Americans have given up

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 04:06
VIEWED: 11901
PAGE 3 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, March 20, 2016 6:18 PM

Sometimes Luke Rudkowski is interesting, but he's often part of that tinfoil head David Icke and Alex Jones crowd

Russia will bomb to support Assad

He reports on Russia's 'Withdrawal From Syria'

Quote

In this video Luke Rudkowski goes over all the details of Russian President Vladimir Putin announcing the withdrawal of Russian forces inside of Syria and the real reason why this is happening right now.

THGRRI

Sunday, March 20, 2016 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Sometimes Luke Rudkowski is interesting, but he's often part of that tinfoil head David Icke and Alex Jones crowd

He reports on Russia's 'Withdrawal From Syria'

Quote

In this video Luke Rudkowski goes over all the details of Russian President Vladimir Putin announcing the withdrawal of Russian forces inside of Syria and the real reason why this is happening right now.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 20, 2016 8:21 PM

Quote:
A recent episode of Max Keiser (former Wall Street trader and current commentator on economics and finance) interviewing Gerald Celente of "Trends" magazine.
https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/327519-episode-max-keiser-856/
I listen to Keiser but generally don't bring what he says to the board, as it tends to be so much blah-blah-blah. But I thought this interview was interesting, as Celente brings up two interesting points:
1) The point he makes the most of is
depression -> currency war -> trade war -> world war
In his analysis, major depressions have always been followed by world war. He uses the Great Depression as an example of this dynamic (altho IMHO his argument would have been far more robust had he been able to find more than one example).- SIGNY

There is reason for lack of repeated example - it is not a cause-effect.

The dependable trigger (for USA) is when the Defense Budget drops to record levels, we enter a War. Loss of Defense Budget results from extended periods of liberalism. Likewise for the depression sequence above. Therefore, the Depression sequence is not a serial cause-effect with World War, is is a coincidence or parallel with the Defense Budget, both resulting from extended liberalism combined with politicians ignoring the repetition of history.- JSF

Except the Defense budget has NOT dropped to "record levels". Or may not have dropped to record levels, depending on how far back in the record you want to go.

It's possible that the military reacts to ANY reduction in budget, though.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 20, 2016 8:44 PM

Quote:
JAYNEZTOWN:
Sometimes Luke Rudkowski is interesting, but he's often part of that tinfoil head David Icke and Alex Jones crowd. He reports on Russia's 'Withdrawal From Syria'.
In this video Luke Rudkowski goes over all the details of Russian President Vladimir Putin announcing the withdrawal of Russian forces inside of Syria and the real reason why this is happening right now.

Interesting video. I "knew about" enough of the events to be able to validate what he was saying, but some of the items were new and I hadn't put them together that way.

What I got out of it is that - having done ENOUGH in Syria to keep its military bases- Russia is re-focusing its strategies on its alliance with China, and on its main enemy, the USA.

Along with its military goals, Russia and China are jointly working towards "de-dollarization". In the HILLARY thread, I mentioned that the USA is bankrupt and that the only thing holding up our dollar is our mighty military. Two of the nations that we destroyed - Iraq and Libya- were both oil nations that had threatened to go off the petrodollar, and I can't help but think that was at least part of the motivation for destroying them.

So, what happens when a major oil producer (Russia) goes off the dollar, and the USA can't destroy it militarily? They would try to isolate it economically from the west, of course.

That is one area where the USA and the Saudis (and indeed the Gulf Cooperation Council) have overlapping interests: Since the GCC collectively holds and crap-ton of Treasuries (denominated in dollars, of course) and the USA has a crap-ton of dollars, ALL of them want the dollar value to stay high. Which, come to think of it, is probbaly the reason why the USA has not entered into the currency war that everyone else is engaging in, which leads to other currencies falling relative to the dollar, keeping the dollar relatively afloat. That could be the reason why the Saudis are engaging in an oil price war with Russia.

Anyway, that was food for thought, thanks.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
A recent episode of Max Keiser (former Wall Street trader and current commentator on economics and finance) interviewing Gerald Celente of "Trends" magazine.
https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/327519-episode-max-keiser-856/
I listen to Keiser but generally don't bring what he says to the board, as it tends to be so much blah-blah-blah. But I thought this interview was interesting, as Celente brings up two interesting points:
1) The point he makes the most of is
depression -> currency war -> trade war -> world war
In his analysis, major depressions have always been followed by world war. He uses the Great Depression as an example of this dynamic (altho IMHO his argument would have been far more robust had he been able to find more than one example).- SIGNY

There is reason for lack of repeated example - it is not a cause-effect.

The dependable trigger (for USA) is when the Defense Budget drops to record levels, we enter a War. Loss of Defense Budget results from extended periods of liberalism. Likewise for the depression sequence above. Therefore, the Depression sequence is not a serial cause-effect with World War, is is a coincidence or parallel with the Defense Budget, both resulting from extended liberalism combined with politicians ignoring the repetition of history.- JSF

Except the Defense budget has NOT dropped to "record levels". Or may not have dropped to record levels, depending on how far back in the record you want to go.

It's possible that the military reacts to ANY reduction in budget, though.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

Using Washington Post as a source for unbiased information or graphs? Really? Really?

Note in the above graph the dip around 1965.
And around 1980.
And around 2001.
And in 1990 it was headed for the lowest level in the history of the graph, only bested by 1980.

SECOND

Tuesday, March 22, 2016 7:08 PM

I’ve heard that the American Dream is to own a home. Why does it seem impossible to buy your first home? From today’s Washington Post:

Quote:
A starter home is supposed to be an entry point into the market: a modest property, maybe a two bed, one-bath, a place a young couple could buy into before all the pets and kids and seldom used kitchen appliances come along.

