We are in a Depression. Read on.

[TheCoolinator]

The Obama administration has been posturing this week about the life and death issue of Wall Street reform. Obama’s predicament is that of a Wall Street puppet who has been put into the White House thanks among other things to almost $1 million of contributions from the infamous Goldman Sachs – but who now needs to make a show of fighting his own Wall Street patrons for political reasons. Of course, Obama’s health-care reform was largely a bailout of insurance companies, which are themselves a key part of Wall Street. But Obama is now pretending to quarrel with Wall Street to shore up his waning credibility, partly because many House Democrats are desperately seeking anti-banker, economic populist street creds in order to avoid defeat in November. So far, the results have been largely feckless and inadequate.
The urgent problem raised by all this is the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble. The financial crisis which struck the United States and the world in September and October 2008 was in fact a world a derivatives panic. This panic marked the first phase of a world economic depression caused by derivatives speculation. The second phase of this depression, which is now beginning, can also be attributed in large part to derivatives, since derivatives are the main tool being used in the speculative attacks on Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and other nations, building up towards a chaotic collapse of the euro.
Derivatives are the Cause of the World Depression of Our Time

Far from being some arcane or marginal activity, financial derivatives have come to represent the principal business of the financier oligarchy in Wall Street, the City of London, Frankfurt, and other money centers. A concerted effort has been made by politicians and the news media to hide and camouflage the central role played by derivative speculation in the economic disasters of recent years. Journalists and public relations types have done everything possible to avoid even mentioning derivatives, coining phrases like “toxic assets,” “exotic instruments,” and – most notably – “troubled assets,” as in Troubled Assets Relief Program or TARP, aka the monstrous $800 billion bailout of Wall Street speculators which was enacted in October 2008 with the support of Bush, Henry Paulson, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Obama Democrats. Continue reading Fight the Derivatives Cancer with a Wall Street Sales Tax, Plus Bans on Hedge Funds, Credit Default Swaps, and Synthetic CDOs (http://tarpley.net/2010/04/25/fight-the-derivatives-cancer-with-a-wall-street-sales-tax-plus-bans-on-hedge-funds-credit-default-swaps-and-synthetic-cdos/#more-1488)


This article is very long, so I'm not going to post it in its entirety because that may be seen as "spam". Also, I hate it when people post obnoxiously long text. If you wish to read the whole thing please click on the last line of the quote.

That is all.

[Colonel Flagg]

No.

[Dimnos]

http://www.drug3k.com/img2/zoloft_11839_5_%28big%29_.jpg

[Colonel Flagg]

@Coolie; take the hint, dude.

[TheCoolinator]

@Coolie; take the hint, dude.

It's just a news article. I don't understand why all you individuals (and I use that term loosely) keep going into attack mode, foaming at the mouth every time I say something.

GET...OVER...IT....

If you're not going to post on topic then don't post at all.

[Tadao]

Get over yourself.

[The Leader]

Seriously Coolie, you aren't anyone special and you are completely ineffectual. You write like you're some individualistic idealist but when was the last time you actually did something to fight the man? Your life is a lie.

[Dimnos]

If you're not going to post on topic then don't post at all.


:lol

[The Leader]

I didn't catch that part. :lol

[Dimnos]

Im beginning to think Coolie is a character.

[The Leader]

I just pm'ed him about that. At first I thought he was a real person but now I just think that he is an incredibly elaborate fiction. Or a replicant.

[Colonel Flagg]

Nope, he's real. You can't make this shit up.

[TheCoolinator]

I just pm'ed him about that. At first I thought he was a real person but now I just think that he is an incredibly elaborate fiction. Or a replicant.

If that would make me look like Rutger Haur then that's fine with me.

[kahljorn]

I THINK THE AVATAR TELLS US ALL WHOS CHARACTER HE IS

ALSO I heARD RECENTLY THAT We ARE OFFICIALLY OUT OF THE REPRESSION LOL

[Pentegarn]

I think even as grim as things have been economically, calling it a depression is a bit harsh.

During the depression the unemployment rate was much higher than it is now. Comparing it to the 1920s and early 1930s is a bit of an overstatement

If anything, what is going on now more closely mirrors the 1970s economically.

[TheCoolinator]

I think even as grim as things have been economically, calling it a depression is a bit harsh.

During the depression the unemployment rate was much higher than it is now. Comparing it to the 1920s and early 1930s is a bit of an overstatement

If anything, what is going on now more closely mirrors the 1970s economically.

I have to disagree.

Unofficially there is about 25-30% national unemployment in the USA. They always cook the books. People are living in tent cities (Hoovervilles / Obamavilles), people are taking drastic pay cuts, the production base of the USA is completely destroyed by "Free Trade" agreements. Unions are being broken (without unions there is no middle class),

Investment banks (foreign and domestic) have taken trillions of dollars in "bailout" money because of their toxic deriviatives. Other banks are going bust. I believe 20+ banks went under in the last week.

I think its safe to say we are in a full blown world depression. It's effected almost every nation on the globe.

and It's all because of investment houses and their derivative paper which I may add was illegal at one time.

[Colonel Flagg]

I think even as grim as things have been economically, calling it a depression is a bit harsh.

HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH COOLIE!!!!!!

YOU WILL PERISH IN FLAME!!!!!!

[TheCoolinator]

HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH COOLIE!!!!!!

YOU WILL PERISH IN FLAME!!!!!!

Its fine to disagree with others.

It's not fine to troll the forum, snipe at every single post a specific person contributes, grumble, and then post off topic content constantly.

Get over it Flagg. It's just an internet forum. It's OK for people to think differently.

[Zhukov]

(without unions there is no middle class)
I don't think you know what a middle class is. Or a 'class' in general. The middle class, specifically, is the petty bourgeois; a small business owner or shopkeeper. Someone that employs others but also works alongside them. I'd love to know why you think unions have any effect (not affect this time) on a class existing.

I believe 20+ banks went under in the last week.

Really? Which ones? That's quite a lot.

I think its safe to say we are in a full blown world depression. It's effected almost every nation on the globe.

I haven't noticed anything here, to be honest. Where I live it's the second worst area for unemployment in the country at about 6% (officially), but I still think it's reasonably low compared to, say, 25% (officially) seen in the US during the 30s.


I think you are mad.

[TheCoolinator]

I don't think you know what a middle class is. Or a 'class' in general. The middle class, specifically, is the petty bourgeois; a small business owner or shopkeeper. Someone that employs others but also works alongside them. I'd love to know why you think unions have any effect (not affect this time) on a class existing.

No,

Petty Bourgeois was a term used for the middle class in France during the time of the revolution. That term has no bearing on present day living standards.

Middle class, now, is a class of people who make a reasonable amount of income higher then the poor or lower classes but less the the wealthy class. Here in the USA we have poor people making around 20,000-35,000 dollars a year. Then we have middle class who are making 40-70,000 dollars a year and then we have the upper middle class making 70+ a year. These people are usually diluded and believe they're apart of the power structure when in fact they are the people who get ripped off the most because they have to hide their money in the stock market which usually collapses.

Unions have a very large effect on how classes work because if you're in a good Union and I emphasis GOOD not Corrupt but well managed, you can negotiate higher wages, benefits, and pension plan. You can also have the ability to say NO to more work meaning people the employer has to higher more people, meaning more people in jobs, meaning money in the economy.

Unions = Middle class

Middle class = a healthy national economy


Right now in the states we have a growing poor class, dwindling middle and upper middle class, and a Super rich class that doesn't pay taxes and is attempting to drive down the standard of living for everyone else.


Really? Which ones? That's quite a lot.

Type in Sheila Colleen Bair - federal deposits and insurance corporation of the treasury.

She shuts down banks every Friday here in the states. sometimes 5, sometime 10, sometimes 20. Every week is more banks closing there doors but GoldManSachs, JPmorgan, citibank and other designated WINNERS get to stay in business with injections of cash from the Federal Reserve.

I haven't noticed anything here, to be honest. Where I live it's the second worst area for unemployment in the country at about 6% (officially), but I still think it's reasonably low compared to, say, 25% (officially) seen in the US during the 30s.

We already have 25% unemployment. You always have to double the number. We are in a global depression. Look around you. Did you not notice the trillions of dollars being used to bailout banks? did you not notice the tent cities? do you not see how almost every country that has worked with derivatives is in trouble?

