|
On October 08 2011 10:37 TheGlassface wrote:
Also, I want sources on the last sentence of yours. It's very similar to when the minimum wage being abolished is proposed. If you believe in that, I want to make sure you also understand that will be one of the marking points of USA becoming a 2nd world country before it begins slipping more into a 3rd world country.
Here are two really easy ones:
Go research the NLRB's obstruction of Boeing opening up an airplane factory in South Carolina.
Also go research EPA and other federal barriers to oil & gas and other natural resource extraction.
More generally, the biggest elephant in the room is Obamacare.
|
On October 08 2011 10:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 07:37 Saji wrote:
(bit of a rant)
To bring in perspective what this protest is about, its not just a American thing, its a world thing people have started and have been in protest against the government because most of us have simply become debt slave.
Nah. I think it's about a generation trying to be "historic". Yay, let's elect Barack Obama, what a historic accomplishment for our generation !!! Yay, let's join our revolutionary brethren around the world who are standing up for their rights. What a historic event we are creating !!!! Yay. Getting a job is so passe. People want to do something historic, to make their mark in the history books, regardless of consequences since they don't even know what they want. They just want... to protest ... something... One big difference I've noticed in comparisons to the Tea Party rallies, since the news seems to like to compare them. Any picture of a Tea Party rally has people dressed in Red, White, and Blue, with Old Glory everywhere. Can someone post a picture of a single American flag at any one of these "Occupy" rallies across this great Country ?
Was this what you were looking for?
![[image loading]](http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Evil-Corporations.jpg)
I agree with the general sentiment of the picture. Go to the State, or after the real Money (FED). Anything else is attacking symptoms, ignoring root cause.
|
So what? These people come out of society and don't live in autonomous mountain communities where everything is selfmade. Criticizing this is pretty cheap.
There are enough real critic-points (from different view-points) so that you don't have to go to such a low point.
|
On October 08 2011 22:02 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 10:11 Kaitlin wrote:On October 08 2011 07:37 Saji wrote:
(bit of a rant)
To bring in perspective what this protest is about, its not just a American thing, its a world thing people have started and have been in protest against the government because most of us have simply become debt slave.
Nah. I think it's about a generation trying to be "historic". Yay, let's elect Barack Obama, what a historic accomplishment for our generation !!! Yay, let's join our revolutionary brethren around the world who are standing up for their rights. What a historic event we are creating !!!! Yay. Getting a job is so passe. People want to do something historic, to make their mark in the history books, regardless of consequences since they don't even know what they want. They just want... to protest ... something... One big difference I've noticed in comparisons to the Tea Party rallies, since the news seems to like to compare them. Any picture of a Tea Party rally has people dressed in Red, White, and Blue, with Old Glory everywhere. Can someone post a picture of a single American flag at any one of these "Occupy" rallies across this great Country ? Was this what you were looking for? + Show Spoiler +I agree with the general sentiment of the picture. Go to the State, or after the real Money (FED). Anything else is attacking symptoms, ignoring root cause.
That is a bit unrealistic. How can any mass protest be organized today without use of social networking, cell phones, and other such devices, with no reliance on any product that is not self-made?
|
That is a bit unrealistic. How can any mass protest be organized today without use of social networking, cell phones, and other such devices, with no reliance on any product that is not self-made?
So what? These people come out of society and don't live in autonomous mountain communities where everything is selfmade. Criticizing this is pretty cheap.
It is unrealistic and cheap, much like the protestors and their opinions themselves. So pointing out the cheap irony is a cheap laugh.
Anyway, like I said, all those progressive-minded Manhattan folks, turns out even they have a limit on their patience for dirty obnoxious wannabe revolutionaries (and not even the Ron Paul kind!):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-begins-to-chafe-its-neighbors.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Also this:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/
This is exactly what anyone who supports the OWS ideas or protestors should be really pissed off about, here comes the Democratic Party and liberal organizations to basically steal your movement from you and turn it into an astroturf wannabe Tea Party (the liberal establishment is very excited at their idea that they can take OWS and turn it into some kind of liberal Tea Party counterweight).
|
A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government.
"Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state"
Ridiculous isn't it.
Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them.
Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government.
"Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state"
Ridiculous isn't it.
Yes it is, because in a communist country, the young activists would be arrested and beaten, some of them sentenced to execution, and most given 5 to 10 or longer in a gulag.
So yes, ridiculous.
Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them.
Secondly, that means absolutely zilch. Government developed computers the size of rooms, cell phones the size of WW2 walkie-talkies, and an internet the size of the Team Liquid website. Well maybe a bit bigger.
It wasn't government that turned all these things into conveniences cheap enough for hundreds of millions of people to die.
