Rioting in London

[Quiksilver]

Guns are illegal in London, right?

Illegality and availability are apples and oranges.

Illegal? Effectively yes.

Available? Effectively yes.

-

Illegality only prevents law-abiding citizens from owning/carrying them. As evidenced by Mr. Duggan, carrying a small .380 which is effectively illegal in London, yet effectively available.

As a law-abiding citizen, I would hate to be defenseless if a riot swept through my neighborhood and a gang of thugs kicked in my door.

Yet that is the world which the Brits and most of the world have chosen for themselves. Dependence.

-

Regarding the riots, how riots start really doesn't matter. It's symptomatic of a people who grew dependent on the lucrative welfare state, and are watching that welfare state collapse around them.

Like a drug addict who isn't getting their fix, they're angry.

Regarding how the welfare state is collapsing, that is a different story. However it is happening and rioting, higher crime rates generally follow.

Everyone talks about race and skin color in regards to the rioting, but no one really talks about the family values that are not passed down from parents to children, amongst communities from 'other places of the world including Africa'. Cultural segregation, cultural friction in urban areas and poor immigrant populations who do not grasp western values yet live in western countries, that is the heart of the matter.

Imagine giving a baby a toy, and then taking it away. They cry. Now imagine the baby that never had the toy?

Imagine letting the baby earn the toy themselves, and thus you not having the right to take it away.

 

[Leporello]

Calling them 'entitlements' trivializes them. They are the basic services needed to run a modern society.

Health care, education, public transit, trade union rights...without these things most people would be reduced to a second or third-world living situation. Can you blame them for being furious when someone tries to take them away?

We should remember that when we talk about cutting social services what we're really talking about is a transfer of wealth - that is, a transfer of wealth from a larger group of people to a much smaller one.

I see many of the more conservative posters here are happy to see once-prosperous countries reduced to peaks of fearful riches surrounded by oceans of seething poverty. Sorry but that's not a world I fancy living in.

 

[Alle_Gory]

I see many of the more conservative posters here are happy to see once-prosperous countries reduced to sees of fearful riches surrounded by oceans of seething poverty. Sorry but that's not a world I fancy living in.

Sounds like Mexico. A conservative's paradise. You can make money while standing on the backs of poor people.

Unfortunately Mexico is also a ****hole because of that. A rising tide raises all boats and a socialized country is to everyone's benefit. Nice streets, nice houses, nice parks and happy educated people. Like Norway.

 

[Strelok]

Here is an interesting viewpoint....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44073673

They specifically mention the withdrawal of certain "entitlements".

Imagine giving a baby a toy, and then taking it away. They cry. Now imagine the baby that never had the toy?

People are simple creatures.....give them something, and they think it becomes theirs by right. But instead, make them accountable and used to earning what they have......now you have people who have worked for what they have and have something to lose. Those are the very last to take the streets with blood and fire.

It's not a matter to entitlements I mean could be a factor but not the main one.
People riot when you keep telling them since the day they were born that in order to be loved and appreciated they have to be successful,wealthy, with a good job and a hot wife etc.

Yet those resources are limited not everybody can get them and out of nowhere you take away the funding to universities therefore depriving many of the only means they have to relieve that pressure.
Is like saying the pressure to succeed is to everybody but the means are just for some,yet they put pressure on everybody.

I know it works great for elitès to have the middle class work hard and kill themselves in order to be part of the consumist dream made of big screens, prada purses, mercedes coupè, but they dont realize how much it hurt for some people being forced in a race they cannot win.

Add to this that those in charge screwed the economy and the salaries are still the same of few years ago while the prizes of goods increased.
No surprise people said enough and toke this opportunity to release their anger, especially young people that is the one who is pressed the most and has no sure future.

Just read the guys in this forum, dont they talk about having a job where you have no boss, where you have a good income, getting a hot girl and even better many of them?
It seems like if you dont play the game according to certain rules and you dont get at the top you're not worth of love or appreciation.

Again I ask why this riots dont happen in Latvia,Poland or Hungary?
I tell you why, because people is not esasperated, forced to conform to a cultural/economical model that works for rich elites and force society to live as a big
mounting chain, you can be appreciated there for being a father, it doesnt need a mansion to make a girl happy, you can get congratulations for people even if you
are a store owner.

