We are in a Depression. Read on.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

I think even as grim as things have been economically, calling it a depression is a bit harsh.

During the depression the unemployment rate was much higher than it is now. Comparing it to the 1920s and early 1930s is a bit of an overstatement

If anything, what is going on now more closely mirrors the 1970s economically.

I have to disagree.

Unofficially there is about 25-30% national unemployment in the USA. They always cook the books. People are living in tent cities (Hoovervilles / Obamavilles), people are taking drastic pay cuts, the production base of the USA is completely destroyed by "Free Trade" agreements. Unions are being broken (without unions there is no middle class),

Investment banks (foreign and domestic) have taken trillions of dollars in "bailout" money because of their toxic deriviatives. Other banks are going bust. I believe 20+ banks went under in the last week.

I think its safe to say we are in a full blown world depression. It's effected almost every nation on the globe.

and It's all because of investment houses and their derivative paper which I may add was illegal at one time.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

(without unions there is no middle class)

I don't think you know what a middle class is. Or a 'class' in general. The middle class, specifically, is the petty bourgeois; a small business owner or shopkeeper. Someone that employs others but also works alongside them. I'd love to know why you think unions have any effect (not affect this time) on a class existing.

I believe 20+ banks went under in the last week.

Really? Which ones? That's quite a lot.

I think its safe to say we are in a full blown world depression. It's effected almost every nation on the globe.

I haven't noticed anything here, to be honest. Where I live it's the second worst area for unemployment in the country at about 6% (officially), but I still think it's reasonably low compared to, say, 25% (officially) seen in the US during the 30s.


I think you are mad.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

I don't think you know what a middle class is. Or a 'class' in general. The middle class, specifically, is the petty bourgeois; a small business owner or shopkeeper. Someone that employs others but also works alongside them. I'd love to know why you think unions have any effect (not affect this time) on a class existing.

No,

Petty Bourgeois was a term used for the middle class in France during the time of the revolution. That term has no bearing on present day living standards.

Middle class, now, is a class of people who make a reasonable amount of income higher then the poor or lower classes but less the the wealthy class. Here in the USA we have poor people making around 20,000-35,000 dollars a year. Then we have middle class who are making 40-70,000 dollars a year and then we have the upper middle class making 70+ a year. These people are usually diluded and believe they're apart of the power structure when in fact they are the people who get ripped off the most because they have to hide their money in the stock market which usually collapses.

Unions have a very large effect on how classes work because if you're in a good Union and I emphasis GOOD not Corrupt but well managed, you can negotiate higher wages, benefits, and pension plan. You can also have the ability to say NO to more work meaning people the employer has to higher more people, meaning more people in jobs, meaning money in the economy.

Unions = Middle class

Middle class = a healthy national economy


Right now in the states we have a growing poor class, dwindling middle and upper middle class, and a Super rich class that doesn't pay taxes and is attempting to drive down the standard of living for everyone else.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Really? Which ones? That's quite a lot.

Type in Sheila Colleen Bair - federal deposits and insurance corporation of the treasury.

She shuts down banks every Friday here in the states. sometimes 5, sometime 10, sometimes 20. Every week is more banks closing there doors but GoldManSachs, JPmorgan, citibank and other designated WINNERS get to stay in business with injections of cash from the Federal Reserve.

I haven't noticed anything here, to be honest. Where I live it's the second worst area for unemployment in the country at about 6% (officially), but I still think it's reasonably low compared to, say, 25% (officially) seen in the US during the 30s.

We already have 25% unemployment. You always have to double the number. We are in a global depression. Look around you. Did you not notice the trillions of dollars being used to bailout banks? did you not notice the tent cities? do you not see how almost every country that has worked with derivatives is in trouble?

It's so blantant.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

No,

Petty Bourgeois was a term used for the middle class in France during the time of the revolution. That term has no bearing on present day living standards.

The middle class during the French Revolution was just the normal bourgeois, actually. But arguing whether the term is still valid today is not worth talking about here and now.

