|
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. |
On February 07 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
No. The people who would cheer on wall street burning down are generally not the same people who are paying off student loans with stock options. Arguments like "Man that would make my job suck" and "will I be able to pay off my student loan with my stock options" kept coming and it seemed like that wasn't getting through for a long time. Some seem to have been able to understand, while others are still having trouble.
Even with someone who is not shackled to the economic system due to having no real assets to speak of, how is their cheering the demise of Wall Street any more than schadenfreude? Even if they have nothing to lose, their lives don't get better by virtue of everyone else's getting shittier.
|
I wish I could find it, but when GH posted the vid of actual MLK talking over the dodge commercial...*slowclap*
|
The dude is a tin pot dictator folks. Have no doubt in your mind.
|
Isn't the idea of having Abrams tanks roll down Washington DC a terrible idea because the tanks could damage the streets due to weight?
|
We have smaller military vehicles. The key part is that it will cost a fortune and the Republicans won’t say shit. Also, facsist and authoritarian love military parades. Just love that state sponsored show of force.
|
Maybe they can retrofit (or the opposite of) the tanks to be lighter? Kinda like what the Russians did with their ballistic missiles as all of them were empty because they didn't have actual nukes in them. It's just a show after all.
|
On February 07 2018 11:37 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
No. The people who would cheer on wall street burning down are generally not the same people who are paying off student loans with stock options. Arguments like "Man that would make my job suck" and "will I be able to pay off my student loan with my stock options" kept coming and it seemed like that wasn't getting through for a long time. Some seem to have been able to understand, while others are still having trouble. Even with someone who is not shackled to the economic system due to having no real assets to speak of, how is their cheering the demise of Wall Street any more than schadenfreude? Even if they have nothing to lose, their lives don't get better by virtue of everyone else's getting shittier.
It doesn't have to be more than schadenfreude to be relevant. I think there is a legitimate grievance about the distribution of the gains produced by workers but I'm also inclined to agree that simply burning down their loot doesn't help those they took it from. From a relative perspective the distance between their quality of life (from an amenities perspective) and those who have their loot burned would be dramatically reduced, but from the absolute perspective it's almost certain their QoL would be worse.
I mean this is most obvious for Americans with the furthest to fall (even from the bottom), People around the world already starving without access to clean drinking water or safe shelter and surrounded by violent warfare as a result of exploitation in part to fuel record market profits are already in the hellscape Wall Street's success brings.
On February 07 2018 11:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 10:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
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. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars) Best I can tell is that he thinks people on this thread are all about "muh portfolio", so he's trying to teach everyone that stocks and investments aren't life. On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is me trying to broach the point that how the people here feel about the stock market isn't shared by a great swath of the American public (in part) because the relationship is fundamentally different. Of course, I think most people here are more effected by the tangential effects of the market over the direct stock values, so his point is missing wildly. I'm saying the guy worried about whether his stock options will pay off his student loans or whether their job is going to be more crappy work after the collapse are engaging at a different wavelength than households without banks (more than there are Asian people in the US) or the many people with significantly different relationships with Wall Street. Frankly I'm happy we're past the whole "He's arguing that poor people are immune to the negative impacts of economic collapse" like that wasn't the dumbest possible interpretation of the multiple times I said the opposite. So basically you start off with a bad assumption about everyone else on this board, get upset when no one understands your awful starting point, and still don't understand that maybe posters here are a lot closer to the savings-less population than the Wall Street crowd. No. The people who would cheer on wall street burning down are generally not the same people who are paying off student loans with stock options. Arguments like "Man that would make my job suck" and "will I be able to pay off my student loan with my stock options" kept coming and it seemed like that wasn't getting through for a long time. Some seem to have been able to understand, while others are still having trouble. I'm still a little unclear as to who you are saying would benefit from a financial meltdown. Who? You just say people without bank accounts. Who are the people without bank accounts? What do they do? Why do they not have bank accounts?
I think we all agreed that as things stand it would primarily be the wealthiest people that would likely benefit. Depending on the extent and circumstances of the economic implosion, who specifically would benefit when would be different. But the example of gold investors would be one that would likely benefit from most of the scenarios.
As to people who don't have banks accounts, there's probably some gold holding preppers in that group but most of them are impoverished. So that would include folks from the working poor to those with nothing but debt to their name and people on the fringes/don't trust banks (usually seniors).
They are just one group of people who would see a bunch of wealthy assholes losing everything and even if you explained it might turn the US into a Mad Max style hellscape they'd pay their last dollar to watch it burn.
|
On February 07 2018 12:03 riotjune wrote:
Maybe they can retrofit (or the opposite of) the tanks to be lighter? Kinda like what the Russians did with their ballistic missiles as all of them were empty because they didn't have actual nukes in them. It's just a show after all.