Those entitlements you speak of in many cases are no different than a candy given to a kid forced to take piano lesson 3 hours a day.

 

[FairShake]

I have always protested my poverty by getting a job, a second job, or an education. I have even participated in peaceful demonstrations.

Amongst the chavs in England they simply do not. And like the riots in the past this will solve nothing and generally push things further down the road to ruin. If anything the cops will be MORE brutal now, the economy more damaged, etc.

 

[Jariel]

In my opinion, this sums it up. These kids today are spoilt brats who get more than most of us hard working people, so the argument that they're underpriveleged doesn't hold up at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9560000/9560646.stm

 

[LiveFreeX]

Unfortunately Mexico is also a ****hole because of that. A rising tide raises all boats and a socialized country is to everyone's benefit. Nice streets, nice houses, nice parks and happy educated people. Like Norway.
___

Define HAPPY and EDUCATED.

Have you ever actually been to Mexico? I doubt it. Mexico is quite an awesome place to live despite what most North Americans think. I lived there for 2 years and its not as bad as people make it out to be. Military service is mandatory at age 18, everyone learns respect and is given a job skill. Healthcare/medicine is cheap and everyone has access to it. Rents are low and most everyone can afford a house or apartment. Food is plentiful and very good... There is a strong sense of family and Mexicans don't treat each other like garbage based on education/jobs. Mexicans can't be bothered with a riot. Many are educated and you can go to school for about $200/semester (subsidized by the government if you get good grades). They have corruption but at least the people are generally happy and don't REQUIRE 'game' to meet women. Women have respect for Mexican men.

Can't say the same about Norway or CANADA, two of the most feminist countries in the world. The average man is neutered in university and becomes a mangina after marriage. Our force is made up of hardcore whiteknights and women cops and I guarantee they would be out of sight if this sort of thing broke out. We have no military anywhere but in the far north and its made up of french men who could care less what happens to the rest of Canada. I would go back to Mexico before I'd live in Canada again. Apparently, nice parks and pretty streets don't stop people from rioting. I'm looking at you G8 faggots and Vancouver idiots... all damages cost the Canadian tax payers millions... and for what???? Everybody is keen to let people riot over political issues but if ONE thing is said against feminist women in Canada, they will take to the streets and stop at nothing (SLUTWALK). Please explain to me again how living in Canada is better than Mexico.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/03/slut-walk-toronto.html

Over in China, 2 summers ago Uygher (Muslim Chinese) rioters started making trouble in XinJiang so the military rolled out a couple heavy machine guns. Protestors were given a strict warning to vacate the premises, 2 minutes later the military opened fire and created 4000 new jobs in 20 seconds. When the rioters ran down the city streets, the common people used swords, bricks and karate chops... The riot was started over a fight between a Han Chinese and a Uygher in a toy factory.

Now the streets are calm and peaceful. There's also 2000 more police. Chinese won't put up with sh1t from anyone. I love China.

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/stor...ts-dead-robber-chinese-netizen-reactions.html

People think twice about how they protest when they know the penalty for rioting is death or dismemberment.

 

[Strelok]

Ever consider the fact that the media is intentionally portraying a certain image of the rioters: Namely as illogical, violent opportunists, as opposed to the disenfranchised youths without a voice, which is the true reality of the situation. Of course it’s possible to be both and many of the rioters are. But the underlying issues and motivations are being ignored.

It’s no surprise really since we’ve witnessed the demonization of the working class for the past thirty years. Our politicians, the entertainment industry, and wider society promote the image of most working class as feckless, feral, amoral ‘chavs’ to justify our contempt for those we deem as ‘beneath us’.

Indeed, the media are like a gossip b1tch who define someone according to the benefits she can get.

When the good old people push for abolishing certain tv shows that according to them are disrespectful of this society the media take side with the youth who needs tv with no censorship so they can see and decide with their own heads, now that good old society is sitting in front of tv for news the youth become a monster made of spoiled brats who byte the same breast that feed them.

Same with the army that are a bunch of fascist sociopaths during the 90s only to become heroes and martyr after 9/11 and the foreign campaigns.

Again with manly men who were worshipped on tv and cinema during the cold war era and now in the 21st century are lucky to get the bad guy role, because the main characters are mr wussy and his brilliant girlfriend.

