112
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
plainoldme
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 08:19 pm
@okie,
It was called slavery.
okie
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:26 pm
@plainoldme,
Yes, and it was a conservative Republican named Abraham Lincoln that orchestrated the end of that, with hundreds of thousands of men, mostly white, giving their last drop of blood to accomplish that, pom. Meanwhile, which continent is still practicing slavery, answer that question if you are an expert on history and current events as you claim?
plainoldme
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:28 pm
@okie,
I bet your face was red while you wrote that and you were banging the keyboard!
okie
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:36 pm
@plainoldme,
No, wrong again, you almost always are when you make silly assumptions, which is most of the time. I calmly tried to point out what you should have already known, trying to be patient with you, and point out where you are in error in your thinking.

I will try again, which continent is still practicing slavery? If you are up on this subject, you should know.
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:51 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

No, wrong again, you almost always are when you make silly assumptions, which is most of the time. I calmly tried to point out what you should have already known, trying to be patient with you, and point out where you are in error in your thinking.

I will try again, which continent is still practicing slavery? If you are up on this subject, you should know.

Looks like pom is either hesitant or does not know the answer. A quick web search turns up the first two places as follows:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_world.htm

"Current incidences of large-scale slavery and near-slavery:
Sudan: There is considerable evidence that slavery is still practiced in a large scale in Sudan -- an estimated 14,000 people have been abducted since 1983. However, the existence of slavery is denied by the Sudanese government. Some western religious groups have attempted to buy freedom for individual slaves. Unfortunately, this has become counterproductive. It increases the profitability of enslavement as a commercial enterprise, and results in more slaves being created. More details.

Niger: Anti-Slavery International reported in mid-2003 that slavery is rampant in Niger, mostly in the southwestern Tillaberry region of that country. 7 This occurs even though slavery is prohibited by the constitution and is being fought by stringent new laws. About 7% of the population -- some 870,000 individuals are condemned to life-long servitude. Many are born into slavery and will remain slaves all of their life."

MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:02 pm
Of course, Okie. You are quite correct. Slavery is still endemic in many countries of the world. As you have pointed out, a good deal of the slavery is located in African Countries.
Plain oldme muist have been reading from literature produced in a confused intellectual swamp like Berkeley-where Cyclops lives.
It is also clear that the persons responsible for herding the slaves in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were, guess who? African tribes who sometimes sold their captives to Arab traders who then sold them to Spanish, Dutch and English ships for transport to the New World.
A great deal has been written about Slavery. Much of it is exaggerated or pure nonsense.
However, one of the best books on Slavery that has been written is "Roll, Jordan, Roll by Eugene Genovese. Professor Genovese is a self-described Marxist so his exposition definitely does not come from the right but rather from the left.
P.59
Genovese writes: "Reviewing the conditions of the workers and peasants of Europe...the slaves fared as well, IN MATERIAL TERMS, as a substantial portion of the workers and peasants of Western Europe and 'CERTAINLY BETTER" than the mass of the Russian, Hungarian, Polish and even Italian peasants."

Because so many in the US have been relentlessly brainwashed, few are aware of this point of view based on actual conditions in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. It appears, Okie, that people like plainoldme, and,certainly, isolated persons like Cyclops, have never read Genovese
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclops, as I have pointed out repeatedly is ignorant of basic economics.

l. There is NO change in the Unemployment Rate. It is still at a horrendous 9.7%

2. Forty Thousand Jobs have been added with the addition of Census workers, a one time in ten year thing. These jobs are TEMPORARY!!!

3. Obama himself said that the stimulus package( which, of course, taxpayers will have to pay for with their hard earned money) would lower the Unemployment Rate to 8%. Obama said this last year. We are still waiting!

4. Unemployment is NOT at 9.7%. It is closer to 16%. Of course, since Cyclops is almost completely ignorant about the true Unemployment figure, he does not know that 9.7 excludes many people.

note:

Hidden unemployment
Hidden, or covered, unemployment is the unemployment of potential workers that is not reflected in official unemployment statistics, due to the way the statistics are collected. In many countries only those who have no work but are actively looking for work (and/or qualifying for social security benefits) are counted as unemployed. Those who have given up looking for work (and sometimes those who are on Government "retraining" programmes) are not officially counted among the unemployed, even though they are not employed. The same applies to those who have taken early retirement to avoid being laid off, but would prefer to be working. The statistic also does not count the "underemployed" - those with part time or seasonal jobs who would rather have full time jobs. Because of hidden unemployment, official statistics often underestimate unemployment rates.

********************************************************************
If cyclops( I really don't know how good his eyesight is, I hope he can read and understand the paragraph above) reads the above he will discover

a. In many countries only those who have no work but are actively looking for work (and/or qualifying for social security benefits) are counted as unemployed.

b. Thousands of workers who have run out their Unemployment benefits or who are discouraged about ever finding work are NOT counted in the 9.7 figure.

c. Those who have taken early retirement to avoid being laid off but would prefer to be still working are NOT counted in the 9.7 figure.

d. Those who have part time or seasonal jobs who would like to be working full time are NOT counted in the 9.7 figure.

