|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The world needs less people, every country should be like Japan and Russia in this sense. Not that Russia is a good country to emulate, but it is certainly true that population increases stress natural resources, which are only limited.
|
On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling.
First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point.
Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy.
|
I mean, if the point was that the Germans have a really good word, why not just say that instead of misleading numbers on stocks and employment.
|
On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy.
It's really not though.
You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not.
Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us).
|
On February 07 2018 03:26 Grumbels wrote:
The world needs less people, every country should be like Japan and Russia in this sense. Not that Russia is a good country to emulate, but it is certainly true that population increases stress natural resources, which are only limited.
Its a problem with modern society. Everything always needs to be growing. Be it population or the economy.
Ofcourse short term it is a problem for social programs which are structured in such a way that the current generation pays for the previous generation and long term negative growth isn't sustainable indefinitely for obvious reasons but a gradual natural reduction in population for a few generations doesn't have to be a bad thing indeed.
|
On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us).
I still don't quite understand why most Americans shouldn't care about stock prices. I greatly, greatly benefitted from my company's stock price going up a lot. Everyone I work with cheers for high stock prices because it is less likely any of us will get laid off. When the company does well, you don't get laid off.
I guess I just question your assertion that most people don't share our concerns for the stock market. If anything, I would say the technicians at my job worry a lot more about stock price than engineers. You can cut some technicians and make technician's lives a lot more shitty. But engineering can only decrease so much. In that regard, it feels like the people that are the most replaceable are the ones who should be the most concerned about stock prices. Even if they don't own a single share of stock themselves, stocks doing poorly means layoffs.
Am I misunderstanding your point? From where I'm standing, the lower tier workers are way more concerned with stock prices.
|
On February 07 2018 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). I still don't quite understand why most Americans shouldn't care about stock prices. I greatly, greatly benefitted from my company's stock price going up a lot. Everyone I work with cheers for high stock prices because it is less likely any of us will get laid off. When the company does well, you don't get laid off. I guess I just question your assertion that most people don't share our concerns for the stock market. If anything, I would say the technicians at my job worry a lot more about stock price than engineers. You can cut some technicians and make technician's lives a lot more shitty. But engineering can only decrease so much. In that regard, it feels like the people that are the most replaceable are the ones who should be the most concerned about stock prices. Even if they don't own a single share of stock themselves, stocks doing poorly means layoffs. Am I misunderstanding your point? From where I'm standing, the lower tier workers are way more concerned with stock prices.
Yes, you are misunderstanding my point. People should care about stock prices as well as the distribution of their ownership.
|
On February 07 2018 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). I still don't quite understand why most Americans shouldn't care about stock prices. I greatly, greatly benefitted from my company's stock price going up a lot. Everyone I work with cheers for high stock prices because it is less likely any of us will get laid off. When the company does well, you don't get laid off. I guess I just question your assertion that most people don't share our concerns for the stock market. If anything, I would say the technicians at my job worry a lot more about stock price than engineers. You can cut some technicians and make technician's lives a lot more shitty. But engineering can only decrease so much. In that regard, it feels like the people that are the most replaceable are the ones who should be the most concerned about stock prices. Even if they don't own a single share of stock themselves, stocks doing poorly means layoffs. Am I misunderstanding your point? From where I'm standing, the lower tier workers are way more concerned with stock prices. Yes, you are misunderstanding my point. People should care about stock prices as well as the distribution of their ownership.
So you are saying that most people should be concerned when stock prices go down? But also saying people who own stock care more? And pointing out that poor people own less stock and thus have 1 less reason to care?
|
for themselves? for the health of the company? for the economy as a whole?
|
I'd be curious to hear more about the connection between the two. Like how much of it is correlation vs causation and how much of it is the stock price driving worsening conditions (stock price drops -> unhappy investors push for measures to improve stock price -> layoffs & cuts).
I'd imagine big swings (recessions & depressions) have some sort of tangible connection, but for month to month volatility I am more skeptical buying that there's an actual impact to employees beyond one that's self inflicted by investors and would want to see good information on that.
|
On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us).
The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes.
You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common.
|
On February 07 2018 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). I still don't quite understand why most Americans shouldn't care about stock prices. I greatly, greatly benefitted from my company's stock price going up a lot. Everyone I work with cheers for high stock prices because it is less likely any of us will get laid off. When the company does well, you don't get laid off. I guess I just question your assertion that most people don't share our concerns for the stock market. If anything, I would say the technicians at my job worry a lot more about stock price than engineers. You can cut some technicians and make technician's lives a lot more shitty. But engineering can only decrease so much. In that regard, it feels like the people that are the most replaceable are the ones who should be the most concerned about stock prices. Even if they don't own a single share of stock themselves, stocks doing poorly means layoffs. Am I misunderstanding your point? From where I'm standing, the lower tier workers are way more concerned with stock prices. Yes, you are misunderstanding my point. People should care about stock prices as well as the distribution of their ownership. So you are saying that most people should be concerned when stock prices go down? But also saying people who own stock care more? And pointing out that poor people own less stock and thus have 1 less reason to care?
not just "less stock" but none, no job, no retirement, no lending access, no bank account, no house, no car, greedy asshole bosses, shitty infrastructure, debt up to their eyeballs some of it unable to be cleared through bankruptcy, (or some combination of the above) and so on.
To try to put this into some perspective there are ~the same number of people (*households) without bank accounts as there are Asian people in the US.
Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households.
https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/ to avoid more confusion*
|
On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:
Being intentionally vague statements and then claiming people misunderstand their point is on brand for them. It isn't a great style to convince people of anything. But it does generate a lot of posts. What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common.
It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...?
Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times.
|
|
|
On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:On February 07 2018 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What is it you think I'm trying to convince people of here? To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times.
I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics".
- 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week)
- 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants
- 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants.
- 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families.
- 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working.
So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks.
|
There are certainly people who aren't plugged into the traditional economy - either by not being part of the banking system, not having traditional employment etc. However, the economy and stock market going boom (the two will almost certainly happen together) is still going to hurt them, especially since those who are part of the "fringe economy" also tend to be the ones who are most at risk.
|
Dow +500 by closing, we can all rest easy now and stuff. The proles are forced to return to toiling in obscurity.
|
On February 07 2018 06:58 LegalLord wrote:
Dow +500 by closing, we can all rest easy now and stuff.
Ideally, this continues until the end of the month with +500 every day. At which point I sell stock and pay off a student loan! #PrayForMohdoo
|
On February 07 2018 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 06:58 LegalLord wrote:
Dow +500 by closing, we can all rest easy now and stuff. Ideally, this continues until the end of the month with +500 every day. At which point I sell stock and pay off a student loan! #PrayForMohdoo
You're using stock principal to pay off a student loan??
Get that shit payed off! stock returns are no guarantee, interest accrual is
|
On February 07 2018 07:03 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2018 06:58 LegalLord wrote:
Dow +500 by closing, we can all rest easy now and stuff. Ideally, this continues until the end of the month with +500 every day. At which point I sell stock and pay off a student loan! #PrayForMohdoo You're using stock principal to pay off a student loan?? Get that shit payed off! stock returns are no guarantee, interest accrual is
He might not be allowed to sell his stock before the end of the month. Stock awards that come from your job often come with clauses like that attached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
