Progressive Young Turks Think Ron Paul is Probably a better option then Obama

NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
well, feel free to argue that until you are blue in the face. that is not relevant to what he was talking about.
Click to expand...
Yes, well the rest of his conclusion is just as not true as the first part.

Someone posted that people's buying power has decreased 70 something percent in the last 30 years. Inflation erodes everyone's savings. So, if you are poor or lower income, saving money doesnt get you anywhere. The actions our government takes to leverage their borrowing position robs everyone of their buying power especially over longer periods of time.

People still seem to think the rich keep money under the mattress or something.

If they buy stocks it is invested in the economy, if the profit is re-invested in a business it is invested in the economy, if rich people go to expensive dinners and drive expensive cars it is invested in the economy. It is all part of one system.

Take the expensive meals away from the rich and a waiter, cook and restaurant staff lose income. Take the expensive car away from the rich and mechanics and automotive companies lose income.

I am sick of hearing people blame the rich for things that are the fault of the government or themselves.
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
Yea i get you.


basically saying if a car cost $20 then a meal would cost $0.01, so who cares if you get payed $0.05/hour.Its all relativity and also adds to my minimum wage argument.
Click to expand...
Pretty much...
In 1880 things were cheap and a dollar was worth something
And even though people earned very little, the standard of living and quality of life were pretty high
Now their are trillions of dollars- everyone has one
And they can raise and lower and control prices - they determine how much a gallon of milk costs
All these price controls cost us more than they save us- and all the money only makes us poorer
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:

  • They are just keeping the extra profits they make off of cheap labor, not passing it on to the consumer.​


    ​
Click to expand...
Only because competition is limited by government regulations and/or straight out cronyism. IE: Microsoft mostly avoiding anti trust litigation (compared to what they could have had enforced).
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Yes, well the rest of his conclusion is just as not true as the first part.

Someone posted that people's buying power has decreased 70 something percent in the last 30 years. Inflation erodes everyone's savings. So, if you are poor or lower income, saving money doesnt get you anywhere. The actions our government takes to leverage their borrowing position robs everyone of their buying power especially over longer periods of time.

People still seem to think the rich keep money under the mattress or something.

If they buy stocks it is invested in the economy, if the profit is re-invested in a business it is invested in the economy, if rich people go to expensive dinners and drive expensive cars it is invested in the economy. It is all part of one system.

Take the expensive meals away from the rich and a waiter, cook and restaurant staff lose income. Take the expensive car away from the rich and mechanics and automotive companies lose income.

I am sick of hearing people blame the rich for things that are the fault of the government or themselves.
Click to expand...
Indeed, inflation is the primary culprit in a lot of the issues with have taking care of the elderly and their inability to take care of themselves.

I actually have been trying to sort out what a deflationary system would look like, because the exact opposite would happen and any new production would directly benefit everyone in the form of lowered cost and increased competition. It also means that the older people who saved would benefit tremendously from new innovation, rather than being unable to afford it. Of course, economics is all about expectations, and for someone to expect to make less (if they remain in the same job) over the years, it's counter intuitive, even if ultimately it was a better solution.
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
Carne Seca said:
Seriously? After all that's been going on all over the nation with union busting and attacks on the middle class and you don't know why they don't touch upper management?

At this point everyone should realize that this is a class war and we're not the ones that started it. The massive shift of wealth, The populating of key government positions with tea bag representatives, The Koch brothers funding of the Tea Party and backing the attack on unions and the middle class, the GOP presidential shuffling of candidates. This is all leading up to one thing. The GOP is going to present someone as a candidate that none of us would have even considered before the clown show. There is someone waiting in the wings to take center stage and the Republican party will fall at his/her feet in worship and relief.