Newspaper and tv are simply the voices of the elites, those who own the newspaper or the tv channel are the same who own the oil companies and the big stores.
Media are a tool to obtain and maintain political power as much as finance.

 

[Leporello]

The only entitlements you listed are health care and education. Health care is far too costly to be an entitlement

Wrong. Health care is more expensive here in the US where it isn't an entitlement than in every other country where it is, because having hundreds of competing health care providers creates a massive and wasteful bureacracy.

and what is so wrong with *gasp* having to pay for your education?

Because education is a human right. People need it if they want to be successful in modern society, Have you also forgotten than education is for younger people? The people who are too young to get well-paying jobs and so can't afford the five-digit annual expenses associated with modern education?

Of course it's possible that a few people can simply take out massive loans and then get lucky enough to land a high-paying job right after graduation - but those are the exception, not the rule.

The US has neither of these as entitlements, and yet you would consider them third world?

In some regards, yes - there are places in the US which have illiteracy and infant mortality rates to rival some African countries.

I expect people to riot because they have been taught that it is their RIGHT to have a piece of someone else's property. THAT is why they are rioting.

And we are not talking about a transfer of wealth, we are talking about no longer stealing from people to provide for others who do as little as possible.

Been reading Ayn Rand, have you? You must be a laugh at the student council meetings.

But again, you miss the point. These people have not worked for anything in life. They will riot if you take away their ill-gotten sustenance. Make them accountable and make them work for what they get. You will see far less rioting and a far more responsible citizenry.

Make them work, how? There are no jobs, and everybody knows it. That's simply the result of economic policies which stress 'flexibility' and consumerism over long-term considerations. The smashing of unions and the disappearance of job security hasn't helped either.

Do you really believe that the rising ologarchy which controls the majrotiy of our material wealth earned all of it through their own labor? For the last 40 years people in the West have been working longer and longer hours and getting less and less money for it. Meanwhile, executive pay has been skyrocketing.

I don't say it's necessarily the right response to stage a riot. But sooner or later the criminals who run our countries have to realize that there are limits to what they can get away with.

P.S. Did you know that the total eocnomic losses from white-collar crime are more than twice the losses from what we think of as crime (robbery, mugging etc.)? Chew on that for a while.

 

[LiveFreeX]

The only entitlements you listed are health care and education. Health care is far too costly to be an entitlement

In Mexico healthcare is $10 for a visit to the doctor. All drugs are over the counter and most cost less than $7. The pharmacist is usually a nurse and can recommend anything you need. Dental work never amounts to anything over $20.

With a degree in Mexico you can earn between $800 to $2000/month and just about everyone can afford school.

That's for the 3rd world.

If you are a foreigner, you can go to school in the Philippines for $2000 for your entire degree. There is an over abundance of healthcare workers in the Philippines... and that place is almost 4th world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where my brother lives in Germany, all education is subsidized by the government and is based solely on performance... I think they are just introducing a $200 entrance fee now.

The USA is quite possibly the worst of the 1st world countries when it comes to education and healthcare.


Anyway just wanted to add that...

 

[Leporello]

Health care is more expensive in the US due to litigation. Nothing to do with competing companies. There is no bureacracy created from competing companies. Not sure where you got such a notion.

Uh, I got it from the facts? I see you’ve really been chowing down on those right-wing talking points.

No, health care is not expensive because of litigation. Litigation accounts for about 1% of all health care costs in the US, while bureaucracy swallows up 25% - but only for the private insurance companies. Medicare, the public program, only spends 2% of its expenses on paper-pushing.

One can call anythign a right. Higher Education is not a right, it's an obligation of th eperson that wants to go somewhere in life. There is a huge difference in mentality there.

Of course things are ‘rights’ because we say they are. Same goes for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a fair trial (which costs money) and on and on. Don’t you realize that society is better off as a whole when everyone has basic rights like this, and is healthy and well-educated? Don’t these riots show you the danger of extreme inequality and social stratification?

As for education -again, you’re ignoring my point. Any economist will tell you that it’s not physically possible for most people to get educated under such a system because the expense means that a very large number of people will have to default on their student loans.

That could be said of any place on earth. Your point is moot.

