questions in order to comprehend his thoughts.

      You’re the one who has chosen to try to pick a fight rather than engage in discussion. Rather than consider that your MOOA defense may not be a cure all for everything (you’ve even pointed out to me in other discussion that it’s not a cure all for everything), you’ve tried to use it to beat Adrian severely about the head and shoulders. You’ve tried to use it to paint me into an adversarial position. You’ve clearly abandoned rational discussion and resorted to attempts at mischaracterization and twisted suspicions, to defend against imaginary attacks. I haven’t attacked you.

      Are you truly that insecure in your self image?

      Al, are you not better than that?

      • Adask

        May 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM

        Try reading the very first comment at the top of this list of comments.

      • moon

        May 9, 2014 at 10:55 PM

        I’ve read it several times wondering why you would so persistently and blatantly misquote him. Maybe you should reread it. What you said is not there.

  6. EarlatOregon

    May 9, 2014 at 2:23 PM


    Effects of Free Trade

    The Irish Parliament was in no sense a body that represented the nation;

    But one of the provisions of the infamous compact
    which terminated the country’s legislative independence,
    was the gradual removal of these duties.

    Irish industry received a shock from which it never recovered,
    A great part of the people were thrown out of employment, … .

    As the process went on, the Irish factories closed with … regularity.


    Mr. Leslie recognises the fact
    that the absence of manufactures
    is a chief source of Irish poverty … .

    (Land Systems of Ireland, England and the Continent, by Cliffe Leslie pp.35-6.)

    The commissioners sent out to relieve the sufferers by the
    found in the Connaught poor-houses
    men of estate and family,
    who had served as the
    High Sheriffs of their counties.

    Once again the people were thrown back upon the land;
    the merciless competition of British capital
    was as effective as the
    “merciless legislation” of the English Parliament;

    … Free Trade
    undersold Irish manufactures out of existence,
    and reduced the Irish people to the uniformity of a single employment.

    The only field of enterprise left was competition
    for the possession of a few acres,
    as the last refuge from “starvation”.

    -from the book
    The Elements of Political Economy
    by Professor Robert Thompson

    (third ed. 1895)
    (of Pennsylvania University,
    a government institution)

  7. EarlatOregon

    May 9, 2014 at 2:25 PM

    Effects of Free Trade

    § 219. It is sometimes urged as an argument in favor of unrestricted trade,
    that “the mutual dependence of the nations thus produced
    is eminently promotive of the cause of international peace.

    It will put the nations under bonds to keep the peace,
    by placing each of them in such a relation to the rest
    that a war with any other will inflict ruinous losses upon its industries,
    and therefore it will create within each a sentiment in favor of peace,
    and a class whose interests are bound up with its preservation.”

    An unhappy comment upon this rose-colored theory
    is found in the fact
    that the majority of modern wars have been undertaken,
    not for national honor or pride,
    but for the sake of Trade,
    — “the fair, white-winged peace-maker.”

    The communities most at war with the rest of the world
    have generally been those in which the spirit of trade predominated
    —Tyre, Carthage, Venice, England, &c.

    A great English military historian and general, Sir W. Napier,
    lays it down as a rule
    that the Traders have Begun the Wars
    and the soldiers have ended them.

    (See §§ 257, 278, note).

    -from the book
    The Elements of Political Economy
    by Professor Robert Thompson

    (third ed. 1895)
    (of Pennsylvania University,
    a government institution)

  8. EarlatOregon

    May 9, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    Free Book

    The Elements of Political Economy
    by Professor Robert Thompson

    Free Here:

  9. Cody

    May 12, 2014 at 2:05 AM

    Al, you have at least 4 NSA and COINTELPRO hacks monitoring your articles They’re on a salary for the purpose of trying to antagonize and harass you. That’s a good thing. They’re the ones who have to go home each day knowing they can’t win an argument, on reasonable and honest grounds.

  10. hogorina1

    December 18, 2014 at 2:24 PM


    Aggression is evil
    We should not hate political whores.
    We should not hate pseudo liberals.
    We should not hate parasites.
    we should not hate the haters.
    We should hate our selves.
    We should not hate slum masters.
    We should not hate loan sharks.
    We should hate illicit investors.
    We should not hate used-car dealers.
    We should not hate dog catchers.
    We should not hate gutter snipers.
    We should not hate bill collectors.
    We should hate the master-criminal industry controlling America.
    We should not hate ghetto masters.
    We should hate the press network.
    We should not hate FEMA and SWAT as professional criminals.
    We should not hate perverts controlling education.
    We should not hate unscrupulous corrupt judges.
    We should not hate commies in national affairs.
    We should not hate for God making the rainbow coalition.
    We should not hate spies in the State Department.
    We should not hate the Edomite control of free speech.
    We should not hate Marx for formulating communism.
    We should not hate the fools in Congress.
    We should not hate the wrecking of America by Bolshevism.
    We should not hate the growing wealth of religions.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s