# Study finds that US is an Oligarchy, not a democracy...



## tacotiklah (Apr 30, 2015)

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

For me, this was just confirming what I had long suspected. Rich people decide the fate of the country, even if it goes against what the majority of voters want.

tl;dr
Rich people decide policy
Water is wet
Grass is green


----------



## asher (Apr 30, 2015)

Pope, despite many vitriolic protestations from the American right, also still Catholic.


----------



## USMarine75 (Apr 30, 2015)

I wish we could be more like other countries, he said in a snarky tone. 

A couple books that you might really like on this topic...

The Great Derangement by Matt Taibbi
Griftopia by Matt Taibbi
Family of Secrets by Russ Baker


----------



## asher (Apr 30, 2015)

Capital in the Twenty-First Century: Thomas Piketty, Arthur Goldhammer: 9780674430006: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## zappatton2 (Apr 30, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News
> 
> For me, this was just confirming what I had long suspected. Rich people decide the fate of the country, even if it goes against what the majority of voters want.
> 
> ...



Sadly, here in Canada we have a government that is committed to replicating what to me should be the cautionary tale of what has happened to the States over the past couple of decades. We're coming up right behind you on the Oligarch scale, might even surpass you given enough time.


----------



## Glass Cloud (Apr 30, 2015)

Seeing as how my vote doesn't actually elect the leader of my nation, I have known for years the US was NEVER a democracy. A democratic republic at best.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 30, 2015)

Since the US's very beginning this country has been run by the wealthy. It was rare when an everyday man made it in to a seat of power. At the time that made some sense since jobs needed to be done and most of them were done by folks barely making it, but nowadays it really isn't a necessary condition, especially with the salaries they get on top of already being wealthy individuals.

Our vote today counts for little, but believe it or not it counted for even less in the beginning. That was the whole point of the electoral college at the time, to override uneducated voters.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 30, 2015)

And has there ever been a time or a place in which the wealthiest have decided not to exercise their dominate political influence over the socio-economic structure?


----------



## asher (Apr 30, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And has there ever been a time or a place in which the wealthiest have decided not to exercise their dominate political influence over the socio-economic structure?



It's swung quite a bit about just _how much_ influence they have to exert over the last hundred years alone.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 1, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News
> 
> For me, this was just confirming what I had long suspected. Rich people decide the fate of the country, even if it goes against what the majority of voters want.
> 
> ...



Since when has that ever not been true?  

I guess it's because of the no rep thing now that the last couple of weeks this went from a reasonable place to be and is now just a stomp-on crew?

Honestly, it's really pissing me off. 

WHEN in history, of ANY COUNTRY/government has money/wealth not been the leading deciding factor?

There are so many things wrong with this idea it's impossible to point out (and hardly anyone cares anyways, oh I guess I'll get bashed for that too)

Do you realize that no matter how rich your mommy/daddy is that black self-built wealth accounts for a staggering amount of money in the US? More than you'll ever see. My point? There are a few people that inherit or win money but the vast majority of americans with money MADE IT. That doesn't even account for the 100's of billions that makes up illegal money 

Guess what? How many other countries can you do that in? Since "get rich or die tryin'" is the theme, where else would you rather go?


----------



## Hollowway (May 1, 2015)

Communism, as a form of economy, was the biggest recent challenge to the wealthy, and we all know how that ended up. Unfortunately, we are wired such that economies and nations thrive in a capitalist market, which, by definition, creates a wealthy class. And the wealthier they get, the more they can control everything. Historically all such societies have eventually collapsed from either revolution, attrition, take-over, etc. I'm hoping that technology and the world economy creates some sort of a financial disruption (the kind of disruption that Uber, Skype, etc bring) that tempers the growth of the ultra high net worth individuals. That would seem to be the easiest way to "coast" enough to let the middle class catch up.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 1, 2015)

Right, the problem is there is abuse and corruption REGARDLESS of the system.

There isn't anything in history (even revisionists form) that doesn't prove that.


----------



## Hollowway (May 1, 2015)

^that's a very good point. Here's nothing wrong with wealth. But the abuse of power and corruption are the problems.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 1, 2015)

That's one of the main reasons I'm on the limited government train (and no, I'm not pulling it).
The larger and more complex a bureaucracy is, the easier and more likely there is to be embezzlement and corruption within it.


----------



## MYGFH (May 1, 2015)

I love this forum. So much intelligent discussion! As much as I disapprove of how our civil servants manage our goverments. I have a giant passion for following governments, economies and business. Matt Tiabbi, Thomas Picketty, & Joseph Stiglitz all come to the same base conclusion. The oligarchy is ruining the US. And will continue until the balance of wealth is redistributed. Great discussion all! Very impressed by my 7-string contemporaries. I saw some troubling quotes from recent presidential candidates that called the US govt a republic. Mexico is a republic, all the power at the top and corrupt. We are a representative democracy. Communism is bad. Very close to the police state tha is fascism. However, I think that socialim is good. It is makes society. Caring for others. Being the best human being you can be to the world without judging others. Everyone, okay almost everyone desrves a second chance, a helping hand, forgivness, kindness and brotherly love. FWIW Good night.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (May 1, 2015)




----------



## pushpull7 (May 1, 2015)

MYGFH said:


> I love this forum. So much intelligent discussion! As much as I disapprove of how our civil servants manage our goverments. I have a giant passion for following governments, economies and business. Matt Tiabbi, Thomas Picketty, & Joseph Stiglitz all come to the same base conclusion. The oligarchy is ruining the US. And will continue until the balance of wealth is redistributed. Great discussion all! Very impressed by my 7-string contemporaries. I saw some troubling quotes from recent presidential candidates that called the US govt a republic. Mexico is a republic, all the power at the top and corrupt. We are a representative democracy. Communism is bad. Very close to the police state tha is fascism. However, I think that socialim is good. It is makes society. Caring for others. Being the best human being you can be to the world without judging others. Everyone, okay almost everyone desrves a second chance, a helping hand, forgivness, kindness and brotherly love. FWIW Good night.



The worst part is that we DO elect "new" people and it doesn't seem to matter.

Give you a story. When I lived in Phoenix, we had this republican douche names fife symington. One of the few times I absolutely voted dem in the election (and basha was no rose either, terrible supermarkets  ) and he was re-elected but had to resign because he was caught cheating on credit fraud. Typical.