Middle class, now, is a class of people who make a reasonable amount of income higher then the poor or lower classes but less the the wealthy class. Here in the USA we have poor people making around 20,000-35,000 dollars a year. Then we have middle class who are making 40-70,000 dollars a year and then we have the upper middle class making 70+ a year. These people are usually diluded and believe they're apart of the power structure when in fact they are the people who get ripped off the most because they have to hide their money in the stock market which usually collapses.

Ah, well, here you are incorrectly attributing class to wealth, rather than ones relation to productive forces, regardless of the type of society. If a worker at a steel mill - part of the working class - wins the lottery for a million dollars, do they suddenly become part of the capitalist class? No. You can't say that class means something different "now", especially when I suspect it's only so it can fit in with your poorly thought out arguments. Perhaps in colloquial terms middle class means how much money you earn, but it's still incorrect.

Unions have a very large effect on how classes work because if you're in a good Union and I emphasis GOOD not Corrupt but well managed, you can negotiate higher wages, benefits, and pension plan. You can also have the ability to say NO to more work meaning people the employer has to higher more people, meaning more people in jobs, meaning money in the economy.

You said that the non-existence of unions also equals the non-existence of a middle class. Even going on your incorrect assumption that wealth equals class, a middle class can still exist; people can still be wealthy and not belong to a union. As a side note, your thoughts on how unions work are extremely sad.

She shuts down banks every Friday here in the states. sometimes 5, sometime 10, sometimes 20. Every week is more banks closing there doors but GoldManSachs, JPmorgan, citibank and other designated WINNERS get to stay in business with injections of cash from the Federal Reserve.

Seriously, list 20 banks that have been shut this last week. Don't make me go looking for your answers.

We already have 25% unemployment. You always have to double the number. We are in a global depression. Look around you. Did you not notice the trillions of dollars being used to bailout banks? did you not notice the tent cities? do you not see how almost every country that has worked with derivatives is in trouble?

It's so blantant.

Ok, so you have to 'double the number'... alright, well, we are doubling the official unemployment rates, right? So the Official rate of 25% during the depression in the US becomes 50%. If you 'double the numbers' of the official unemployment rate now, is it as high as 50%? If I double the numbers in my country it becomes 10.6%, which is a far cry away from doubled number 50%. Are you sure we should be doubling the numbers? Maybe adding ten and dividing by six then straight on till morning.

I did not notice the bailouts or tent cities. Like I said, there is no depression here.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Ah, well, here you are incorrectly attributing class to wealth, rather than ones relation to productive forces, regardless of the type of society. If a worker at a steel mill - part of the working class

I don't believe in the term "working class". Everyone who is not an Investment banker or insurance parasite is "working class". I'm talking about Lower - Middle - and upper middle class.

All of these can be attributed to the living standard of the individual. If you're a steel working or a phone receptionist and both are making 40,000 to 70,000 a year.....Your both middle class.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

You said that the non-existence of unions also equals the non-existence of a middle class. Even going on your incorrect assumption that wealth equals class, a middle class can still exist; people can still be wealthy and not belong to a union.

True,

A very small amount of people can be wealthy without any labor organization. You're correct.

A very, very ,very small amount of people can have all the wealth while the laborers with NO representation can continue to have their living standards slashed.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Seriously, list 20 banks that have been shut this last week. Don't make me go looking for your answers.

I can't think for you. You're going to have to be a big boy and do it yourself.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Ok, so you have to 'double the number'... .

Everyone knows that the government always finds ways to manipulate the unemployment figures. I don't know how old you are....probably very young seeing how feckless you are.....but in big boy land the unemployment numbers are always wrong and "discouraged workers" who don't show up anymore to collect their benefits get taken off the lists for unemployment payments.

Common sense. blatant reality. you have the internet. use it.

[Kitsa]

stupid dbl post stupid quote thing sry sry

[Kitsa]

Grr the quote thing keeps breaking but this is about the banks thing.



Seriously? The burden of proof is on you, Coolinator, not him. You're the one who threw out the factoid. He's not even asking for your sources, he's just asking you which twenty banks closed this week.

