This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: How The U.S. Will Become A 3rd World Country (Part 1)

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Ron Hera of Hera Research

How The U.S. Will Become A 3rd World Country (Part 1)

The United States is increasingly similar to a 3rd world county in several ways and is accelerating towards 3rd world status. Economic data indicate a harsh reality that obviates mainstream political debate. The evidence suggests that, without fundamental reforms, the U.S. will become a post industrial neo-3rd-world country by 2032.

Fundamental characteristics that define a 3rd world country include high unemployment, lack of economic opportunity, low wages, widespread poverty, extreme concentration of wealth, unsustainable government debt, control of the government by international banks and multinational corporations, weak rule of law and counterproductive government policies. All of these characteristics are evident in the U.S. today.

Other factors include poor public health, nutrition and education, as well as lack of infrastructure. Public health and nutrition in the U.S., while below European standards, stand well above those of 3rd world countries. American public education now ranks behind poorer countries, like Estonia, but remains superior to that of 3rd world countries. While crumbling infrastructure can be seen in cities across America, the vast infrastructure of the United States cannot be compared to a 3rd world country. However, all of these factors will rapidly deteriorate in a declining economy.

Unemployment and Lack of Economic Opportunity

Unemployment, which is a deep, structural problem in the U.S., is a fundamental challenge to economic opportunity. The U.S. labor market is in a long-term downward trend linked to globalization, i.e., offshoring of manufacturing, outsourcing of jobs and deindustrialization.

The U.S. workforce has declined by approximately 6.5% since its year 2000 peak to roughly 58.2% of working age adults and the U.S. now suffers chronic unemployment of 9.1%. Although the workforce grew in the 1980s and 1990s, as dual income families became the norm, the size of the workforce is shrinking due to a lack of economic opportunity.

Officially, long-term unemployment is 16.5% and the ranks of the long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) include 5.9 million, 42.4% of those unemployed. However, prior to the Clinton administration, unemployment measures included workers who are now no longer counted as part of the workforce. Using the more accurate pre-Clinton criteria, unemployment exceeds 22%, only 3% below the worst point (24.9%) of the Great Depression. For countries with populations greater than 2 million, Macedonia leads the world with 33.8% unemployment, followed by Armenia at 28.6%, Algeria at 27.3% and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip both at 25.7%.

Compounding the unemployment problem is the fact that an entire generation of young Americans is being left behind in terms of economic opportunity. Student loans exceed $1 trillion while the labor force participation rate for those aged 16 to 29 who are working or looking for work fell to 48.8% in 2011, the lowest level ever recorded. Lack of economic opportunity among the youth, including millions of unemployed college graduates, is a political wildcard reminiscent of countries like Tunisia.

The structural decline of the U.S. labor market will continue as American workers are merged into a global labor pool in which they cannot yet directly compete for jobs with workers in countries like China and India. In China, for example, gross pay, in terms of purchasing power parity, is equivalent to approximately $514 per month, 57% below the U.S. poverty line. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. trade deficit with China alone caused a loss of 2.8 million U.S. jobs since 2001.

Falling Real Wages and Household Incomes

Workers earning more dollars are actually poorer in terms of purchasing power when the cost of living rises faster than wages,. In fact, if household income is adjusted for inflation, most American families have grown significantly poorer over the past ten years. In 2010, for example, real median household income fell 2.3%. Although the average wage has risen steadily in nominal terms, dwindling purchasing power is a reality for most Americans. When adjusted for inflation, the wages of most Americans have not kept up with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

According to famed economist Milton Friedman, “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” In other words, prices rise when the money supply is increased faster than population or sustainable economic activity. Apparent economic growth created through credit expansion, i.e., by increasing the money supply, has a temporary stimulative effect but also causes prices to rise. True Money Supply is an accurate measure of inflation.

Although CPI is sufficient to illustrate declining real wages, CPI does not measure the cost of living in a realistic way. According to economist John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics, CPI systematically understates inflation.

The decline in real household income has set Americans back to 1996 levels, despite many households now having two incomes rather than one. Dual income families accounted for much of the increase in real median household income during the 1980s and 1990s, but, today, two incomes are barely better than one income was three decades ago. The decline in real wages was obfuscated in the 1980s and 1990s by growth in the workforce, e.g., by women entering the workforce. Real median household income rose while real wages declined because more households had two incomes.

As U.S. wages and household income continue to fall in real terms, both poverty and reliance on government assistance programs will continue to rise.

Growing Poverty

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate in the United States rose to 15.7% in 2011, with 47.8 million Americans living in poverty (1 in 6). The official poverty line, determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is $22,314 for a family of four. The number of families living in poverty has risen sharply since 2006 and continues to climb.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as “food stamps,” serves 45.8 million households as of May 2011. The program now feeds 1 in 8 Americans and nearly 1 in 4 children. 

Based on the outlook for employment and wages, both poverty and reliance on government assistance programs will continue to grow. However, the negative trends in employment, wages and poverty have not affected all Americans equally. In fact, the household income and wealth ofthe wealthiest Americans has increased sharply, despite the overall deterioration of the U.S. economy.

Increasing Concentration of Wealth

Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned that, “Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and … trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume.” In other words, concentration of wealth undermines the consumer base of the economy, causing GDP to decline and resulting in unemployment, which reduces living standards. Obviously, the total wealth of society is reduced when wealth is highly concentrated because there is a lower overall level of economic activity. Economic data from several sources, including the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), show that wealth and income in the United States have become increasingly concentrated with the wealthiest 1% of Americans owning 38.2% of stock market assets, e.g., shares of businesses.

For the wealthiest 1% of Americans, household income tripled between 1979 and 2007 and has continued to increase while household wealth in the United States has fallen by $7.7 trillion. The Gini Coefficient illustrates the growing disparity in income distribution.

In terms of the Gini Coefficient, the United States is now at parity with China and will soon overtake Mexico, a still developing country. It should be noted, of course, that the U.S. remains a far wealthier country overall. If the current trend continues, however, the U.S. will resemble a 3rd world country, in terms of the disparity in income distribution, in approximately two decades, i.e., by 2032.