Another one, in Cali, we had the great "grey davis"...wow...what a treat he was  So what happened when when he wanted to write more bad checks to pay for his incompetence? We ousted him! Dems wanted him gone because he was a turd. I fell for the "gouvanata" like everyone else. Frankly, he is the only politician I can ever remember doing what he said he was going to do. But it didn't last (of course) and he was an embarrassment in his second term.

Point? You almost can't win. The only thing we can do is stop with the nonsense of "dem/repub" and ALWAYS hold the office holder accountable. I'm not saying it's going to always work, but it's better than hiding our heads in the sand.


----------



## flint757 (May 1, 2015)

A step in the right direction is putting term limits on ALL civil servant positions, or at least the ones where that is feasible. Something like 90% of people in congress are incumbents if my memory serves me. That's too damn high whether they're good at it or not. New blood can shake things up. Admittedly not necessarily for the better, but anything else just means doing nothing. 

Technology is definitely the best way to move money around. Plenty of giants have succumb to new entrants that made the first move. The only real problem there is every time that happens they become essentially just as powerful. We're big fans of monopolies and oligopolies as a society apparently. 

We also need to undo the last decade of benefits that have been given to businesses in regards to sticking their noses in politics.

On the political front none of this will happen sadly since they're the ones who have to write these policies. They certainly aren't going to write themselves out of a job or campaign funds.


----------



## Shewter (May 1, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Point? You almost can't win. The only thing we can do is stop with the nonsense of "dem/repub" and ALWAYS hold the office holder accountable. I'm not saying it's going to always work, but it's better than hiding our heads in the sand.



That's the biggest problem with the voting majority that I've noticed. The labels are absolutely ridiculous and counter-productive to the average U.S. citizen.

If I had a dollar for every time I said (Washington State) that the liberal monopoly is ruining Western Washington, only to have people fire back with "better than voting for a Republican!" I'd be a wealthy man, and still screwed. Funny enough, we have a conservative majority in the state senate right now, and they proposed legislation that would require no increased costs to WA residents, yet provide increased funding in key social areas (I.E. Education, transportation etc.) while the long-term liberal folk were trying to increase taxes to pay for ALREADY overrun projects.

I wish instead of allowing politicians to claim a party, we forced them all to run by name only. Calling one a Republican or a Democrat seems to enable lazy voting. "Where's the D/R? Who cares what the candidates voting history is, I've picked a side and it's US vs. THEM!"


----------



## pushpull7 (May 1, 2015)

flint757 said:


> A step in the right direction is putting term limits on ALL civil servant positions, or at least the ones where that is feasible. Something like 90% of people in congress are incumbents if my memory serves me. That's too damn high whether they're good at it or not. New blood can shake things up. Admittedly not necessarily for the better, but anything else just means doing nothing.
> 
> Technology is definitely the best way to move money around. Plenty of giants have succumb to new entrants that made the first move. The only real problem there is every time that happens they become essentially just as powerful. We're big fans of monopolies and oligopolies as a society apparently.
> 
> ...



I like what you are saying, but think about it in practice: We have term limits. It doesn't seem to matter though. Again, I think, wrong or right, it's the lack of accountability. All people must be held accountable, including of course any politician. 

Fact: Obama isn't the worst president in history, but he didn't do many of the things he said he was going to do. I watched all the primaries and debates....sorry, I don't remember "obamacare" being a primary subject (what I remember is him beating the "get out troops home" drum)

Now, with Iraq, there was a plan in place to get people out BEFORE he took office. But, he came through mostly......good on him. But we are STILL not out of Afghanistan. Very bad. The point is that despite party affiliation I believe "obamacare" was a red herring and he didn't really do what he said he was going to do.

Ok, so my long winded bull.... is really saying why isn't HE held to the same standard as someone else? Bush was a pretty ....ty pres. He could have been great, but he made dumbass decisions. Again, he was re-elected (I'm still having a hard time with that. According the liberal media, he should have been blown out)

Which brings up my next point: Perception is not always fact. 

What it's going to take is something I doubt very much people have in them. You'll HAVE to put laziness and "perception" aside to get past this nonsense. Only then, can we really see what is happening, and not being sold by some "sales pitch"

Oh god....listen to me  "mr preacher!!!!!!"  

However, it is and always has been my hope that people understand the bull.... and try and get along better.


----------



## Edika (May 1, 2015)

This is the case for all nations, there never truly was a democracy even in the ancient Greek time where it was "invented". You had to be a free citizen to participate to the decision making and with the vast amount of slaves that outnumbered the free citizens then the story starts to get a bit familiar. It's just wasn't two or three people making decisions. The French revolutions gave the right to the rich merchants to own land and gave the right to elect government instead of that being a privilege of the "nobles". The people didn't really revolt, it was instigated by rich educated merchants and the poor expressed their frustration to a system that they never really approved but were taught that this is how things work and are by god's or whoever's will.

Now there is the illusion that anyone can get rich, there is that carrot. We have the illusion of freedom until the owns that govern decide that that freedom is dangerous. To elaborate a bit more on that, the vast majority of citizens of the western world is educated. But it is educated to the point that they can keep up with current innovations so they can be an effective work force. So basically trained to be functioning workers. All of us are still taught mainly that that's how things are and if we can't make it in this system then we're failures. It's our fault. Not that this system is stacked waaaaay against us. There might be one or two success stories in the millions and billions of humans in this earth and that is regarded as the norm. You might say we have access to the internet now and a lot more information to get educated and form an opinion. Yes but the worthwhile knowledge is drowned in sea of idiocy. The media the last 20 years are promoting more and more that you don't need to make an effort to be successful. It's either magical talent, super intelligence or you can just be a brain dead moron doing stupid things and you get famous. Celebrity opinions are highly regarded and people try to emulate them. Meanwhile all the worth while stuff that require effort are dismissed because the effort put in won't give the above quick results, which are of course not again realistic for the majority, or justify the financial outcome. It's like playing only lottery all your life and never working towards something.

As Holloway said the so called communist countries tried to do something different but that system got corrupted really fast. That wasn't the only factor though as the cold war and all those stupid races to show who's got a bigger dick didn't help (cold war, space race etc etc).

