Raider5678

These are all strawman arguments. You can't prove capital punishment is a benefit to families of victims. It Capital punishment is worthwhile than where are the tangible arguments for it? Saying that it might help some people somehwere find some amount of closure isn't a tangible justification.

 

What can be proven:

-it is more expensive

-it doesn't lower the murder rate (not a proven deterrent)

-our trail system is not perfect and innocent people do get sentence to die

 

 

The only justifications I have seen so far:

-it might help some people find closure (we don't know though)

-most people approve (not most of minorities or democrats)

-it is current the law

One second, your accusing me of strawmanning myself? Wow. That's a first.

 

It DOES help some people find closure.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/16/measure-of-relief.html

"A Pew Research Center poll finds that 56% favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, while 38% oppose it. But support is as low as it’s been in 40 years. Much of the decline in support over the past two decades has come among Democrats. Currently, just 40% of Democrats favor the death penalty, while 56% are opposed. Republican support for the death penalty (77%) has changed less dramatically."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/28/5-facts-about-the-death-penalty/

 

From the same link:

"About six-in-ten whites (63%) favor the death penalty, compared with 34% of blacks and 45% of Hispanics. There are also disagreements along racial lines about which groups are most likely to get the death penalty."

 

 

Your last line seems to be arguing against your position.The majority (at least in the Western world where they get to decide) has decided against capital punishment.

Ok then. Which post is a lie and which isn't?

This said, I still think ISIS should be eradicated. Of course, since fighting them is a bad idea according to some....

Extremist Muslims. It's getting tiring. Why can't they be like the rest of the Muslim populace?

 

P.S. I don't know enough about fighting terrorists, I have no clue why its a bad idea to not fight terrorist but I'm pretty sure there's some logic behind it.

When what someone currently believe is a fallacy of logic then it isn't "tricking" them to convince them otherwise, it's education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

 

 

 

"Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do? "

Strawman- nobody said that did they?

However just one person in that position and with that view voids your tacit assertion that we should kill for the benefit of the bereaved.

 

Also, not all murderers are sociopaths so that part of your post is unsupported.

 

"And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. "

I'm sure you would say that; it doesn't make sense.

 

Can I see the evidence for this claim please?

"They have more closure in Texas."

or is it something you just made up?

It's an issue you have been picked up on before.

Ok then how about this.

 

"Nobody loses any closure if the murderer is executed. Perhaps it doesn't give closure to everyone, but it does give closure to some. People in Texas who want the death penalty and get it, I'm sure find closure. People in Vermont who want the death penalty and can't get it, I'm sure they believe they aren't getting as much closure as they would like."

Where did I go wrong in this logic?

 

Another question, who decided what's wrong and what's right? You? Me? Is it the general consensus? What gives the few the right to decide what's wrong for the many?

 

Also, if all murderers arent sciopaths, then why were you arguing that before? Make up your mind.

Edit:

Memammal was claiming it, not you. My bad.

OK, so we need to teach the populous that vengeance and justice are different words- because they are different things.

Perhaps we should get parents and teachers to explain it to children. We would need some sort of short, snappy slogan.

Perhaps something like "Two wrongs don't make a right" would work.

If only there were some way to get lots of people to say that to the kids.

Try tricking the parents to teach something against their own values. Maybe brainwashing. O.O

The parents of an 8yrs girl killed by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote a letter to the court asking they not seek the Death Penalty. Today Tsarnaev sits on Death Row.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/16/end-anguish-drop-death-penalty/ocQLejp8H2vesDavItHIEN/story.html

 

There are family members of murder victims who become activists against capital punishment.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/marching-against-states-death-penalty-ep-374903874-352772261.html

 

Many argue that capital punishment only prolongs the suffering of families.

http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=56

 

Implying that a pro death penalty position is automatically the default position of families is inaccurate and in my opinion uses those them as a prop. No one in the discussion speaks for victims families. To argue that it is for them is a divisive one that cannot be supported. Do murder victims families in Texas where they execute regularly have more closure than families in Vermont where they do not perform executtions?

Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do? How about we reeducate the ones that think the murderers will suffer more. As you stated earlier, most murderers aren't right in the head. The degree required of mental instability to kill someone is when you reach the level sociopath. Sociopaths cant feel remorse or empathy. In other words they won't feel bad. Which means they won't suffer from guilt as most people think. Also, your a hypocrite if you say no one knows what the victims family's actually want, then proceed to explain what they want....

And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. Some people in Vermont I'm sure want the death penalty. Therefore, yes. They have more closure in Texas.

The first part is clearly an opinion.

But "It doesn't actually make the world a better place."

is open to a degree of objectivity.

In what way does it make the world a better place if you kill people that you don't need to kill?

 

 

My word you are good at missing the point.

"Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. "

Yes, the murderers are not innocent.

But our justice system can not reliably distinguish between those who are murderers and those who are innocent.

So, by having the death penalty "We accrue the risk of killing innocent for no tangible reason. " as 10 Oz said.

 

I'd want to know why they did it.But I wouldn't want them killed- what would that achieve?

If I was in that position and someone asked me if I wanted the murderer killed I'd say no- and if anyone asked why not my answer would be simple.

One killer is 1 too many. Adding to the number of killers is not a good thing.

 

The points you have missed here are that we jail people as punishment, not for punishment; and that keeping order in jails is easier for the guards if the prisoners are occupied doing something.

 

As for "Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? "

Again, you seem to want to sink to their level as quickly as possible; why is that?

Lol

How do we deal with inconsiderate criminals who don't provide obliging evidence?

Are you going to have two levels of justice?

The man who almost certainly killed a hundred people in a hospital shooting spree doesn't get hanged, but the man who clearly killed one deadbeat junkie gets the death penalty because he wasn't clever enough to make sure there were no witnesses.

It doesn't "beg the question", it invites one.

If you believe that the death penalty does not lead to killing for no reason, then you ought to be able to show what that reason is.

In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?

Don't hospitals have security cameras? Security guards? The gun have finger prints? Powder residue on the killers hands? There's a lot more evidence that could be found.

And, is it worth the cost of ALL those extras just to make prisoners happy? Seems like a pretty lame excuse.

Once again, for the final time. The moral high ground isn't a good argument. Nobody agrees what's right and what's wrong.

You also keep phrasing it wrong. We are killing a murderer. Not murdering a killer. What they did was wrong. What we do is punish them for that wrong. The benefit? Makes people happy. They get a sense of justice. Of course, you want the prisoners to be happy.

 

You can't argue one point without arguing the other point. Its like your trying to say the absolute value of 12 is different from the absolute value of -12!

For me, this issue hinges on the finality of it all.

We all know and tend to readily concede that mistakes in the justice system are regularly and repeatedly made. In fairness, mistakes probably always will be made no matter how profoundly we reform the system or seek their minimization.

We're human and almost by definition imperfect.

But once someone is put to death, any mistakes become de facto irreversible. End program. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Said another way, the death penalty in a single fraction of a single moment immediately transitions any errant mistakes from the emphemeral to the eternal.

If one is going to seek vengeance, then the vengeful must never once be wrong in their target or timing. And, if we're being honest, perfection is a promise most cannot keep.

For the most part our justice system is pretty accurate at undeniable evidence. Its when they're convicted without undeniable evidence that things go wrong.

That is the point of doing it and not a benefit. You cannot think of a real benefit because there is not one. It serves no purpose beyond satisfying the urge to do it. It doesn't make society safer, doesn't save money, and doesn't bring a murdered victim back to life. If we stopped doing it today there wpould be no negative consequences, none. Same is not true for plastic bags. There are risks vs benefits associated with not producing plastic bags. With the Death Penalty there are no benefits and as such no risk vs benefits. We accrue the risk of KILLING INNOCENT for no tangible reason.

 

Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. I have a question, do you have kids? A loved one? If they were murdered, what would you want? The death penalty? Jail?