It's so blantant.

[Zhukov]

No,

Petty Bourgeois was a term used for the middle class in France during the time of the revolution. That term has no bearing on present day living standards.
The middle class during the French Revolution was just the normal bourgeois, actually. But arguing whether the term is still valid today is not worth talking about here and now.

Middle class, now, is a class of people who make a reasonable amount of income higher then the poor or lower classes but less the the wealthy class. Here in the USA we have poor people making around 20,000-35,000 dollars a year. Then we have middle class who are making 40-70,000 dollars a year and then we have the upper middle class making 70+ a year. These people are usually diluded and believe they're apart of the power structure when in fact they are the people who get ripped off the most because they have to hide their money in the stock market which usually collapses.


Ah, well, here you are incorrectly attributing class to wealth, rather than ones relation to productive forces, regardless of the type of society. If a worker at a steel mill - part of the working class - wins the lottery for a million dollars, do they suddenly become part of the capitalist class? No. You can't say that class means something different "now", especially when I suspect it's only so it can fit in with your poorly thought out arguments. Perhaps in colloquial terms middle class means how much money you earn, but it's still incorrect.

Unions have a very large effect on how classes work because if you're in a good Union and I emphasis GOOD not Corrupt but well managed, you can negotiate higher wages, benefits, and pension plan. You can also have the ability to say NO to more work meaning people the employer has to higher more people, meaning more people in jobs, meaning money in the economy.

You said that the non-existence of unions also equals the non-existence of a middle class. Even going on your incorrect assumption that wealth equals class, a middle class can still exist; people can still be wealthy and not belong to a union. As a side note, your thoughts on how unions work are extremely sad.





She shuts down banks every Friday here in the states. sometimes 5, sometime 10, sometimes 20. Every week is more banks closing there doors but GoldManSachs, JPmorgan, citibank and other designated WINNERS get to stay in business with injections of cash from the Federal Reserve.
Seriously, list 20 banks that have been shut this last week. Don't make me go looking for your answers.


We already have 25% unemployment. You always have to double the number. We are in a global depression. Look around you. Did you not notice the trillions of dollars being used to bailout banks? did you not notice the tent cities? do you not see how almost every country that has worked with derivatives is in trouble?

It's so blantant.

Ok, so you have to 'double the number'... alright, well, we are doubling the official unemployment rates, right? So the Official rate of 25% during the depression in the US becomes 50%. If you 'double the numbers' of the official unemployment rate now, is it as high as 50%? If I double the numbers in my country it becomes 10.6%, which is a far cry away from doubled number 50%. Are you sure we should be doubling the numbers? Maybe adding ten and dividing by six then straight on till morning.

I did not notice the bailouts or tent cities. Like I said, there is no depression here.

[Colonel Flagg]

Get over it Flagg. It's just an internet forum. It's OK for people to think differently.

There are ALWAYS grey areas in every political or economic debate (applicable statement to many of our current threads, incidentally). The economy by some indications is in recovery, by others it is still in decline, and by still others it is stagnant. Well-respected economists don't all agree on this point, so why should we?

The key point, as I see it, for legislators is how to do the greatest good for the greatest number without pissiing off the remainder so much that you lose your job in 2-4 years. Hence the bailout, which incidentally BOTH presidential candidates in 2008 were FOR (which might be the last time R's and D's agreed on anything).

From my viewpoint (admittedly somewhat biased within my own economic situation) the worldwide economy is slowly recovering. It will not attain "before crash" status before the end of next year (wild guess) but gradually people are going back to work.

And note that not once did I denigrate your position, nor did I call into question your sanity, intellect or manhood. This is what "respecting differing points of view" is all about.

[TheCoolinator]

Ah, well, here you are incorrectly attributing class to wealth, rather than ones relation to productive forces, regardless of the type of society. If a worker at a steel mill - part of the working class

I don't believe in the term "working class". Everyone who is not an Investment banker or insurance parasite is "working class". I'm talking about Lower - Middle - and upper middle class.

All of these can be attributed to the living standard of the individual. If you're a steel working or a phone receptionist and both are making 40,000 to 70,000 a year.....Your both middle class.


You said that the non-existence of unions also equals the non-existence of a middle class. Even going on your incorrect assumption that wealth equals class, a middle class can still exist; people can still be wealthy and not belong to a union.

True,

A very small amount of people can be wealthy without any labor organization. You're correct.

A very, very ,very small amount of people can have all the wealth while the laborers with NO representation can continue to have their living standards slashed.



Seriously, list 20 banks that have been shut this last week. Don't make me go looking for your answers.

I can't think for you. You're going to have to be a big boy and do it yourself.


Ok, so you have to 'double the number'... .

Everyone knows that the government always finds ways to manipulate the unemployment figures. I don't know how old you are....probably very young seeing how feckless you are.....but in big boy land the unemployment numbers are always wrong and "discouraged workers" who don't show up anymore to collect their benefits get taken off the lists for unemployment payments.

Common sense. blatant reality. you have the internet. use it.

[TheCoolinator]

. Well-respected economists don't all agree on this point, so why should we?

Didn't I just say people have different opinions and come to different conclusions and they should be respected?

The key point, as I see it, for legislators is how to do the greatest good for the greatest number without pissiing off the remainder so much that you lose your job in 2-4 years. Hence the bailout, which incidentally BOTH presidential candidates in 2008 were FOR (which might be the last time R's and D's agreed on anything).

From my viewpoint (admittedly somewhat biased within my own economic situation) the worldwide economy is slowly recovering. It will not attain "before crash" status before the end of next year (wild guess) but gradually people are going back to work.

The bailout didn't save jobs. This is wrong. All the bailout did was give a large amount of money to investment banks for causing the global economic depression.

We bailed out their gambling debt while giving chicken feed to production based manufacturing.

If GoldmanSachs needs 20 billion dollars the checks in the mail.....Ford and GM needed a few million and they had to be dragged through the ringer.

And as you said BOTH Presidents Bush / Obama love the bailouts because that's who they work for. Look at the second to last sentence of the article I posted above.

Don't be fooled by this notion that the bailout actually helped the economy.....all it did was inject capital into zombie banks that are completely insolvent due to their speculative toxic paper (derivatives).

And if people do go back to work it won't be for the same pay, they are slashing our standard of living, imposing austerity measures, and creating new taxes paid to private for-profit interests. Please, I implore you, read the full article.

1.5 QUADRILLION dollars of world wide derivative debts.

[Kitsa]

stupid dbl post stupid quote thing sry sry

[Kitsa]

Grr the quote thing keeps breaking but this is about the banks thing.



Seriously? The burden of proof is on you, Coolinator, not him. You're the one who threw out the factoid. He's not even asking for your sources, he's just asking you which twenty banks closed this week.

I mean, hell, we could all do that. Uh, 50 new hemorrhagic fevers were discovered last month. No, don't ask me for more information about them...you have an internet connection, find it yourself.

[Zhukov]

I don't believe in the term "working class". Everyone who is not an Investment banker or insurance parasite is "working class". I'm talking about Lower - Middle - and upper middle class.

In society there are usually classes. There is a bottom rung low class, sometimes a middle class, and an upper or ruling class. Depending on the socio-economic structure of the society in question, these classes can represent several different groups and their relation to the economy. During Feudal times, there was an aristocratic ruling class, a middle merchant class, and a peasant class. The revolutions in the past centuries that led to a switch in ruling power also caused a switch in economic power, in fact, the two go hand in hand; the middle merchant class, the bourgeoisie, became the ruling class, and the lower peasant class mostly became the working class. The birth of capitalist society also led to the creation of a new middle class, the petite bourgeois, of smaller capitalists that purchase labour from the working class, but do not own the means of production like the ruling capitalist class do.

We attribute class to the relation one has to the economy rather than simply how much wealth they have because these terms mean something from an economic, and also historic, point of view. You do not see "the rich" being in power, or "the poor" being the base of a revolution for this reason, even though the rich may be part of the ruling class, and the poor may be part of the lower class. This is too simple, as the economy is the main structure of the society, rather than 'having money', and economic developments do not and have not come about from 'having money', rather, they come about through the interests of one class clashing with another.

Capitalism did not overthrow Feudalism simply because the middle class had more money than the feudal lords, it came about because the bourgeois were controlling the economic power through trade more so than the Feudal lords were through taxes and land rights. They held economic power, so they took political power.