No, you can’t say that about places like Sweden or Japan or other countries which have fully-supported welfare states. Poverty IS solveable; it's only a lack of effort on the part of society that keeps it in place.

Are we resorting to insults now? I understand you are frustrated in fainge an ego investments that is proven wrong.

Was that sentence in English? I'm not being snide; I really don't know what it's trying to say. 'Fainge'?

There are jobs available, but nobody wants to do them. I see the jobs everyday. Hell half of the places where I live have help wanted signs. But too many students feel it is beneath them.

LOL the classic 'there can't be unemployment - I saw a 'help wanted' sign! They just don't want to work, that's all!'

Please elaborate. What are these decent jobs that lazy stupid poor people just won’t take? You ignored my point about falling wages, by the way.

Most of the people I know who are affluent did labor their way to everything. Not every labor is physical. Much of it is mental. To more succinctly answer your question, the vast majority of those who are not embedded in politics have earned their money more than fairly.

And most of the people i know who are affluent also worked hard - but they also had every advantage in life.

I’m not suggesting rich people don’t work (though many of them, especially people in the financial sector, do not) but they’re taking for more of the spoils than they are entitled to. A CEO of a company might have 500 employees; is he really entitled to make a thousand times what any of his employees do while cutting pay and benefits for everyone else? How is that fair? Is he working a thousand times as hard?

Absolute truth. On this we agree. I have to wonder though.....do you consider the rich to only be the criminals that run our nations? Or do you consider all of the "rich" who are not embroiled in the politics?

Politics? politics is controlled by the rich, of the rich, for the benefit of the rich. To be rich is to be represented. Perhaps it's always been so, everywhere, but it's becoming disgustingly obvious lately.

I am sure they are, and they should be prosecuted as such. However, that does not mean that all rich people stole their money.

Maybe, but it's also foolish to think that they earned every penny on their own. They needed other people's help to do it, but more and more they (the rich) are demanding all the credit, and smaller and smaller crumbs for everyone else.

In your world a person is supposed to graduate from college with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, pay off his student loans, provide for his own health care, and pay for it all with a crappy job that has no state-guaranteed benefits or even job security? If he gets sick, boom - he's done for.

It’s a pipe dream, and I mean that literally in the sense that it’s something you would think of while smoking opium. We’ve been trying it here in the US, it doesn’t work.

You seem to think it’s all about individual initiative. It isn’t. Even the strongest-willed person is not immune to larger socioeconomic forces.

 

[Leporello]

Show me a link to the alleged facts Leperollo.

You just keep repeating yourself. The only part we agree on is the Politics where they use methods to get rich.

But again, that is not the majority of the rich.

One simple question. What are YOU doing to improve your life monetarily? And do you think any of these rioters have ever considered this question?

No, they have not. I have lived in both worlds. The world of poverty and the world of the rich. I grew up poor and remained poor through-out my 20's. I KNOW the difference because I lived it.

The main difference between the people in those two worlds is not one of privilege, it is one of attitude. The rich ask what they can do to better their life. The poor ask what is on tv and what is the latest video game coming out.

Of course I’m repeating myself. I’m waiting for you to answer me.

Litigation is about 1% of health care expenses in the US (but that comes from BusinessWeek, and those guys are practically Communists):

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm

And, out of curiosity, are you suggesting we eliminate malpractice altogether, so doctors can pretty much do whatever they want?

Medicare spends 2% on bureaucracy (the author is a Nobel-prizing winning economist, by the way):

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc...h-care-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it/?page=1

The figures are on page 3. The private companies spend about 13% (not 25%) Pardon the error.

Right now I’m in graduate school. Yes, I work hard. But I was also very lucky. I doubt any of the rioters had the advantages in life I had, which started the moment I was born. Just to give you an example; I have a congenital heart defect which is fatal if left untreated. The total cost for treatment was $100,000. Are you suggested I collect that money as a baby? If my parents had been simply middle-class instead of upper-middle class, I would have died, end of story. If I had been born into poverty I wouldn’t even be typing this sentence right now. How is that justice? How does that contribute to a better, more prosperous society?

So why don’t they hunker down and get working? Because it wouldn’t do any good. Throughout my life, pretty much all the avenues which have led me to where I am now are closed off to the majority of people in society. Because opportunity costs money. Because of racism. Because of classism. Because who you know is most of the time more important than what you know.