I mean, hell, we could all do that. Uh, 50 new hemorrhagic fevers were discovered last month. No, don't ask me for more information about them...you have an internet connection, find it yourself.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

I don't believe in the term "working class". Everyone who is not an Investment banker or insurance parasite is "working class". I'm talking about Lower - Middle - and upper middle class.

In society there are usually classes. There is a bottom rung low class, sometimes a middle class, and an upper or ruling class. Depending on the socio-economic structure of the society in question, these classes can represent several different groups and their relation to the economy. During Feudal times, there was an aristocratic ruling class, a middle merchant class, and a peasant class. The revolutions in the past centuries that led to a switch in ruling power also caused a switch in economic power, in fact, the two go hand in hand; the middle merchant class, the bourgeoisie, became the ruling class, and the lower peasant class mostly became the working class. The birth of capitalist society also led to the creation of a new middle class, the petite bourgeois, of smaller capitalists that purchase labour from the working class, but do not own the means of production like the ruling capitalist class do.

We attribute class to the relation one has to the economy rather than simply how much wealth they have because these terms mean something from an economic, and also historic, point of view. You do not see "the rich" being in power, or "the poor" being the base of a revolution for this reason, even though the rich may be part of the ruling class, and the poor may be part of the lower class. This is too simple, as the economy is the main structure of the society, rather than 'having money', and economic developments do not and have not come about from 'having money', rather, they come about through the interests of one class clashing with another.

Capitalism did not overthrow Feudalism simply because the middle class had more money than the feudal lords, it came about because the bourgeois were controlling the economic power through trade more so than the Feudal lords were through taxes and land rights. They held economic power, so they took political power.

If class simply meant wealth, then why would the word 'class' even be used? Why 'middle class' when we could just say 'middle wealthy'? Why would there be low, middle and upper class, when there are people that are more wealthy than low but not middle? Lower middle? Upper middle? Upper upper middle? I could go on.

DON'T YOU SEE? YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVING THAT CLASS MEANS WEALTH? DON'T YOU SEE?

Actually, never mind. There is no point typing this and there is no point you typing a reply, because you will be completely wrong.

All of these can be attributed to the living standard of the individual. If you're a steel working or a phone receptionist and both are making 40,000 to 70,000 a year.....Your both middle class.

No, your an idiot.

A very small amount of people can be wealthy without any labor organization. You're correct.

A very, very ,very small amount of people can have all the wealth while the laborers with NO representation can continue to have their living standards slashed.

"A small amount of people" outside of a union still means your "middle class" exists. But this is idiotic to argue since you don't even know what you are talking about. By the way, I'm not part of a union and I live quite well.

I can't think for you. You're going to have to be a big boy and do it yourself.

Straight from the VinceZeb school of "Make my argument for me". Max would love you if he were around. You make what sounds to me like a rather outrageous statement, and then when I ask you to back it up you ... you tell me to back it up for you? Why would I?

The moon is made of cheese!

Prove it

YOU PROVE IT! I CAN'T THINK FOR YOU!

Everyone knows that the government always finds ways to manipulate the unemployment figures. I don't know how old you are....probably very young seeing how feckless you are.....but in big boy land the unemployment numbers are always wrong and "discouraged workers" who don't show up anymore to collect their benefits get taken off the lists for unemployment payments.

Common sense. blatant reality. you have the internet. use it.

I do know that official unemployment figures are only related to a certain percentage of people. You said that we should double the official percentages, so, we double the official percentages of the mid thirties and we get 50%, higher than your post-doubled percentage of 25%. Much higher.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

In society there are usually classes. There is a bottom rung low class, sometimes a middle class, and an upper or ruling class. Depending on the socio-economic structure of the society in question, these classes can represent several different groups and their relation to the economy.

Didn't i just say this in my last post? Seems like everyone here loves to agree with me but they change the words around a little to make it sound different. What's the problem with just saying....."yes, that's how classes work".

During Feudal times, there was an aristocratic ruling class, a middle merchant class, and a peasant class. The revolutions in the past centuries that led to a switch in ruling power also caused a switch in economic power, in fact, the two go hand in hand; the middle merchant class, the bourgeoisie, became the ruling class, and the lower peasant class mostly became the working class.