If class simply meant wealth, then why would the word 'class' even be used? Why 'middle class' when we could just say 'middle wealthy'? Why would there be low, middle and upper class, when there are people that are more wealthy than low but not middle? Lower middle? Upper middle? Upper upper middle? I could go on.

DON'T YOU SEE? YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVING THAT CLASS MEANS WEALTH? DON'T YOU SEE?

Actually, never mind. There is no point typing this and there is no point you typing a reply, because you will be completely wrong.

All of these can be attributed to the living standard of the individual. If you're a steel working or a phone receptionist and both are making 40,000 to 70,000 a year.....Your both middle class.

No, your an idiot.


A very small amount of people can be wealthy without any labor organization. You're correct.

A very, very ,very small amount of people can have all the wealth while the laborers with NO representation can continue to have their living standards slashed.
"A small amount of people" outside of a union still means your "middle class" exists. But this is idiotic to argue since you don't even know what you are talking about. By the way, I'm not part of a union and I live quite well.




I can't think for you. You're going to have to be a big boy and do it yourself.

Straight from the VinceZeb school of "Make my argument for me". Max would love you if he were around. You make what sounds to me like a rather outrageous statement, and then when I ask you to back it up you ... you tell me to back it up for you? Why would I?

The moon is made of cheese!

Prove it

YOU PROVE IT! I CAN'T THINK FOR YOU!



Everyone knows that the government always finds ways to manipulate the unemployment figures. I don't know how old you are....probably very young seeing how feckless you are.....but in big boy land the unemployment numbers are always wrong and "discouraged workers" who don't show up anymore to collect their benefits get taken off the lists for unemployment payments.

Common sense. blatant reality. you have the internet. use it.
I do know that official unemployment figures are only related to a certain percentage of people. You said that we should double the official percentages, so, we double the official percentages of the mid thirties and we get 50%, higher than your post-doubled percentage of 25%. Much higher.

[Dimnos]

What really makes me sad for this country is that a Communist Russia loving Aussie from Tasmania know more about the economic and political standing and working of our country than someone like Coolie, who actually lives here. :tear

Stay golden Zhukov. Your a credit to your country.

[Colonel Flagg]

Didn't I just say people have different opinions and come to different conclusions and they should be respected?

That was my point, dude. We actually agree. :shocked Except that you (see below) seem to think that you're right and I'm wrong, and will stop at nothing to convince me of this truism.

The bailout didn't save jobs. This is wrong.

With all due respect, this statement is horseshit. There are many examples where tax-credits and business incentives (which were part of the bailout) were used to expand former "cottage industries" into full-fledged 24/7 employers. Look it up. :lol


Please, I implore you, read the full article.

The article is also complete horeshit. All written from the right without any view from the center or left.

You disappoint me. I thought you were an independent thinker.

[Kitsa]

YOU THOUGHT HE WAS AN INDEPENDENT THINKER

YOU IGNORANT FUCK :picklehat

[Dimnos]

:lol

[Zhukov]

:lol

[TheCoolinator]

In society there are usually classes. There is a bottom rung low class, sometimes a middle class, and an upper or ruling class. Depending on the socio-economic structure of the society in question, these classes can represent several different groups and their relation to the economy.

Didn't i just say this in my last post? Seems like everyone here loves to agree with me but they change the words around a little to make it sound different. What's the problem with just saying....."yes, that's how classes work".


During Feudal times, there was an aristocratic ruling class, a middle merchant class, and a peasant class. The revolutions in the past centuries that led to a switch in ruling power also caused a switch in economic power, in fact, the two go hand in hand; the middle merchant class, the bourgeoisie, became the ruling class, and the lower peasant class mostly became the working class.

LOL, Zhukov,

you've been reading the wrong books buddy. Nothing has changed. The "revolution" as you put it didn't change anything. There are numbers sub classes but the two main classes are this

There is a ruling Oligarchy

and then there is you


Poor, Middle, upper middle, and upper class are economically based BUT they are all ruled the the Oligarchical financiers. Maybe I should've been a bit more clear but I didn't think this would drag on for so long.

Eitherway. Your wrong. Whoever told you that pile of garbage that you just typed out is absolutely wrong. Research Oligarchy.

The birth of capitalist society also led to the creation of a new middle class, the petite bourgeois, of smaller capitalists that purchase labour from the working class, but do not own the means of production like the ruling capitalist class do.

When and where are you speaking of? It would be nice to know which countries history you are speaking about because all of them have different stories behind them.

There has always been a small battle between labor and employers and on a bigger scale there has always been a battle between the Oligarchy and the people.

Everything else is a sub-category.


We attribute class to the relation one has to the economy rather than simply how much wealth they have because these terms mean something from an economic, and also historic, point of view. You do not see "the rich" being in power, or "the poor" being the base of a revolution for this reason, even though the rich may be part of the ruling class, and the poor may be part of the lower class. This is too simple, as the economy is the main structure of the society, rather than 'having money', and economic developments do not and have not come about from 'having money', rather, they come about through the interests of one class clashing with another.

Are you kidding me? Who has more sway in government affairs? Weathly financiers or dirt farming peasants? Where the hell did you get this information from?

Every time you say "relation with the economy" you agree with me. That's all. Please acknowledge this.


If class simply meant wealth, then why would the word 'class' even be used? Why 'middle class' when we could just say 'middle wealthy'? Why would there be low, middle and upper class, when there are people that are more wealthy than low but not middle? Lower middle? Upper middle? Upper upper middle? I could go on.

If you can't understand the relation to wealth, economy, and natural resources to the class one holds in a society then I don't know what to tell you.



"A small amount of people" outside of a union still means your "middle class" exists. But this is idiotic to argue since you don't even know what you are talking about. By the way, I'm not part of a union and I live quite well.

There are some people outside of unions that hold a middle class income yes, but a healthy economy needs labor organizations because the corporate oligarchical structure will always seek to lower standards of living, quality of life, and the destruction of old age pensions.




I do know that official unemployment figures are only related to a certain percentage of people. You said that we should double the official percentages, so, we double the official percentages of the mid thirties and we get 50%, higher than your post-doubled percentage of 25%. Much higher.

5 percent more is much higher? you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.

[Dimnos]

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pvchrEynXCY6fj49cbX9qEqcNVqgiW6f1eXbHYhSlzIpMiry tiHAJUC6NiviI-cW5VXd6mrpsXsbVqNXwFy5TIw/dog-poop2.jpg

...

[Zhukov]

Didn't i just say this in my last post? Seems like everyone here loves to agree with me but they change the words around a little to make it sound different. What's the problem with just saying....."yes, that's how classes work".

NO! NO you didn't just say that in your last post. Are you serious? What the fuck? You said class was determined by wealth, and I said that class is determined by ones relation to the economy, as in, ones standing in society. Are you a wage labourer or an employer? Are you a small business owner or are you a major share holder in a world wide mining corporation? These are the thing that affect what class you can be considered part of, not how much money you have.


LOL, Zhukov,

you've been reading the wrong books buddy. Nothing has changed. The "revolution" as you put it didn't change anything. There are numbers sub classes but the two main classes are this

There is a ruling Oligarchy

and then there is you

The... I am having trouble getting my head around this level of ignorance... the various revolutions (plural) of the last few centuries haven't changed anything in your point of view? I mean, I would say that it all certainly seems to be of a similar looking structure; top, bottom classes etc, but to say that things haven't changed as far as man's relation to society... ok, I understand now. See, if you foolishly believe that class is determined by wealth, then you would see nothing wrong with this point of view. Unfortunately, every single social scientist, economist and historian on the planet disagrees with you because you are wrong.

You wont see any difference between the oligarchs of ancient slave societies based on agriculture, or the "Oligarchs" of modern capitalist society based on industry because you are a moron.

There are the thinking, intelligent, often humuorous but usually on the ball members of this forum.

And then there is you.


Poor, Middle, upper middle, and upper class are economically based BUT they are all ruled the the Oligarchical financiers.

DO you know what an "Oligarchical Financier" is? This is just a nothing term from you that sounds mildly imposing. What does it mean when the "Oligarchical Financiers" are ruling the middle class? Please tell.


Eitherway. Your wrong. Whoever told you that pile of garbage that you just typed out is absolutely wrong. Research Oligarchy.

