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.
I think you better take a break from posting, You've been hitting yourself upside the head so many times while writing them that you must have dislodged your brain and clearly are not making any sense.
Where is all your research to back up your statements? All you seem to be able to do is bandy about your remarks and unfounded accuations.
Don't bother trying to suggest that Keynes has a clue about economics either. Following Keynes has been all this country has done since FDR and it's only gone downhill since DAY 1 when the irresponsible government spending only prolonged the pain with unnecessary GUBMINT projects. This country's leadership has been the EPITOME of a perfect illustration of the definition of INSANITY hasn't it? We keep doing the same stupid things that don't work over and over expecting different results just because some stupid economist came up with a silly idea that incorporates Central Banksters manipulating the money supply-- which of course is popular because Globalists who want to control everything are the Banksters.
It is easy to prove this too. All you have to do is look at the loss of purchasing power of the dollar since FDR or earlier --- since 1913. All it has done is go downhill.
More bunk - and it's NOT just people on the Left who disagree with your silly contentions. This is what the very conservative Cato Institute has to say:
"...The Standard of Living
The data show unmistakably how the standard of living has increased in the world and in the United States through the recent centuries and decades, right up through the 1980s. Aggregate data always bring forth the question: But are not the gains mainly by the rich classes, and at the expense of the poor? For a portion of U.S. history, income distribution did widen (though this is hardly proof that the rich were exploiting the poor). But there has been little or no such tendency during, say, the 20th century. And a widening gap does not negate the fact of a rising absolute standard of living for the poor. Nor is there evidence that an increasing proportion of the population lives below some fixed absolute poverty line. There have been extraordinary gains by the poor in America in consumption during this century, as well as a high standard of living by any historical and cross- national standards..."
Now, having said that it IS true that here in the US has gone backwards over the last couple of decades - but that's just the last couple of decades NOT "since 1913".
And yes a dollar buys a lot less now than it did in 1913 - but people make a LOT more dollars today than they did in 1913.
Average US salary in 1910 was $750/YEAR (in 1920 it was $1236/YEAR).
Today the average US salary is $47,000 - 62 times what it was in 1910.
Price of milk was 32 cents /gallon in 1910, today it's $3.50/gallon.
Milk now costs 11 times more than it did in 1910, but the average American income is up 62 times more than it was in 1910. How is that "less" buying power - and it's the same with virtually everything else.
Please clarify your logic for me. If we roll back government to a previous level, technology will digress? Smaller, honest government = covered wagons and such?
Wasn't referring to rolling back government, was referring to the general standard of living since back then and how it compares to the standard of living today. Rolling back government is a separate issue.
So what's your excuse going to be when the GOP Convention is over and Ron Paul is the nominee?
Obama will crap his pants!
Paul will NOT be the GOP nominee - even HE knows that. It's just his followers who are deluded. Why do you think he suspended his campaign? He KNOWS he'll not get the nomination. His goal now is simply to use those delegates he has to get more of HIS platform included in the final GOP platform.
I think I grasp what you are trying to say, they lose more in net worth because they have more, however it affects them less.
Maybe it affects them less, don't know. Again you are arguing against x by pointing out not y. I've not made a single claim about how it affects the rich, or whether they are hurting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
Pelosi's investments are worth 62% more, as of 2010, so she isn't losing, she's gaining plenty. When the gov't is this involved in private business, if your in the favored category, you make out very well. GE Immelt comes to mind. Is Soros worth less? It all depends on who you are, and who you know.
So to be clear, since you have the above examples it is not true that wealthy people lost more during the recession? You're all over the place.
What was Pelosi invested in? Was it something that others could not invest in?
Look at the clothes they wore back then. You'd pay thousands of dollars per outfit to dress like that today.
yeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
Back then more people had style; class; education; panache; manners; intelligence and it was the norm rather than the exception the way it is today.
Go look at literacy rates, average number of years in school, average percent graduating high school 150 years ago versus now then come back and tell us more about what your pretty pictures of dinner parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
The big difference between then and now was that luxury was a LOT more accessible to a LOT more people than it is today
You are typing on your own computer inside your air conditioned house with indoor plumbing and a stove you don't have to chop wood to use.
More bunk - and it's NOT just people on the Left who disagree with your silly contentions. This is what the very conservative Cato Institute has to say:
"...The Standard of Living
The data show unmistakably how the standard of living has increased in the world and in the United States through the recent centuries and decades, right up through the 1980s. Aggregate data always bring forth the question: But are not the gains mainly by the rich classes, and at the expense of the poor? For a portion of U.S. history, income distribution did widen (though this is hardly proof that the rich were exploiting the poor). But there has been little or no such tendency during, say, the 20th century. And a widening gap does not negate the fact of a rising absolute standard of living for the poor. Nor is there evidence that an increasing proportion of the population lives below some fixed absolute poverty line. There have been extraordinary gains by the poor in America in consumption during this century, as well as a high standard of living by any historical and cross- national standards..."
Now, having said that it IS true that here in the US has gone backwards over the last couple of decades - but that's just the last couple of decades NOT "since 1913".