T


----------



## groverj3 (May 1, 2015)

Water is wet


----------



## tedtan (May 1, 2015)

Glass Cloud said:


> Seeing as how my vote doesn't actually elect the leader of my nation, I have known for years the US was NEVER a democracy. A democratic republic at best.





MYGFH said:


> We are a representative democracy.



Along the lines of what you're saying, the United States is formally a federal republic in which officials are elected via a representative democratic process.




pushpull7 said:


> Bush was a pretty ....ty pres. He could have been great, but he made dumbass decisions. Again, he was re-elected (I'm still having a hard time with that. According the liberal media, he should have been blown out)



Historically, the US doesn't change presidents while at war unless forced to do so through term limits or death. So Bush was probably reelected simply for this reason (it certainly wasn't based on his performance as a president).


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 1, 2015)

Well for his second term he was running against a traitor, not to mention J.K. sounds and looks like he belongs in the funeral business.


----------



## Hollowway (May 1, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well for his second term he was running against a traitor, not to mention J.K. sounds and looks like he belongs in the funeral business.



Yeah, I have NO idea what the Dems where thinking running Kerry. I think it was like closing time, and they panicked, because they needed someone, so they picked him. Bush is kind of known for putting his foot in his mouth, but Kerry out did him in that department during his brief term in the public eye.


----------



## celticelk (May 1, 2015)

asher said:


> It's swung quite a bit about just _how much_ influence they have to exert over the last hundred years alone.



Not to mention the fact that America's self-image - the one it projects both to itself and to the world - is fundamentally opposed to the idea that a few wealthy individuals largely call the shots politically, even if that's been the political reality more often than not.


----------



## celticelk (May 1, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Do you realize that no matter how rich your mommy/daddy is that black self-built wealth accounts for a staggering amount of money in the US? More than you'll ever see. My point? There are a few people that inherit or win money but the vast majority of americans with money MADE IT. That doesn't even account for the 100's of billions that makes up illegal money



A counter-view, with actual data: http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 1, 2015)

celticelk said:


> A counter-view, with actual data: The



Well with a name like INEQUALITY.ORG it kind of goes without saying which data they'll decide to accept as "factual" .

Might as well just call themselves DEFEATIST.ORG!


----------



## asher (May 1, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well with a name like INEQUALITY.ORG it kind of goes without saying which data they'll decide to accept as "factual" .
> 
> Might as well just call themselves DEFEATIST.ORG!



... except it's actually, like, true.


----------



## flint757 (May 2, 2015)

Bottom 20% nearly disappears.


----------



## celticelk (May 2, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well with a name like INEQUALITY.ORG it kind of goes without saying which data they'll decide to accept as "factual" .
> 
> Might as well just call themselves DEFEATIST.ORG!



I'm glad you were able to find something to mock in my post, Trench, since a rebuttal of the actual point is apparently out of your reach.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 2, 2015)

celticelk said:


> I'm glad you were able to find something to mock in my post, Trench, since a rebuttal of the actual point is apparently out of your reach.




Didn't have to look hard, it was built-in your own source.
That being said, you always assume people are making points which they are not, so that's on you.

I don't doubt at all that much/many/most wealth is either passed down or at the very least enabled by their prior generation's hard work.

My issue is with the constant whining and defeatist complainer attitudes so prevalent on the left. 
It's no wonder these thugs so readily jump at the chance to vent/loot their resentment toward the cops, whites, and the wealthy, when they are indeed raised and trained from the cradle to think there are forces constantly holding them down. (the wealthy, the whites, the police, the ect.,ect...)

It's the person in the mirror who's holding themselves down, and until they choose to believe/know otherwise they will continue to pile on the blame train. (and then they in turn really do end up figuratively "pulling it")


----------



## celticelk (May 2, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Didn't have to look hard, it was built-in your own source.
> That being said, you always assume people are making points which they are not, so that's on you.



I assume that posters in this subforum are here to actually discuss the issues. pushpull7 made an unsupported claim about patterns of wealth; I introduced data which counter his claim. You'd apparently rather make smartass comments than actually address the data. That's on you.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 2, 2015)

celticelk said:


> I assume that posters in this subforum are here to actually discuss the issues. pushpull7 made an unsupported claim about patterns of wealth; I introduced data which counter his claim. You'd apparently rather make smartass comments than actually address the data. That's on you.



I already addressed your data, and in doing so I even made my own points.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 2, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I don't doubt at all that much/many/most wealth is either passed down or at the very least enabled by their prior generation's hard work.


^^^

(is that really such an "unfair" thing though?) 

And if it is, then do you think the current government has any business taking on the act of attempting to right the innate unfairness of life?, and do they have the right to make things right?, thereby in effect being a Robin Hood? (he was like a thief ya know)

If we choose to use our government as a wealth distributor (same as re-distributor) then what are the odds there would be even more massive corruption in-house to go right along with all the private sector corruption that there is already? Seems we might just end up with twice the corruption. The more you bring in the bigger the skim can be.

Of course we already redistribute a huge amount of wealth with our current tax and social safety-net systems, but the question is really how much if any further we want to push that. 
There is a point of diminishing returns, and there are plenty of struggling economies around the world to prove it.






In actuality though, the specific stats for "the data" would depend entirely on how much relevance to place on "situational inheritance", and to what parameters the study-lines are drawn.
Forbes article/study shows one thing, and your source (the inequality boys) shows another.

Also, the cutoff point which is used to constitute "wealth" is obviously a key factor in determining an estimated % figure. 
Move that cutoff around a bit and you have a different % of course, one direction or another.


----------



## celticelk (May 2, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I already addressed your data, and in doing so I even made my own points.



What points? That you think that white liberals were responsible for the Baltimore riots? That in your opinion, poor people are entirely to blame for their poverty?


----------



## vilk (May 2, 2015)

I know it seems totally asinine but there are honestly lots and lots of people who believe that.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 2, 2015)

celticelk said:


> What points? That you think that white liberals were responsible for the Baltimore riots? That in your opinion, poor people are entirely to blame for their poverty?



There you are reaching again .

Goes right with what I'm saying, that the left is a blame/victimization culture.

Spend less time trying to blame things and spend more time kicking and scratching to find a way out, for yourself. 

The man isn't going to help you, in fact he tries to coral you into a dependence, and current events show well where that takes us a a society.

If government was the answer, then why after 50yrs (since the civil rights movement of the 60's) are we still having all these problems?
I'll tell you why, because all to often the "man" has replaced the men in minority AND white households.