Of course there are exceptions, success stories against the odds, but that’s just it; why do the odds have to be against them? As neoliberal economics become more dominant upward mobility has been disappearing. Coincidence?

I also don't agree with your view of the less-fortunately born as subhuman. I'll tell you a funny story, though: during the 1930's there was terrible poverty all across the United States. Then came WW2, and a huge surge in government spending. Part of that spending was called the GI Bill, which send lower-and-middle class soldiers to college at government expense. The next 30 years were the greatest era of prosperity America has ever known.

 

[Sparky]

Viewing a few news clips recently, it looks like the locals are picking up defence against these wannabe gangsters. So now its white van man vs hoodies.

Big up to the white van men in this instance.

 

[joverby]

Bravo to Leporello. Danger has quite a elitist biased view on the world.

I agree the point of your attitude / determination has almost everything to due with your success.(But like leporello said, these are few and far between success stories) But you sit there in complete ignorance. Acting as if everything is set up perfectly fair and there aren't some super-elite pricks running our country redistributing the wealth.

Also, you may benefit to watch Sicko. Michael Moore goes into a pharamcy(In England) and asks how much various medicines cost. The answer for all of them was 10 euros. He then asked what if he didn't have 10 euros. The answer for that, they just ask for 10 euros if you can afford it.

 

[ArcBound]

Leporello while you are right that higher class people (like in your example, upper middle class) have some advantages, you have to realize that the mentality of some lower class people is to piss it all away. My family comes from a lower class to lower middle class family. I went to elementary and middle school in Coney Island FFS. And you know what? 90% of the students (not exaggerating) didn't take the teachers seriously, didn't do homework, caused a ruckus in class and learned nothing. The teachers all tried and were good, as evidenced by the few people that did learn a lot. But a teacher can't control 30+ kids all the time. They called whoever did try to learn "nerds" and tried to pick on them. Then years later they are all on facebook and mostly do weed all day and hold minimum wage jobs. It was a path they set themselves on long ago when their parents didn't instill enough good values in them, like mine did even though we were poor.

Now even coming from a lower class family, I say the higher classes don't owe me anything in a sense. Just like I couldn't help being born into a poorer family, you couldn't help being born into an upper middle class family. Just like the both of us couldn't help being born in America, the starving children in certain parts of Africa couldn't help but be born there. We do NOT have an obligation to help starving Africans. In fact we found that when giving aid to certain African countries, we fvcked them up in the long run. Their local farmers couldn't compete with "free" aid and crops sent from 1st world countries and as a result can't really do business. We are in a society with so called "welfare queens", people who are paid to be unemployed, and etc... I'm not saying we need to get rid of the current aid to the poor, but we have to do a major overhaul. There are literally certain people whos' lifestyles are supported by all this free aid and they abuse it heavily.

Now with those out of the way, even though I believe the rich aren't obligated to give to the poor, you know we have an economic when two of the world's former number 1 richest men say that USA needs to tax the super rich more...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY

 

[joverby]

It's hard to convince people to tax themselves though. Considering they are the ones making laws.

50%ish of the people vote. Thanks, to the Supreme Court over-ruling a 100+ year old law before the last major elections corporations are now able to dump as much money as they want in campaigns.

So now half the population that votes gets lies shoved in ther face constantly during election time via commercials. Also has nice extrmeley biased "news" sources(think Faux) to enlighten them on "subjects of importantance." Like those stupid gays getting married. Who cares about the redistribution of wealth going on, or giving away trillions of dollars to mega banks w/o giving anything back to us. (Such as capping interest rates so they can't rape people 30%)

 

[Leporello]

a teacher can't control 30+ kids all the time.

My school had at most 12 kids in a class. Do you think that might've made a difference?

They called whoever did try to learn "nerds" and tried to pick on them. Then years later they are all on facebook and mostly do weed all day and hold minimum wage jobs.

But that's just it! I went to an expensive, fancypants private school and the attitude of the kids was the same! Plenty of them spent all their time drunk, high, getting into trouble with the law, and not studying. Guess what? They all still went to good univeristies and are now working good jobs. Why? Because they went to a 'good' school and the univerisites knew their parents could pay - plus it didn't hurt if Mom or Dad knew somebody who could help them out with a job or internship to get their foot in the door.