Research Bumbag


When and where are you speaking of? It would be nice to know which countries history you are speaking about because all of them have different stories behind them. I'm talking about the world. I think you will find that, although all different, a basic structure of economic development can be seen throughout the history of mans various civilisations. Obviously you would not see any "different stories behind them" because you don't think anything has actually changed.

There has always been a small battle between labor and employers and on a bigger scale there has always been a battle between the Oligarchy and the people.

Everything else is a sub-category.

No. There hasn't always been a small battle between labour and employers because their relation to the economy and society is a strictly capitalistic one, a recent thing by human standards of history. You utter, utter twit.




Are you kidding me? Who has more sway in government affairs? Weathly financiers or dirt farming peasants? Where the hell did you get this information from?
What? When did I say anything about peasants having more political power than "wealthy financiers"? I honestly have no idea what you read in what I typed. You are insane.

Every time you say "relation with the economy" you agree with me. That's all. Please acknowledge this.

Wealth does not mean your relation to the economy. The way you affect (not effect) the economy is your relation to it, not the amount of money you have. A person working in a factory relates to the economy as seller of labour and a producer of goods. This is how you define class, not how much money the person has.



If you can't understand the relation to wealth, economy, and natural resources to the class one holds in a society then I don't know what to tell you.


Uh, this sounds suspiciously like you are stealing my words and throwing them back at me, but using them incorrectly. You've also gone from saying that wealth determines class, to wealth AND 'economy'... I'm also guessing you mean economic standing, because people don't actually own economies, they simply are part of them.


(I'll leave out "natural resources" because that is embarrassing. Oh, wait, do you mean the ownership of the means of production? The ownership of a nation's oil reserves, for example? Suddenly you have gone from "$70k a year means upper class"... to "$70k a year and owning the means of capital" which sounds like you sliding down the slippery slope of I 'was wrong but wont admit it while slowly changing my opinion')


There are some people outside of unions that hold a middle class income yes, but a healthy economy needs labor organizations because the corporate oligarchical structure will always seek to lower standards of living, quality of life, and the destruction of old age pensions.

You said that without unions there is no middle class. You also alluded to the fact that unions are something that we will see less of now that there are Death Panels here to genocide them into oblivion, does that mean that your middle class will disappear?




5 percent more is much higher? you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.
Uh, the difference between 25 and 50 is more than 5... It's actually 25. You know, I googled Detroit Unemployment rate, and the first hit was from the huffington post :lol Anyway, let's say we raise the figures of Detroit's unemployment rate to 50%, this still does not equal a worldwide depression, does it?

[TheCoolinator]

Are you a small business owner or are you a major share holder in a world wide mining corporation? These are the thing that affect what class you can be considered part of, not how much money you have.

That's an outdated point of view then. Money talks, bullshit walks.



DO you know what an "Oligarchical Financier" is?

Who got the largest share of the banker / insurance bailouts?




You said that without unions there is no middle class.

With no labor organization to protect middle class workers then their living standards will be lowered to the point of the poor class. Which is what has happened. Find a chart that compares the fall of unions to the disappearing middle class.

Even if an individual is not in a union his wages are padded by the existance of union wages no matter what. If a company doesn't offer as much if not higher wages then why would that person want to work there? That person would go work for a union instead. Why waste time at a job that is not going to pay you a living wage and pension? Unless your destitute which most people are because we are in a global depression. Hence the high unemployment, tent cities, bailouts, extension of unemployment welfare, so on and so forth.

Also, Union workers who get paid more spend more, another reason why they are good for the economy.

blah blah blah

So what do you think we should do about the 1.5 Quadrillion dollars in derivative paper that's causing the world economic depression?

[Colonel Flagg]

So what do you think we should do about the 1.5 Quadrillion dollars in derivative paper that's causing the world economic depression?


Dude, that's your opinion. And the opinion of several individuals who agree with you. In my opinion there is no depression, worldwide or otherwise.

We disagree.

Can you dig it? :rave

[TheCoolinator]

Dude, that's your opinion. And the opinion of several individuals who agree with you. In my opinion there is no depression, worldwide or otherwise.

We disagree.

Can you dig it?

So,

We didn't have to bailout the Investment banks because of the 1.5 Quadrillion dollars in worthless derivative paper?

And....we didn't have to create a stimulus package that saved one of our last manufacturing bases: Ford & GM?

And....we didn't have to extend unemployment benefits?

and....we didn't have to cut social services?

and....we didn't run up a 3 trillion dollar debt bill?

and ....we are not in a depression....ok...i see your point now.

[Dimnos]

And....we didn't have to create a stimulus package that saved one of our last manufacturing bases: Ford & GM?



Wait! Arent you the guy who said the bailouts didnt save one single job? :confused:

[TheCoolinator]

Wait! Arent you the guy who said the bailouts didnt save one single job?

No jobs were saved by the bailout.

The stimulus saved some jobs in the manufacturing sector. There is a difference between the two.

Also, the UAW was busted and had to take numerous concessions. Lower pay, losing most of their pension..and so on and so forth.

[Colonel Flagg]

[...]we are not in a depression....ok...i see your point now.

You heard it here first. :lol

Seriously, Coolie, I don't WANT or NEED you to agree with me. I don't particularly care if you do or not. I have an opinion, that I shared with you - either agree or disagree, but don't belittle it - in fact, when you do you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing to you.

It's an opinion. We all have 'em.

[TheCoolinator]

but don't belittle it

It's an opinion. We all have 'em.

Hey,

I was backing up your point. We aren't in a depression. The bailouts don't exist. The stimulus doesn't exist. Unemployment isn't over single digits. Everything is hunky-dory.

(cracks open a beer)

[Colonel Flagg]

:highfive

[Zhukov]

That's an outdated point of view then. Money talks, bullshit walks.

"It's outdated because I didn't read it first on one of my conspiracy websites. WAH WAH WAH. Here, have a ridiculous rhyme that means nothing but might just dazzle you for long enough to make my escape from a proper discussion into the land of idiotville."



Who got the largest share of the banker / insurance bailouts? Why, the Stockbroking Technocrats, of course. You thought it was the Oligarchical Financiers? YOU IGNORANT FUCK.

Anyway, how does this explain what an Oligarchical Financier is? It doesn't, it's just you trying to avoid a question you don't know the answer to. Here's a tip: This makes you look like a moron much more than if you just admit you were wrong. Not that I expect you to do that.


Also, Union workers who get paid more spend more, another reason why they are good for the economy.

Here you are arguing that unions are important, rather than what you originally were called out on; no unions means no middle class. Once again, you're an idiot that has just been reduced to hastily building a strawman out of something that nobody will argue with in the hope that I might become confused that this is what we were talking about two posts ago.


So what do you think we should do about the 1.5 Quadrillion dollars in derivative paper that's causing the world economic depression?

I think you should make a house out of all that paper and live like a crazy hermit far away from high functioning adults. OH OH DETROIT HAS 50% UNEMPLOYMENT, OBVIOUSLY THAT MEANS THE WORLD IS IN A DEPRESSION.

Because Detroit equals the world.


Strangely enough, I'm not entirely convinced that Detroit has an unemployment rate that high, but that's not too important, you've moved on from unemployment rates after you saw you were wrong, and have now INGENIOUSLY turned the discussion into one about derivative paper, which, I am not embarrassed to admit, I have no idea is.

This conversation is over. You just ignore what doesn't agree with you and try to weasel out of your original wrong points of view without having to admit you were wrong. You're an idiot.

[The Leader]

I could see Detroit having a 50% unemployment rate as only five people actually live within city limits, and one of them is a android so I don't know if he would even count as a person.

[kahljorn]

5 percent more is much higher? you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.yea and washington dc has like a 50% murder rate so apparantly the world is also in world war three

also i didnt wan to be picky or make you feel retarded but detroit isnt a state :O

maybe im just being semantical

[Dimnos]

you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.


YOU FOOL. YOU FOOLISH FOOL. :x

[Colonel Flagg]

I just read that.

Yeah, I know the capitals of all the states. Ask me the capital of Detroit. :lol2

[TheCoolinator]

I have no idea is.

lol, ok. :lol

Want me to explain them to you?

[Zhukov]

As bizarre as it may seem, no, I would rather someone that isn't bereft of a brain explain it to me.

Anyone?

[The Leader]

Would someone who knows their states count?

