We are in a Depression. Read on.

[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.

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

...

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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".

NO! NO you didn't just say that in your last post. Are you serious? What the fuck? You said class was determined by wealth, and I said that class is determined by ones relation to the economy, as in, ones standing in society. Are you a wage labourer or an employer? Are you a small business owner or are you a major share holder in a world wide mining corporation? These are the thing that affect what class you can be considered part of, not how much money you have.

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

The... I am having trouble getting my head around this level of ignorance... the various revolutions (plural) of the last few centuries haven't changed anything in your point of view? I mean, I would say that it all certainly seems to be of a similar looking structure; top, bottom classes etc, but to say that things haven't changed as far as man's relation to society... ok, I understand now. See, if you foolishly believe that class is determined by wealth, then you would see nothing wrong with this point of view. Unfortunately, every single social scientist, economist and historian on the planet disagrees with you because you are wrong.

You wont see any difference between the oligarchs of ancient slave societies based on agriculture, or the "Oligarchs" of modern capitalist society based on industry because you are a moron.

There are the thinking, intelligent, often humuorous but usually on the ball members of this forum.

And then there is you.

Poor, Middle, upper middle, and upper class are economically based BUT they are all ruled the the Oligarchical financiers.

DO you know what an "Oligarchical Financier" is? This is just a nothing term from you that sounds mildly imposing. What does it mean when the "Oligarchical Financiers" are ruling the middle class? Please tell.

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

Research Bumbag

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.

I'm talking about the world. I think you will find that, although all different, a basic structure of economic development can be seen throughout the history of mans various civilisations. Obviously you would not see any "different stories behind them" because you don't think anything has actually changed.

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.

No. There hasn't always been a small battle between labour and employers because their relation to the economy and society is a strictly capitalistic one, a recent thing by human standards of history. You utter, utter twit.

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

?
What? When did I say anything about peasants having more political power than "wealthy financiers"? I honestly have no idea what you read in what I typed. You are insane.

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

Wealth does not mean your relation to the economy. The way you affect (not effect) the economy is your relation to it, not the amount of money you have. A person working in a factory relates to the economy as seller of labour and a producer of goods. This is how you define class, not how much money the person has.

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.

Uh, this sounds suspiciously like you are stealing my words and throwing them back at me, but using them incorrectly. You've also gone from saying that wealth determines class, to wealth AND 'economy'... I'm also guessing you mean economic standing, because people don't actually own economies, they simply are part of them.


(I'll leave out "natural resources" because that is embarrassing. Oh, wait, do you mean the ownership of the means of production? The ownership of a nation's oil reserves, for example? Suddenly you have gone from "$70k a year means upper class"... to "$70k a year and owning the means of capital" which sounds like you sliding down the slippery slope of I 'was wrong but wont admit it while slowly changing my opinion')

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.

You said that without unions there is no middle class. You also alluded to the fact that unions are something that we will see less of now that there are Death Panels here to genocide them into oblivion, does that mean that your middle class will disappear?

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

Uh, the difference between 25 and 50 is more than 5... It's actually 25. You know, I googled Detroit Unemployment rate, and the first hit was from the huffington post Anyway, let's say we raise the figures of Detroit's unemployment rate to 50%, this still does not equal a worldwide depression, does it?

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Are you a small business owner or are you a major share holder in a world wide mining corporation? These are the thing that affect what class you can be considered part of, not how much money you have.

That's an outdated point of view then. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

DO you know what an "Oligarchical Financier" is?

Who got the largest share of the banker / insurance bailouts?

Originally Posted by Zhukov

You said that without unions there is no middle class.

With no labor organization to protect middle class workers then their living standards will be lowered to the point of the poor class. Which is what has happened. Find a chart that compares the fall of unions to the disappearing middle class.

Even if an individual is not in a union his wages are padded by the existance of union wages no matter what. If a company doesn't offer as much if not higher wages then why would that person want to work there? That person would go work for a union instead. Why waste time at a job that is not going to pay you a living wage and pension? Unless your destitute which most people are because we are in a global depression. Hence the high unemployment, tent cities, bailouts, extension of unemployment welfare, so on and so forth.

Also, Union workers who get paid more spend more, another reason why they are good for the economy.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

blah blah blah

So what do you think we should do about the 1.5 Quadrillion dollars in derivative paper that's causing the world economic depression?

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

you know there is 50% unemployment in some individual states? Detroit is one of them.

YOU FOOL. YOU FOOLISH FOOL.

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

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

The most astonishing part of this fact is Detroit is (apparently) a state now

PS: I know it was already covered, I just wanted to have my turn too