Economic World War: Technocratic Plutocrat Elites vs. The People (visual aid overload)

Originally posted by mordant1

Originally posted by DangerDeath
There is no capitalism without the poor.
It is systemic.
Totally dystopia.

Did commynism get rid of being poor or simply make everyone not in gubmint poor?

The poor we always have with us, and nothing makes them go away. EVER.
THe fact that being poor is relative means it is not important in determinining the value of a system of govt. The poor need the capacity to become producers, not consumers. One doesnt grant production it has to be internalized

Communism is all about "working class" and "avant-guard". Production is organized in a different way, but essentially it is all about control of the elite over everyone else.

Society itself is about distribution of responsibility.

Today we live in an unipolar world, there is no more need to display advantages of one particular system against the other. It is not going to be gentle.

Originally posted by ClintK
Haven't seeny anything --at all-- to support this "blooming welfare state" you insist we have.

ALL the facts support the idea that such assistance is declining. It's very clear, it doesn't require high intelligence to see it, it's a well known fact (except to people who get their info from the Heritage Foundation, evidently), and frankly you're embarrasing yourself.

Total rubbish.
www.usatoday.com...

"Welfare recipients" hasn't changed, flat line, but everything else has peaked. That graph is even only from 2007, when I do believe your link was made in 2004 long before the meltdown.

And Detroit is in a world of pain:
www.google.com...

I'm from the Detroit Metro Area and I get reports from my friends there all the time.

reply to post by DangerDeath


Dude: total blather. Communism intentionally kills and steals the value of producers EVERY TIME it's tried. IT is the democracy of tyranny and expectation of support simply for existing. THere is no natural correlate for communism, it doesnt exist in the animal or plant world in any fashion thay you would want to live in. That you are unaware of the total failure of that as a system is a pity.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by ClintK

 

I can't fathom where you're getting these 2% numbers from. You might consider taking a real good hard look at the counters on this amazing site:
www.usdebtclock.org...

41 million people on food stamps? You call that 2%?

Why not go to the link? I don't see what's so hard. And there are lots of others.

BTW, that link you posted is BS -- it's notorious for misinformation.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ClintK]

Care to back up that claim?

How is it "BS" ??

It's dead on.

You're in denial.

Denial of what?

answers.yahoo.com...

It should be obvious to you anyway. That "clock" was started by Seymour Durst, a millionaire real estate developer with a partisan agenda (the whole "government is bad" thing).

Go ahead and trust it if you want to. I know quite a few people who don't.

reply to post by ClintK




Government has two latin roots, Govern and Ment.

Govern means authority or control. Ment means mind or thought.

The literal and original translation of government is authority of thought, or mind-control .. and you think government is okay?



.. oh yeah, that's a FACT !!


As for the debt clock, it's not misinformation. It's using an algorithm to best guess the real-time running numbers. It's recalibrated every month based on the new data. That yahoo answer link you posted was a joke, and outdated anyways. They've changed the format since then.





[edit on 28-7-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by ClintK
Haven't seeny anything --at all-- to support this "blooming welfare state" you insist we have.

ALL the facts support the idea that such assistance is declining. It's very clear, it doesn't require high intelligence to see it, it's a well known fact (except to people who get their info from the Heritage Foundation, evidently), and frankly you're embarrasing yourself.

Total rubbish.
www.usatoday.com...

"Welfare recipients" hasn't changed, flat line, but everything else has peaked. That graph is even only from 2007, when I do believe your link was made in 2004 long before the meltdown.

And Detroit is in a world of pain:
www.google.com...

I'm from the Detroit Metro Area and I get reports from my friends there all the time.

en.wikipedia.org...:

"Millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[18] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[14] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[18] The reforms were "widely applauded"[19] after "bitter protest."[14] The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."

But just ignore that. It's only history and it's only a fact and, evidently, those just don't matter when it comes to politics.



[edit on 28-7-2010 by ClintK]

reply to post by ClintK


Incomes rose 35% in what time frame? How does that compare to inflation? You're using select markers to make sweeping generalized statements, then saying that it's a fact, so it's some sort of absolute. Anyone with half a brain can see you've bought into propaganda and haven't a clue what you're talking about. You remind me of some of my idiotic teachers that I used to laugh at.