And yes a dollar buys a lot less now than it did in 1913 - but people make a LOT more dollars today than they did in 1913.
Average US salary in 1910 was $750/YEAR (in 1920 it was $1236/YEAR).
Today the average US salary is $47,000 - 62 times what it was in 1910.
Price of milk was 32 cents /gallon in 1910, today it's $3.50/gallon.
Milk now costs 11 times more than it did in 1910, but the average American income is up 62 times more than it was in 1910. How is that "less" buying power - and it's the same with virtually everything else.
The idea that people "lived better" back then is a bunch of ignorant bunk.
Ken
Look who is calling the kettle black! You are the Bunk Master if there ever was one. First of all, everyone knows ....and even YOU should know... that wages haven't gone up nearly high enough to compensate for inflation (that is 100% caused by the FED expanding the money supply when they should be doing NOTHING)! Using an "average" income is dumb because you'd be averaging in those that make billions a year along with those who make $12k a year. It would make a lot more sense to look at the MEAN income. In other words, of all the people working what is the income figure MOST employed Americans make? I bet it is nowhere near $40K I bet it is more like $25K if that!
I don't think you have any idea what the purchasing power of the dollar used to be do you? I'll tell you. In the 1890's through 1912 you could buy over $4.40 worth of stuff --- food especially ---for a dollar. You could get a loaf of bread for 4 cents which was less than it cost in the late 1700s when it cost half again as much (but they had a central bank back then)! The last time a dollar bought a dollar's worth of stuff was in 1967 when you could buy a loaf of bread for 28 cents.
How much do you pay for bread and how many loaves of bread do you consume in a year? Let's say a couple consumes 2 loaves in a week or 100 per year. Well the bread I buy today is around $4 to $7 a loaf. When I was on my own and started working it was around 50cents or maybe 68 cents a loaf. So just to be able to spend the same percentage of my income on food as I did then, I'd need to be making 7 to 10 times what I was making then.
Rents have also skyrocketed. What I used to pay $250/month for now rents for $1500 or more! Most people's income has not increased by 6 to 10 times what it was when they started out on their own in the late 70's. Even if it has done so, all they've done is maintained their standard of living they certainly haven't INCREASED it. Those who have always had menial jobs have seen their standard of living drop like a rock! So you don't know what you are talking about as far as that goes.
You can see for yourself your premise is completely wrong. When people where making $750 a year, today's $100 bought over $2500 worth of STUFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET IT, Finally? Besides back then they didn't need as much money. That is why their standard of living was SO MUCH HIGHER that ours doesn't even COMPARE with what it was back then.
Go look at literacy rates, average number of years in school, average percent graduating high school 150 years ago versus now then come back and tell us more about what your pretty pictures of dinner parties.
You are typing on your own computer inside your air conditioned house with indoor plumbing and a stove you don't have to chop wood to use.
Please do, this is hilarious.
Slackjaw. You are MISSING THE POINT. The point is to compare what things cost and the standard of living when there was NO CENTRAL BANK which was when our country was most prosperous. That would be after President Jackson got rid of them in the mid 1830's until President Wilson lost his mind and signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 (and later regreted it).
Besides, where did you get your little charts from? Did you make them yourself on Powerpoint? They certainly don't look credible or accurate or verifiable to me.
With all due respect YOU go look at Literacy Rates. Check out Charlotte Iserbyte's book and website who in case you don't know was President Regan's advisor on Education. http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/
She's got all the statistics on how much BETTER education was in the 1800s and early 1900s as compared to today. There is NO COMPARISON. Today's kids getting their Master's degrees probably couldn't compete intellectually with a typical 6th grader back then. YOU KNOW THAT. College graduates don't even know the proper grammar to convey that they graduated from college. They all say "I graduated college". How dumb sounding is that? They are totally clueless when it comes to knowing the difference between their, there, they're or your and you're.
Some of these so called "educated" post grads even have PhDs and are stumped when it comes to something as simple as that. So don't lecture me on literacy rates. It is all relative. I guess it depends on what you call "literate". Today those who are considered "literate" are 1/20 as literate as kids were in Victorian times.
I know a high school English teacher in her late 20's who has trouble with these issues. So if she doesn't know, how can she TEACH others to do it right?
Just as Ron Paul has said a million times before. Education has gotten "worse" and that is being NICE.
Thanks for linking to this thread. I certainly hope (and I EXPECT) the delegates will do the right thing and vote for who they want and not for who the GOP wants to try to force them to. After all the underhanded stuff they pulled to try to make it look like Romney won the popular vote and the majority of delegates they should be ASHAMED of themselves. Tampa will be pay back time. What goes around comes around!
i keep calling in darwinism because thats what libertarianism is. Survival of the fittest, every man for himself, kill or be killed economics. Ron Paul is a libertarian who is running as a republican because he couldn't run under the libertarian party because he knew he wouldn't get anywhere.
You're definition doesn't fit. You are confusing the role of government with the role of society. It has everything to do with property rights.
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.