And it's almost as if the profit motive is like some kind of bogeyman, if you think government doesn't operate on a profit motive when you remove the private sector, go look at the economic history of the USSR. The government just isn't as good at creating profit.
The profit motive is what drives businessmen - well smart ones anyway - to create products cheap enough that millions upon millions can buy them - that adds up to a lot of profit after a while.
It is nice to see that OWS has some protestors that aren't totally stupid though like the ones in that video. It just goes to show that the movement is very informal and diverse.
|
On October 08 2011 23:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government.
"Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state"
Ridiculous isn't it. Yes it is, because in a communist country, the young activists would be arrested and beaten, some of them sentenced to execution, and most given 5 to 10 or longer in a gulag. So yes, ridiculous.
And activists aren't arrested and beaten in New York?
|
On October 08 2011 23:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government.
"Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state"
Ridiculous isn't it. Yes it is, because in a communist country, the young activists would be arrested and beaten, some of them sentenced to execution, and most given 5 to 10 or longer in a gulag. So yes, ridiculous.
I'm sorry, I promise I am not trying to poke at your statements in any way, I have not been following this line of conversation beyond these couple of posts, and I am merely looking for some clarification.
Are you trying to advocate that the whole protest/'movement' is a bad thing, or perhaps improperly executed, and that it would be best for people to just drop it and go back to whatever else they were doing?
Again, not trying to stir anything up, and I know by the way of how I worded that sentence it could come off as me being some far-leaning leftist looking for a reason to pounce on you. But no, just merely looking for clarification as to where exactly you stand on this subject  I've always noticed that your posts in threads like these are surprisingly insightful so I would like to be sure I am fully understanding what you are trying to get across.
|
Wait, I was under the impression that these protests were because "Wall Street" was buying up political figures so that they could be deregulated and allowed to exploit everyone else to make themselves a buck. Is that not the case? It seems like the people attacking the protests are under the impression that we just don't like that they have businesses that make money. I know if I were to go down there and protest it would be because I didn't like that political figures in the white house are being paid by the very corporations that stand to make a profit from some of the silly policies that have been put in place over the last 10 years.
|
On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title
You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations.
And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will.
|
On October 08 2011 23:53 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations. And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will.
I see pens, cardboard, clothes, cameras, make-up, hair dye, cameras and phones in that picture, that's pretty much basic commodities if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't call them luxury goods.
Sure the food analogy might be stretching it, but it's not that far fetched.
|
On October 09 2011 00:11 VegeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 23:53 RvB wrote:On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations. And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will. I see pens, cardboard, clothes, cameras, make-up, hair dye, cameras and phones in that picture, that's pretty much basic commodities if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't call them luxury goods. Sure the food analogy might be stretching it, but it's not that far fetched.
You don't see how camera's, make up and phones are luxury goods? Look at the rest of the world...
edit: shirts and a pen is a bit stupid though I agree.
|
On October 09 2011 00:15 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 00:11 VegeTerran wrote:On October 08 2011 23:53 RvB wrote:On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations. And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will. I see pens, cardboard, clothes, cameras, make-up, hair dye, cameras and phones in that picture, that's pretty much basic commodities if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't call them luxury goods. Sure the food analogy might be stretching it, but it's not that far fetched. You don't see how camera's, make up and phones are luxury goods? Look at the rest of the world... edit: shirts and a pen is a bit stupid though I agree.
More or less everyone in america owns a camera and phone, there's nothing luxurious about it. Everyone can afford and have access to make up and hair dye.
|
On October 09 2011 00:23 VegeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 00:15 RvB wrote:On October 09 2011 00:11 VegeTerran wrote:On October 08 2011 23:53 RvB wrote:On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations. And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will. I see pens, cardboard, clothes, cameras, make-up, hair dye, cameras and phones in that picture, that's pretty much basic commodities if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't call them luxury goods. Sure the food analogy might be stretching it, but it's not that far fetched. You don't see how camera's, make up and phones are luxury goods? Look at the rest of the world... edit: shirts and a pen is a bit stupid though I agree. More or less everyone in america owns a camera and phone, there's nothing luxurious about it. Everyone can afford and have access to make up and hair dye.
That's the point my friend, when phones and camera's become something everyone gets you know you're not poor.
|
On October 09 2011 00:15 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 00:11 VegeTerran wrote:On October 08 2011 23:53 RvB wrote:On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations. And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will. I see pens, cardboard, clothes, cameras, make-up, hair dye, cameras and phones in that picture, that's pretty much basic commodities if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't call them luxury goods. Sure the food analogy might be stretching it, but it's not that far fetched. You don't see how camera's, make up and phones are luxury goods? Look at the rest of the world... edit: shirts and a pen is a bit stupid though I agree.