***********************************************************************
Because Cyclops is an economic illiterate, he does not even know that the U-6 category from the BLS exists. It does. Cyclops will find out that all of the sixteen percent who are unemployed, underemployed or only working part time will vote to oust the Democrats in November. Those people, their extended families, the millions who work for corporations who are being penalized with a loss of benefits because of Obamacare, and the millions who now know that Obama is arrogant and scornful of any view but his own.

0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:24 pm
I said Cyclops was an illiterate about economics. He proves it again and again. he wrote:

I don't know why you would say the market will 'rebound stronger;' it's already strongly rebounded from the 2008 crash.

The 2008 crash?????????

Does the Cyclopian one follow the stock market or is the stock market forbidden in Berkeley?
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:38 pm
The crash was in March 2009 during Obama's tenure. The market went down to an abysmal 6626-Dow Jones average. Only when the Business people and Wall Street understood that the Republicans in Congress, who would never have been able to stem the tide against Obamaism since they were greatly outnumbered and the Democrats had a clear majority--so clear they could have passed anything they wanted, were joined by Blue Dog Democrats in the House and some Democrats in the Senate who had misgivings about big brother Obama's take over of 16% of the American Economy, did the stock market begin to recover.

The smart money on Wall Street recognized two basic facts.

l. Obama was not as strong in the Congress as he might have been because of some of the centralist Democrats.

2. Obama's Job Approval rates began to plummet. The rise of the stock market tracked that fall. As Obama's Job Approval fell, the Market rose. The smart money on Wall Street is betting that the Democrats will lose big in November.

At this time, the polls are in agreement with the smart money.

***********************************************************************

If Cyclops would take a suggestion, I have a couple of good books he might read to help him understand. I would not want, of course, to hurt his remaining eye!
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:41 pm
@plainoldme,
What in the heck are you taling about, plainoldme? Your anecdotal evidence is unacceptable. Can you PROVE that the left wing students in Mic igan were the ones who studied? When you do that, I will give credence to your post. Otherwise, save the idiocy for your memoirs!
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  4  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 11:42 am
Im so glad that Okie and Massa are here. I only have to read about every third post.
okie
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 12:06 pm
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:

Im so glad that Okie and Massa are here. I only have to read about every third post.

Education is a choice, rabel.
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 04:51 pm
@okie,
okie- shame on you. Rabel22 has every right to remain ignorant and uninformed.
He may, of course, be suffering from the same problem so clearly exhibited by Parados and C yclops. He just cannot abide reading and digesting opinions which do not hew to his inflexible thinking.

When I read a comment like his, I immediately think that people like Rabel22 could save spaces on these threads. All they would have to do is to destroy our ideas so we would not be able to respond. Alas, they cannot do so and are reduced to one liners.

You let Rabel22 alone, Okie. He has the right to remain ignorant!
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:27 pm
@okie,
Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. You see I dont have to read your stuff because I already know what your going to say. I conferm it by reading the answers to your post by the rational posters on this foram. I am intellagent enough to not read the garbage you post as reasonable information.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 11:06 pm
@okie,
Or ignoring your ranting.
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 11:09 pm
@okie,
Rabel has chosen to read the literate, intelligent, informed and informative posts over the harangues.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 11:43 pm
Rabel22 wrote:


Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. You see I dont have to read your stuff because I already know what your going to say. I conferm it by reading the answers to your post by the rational posters on this foram. I am intellagent enough to not read the garbage you post as reasonable information.

***************************************************************************

Please Rabel 22- I really must doubt your boast concerning prescience with regard to Okie's posts. The main reason that I must be skeptical is that you clearly show in your post that your spelling and grammar are execrable.

You must really change "what your going to say" to "what you are going to say" or "what you're going to say".

You can conferm nothing. You can, however, confirm it.

Not on this foram, rather on this "forum"

Not I am intellagent enough, but rather "intelligent enough"

*********************************************************

Usually,I ignore spelling and grammar mistakes. They are almost unbiquitous on a site such as this one, however, anyone who claims prescience but makes four howlers in a short paragraph loses all credibility.
rabel22
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:16 am
@MASSAGAT,
When you cant rebut the post attack the grammer. Shows your lots smarter then I am. Ill bet everyone else was able to understand the meaning of my post.
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:20 am
@rabel22,
sir: There was nothing to rebut--No substance, no argument, no evidence, no documentation. If you provide something that has substance and I disagree strongly, I will rebut it, but please do not try to tell me that your numerous spelling errors and grammatical mistakes do not detract from your message
rabel22
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 08:41 am
@MASSAGAT,
I have been on this foram and abuzz for a long time. When you say you dont make a practice of attacking people because of spelling and grammer you lie. You have attacked me for the same " reason" before. Im sure you believe that you have hurt me deeply but having been subjected to your so called reason in the past I want you to know what you think couldent interest me less. Your poseing here and other places as an intellectual is tireing and while I wont quit reading associated posts I wont play your happy im smarter than you game. So long.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 12:07:06