You think the bible is a conspiracy? lol..first of all most of the people who started the church were martryed for their beliefs. If they knew it was a lie, they wouldn't have died for it. The romans persecuted and martyred Christians for hundreds of years. There simply was no advantage to being a Christian in those days. It was very likely to get you killed.

And for being made up it sure is historically accurate:

"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.

In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]

These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]

There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."

And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:

According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.

Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”

Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..





>> ^Mazex:
I don't think he hates God, because that would mean a God exists for him to hate, maybe he hates the idea of God. I think he like most sane people hate the idea that people brainwash their kids with dribble from a book that a load of people conspired to write and revise so that they could influence the world, control/enslave uneducated people and get rich off them for 2000 years.
There's a very simple reason for having the view of atheism, God has not been proven to exist, there is no empirical evidence, and there is a lot of logical reasoning behind why it is a lie and why religion only prospers from indoctrinating children and weak minded people, and can not prosper from trying to convert educated people into it.
Religion has only come so far because of human fear. Soon once our lifespans will increase much more and we will hopefully advance medicine far enough that people won't be as afraid of death any more and there'll be a massive shift away from religion, in the same way education shifted people away from it in the industrial era.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You do know atheism is a world view, don't you? Hitchens couldn't provide any reasons for his view..yes he definitely hates the judeo-christian god, that's clear..but this is a philosophical argument..and Hitchens failed on every point to provide any compelling reasons for his views. I've always been of the mind that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement based on the facts. And I think William Craig was reasonable here..he gave hitchens every opportunity to refute his arguments, which he failed to do

It logically follows from the premise hpqp..but as I just stated to xxovercastxx, I've clarified it to state..Was the Universe created by a supreme being? Again, a philosophical question and not a religious one.

Yes, I know who the gnostics were. That's why I gave you that link, because obviously you didn't. The term agnostic was invented in 1863, and as you saw, the gnostics have been around practically since Christ came into the world. So in no sense is the word gnostic the opposite of agnostic, historical or otherwise.

Btw, I'm not wrong. As I said before, do your research, especially before you correct someone. Deism is a type of theism. As far as quoting the bible for evidence..obviously a historical record of Jesus Christs life and times is evidence. It's also an extremely accurate historical document:

"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.

In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]

These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]

There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."

It is exceedingly rare that you find an atheist who actually understands the bible well enough to create a coherent theological argument, for or against, let alone understands the meaning and could apply it. I've never met one, personally. I'm willing to concede that its possible one may exist. I wouldn't say more than one though.

Most of the atheists I've met don't know anything about it, are just ignorantly and arrogantly railing against something they've never read and don't understand, accusing theists of being brainwashed when they themselves are merely getting all their information from the atheist group mind. I've found that the law of ironic hypocripsy is universal in all cases.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible..


I chose just one to attack, not because I don't have something to say about everything, but I'm on a time budget here. So what you're saying, is that the bible has a good source of knowledge about good archeological dig sites? Let me rephrase that, as this is a question that, when asked correctly, reveals how stupid the idea contained within really is:

So what you are saying is, a book written a long time ago—by people who lived a long time ago—about the world they lived in, has a lot of information about where to find things that existed during the time that they lived? No shit?

That archeologist was simply stating that the bible has good information about where cities used to be and where he can find artifacts...I like the optimistic spin on it though.

Also, don't get archeology confused with geology, because TONS of geological findings have "controverted" biblical things.

Love,
your neighborhood atheist

Well written, but still factually biased. I don't dispute it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in something, but saying it takes more faith to believe in science over a religion is laughable, seeing as how most scientific processes can be duplicated in a lab, and the only time people see the immaculately concepted Jesus is in stale bread.

Calling them "errors" is an error, if you cant prove it so...

I don't even want to get started with your "#2" ...but I will touch on it:

"It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round."
You mean to tell me that it wasn't the sun he probably was referring to? It is a very vague statement, loosely translated. I mean, wasn't the voyage of Christopher Columbus nearly defunded by the Queen of Spain due to the fact most of the Catholics believed the earth was flat? How could they possibly misinterpret such a factual document as the Bible then but not now, or at any other time?

#3 is also a gross interpretation of the bibles factuality, the closest thing people had to a science was alchemy if I'm mistaken, and there is a reason we don't teach Alchemy 101 these days. It was full of holes where we as a species didn't have an understanding of our own surroundings. Take beer brewing for example, even the German purity laws had to be amended to allow yeast as a viable and lawful ingredient to beer because the humans of the past flat out didn't understand or fathom its use/need in the brewing process because it had been introduced naturally to the unaware brewers since beer has been around. <-Thank you science, not the all knowing bible. External sources are just as unreliable then as they are now, if not more so, smart people expect some credibility, and aren't the type to blindly accept.
#4 "The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology"
Most people don't dispute the correlation of events in the bible to that of actual history, its just obvious that either initially or over the years, the truth was embellished to that of an Aesop fable. The bible was meant to instill fear into the hearts of what are supposed to be "god fearing" people, what better way then writing about a hellish environment and 30 ft tall giants? (wait, was that part real, or no?) Oh and Nelson Glueck wrote that quote? Impressive... unless you consider the thousands of other scientists that have a slightly different opinion on the matter...