Welcome to the 3rd World

The United States is quickly becoming a post industrial neo-3rd-world country. Partly as a consequence of worsening unemployment and lack of economic opportunity, falling real wages and household incomes, growing poverty and increasing concentration of wealth, the U.S. government faces a historic fiscal crisis. Dominant corporate influence over the U.S. government, particularly by large banks, weakening rule of law at the federal level and destructive tax policies are compounding the economic problems facing the United States. Barring fundamental reforms or a hyperinflationary collapse of the U.S. dollar (due to the fiscal problems of the U.S. government), the deterioration of the U.S. economy will continue and accelerate. As the U.S. economy continues its decline, public health, nutrition and education, as well as the country’s infrastructure, will visibly deteriorate and the 3rd world status of the United States will become apparent.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 02:19 | Link to Comment dlmaniac
dlmaniac's picture

Skip the charts and just ask yourself this: How could uncle Sam NOT spend self into a third world nation when he fails to make ends meet for how many years already?

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 02:50 | Link to Comment JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Socialism always destroys.

We will quickly return to unleashed capitalism once the Currency is backed by Gold/Silver and Debts are forgiven.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 02:53 | Link to Comment longonSpam
longonSpam's picture

Inverse Weimar.. that'll be interesting especially with nukes.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 07:15 | Link to Comment Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

The Soviet Union broke up and the rest of the world made sure that their 6,000 nukes didn't go missing, so expect the rest of the world to step up and make sure USA nukes are kept secure, once the USA goes tango-uniform.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 09:07 | Link to Comment Mr. Mandelbrot
Mr. Mandelbrot's picture

Whatever . . .

 

 

Declassified Russian sources[which?] indicate that the smallest Soviet miniaturized nuclear weapon was also small in dimensions, and its size was compared to a "small refrigerator."[citation needed] Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, these were the type of devices[original research?] that Soviet General Alexander Lebed claimed had been issued to the GRU and then subsequently lost. Lebed, who worked with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, presented to the U.S. Congress the idea that suitcase bombs had been created by the Soviets and that 132 KGB-produced devices could not be accounted for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

 


Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:16 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

again, the US's demographics numbers are being distorted by undesirable minorities.  If you subtract them out, the stats put us at the top of the 1st world.

3rd world nations aren't 3rd world because of all of these symptoms, they are because of the people who live there.  You cannot just build a bunch of roads and redistribute a bunch of money and presto, be Norway.  Unless you have people with attributes on par with an average Norweigian, you won't have anything like Norway.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:22 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

You basically need to shut your nigger trap already.  That  schtick is old.  Nigger is as nigger does.

-Chumblez.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:43 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

Screw you...let the man talk...it's refreshing to hear other opinions that are BANNED in "public".  They're just words...why be afraid of them?

We ALL know the truth...why don't we admit it?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:08 | Link to Comment Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

HOPE AND CHANGE!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:14 | Link to Comment Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

ah, something positive from you! thanks!

you are not sick or something...? 8-/

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 23:47 | Link to Comment El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

COPE With DERANGED!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 14:27 | Link to Comment knowless
knowless's picture

it's just that trav has been a proponent of eugenics on this board for what is most likely years at this point, so telling him to shut the fuck up won't change anything anyway, he'll just keep at it.

 

when public disorder finally reaches the US there will be death squads roaming the cities, each with their own agenda, that's why words can scare people.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:14 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

There are death squads already roaming the inner cities...gangs.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:56 | Link to Comment falun bong
falun bong's picture

are you Chumbawamba?

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:38 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

Now you're going to get junked all over, speaking against the PC mantras like that. (I love it!)  You can't just drop empirical evidence, facts, and math onto the general population like that Travis, it makes them feel... bad.  And we can't have anyone feeling bad, in this era where we don't even keep score at kids sports events anymore.

Let it crash.  Then all the PC crutch users will go to the fires and the stewpots after all the anti-Darwinian safeties are removed.  The situation will begin the long march back. 

Did anyone think about a simple thing like food in the writing of this article?  If the US goes tits up in the water, exactly who in the hell is going to feed all the surplus populations around the world?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:07 | Link to Comment Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture

 

 

<BOOT STOMP, ARM STRETCHED>

WHITE POWER!!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:17 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

Max, you gonna hunt me down all over the interwebs now, no matter what rock I creep beneath?   I'm not the last blasphemer of your dear Ivory Towers.

you're falling into the same old cliche...  if you lose the argument, then deride the opponent as a (shudder) Nazi.

You will recall from your in depth university studies in history that the Nazis made the socialist intellectuals some of the first plank owners of the death camps.  They got sent in to fell the trees, set the fence posts and string the wires.

or didn't they teach you that in your Womyn's studies curriculae?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:24 | Link to Comment Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture

 

 

It's difficult to fathom all the miserable pigs that walk this land. 

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:38 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

Black ones, brown ones...yup, there ARE a lot of them!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:45 | Link to Comment Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture

 

 

WOW!  This place is INFILTRATED with PIGS!  

All the worms crawl out of the dirt when the cross gets lit.

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:13 | Link to Comment vato poco
vato poco's picture

Then *LEAVE*, you pussy. Your increasingly-more-strident attempts to squelch unauthorized speech/thoughts are growing tiresome. Besides, you're running out of options in your tired little playbook. You've already squealed "nazi"; you just whined "KKK"; your sorry little attempts at long-distance psychoanalysis failed miserably - you're running out of snowballs to throw like a girl, bitch.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you've made a strong, well-reasoned argument. . . only three insults based in misogyny - no homo bro!!

(you think you're rad, but you're a tiny tool in the big toolbox boy)

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:17 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

haha!

Nice imagery!

 

Zig Hail!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:40 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

If you removed the swarthy minorities from the US (not just from the statistics) then you'd have zero production-line manufacturing and no small crop harvesting - plus the military and police would be full of unionised Haaavaaad graduates pulling in 6-figure salaries. Great economy!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:40 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

dumbass, you'd be picking lima beans after two days of a good hungry and be glad for it.   When the wages rise to where you can actually make a living on them, then you'll have all the applicants you need.  Right now, those beans are getting picked sub minimum wage because your taxes and my taxes are subsidizing those migrant pickers basic necessites, like medical, food and housing.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 02:49 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

And when the wages on food, and thus the price of food rises, what do you think happens to the standard of living?