 

What's the benefit of keeping cigarettes? What's the benefit of having rehabilitation centers for people serving life? I mean, why not just feed them and let them rot in jail? That's not a financially smart idea! Neither are gyms, 5 star cafeterias, college, internet, TV. It's jail. Not a hotel. Say, neither are large prison cells. Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? And if its financially beneficial let's do it. According to you that might as well be a great plan!

 

No benefit, let's get rid of it eh? We could get rid of half the people on the planet with that logic.

@ Zapatos, we generally endeveavor to make things safe as possible. Our governments tend to stop when become counter productiveor they is no clear benefit. Risk that a child will suffocate if we make plastic bags vs having no plastic bags at all. Pastic bags are water resistant and flexible. They are ideal for containing food, body, hazmat, or other types of waste. There flexibilty allows superior access in a wider range of locations and envornments. They are more convenient and hygenic than alternatives. There are obvious benefits to plastic bags and an argument can be made that not having them could result is more fatalities than having them causes.

 

What is the obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate? How would not doing so be as potentially deadly as doing so?

The problem with this is your looking at it from a 100% logical view. What percentage of people FEEL safer because of the death penalty? Whether it makes them safer or not doesn't matter to them, they believe it does. And when you can say with 100% certainty that taking away the death penalty won't result in ANY deaths, people still won't believe you. Also, its not sinking down to their level if you kill them. What they did was kill someone who didn't deserve it. They deserve it. That means you didn't leave the moral high ground.

It is more expensive to execute a person than lock them up for life.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm

 

Sure there are psychological reasons and many murders are psychopaths how does that justify us (society of non-psychpaths) killing people who are detained and under our control? The feeling that someone deserves to die is, in my opinion, a very selfish one everyone is capable of. We have conflicts all over the world where people are killing each other for reason they have selfishly determined justified. I think not killing when it isn't necessary is far simplier than putting in the mental effort to kill someone that we do not need to. Explain why it is necessary to execute a prison inmate?

We already know the trial costs a lot more.

Would that be the same question I already answered?

And we already said that the moral high ground depends on what you believe the high ground is.

You really need to get into the habit of substantiating your claims. What evidence do you have that thousands of lives would be saved? Where are your statistics on deaths caused by escaped murderers? Or the financial details? I have already provided links that confirm that death row inmates are much more costly than general population ones.

 

Please present your evidence.

This should give you an outlook for murderers release:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+murderers+kill+again&oq=how+many+murders+kill+a&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.14673j0j4&client=tablet-android-gigabyte&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#q=how+many+murderers+kill+again+after+prison

1\100 of murderers released kill again.

 

Here's some statistics from the next link

There are 4 homicides inside of prison per 100,000

There are 3 homicides inside of local jails per 100,000

Here's the link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiqjZO_qp3NAhWDPD4KHXxXDXwQFggrMAU&usg=AFQjCNH9319X9tfaNuyzMVKq6D4OjAvfaw&sig2=5eL4X13Ahlas4imxiIM95w

 

Obviously not all of there murders are done by previous murders, but we can run the numbers with how many prisoners are murderers, which sadly I couldn't find the numbers for that.

 

 

If you don't keep the deathrow inmate in jail for the next 25 years,I'm pretty sure it'll be a lot less costly. The cost of a death penalty case is

Average

Death penalty 1.26 million

Non death penalty 740,000

Now a life sentence?

1.598 million

If you don't keep them on death row for too long, it should be cheaper.

I think the problem is that you are not making a very good point. When Bundy was in jail he was serving 1 - 15 years for a kidnapping in which the victim escaped from his car while he was trying to restrain her. She was not physically injured. It was while serving this sentence that he escaped.To suggest that he should have been put to death for such a crime seems unethical.

I had realised later on that ted Bundy wasn't a very good example, but there are quite a few cases or murders being put in jail, and either escaping or killing fellow prisoners.