It's coming folks. Some say Jeb Bush. I don't think so. I think it's going to be someone that will take us all by surprise.
Click to expand...
I've seen some foreshadowing on the news the last couple of days. Even Sarah Palin (Ms. Clueless herself) is hinting at it. The GOP is about to drop the Candidate bomb. It's going to be a third party candidate but he/she will be under GOP/Corporate control.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Carne Seca said:
They're 79. Of course.
Click to expand...
Sorry, they were under 10 years old for the entire duration. Being a child during the depression doesn't count. Children didn't have to pay bills, have jobs, or provide for a family. Your parents had all of their needs taken care of.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Carne Seca said:
I've seen some foreshadowing on the news the last couple of days. Even Sarah Palin (Ms. Clueless herself) is hinting at it. The GOP is about to drop the Candidate bomb. It's going to be a third party candidate but he/she will be under GOP/Corporate control.
Click to expand...
That would suck.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone said:
Actually that's not what I think. I speak for myself just fine and did not ask you to speak for me. If I need you to speak for me I'll let you know. Until then please do not make that decision on my behalf.

I think that when companies find ways to cut money they do not pass those saving on to the consumers unless they are forced to. The proof is that after 30 years of outsourcing for cheaper labor the wealthy elites have acquired an unprecedented amount of wealth while the rest of us lose out. They are just keeping the extra profits they make off of cheap labor, not passing it on to the consumer.
Click to expand...
You are dead wrong, For instance, in 1984 a Commodore Vic-20 Computer (Which had 2kb of memory and ran a 8 bit core) cost $740. Today a computer which has billions of times more power and memory actually costs a mere fraction of the 1984 price. In 1998 a plasma television of 60" size cost almost $9,500, Today you can get em for less than a grand. I could go on and on and on and on and come up with literally Thousands of examples like this. The savings realized from more efficient production methods, lower labor costs, cheaper materials all brought prices down over the years. Supply and Demand my friend, not greed.
 
Dan Kone

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
You are dead wrong, For instance, in 1984 a Commodore Vic-20 Computer (Which had 2kb of memory and ran a 8 bit core) cost $740. Today a computer which has billions of times more power and memory actually costs a mere fraction of the 1984 price. In 1998 a plasma television of 60" size cost almost $9,500, Today you can get em for less than a grand. I could go on and on and on and on and come up with literally Thousands of examples like this. The savings realized from more efficient production methods, lower labor costs, cheaper materials all brought prices down over the years. Supply and Demand my friend, not greed.
Click to expand...
Be less unnecessarily condescending next time and I'll respond. I was just asking you to please not speak on my behalf without my permission. That really isn't an unreasonable request.
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Sorry, they were under 10 years old for the entire duration. Being a child during the depression doesn't count. Children didn't have to pay bills, have jobs, or provide for a family. Your parents had all of their needs taken care of.
Click to expand...
My grandfather was killed in a hunting accident and my grandmother (on my mother's side) raised them by herself. PLUS, they worked. There were no child labor laws back then. My father grew up on a ranch. They lost everything during the depression and my father worked at the railroads hauling coal. As a child. Thanks for playing. And... you are so full of shit they named you an honorary cess pit.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Carne Seca said:
My grandfather was killed in a hunting accident and my grandmother (on my mother's side) raised them by herself. PLUS, they worked. There were no child labor laws back then. My father grew up on a ranch. They lost everything during the depression and my father worked at the railroads hauling coal. As a child. Thanks for playing. And... you are so full of shit they named you an honorary cess pit.
Click to expand...
Working on the Family ranch as child doesn't count. I have a Farm and work my kids to the bone. does that make my kids more knowledgeable than your parents about the depression?

Gonna let you in on something, the child labor law was passed in 1938. that would mean you are trying to convince me that your pappy hauled coal for the railroads from a fetus until he was almost 5 years old? REALLY?? I suppose a 5 year old could carry a shit load of coal eh? Cuz if they are 79, then they were born in 1933, and the law was passed in 1938.