Oh yeah, didn't think that one through.  Just like Travvy boy up there.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:45 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

Sure we would...KIDS could pick the crops like they did years ago.  Hire high school kids to do it.  But NO...our kids won't do it, too spoiled by mommy and daddy who spoil them because they're guilty that they have to work all the time to pay for mommy and daddies expensive toys.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:58 | Link to Comment Andy_Jackson_Jihad
Andy_Jackson_Jihad's picture

A sad realization I have come to as well.  Whenever debates of socialism, the laffer curve and twatnot come up, the homegeneity and racial makeup of the population seem to be the best indicator of success.

Makese sense if you consider socialism to be an extreme form of insurance, the dangers of which are moral hazard.  Who are you more likely to cheat?  A bunch of people just like yourself or a system of "others"? 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 13:48 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I understand your premise, but I wonder. . . "a bunch of people just like" myself, meaning "white"?  because the white brotherhood here are NOTHING like myself, nor do I desire to know or be around them - I think there are sub-groups of like-minded people that don't depend on superficial appearance, "race" assignment, etc. - I like to think it's a VALUES judgment, combined with a dose of self-respect & anger management.

Divide & Rule, dudes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 02:17 | Link to Comment Mr. Mandelbrot
Mr. Mandelbrot's picture

What the hell does this have to do with my comment?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 02:46 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Cut out the "undesirables" from the other nations to, you fucking idiot.

Did you even go to college?  You certainly never took a fucking stats class.  You're just some dumbshit that scored high on an internet IQ test who thinks that entitles him to ignore any facet of reality that clashes with any thought that pops into his little head.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 10:59 | Link to Comment Random_Robert
Random_Robert's picture

All of you junking Travis need a little introspection.

You fear his words for what they represent to YOU, not for what they represent in TRUTH.

Trav is right- Norway is successful because they SHARE their productivity with each other, and they share because no one external to them ever COMPELLED them to share against their will. In other words, they are a socially well adjusted people.

The message Trav spouts loses it's punch when the stigma of skin color gets thrown into the mix (his bad, because millions of people of color have proven themselves to be worthwhile and self-valuable members of the human community, and an equal number of white people sit in trailer parks smoking meth and demonstrating no more self worth than the average inner city black criminal - this fact negates the premise that skin color has anything to do with self worth).

but aside from that, facts are facts...

If the elitist mentality could actually develop a creative way to LEARN what makes Norway Norway, and to bring that synergy and apply it into areas of alternative skin color and demonstrate some degree of success, then Trav's white-pride argument would fall flat on its face, right?

So why don't all of you "diversity champions" out there go throw your energy at that endeavor, instead of junking Trav for making the valid, truthful, and irrefutable statement that Norway is NOT a diverse nation demographically, and that Norwegian style social success has failed every time it has been tried in racially integrated societies...?

Inconvenient truths are truths, nonetheless.

Invest your energy in creating the new truth that racial and social harmony ARE INDEED possible without oppressive legislation, because it is clear that the forced legislation of a contrived morality is doing nothing more than igniting people's more basic, tribal instincts, and if that sentiment is taken to the extreme in the US, then unfortunately, people of color will end up at the bottom of the totem pole once again, suffereing a major setback from all the progress this country was achieving before the Pelosi/Clinton/Boxer/Obama/Reid idiocracy came along and began diseasing our collective perceptions toward each other.

Quite fearing the words and the labels, and get to work on what it would take to prove the point that you want to prove,

otherwise, you're part of the problem... and you can fuck the hell off.

 

 

 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:45 | Link to Comment thorgodofthunder
thorgodofthunder's picture

Norway is Norway because of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

 

This Trav character is a disgusting, ignorant racist and deserves to be banned from this site in my wealthy, elitist, minority, opinion.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Random_Robert
Random_Robert's picture

So what's your point?

Norway's economy produces more than it consumes, and the excess generates savings that are returned to the people... Yeah, that really sounds like a marginal economic model. Maybe Norway needs to get with the program and generate a couple hundred times its GDP worth of trade deficits and sovereign debt, like all the ret of the genius countries in the western world...?

oh, and Trav deserves to be banned from ZH because he knows, understands, and chooses to exercise his first amendment rights...? This statement makes you part of the problem... please refer to my recommendation above for people who are part of the problem.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 14:56 | Link to Comment thorgodofthunder
thorgodofthunder's picture

My point is Norway is lucky to have immense natural resources that it can export and generate wealth from.

I could care less that you think speaking out against racism is a problem.  Hopefully your poison tongue will as well be cut off for inciting hatred.

Mon, 12/05/2011 - 12:29 | Link to Comment Random_Robert
Random_Robert's picture

Yeah, well, the exportation of raw materials as a wealth generator is (and always will be) a long term failure.

If you re-read my posts (correctly) you will see that no where do I espouse racism. I only yield to REALITY. I never said speaking out against racism is a problem- my problem was with you deciding that someone should be CENSORED based on their point of view. Given that fact, I could declare you a Nazi- but I won't.

And as for inciting hatred... the only people I feel disdain for are those who fail to trust the power of their own perceptions, and choose to willfully embrace cognitive dissonance as a normal component of the human condition. 

Hate is a fucked up emotion. Voluntary preference for other people based on arbitrary bullshit like the color of their skin or the shape of their eyes is even MORE fucked up.  

But wanting to censor someone or deny them of their viewpoint is the most fucked up of all- hateful people should be allowed to expose their venom so that exposure to it will inspire people to choose not to be like that. 

Reality sucks really bad; but it doesn't have to suck at all. Unfortunately people would rather live in a shitty predicament, waiting for Superman, rather than realizing that THEY are the only Superman that really gives a shit about them.

Fuck everyone else; including the racists- take care of those you love: including yourself.

 

 

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:27 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

"the rest of the world made sure that their 6,000 nukes didn't go missing"

Data please?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 04:03 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

It's not the socialisme problem. It's the lack of.

If you look to the 50's the workforce participation was a lot lower. In every family 1 could stay home and take care of the kids. the man made enough money for the entire family.

Wages don't rise enough. WE NEED TO WORK WITH MAN AND WIFE TO GET THROUGH!

And yet we automized so many jobs...

We need to rethink the 8 hour working days.

We need to rethink the 5 day workweek.

We can produce a heck of a lot more than we need. So why do we need so many workforces? So many workinghours?

Cut the workweek with 1/5 and keep the wages, and you'll lower unemployment with 10%.

Why do we need to increase productivity while our technology grows every year, our workforces becomes to great...?