BTW, just saw this posted. Thought you might find it interesting. Enjoy!!

Income of very rich shot up by 281% since 1979

[edit on 28-7-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Great OP and thread -

I wish I'd have seen it before I posted the thread linked below as I'd have included the thoughts in this one..

Are the American People Obsolete?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Globalization of the economy means that the new plutocracy is not dependent on the population of any one country for their wealth or protection.

In other words, the parasite has dependent upon a host, but this parasite has burrowed in so deep its host is also now dependent upon it. But, being the clever parasite it is - a global economy and vast computer power allow it to abandon any host as a more favorable one is found.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by ClintK

 

Incomes rose 35% in what time frame? How does that compare to inflation? You're using select markers to make sweeping generalized statements, then saying that it's a fact, so it's some sort of absolute. Anyone with half a brain can see you've bought into propaganda and haven't a clue what you're talking about. You remind me of some of my idiotic teachers that I used to laugh at.

Well I'm sure you were light years beyond all your teachers.

If you'd actually read the article it was obvious they were talking about 1996 (when the Welfare Reform Act was passed) until 2007.

I thought it was common knowledge that welfare rolls had declined significantly since the mid 90s. Not 1 bit of information has supported the "blooming welfare state."

But look, this is getting heated, stupid, and ridiculous. I find facts, I find sources, you nontheless insult me, accuse me of being gullible, stupid and, well, just not up to your level.

So that's it. I know threads like these, when they go in this direction, are pointless.

Any info I quote is "propoganda" ...that a foolish idiot like me is gullible enough to believe. Your sources are credible, mine aren't. Your reasoning is brilliant, mine is stupid. You know what's REALLY going on. I'm naive.

Um, okay. You win. Blooming welfare state it is. Huge increase in welfare rolls since the mid-90s.

reply to post by Frogs


That's a very interesting analysis, first I've seen explained as such and though intuitive at some levels, requires consideration in and of itself.

reply to post by ClintK


That link only has a vague subsection on the US. Try this one:
en.wikipedia.org...

Currently total social welfare expenditure constitutes roughly 35% of GDP, with purely public expenditure constituting 21%, publicly supported but privately provided welfare services constituting 10% of GDP and purely privately services constituting 4% of GDP.[8][9]

Besides this is all about everyone getting screwed, not just how many "we're" all taking care of.

And on top of that welfare programs are just there to keep people from uprising. You should see the ongoing stampede of overweight and obese people at Walmart with their shopping carts literally overflowing, checking out with a 'plastic' card. Hmm.



[edit on 28-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by ClintK


You use 'welfare" like gumint uses 'unemployment', to intentionally mislead by officially defining what is definable more honestly in other ways that are avoided.
Govt aid including perpetual unemployment or any other unearned income is AID, like it or not, and not some artificially hypernarrow artificial definition intended and created only to mislead the dialogue into 'authorized' areas of gov't definition.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by mordant1]

reply to post by ClintK


Okay, well a 35% income increase over an 11 year period with an ~3% inflation rate ( ) comes out to a 38.42% inflation over the same time period. Basically, there was NO net income increase over that time frame, and in fact there was a slight decrease by govt estimates of inflation, yet the article tries to state otherwise by not calculating inflation into their figure. That's either dodgy work, or deliberate misinformation; propaganda.






[edit on 28-7-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by unityemissions
I agree. The thing about more people on some kind of assistance. The skeptics, please answer me this one and only question then. WHY is the system so worried about how much money goes out if the unemployment rate is so low, supposedly? WHY? because alot of people are on some kind of assistance, thats why. FOLLOW THE MONEY. YOU get better answers that way.

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

Dude: total blather. Communism intentionally kills and steals the value of producers EVERY TIME it's tried. IT is the democracy of tyranny and expectation of support simply for existing. THere is no natural correlate for communism, it doesnt exist in the animal or plant world in any fashion thay you would want to live in. That you are unaware of the total failure of that as a system is a pity.

Dude, what did I say? You think you can use Nature as an excuse for predatory ideology?
This ideology is used both by Communism and Capitalism. "To pursue happiness"! "To satisfy the needs"!