Make up some more lies.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
It always works like that. That's how this system works. Guaranteed the people paying minimum wages, usually large companies, are filtering their money through other materials and then the wages end up in the hands of the worker, unless they are storing excessive inventory (which most big companies are smart enough to avoid) in which case they might be borrowing to just pay wages. In the last case, the workers benefit slightly more than they do in the first case, but in the long haul, they don't really benefit at all.

The proof, is in the pudding though. Look at the wealth disparity gap and how it has steadily increased for decades now. Policies like minimum wage, I don't want to say they are the main contributors of this, but anything that causes the creation of more money out of nothing definitely contributes. Mostly it's the Federal Reserve, and you can directly correlate the GINI coefficient with the expansion of credit and the money supply every time. This isn't to say there aren't other factors, but the Fed main driving factor. Just pull up some historical graphs, you will see.

If minimum wage were an effective policy the disparity between the rich and poor would not be so ever expanding and people wouldn't have an increasingly difficult time paying the bills. Which has been happening for a few decades now (again, there is information available proving this, although I somehow doubt you would argue this specific point).

I'm sort of rambling now as I often do, my apologies if I've gone off track.
Click to expand...
Also to follow up further on this point, inflation can be and is hidden in lower quality goods. I think we've all seen the declining quality of goods. It's the only way to maintain prices while masking inflation (because of how inflation is typically measured) other than technological innovation which we have also seen a lot of (but probably have not benefited as much from as we should have due to this monstrosity of a system).
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Working on the Family ranch as child doesn't count. I have a Farm and work my kids to the bone. does that make my kids more knowledgeable than your parents about the depression?

Gonna let you in on something, the child labor law was passed in 1938. that would mean you are trying to convince me that your pappy hauled coal for the railroads from a fetus until he was almost 5 years old? REALLY?? I suppose a 5 year old could carry a shit load of coal eh? Cuz if they are 79, then they were born in 1933, and the law was passed in 1938.

Make up some more lies.
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna call him a liar, but Child Labour was going out of style anyway in most cases due to the fact children simply were not as productive as their adult counterparts. And during the depression children would have to compete with an adult work force in desperate need of work... in a coal mine, which is very much hard labour, so yeah.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
NoDrama said:
You are dead wrong, For instance, in 1984 a Commodore Vic-20 Computer (Which had 2kb of memory and ran a 8 bit core) cost $740. Today a computer which has billions of times more power and memory actually costs a mere fraction of the 1984 price. In 1998 a plasma television of 60" size cost almost $9,500, Today you can get em for less than a grand. I could go on and on and on and on and come up with literally Thousands of examples like this. The savings realized from more efficient production methods, lower labor costs, cheaper materials all brought prices down over the years. Supply and Demand my friend, not greed.
Click to expand...
My first computer was a Commodore :)
 
Carne Seca

Carne Seca

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Working on the Family ranch as child doesn't count. I have a Farm and work my kids to the bone. does that make my kids more knowledgeable than your parents about the depression?

Gonna let you in on something, the child labor law was passed in 1938. that would mean you are trying to convince me that your pappy hauled coal for the railroads from a fetus until he was almost 5 years old? REALLY?? I suppose a 5 year old could carry a shit load of coal eh? Cuz if they are 79, then they were born in 1933, and the law was passed in 1938.

Make up some more lies.
Click to expand...
Hey, moron. They lost the ranch. I didn't realize I would have to take out the Obvious Bat and beat you over the head with it. My father started working in the coal bins for the trains when he was 5 and worked until he was 10. He has a 6th grade education. My mother's only brother lost a leg to a train when he was twelve. This was in 1941 (when the law became constitutional). Child labor was still happening across the nation, regardless of the law. So you can kiss my well muscled perfect ass.

Several laws were introduced before 1938 and failed to pass. The 1938 law was largely ignored until public outcry became too much for the government to ignore. Sound familiar?

My grandmother on my mother's side worked in a munitions factory during World War II, along with 3 of my UNDERAGE aunts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top