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 04:14 | Link to Comment Transformer
Transformer's picture

JLee

You might want to look up the word Fascism.  Then, if you get interested, read about socialsm, communism, capitalism, democracy, etc.  Then you'll be able to comment with sounding stupid.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:19 | Link to Comment Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Sudden debt:

Back in the 50s a family had ONE car, ONE TV set, ONE phone.
These items lasted years in the family (some weren't replaced until they stopped functioning, and even then repair shops were quite usual and employed skilled technicians).
Now, a typical sheeple family has to work more because they have to pay for ONE car PER PERSON, ONE TV set WITH CABLE TV PER PERSON, ONE cellphone PER PERSON, ONE computer PER PERSON. And they buy the whole cycle as soon as new models comes out. Add game consoles, iGadgets, drug habit, medical costs, shrink, etc...

The tech automation upward spiral means a human downward spiral.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:23 | Link to Comment vato poco
vato poco's picture

Yep. I've read that a standard-issue house in the 50's was 1000-1200 sq. ft. (Have read that was pretty much the available range in Levittown.) For a family of 4-8. Nowdays most childless couples would classify anything less than 2000 sq ft as tiny. I'm not so sure about 'tech automation upwards = human downwards spiral', but I *am* sure that a luxury once sampled becomes a necessity. And they don't give that shit away for free.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:30 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

Not exactly. It's the bowing to expectations that everyone's going to have everything all the time that's killing us.

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 02:48 | Link to Comment vato poco
vato poco's picture

That's Life In The Fast Lane, baby.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:57 | Link to Comment Syrin
Syrin's picture

AND, if a family has only one car, one TV, one DVR and one cell phone, they are considered poor, join an occucrap movement and demand that the 49% who actually contributr to society pay more.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 04:57 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

In the 50s the federal, state, and local GDP consumption was 26%, today 45%.  Opps there it is!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:44 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Sudden debt hit the nail on the head.  There simply aren't enough useful things to do to provide work for everyone, that's why we have a consumption enonemy - we consume useless shit.  Lowering costs to maximise profits have succeeded in (locally) ruining the consumer base, and the world economy is finding a new equalibrium.  Once it is cheaper to automate all production, the race to the bottom in wages, first moving jobs to the uneducated south, then out of the country - paying a human to do anything will be cost prohibitive (this will likley never happen, as we see in "Reality" there are other factors at work that will cause destabilization in other structures (war, for example.)

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:48 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

Things are fucked up because we have an entire class of people who sit home and collect taxpayer money...while at the same time...we import illegals to do the work the others SHOULD be doing!  A quarter of the population lives for free on our dime.  A quarter of the population is useless.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:04 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

yes, that!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 13:54 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

"A quarter of the population is useless"

almost verbatim, you left off "eaters". . .

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:25 | Link to Comment SteveNYC
SteveNYC's picture

You want to see millions of people doing mostly useless activities? Welcome to New York City!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 14:24 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

You mean Occupy Wall Street?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 02:50 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

In 1900, it was under 5%.

Blammo.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 06:22 | Link to Comment Hobbleknee
Hobbleknee's picture

The problem is that the government has devalued the currency so much that it takes two incomes to have the same standard of living in the 50s.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:46 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

The problem is your wife competing in the market for a job made real wages decrease.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:44 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

hey, those bra burners got what they asked for, didn't they?  Fucked the whole thing up for all of us in the process.  Glass ceiling my ass, they, the bob haircut wannabe men and the metrosexual, limp wrists who are basically agreeable lesbians with penises couldn't lead a thirsty duck to water. 

haven to be found in PM's and ammo boys.  We have to play a little road warrior before it gets straightened out again.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:04 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

And corporate got what it wanted: two workers instead of one required for the same living standard.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 13:58 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you might want to wean yourself off the Rush-tit before that EMP drops your bandwidth & you lose your "chance" to be the next "angry white man shooter" at the mall. . .

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:39 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

LFMayor: It's thoughts like yours, and comments such as this one, that frighten gun-haters witless and set back the rights to own firearms. Take you fury to a therapist; you need help.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:51 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

Bullshit...the wife is working to pay for all the icrap, the too big of a house, all the "stuff" in it, 2 HUGE vehicles, boats, jet skiis, bikes, etc.  All bought on credit.  And she's COMPETING with the men that should be working instead f her.  Women in the workplace...for the most part, and in most jobs...are worthless.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:08 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Aside from the misogyny, you are right. I've heard so many times from public school teachers how they are working hard just to survive. Of course survival for them means a second income to support the "middle class" American lifestyle you've described above. Survival my ass.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:36 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

Excuse this if it annoys anyone, but I watch House Hunters, and many of the folks buying second homes overseas (France, etc.) are teachers. Our kids can't read, can't write, can't think; teachers work 9 months a year and don't pay for their benefits or pensions... What's wrongwith this picture?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

My wife is a Catholic school teacher, works 60 hours a week, goes to school in the summer, and we pay $795/month out of pocket for insurance - she make $38K/year gross. I am unemployed - can't find ANY full time job. We don't take any govt assistance, even though we qualify. We have significant savings but eat into it every month.

Just sayin'

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:40 | Link to Comment Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture

 

 

Typical right-wing, racist, misogynistc, bigoted  PIG.  You guys all fit in the same mental box. 

 

 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:00 | Link to Comment Syrin
Syrin's picture

So much hypocrisy packed into one tiny post.   Well done Sorobot.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 14:02 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

bet you've got a hella set of tats dude, right up the neck, eh?

gotta love your argument tho - "women in the workplace" and bitching about the useless unemployed in other posts - tell me, just exactly where you allow the single female the right to support herself, and not live off "your" state benefits?  where do the females who are self-supporting individuals fit into your NARROW MIND?

childish, insane.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 02:53 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes, yes, continue fighting amongs yourselves.  Don't blame those truely at fault, it makes it easier for us to continue to steal from you.  Let me rub my hands together as I gril evily.

Signed,

The Oligarchy

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:34 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

The expected standard of living today, even of people on welfare, is so far above what the "norm" was in the 50s that most people who weren't alive or even "thought of" then can't imagine the situation as it was.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 07:19 | Link to Comment Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

Wages don't rise enough. WE NEED TO WORK WITH MAN AND WIFE TO GET THROUGH!

Women's Lib/Feminism doubled the labor supply beginning in 1969 or so.

