Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way, still waiting for you to show where I said most Americans aren't in debt.
Be a man and stand up to what your accusations, should be easy just use the quote function and show where I said this. By continuing to ignore this you're basically admitting you made it up. Don't worry, I'll keep asking...
You claimed that our economy is not run on debt because 20% don’t have any.
But when you account for underdeveloped areas, those living on welfare, prisoners (repeat), and those that inherit a good deal of money, you find that the vast majority participate in the debt economy because the economy requires it.
It’s like saying the USSR wasn’t a state managed economy because people owned private farms.
You made the original lie, I showed you evidence, and then you tried to spin it and say I was wrong.
Yes you keep saying that, but unfortunately for you the thread is here for anyone to see and it documents quite clearly that I spoke the truth by saying there are millions of Americans without debt.
What I'm still waiting on is for you to quote where I said most Americans don't have any debt. You attributed that statement to me yet have continued to ignore requests to show where I said it. It seems would be so easy to once and for all establish me as this liar you keep saying I am, yet you refuse to use the simple quite function to prove it.
Why is this? Oh yeah, because I didn't say it, and you know it. You were caught lying, and you're trying to ignore it hoping it goes away. I'll keep asking with every post.
Winterfall-Shuffle (tm). The point of contention wasn't a key inflection point or what's necessary for the economy, it was you claiming owning a home is necessary to build wealth. Here you are verbatim:
[i]"As for housing, you can read about this yourself, housing is needed as a starting point for wealth creation as people need assets (collateral) to have value and source of increasing wealth (rising property value)."
You're already starting the Winterfall cycle of running away from what you said, but I'll point out anyway: this is utter BS. One can never own a property in their life and build wealth through business and investment.
Ahhh so now experience is meaningful for the discussion at hand. Since that has become important to you I had an entire career working, living, investing, and building wealth in the United States.
Curious about you then, since experience is now important to you:
- Have you owned a business?
- Have you managed an organization?
- Have you bought a home?
- Have you invested?
Thanks in advance for clarifying those things, since experience is important in contributing to discussion. We await your responses.
You are such a liar.
For one, when studies show that housing is key to wealth creation for low income workers, it is not an absolute. Meaning there can be exceptions, that doesn't change the fundamental nature of our economy. You got called out with the 80% statistic and now you're trying to twist it around.
Lets call it the lieqiang twister
As for experience, I don't judge from a lack of experience (knowledge is independent from that in some cases), but I do misinformation.
The difference between being misinformed and uninformed (I'm neither) is that information on how rent is handled in Thailand can confuse itself with how it works in the US.
Singapore for example is heavily based on public housing as most of its population is poor while property value is sky high, and they don't need a high debt consumer class to control as their market as an international trading hub is different from the US's domestic economy AND political power.
My original post to you explains why demand is created for certain commodities and why housing is priced the way it is.
Demand is created by consumers.
Housing is priced the way it is due to Supply & Demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Your lies and deceit just show how truly ignorant you are Mircea. I'm starting to lose hope you will ever understand what is going on around you.
I was playing "tag" with Soviets and East Germans in the 1 Km Zone before you were born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Firstly to compare the history of borrowing money to the current debt system is beyond ignorant.
I wasn't making a comparison. I was simply pointing out that people have always been in debt and that debt is often a necessity.
Obviously, you're unable to accept Truth and Reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Our current debt system is formed by financial institutions and government regulators to make sure people can obtain needed commodities to keep the economy growing while keeping labor activity on a tight leash through interest rates and capital confiscation.
That's not what happens.
Needed commodities? I smell the Wintefall Shuffle coming. Who goes into debt to buy food?
I'm sure there are a few people who are terrible money managers and do go into debt to buy food, but the vast majority of Americans do not. The fact that someone might use a credit card to buy food does not mean they're going into debt, it just means they're using their credit card.
What other "needed commodities?" Clothes? Nobody goes into debt to buy clothes, and if they do, it's a voluntary choice, not an obligation. Sure, there are idiots who buy clothes on sale at 20% off using their credit card at 22% interest and end up losing the 20% discount, plus paying 2% extra for the clothes, but they're financial morons, like you.
Electricity? Water? Those are "needed commodities" but no one goes into debt for them.
They might go into debt for housing, but that's a personal choice, not an obligation. You can rent. You can also get a land-contract, which is effectively rent-to-own.
For many, buying a home is more advantageous than renting.
Unless you happen to have $150,000 in cash sitting around, you're going to have to go into debt.