Asians here in the USA are extremely successful because they rely on each other, not others. 
They (as a whole) don't look for assistance from anyone, they wouldn't want it. They wouldn't even take it.


----------



## asher (May 2, 2015)

Meanwhile, Dems in the Senate propose a bill raising federal minimum wage to $12 (barely above inflation adjustment, which was the $10.10) and eliminating tipped wage minimums (see: every thread about tipping here )

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/04/30/3653054/12-minimum-wage/

Please, tell me more about how the two parties are the same and don't do anything to help anyone.


----------



## celticelk (May 2, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> There you are reaching again .
> 
> Goes right with what I'm saying, that the left is a blame/victimization culture.
> 
> Spend less time trying to blame things and spend more time kicking and scratching to find a way out, for yourself.



If we don't understand how we got into this mess, how do we understand how to get out of it? And you may be satisfied with getting your own and damn everyone else, but I'm not.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 2, 2015)

asher said:


> Meanwhile, Dems in the Senate propose a bill raising federal minimum wage to $12 (barely above inflation adjustment, which was the $10.10) and eliminating tipped wage minimums (see: every thread about tipping here )
> 
> Democrats Propose Most Ambitious Minimum Wage Bill Yet | ThinkProgress
> 
> Please, tell me more about how the two parties are the same and don't do anything to help anyone.




That does help for a small time, but EVERYTHING will just adjust itself and $12 will become the new $8.
That min wage has been raised like at least 5-7 times over my working-age life span, and here we still are, needing more adjustments .

When you raise wages (by force or not) the cost of goods and services just go up in accordance. Doesn't accomplish anything over the long haul.
It's good for awhile for moral though, I'll concede that.


----------



## asher (May 2, 2015)

Inflation really is not driven by minimum wage. At all. That's just not how the data works.

Minimum wage can absolutely not keep up with inflation though, which is what we've seen happen.


----------



## celticelk (May 2, 2015)

In support of asher's point:

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/H...age-2013-09-01-e1378072721157/-1465035109.jpg

(Apparently the current version of Safari on the iPad doesn't play nicely with the link or image embed tools on the forum....)


----------



## estabon37 (May 3, 2015)

Just as a question, Trench, if government isn't the best means of fighting inequality, what is? I'm not asking this sarcastically or rhetorically. I can't think of a single point in history where non-government solutions have fixed huge social problems (depending on whether or not the UN is considered some form of government), nor of corrupt governments being overthrown without being replaced by governments that operate similarly.

I understand the small-government argument. Less people --> less confusion / miscommunication --> less red tape --> less abuse of resources --> etc. But there are genuinely small governments in the world, and they tend to belong to nations with high levels of corruption, because it means that each individual in government wields that much more power. So at this point are we just looking for a happy middleground?

In short form, if we can't trust the government to redistribute wealth fairly, and we can't trust the private sector to redistribute wealth fairly, what are our other options? I'd assume a huge cultural shift that favours civic engagement and widespread community support, but that would make me a 'leftie'


----------



## asher (May 3, 2015)

Or just accept that there are some things government _can_ do better than private, like this, social safety net/security, and services. And not treating workers like utter garbage.

Not to mention, sometimes actually fighting and stopping discrimination.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 3, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> In short form, if we can't trust the government to redistribute wealth fairly, and we can't trust the private sector to redistribute wealth fairly, what are our other options? I'd assume a huge cultural shift that favours civic engagement and widespread community support, but that would make me a 'leftie'




IMO we don't need anyone to do the wealth distribution. I'm just not into the whole "need for fairness" thing. Life is life, it's not required to be fair.
Some will rise, some will fall, some will hold steady, it's up to the individual to mold their own path.


----------



## asher (May 3, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> IMO we don't need anyone to do the wealth distribution. I'm just not into the whole "need for fairness" thing. Life is life, it's not required to be fair.
> Some will rise, some will fall, some will hold steady, it's up to the individual to mold their own path.



So everyone doesn't deserve the same opportunities and chances?

If you were born poor, you're more than likely completely fvcked?


----------



## flint757 (May 3, 2015)

Even if you can't trust the government you definitely can't trust the private sector. Their main goal is profit and always will be. This means a drive towards eliminating cost (things like charity would qualify if it weren't for tax breaks), eliminating competition and maximizing revenue. None of these things are good for anyone except the company involved. If a company builds a road they're building it to their facility and that is it. If a company tries to educate the public they'll make sure it is a biased, specialized education tuned for their business while eliminating dissent (on its own theirs nothing wrong with that, but if there is no alternative then it's horrible). The majority of major companies didn't go 'green' or anti-sweatshop until either the public went completely against it (and found out about it) or the government enforced it via regulation. Why would they anyhow. Cheap labor and minimal safeguards is far cheaper than actually doing the right thing. 

I can understand why people dislike or distrust the government, but it blows my mind that these same people think the private sector is somehow better. The only time they do anything right (ethically) is when they're forced to, it's a PR move or there's money in it or maybe tax breaks. The PR side would be hard to maneuver if there isn't an organization in place keeping companies honest as well. Without some sort of regulation they could just claim, for PR purposes, that they went green and do absolutely nothing technically.

At least we get 'some' say in who represents us in the political arena. We have no say on who/how these companies operate. We don't get to decide who's on their board or who they hire as their CEO or even how they run their business.


----------



## estabon37 (May 3, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> IMO we don't need anyone to do the wealth distribution. I'm just not into the whole "need for fairness" thing. Life is life, it's not required to be fair.
> Some will rise, some will fall, some will hold steady, it's up to the individual to mold their own path.



Hmm. As a personal philosophy it's certainly valid, but as a means of keeping a society functioning...

For me, it's not a left / right thing, it's about morality and the social contract. Consider 'The Veil of Ignorance' (I hate that it uses the term 'ignorance' - usually a negative word). John Rawls, amongst others, propose a thought experiment where the people that determine the distribution of rights, status, and resources aren't allowed to know whether or not they will benefit from their decisions. For example, if they determined that 50% of the population would become slaves, they risk a 50% chance of becoming a slave. As a result, the deciders would be that much more likely to create a system that lowers their chances of being affected by any of its negative elements.