Once wives began to work, the bosses said:

"Why should I pay you so much, which was based upon you supporting a wife and kids?"

Wages then stagnated for over 40 years.

If you double the labor supply, wages drop and the price of everyday goods needed to get to work (auto, clothes, food, housing) go up in price.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:18 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>Once wives began to work, the bosses said:

"Why should I pay you so much, which was based upon you supporting a wife and kids?"

Wages then stagnated for over 40 years.<<<

BWAHAHA !!!

 

So, it's women's fault?  Greedy bosses?

Currency debasement, inflation, globalization had nothing to do with this?

You are a simpleton.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:29 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

Hahahaha!

 

It was the greedy communist wives of migrant bosses clearly. Lol!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:47 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

See comment above, he was close but no cigar.  The boss didn't have to make that decision, he simply lowered his target wage and found a taker.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 21:32 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Don't over-think it.  Blue collar jobs disappeared.  Women doubled the supply for the jobs that remained.  This pushed down wages.  Even a simpleton can understand this.

Tue, 03/13/2012 - 21:15 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Whoever junked me is a freaking simpleton.  Your right to vote, in fact the entire bill of rights, should be off-limits to you.  People on the street should be free to spit on you.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:20 | Link to Comment mccoyspace
mccoyspace's picture

While the fight for female equality had been going on for a long time ( suffragists are just one example), women entered the work force en mass for the first time because of world war 2. The men were fighting and someone had to build all those armaments. The 50s house wife fantasy was social engineering to try to get women to give up those economic gains so men could get work once they were home. That roll back didn't last much of a decade. ultimately there was no turning back once women had an experience with economic self-sufficiency.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:57 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

REALLY?  Woman and economic "self sufficiency" is a myth.  I'd bet that less than 10% make it TRULY on their own...without government aid or ass fucking their ex out of everything he had.  Face it, they plop out a kid and we're stuck supporting them for life.  Quite the racket they have going.  Better to rent them than to buy!  It's a motto we SHOULD be teaching ALL our boys...

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:04 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>without government aid or ass fucking their ex out of everything he had.<<<

Sounds like you got what you deserved.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:10 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

Really?  So I guess if you had money in MFglobal I should be laughing that you got what you deserved?  You're correct of course...I should have know women were useless lying bitches before I married one!  Just like you should have known not to have an account there.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:24 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

Don't date much these days, do you?

Or, perhaps just a lot of "first" dates.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:53 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

You know...as I age, I find myself with less and less patience with women.  They rarely have anything truly interesting to say.  They're a hassle...  Like I said...I prefer rentals.  How else for an old man to have a quick romp with a 20 y/o?  Women my age are beat...worn out...and full of drama.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 16:30 | Link to Comment JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Entitled and spoiled women used to living off others aren't much fun. I've had the same experience. Rentals are very dangerous though.

The good news is Women will be leaving the workforce in droves over the next 10-15 years and returning to more traditional roles. That is my analysis because let's face it - the current system does not work - the jobs are no longer there. But all we are seeing is symptom of a debased currency. Once sound money is back, manufacturing jobs will come back to the US, capitalism will again flourish and women will be back in the home and not so spoiled and entitled anymore. I see a second Golden Age for America coming with a very limited government. Happy Days will be here again!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:46 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

The same problems occur over and over again because the younger people coming along weren't alive or weren't old enough when the event was happening before to understand its evolution and its devolution. It never ends. If we could live 150 years we'd same the same repeats in 100 years that we're seeing now except we don't recognize them as repeats. There's plenty of evidence.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 21:16 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ahh, JLee, your religious fantasies of having a subordinate under your thumb won't be happening any time soon - cats out of the bag now, most women would band together with others of a like mind in community rather than return to the dark ages of being owned just to live.

young women now are sharing living expenses, child-minding, home-schooling, etc. - it's a smart way to maintain some independence and still have "family" around for support - they don't ALL want to trade their lives & bodies to exist, so last century!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 21:42 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Now I'm really confused...how did we all get here again? ;-)

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 23:19 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

don't know about you, but I created an account about 2 years ago, and just log in.

 

if you're talking procreation, that still happens, it's the socially engineered 50's housewife thing that most smart females see through - once allowed into universities, they've actually thrived, and some know how to have the children they desire without jumping through all the church or civil sanctions - I know many who are good friends with the fathers of their children, but don't live with him full time, and it suits ALL parties just fine, including the kids who get calm, supportive parenting.

but most of the haters here are bitter that the Father Knows Best television show they were sold didn't pan out.  oh, and the jobs they used to get handed to them with 8th grade qualifications are gone now too, so yeah, we all got lied to.

/shrug.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 21:46 | Link to Comment JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Go right ahead. Time will prove me correct and you wrong.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 19:52 | Link to Comment kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

these neckbearded mouthbreathers are pathetic 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:10 | Link to Comment Hohum
Hohum's picture

We should teach our boys to use birth control.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:19 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

It doesn't fucking matter!  DNA tests don't always take away child support!  She points the finger and he's screwed...in too many ways.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 16:38 | Link to Comment JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

When the kid is 13 or so, open your doors and take him/her in. No need to pay after that...if they insist anyway, agree to pay only for a college fund/private school and not to the Mother/State.    Remember, this money is for the child, not for THEM.  Stick to your guns, and ask God for help. He will help you, because the Child Support system is immoral.  

 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 09:13 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

In an ideal world, the non-present parent should be compelled (assuming they aren't voluntarily contributing) to help meet the costs of raising their children... but our present legal system seems to think this means the man (and, what, 95% of the time it is the man) should also pay for the children's mother's mortgage, clothes, holidays, etc, etc...

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:48 | Link to Comment dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

They should be taught to keep it in their pants. And girls should be taught to wear jeans, run fast, and carry a weapon.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:07 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>While the fight for female equality had been going on for a long time ( suffragists are just one example), women entered the work force en mass for the first time because of world war 2.<<<

Please don't confuse this crowd with historical facts.

Or the other inconvenient fact that we invited Mexican workers to the US to pick crops during WWII since most of the agricultural labor force was enlisted/drafted.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:45 | Link to Comment Gavrikon
Gavrikon's picture

And a few years after the war was over, President Eisenhower invited them to leave.  Which they did.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 21:41 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The woman's movement, the civil rights movment, the immigration act of 1965, H1B visas and the ADA were arranged to increase labor supply and depress wages.  They hid depressed wage problems with two earner families, easy credit, a 30 year slide in interest rates, a stock market bubble and a housing bubble.