But, as I explained, and which went completely over your head, Opportunity Costs come into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
So say you want to buy a house, most people due to rising property value cannot afford one with nothing, so they introduce credit to allow mass purchasing.
That's not why credit was introduced.
To understand the history of credit, you can watch the BBC's Connections with James Burke, specifically the episode Eat, Drink and Be Merry... and he will explain it to you, but like all of us here, Burke will be talking over your head.
People were unable to afford housing even before property values rose.
In the 1800s, people didn't have cash on hand to buy land, so they borrowed it from a bank and then built their own home out in the middle of nowhere, where your nearest neighbor was 2 to 10 miles away.
Most people today don't know how to build a home. They rely on other people to build it for them, and those people don't work for free.
And why shouldn't housing prices rise?
After 173 pages, you're still incapable of understanding Supply & Demand.
Explain why I should sell my tickets for the NCAA Final Four for $35 when there are 300,000 people willing to pay $2,500?
That's Supply & Demand in operation. Supply of tickets is very low, and Demand for tickets is very high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Before between the homestead act and low development, housing and land was cheap to nothing.
Um, at the time of the Homestead Act, the US population was 31.4 Million and 95% of the population lived in rural areas.
The population today is 317 Million and 80.7% live in urban areas.
That would be the Supply & Demand thing you don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Now you say (probably from total ignorance) that people need cars for lifestyle improvements; but what you fail to realize is that this model of standard of living came from infrastructure planning.
There was no infrastructure planning. That's why your infrastructure is a mess.
There are 13,149 people in Vinton County, Ohio.
How do you propose they get to a job in Ross County (Chillicothe) or Scioto County (Portsmouth)?
Do you think they should walk a 70 mile round-trip? Because you either farm, herd, run your own business, or work in another county.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
So say our country was made up of cheap public transportation, and suburban/rural areas weren't made up of strip malls but walkable town centers or communes, what use would cars be?
I'm guessing you never lived in London.
I lived in Miles End, before buying a flat in Queen's Park. Yes, I went into debt, because it was 95,300 Pound Sterling, and I didn't have that much cash.
I could have lived very, very frugally and saved the money over 4 years, but the owner would have sold it long before then, and then I wouldn't be able to have it.
London has a very well-developed public transportation system consisting of the Tube and buses, and yet everyone still owns cars.
I'm guessing you never lived in Berlin, either. I worked there off and on for weeks and months at a time.
Berlin also has a well-developed public transportation system consisting of the U-Bahn and buses, and yet everyone still owns cars.
Cars allow freedom of mobility. You can go where you want, whenever you want, instead of going only where public transpiration goes, at the times that they permit.
I'm guessing you've never gone grocery shopping and ridden public transportation.
I do it all the time.
Bringing $400 worth of groceries onto a crowded bus is near impossible and quite the headache and hassle.
I actually waste money, because I have to shop weekly, since I can only carry $40-$60 worth of groceries onto a crowded bus. Fortunately, I can walk to a grocery store, but it's over 100 years old, very small and doesn't have the selection and doesn't carry items I need.
So, by driving, I would save money, because the cost to ride the bus is equal to 3 trips by car to the grocery store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
But as car manufacturers created jobs, and made profit from selling and reselling automobile brands, it became profitable and necessary to organize society as such thanks to higher tax revenues and profit. So when it came to lending money, the required goods people 'had' to own increased.
Except cities existed long before cars, which makes your claim false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
The next part of your post is off the rails. Banks give credit ratings to people so that they know the interest can be paid down. They want people with income, but high spending habits to match.
Banks do not give credit ratings.
Credit ratings were established by Fair, Isaac & Company, using the acronym FICO.
Since then, credit reporting agencies have developed their own algorithms, which are similar to, but not exactly like FICO whose algorithm is a closely guarded secret.
Banks and other lenders pay an annual subscription fee for the privilege of using the FICO scoring system.
The FICO system indicates credit-worthiness, and low interest rates are offered to high scorers, because the risk of default is low, while high interest rates are offered to low scorers, because the risk of default is high. That has been proven statistically, as well as legally in civil court.
Many people initially get a credit card with an 18% rate, but over time, as they demonstrate credit-worthiness and their FICO score increases, they call the card-holder's customer service representatives and get the interest rate reduced, like to 12%.
How little you actually know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
So your mythical responsible spender wasn't about loaning money, but accepting loans.