Oh hell no. M1 A2 abrums (the main battle tank of the republic) tops out at 65 tons or 130 thousand pounds. The district of columbia is in zone A for road weight limitations is roughly 40k pounds with a consideration of multiple axles on a trailer package. The tank is a lot more compact then this consideration and would be much worse for wear on a road.
The BFV (the main APC of the republic) is a lot more reasonable but is still 28 tons for 56 thousand pounds on the same compact package. MRAP's the anti IED vehicle that got put into iraq near the end is half that and might work but would still be pretty damaging to an urban road's lifespan.
Humvees are practically commercial cars to Americans. I honestly have no idea what they could use for a military parade. The communists thought ahead for these and made their parade routes special made to withstand the abuse from the military vehicles.
On another note I don't think GH has ever met a real redneck in his life. Most of those guys violently want to just be left alone. They couldn't care less about the rest of the world if it goes to shit. The largest issue with a large economic collapse would be the cities running out of food really fast and the rual areas being armed and violent against perceived looters.
|
I see a report of a BLM leader having been shot and killed, but it was reported by faux news, so I'd say at least 50% chance that nothing of the sort happened.
|
On February 07 2018 12:02 Plansix wrote:
We have smaller military vehicles. The key part is that it will cost a fortune and the Republicans won’t say shit. Also, facsist and authoritarian love military parades. Just love that state sponsored show of force.
Word has it he wants to do it because of the one he saw in that tinpot dictatorship known as France.
Now I'm not fond of the idea, but then again...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 07 2018 13:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 12:02 Plansix wrote:
We have smaller military vehicles. The key part is that it will cost a fortune and the Republicans won’t say shit. Also, facsist and authoritarian love military parades. Just love that state sponsored show of force. Word has it he wants to do it because of the one he saw in that tinpot dictatorship known as France. Now I'm not fond of the idea, but then again... + Show Spoiler +
I mean the Taliban has had worse days but I'd prefer they not spend a penny on a dumbass dick parade and spend anything they even considered on trying to stop more veterans from killing themselves than we are losing in all those "great" battles.
|
Donald Trump is a little kid who wants to play with toy soldiers. The sentiment of honoring the troops is a good one, but it's maddeningly disingenuous coming from the guy who had bone spurs during 'nam.
|
On February 07 2018 13:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 12:02 Plansix wrote:
We have smaller military vehicles. The key part is that it will cost a fortune and the Republicans won’t say shit. Also, facsist and authoritarian love military parades. Just love that state sponsored show of force. Word has it he wants to do it because of the one he saw in that tinpot dictatorship known as France. Now I'm not fond of the idea, but then again... + Show Spoiler +
They threw that parade because they know Trump likes to see masculine displays of military strength and then insults veterans like McCain.
|
On February 07 2018 13:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 13:13 Introvert wrote:On February 07 2018 12:02 Plansix wrote:We have smaller military vehicles. The key part is that it will cost a  Fortune and the Republicans won’t say shit. Also, facsist and authoritarian  LovE military parades. just LovE that  State sponsored show of force. Word Has it he wants to do it because of the one he saw in that tinpot dictatorship known as France. Now I' M not fond of the idea, but then again... + Show Spoiler + They likes to see masculine displays ofand then insults veterans like McCain.
I think they just invited him over for the Bastille Day parade but we are getting closer.
|
On February 07 2018 11:47 mierin wrote:
I wish I could find it, but when GH posted the vid of actual MLK talking over the dodge commercial...*slowclap*
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26907159
Here. I got curious, so I went back to find it.
I am especially amused by how the last product MLK used as an example was cars.
|
|
|
On February 07 2018 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 13:13 Introvert wrote:On February 07 2018 12:02 Plansix wrote:
We have smaller military vehicles. The key part is that it will cost a fortune and the Republicans won’t say shit. Also, facsist and authoritarian love military parades. Just love that state sponsored show of force. Word has it he wants to do it because of the one he saw in that tinpot dictatorship known as France. Now I'm not fond of the idea, but then again... + Show Spoiler + I mean the Taliban has had worse days but I'd prefer they not spend a penny on a dumbass dick parade and spend anything they even considered on trying to stop more veterans from killing themselves than we are losing in all those "great" battles.
This is like "pointless votes in the House cost x dollars." It isn't enough to register. cost is the not the problem we are dealing with.
|
The cost would be a huge deal if the parade was for Obama. But it’s no big thing now.
|
see the example I gave gh. people love that garbage no matter the side.
|
That everyone suffers from a collapse in the stock market is a myth,and the panic and anxiety about the market today is laughable when you compare it with 2007/2008 and 2000. The dow at its lowest point was still higher then 4 months ago lol,like wth?
To those of you who did experience the market in 2007/2008,most of you probably in college. Did that market collapse in any way effect your life? Pls ask yourself this question and be honest about it and then tell me the answer with a few examples of how and why.
For me it didn't effect it at all,but maybe I am an exception. And 2007/2008 was the worst collapse in history since 1929. The volatility of the past few days is nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