In both systems, the work belongs to the idea, and people are used as fuel for maintenance of this idea. There is no essential difference between Communism and Capitalism. There is only superficial difference. In both systems one must "earn" the food. One has to become slave. That's what "Social contract" is about. Slavery.

In today's world, nobody makes things to last. For one reason only: to make sure everyone must work, because thus one stays enslaved for good. It is a total waste of resources, but no wonder. This system is built upon the idea of the so called "exchange" which in truth is "depletion", distribution of energy towards the top of the pyramid.

In nature, insects serve the needs of the plants, herbivores serve the need of the plants, they have not been given intelligence. Predators serve as police mechanism. They too have no intelligence.

And with humankind, intelligence is traded for slavery, everything is forced into obeying protocols - going back to basic "instincts".

Communism was totally mimicking Plato's idea of state. Philosopher as heads of state (Marxists). In corporation system, these philosophers are called "technologists". There is no essential difference.

Humankind is totally a victim of this foreign mind. We are all food. Everything is done to prevent people from understanding what is going on. And it is going to be worse.

reply to post by DangerDeath


The value of nature?
It only defines the range of what works and what doesnt. Is that enough precidnt for you or do we need more dead greeks and dead greek culture?
Sorry I cant agree with your equivocation or claims: communism doesnt function in real life anywhere or any time by any sentient organism on the planet, and that anyone makes such claims or writes a book doesnt make unmanagable fantasy any more of a reality than it is

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

The value of nature?
It only defines the range of what works and what doesnt. Is that enough precidnt for you or do we need more dead greeks and dead greek culture?
Sorry I cant agree with your equivocation or claims: communism doesnt function in real life anywhere or any time by any sentient organism on the planet, and that anyone makes such claims or writes a book doesnt make unmanagable fantasy any more of a reality than it is

We are both seeing now, when there is hardly any Communism left, how this Capitalist and Corporative perversion "functions". And watch how Chinese Communism turns (already has) into a corporate machine. That is called Metamorphosis.

As for nature, it is obvious that nature is treated as a resource and nothing else. Everything in nature is food for the Idea which doesn't even need an excuse for its existence. It just eats everything.

You should go back to school and read Melville.



[edit on 28-7-2010 by DangerDeath]

reply to post by DangerDeath


You love to oversimplify and polish off the rough edges of reality for your premises, but nature doesnt do that.
And read mellville? What can I learn about reality reading freshman fiction? I already got 4 degrees.
Oh, I get it freshman logic.
No thanks, btdt, for a second or two quite some time ago....

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

You love to oversimplify and polish off the rough edges of reality for your premises, but nature doesnt do that.
And read mellville? What can I learn about reality reading freshman fiction? I already got 4 degrees.
Oh, I get it freshman logic.
No thanks, btdt, for a second or two quite some time ago....

So, you have built up your 4 degrees on learning worthless stuff? Interesting...

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The mentality of the classical elitist must be discussed. They tend to be Social Darwinists, who apply Darwinist theory to sociology. In their view it's their divine role to dominate those beneath them, at the top of the food chain as the fittest to survive. This class of elites are their own social group, much like how most ordinary people identify themselves with race, political party, music scene, and so on. This social group adherence transcends the everyday social group affiliations the rest of us know, and elitist propaganda has us all wanting to identify with them to subconsciously justify their types of actions.

Since Greenspan was instrumental in this scenario, let's look at him. He was an avowed "objectivist". Objectivism was created by Ayn Rand, author of the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas Shrugged, the best industrialists and inventors and artists leave the world to rot until they are given their just due from the world - total control.

This is the scenario described in this recent Alternet story of the rich buying homes on floating castle/ cruise liners. www.alternet.org...

The super-wealthy are already building their first floating castle, a billion-dollar-plus luxury liner that offers permanent multimillion-dollar housing with the best protection of all: moats made of oceans, keeping the land-based Americans they've plundered at a safe distance. The first such floating castle has been christened the "Utopia"--the South Korean firm Samsung has been contracted to build the $1.1 billion ship, due to be launched in 2013. Already orders are coming in to buy one of the Utopia's 200 or so mansions for sale ...

The important thing to note here is the 2013 date. 2012 is going to stir up a lot of crap, to say the least.