[Zhukov]

I would have trouble naming the states in the USA.


Give me the skinny, Leader.

[The Leader]

I think that he's just talking about derivatives, like options and futures. I don't know why he added paper in there unless it's because he speaks silly head.

[The Leader]

And you have to admit, for a American to think that a city is a state they have to be a pretty big silly head.

[Zhukov]

I'm going to think that it was an accident. He has trouble enough understanding your-you're, there-their-they're etc.


I don't know what a derivative paper is. Is "paper" just a word for money?




We have money made of plastic here.

[TheCoolinator]

I don't know what a derivative paper is. Is "paper" just a word for money?


We have money made of plastic here.

Are you ready for a lesson on derivatives?? :confused:

[Zhukov]

If it's just "derivative money" then no. I've never heard the term with 'paper' used before.

[The Leader]

IT MAKES IT SOUND SOPHISTICATED

[TheCoolinator]

If it's just "derivative money" then no. I've never heard the term with 'paper' used before.

Nope, that's not it,

Just tell me when you're ready for the lesson. I'll be here.

[Zhukov]

I'm sorry The Coolinator, but you've already proven yourself to be rather lacking in the brains department, so I think I will continue to live my life without knowing what the fuck you are rambling about.

[The Leader]

DETROIT IS A STATE I TELL YOU

[Tadao]

It's probably because he copy posted off of one of his favorite talking points websites without actually reading it. I doubt he would have caught it if he tried to read it anyways.

[TheCoolinator]

DETROIT IS A STATE I TELL YOU

Yes, I know, I made a mistake. It's all very funny.

Seriously though, Does anyone here know what a financial derivative is? :confused:

[The Leader]

Seriously though, did you completely miss my post and Zhukov's post where we talked about financial derivatives?

[TheCoolinator]

Seriously though, did you completely miss my post and Zhukov's post where we talked about financial derivatives?

Options and futures are the openly traded variety of them. What are the secretly traded ones called? :confused:

[The Leader]

I don't know what the "secretly traded" ones are called because they're secret, so how would I know?

[TheCoolinator]

so how would I know?

If you want a lesson in financial derivatives all you have to do is ask. :love

[The Leader]

Then tell us stuff we already know already!

[Zhukov]

The Leader and I had quite a lengthy discussion on derivatives a few pages back. Did you miss that, or are you blind?

[The Leader]

He can't read. :(

[Dimnos]

I think Mew forgot to add it to his replicant programming. It will probably be added in a future update.

[The Leader]

GUYS I'VE FIGURED IT OUT. Ok, on Coolie's latest blog post he quoted an article that used the term "financial paper." Coolie just got confused and thought that putting paper and derivatives together would actually mean something.

[TheCoolinator]

^ Did you read the article?

[The Leader]

Did you?

[TheCoolinator]

Yes.

Are we in a depression?

[Dimnos]

No.

[TheCoolinator]

No.

Ok.

[Dimnos]

That was easy. :lol

[Pentegarn]

Wow, miss a day, miss a lot

Unofficially there is about 25-30% national unemployment in the USA. They always cook the books. People are living in tent cities (Hoovervilles / Obamavilles), people are taking drastic pay cuts, the production base of the USA is completely destroyed by "Free Trade" agreements. Unions are being broken (without unions there is no middle class),

Investment banks (foreign and domestic) have taken trillions of dollars in "bailout" money because of their toxic deriviatives. Other banks are going bust. I believe 20+ banks went under in the last week.

I think its safe to say we are in a full blown world depression. It's effected almost every nation on the globe.

and It's all because of investment houses and their derivative paper which I may add was illegal at one time.

Look, as an objectivist, I dislike Obama's policies more then pretty much anyone. That being said, even I don't buy what you just said. Saying "Unofficially unemployment is at 20-30%" isn't saying shit. I unofficially get 15 blow jobs a week if I count thinking about them during masturbation, but it doesn't count. Just like pay cuts do not count as unemployment.

Also blaming the housing bubble alone on the current state of the economy is rather short sighted. This has been a long time coming. It has been building up to a slow boil since the early 90s. There have been a few bubbles besides housing in that time that have in their own way, contributed to this mess. All the bubble has done has moved from one event to another, growing a little bigger each time. Any one thing alone would have meant little overall, but trying to cushion all of these smaller bubbles (housing included) led to this mess.

In conclusion, 10% unemployment does not, a depression make

[Pentegarn]

5 percent more is much higher? you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.

The most astonishing part of this fact is Detroit is (apparently) a state now :confused: :lol

PS: I know it was already covered, I just wanted to have my turn too

[Colonel Flagg]

Are we in a depression?

Nope. You read it here twice. Which makes it the Gospel according to i-Mock.

Now we can lock this thread and talk about stuff that's really important. Like hockey.

[TheCoolinator]

Saying "Unofficially unemployment is at 20-30%" isn't saying shit.

We all know they cook the books. It's a fact of life. We have very high unemployment in this country with little or no manufacturing base. I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been talked about since the depression began.



Also blaming the housing bubble alone on the current state of the economy is rather short sighted.

I'm not blaming the housing bubble on the world economic depression. Maybe idiots like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity do because it's a big reactionary lie that they have to keep repeating but as I said before it's the 1.5 QUADRILLION dollars of financial speculative derivative paper which is unregulated and almost to an extent untraceable unless Goldman Sachs and the other investment bank parasites opens their books to government banking regulators.




Nope. You read it here twice. Which makes it the Gospel according to i-Mock.

What's the old saying?

When my neighbor looses his job its a recession.....when I loose my job it's a depression. You'll see.

[Dimnos]

Both my neighbor and I have our jobs. Hell my best friend who is a lazy fuck has a job. :lol We might not be prospering but its hardly a depression.

[Colonel Flagg]

Don't worry, Coolie. Eventually you will be proven right, and just like Cassandra from Greek Mythology, everyone who didn't listen to you will suffer the consequences.

[TheCoolinator]

Don't worry, Coolie. Eventually you will be proven right.

Ummm....Eventually?

Have you seen the stock market lately? Bailouts? Wage cuts? :lol:lol:lol Please tell me, I need to know, how do you guys get so detached from reality? Or are you just disagreeing with me so we have something to haggle about?

[The Leader]

Please tell me, I need to know, how do you guys get so detached from reality? Or are you just disagreeing with me so we have something to haggle about?
:|

[TheCoolinator]

401k's have taken a huge hit as well.

[Dimnos]

Ummm....Eventually?

Have you seen the stock market lately? Bailouts? Wage cuts?

Dude that was SOOOOO last year. Get with the times man.

401k's have taken a huge hit as well.

401k? IRAs are where its at son.

[TheCoolinator]

401k? IRAs are where its at son.

Can't deny that. Gold backed IRA's are even better.

[Colonel Flagg]

401k? IRAs are where its at son.

My IRA is up 40% from last year. :)

[Dimnos]

I think mine did right about the same. :)

[TheCoolinator]

My IRA is up 40% from last year. :)

I think mine did right about the same. :)

IRA's are different than 401k's

[The Leader]

:lol

Learn to read, Coolie.

[TheCoolinator]

401k's and other investments tied to derivatives will be smashed the minute the bailouts stop coming. How long can it go before it completely crashes? Any bets? I say 1 more year until the DOW goes below 8,000 :)

[Dimnos]

The amount of cash my derivatives are worth has incresed by 40% between the end of last month and the end of last year. Or over the period of three months it has grown a substantial amount. That warrants a :) on my part.

[TheCoolinator]

The amount of cash my derivatives are worth has incresed by 40% between the end of last month and the end of last year. Or over the period of three months it has grown a substantial amount. That warrants a on my part.

:lol I have a strange feeling you still don't understand the meaning of derivatives, speculative paper, instruments, toxic assets, etc etc.....lambs to the slaughter.:sleep

[The Leader]

lambs for the slaughter.:sleep
I love how someone who is constantly wrong is so full of himself.

[TheCoolinator]

I love how someone who is constantly wrong is so full of himself.

What was I wrong about?

Be more specific in your posts.

[The Leader]

You wouldn't know.

[TheCoolinator]

You wouldn't know.

:lol

No, please,

this is fun. Tell me exactly where I was wrong.

[The Leader]

Death panels, global warming, basically everything that you've written about. What's sad is that you're not intelligent enough to know when you don't make sense and you actually believe that you've convinced people of something.