Your mythical responsible spender, not mine. I was quoting you. You said "responsible spender."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
If people kept purchases and spending to a minimum while saving up money, that would increase the likelihood that someone would pay down the entire credit worth in one sitting, and the bank would lose a stream of profit while also losing leverage over their spending habits.
Yeah? So? It's not the end of the world.
I'm all for responsible spending, but unlike you, I understand that there are times when people can and should incur debt to their own advantage.
It's a matter of Opportunity Costs, something else you don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
But of course you see nothing wrong, all your supposed knowledge is wrapped up into a small condensed 1 dimensional world view where only money creation matters.
I never said anything about money creation, but I guess when you're losing the argument, you have to put words in people's mouths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
You observe awful realities which incense you to worship power and authority as long as it derives a 'higher-standard of living' regardless of the causes that lead to certain 'needs' and 'freedoms'.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, I worship efficiency, not power and authority.
And, regarding Standard of Living, people want what they want, and unless you intend to lobotomize everyone, that will never change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
You feed and you feed but you will never understand.
What? Your messed up world? I don't think an army of psychiatrists could ever figure you out.
It is only a tax on profits (so not total sale value).
I'm not supporting it from a tax revenue stand point, I don't care about that, but it would lower economic activity in the corporate sector and dissuade people from investing (and inflating) the stock market.
The materialistic profit motive that has driven our economy has built an authoritarian state where money buys you freedom, and the more money you have, the more freedom you have as well.
To create a freer society it must be more egalitarian and not based on increasing economic activity.
Also in the long run it will lower government revenues and slow imperialistic ambitions abroad.
Furthermore people will be happier not trying to become millionaires and building a life rather than making a living.
Why should I work my whole life to create a "freer society"??????????????????
If someone wants to become a millionaire, it's their business. Everyone has the right to go out and work their own asses off. I don't have to support them
I can see the gears working through your brain in this response. You again don't understand but this time I clearly understand where these mistakes are coming from so I can help you along the way:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Demand is created by consumers.
Housing is priced the way it is due to Supply & Demand.
This is the epitome of your one dimensional view set. Besides ignoring production costs you ignore where the demand came from, why it exists, what purpose does it serve for the wider economy if any. And then on the side of the supply you must ask how much capital is needed to create the demand, who creates it, and what do they gain?
I tried explaining this to you but instead you fall back to the tired ideological lines when you can't formulate a response; perhaps because your ideology won't let you. So I will try again: When the interstate highway was built or when the smart phone was produced, how did that change business, and how did that change consumer behavior?
If people did not have long form public transit then they would need a car, and if business could locate to different areas depending on the capabilities of their working base, then cars again would be needed.
And then you have to ask why was this beneficial if at all? Well you could gather on closer examination that a greater demand for cars increased the automobile business, increased worker employment in the field, and produced more tax revenue than funding a public transit network (train lines) would. So again was it because the consumer demanded it? Or was it because economic leaders planned it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I was playing "tag" with Soviets and East Germans in the 1 Km Zone before you were born.
This means nothing, I never said you were uninformed, just misinformed by your ideological world view that blinds you to basic realities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I wasn't making a comparison. I was simply pointing out that people have always been in debt and that debt is often a necessity.
Obviously, you're unable to accept Truth and Reality.
You can't, I was only speaking about the former, not the latter; bringing it up is a tool of distraction and subversion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's not what happens.
Needed commodities? I smell the Wintefall Shuffle coming. Who goes into debt to buy food?
I'm sure there are a few people who are terrible money managers and do go into debt to buy food, but the vast majority of Americans do not. The fact that someone might use a credit card to buy food does not mean they're going into debt, it just means they're using their credit card.
What other "needed commodities?" Clothes? Nobody goes into debt to buy clothes, and if they do, it's a voluntary choice, not an obligation. Sure, there are idiots who buy clothes on sale at 20% off using their credit card at 22% interest and end up losing the 20% discount, plus paying 2% extra for the clothes, but they're financial morons, like you.
Electricity? Water? Those are "needed commodities" but no one goes into debt for them.
They might go into debt for housing, but that's a personal choice, not an obligation. You can rent. You can also get a land-contract, which is effectively rent-to-own.
For many, buying a home is more advantageous than renting.
Unless you happen to have $150,000 in cash sitting around, you're going to have to go into debt.
But, as I explained, and which went completely over your head, Opportunity Costs come into play.
Ok lets go through each one of these as your mistake is blatantly clear to anyone who can think with a clear and critical mind.
For one food and clothing has been made relatively cheap by market economics. Now, before you go jumping up and down I need you to stop and think and use your grey cells.