 

 

I already presented my argument and yes, I repeated myself as you seemingly did not understand it first time around. Just go back to where we started off. The point that I have been trying to convey is that criminal acts are (according to the findings of behavioural scientists) likely the results of interactions between the criminal's genetic make-up and specific or unique environmental "triggers" and as such there is an argument to be made that the criminal did not act "intentionally" or "consciously", but that it was an "automatic" reaction. Let us assume that the findings of such studies have merit and then revisit the question as to whether the death penalty is ethically justified.

And the same thing STILL applies, should others suffer for one mans inability to control himself? If you cant stop yourself from killing others, your basically try into argue that they should go free because WE do not have the right to judge them. In that case, what right do we have to judge the victims he/she might kill?

 

Also, someone said about an extremist case. I'm pretty sure if they're even consider in the death penalty then the case was already extreme.

According to this NASA HubbleSite press release, the Hubble Constant has been reduced to 73.2 kilometers per second per megaparsec, which is an uncertainty reduction to 2.4% from 3.3% initially. This means that, according to the article, "the distance between cosmic objects will double in another 9.8 billion years." ​Enjoy!

Just to be clear cosmic objects refer to galaxies or galaxy clusters right? Not smaller things like solar systems. Just wondering...

Thank you for that heartfelt plea in favour of better jails. I agree- and I'm sure others do too, that it is better if criminals don't escape from incarceration.

 

What has it got to do with the death penalty?

What is it with nobody getting the point. I must be really bad at this.

 

The point is that should the death penalty been given, it would have saved a lot of lives. Thousands. Every year there's a murderer convicted of death, who either escapes or kills fellow prisoners. Its financially a bad idea. The ethical argument cancels itself out because ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Just because someone bad does something doesn't makes it bad, and you other arguments? Please present them.

 

Also, memmal, (I don't think I got your name right...) Your simply stating the same thing over and over again, as per your custom. I ask you the same question I asked john. Present your argument.

Yes, if they cannot be treated (which remains an option), locking them up would be a higher order of ethics than killing, don't you think? You wanna kill mentally insane people..? Why would the level of others' suffering rely on whether you can blame-, or put somebody to death?

 

You wrote: Killing them would effectively remove them from the equation. No explanation as far as I can see.

Killing them guarantees they can't kill anyone else. It was very clearly put, as it was the entire point of the post. Anyways, I asked you a question and you dodged answering it, so let me try and make you go though a tiny thought process. this may be a little disturbing, but its a true thing that happened when a mentally insane person wasn't killed. Ted Bundy was arrested 3 times, and was never put to death. twice he managed to get out, and as a result over 30 people died in extremely horrific ways. It didn't stop until he was put to death. Now the innocent people who were subjected to extreme pain, the families of the loved ones, they ALL suffered at the sake of not ending this mans life. If they never did, hundreds more would have probably died. Your looking at it from a curved view. theres a point when ethics reach the highest, before they start to curve again resulting it in being too twisted to be recognized as ethical. If your willing to sacrifice hundreds, in an attempt of not killing someone, I am quite willing to say your insane. Its about the greater good. And the death of those who he did kill, resulted in deep pain of hundreds.

Eating a little machine that takes pictures of my insides to determine if I'm healthy or not. What could go wrong?

 

In all honesty I don't think it would cost very much, maybe a few hundred dollars. I bet it feels better then a colonoscopy.

 

 

I don't know how that is relevant to the topic of the thread. But if that really is your main concern, then you should be focussing on treatments for cataracts and glaucoma (as well as parasitic diseases). Particularly in the third world.

 

Nonsense.

And "hemp" !?

I see so many people claiming that a good food diet is a cure for cancer. Honestly, I can't seem to make the connection. Good food destroys rouge cells who's mitosis process is flawed... hmm. Jupiters gonna have a baby before I can make the connection.

The largest cost is purchase of vacuum pump device (~$600).

Vacuum flask could be used ($10 the last time I bought it 1L volume). Both from chemistry equipment shop.