[TheCoolinator]

Death panels, global warming, .

TheLeader, Buddy, Pal.....

We've been over this before. Can you prove to me in an intelligent way (No caps lock rants, No questioning my comprehension abilities) that either of these things DO NOT (Death panels) or DO (Global Warming) exist?

Please. Go on. I'm all ears.

[The Leader]

TheLeader, Buddy, Pal.....

We've been over this before. Can you prove to me in an intelligent way (No caps lock rants, No questioning my comprehension abilities) that either of these things DO NOT exist?

Please. Go on. I'm all ears.
I'm quoting this to preserve it. The reason is because I never argued against global warming. You were the individual who claims it to be a hoax. You cannot even keep your story straight.

We have already gone over why the death panels don't exist. Methods used to choose who gets what care are needed so that more people get what they need. This has been how health care has always been handled and it is not intended to hurt people. Claiming that deciding who needs what is genocide is not logical. I suggest you re-read the proper thread.

[The Leader]

Oops, you caught your mistake. I wasn't sure if it was one because you seem to have a hard time keeping your stance straight.

[Pentegarn]

We all know they cook the books. It's a fact of life. We have very high unemployment in this country with little or no manufacturing base. I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been talked about since the depression began.

Then show some solid facts to back this up. The numbers you are seeing come from various State departments of Job and Family Services, since unemployment benefits have been extended longer then the actual economic downturn has lasted (I was unemployed through most of it, so I would know this) the numbers don't need to be cooked. The 10% you are seeing is pretty much accurate.

[The Leader]

I don't think he comprehends what solid facts would actually be.

[Pentegarn]

The thing that pisses me off is I have relatives that lived through the real depression and calling this slightly uncomfortable economy a depression is an insult to what they went through. If Coolie thinks this is a depression, he will be sorely lacking in coping skills should an actual depression happen.

Here's some facts for you Coolie:

In the last 2 years, I have not once had to migrate from state to state looking at sign after sign saying "No employment here, move along drifters"

I have not had to save bacon grease as a substitute for lard.

I have not had difficulty finding food at stores.

I have not waited in one bread line.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point. When these things all start becoming part of our daily lives, then you can talk to me about a depression.

[Dimnos]

:lol I have a strange feeling you still don't understand the meaning of derivatives, speculative paper, instruments, toxic assets, etc etc.....lambs to the slaughter.:sleep

uh-uh! My IRA is a contract between me and my financial planner that has a value based on the assets within! :Cooli

Man that was sad. Now I regret doing it.:suicide

[The Leader]

The thing that pisses me off is I have relatives that lived through the real depression. If Coolie thinks this is a depression, he will be sorely lacking in coping skills should an actual depression happen.
I also don't think that history is a strong suite of his either. :\

[Colonel Flagg]

The thing that pisses me off is I have relatives that lived through the real depression and calling this slightly uncomfortable economy a depression is an insult to what they went through. If Coolie thinks this is a depression, he will be sorely lacking in coping skills should an actual depression happen.

Here's some facts for you Coolie:

In the last 2 years, I have not once had to migrate from state to state looking at sign after sign saying "No employment here, move along drifters"

I have not had to save bacon grease as a substitute for lard.

I have not had difficulty finding food at stores.

I have not waited in one bread line.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point. When these things all start becoming part of our daily lives, then you can talk to me about a depression.

Someone else understands. :)

I wasn't going to bring it up, since he already thinks I'm a fool, but I remember 21% inflation, COLA's, gas rationing and a near 50% drop in the DOW from 1050+ to the mid 570's. And this was the '70's.

And that wasn't a depression. There the Dow lost nearly 90% of its value over a 2 1/2 year period. My Dad and my Mom's parents had many stories about that time period.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[The Leader]

He's young, though, so it's not his fault that he doesn't understand. Oh wait, I'm young too. I guess Coolie's just stupid. :\

[TheCoolinator]

The financial crisis which struck the United States and the world in September and October 2008 was in fact a world a derivatives panic. This panic marked the first phase of a world economic depression caused by derivatives speculation. The second phase of this depression, which is now beginning, can also be attributed in large part to derivatives, since derivatives are the main tool being used in the speculative attacks on Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and other nations, building up towards a chaotic collapse of the euro.

^ This isn't difficult to comprehend.

Also....Peter Orzsag - Head of the Death Panel.

[The Leader]

No, it isn't difficult to comprehend. It is, however, difficult for you to comprehend other people and what they write. It is also difficult for you to comprehend what the difference between a recession and a depression is.

[TheCoolinator]

No, it isn't difficult to comprehend. It is, however, difficult for you to comprehend other people and what they write. It is also difficult for you to comprehend what the difference between a recession and a depression is.

Ok, Shall we go to the dictionary then? :lol

Recession:

A significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting longer than a few months.It is visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade. The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's GDP.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/RecessionDepression:

A severe and prolonged recession characterized by inefficient economic productivity, high unemployment, and falling price levels.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Depression
The financial crisis which struck the United States and the world in September and October 20082008-2010 is more than a "FEW MONTHS". :lol

Ahhh.....swoosh!

[The Leader]

Yes, if you re-read the definitions you posted you would see that a recession must last for more than a few months. You just proved yourself wrong.

[TheCoolinator]

Yes, if you re-read the definitions you posted you would see that a recession must last for more than a few months. You just proved yourself wrong.

2008-2010+ is a prolonged recession. :love

next.

[The Leader]

It could be considered that but it's far from severe. Of course you wouldn't know that because you aren't exactly aware of reality.

[TheCoolinator]

It could be considered that but it's far from severe.

Far from severe? Have you read the news lately? :lol

Do a search on "rising homeless", "tent cities", "bailouts", "foreclosures", "wage cuts", "falling standard of living", etc, etc...

[The Leader]

Do a search on "rising homeless", "tent cities", "bailouts", "foreclosures", "wage cuts", "falling standard of living", etc, etc...
Well you see Coolie, there are these things called books and studies. Some of them aren't online and they tell you a lot about the world. If we weren't going through a depression in the 70's then we aren't going through one now. Not that you would know about what I'm referring to because you weren't born yet.

[TheCoolinator]

Well you see Coolie, there are these things called books and studies. Some of them aren't online and they tell you a lot about the world. If we weren't going through a depression in the 70's then we aren't going through one now. Not that you would know about what I'm referring to because you weren't born yet.

:lol

Was there trillions of dollars being used to bailout bankrupt investment houses in the 1970's???

Was there Free Trade Laws passed before the 1970's???

You cannot compare the 1970's dip to 1.5 QUADRILLION dollars worth of investment bank debts. No chance. No way. No how.

Next.

[The Leader]

No, you can't because things were even worse for people then than they are now.

[Pentegarn]

:lol

Was there trillions of dollars being used to bailout bankrupt investment houses in the 1970's???

Was there Free Trade Laws passed before the 1970's???

You cannot compare the 1970's dip to 1.5 QUADRILLION dollars worth of investment bank debts. No chance. No way. No how.

Next.

Let's use Coolie logic to answer this.

If you allow for inflation that has happened in the 30 years since, and then apply those figures to the 70s, you would indeed see that the 70s were far worse than now

Check


And mate

[The Leader]

Next.

[TheCoolinator]

Let's use Coolie logic to answer this.

If you allow for inflation that has happened in the 30 years since, and then apply those figures to the 70s, you would indeed see that the 70s were far worse than now

And how much money was that? How much money was spent to kick start the economy in the 70's, exactly and what was it spent on? :lol

answer please?

[The Leader]

You're a big boy, shouldn't you be able to figure it out on your own?

[TheCoolinator]

You're a big boy, shouldn't you be able to figure it out on your own?

Your the ones hiding behind this "theory" you just created....shouldn't you have all the numbers at the ready?

Question:

How much money was spent in 1970's on the economy? And is it even CLOSE to the amount of money being spent today? And how long did it last?

It's your retort. Prove it. :lol

[The Leader]

Oh, what's the matter Coolie? You don't like it when people mimic the way you post?

[TheCoolinator]

Oh, what's the matter Coolie? You don't like it when people mimic the way you post?

I'm just saying if you're going to pull out a theory like that out of the air then at least back it up.

How much money was spent in the 1970's on the economy and does it equal the amount we are spending today?

Very simple question. If you don't have an answer then its.....