The game is over. 

Along with the bankers we must take the social engineers to task.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 14:08 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

have a seat, don't want to shock you or anything, but

not. every. female. is. a. "wife"

the one thing "woman's lib" did for some is the LIBERATION thing - and that was liberating the individual from the need to marry just to survive.

you'd think you might have worked out how that benefits all you closet misogynists - YOU don't have to even be around women any more, and can live your white male bonding fantasies with zero hassle.

*gratitude*

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 02:56 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

You do realize that women AND children worked prior to about 1900, right?

Women have been FORCED into the workplace.  Or did you fail to notice that your stated date for the beginning of Feminism is within two years of Nixon closing the gold window?

But you keep thinking all those women are working because they LIKE working AND coming home and having to deal with the kids and do all the chores as well (as is the case in most households).

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:27 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

Please don't confuse this crowd with historical facts.

The only history they know is what they lived through.

No Big Picture here.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 07:46 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

Well said, SD. Good to see an intelligent comment among the knee-jerk responses and junks.

It was inevitable that automation would eliminate jobs, while at the same time it was also ineviable that the remaining menial jobs would be offshored in order to meet domestic environmental demands, workplace OHS demands and the demands of a more highly educated population.

Taking each of those factors to their logical conclusions, it is obvious that a new paradigm of wealth distribution is needed for a post-industrial world. This is what socialism aims for through mandatory and arbitrary redistribution, but takes no account of individual desires - including the desire to be rewarded for effort.

The conundrum to be solved is therefore how to reward effort while also ensuring that those who make no effort - sometimes through no fault of their own - are not simply discarded or starved.

In a totally free market - without the guns of government - charity addresses looking after the unfortunate, while those who make the most effort profit greatly. Unfortunately, those who depend on chairty would prefer to steal from those who have more.

Meanwhile, simply printing more money solves absolutely nothing!

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 07:56 | Link to Comment Bobbyrib
Bobbyrib's picture

"Unfortunately, those who depend on chairty would prefer to steal from those who have more."

Would you argue that today's millionaires and billionaires are more greedy than when charity actually had enough to provide the less fortunate? Check your local paper and see how food banks are doing. Most likely you will see articles about how they don't have enough food to sustain the year and that demand is picking up. Our problems are societal, the more I have to deal with society, the more I am convinced this country is full of assholes.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:15 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

Nice straw man. The food banks are running short of food because food is becoming scarce - all over the world.

The massive debts and derivative bets need to be haircut before any kind of system can operate.

The current situation is a combination of the factors I mentioned and the [heavily armed] government deliberately extracting all liquidity from the population and sending it all to the banks.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:38 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>The food banks are running short of food because food is becoming scarce - all over the world.<<<

Hmmm...All three of my chain grocery stores within 5 mi. are just stuffed to the gills with food.  No scarcity in food.  It's just that the middle class, who usually donate to food banks are feeling squeezed and cutting their donations just as the need increases.

>>>"Unfortunately, those who depend on chairty would prefer to steal from those who have more."<<<

Yes, the 1% with their government bailouts, tax credits and subsidies would prefer to rely on the charity of the taxpayer who collectively has more than they do...for now.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 09:21 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

 
  "All three of my chain grocery stores within 5 mi. are just stuffed to the gills with food. "

Correct observation ... wrong assumptions.

The chain grocers are multinationals moving food to where they get the best return - within 5 miles of your place.

Have a look in your local convenience store and see how much stock they have on their shelves or, more importantly, see how much stock the groceries have in the poorest areas and in 3rd world countries.

Your local chain groceries will also have nothing on their shelves within 2 days of the financial collapse - because the multinationals will be sending it to those few countries doing better during the collapse.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:37 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

Your assumption was wrong.

You said--

>>>The food banks are running short of food because food is becoming scarce - all over the world.<<<

Local food banks are low NOW because of lack of donations at a time of rising need...not due to some anticipation of supply chain disurption due to global collapse which hasn't happened...yet.

We were NOT talking about backroom stock supplies, JIT etc...

Do you even think before you type?

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:13 | Link to Comment CrimsonAvenger
CrimsonAvenger's picture

I've worked with food banks before, and the biggest challenge as I understand it is the improved efficiency of the grocery supply system, not scarcity per se. Grocery stores are the biggest single providers of food to food banks, and they're simply better at delivering sellable food - fewer cans with upside down labels, less waste in the produce and meat supply chains. Individual donations are a far smaller source.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:06 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

I agree ... in this globalised government and multinational corporate society, economies of scale protected and subsidised by governments lead to what you say.

But in a community-oriented free market society, without a central planning government, food banks would again be provided by local self-help groups and smaller donors. Multinational corporations and monopolies would shrivel in the face of innovative and entrepreneurial niche-fillers. Local communities would support local employers and the lack of fuel subsidies (including the cost of foreign military excursions) would render long-distance transport uneconomical for multinationals and nationwide chains. Employment would also skyrocket, with the wealth being spread around the community.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 14:18 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

this is certainly the case in my area - I work with local food banks and supermarkets - most of the weekly donations are "in house bakery" items that they over stock to keep the shelves looking full, then toss a couple days later, same with produce.  Dented cans, items that are undergoing factory re-packaging (NEW!! Improved!!) for reduced weight / content also turn up sometimes, but are more likely to be sent to the "bargain supermarkets" now - the Dollar Stores get a lot of the "overstock" items, as selling just moves down the line to extract the most fiat possible.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 03:39 | Link to Comment dolph9
dolph9's picture

I'm an American, but I would say, without hesitation, that most (not all) Americans are assholes.  But it's not the rich, in fact it's sort of the opposite.

Still, I can't blame them.  It really sucks for the "99%" to live a lie, and have propaganda shoved in your face 24/7, and alot of people just don't have the mental fortitude to deal with it or shut it out, so they become assholes.

America is a country that is extremely tough on average people.  Americans think that if they aren't famous or rich, they are failures, and they internalize it. 

