We are in a Depression. Read on.

[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]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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.

Stay golden Zhukov. Your a credit to your country.

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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. 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.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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

[Dimnos]

[Zhukov]

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

...

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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 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]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

DO you know what an "Oligarchical Financier" is?

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

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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?

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

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]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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?

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Dimnos

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]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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

You heard it here first.

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]

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

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]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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

YOU FOOL. YOU FOOLISH FOOL.

[Colonel Flagg]

I just read that.

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

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I have no idea is.

lol, ok.

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?