What is the consequence of this, well it means the producers, mainly farms and sweat shops are no longer independently controlled, but are dictated by global supply chains. Sweat shops are more or less a creation of this system but farms are not.
When the agricultural society is deemed 'inefficient' for global markets, they do not have freedom to operate on their own accord as they need to feed the profit machine. What happens?
They lose their right to freedom, and indigenous land that is fertile and not producing taxable income is considered useless and must be exploited. Is this freedom for individuals, or is this the system dictating labor and property to benefit market growth. And is market growth a good thing, when demand is kept artificially high by food suppliers like Tysons, helping create the materialistic hungry society that is needed. You pretend people naturally demand more and more, but you ignore why it is efficient and why it must be this way.
You can only see what your limited ideology allows you to see, and that is why you have to believe that demand is a spontaneous creation that the market is simply replying to.
Not that development is promoted to help market and increase consumption (which equates to higher tax revenues and profits).
Next you mention electricity and water, two public goods that aren't handled by the private industry (and before you mention private electric companies, those are still public goods that are highly regulated and controlled. Why? because they have little price elasticity because people need them (again because of how society is structured. Water is not obtained by wells individually, and people like the more immediate option, and electricity because if you hope to maintain yourself in the current work environment, you need it to keep up with the standards created for you). That means one company could raise prices, suffer little consequence, and build a practical monopoly with that excess profit (that other producers can't keep up with due to cost of production plus access to supply chains).
Now one example were the good is not publicly owned/controlled like the electric or water system is healthcare. That is why medical costs can spike as well as drug costs. And people do go into debt for medical costs.
Housing too is another example of people going into debt, but here we have to understand were demand comes from. You don't want to look a step deeper because you can't. It is against your philosophy so you have to see demand as just demand.
Well pricing can rise when development increases, so if corporate investment moves in, housing prices will too. And that is the purpose of urban areas (excluding small towns), they are a concentration of capital.
Early on it was trading capital, then political capital (take the Chinese capitals in the early dynasty period), and then it was also industrial capital.
As industrialization required a concentrated base of labor and investment, people had to be moved into the cities (urbanized) for it to work. Free market capitalist like yourself believe the free markets just dictate where labor needs to be moved, so if the US is no longer cost efficient in creating agricultural goods for the market it needs, then it needs industrial goods. Besides the labor skill gaps, what free market activist like yourself ignore is geography. If large portions of the population need to be moved it is not freedom or liberty that is dictating it, but force.
Different methods can be used, but the point is the end result has to be reached. As such the consequence in smaller areas is that house prices increase; and even with the creation of increased supply vertically (taller buildings) you ignore that these constructions are not always 'cheap housing' and exist to attract high spenders (greater profits) which rise the price for everyone.
And as land prices increase, so does production costs, that means building is more costly, as are the wages for construction workers in more developed areas (unless you want migrant slaves like the UAE); this is an element of cost you completely are ignorant of or refuse to understand because it does not fit into the supply/demand graph.
And then there is the question of rural land values. When investors (like they are now) speculate on land value and buy up large swaths of rural land, that jack up prices for everyone. What this means is the cost individual family farms have to pay shoots up, as does the cost of labor. What is the consequence, they are forced to sell out to large food suppliers, they lose management of their farms (they become more of a leased farm even though they technically own the land) or they lose and go broke.
Now this loops back to my previous point about farming as a food supply. When you praise efficiency as the greatest tool for consumption, do you ask what all this excess wealth, food, and market choice leads to?
The absolute destruction of the ecosystem. And I'm not talking about pollution (a quarter of which comes from agriculture), that is a different story all together. I'm talking about the tiling methods and large amounts of land needed from harvesting and grazing; when the biodiversity of a region is destroyed, the animal life follows, as does the soil erosion. Biological like trees and shrubs are not considered part of mono-cropping (unlike traditional farming which use to be a mix of crop mixing, natural farming, arbor-farming, and permaculture to increase soil quality and ecological sustainability) and market demand created by the large consumer market (again, created because it is most profitable) created it. Even in Brazil small farms have torn down the Amazon for grazing as suppliers and sellers to global and local markets across Brazil (and it is only going to escalate due to the current government back by neo-liberal economists from Chicago you love so much).
You don't think through your own beliefs, if all you can do is worship efficiency then you have to ask why it is so important, what it produces, and why it exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And why shouldn't housing prices rise?
After 173 pages, you're still incapable of understanding Supply & Demand.