So, you can't become a celebrity or multi-millionaire, despite all the propaganda that says to just work harder?  Then become an asshole and take it out on other people.  I see this time and time again.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:19 | Link to Comment johnnynaps
johnnynaps's picture

I'm not sure why you got junked so much on this one? Obviously, there might be some highly intellectual people that are on zerohedge.....but that doesn't make them visionaries! I couldn't agree more. The only things GDP seems to be producing are Debt Slavery and one Gigantic Dump called Earth. We do need to rethink the workday. It's ironic that Jefferson said "save the afternoon for recreation and exercise, for it is just as important as reading." I'm glad he had time to exercise 250 years ago! And, one would think that with the advancement of our society and technology we should be able to enjoy the fruits of our labor.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 09:11 | Link to Comment DOT
DOT's picture

Jefferson started things at 4:30 AM.  A full day is required for a full life.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:47 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

yeah, the early bird gets to bone his pick of the slaves first.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 13:03 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

Assuming you mean Thomas Jefferson and not Jefferson Davis or some other Jefferson;

If I recall correctly, Thomas Jefferson was a debt slave. When his father-in-law died, he and his brothers-in-law divided up the estate according to the will prior to settling the debts. As a result, as per the law at the time, they each then owed the bank 100% of the debt of the deceased.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:41 | Link to Comment rbg81
rbg81's picture

Hmmm....so employers can pay people the same wages and benefits for doing 80% of the work?  Or maybe they can just hire two people where they had one before, and have them each work half time?  According to your system, each would make 62.5% of the original workers salary, but the employer would pay 2X the cost for benefits.  That's a great way to ensure that jobs get shipped overseas even FASTER.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:57 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Sounds like you understand what's going on.  Why does our government continue to give taxbreaks and military support for companies and corporations that don't hire locally?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:02 | Link to Comment Blue Plus Red
Blue Plus Red's picture

Wasn't there a Vonnegut novel set on that premise--Player Piano perhaps-- where everything was automated and no work remained and didn't it end with the workers blowing the entire thing up and starting all over.     Can't really see how this ends in any other way.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 04:17 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

hahaha... even on ZH the socialism boogy man always gets wheeled out.

 

What you're experiencing now, is CAPITALISM UNLEASHED. Fark, some of you clowns are so brainwashed it's scary.

 

De-regulate the financial sector, what a splendid idea that turned out to be. Of course, as soon as the US did it, UK and Europe had to as well. Couldn't let the US make a reckless grab for their financial sector and get away with it.

All the while bankers cried to both sides that their new economy and wealth creation just needed to be let off the hook a little more, and everyone will win...

 

 

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 04:59 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

Hey dumb ass when we have capitalism the banks fail.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 06:36 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

What you need is democracy...

 

Which you won't have as long as voting is voluntary...

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 07:26 | Link to Comment CoolClo
CoolClo's picture

Democracy (mob rule, ruled by the 51% of the idiots) and Freedom are incompatable.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 07:28 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Exactly.

As the 51% will always vote themselves a raise at the expense of the 49%.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:07 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

Far better that 25% decide for the other 75% eh? Yeah, you read that right, 25% of your pop. decide for everyone else, then you wonder why things are lopsided..  (of that 25% half are probably dumbasses that blindly follow the party they were born to, regardless of their policies).

 

So make it 12.5% that actually consciously vote and win. 12.5% decide how the country will be run.

 

You realise that when not everyone votes, it is far easier manipulate the populace yeah? All you need to do is create extreme disenfranchisement among certain groups, they feel powerless and don't vote.

Let me help you understand how you might achieve such a thing:

- reduce the quality of education. Uneducated people are less likely to vote. They're also poorer. Poor people don't vote.

- increase the cost of healthcare. People get sick, and get poor (leading cause of personal bankruptcy). See the point above, poor people don't vote.

 

You can give the minority (*cough* majority) the proverbial bird, and concentrate your efforts on smaller and smaller subsections... c_r_o_n_y_i_s_m ?

 

You guys just don't get it. This is ZH, you should know better.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:46 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>You guys just don't get it. This is ZH, you should know better.<<<

I thought so too when I was new here.  You'll get over it.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:21 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

why the hell would you want uneducated people voting?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:37 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

Are you going to tell me you think education is a cure for stupidity? Got Madoff?

 

Having more people voting means that policy makers more closely resemble what people want. Doesn't mean they make the right call, just the call that most people in a society want. 

 

Think of it as moderating the impact of special interest groups (not nullifying, just moderating).

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:02 | Link to Comment Are you kidding
Are you kidding's picture

But voting doesn't matter...because the machines are electronic and can be programmed to pay out whatever candidate they're programmed to win.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:20 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

It's all too late for you, but we'll watch and learn... pretend to learn... then pretend we're better and take exactly the same route..

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 02:58 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

God, can you imagine if Trav got to vote?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:32 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

Does your education system make you fear democracy? Where does this idea that it is mob rule come from?

 

Ingrained scars from your long dead colonial ancestors?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 09:15 | Link to Comment DOT
DOT's picture

Read a little. Democracy (from demos) was outlined by Aristotle in The Politics.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 09:30 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

Ahh.. thanks :)  I took a squiz. Not a read... more of a wikipedia type scan..

 

"He said that Monarchy tended to degrade to Tyranny, Aristocracy to Oligarchy (rule of the few) and Democracy to Ochlocracy (mob power). "


Seems that academics suggest he thought democracy was the best form of government, because it's deviant variant (mob power) was most benign.

 

Still doesn't really explain why it 'mob rule' is used as a derogatory term however...

 

Can't think of any Ochlocracy's... if you can please advise (I am genuinely interested).

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:52 | Link to Comment DOT
DOT's picture

Aristotle's fave was Aristocracy ( from Aristoi- meaning the "best") he made up the names we still use today.

In his time and among his class the "mob" was something to fear.

As to "ochlocracy" it is now called civil unrest or "riot".

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:30 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

ahh.. ok. Thanks :)

Didn't think I'd learn anything from talking sh*t in ZH chat :)

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:37 | Link to Comment Mpizzie
Mpizzie's picture

This is why I was all these other blogs and radio pundits would quit talking about ZH. because we end up with people who say 'you won't have democracy as long as voting is involuntary.' You mean like Soviet Russia...or China? Where the government tells them theyhave to vote, when to vote, and.eventually who to vote for? That is the dumbest idea I have ever read on this site...even dumber than all the Jewish conspiracies and threads where I want to shoot trav777 or ORI for weird things they write. But, I have a feeling reading your thoughts you'd prefer a more fair system...as long as you are treated fairly. People like you need control over others and you use governments to do it just like the cronys. Problem is, you're mad because more people care I. this country who want to succeed than those who don't...they generally vote, so if you could just make the retarded ghetto monkey or trailer cracker go vote by force of law and bribe them, even.though they can't barely speak...you'd have true democracy. And they'll eventually destroy you when they realize they can take anything. Wake up...we have mob rule already, its just not.violent yet. Tyler...this place is becoming more and more like an apartment complex that dropped credit requirements and now I have two parking spaces out front that have broken down cars in them. You need to increase the time it takes for people to be allowed because letting just anyone in is frying stupid.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:45 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

I just hope english is your second language. You said some things, they just didn't make much sense.