But I guess you can laugh at me while I burn in hell (decompose) and you are in heaven (decomposing) It would make much more sense if people would accept the fact that "God" no matter how you look at it, is just a manifestation of our own self righteousness as a species? That being said, please think "peace" and I to wish all of us a hearty blessing from "God."



>> ^shinyblurry:

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.
Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said
The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.

Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification
The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.
Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific
The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.
This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.
Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.
Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”
Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.
Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.
So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.


*Edited punctuation at 23:40 5/2/2011

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.

Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said

The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.


Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification

The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.

Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific

The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:

Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.

This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.

Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.

Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”

Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology

The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.

So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.

Lets not forget the fact that this is coming from Time Magazine...it's not surprising how slanted the article is because they want us to stay there.

You're a really smart guy and from all accounts pretty darned talented, so I really don't understand this almost obsessive loathing that you have for anything that remotely resembles a group effort, i.e. collectivism. If I didn't hope to have a beer with you and "tie on one" someday I wouldn't even bother responding to your anti-collectivist, lone cowboy diatribes.

I think you're...kind of shooting yourself in the foot by ascribing a blanketed evil intent on everything that seems to involve two or more people working together to achieve a common goal.

I mean, even your movie, man. Look at your movie. You didn't do that all yourself. You couldn't have. You probably did a lot of it, and I'm not diminishing that effort, buy if it were left to you and only you to write, direct, produce, perform in, light, record, film, score, edit, and promote...you'd be working on it to this very day, and it wouldn't be nearly as good. And that kind of cooperation, that group effort for a greater good, applies to almost everything, not just movies.

And I'll make you a bet, anything that you can name, any goal, any achievement that you think you and I could do on our own, if I have one person to help me in reaching that goal, I'll get there before you. If I have ten people I'll get there even faster. And if I have a hundred, faster and greater still.

I know I'll lose some of those bets, but I'm confident that I'll win enough of them to make that loss insignificant.

Gonna watch "The Hurt Locker" tomorrow. Looking forward to it.






In reply to this comment by blankfist:
In reply to this comment by rougy:
Hmmmm. A lot to digest there, Kubrick.

Sort of neutral on J.D. Salinger. Only read Catcher in the Rye and one of his short stories, Banana Fish. I heard rumors that he and Thomas Pynchon were one in the same, and I really enjoyed Gravity's Rainbow, but I doubt the rumor was true after just now googling it.

Terrance Malick I really, really, really fucking like. I thought The Thin Red Line line was sublime. The New World, Days of Heaven, Badlands...I genuinely loved each and every one of those films. Each would deserve a post of its own for me to share my critique. The man has a gifted eye.

Gilmore Girls? Maybe I'll check it out. Doubtful. I really thought you knew me better than that, because from your description, it's not my kind of show at all. I don't really watch much television, especially series oriented shows. I only watch it now because I'm living with mamason and the thing's almost always on, or tempting me to turn it on. When I finally sell the house and get the fuck out of Roswell, I won't have a television in my home for a long, long time, not even for Netflix vids.

Few people detest...nay, despise the "corporate cog" scene more than I.

I thought you would have known that by now, too.



I was being facetious. I know you aren't the type to like Gilmore Girls, that's why I used them as an example, because they were so typical American fluff with typical pro-topical issues storylines. Entertainment Weekly and Time Magazine thought the show was fantastic. How lame is that? And they like it for its quick dialog. Really?

My point was that just because you're not pro-social doesn't mean you're wrong. There are a lot of great people who were recluses, and that is distinctively not pro-social behavior. The get along gangs need us contrarians. We like individualism over collectivism. Martin Luther King Jr didn't ask that we judge a group by the content of their character.

I read an article (I think it was this one: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/ -damn your archive premiums Time magazine!) about how religion effects the brain, and how things like music, dancing, chanting, drugs, sex (and other similar repetitious or trance inducing states) have the same chemical effect on the brain as religious ecstasy. So as far as your brain chemistry is concerned, you aren't missing out on anything. It's also interesting to note that these cranial competitors to religion are commonly forbidden by religion.

Also, here is an interesting read from Atlantic Monthly that you might dig.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200512/god-accident

Done, Thanks!

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
Could you please add something to the description of your video
Saying it was a parody done by Time magazine? I have the link in the comments. I think it is a disservice to sesame street to imply they did it.

So, apparently this is something Time magazine did:

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/10/01/watch-michelle-obama-teaches-gardening-on-sesame-street/

>> ^robdot:
my friends. this guy is hopelessly out of touch. hes living in the 1920;s or something. if the usa was the size of texas maybe we could live the way he proposes, but we are 300 million strong. we must feed and protect 300 million people. we need desease control. emergency management. protection of our food supply.
we can not survive.literally,without the fda cdc fema etc. also without a progressive income tax the wealth would quickly be in the hands of a small percentage of the population. no matter what anyone says our tax system helps to ..spread the wealth. fair tax, flat tax. sales tax. etc. are regressive. the more you make the less you pay in taxes. thats why we dont do that. this guy is one of the reasons we are so fucked up right now. hes completely lost.