Check

and

mate :lol

[The Leader]

So you're saying that all of the times that you have pulled things out of the air and then refused to back them up that you were making it all up!? Why Coolie, why couldn't you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?

[TheCoolinator]

So you're saying that all of the times that you have pulled things out of the air and then refused to back them up that you were making it all up!? Why Coolie, why couldn't you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?

Does it eat you up inside that you can't prove any of this wrong? :love


(prepares for cap lock rant)

[Pentegarn]

I love how he repeatedly throws out the 1.5 quadrillion figure out there when cars cost a fraction of what they cost now in the 70s and the average income was much much lower then. Inflation at work. An intelligent person would instead compare cost of living percentages, quality of life (no bread lines now are there? No masses of drifters moving from city to city looking for work?), and % of unemployment. 1.5 quadrillion world wide is not a big deal when even whopper floppers make 5 figures annually. In America alone there are roughly 200 million workers nationwide

So lets say for the sake of this illustration they all make 20000 per year :lol

200,000,000 * 20,000 = 4,000,000,000,000

That's 4 trillion, by itself, before you take into account any variables like uber rich, business owners, and the like. One country, just one. We aren't even the top overall country when it comes to earnings. We are around 9th last I heard...

Multiply in all the other places that pull down that earning power (Japan, UK, France, Netherlands, Australia, etc) And that 1.5 quadrillion number is put into perspective

There's your numbers, but any high school level economics student could have told you that

[The Leader]

Does it eat you up inside that you can't prove any of this wrong? :love


(prepares for cap lock rant)
Are you so dense that you cannot be eaten up inside by the knowledge that you are a complete fink?

(prepares for some horribly unwitty remark which of course has been repeated numerous times before)

[Colonel Flagg]

As one who lived through this period of time (albeit I was very young at the time) I do remember most of the so-called "cash infusion" came in the form of rampant inflation - 21+% at its highest, if I recall correctly. (no I didn't bother looking it up) Times sucked. THere was rationing, COLA increases - there was even a wage-price freeze as Presidents Nixon and then Ford and Carter tried to come to terms with some of the worst economic times in my lifetime.

In a word, these times sucked.

Yet it still wasn't a depression. That would be worse.

Truth.

EDIT: And now I wait to be called a mumbling moron. Or be ignored totally. :\

[Colonel Flagg]

Pentegarn, your signature - it sounds like an argument a "certain someone" might make, doesn't it?

[TheCoolinator]

I love how he repeatedly throws out the 1.5 quadrillion figure out there

That's a quadrillion dollars worth of global derivative debt. "Troubled assets"


An intelligent person would instead compare cost of living percentages, quality of life (no bread lines now are there? No masses of drifters moving from city to city looking for work?), and % of unemployment.

US living standards have been cut by 2/3 since 1960 and more austerity measures are coming (Death Panels), Don't need bread lines anymore if food stamps come on credit cards, drifters are in the form of tent cities (google it), we have an unofficially number of 25-30% unemployment...depression levels...


1.5 quadrillion world wide is not a big deal
......
And that 1.5 quadrillion number is put into perspective


Gotcha!

1.5 quadrillion dollars worth of speculative derivative financial instruments is many, many, many times larger then the worlds GDP.

That's the entire globes...GDP. Are things coming into focus now?



That's 4 trillion, by itself,



We've spend much more then 4 trillion on the bailouts.....and we are keeping that spigot running. Bleeding us dry.

Won't know what hit ya when it comes but I'm sure you'll rationalize it like everything else.

[The Leader]

Won't know what hit ya when it comes but I'm sure you'll rationalize it like everything else.
Are you jealous that he is capable of such things?

[TheCoolinator]

Are you jealous that he is capable of such things?

Jealous isn't the word. More like Pity.

[The Leader]

Yeah, you would pity people capable of higher functions than you. That just seems to be how you work.

[kahljorn]

"Don't need bread lines anymore if food stamps come on credit cards"

yea cause in a real depression there would totally be enough food/money to just let people buy whatever they want from a grocery store.

[TheCoolinator]

Yeah, you would pity people capable of higher functions than you. That just seems to be how you work.

I'm sorry,

I'm not delusional. The depression exists.

[The Leader]

:lol
The first way I interpreted that post was that you were not delusional and that you were depressed because you actually understood what kind of a person you were.

Also, if it exists shouldn't you be able to prove it?:x

[TheCoolinator]

:lol
The first way I interpreted that post was that you were not delusional and that you were depressed because you actually understood what kind of a person you were.

Also, if it exists shouldn't you be able to prove it?:x

Just did. You just won't admit it because of some pride issue you're dealing with.

[The Leader]

Why do you think you constantly project your own feelings and shortcomings onto others? Is it because your father touched your butt hole when you were young?

[TheCoolinator]

Is it because your father touched your butt hole when you were young?

Got nothing left? I understand. Its OK.

[The Leader]

See previous post.

[Pentegarn]

Your the ones hiding behind this "theory" you just created....shouldn't you have all the numbers at the ready?

Question:

How much money was spent in 1970's on the economy? And is it even CLOSE to the amount of money being spent today? And how long did it last?

It's your retort. Prove it. :lol

You have to do your own research.

I'd post the "It's not my job to think for you" quote too, but I am getting tired and lazy about mocking you

[TheCoolinator]

I'd post the "It's not my job to think for you" quote too, but I am getting tired and lazy about mocking you

Did you do anymore research on financial derivatives? and how many are them floating around? and have they caused the depression?

[The Leader]

Coolie, tell me about your childhood and your parents.

[The Leader]

More specifically, tell me about your mother.

[Pentegarn]

Bottom line, you keep saying unofficial this and projected that. These are things that mean (pay attention here) NOT OFFICIAL!!!!!

They aren't official because they don't really exist. Unofficial unemployment is like my unofficial times I have banged Natalie Portman because I thought of her before I blew a wad. Only I am able to recognize how silly and wrong my unofficial figure is, and you can't recognize the same thing about yours.

Saying "gotcha" and quoting fragments of my post proves nothing other than you edit and spin

[Pentegarn]

Did you do anymore research on financial derivatives? and how many are them floating around? and have they caused the depression?

No, because there is no depression right now, this is a recession.

The recession of the 70s lasted longer. It is called a recession

The recession of the early 80s lasted longer, it is also called a recession

The recession of the mid 90s (internet bubble anyone?) lasted this long... guess what? It was a recession.

If you are going to argue that this is a depression, then you had better cough up proof that those 3 examples are as well or I am forced to officially inform you you are full of shit

[Colonel Flagg]

The 70's was the worst. Worse than the internet bubble, worse than the first few years of the Reagan Years (where deficit spending became a cottage industry for the gonvernment), and, yes, Coolinator, worse than the house of derivative paper cards that drove the financial houses to their bailout.

Can you even comprehend 21% inflation? People were getting 15% raises and losing money. People were getting 12% interest in their savings accounts and they were losing money. People were getting laid off in droves - my father among them. There was rationing, there was a wage-price freeze. Look it up if you don't believe me - I lived through those times.

Those years sucked worse from an economic standpoint than anything you've experienced in your lifetime.

But it wasn't a depression.

That would be even worse.

[Pentegarn]

Sadly he doesn't get that. People like him are fear-mongers who make the stupid think that it is worse than it actually is.

Trust me, if it were a depression, I would still be looking for work, and furthermore drifting to do so. The fact that I found work and didn't have to migrate to another town to do so puts lie to Coolinators whole house of cards theory. The fact that I was able to eat, internet, live under a roof on savings, and in fact pay all my bills (internet and cable included, things that depression era folks would call me rich for being able to pay I might add) disproves the depression bullshit even more so

In other words, I am living proof that Coolie is full of shit. :lol

I am however quite concerned that people like him exist. That there are people living in the times we live in, where food is abundant, luxury is exponentially more available than it was in the 20s and 30s, and even in our worst times 90% of eligible workers make some form of income while the other 10% get money from the govegivernment, that think we are in a depression makes me fear for our collective IQ. Maybe Idiocracy is more of a sign of things to come rather than a silly movie?

Could you imagine Coolie in an actual depression? He would kill himself inside of a week tops. He lacks the coping mechanism to deal with real crisis. That this thread exists is proof of that.

[Tadao]

Kids nowadays are wimps.

[Pentegarn]

While I am brow beating you Coolie, let me ask you what I once asked Microshock:

If everyone in this thread disagrees with you (and they do), why are you still tugging at this bone? When in the history of ever has one person been right and everyone else that ever existed been wrong? Name me one time that has happened, please.

[Colonel Flagg]

[...] drifters are in the form of tent cities (google it) [...]

Sad to say that I took the bait and "googled it" - and here's what I found:

Tent cities are a growing phenomenon around the country, mostly located in the inner cities of Detroit, Philadelphia, Camden, New York, etc. where there is a large homeless population. They are considered "holding patterns" for the many thousands of people who for one reason or another are out on the street without durable shelter.

But here's the thing - homeless people have been around for as long as we've had a society. Sometimes they stay in shelters, sometimes they stay in bus terminals sometimes on steam vents .... and sometimes in makeshift tents.

Saying that the derivative financial crisis caused tent cities is like saying that the present day greenhouse emissions caused the Medieval Warming Period. They are perhaps distantly related, but in no way does one have anything to do with causing the other.

There you have it. In order to disprove Coolie, just follow his instructions and "google it".

Next.

[Pentegarn]

I did so, awhile ago. Came to that exact conclusion (using our brains and what not)

But then I thought, "If I bother making that point, Coolie will just try and spin it into some sort of "Tent cities never existed before now" crap. Which is a flat out lie (NYC/LA anyone?). So ultimately, I never bothered to say so because you can lead an idiot to the truth, but you can't make him learn :lol

[Zhukov]

If everyone in this thread disagrees with you (and they do), why are you still tugging at this bone? When in the history of ever has one person been right and everyone else that ever existed been wrong? Name me one time that has happened, please.

The Galileo affair.

[Pentegarn]

I doubt everyone disagreed with Galileo. Maybe the majority disagreed with him, but even in those times I am sure there was a person or two who thought he was right.

[The Leader]

Well, there are people who agree with Coolie. Do you think that he has come up with everything that he has posted by himself? He basically just plagiarizes everything he posts.

[Tadao]

I think there isn't anything more to say here.

[Tadao]

I think there isn't anything more to say here.
Well that's slightly annoying.
The depression thread didn't evolve into anything and Babs decided to show up and thro insults at Coolie. I locked it for those two reasons. I can easily unlock, HERE WATCH ME DO IT. I expect you to post something worthwhile in there by Tuesday or you'll be banned for being a crybaby. ZHUKOV

...

[Pentegarn]

Meh, I think this will still be a mostly dead thread, I haven't seen much Coolie activity since Tadao was crowned, and his shenanigans were the driving force of the activity here

[TheCoolinator]

Isn't there a board game called shenanigans?

[Colonel Flagg]

I knew he'd be back! :posh

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

:PISTOLWHIP

[TheCoolinator]

Tent cities are a growing phenomenon around the country, mostly located in the inner cities of Detroit, Philadelphia, Camden, New York, etc. where there is a large homeless population. They are considered "holding patterns" for the many thousands of people who for one reason or another are out on the street without durable shelter.

But here's the thing - homeless people have been around for as long as we've had a society. Sometimes they stay in shelters, sometimes they stay in bus terminals sometimes on steam vents .... and sometimes in makeshift tents.


Quoted.

This is just a small example of the amount of mental gymnastics which have taken place here. Denial isn't a strong enough word to describe what's going on in this thread.

[Fathom Zero]

If we are in a depression, why does that matter?

[TheCoolinator]

If we are in a depression, why does that matter?

Good Point.

I always feel its best to know what's going on so we can all make informed choices. The media has been spewing out how we are seeing a "Jobless Recovery" and how the "Recession is over", "green shoots" and so on. This is all bullshit of course to calm and neutralize the US population into believing that everthing is fine.

As Colonel has stated above. Tent Cities exist filled with economic refugees in the USA. House prices have dropped to 10 dollars in the CITY of Detroit and unemployment continues to rise, food stamps continue to be dished out, and people are still getting forclosed upon by predatory banks.

We are in a Depression. Worst yet, we are in a Global Depression. Everyone is feeling it. Why? Because wallstreet was allowed to create derivatives which are similar to Margin Loans. The same margin loans that caused the depression of the 1930's.

We also have a dwindling manufacturing base due to Free Trade agreements and no protective tariffs on products coming in to the United States.

People can use this knowledge to protect themselves and get ready for the worst. Build up some savings, invest in commodities, make sure your retirement plan is in safe assets.

That's all this thread is really for.

[Fathom Zero]

The only things I would invest in should I have knowledge of an impending depression are as follows:

1) Land, the only thing that'll be around no matter what
and
2) Guns, to defend the land when there's all sorts of civil unrest and redistribution of wealth happens.

Other than that, I live alone. I can backpack it. I don't need all of my things. Yeah, they're nice and I do need a couple of them, but if I lost about everything, I wouldn't be significantly disadvantaged, aside from the obvious homelessness and the troubles that brings anyway. But people get by. Now, if I had children or a wife or husband or whatever and responsible for someone else, I'd probably have a different opinion.

But I'll just say I'm prepared for whatever and whatever happens to stave off a depression will be thought of by somebody else because I can't attach myself to it.

Also, I should've rephrased my question better. That wasn't really the answer I was looking for.

[Zhukov]

People can use this knowledge to protect themselves and get ready for the worst. Build up some savings, invest in commodities, make sure your retirement plan is in safe assets.

That's all this thread is really for.

So, this thread isn't just an excuse for you to post something which you KNOW everyone will disagree with, simply so you can copy/paste pre-written rebuttals to their objections? You're simply here to help us? Could have fooled me.

I know in the past I have started topics with the sole aim of starting an argument, but I don't think (could be wrong!) I've ever pretended that I'm doing it for the good of the community; just warning and informing everyone. Actually, I take that back, I probably HAVE just said I was doing it for the greater good, but we were all young once :lol

Sigh.

I'm a communist, so if the world was in a depression I'd be among the first to start feeling smug about it. I think the worldwide economy is a dangerous and disgusting sham that should be torn apart and replaced, and I think that eventually it will either be replaced, or get much, much worse for more and more people.

But.

I wont fool myself into thinking (or pretending) that we are at that stage yet. What's the point? It wont make it true, or make it any closer to happening (whether I want it to happen is another interesting question!). A lot of people on the far left tend to be melodramatic when it comes to world crises; making them out to be far worse/important than they are, but it just annoys me and alienates others. GLOBAL BANK MELTDOWN one week, and the next week BANKS MAKING RECORD PROFITS ON THE BACKS OF SLAVES.

MRI SCANS KILL BABIES, CAUSE CANCER

OBAMACARE DEATH PANELS PREVENT US FROM USING MRI SCANS = GENOCIDE FOR MILLIONS

Coolinator, you are just annoying people here by saying that the world is in a depression when there isn't really enough crises going on to suggest that it would be. There are some real hell holes of capitalism around the world, but the first world countries themselves are generally pretty well off. I would under no circumstances describe my country as that of one going through a depression, and I would be interested to know which ones you thought WERE going through a depression, and how the possibly one or two examples you can pull out of your poo hole would possibly constitute a WORLD WIDE DEPRESSION.

Oh, and the people that you aren't annoying are enjoying themselves making fun of your poor grasp of debate and logic. I know I am.

[TheCoolinator]

The only things I would invest in should I have knowledge of an impending depression are as follows:

1) Land, the only thing that'll be around no matter what
and
2) Guns, to defend the land when there's all sorts of civil unrest and redistribution of wealth happens.

Other than that, I live alone. I can backpack it. I don't need all of my things. Yeah, they're nice and I do need a couple of them, but if I lost about everything, I wouldn't be significantly disadvantaged, aside from the obvious homelessness and the troubles that brings anyway. But people get by. Now, if I had children or a wife or husband or whatever and responsible for someone else, I'd probably have a different opinion.

But I'll just say I'm prepared for whatever and whatever happens to stave off a depression will be thought of by somebody else because I can't attach myself to it.

Also, I should've rephrased my question better. That wasn't really the answer I was looking for.

If I made a little more money and could do my job from home I'd definitely try to get a cheap house in the country side. Living in a metro / suburban area is nice and all but when tough times are happening I would definitely feel more secure if I had a escape area.

Not saying the end of the world is happening or anything but it's good to be prepared.

[Tadao]

no