I have responded to you. What question did I miss?

You still haven't said anything of substance about rising inequality. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Why is it happening? You keep saying that poor people are lazy, yet they're working harder than ever - you never answered my point about rising hours vs. falling wages. There has never been more wealth in these countries, yet poverty and unemployment are up.

Your first article cites the CBO as a source, which, btw has been wrong about EVERY budgetary item in the US. Not a credible source of information.

For your second point, the article cites that we have a quilt of services, but fails to recognize that the Federal Government is responsible for that quilt. Breaking a leg and handing you a crutch. That is Government for you.

Is that so? I provided sources; now it's your turn. And what on earth do you mean by your second paragraph?

One of my main points here is that an individual only has so much control over his own life. Even the strongest man in the world couldn't survive a plane falling on him, and that's what our economic system is - it's a series of crushing blows to every attempt to raise one's social and economic status.

In January 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.2% By January 2010 it was 9.7% Did 5.5% of people suddenly become lazy? Of course not; there are macroeconomic trends which people as individuals are powerless to affect, and blaming them for it is pointless.

ANYONE can be an exception. They just choose not to. I could have stayed living in a trailer park where I grew up. I chose not to. I could have continued in school to get a doctorate, I chose not not. I could have avoided learning about Business, Investing, or Economics, instead I chose to learn about them and APPLY them.

These are not exceptions, they are choices made from somebody who wanted to create a positive life and not point the finger at everyone else.

The odds are only against you if you let them be. Sure, knowing people helps. Knowing how to be in public also helps.

No. The nature of the system is designed so that only a few spaces for advancement are available. If there are 10 scholarships and 100 candidates, guess what - 90% of those people are fvcked.

In your viison of the world the majority of people have to struggle like rats over the increasingly fewer 'decent' positions which are available to them. I agree it's up to them to change this, but they have to do it as a group - a lucky few breaking away and saying 'I got mine' won't make a difference.

That surge you talk about is related to economics, not the GI Bill.

Of course it had to do with economics - and the GI was part of the economic intiiative. The late 40s through the 70s were governed by Keynesian economics, which emphasized high government spending to counteract slow economic growth, VERY high tax rates on the wealthy (up to 90% in some cases) and tight regulation of the banking industry. All of these helped produce greater equality and upward mobility.

So what happened between now and then? Did human nature change so radically? I doubt it - what changed were the economic policies of the Western democracies. It became possible for a very few people to become fantastically rich and shut out everyone else.

As for young people being 'spoiled' - their standard of living is less than it was 20 years ago. The entitlements they're trying to protect are less than what our parents had! Oh yeah, and who are the biggest recipients of welfare in our society? The elderly.

Guess what: the despised underclass isn't going away. They aren't going to lay down and die. Give them their rights before they take them.

 

[Stagger Lee]

My school had at most 12 kids in a class. Do you think that might've made a difference?


But that's just it! I went to an expensive, fancypants private school and the attitude of the kids was the same! Plenty of them spent all their time drunk, high, getting into trouble with the law, and not studying. Guess what? They all still went to good univeristies and are now working good jobs. Why? Because they went to a 'good' school and the univerisites knew their parents could pay - plus it didn't hurt if Mom or Dad knew somebody who could help them out with a job or internship to get their foot in the door.



You still haven't said anything of substance about rising inequality. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Why is it happening? You keep saying that poor people are lazy, yet they're working harder than ever - you never answered my point about rising hours vs. falling wages. There has never been more wealth in these countries, yet poverty and unemployment are up.


Is that so? I provided sources; now it's your turn. And what on earth do you mean by your second paragraph?

One of my main points here is that an individual only has so much control over his own life. Even the strongest man in the world couldn't survive a plane falling on him, and that's what our economic system is - it's a series of crushing blows to every attempt to raise one's social and economic status.

In January 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.2% By January 2010 it was 9.7% Did 5.5% of people suddenly become lazy? Of course not; there are macroeconomic trends which people as individuals are powerless to affect, and blaming them for it is pointless.


No. The nature of the system is designed so that only a few spaces for advancement are available. If there are 10 scholarships and 100 candidates, guess what - 90% of those people are fvcked.