Um, your country survived for more than half it's existence without those services. You also survived without the income tax until 1913! Also, an unapportioned tax on income is actually unconstitutional.

Also, regarding the income tax spreading the wealth around, perhaps some numbers might convince you otherwise:


In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. - Source

Ron Paul is on the side of individuals making decisions for themselves. The CDC, FDA and FEMA don't feed 300 million people, individuals work and receive money that they buy food with. The government does not contribute at all, except taking a percentage of that individuals earnings in tax and spending it on government programs.


>> ^chilaxe:
Paul's and Schiff's prediction of the end of civilization as we know it unless we all become fans of freshwater economics doesn't look very likely. They better hope for something like a meteor strike to help bring civilization down, because it's a drain on your credibility if your 100% certainty predictions don't pan out.


In comparison with the people who are actually in control of the economy, Schiff and Paul have been right 100% of the time. If anyone's credibility should be questioned, it should be Bernanke and Geithner.

>> ^StukaFox:
Ron Paul: making batshit crazy sound perfectly sane.


You sure are holding the intellectual high ground with Ad hominem arguments...good jorb homestar

>> ^Psychologic:
I've never seen Paul or Schiff talk about the inherent deflationary nature of information technologies in the context of Austrian Economics, despite their constant talk of inflation. The price of a given amount of processing power or data storage drops by a fairly consistent percent per year (on average)... the same is true for dna sequencing, solar power, or many other high-tech devices.
Maybe they don't think it's a big deal, but I've never even seen them mention it. Austrian Economics were formulated well before the information age, so I'm curious how these new trends fit into it.


Metal melt values are always a good indicator about inflation over the long history of time. Let us look at penny melt values. This would be a relation of the fiat value of a penny vs the market value of the copper.

http://mises.org/images4/3069figure1.jpg

The worst part of this is that the penny has been changed every so often with less and less copper (other coins as well). Soon, pennies will be filled with steal as that is one of the cheapest metals you can have. After that, it is the end of the line for a penny. What graphs and graphs like this show ( you can look it up for gold, silver, and nearly any other rareish earth metal) and the trend is the same, metal is more highly prized over time than US dollars. This eats away until the system snaps (like back in the currency crunch of 33 when the government outlawed gold...forced you to sell gold so the treasury could have something real to give dollars value after the failed works projects of the 30s.). Fiat currencies and currency under control of central bankers tends to eventually undermine itself. The world is complex and full of players and vested interests and various other things that make prediction along a specific time frame hard. You could have massive investment of a foreign saver nation rescue a monetary system from collapse (IE China to the USA). But when the music stops for debt, the game is up, you have to face the monster your created. And like most things, the longer you wait to fix it, the worse it will be at that time if finally needs mending.

You are also talking about two different ideas. Because tech gets cheaper doesn't mean there isn't inflation. Technology is fairly different from things like, say food, or metal. New processes make something more efficient to produce over its life cycle. Chips become cheaper because of size. The smaller it gets, the cheaper it can be produced and as consequence, more of them can be sold per unit of silicon wafer. If you ever wandered why smaller is better it is because silicon wafers have to be manufactured circular, it is part of the physic's of aligning the silicon molecules properly. However, chips are usually rectangular. This means that you have to throw away all the edge pieces that don't line up to make squares out of the main circle. This doesn't just scale linearly; the smaller you make a chip, the more of the silicon you use.

The same is kind of true of other techs. Hard drives use a similar shrinking so that less can do more. But a building isn't going to use much less material than it did 20 years ago. Also, inflation is really hard to place effectively when you have the government interfering with prices. When you distort prices by government hand out, it is hard to know what the value of something is. Lets take houses for starters. When the government was handing out nearly free money for housing stuff, the market inflated. House prices when up by 50% a year in some areas. This bubble finally burst along with some other bad lone stuff. The prices of homes have fallen dramatically in most areas, but this isn't "deflation", this is a market readjustment.

In other words, the ideas of metals and stuff still apply to tech. Tech is neat in the way that new advancements mean you can do more with less. (same for DNA stuff, as tech gets more advanced, the less you have to play people and computer time to do the same amount of work).

As for their predictions, Shiffs has been saying for years watch out for the bubble burst. He also predicted that the stock and gold values would merge before we saw the end of the stock tumble, which it pretty much did.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
I've never seen Paul or Schiff talk about the inherent deflationary nature of information technologies in the context of Austrian Economics, despite their constant talk of inflation. The price of a given amount of processing power or data storage drops by a fairly consistent percent per year (on average)... the same is true for dna sequencing, solar power, or many other high-tech devices.

Maybe they don't think it's a big deal, but I've never even seen them mention it. Austrian Economics were formulated well before the information age, so I'm curious how these new trends fit into it.

This may help.
http://mises.org/story/1040
tl;dr Increases in efficiency and productivity outweigh increase in money supply. If that can be believed!

Your video, Time Magazine Gives Best Interview with Ron Paul - 9/17, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.