Right now, the people that have the most influence over the lives of the majority of the population are almost completely insulated from the adverse effects of their decisions. This means that while 'some will rise and some will fall', the amount of movement overall is fairly limited, because the privileged remain privileged and the underprivileged remain underprivileged. Not a lot of people 'break through' the poverty line in either direction.

So, even if individual autonomy takes priority over resource distribution, the current system isn't really holding up.


----------



## asher (May 4, 2015)

We Can Afford a $12.00 Federal Minimum Wage in 2020 | Economic Policy Institute



> A federal minimum wage of $12.00 in 2020 would return the wage floor to about the same position in the overall wage distribution that it had in 1968.
> 
> In 1968, the minimum wage stood at 52.1 percent of the median wage.5 By 2014, this ratio had fallen to 37.1 percent.
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/u...-out-of-poverty.html?referrer=&abt=0002&abg=0



> The feelings heard across Baltimore&#8217;s recent protests &#8212; of being trapped in poverty &#8212; seem to be backed up by the new data. Among the nation&#8217;s 100 largest counties, the one where children face the worst odds of escaping poverty is the city of Baltimore, the study found.
> 
> The city is especially harsh for boys: Low-income boys who grew up there in recent decades make roughly 25 percent less as adults than similar low-income boys who were born in the city and moved as small children to an average place.
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/opinion/paul-krugman-race-class-and-neglect.html?_r=0



> The great sociologist William Julius Wilson argued long ago that widely-decried social changes among blacks, like the decline of traditional families, were actually caused by the disappearance of well-paying jobs in inner cities. His argument contained an implicit prediction: if other racial groups were to face a similar loss of job opportunity, their behavior would change in similar ways.
> 
> And so it has proved. Lagging wages &#8212; actually declining in real terms for half of working men &#8212; and work instability have been followed by sharp declines in marriage, rising births out of wedlock, and more.
> 
> As Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution writes: &#8220;Blacks have faced, and will continue to face, unique challenges. But when we look for the reasons why less skilled blacks are failing to marry and join the middle class, it is largely for the same reasons that marriage and a middle-class lifestyle is eluding a growing number of whites as well.&#8221;


----------



## sakeido (May 4, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> IMO we don't need anyone to do the wealth distribution. I'm just not into the whole "need for fairness" thing. Life is life, it's not required to be fair.
> Some will rise, some will fall, some will hold steady, it's up to the individual to mold their own path.



I agree with you, but you get undue political influence when you have a large amount of wealth... and that influence is almost always used to funnel more riches towards the people who had them in the first place. That is where the unfairness comes in. True altruism does exist, but is exceedingly rare. 

There is, unfortunately, no way around it. Unless you can educate everyone to such a high degree they are no longer impressed by the glitz and glamour wealth can bring to a political campaign, and judge candidates entirely on their merit and nothing else (which history has proven is absolutely, completely impossible), this is one part of the world you just can't change. 



zappatton2 said:


> Sadly, here in Canada we have a government that is committed to replicating what to me should be the cautionary tale of what has happened to the States over the past couple of decades. We're coming up right behind you on the Oligarch scale, might even surpass you given enough time.



I don't even want to think about Harper and what he is doing to this country. It makes me feel physically ill.


----------



## ElRay (May 5, 2015)

asher said:


> Pope, despite many vitriolic protestations from the American right, also still Catholic.



The GOPuritans don't say he's not Catholic, they say Catholics aren't Christian.


----------



## RustInPeace (May 14, 2015)

Changes need to be made in our society, and this is a conversation I have quite often with my co-worker, who lived in soviet Russia for 40+ years. It is interesting hearing about what life was like in that society compared to what we have now. We often discuss how we could change they system in order to give power back to the people. Its very complicated because there are so many people with different ideologies and biases, it will always be impossible to please everyone.

Regardless, a common conclusion we always seem to come to is the removal of corruption. But this is nothing new really, and has been repeated ad verbum for decades: "Remove money from politics".

Society is definitely better than how its ever been, but its still hard to say we live in any true democracy with the rampant corruption in all levels of politics.

Really liked this interview:
The U.S. is on the edge of rebellion, Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges warns in new book | National Post


----------



## pushpull7 (May 21, 2015)

In order to kill the corruption, you have to (wait for it).... KILL THE CORRUPTION! 

Seriously, I just went to the store. Some guy in a mercedes ran a stop sign while checking his (insert foul derogatory phrase here) iphone with kids in the car.

As long as you have self-entitlement asshole that do that, how can you not expect it to creep into every facet of life? 

Isis is no different. Sure, you can "micro argue" all you want. But in the end, they are self-serving terrorist ....s who care more about power, control and ruining peoples lives for their own personal gain than anything else. (could someone please help me and tell me how to make that shrugging shoulders smiley!  )


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 21, 2015)

"Go advanced" and then look for the very faint "(More)" just below the icons.
Smilie List - SevenString.org





or not


----------



## pushpull7 (May 21, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> "Go advanced" and then look for the very faint "(More)" just below the icons.
> Smilie List - SevenString.org
> 
> 
> ...



JESUS CHRIST! Talk about "if it was a snake it woulda bit ya!" 

Seriously though, I looked and looked......but thanks


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 3, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well for his second term he was running against a traitor, not to mention J.K. sounds and looks like he belongs in the funeral business.


 
One thing I've noticed about you Trench is if you don't like someone you point out the way they look. I used to do that myself...in Jr. High.


----------



## asher (Jul 3, 2015)

But was that worth a month and a half necro?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 4, 2015)

Dog Boy said:


> One thing I've noticed about you Trench is if you don't like someone you point out the way they look. I used to do that myself...in Jr. High.



Not making fun of John Kerry (OK, maybe I was a bit ), but basically I meant that he just wasn't a "shiny" enough challenger to knock off a sitting president IMO. (image matters, think JFK vs Nixon)

Remember this was 2004 and the nation was already becoming quite dissatisfied as a whole in regards to the war in Iraq and our ongoing undefined occupation there and in the Stan. 

IMO that would have maybe been a more opportunistic time for Hillary to run for many reasons, not the least of which being the lack of a voting record/baggage. (experience , worked for Obama)


----------



## celticelk (Jul 4, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> IMO that would have maybe been a more opportunistic time for Hillary to run for many reasons, not the least of which being the lack of a voting record/baggage.