Rectifying diodes and capacitors for Cockcroft-Walton high voltage generator from electronic shop (you could use it also for discharge tube with some gas as medium and observe spectral lines of different gases).

The rest of needed things could be found on scrapyard.

Could you send me a How-To on that?

 

Yeah, physics can be pretty interesting. Sadly, I don't know a lot of physics experiments. One suggestion I would provide though would be to use ferro fluid, and explain why it acts the way it does when in the presence of a powerful magnet.

I'm only reporting what I've read.

 

That refers to the case, otherwise the trial. In reality, when your not tricking people into thinking it costs more to kill someone then to supply all the basic needs for the next 50+ years, it costs 1.5 million if you clock in at about 30k per year per prisoner. That's assuming they only live in jail for 50 years, and that they have far below average cost per prisoner. That's quite large.

The lethal injection costs?

$86.08

Now, it still costs some more to house the prisoner until hes executed, but if we didn't take 5 years to kill them, it would cost a lot less.

What is ethical or not relates to our present moral philosophy of what is right and what is wrong. Medieval ethics, for example, are far removed from the prevailing ethics of today's western society. Why do you think imprisonment would be less effective in order to "remove them from the equation"? You previously argued that the death penalty is wrong, but you now seem to condone it as being a more effective tool. Given my argument that a perpetrator (let's say a murderer) might not be consciously or mentally blameworthy for his/her actions, do you think it will be ethical to kill him/her?

So your saying it would be ethical to lock him/her up for life? Or ethical to release a dangerous person just because you cant blame him? Or locking him in a straight jacket for the rest of his life would solve the problem? Mentally insane people, are insane. its very simple. Whether you can blame them or not doesn't matter, should others suffer because of it? Already someone has if your even thinking about punishing them. Also, when your mentally insane, your quite often tortured mentally. Should you put them in jail so that's the ONLY thing they can think about? And I already explained why simply putting them in jail doesn't effectively remove them from the equation, reread my post.

The contemporary viewpoint among behavioural scientists suggests that behaviour in general, including criminal behaviour, results from a specific interaction between genes and the environment. This is equally applicable to psychopaths. There is substantive evidence to support this. Here is one such scientific research paper entitled: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior. The implications thereof raise the question of free will, conscious behaviour and how it influences the legal premises of among others actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty" and non compos mentis or "not master of one's own mind". Can the mind be guilty or culpable if it "automatically" reacted (in a criminal manner) as a result of a specific gene/environment interaction? Is anyone master of his/her own "mind"? Obviously the legal system will not easily adapt to this line of reasoning (apart from the prevailing criteria surrounding non compos mentis) and rightly so as people who commit serious criminal crimes will remain susceptible (due to the presence of a certain genetic make-up) and will thus continue to present a high risk to society given a "wrong" set of environmental triggers. It would therefore be preferable to remove high-risk individuals from society. Removing them from society (and possibly for them to undergo therapeutic treatment) would thus be ethical, but killing them..?

Killing them would effectively remove them from the equation. In oblder times, if a city was about to fall from enemy forces, they would kill all enemy prisoners if the enemy didnt allow anyone to survive. In doing this they guaranteed they weren't going to join the enemy again and help conquer another city. Now is this logical, and is this ethical? They knew for a FACT they were the enemy. No innocents here, and they also gave them the death penalty without a trial. You decide.

Really?

 

"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death[/size]" Exodus 21.12

"And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death[/size]" Exodus 21.15

"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death[/size]" Exodus 21.16

 

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death[/size]" Exodus 21.17, Matthew 15.4, Mark 7.10

 

"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die[/size]" Deuteronomy 24.7

 

"he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.[/size]" Leviticus 24.21

 

 

 

 

(There is more, but I got a bit bored ...)

Not to go against the moderator note, I'll let this go undefended.

 

I agree with zapatos on the ethics part, it depends how you look at it. There was someone on science forums saying it was un ethical to eat animals.