Explain why I should sell my tickets for the NCAA Final Four for $35 when there are 300,000 people willing to pay $2,500?
That's Supply & Demand in operation. Supply of tickets is very low, and Demand for tickets is very high.
I have explained it to you very slowly, I hope you understood, though I really doubt it. Take the NCAA Final Four, why do these tournaments exist, what purpose do they serve, how are they marketed, and why do leaders want them, because they certainly do.
Local officials love when tournaments come to town even if some locals don't because it is an influx of cash for greater development and taxable income (and could cause the rise of property prices).
So while it is your belief that people demanded it so it came, you have to ask who benefits, and why it is promoted by government and business leaders. It is about the money, not freedom and personal fulfillment. It is because it could be marketed, it builds demand for construction, it gives more money to government coffers, and because the elite benefit. That is why it exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Um, at the time of the Homestead Act, the US population was 31.4 Million and 95% of the population lived in rural areas.
The population today is 317 Million and 80.7% live in urban areas.
That would be the Supply & Demand thing you don't understand.
There was no infrastructure planning. That's why your infrastructure is a mess.
There are 13,149 people in Vinton County, Ohio.
How do you propose they get to a job in Ross County (Chillicothe) or Scioto County (Portsmouth)?
Do you think they should walk a 70 mile round-trip? Because you either farm, herd, run your own business, or work in another county.
Infrastructure being a mess is different from it being operable. We have interstate highways and it is in the interest of the government and businesses for them to stay open (gather funding).
But again you forget to ask why jobs are placed where they are, who makes these decisions, and what this allows (a greater market for car and the necessity by some for a car increasing price elasticity).
The economy where people need to move to certain areas is determined by the market, not free people based on their own desires of where to live. Their hometowns, which once were independent and self-sustaining, are now at the whims of corporate investment and must prostitute themselves as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I'm guessing you never lived in London.
I lived in Miles End, before buying a flat in Queen's Park. Yes, I went into debt, because it was 95,300 Pound Sterling, and I didn't have that much cash.
I could have lived very, very frugally and saved the money over 4 years, but the owner would have sold it long before then, and then I wouldn't be able to have it.
London has a very well-developed public transportation system consisting of the Tube and buses, and yet everyone still owns cars.
I'm guessing you never lived in Berlin, either. I worked there off and on for weeks and months at a time.
Berlin also has a well-developed public transportation system consisting of the U-Bahn and buses, and yet everyone still owns cars.
Cars allow freedom of mobility. You can go where you want, whenever you want, instead of going only where public transpiration goes, at the times that they permit.
I'm guessing you've never gone grocery shopping and ridden public transportation.
I do it all the time.
Bringing $400 worth of groceries onto a crowded bus is near impossible and quite the headache and hassle.
I actually waste money, because I have to shop weekly, since I can only carry $40-$60 worth of groceries onto a crowded bus. Fortunately, I can walk to a grocery store, but it's over 100 years old, very small and doesn't have the selection and doesn't carry items I need.
So, by driving, I would save money, because the cost to ride the bus is equal to 3 trips by car to the grocery store.
You're so eager to prove me wrong, that you completely ignore what I am saying. I am talking about large scale transportation like train lines, not internal city infrastructure. The passenger train-lines were disinvested so that they could be replaced by cars which raked up more profit for the companies, created more wage jobs, and more tax money.
Of course cities have public transport like Buses as traffic is too much to keep the city running efficiently which then allows people to make money without a car and buy it later.
But try living in suburban American or even major American cities. You need a car to get around absolutely, and it has nothing to do with them being small or big, it is how they were built (intentionally). While old European towns (villages/rural areas) could have public plazas as that was the nature of society when they were built, newer American towns (even in rural areas) were built to create more automobile demand and create more business (auto sales which require new purchases every so often).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Except cities existed long before cars, which makes your claim false.
I've explained this already. Cars didn't invent the need for cities, they just changed how some were structured. And again you ignore my emphasis on long transits with trains vs. Interstate highways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Banks do not give credit ratings.
Credit ratings were established by Fair, Isaac & Company, using the acronym FICO.
Since then, credit reporting agencies have developed their own algorithms, which are similar to, but not exactly like FICO whose algorithm is a closely guarded secret.
Banks and other lenders pay an annual subscription fee for the privilege of using the FICO scoring system.
The FICO system indicates credit-worthiness, and low interest rates are offered to high scorers, because the risk of default is low, while high interest rates are offered to low scorers, because the risk of default is high. That has been proven statistically, as well as legally in civil court.