She'd been in the Senate long enough to have the baggage that counted: she'd voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. That's not a good position from which to try to unseat Bush, especially given the other baggage that the Clinton name would bring to the table, which Karl Rove and Bush's other political strategists would have gleefully exploited. Kerry had the gravitas and the experience in the Senate that Clinton didn't have. (And should have won the election, IMO, but that's really getting OT.)


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 4, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Not making fun of John Kerry (OK, maybe I was a bit ), but basically I meant that he just wasn't a "shiny" enough challenger to knock off a sitting president IMO. (image matters, think JFK vs Nixon)
> 
> Remember this was 2004 and the nation was already becoming quite dissatisfied as a whole in regards to the war in Iraq and our ongoing undefined occupation there and in the Stan.
> 
> IMO that would have maybe been a more opportunistic time for Hillary to run for many reasons, not the least of which being the lack of a voting record/baggage. (experience , worked for Obama)


 
I think you have a thing for Hillary.


----------



## asher (Jul 4, 2015)

I'm starting to think you have a thing for Trench..


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 4, 2015)

asher said:


> I'm starting to think you have a thing for Trench..


 
You'd be wrong.


----------



## asher (Jul 4, 2015)

Your recent posting behavior is indicating otherwise 

OT AGAIN:

The Christie has thrown his hat in the ring too. I think the car must seriously be running out of room now!

Who else wants to see Trump and Christie "debate"?


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 4, 2015)

asher said:


> Your recent posting behavior is indicating otherwise
> 
> OT AGAIN:
> 
> ...



Now I'm thinking YOU have a thing for Trench AND me. Leave me alone.


----------



## asher (Jul 4, 2015)

Oh relax.

/also clearly thought this was the presidential thread. oops. carry on.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 4, 2015)

Dog Boy said:


> I think you have a thing for Hillary.



Swank maybe , at least she knows karate (and boxing) and could mount a defense against all those violent leftist. (joking)






On topic, @ elk

True. She did vote for the invasion, but given the fact she could've used the "we were mislead by the WMD falsehood" excuse/reason to completely justify that I'd still say she would have fared as well if not better than Kerry. (but who knows I guess)

I also agree in theory that it was Kerry's to lose, much like it was Romney's to lose, and just as in the 2012 election the 2004 race just didn't have a shiny enough challenger. 

Had Kerry or Romney either one had the "cool factor" I think we'd be reading a different history book, at least so far as the order of presidents. Maybe, maybe not, but also in Kerry's case there was the 4th-quarter attack on his credibility with the veterans coming forward to refute some of his claims, and that along with his drabness sure didn't help him get over the hump.


----------



## asher (Jul 4, 2015)

Kerry handled his campaign media very poorly... and I think also was just blindsided by the bitterness and vitriol with which he was attacked. And the facts-not-mattering thing about his service.

I rather disagree '12 was Romney's to lose though. His internal polling was... bad.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 13, 2015)

I think the bottom line is the United States is a corporation that answers to a private bank (the federal reserve) and is bullied by a private tax agency (IRS). Hell, the national treasury is fully titled "The National Treasury of Puerto Rico".


----------



## flint757 (Sep 13, 2015)

An extension of that is corporations heavily deciding who's elected and what they do once elected. Elections, while not a complete sham, might as well be. they remind me of reality show contests like American Idol, Voice, So You Think You Can Dance, etc. Yes they are qualified and talented, but they didn't pick purely based on qualifications/talent and the judges tend to put ideas in the viewers head to influence the vote. Sounds exactly like our political system and media to me. Personally, I think we need to get rid of the party affiliated elections, get rid of winner take all (do what most other nations do and allot seats based on percent of votes) and introduce a 3rd major party into government like a labor party or something of that sort. Everyone is so focused on either hating Obama or social issues that people are forgetting that one of the big platforms right now is workers rights and how many politicians think we should be working longer, harder hours essentially for less pay, which also ties into ACA a bit as well.


----------



## asher (Sep 14, 2015)

DudeManBrother said:


> I think the bottom line is the United States is a corporation that answers to a private bank (the federal reserve) and is bullied by a private tax agency (IRS). Hell, the national treasury is fully titled "The National Treasury of Puerto Rico".





If the corporation controlled the private bank and tax agency, and who was running them...


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 14, 2015)

asher said:


> If the corporation controlled the private bank and tax agency, and who was running them...




Oh you know who.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 15, 2015)

The IRS is an agency of the IMF, which is an agency of the UN according to Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition page 816. 
The United States corporation filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1929, meaning it can still operate as a business so long as it meets the contracted mandates under supervision. On June 5, 1933 they passed the House Joint Resolution 192, which effectively ended the gold standard and the US corp became an official debtor. It made the people the actual creditors, and our signature extends credit whenever they request it. It looks like a mortgage payment or cc bill, but It is legally a request for credit. Refusal of credit on our part, ie not "paying the bill" qualifies us as a delinquent creditor, at which point they can liquidate our personal assets. 
So it's hard to call it an oligarchy in a way, as we simply discharge debt and extend credit. There is no money anywhere. It is impossible to pay a debt. The only reason the $20 in your wallet can be exchanged for "value" is because someone else accepted it as value. It is not backed by anything truly valued at $20. It's a big scam on all people. It's debt based slavery.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 15, 2015)

Money may not have any literal value, but that logic applies to gold too. Gold only has/had value because people accepted it as currency. If people looked at it as just a rock it'd be equally worthless. The very fact that you can barter with money is evidence to the fact that it does have inherent value. That's hardly a scam. If you went completely off the grid or were dirt poor you wouldn't be paying taxes either so slavery is a bit of an exaggeration.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 15, 2015)

You're not quite understanding. There's a difference between private and public/commercial commerce. I'm talking about the laws that make the U.S. A debtor to its own people, until they can bring back the gold standard which would ratify ch 48,48 stat 112. Until that point, they have manipulated our laws so heavily that people don't even know that it is them personally that is the only currency currently accepted by the private bank. The bank doesn't care what you do for work so long as you get up and go do it. If you don't want to think of yourself as a slave then indentured servant works here too. 
Gold or paper dollars or Popsicle sticks are all the same if someone's willing to accept it as payment. I am simply referring to gold because that is how it is written in our laws.


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2015)

Wait, are you seriously advocating returning to the gold standard....? 