Phones are (or become) widespread across Africa because they are important to economic development for individuals. Ok, they're not smart-phones. But in general, only because people in other parts of the world have it worse, people aren't allowed to protest? And I bet most of them wouldn't call themselves poor, protesting is rarely done by the poorest. This protest is by those who have something to lose.
|
On October 09 2011 00:36 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 00:15 RvB wrote:On October 09 2011 00:11 VegeTerran wrote:On October 08 2011 23:53 RvB wrote:On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations. And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will. I see pens, cardboard, clothes, cameras, make-up, hair dye, cameras and phones in that picture, that's pretty much basic commodities if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't call them luxury goods. Sure the food analogy might be stretching it, but it's not that far fetched. You don't see how camera's, make up and phones are luxury goods? Look at the rest of the world... edit: shirts and a pen is a bit stupid though I agree. Phones are (or become) widespread across Africa because they are important to economic development for individuals. Ok, they're not smart-phones. But in general, only because people in other parts of the world have it worse, people aren't allowed to protest? And I bet most of them wouldn't call themselves poor, protesting is rarely done by the poorest. This protest is by those who have something to lose.
I didn't say that I only explained the thought behind the picture.
|
On October 09 2011 00:36 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 00:15 RvB wrote:On October 09 2011 00:11 VegeTerran wrote:On October 08 2011 23:53 RvB wrote:On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations. And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will. I see pens, cardboard, clothes, cameras, make-up, hair dye, cameras and phones in that picture, that's pretty much basic commodities if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't call them luxury goods. Sure the food analogy might be stretching it, but it's not that far fetched. You don't see how camera's, make up and phones are luxury goods? Look at the rest of the world... edit: shirts and a pen is a bit stupid though I agree. Phones are (or become) widespread across Africa because they are important to economic development for individuals. Ok, they're not smart-phones. But in general, only because people in other parts of the world have it worse, people aren't allowed to protest? And I bet most of them wouldn't call themselves poor, protesting is rarely done by the poorest. This protest is by those who have something to lose.
I am surprised that someone knew that about phones in africa. They are becoming a tool for a lot of projects. Especially in terms of wells, where people pay a small fee through the phone for using the well. Phones are not at all a luxury-product anymore. Like TV and radio for getting information from the government, it is becoming a necessity across the globe as a payment- and information- platform.
|
lol so corporations will always be able to do no wrong, simply because we use their products? You would have us boycott ever corner of our current lives (ones with a huge reliance on corporations, good and bad). Just to make a point? What I am saying is, the corporations do a measurable level of good, and in many cases an immeasurable level of evil.
|
On October 09 2011 00:24 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2011 00:23 VegeTerran wrote:On October 09 2011 00:15 RvB wrote:On October 09 2011 00:11 VegeTerran wrote:On October 08 2011 23:53 RvB wrote:On October 08 2011 23:20 VegeTerran wrote:A small thought experiment, imagine that picture in a communist country. The state releases a picture like that when young activists has a protests against the government. "Look at these protesters they are wearing clothes made by the state, their pamphlets are printed on paper made by the state, they're eating food which the government agricultural program has cultivated. And yet they they dare to criticize the state" Ridiculous isn't it. Secondly corporations didn't invent computer technology, cell phones and the internet, the technology that enabled it was developed by the universities financed by tax payers money and then handed over to private economic interests when they would be able to make profits out of them. Also i see lots of speculating in this thread on what the protesters actually wants well they actually have voices and are quite articulate if you would care to listen though fox news and cnn won't show the articulate ones. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1Wrqp37Bc&feature=channel_video_title You miss the point, what you said in your analogy are basic needs which everyone uses to survive. THey could have pointed out the same in the picture you saw because basic needs are also provided by corporations. But the point is the luxurous goods that they are wearing which are created by the companies. The point is that these people are relatively rich and have it this good due to those corporations. And yes corporations don't invent everything but what they do is compete and competing develops the product and makes it cheaper than a state owned company ever will. I see pens, cardboard, clothes, cameras, make-up, hair dye, cameras and phones in that picture, that's pretty much basic commodities if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't call them luxury goods. Sure the food analogy might be stretching it, but it's not that far fetched. You don't see how camera's, make up and phones are luxury goods? Look at the rest of the world... edit: shirts and a pen is a bit stupid though I agree. More or less everyone in america owns a camera and phone, there's nothing luxurious about it. Everyone can afford and have access to make up and hair dye. That's the point my friend, when phones and camera's become something everyone gets you know you're not poor.
So if you have you have a phone but get thrown out of you house, lose your job and can't afford your medical bills you're not poor?
Around 40 million Americans get food stamps, about the same number don't have medical insurance. While the top 1% have absurd amounts of wealth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