In your viison of the world the majority of people have to struggle like rats over the increasingly fewer 'decent' positions which are available to them. I agree it's up to them to change this, but they have to do it as a group - a lucky few breaking away and saying 'I got mine' won't make a difference.


Of course it had to do with economics - and the GI was part of the economic intiiative. The late 40s through the 70s were governed by Keynesian economics, which emphasized high government spending to counteract slow economic growth, VERY high tax rates on the wealthy (up to 90% in some cases) and tight regulation of the banking industry. All of these helped produce greater equality and upward mobility.

So what happened between now and then? Did human nature change so radically? I doubt it - what changed were the economic policies of the Western democracies. It became possible for a very few people to become fantastically rich and shut out everyone else.

As for young people being 'spoiled' - their standard of living is less than it was 20 years ago. The entitlements they're trying to protect are less than what our parents had! Oh yeah, and who are the biggest recipients of welfare in our society? The elderly.

Guess what: the despised underclass isn't going away. They aren't going to lay down and die. Give them their rights before they take them.

You make very good points. The country is ran for and by the wealthiest. They make their wealth off of others' work. All the solutions they propose are the problem. They want a two-tier system consisting of the ultra wealthy and poor slaves. I use to be somewhat of a conservative and a Republican until they became so extreme. There is nothing traditional and conservative about them anymore. At one time conservatives use to believe in fairness, fair pay for work, and were patriotic. Now they're nothing more than greedy multinational global traders guided by nothing but greed and class envy.

They've redefined the definition of creating wealth and fairness. By their definition you created wealth by controlling the payroll, outsourcing to cheap labor countries, then selling at inflated 1st world prices, and evading taxes. I call that ripping off customers and workers and the country. But in their twisted logic they single handledly "created" all the wealth and it's all theirs. To me there's nothing more reprehensible than the modern day neo-conservative often times self-proclaimed christian. They've corrrupted the meaning of both and are as reprehensible as the scourge of liberal feminist. Most conservatives are actually quite feminist anyway.

Let's face it. There is plenty of wealth in this country and plenty of people working hard and being productive or who would like to be. The problem is all the wealth is unevenly distributed to a few. And the few not only want to keep it that way, they are trying to make it even more lopsided. They have enough of the average public brainwashed and dreaming they are going to be a part of the privilged few.

 

[sstype]

Today's modern conservative/libertarian (like Danger) would crucify Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."

" . . . Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers, and . . . a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Oh and the top marginal rate was 90%.....and he built the interstate highway system.

Enough said

 

[Leporello]

Lepo,

You are reading what I am saying, yet you are not comprehending.

STOP thinking that you need to do everything by what you were taught. You do NOT have to succeed by going to college and attempting to get a super awesome job that only 1% of people get.

You can succeed by only getting an AVERAGE job and not being stupid with the money you make from it.

That is my whole point. Here is a 5 point system for succeeding in life....

1. Pay attention in school.
2. Do your best at everything.
3. Do not spend money stupidly.
4. Invest in things that appreciate in value, a minimum of $2000 per year.
5. Stop thinking that other people owe you something.

If you follow these simple items, you can easily retire a millionaire. It really is that fvking simple.

The only reason people do not do it is because they have NO discipline. They want the latest iGadget and the best cars, the biggest tv's, the latest concerts and the coolest trips.

Then, come crunch time, they complain that they have nothing to retire with, they cannot afford a house and that the rich are screwing them over.

The whole freaking Baby Boomer generation started it and now it's cascaded down to the next generations. If you were to gather all of the wealth in the US and equally divide it up amongst the people, within five years the former rich would be rich again, and the former poor would be back to poor. Why? Because the rich use money to make money and the poor use money for entertainment.

Stop whining, stop blaming other people for that fact that you cannot manage your life, stop complaining that some people have it easy while others do not, sit down and figure out how YOU can get what you want out of life.

If you are not doing the above, then what are you doing to create wealth in your life? Or do you expect that it should just be yours and that you deserve it because someone else has it?

LOL I'm glad I don't have to write a serious response to this. it reads like it was written by a robber baron in the 1890s - and actually part of it was (the 'divide the money equally and in five years blah blah').

In a curious way, people like Danger are as naive as the hippies they despise on the Left; Utopian Capitalists instead of Utopian Socialists.