Many people initially get a credit card with an 18% rate, but over time, as they demonstrate credit-worthiness and their FICO score increases, they call the card-holder's customer service representatives and get the interest rate reduced, like to 12%.
How little you actually know.
More semantics on your part, just like your complaint on the term of corporations. All an excuse to avoid the fact that your are speaking in circles.
This demolishes the malicious propaganda you were selling me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Your mythical responsible spender, not mine. I was quoting you. You said "responsible spender."
Yes, and I was clarifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yeah? So? It's not the end of the world.
I'm all for responsible spending, but unlike you, I understand that there are times when people can and should incur debt to their own advantage.
It's a matter of Opportunity Costs, something else you don't understand.
Again you don't understand. It has nothing to do with personal responsibility. The point is if these people didn't exist (people who can't pay of their debt) revenue from interest and most importantly control of consumer activity would be lost.
The social programming that comes with it along with the business and tax funding that is used to uphold our system would be lost. That is why it can't be allowed.
My point is that these people need to exist, it has nothing to do with freedom or personal responsibility, because if everyone or most people were super conservative and paid off their debt, our economy would suffer.
That is why this free market system cannot allow people to be financial sound and needs the majority to be in debt. That also means the expensive pricing and marketing and social requirements to own capital are not a story about individuals, but a story about how the system is built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I never said anything about money creation, but I guess when you're losing the argument, you have to put words in people's mouths.
It is clear now you are losing your own argument, which I am very sorry about. Your worship of efficiency is about wealth creation.
Efficiency isn't about feeding or taking care of everyone, it is about maximizing profits and GDP growth even if it is to the detriment of liberty and happiness or even self fulfillment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
As I've pointed out repeatedly, I worship efficiency, not power and authority.
And, regarding Standard of Living, people want what they want, and unless you intend to lobotomize everyone, that will never change.
I feel sorry for you. You have so much potential and yet you refuse to see the world critically or independently. The nature of efficiency is one that benefits power and authority and exists for no other reason.
And Like I have said a hundred times about supply, standard of living is not created by people. Most people throughout history have been happy before they were forced into a higher standard of living. Unlike promoting a higher quality of life, SoL is used because it is most profitable. Consumerism is required for the wealthy and powerful to gain more control, not just for its monetary benefits, but for its social control in dictating how people work and what they use their time doing (consuming).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What? Your messed up world? I don't think an army of psychiatrists could ever figure you out.
Please, use your grey cells, I know you can do it.
You claimed that our economy is not run on debt because 20% don’t have any.
No, I said millions of Americans don't have any debt, you're expanding what I said to something else so you can argue against it. Exact quote as proof since you lie about literally everything:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
Millions of Americans have no debts
You then accused me of saying most Americans don't have any debt, which obviously is something entirely different. Exact quote as proof since you lie about literally everything:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
you lied that most Americans aren’t in debt, you get proven wrong and you squirm away.
1. I said millions of Americans have no debts
2. You claimed I said most Americans aren't in debt
3. Proof above
I'd again note it would be quote easy for you to prove me the liar using the simple quote function, but you can't so you won't. Hence a liar, with proof.
For one, when studies show that housing is key to wealth creation for low income workers, it is not an absolute. Meaning there can be exceptions, that doesn't change the fundamental nature of our economy. You got called out with the 80% statistic and now you're trying to twist it around.
Nope. You're throwing smoke grenades to try to avoid standing behind your unsupportable argument. You clearly said buying a home is required to build wealth. That is false, and now you're talking about income levels and exceptions which is just a way of admitting you were making a false claim when you stated a home is required to build wealth.
Busted again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
As for experience, I don't judge from a lack of experience (knowledge is independent from that in some cases), but I do misinformation.
Now that's interesting, because you just tried to judge from lack of experience. Exact quote as proof since you lie about literally everything:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Also you don’t live in the US so your experience is meaningless to the discussion at hand.
What? Your messed up world? I don't think an army of psychiatrists could ever figure you out.
I don't think "pathological liar" is a challenging diagnosis here. See posts above, he does nothing but lie about what others said, lie about what he said, and he'll keep doing it despite quoted proof that he's not telling the truth.
Sorry all - this thread went off the rails. It’s too far gone to clean up so it’s now closed.
Typically, it’s not permitted to start a new thread similar to one that’s been closed. In this case, you may try again but stay strictly on topic and away from any personal or rude comments. First person to report the thread if it starts to get wonky wins.
A few of you know that you need to stay clear of the new thread based on your bad behavior in this one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