LOL, Zhukov,

you've been reading the wrong books buddy. Nothing has changed. The "revolution" as you put it didn't change anything. There are numbers sub classes but the two main classes are this

There is a ruling Oligarchy

and then there is you


Poor, Middle, upper middle, and upper class are economically based BUT they are all ruled the the Oligarchical financiers. Maybe I should've been a bit more clear but I didn't think this would drag on for so long.

Eitherway. Your wrong. Whoever told you that pile of garbage that you just typed out is absolutely wrong. Research Oligarchy.

The birth of capitalist society also led to the creation of a new middle class, the petite bourgeois, of smaller capitalists that purchase labour from the working class, but do not own the means of production like the ruling capitalist class do.

When and where are you speaking of? It would be nice to know which countries history you are speaking about because all of them have different stories behind them.

There has always been a small battle between labor and employers and on a bigger scale there has always been a battle between the Oligarchy and the people.

Everything else is a sub-category.

We attribute class to the relation one has to the economy rather than simply how much wealth they have because these terms mean something from an economic, and also historic, point of view. You do not see "the rich" being in power, or "the poor" being the base of a revolution for this reason, even though the rich may be part of the ruling class, and the poor may be part of the lower class. This is too simple, as the economy is the main structure of the society, rather than 'having money', and economic developments do not and have not come about from 'having money', rather, they come about through the interests of one class clashing with another.

Are you kidding me? Who has more sway in government affairs? Weathly financiers or dirt farming peasants? Where the hell did you get this information from?

Every time you say "relation with the economy" you agree with me. That's all. Please acknowledge this.

If class simply meant wealth, then why would the word 'class' even be used? Why 'middle class' when we could just say 'middle wealthy'? Why would there be low, middle and upper class, when there are people that are more wealthy than low but not middle? Lower middle? Upper middle? Upper upper middle? I could go on.

If you can't understand the relation to wealth, economy, and natural resources to the class one holds in a society then I don't know what to tell you.

"A small amount of people" outside of a union still means your "middle class" exists. But this is idiotic to argue since you don't even know what you are talking about. By the way, I'm not part of a union and I live quite well.

There are some people outside of unions that hold a middle class income yes, but a healthy economy needs labor organizations because the corporate oligarchical structure will always seek to lower standards of living, quality of life, and the destruction of old age pensions.

I do know that official unemployment figures are only related to a certain percentage of people. You said that we should double the official percentages, so, we double the official percentages of the mid thirties and we get 50%, higher than your post-doubled percentage of 25%. Much higher.

5 percent more is much higher? you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.

[Pentegarn]

Wow, miss a day, miss a lot

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

Unofficially there is about 25-30% national unemployment in the USA. They always cook the books. People are living in tent cities (Hoovervilles / Obamavilles), people are taking drastic pay cuts, the production base of the USA is completely destroyed by "Free Trade" agreements. Unions are being broken (without unions there is no middle class),

Investment banks (foreign and domestic) have taken trillions of dollars in "bailout" money because of their toxic deriviatives. Other banks are going bust. I believe 20+ banks went under in the last week.

I think its safe to say we are in a full blown world depression. It's effected almost every nation on the globe.

and It's all because of investment houses and their derivative paper which I may add was illegal at one time.

Look, as an objectivist, I dislike Obama's policies more then pretty much anyone. That being said, even I don't buy what you just said. Saying "Unofficially unemployment is at 20-30%" isn't saying shit. I unofficially get 15 blow jobs a week if I count thinking about them during masturbation, but it doesn't count. Just like pay cuts do not count as unemployment.

Also blaming the housing bubble alone on the current state of the economy is rather short sighted. This has been a long time coming. It has been building up to a slow boil since the early 90s. There have been a few bubbles besides housing in that time that have in their own way, contributed to this mess. All the bubble has done has moved from one event to another, growing a little bigger each time. Any one thing alone would have meant little overall, but trying to cushion all of these smaller bubbles (housing included) led to this mess.

In conclusion, 10% unemployment does not, a depression make