 

Do you feel threatened when I question your beliefs? Do you feel the need to insult and silence me? That's a rather interesting attitude isn't it?

 

People are lazy. Do you think school should be optional? Do you think tax should be optional? What do you suppose would happen if you made those things optional? 

I can tell you. You'd have masses of uneducated, and a government with almost no social control. If you were upper middle class, you'd need to have your kids followed by private security, to avoid extortion. You would not be able to conduct a business without bribing officials and law enforcement.

 

You don't get it. Next!

 

Urm.. and I've been coming here a lot longer than you it seems.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:06 | Link to Comment DOT
DOT's picture

The cure for lazy is competition.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:27 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

Sometimes...

 

Carrot and the stick, as needed to reach a balanced outcome :)

 

Don't ask me to define balanced... If I'm on a train travelling 40miles /hr, and I toss a tennis ball up in the air and catch it, did it go straight up and down?

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:59 | Link to Comment DOT
DOT's picture

I know !  Tyler could make a rule that prevents any posting by some one who has not been on The Hedge for a least 34 weeks.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 13:21 | Link to Comment Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

Wait is America not a Republic.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 06:58 | Link to Comment Ironmaan
Ironmaan's picture

Hey you INCREDIBLE dumb ass. We havn't had capitalism for years. If we had, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out, and they wouldn't have been forced by our already fascist gov't to make loans to loosers.

Capitalism allows people and businesses to fail. It doesnt reward them for bad behavior.

I wish many of you fucks would do some real analysis on whats going on and stop using bumper sticker slogans when you attempt to make a point. Cronyism is the problem, not capitalism.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 07:10 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

ohh.. I see. Yeah you really schooled me there.

 

So where exactly is the line between capitalism and cronyism? So it was capitalism when you were banned from owning precious metals for the better part of 40 years? When gold was on the same controlled substances list as cocaine?

The rest of the 'uncapitalist" world still allowed to possess it. We certainly didn't shake down migrants for it, when they hopped off the boat from their war torn countries.

 

Or was capitalism before that too?

 

I clearly need a better education. Just when was capitalism, and when was it different from the way it is now?

 

You guys have been screwing yourselves over your entire history, rich people waving flags of freedom and opportunity, while the plebs get the drinks and tend the fields, whistling while they work.

 

Like I said, big fish, f*cking the little dumb ones. 

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 07:32 | Link to Comment Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

Capitalism and Socialism both work well once you extract the Human-nature-ism. 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:13 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

I'm not suggest there is a perfect system of government, but I am endlessly amused at America's defence of capitalism as an ideal.

 

We all know communism failed... but all I hear are excuses now that capitalism has shared it's fate. It's as broken and farcical as communism.

 

Where would you rather live today, USA or somewhere in the Nordic Bloc.. If I had kids, I know where I'd want them to grow up... 

 

US also has amongst the worst social mobility rating in the OECD. Born poor, die poor in the land of opportunity, but lets all embrace capitalism....

 

 

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:39 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

Junk it again, maybe it will make capitalism work... I'll help you guys out and junk it too.

 

We can do this if we will it hard enough, just like in The Secret....

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:24 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

how is social mobility for your aborigines?

same issue here...I'm honestly tired of morons talking about the US when we have a 25% third-world population distorting every quantitative metric.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:57 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

3% of the population, spread out over 1000s of square 'miles'. 

 

Imagine a place the size of europe, that's desert, has only a handful of sealed roads and has maybe 100 000 people in it.  Then truck in booze. 

 

I grew up there... 14 hrs drive from running water.  They destroy the buildings as quickly as they can be built, and then ask for more. Their culture has failed them, not much that can be done for that. 

 

We don't have urban slums...

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 03:03 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Stop giving them shit for free and they will start acting like adults.  By continuing to coddle and grant unending welfare to ANY population, you eliminate the will to work or advance, and get only breeders with declining IQs.

Cultures which are self reliant have rising IQs.  Cultures which are not have falling IQs.  Trav thinks this is genetic, but that is just stupid, as it has been seen to occur over just the last few decades in this country, where the average IQ keeps rising, but the IQs of the wealthy rise the fastest, regardless of race, where those of the poorest flounder.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:33 | Link to Comment mccoyspace
mccoyspace's picture

It's like those old European communists in the 50s and 60s after Stalin blew up: "We've never really had a true Communist system. Let's not criticize it until we get the real deal. Then you will all see how great it is and that we were right all along. Long Live the True Revolution! Down with the False Revolution!"

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:15 | Link to Comment Bobbyrib
Bobbyrib's picture

Without the bailouts, the financial system would have collapsed in 2008, rather than whenever it collapses in the near future. We would be in a worse Depression than we are already in right now, if the banks failed. That is going to happen anyway, but you are acting like if we just allowed the banks to fail, everything would be fine. Everything would just be "less fucked." Yes, capitalism would have been better than the bailouts, but it would not have been a vast improvement for the country. Our politicians and our business leaders fucked up big time and it is going to take a very long time to fix.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:12 | Link to Comment Hohum
Hohum's picture

Forced to make loans?  Oh yes, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.  Forcing didn't hurt, though, until early in the 21st century.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:45 | Link to Comment flattrader
flattrader's picture

The sub-prime shit that blew up was written by mortgage cos. like Countrywide...not subject to CRA.

This "CRA is to blame" has been debunked over and over again.

It sticks aroud because it's convenient to blame everyone but the greedy predatory bastards like Anthony Mozilo who are to blame and are walking around free by the way.

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 08:40 | Link to Comment Thunder_Downunder
Thunder_Downunder's picture

hahaha I almost want to write that down. That's a funny idea.

 

Capitalism = bank failure. Nice one.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!