Also, no, seriously, the IRS is part of the Treasury Department.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 15, 2015)

Indentured to whom? I'm not being thrown in jail, I'm allowed to do as I please for the most part, I can leave the country, I can gain citizenship in another country and I can revoke my citizenship form this country. Slavery and indentured servitude wouldn't allot for that at all. 

Other than having to pay taxes once you enter a tax bracket (which help keep infrastructure running even if they aren't always using our taxes usefully) how are you being scammed or turned into a slave, even metaphorically? Don't get me wrong, I think there is a lot of puppeteering in the media and politics and I agree things need to change in many ways, but 'slavery' isn't one of them. We the people still hold the power. We just aren't nearly active or unified enough to make good use of that power at all. It doesn't help that the media and politicians deliberately try and distract us from more pressing issues, try to divide everyone into powerless niche groups and do more slandering than propping up of actions. As an example, Ted Cruz when he ran for senate didn't release a single campaign video of himself saying what he'd do to help the US and Texas. Instead, he had probably 75% slander campaign videos against his opponent and the other 25% were him promising to repeal a bunch of laws while not saying what he'd add to the table (which is the norm). People here voted for that ass despite him not promoting himself at all technically. The problem isn't identifying the problem, it's getting people to listen to themselves rather than soundbytes and were losing that battle. But I'm going off topic. 

Also, you were heavily implying that paper money is worthless (I believe you said scam). I was pointing out that all forms of currency have no value until it is traded for something useful. All money of any kind is a universal means of bartering essentially.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 15, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Also, you were heavily implying that paper money is worthless (I believe you said scam). I was pointing out that all forms of currency have no value until it is traded for something useful. All money of any kind is a universal means of bartering essentially.



I may be reading a bit into DudeManBrother's post, but I think he was getting at the fact that fiat money has no inherent value whereas something like gold has an intrinsic value due to it's scarcity. Because of this, changes in gold pricing are due primarily to changes in demand, whereas governments can create new fiat money by simply printing more (or allowing banks to loan more than they actually posses), leading to inflation due to increased supply rather than increased demand.


----------



## asher (Sep 15, 2015)

Gold only has value inasmuch as people give a toss about it.

Not to mention that pegging your currency to a changeable asset is both a bad idea on the face of it but also gives you way fewer tools through monetary policy.

For example, we actually could just print money *right now* as stimulus, and it wouldn't be inflationary because we're in a liquidity trap and suffering a shortfall of demand.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 15, 2015)

Considering the US dollar has more value in some countries than their own native currency I don't think it being just paper is a realistic real world issue. Gold has the same pitfalls as any other form of currency except because of its scarcity there is now an arbitrary reason why certain countries are more wealthy than others despite not necessarily bringing more to the table. I don't see it as anymore valid than fiat currency personally. With either form of currency people can easily decide it isn't worth the time of day and not want it as financial compensation. 

To argue inherent worth just isn't relevant in the real world because it has significant worth in a financial transaction (given the fact that the US dollar is accepted as currency literally everywhere for the most part).


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 15, 2015)

I think the topic is too deep to convey in a few forum posts. I don't care about gold. I referenced public law, if you took some time to look them up you'd understand what I am talking about. Commerce deals with debt and credit only, as the U.S. is chapter 11 bankrupt. The money you earn from work is equity money. Commerce uses money of account, or fiat currency. How can The U.S. Be considered an oligarchy if there is no money for them to spend? They use your SS-5 as a promise of future labor to satisfy the bank. The IRS was put in place to make sure they comply with their contract. They issue "bills" as a request for more credit. Which makes you a creditor. HJR 192 states that you cannot pay a debt with a debt, and the US has not provided a remedy, therefore we use our earned "equity" money to settle debts created with money of account. That's the scam. They cheat you every time they send a "bill". It is a presentment without a remedy.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 15, 2015)

Or to use slightly incorrect terms but is easier to understand, you use your paycheck to pay bills that were already agreed as unpayable when the U.S. Filed for bankruptcy. They then use your paycheck money to create more fiat currency through fractional banking.

If you want to know how much money you have in your bank, you can request a bank statement. It contains an account balance. A positive amount, right? If you get a "Bill" in the mail, I bet it doesn't say anywhere on it that it is a bill, I bet it says statement. And I bet the amount you "owe" is listed as an account balance. A positive amount. Sound familiar? There is only one actual bill that I know of that gets into our hands, the dollar BILL as in debt note of varying amount. /end rant
Back to guitars and less depressing topics. New Black Dahlia and Gorod soon!


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 16, 2015)

I googled a bunch of the stuff you said and barely found anything. Got some links?


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 16, 2015)

first link is the HJR 192, second link gives access to U.S. Codes and UCC plus many more, but the best idea is to write stuff on a piece of paper and take it to the library and read it directly from the books. If I was ripping everyone off, I wouldn't want it all over Google either lol. 

http://famguardian.org/subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/1933-HJR192.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

If I have time after work, I'll edit this post with more links

EDIT: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14617 (Roosevelt's address at White House's Governor Conference; March 6 1933- special attention to the words chosen in the third proposition: a reorganization and consolidation of local government to reduce the taxation costs ie chapter 11)


----------



## tedtan (Sep 16, 2015)

asher said:


> Gold only has value inasmuch as people give a toss about it.



Shure, that holds true for pretty much everything. And I'm certainly not advocating returning to a gold standard. But gold is valuable as a commodity, separate from any use of it as a currency, because it is used in making computers, cell phones, gaming consoles, jewelry, etc. So its utilitarian value to industry and ladies combined with its scarcity yields a pretty steady baseline demand.




asher said:


> Not to mention that pegging your currency to a changeable asset is both a bad idea on the face of it but also gives you way fewer tools through monetary policy.



While this approach provides fewer tools with which to work, it can have a purpose. Many countries peg their currency to the US dollar to facilitate trade, for example (e.g., Saudi Arabia). 




asher said:


> For example, we actually could just print money *right now* as stimulus, and it wouldn't be inflationary because we're in a liquidity trap and suffering a shortfall of demand.



Any increase in the supply of money (e.g., the creation of new money, not just selling T bills or something) sizeable enough to stimulate the economy will almost certainly result in inflation, liquidity trap or no.

Also, to go off on a bit of a tangent, I'm not sure there is any real shortage of demand for money at the moment. What we are currently experiencing appears to be more of a fear of debt after the housing bubble burst and the resulting depression that we've just come through than an actual lack of demand for money. If money were made available to people through tax credits/rebates or similar rather than via low interest credit, I'm pretty sure most people would spend that money rather than save or invest it.