Buy a starter home, if all goes well, and you position yourself later to trade up. A starter home helps make possible a second home, which makes possible maybe a third even grander one somewhere down the line.

But what happens when the most affordable entry-level housing on the market costs $700,000? Okay, that's an extreme example (it's from metro San Francisco). But across the country, the list prices of starter homes have been rapidly rising, running away from what would be remotely possible on the kind of incomes that could traditionally buy you such properties. In metropolitan Oakland, the median list price for a starter home is up 104 percent since 2012, according to a Trulia analysis. In Denver, it's up 78 percent. In Portland, 50 percent. In metro Washington, 37 percent. These prices are soaring, in part, because starter homes are some of the rarer creatures on the market now

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/22/why-it-seems-impossible
-to-buy-your-first-home/

Why are the prices of starter homes rising faster than the average income? There is too much money chasing after too few houses. The too-much-money part is explained in article by a “Nobel Prize Economist”:

Quote:
American inequality didn’t just happen. It was created. Market forces played a role, but it was not market forces alone. In a sense, that should be obvious: economic laws are universal, but our growing inequality— especially the amounts seized by the upper 1 percent—is a distinctly American “achievement.” That outsize inequality is not predestined offers reason for hope, but in reality it is likely to get worse. The forces that have been at play in creating these outcomes are self-reinforcing.

America’s current level of inequality is unusual. Compared with other countries and compared with what it was in the past even in the United States, it’s unusually large, and it has been increasing unusually fast. It used to be said that watching for changes in inequality was like watching grass grow: it’s hard to see the changes in any short span of time. But that’s not true now.

http://evonomics.com/nobel-prize-economist-says-american-inequality-di
dnt-just-happen-it-was-created/

JO753

Wednesday, March 23, 2016 1:08 AM

My theory:

The Earth iz being harvested by alienz and we are doing the work.

Money iz the devise they uze to make us work. It gets us to spend our TIME on the job uv digging up metal and converting dirt & water to food.

Its all about getting the money to flow upward az efficiently az possible. Control the thingz peepl need and want and you can make them do anything.

We spend the majority uv our TIME working to hold on to cardboard shaks on patchez uv dirt. Morgaj or rent, either way = money flowing upward.

Everything else iz just to re-enfors the system, getting us to shovel money onto the big conveyor belt carrying the money up to the alienz.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

SECOND

Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
My theory:

The Earth iz being harvested by alienz and we are doing the work.

Money iz the devise they uze to make us work.

Rather than assuming aliens, assume that society is NOT organized, either socially or economically, along egalitarian lines. That might be a difficult idea to wrap your mind around since it is the opposite of what you have been told, which is we are all equals. Then the distinction of classes is simply a given, even divinely ordained; it is the natural order of things. There is no need for alien overlords from outer space, but you have to assume you don't live in an egalitarian society, despite what parents, teachers, and higher authorities tell you.

See how easily I solved that confusing problem for you? Imagining aliens is a sure sign of mental confusion.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I’ve heard that the American Dream is to own a home. Why does it seem impossible to buy your first home? From today’s Washington Post:
Quote:
A starter home is supposed to be an entry point into the market: a modest property, maybe a two bed, one-bath, a place a young couple could buy into before all the pets and kids and seldom used kitchen appliances come along.

Buy a starter home, if all goes well, and you position yourself later to trade up. A starter home helps make possible a second home, which makes possible maybe a third even grander one somewhere down the line.

But what happens when the most affordable entry-level housing on the market costs $700,000? Okay, that's an extreme example (it's from metro San Francisco). But across the country, the list prices of starter homes have been rapidly rising, running away from what would be remotely possible on the kind of incomes that could traditionally buy you such properties. In metropolitan Oakland, the median list price for a starter home is up 104 percent since 2012, according to a Trulia analysis. In Denver, it's up 78 percent. In Portland, 50 percent. In metro Washington, 37 percent. These prices are soaring, in part, because starter homes are some of the rarer creatures on the market now
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/22/why-it-seems-impossible
-to-buy-your-first-home/

Why are the prices of starter homes rising faster than the average income? There is too much money chasing after too few houses. The too-much-money part is explained in article by a “Nobel Prize Economist”:
Quote:
American inequality didn’t just happen. It was created. Market forces played a role, but it was not market forces alone. In a sense, that should be obvious: economic laws are universal, but our growing inequality— especially the amounts seized by the upper 1 percent—is a distinctly American “achievement.” That outsize inequality is not predestined offers reason for hope, but in reality it is likely to get worse. The forces that have been at play in creating these outcomes are self-reinforcing.

America’s current level of inequality is unusual. Compared with other countries and compared with what it was in the past even in the United States, it’s unusually large, and it has been increasing unusually fast. It used to be said that watching for changes in inequality was like watching grass grow: it’s hard to see the changes in any short span of time. But that’s not true now.

http://evonomics.com/nobel-prize-economist-says-american-inequality-di
dnt-just-happen-it-was-created/

During Obama's ACORN bubble, the unqualified homebuyers drove the prices down, and also starved out new home construction. Now the lack of under-decade old homes is raising the market values, plus the prices are returning to their normal range while no longer being artificially forced low.

SECOND

Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

During Obama's ACORN bubble, the unqualified homebuyers drove the prices down, and also starved out new home construction. Now the lack of under-decade old homes is raising the market values, plus the prices are returning to their normal range while no longer being artificially forced low.

I checked this at www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp and www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp

Do you want to know what I learned? That you should be ashamed of yourself, JewelStaiteFan. You are spreading falsehoods.

To quote my source:

Quote:
This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to "poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE