Joined: Mar 20, 2011 Age: 24 Posts: 7593 Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:33 pm Post subject:
peebo wrote:
Joker wrote:
peebo wrote:
Joker wrote:
friendly_ass wrote:
snapcap wrote:
When is the last time anyone has read a report saying "Lower and middle class benefit while upper class fall"?
The 1950s.
And the 1990s.
i don't think so.
My family beniftited just fine from the rich in the 1990s.
not sure exactly what you're trying to say.
They had a job and was making a lot of money when Bill Clinton was president now that the world is suffering from a economic crisis we are not doing so well just like the rest of american familes.
Joined: Mar 07, 2006 Posts: 1627 Location: scotland
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:55 pm Post subject:
this does not suggest in any way that the upper class was failing, though. in fact, they weren't, at all. _________________ “Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
What do you expect when the majority of "rescue" efforts by governments have been done in such a way that it by nature benefits those who are heavily invested in capital markets.
That is very true how ever the wealthy will denie such things.
Either way that would be the result. Even if you were to distribute money through government projects in a Keynesian strategy, the main benefactors would be the people who sell things (own stores etc) not the people who buy things (consumers). It seems to me that many economic theories haven't adequately been updated to account for a modern global marketplace. Cutting taxes in the US in the 1950s would have promoted job growth because there was already a growing demand and there were few if any places the jobs could be outsourced to. However, in a modern economy with American tax rules, it makes a hell of a lot more financial sense to build a factory in China for both international export and satisfaction of the domestic market.
The sooner people realize that manufacturing is extremely vulnerable to cost of labor and furthermore that labor costs are the main current factor in manufacturing they will start to come around to the fact that the only way to ensure that jobs stay in a country is to have those jobs be tied to that area through natural resources or infrastructure that is expensive to rebuild/move or where the product cannot be more effectively shipped to its consumer.
Construction of nuclear plants, wind farms, solar farms and other such products lead to the establishment of a labor demand within that specific area. Production of trinkets, cars and so on can be outsourced.
People who naively think that it's somehow a bad thing that money is still being made in a bad economy by those who actually create the jobs for everyone else should watch this:
What do you expect when the majority of "rescue" efforts by governments have been done in such a way that it by nature benefits those who are heavily invested in capital markets.
If we didn't rescue the banks then a lot of people would loose a lot of their money. It would be pretty terrible for them. The alternative is to nationalize the banks that failed, a la Iceland. I can't imagine you'd be thrilled about that.
What do you expect when the majority of "rescue" efforts by governments have been done in such a way that it by nature benefits those who are heavily invested in capital markets.
If we didn't rescue the banks then a lot of people would loose a lot of their money. It would be pretty terrible for them. The alternative is to nationalize the banks that failed, a la Iceland. I can't imagine you'd be thrilled about that.
Hey, I never said that banks should not have been bailed out, I fully agree that letting banks go under or nationalizing them would have been a bad idea. My contention is with QE 1 and 2 (Quantitative Easing programs by the fed) and similar programs in Europe, which resulted in a lot of capital which didn't have the desired effect. It built the market back up and gave companies a ton of liquidity. However they don't really appear to have created a lot of jobs or demand, because the money went "Government - Banks - Commodities markets" rather than "Government - Banks - Small/medium/large business loans".
f**k, let me borrow as much money as I want at 1% interest or so from a central bank and I know I can get a bigger return than my cost on that in derivatives, commodities or common stock. Hell, at that rate I could put it in various bonds and have a comfortable and relatively safe 7 - 11% return per year, very few investments can compete with that.
You know why that is? It's because they're rich, simples.
Exactly If they didn't do well, they wouldn't be "the rich" anymore. That's why the rich will always do well, in every country on this planet, no matter how poor.
Joined: Mar 07, 2006 Posts: 1627 Location: scotland
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:23 am Post subject:
Joker wrote:
peebo wrote:
this does not suggest in any way that the upper class was failing, though. in fact, they weren't, at all.
I never clamied that they did in fact my family was part of the upper class in the 90s now we are not.
then you have just undermined your own point, no? _________________ “Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
The UK has become a den of sin. How can it be there is so much wealth in this country yet there are so many teenage pregnancies, young people being knifed to death, fear and ruthlessness on the streets, strip clubs in every town centre, betting shops popping up everywhere (they aren't in a recession!).
I've made a video about my thoughts about it.
Hey I liked your video. I think its true the UK has lost its principles. I am not religious but I can see how you mean "Den of Sin". We have dismissed our social ethics in favour of personal wealth. Thatcher and her me me me ideals have turned the british into a nation of selfish tw*ts. The housing crisis in our country has reached the point where even those who earn a decent wage can not afford a mortgage. Immigration, a lack of social investment, and corportate power have made britain NOT great.
If they didn't do well, they wouldn't be "the rich" anymore. That's why the rich will always do well, in every country on this planet, no matter how poor.