----------



## asher (Sep 16, 2015)

Pegging to another nation's currency is much different than pegging to an asset.

No, seriously, printing money at the zero lower bound in a liquidity trap isn't inflationary (I'm looking for one of ours but I should stop. Japan in their turn of the century ZLB trap):







Actually, here's one:






I think this is O/T relative to DMB's... interesting... and mostly baseless assertions.

Fun fact: Know what else is a bill?

A bill of sale (receipt); the billing for a show (who's playing); the billboard (a board displaying the billing of the show...)

ed2: Chapter 11 wasn't created until the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 16, 2015)

Interesting. I'll have to do a little more research on the historical effects of printing money in such situations.

Anyway, back on topic...


----------



## asher (Sep 16, 2015)

tedtan said:


> Interesting. I'll have to do a little more research on the historical effects of printing money in such situations.
> 
> Anyway, back on topic...



I'm pretty sure I've seen one about what the Fed did in the last few years that looks basically exactly like Japan's.

If we were out of the zero lower bound/liquidity trap, then normal conditions apply, and yeah, it'd be inflationary.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 16, 2015)

asher said:


> Fun fact: Know what else is a bill?
> 
> A bill of sale (receipt); the billing for a show (who's playing); the billboard (a board displaying the billing of the show...)
> 
> ed2: Chapter 11 wasn't created until the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978.



A bill of sale has substance attached to it, ie a car. What value and to whom is a car without the title? What value and to whom is a title without the car? Now to get that title...
If the U.S. Came out and said, whoops we made a deal with the federal reserve that we can't pay, can you please pay it? You'd have outrage by the public! So there was a different approach IMO and many others. 
Read if you like, and I'm sorry to OP for essentially thread jacking, continue on!
The United States Isn't a Country  It's a Corporation!


----------



## asher (Sep 16, 2015)

Holy crap that web site is full of the crazy (completely unsourced, of course).


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 22, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And has there ever been a time or a place in which the wealthiest have decided not to exercise their dominate political influence over the socio-economic structure?



No, but there were times and places where/when the poor decided not to let them and won.


----------



## sakeido (Sep 25, 2015)

Andromalia said:


> No, but there were times and places where/when the poor decided not to let them and won.



you mean like the French Revolution that killed about 40,000 people? 

or maybe the Arab Spring, death toll currently about 150,000 and climbing rapidly - had the side effect of making the area fertile ground for radical terrorist groups which will kill more people elsewhere, and leading to the refugee crisis 

maybe you could also lump Communist revolutions under this heading. by some estimates Communism killed 94,000,000 people in the 20th century.

the only alternative to money is blood, and lots of it


----------



## asher (Sep 25, 2015)

Try the Progressive Era, mayhaps.


----------



## AxeHappy (Sep 26, 2015)

sakeido said:


> you mean like the French Revolution that killed about 40,000 people?
> 
> or maybe the Arab Spring, death toll currently about 150,000 and climbing rapidly - had the side effect of making the area fertile ground for radical terrorist groups which will kill more people elsewhere, and leading to the refugee crisis
> 
> ...



More like the only alternative to Money and Blood, is Blood and lots of it. 

We don't really have a good system. What is being called, "Democratic Socialism," but should more likely be called, "Democratic Capitalism," is probably the best system so far.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Sep 28, 2015)

List of Countries Forecast 2025
Anybody ever heard of the Deagel corporation? They seem to be business partners with many agencies, including NSA, NATO, World Bank, and the UN among many others. To say the population forecast they predict over the next ten years is frightening, would be a gross understatement. Namely the United States and Japan. How does our population go from 318.9M people down to 64.8M and the military defense budget go from 756M to 7.2M in a single decade unless a planned attack directly on our soil and a defeat of our military to outside forces has already been agreed apon? Am I crazy? I sure hope so. Talk about blood, and lots of it.


----------



## asher (Sep 29, 2015)

Or they've got particularly dim views of climate change


----------



## ferret (Sep 29, 2015)

Not sure why the original poster of that link didn't read the notes. This estimate is based on the assumption that the US economy and money system will collapse, as the "ponzi schemes" (their words) of the stock market are destroyed and everyone dies as our first world quality of life plummets. No military take over involved or environment disaster, it's all based on our evil capitalist society collapsing due to it's own failures. Basically it assumes this for the entire western world, while assuming east europe, asia, central and south america will leap forward as a result.

Not sure why I didn't just type "Really crazy bull.... link" though.


----------



## asher (Sep 29, 2015)

ferret said:


> Not sure why I didn't just type "Really crazy bull.... link" though.



You're being awfully charitable?


----------



## TedEH (Sep 29, 2015)

tedtan said:


> Shure



I'd like to take a moment to, in a very not-related-to-the-topic way, point out how humorous it is that people on music related forums misspell "sure" the same way as the microphone brand name.

Anyway, argue on.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 29, 2015)

^

I probably type Shure (in reference to the SM57, SM58, SM7b, KSM141, etc.) more often than I do the word "sure", so that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## donzilla (Oct 5, 2015)

I just read this entire thread...lots of people with really good points....a lot of thought put into the things that were said...I'm just really feeling bad that I don't think at that level and laugh at fart jokes.


----------



## asher (Oct 5, 2015)

Honestly dude, a lot of it just reading what other, more intelligent people than I have to say (intellectual honesty is a big requirement here though) and slowly understanding their frameworks and models.


----------



## donzilla (Oct 5, 2015)

^ ...yes. That's exactly why I like it here so much.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 5, 2015)

TedEH said:


> I'd like to take a moment to, in a very not-related-to-the-topic way, point out how humorous it is that people on music related forums misspell "sure" the same way as the microphone brand name.
> 
> Anyway, argue on.




Another one I've seen 'round these parts is "jem" instead of "gem," eg "My wife is a real jem."

Oh, guitarists.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 6, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Another one I've seen 'round these parts is "jem" instead of "gem," eg "My wife is a real jem."
> 
> Oh, guitarists.




I just wish a few drops of lemon oil would work on her face like it does with the rosewood .


----------



## donzilla (Oct 6, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I just wish a few drops of lemon oil would work on her face like it does with the rosewood .


----------