And Im a christian, and according to the bible, aka my culture, the death penalty is wrong. No argument, its wrong according to it. Now personally, I don't really know. Maybe ethically its wrong, but then again it depends on what your ethics are. If you think that killing someone in cold blood, in a horrific way, deserves death, then your ethics are fine with it.

Terrorism is what you resort to when your views are marginalized. Extremists don't usually have access to armies and military grade weapons (not on a scale to wage war), so they strike in ways that make a big splash in the media. They make a cheap video of beheadings, or improvise an explosive that kills civilians. They stir up emotions, where conservative thinking is weakest, and hope that we'll go mental and spend $10,000 for every $1 they spent.

 

Terrorism is only effective if we respond out of proportion, which is exactly what the conservative response is. How many hundreds of billions of dollars have we spent since 9/11? What fraction of that have the terrorists spent? At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda numbered in the hundreds, and after all Bush did, their numbers only grew.

 

Fundamentalist terrorism in the Middle East is based in large part on the premise that Christians and Jews are working together to destroy Islam. This is a very emotional, irrational, conservative fear that we did very little to discourage for a long time. Bush's military even named operations with Islamic concepts like Infinite Justice, which only made the fear worse. In our own country, conservative fear of losing our freedom drove us crazy enough to toss ourselves inside the prison of the Patriot Act.

 

The more hate and division the Donald preaches, the more fear and irrational action come together to limit our overall successes. Virtually every time the US suffers in some way overall, there are billionaires profiting by it. The idea that an opportunist billionaire like Donald would ever try to help the US in a general way at the expense of his rich friends is not supported by history or common sense. And he's destroying our best hope of combating Islamic terrorists effectively, the support of the enormous majority of Muslims who aren't terrorists. All this hatred over Mexican immigrants, when Mexican immigration is net negative, and all this fear over terrorists when 94% of all terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005 were by non-Muslims makes it sound like Donald is a hater just for the hate of it.

You concede that what was said is true but still demand time is wasted to prove it for purely punitive reasons?

As it was, and still is, he's claiming it out of random thought. Do you believe theres more violence at Donald rallies or Bernie's and Hillary's combined? If you think its not trumps, then please loom again. I'm telling him to actually look at it from a reasonable point of view.

 

Also, please stop down voting me, I only have like 4 reputation.

Oh, baloney. Liquid nitrogen is fairly cheap. The LHC pre-cools their superconductors with liquid nitrogen (9000 metric tonnes) before using the much more expensive liquid helium.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/december-2014/lhc-filled-with-liquid-helium

 

and the LHC is a much more ambitious project than a railgun, even if the latter is a km long.

I don't really know a lot about liquid nitrogen, i figured it would take quite a bit of It to cool even a small section... Then again I'm probably wrong.

Proof there are violent protests against Hillary and Bernie?

 

Interestingly enough I found this a while back.

 

http://www.infowars.com/craigslist-ad-get-paid-15-an-hour-to-protest-at-the-trump-rally/

 

What's civil disobedience? I think its breaking the law, but I'm not sure.

Also, someone is suing trump for inciting them to be violent. Which, if you think about it, means they have no control over themselves.

Still waiting for proof. I'm quite sure there is some, but I would like to see you actually do the research rather then just claim random things.

 

The real success in terrorism lies in all the help they get from American conservatives.

Really? I have found I've usually been misinformed in a lot of political matters, can you give some examples?

Which is what make them the bad guys. If all they did was negotiate peaceful terms there wouldn't be a problem would there? As a nation we can't justify violating our Constitution and international treaties because rogue individuals do bad things.

 

I stand correct on what Trump has advocated. He said he'd kill the famlies and torture the terrorists. Either way it is against our laws and international law. Beyond the pale for a major party candidate for the White House to say such.

Perhaps your right. But once again, would you think it was alright if we tortured them to save lives?

Can you give me some more information,

Top speed of the slug

Acceleration rate

Power of the electromagnetic accelerator

 

Also, to have enough liquid nitrogen alone would cost a fortune.

About 400 trillion dollars.

Per minute.