my job is fairly recession neutral. In a good economy well off people buy new cars and poor people keep their old cars but can afford to fix and maintain them. In a shit economy the well off people keep their cars and can afford to fix and maintain and the poor people have their cars fixed when they have no other choice. I make money either way.
one nice thing about my job is that I am not bound to any one industry
unemployed are we
jsnipy trains child soldiers in Chad
This confirms my picturePoseidon wrote:
jsnipy trains child soldiers in Chad
He supports them by selling drugs bought from GS too.Poseidon wrote:
jsnipy trains child soldiers in Chad
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-10-13 19:34:46)
thats a benefit of my business. that and the "green" part of it....people jump on that shit. even when they are broke lol.jsnipy wrote:
one nice thing about my job is that I am not bound to any one industry
turf installation?
Fedoras, newsboy hats, and the ramen noodle industry.
When I worked for UPS we would actually pick up when business slowed down. There is a lot of shipping involved when stores start consolidating.
When I worked for UPS we would actually pick up when business slowed down. There is a lot of shipping involved when stores start consolidating.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I see no difference. A person has ambition gets educated works hard, and achieves. Are you really complaining that the money flows to people that do this and not toward people that choose t osit on their fat asses and let the govt. take care of them?topal63 wrote:
That's not true, that they just earn more because of some free-market assumption existing in the workforce; workplace; market. Their is no way they can earn more unless the laws and governmental monetary policies support the flow of money - to one specific sector first in society as a preference over it flowing to another source. It flows from the Federal Reserve to the Financial sector. That is monetary policy - it isn't a necessary flow of capital (the money supply existing for "we the people" of the Nation and not a specific sector or group). It just is.lowing wrote:
Really, in translation you must mean people at the top earn more than people on welfare. Stealing is stealing, if someone is stealing be they on welfare or Wall Street they should be arrested and punished. I support that. It seems what you are bitching about are those people that just simple earn more than others and this is not "fair" so you gotta hate them.
It can be done vastly differently. As indicated before in another thread the greatest concentration of wealth has been flowing to the financial sector for the last twenty or more years - at vastly faster rates in the last 8-10 years. The top 0.1% of income earners have a wealth concentration nearly the same as the robber baron days of the early 1900s.
I would hope and want a flow of money that rewards achievement and success over govt. tit sucking.
I didn't deny anything, I told you the truth and was perfectly clear about it. I vote against Democrats and vote the party that more supports my opinions and beliefs. Not much more needed to be said.Poseidon wrote:
You denied what I said, tried to argue against it and eventually admitted to doing so.lowing wrote:
Wow, are you really really that surprised?Poseidon wrote:
There you go. And that is exactly what I was saying, and you've admitted to doing so.
Congrats.
So no, not really.
You don't needed it if you've already succeeded in this world. I thought that was the point of succeeding?lowing wrote:
I see no difference. A person has ambition gets educated works hard, and achieves. Are you really complaining that the money flows to people that do this and not toward people that choose t osit on their fat asses and let the govt. take care of them?
I would hope and want a flow of money that rewards achievement and success over govt. tit sucking.
And tax money just doesn't simply go towards welfare. ANYONE other than you can see this.
"I don't need it if I have already succeeded"? and just exactly who do you suppose should have the authority to tell me how much "I need" or don't need regardless of what I might have worked to achieve? That statement is the perfect example as to why I am not a liberal. No one should decided in America how much I earn is more than "I need" and will summarily take it from for wealth redistribution.TheAussieReaper wrote:
You don't needed it if you've already succeeded in this world. I thought that was the point of succeeding?lowing wrote:
I see no difference. A person has ambition gets educated works hard, and achieves. Are you really complaining that the money flows to people that do this and not toward people that choose t osit on their fat asses and let the govt. take care of them?
I would hope and want a flow of money that rewards achievement and success over govt. tit sucking.
And tax money just doesn't simply go towards welfare. ANYONE other than you can see this.
I know where tax money goes Aussie, I am not against paying taxes, never have been. I am against having to pay MORE taxes to fund MORE failing social programs.
Are the really receiving what they deserve, though? What makes a COO any more important than the engineers who design a product, and really, are the basis of the company's vitality?lowing wrote:
I see no difference. A person has ambition gets educated works hard, and achieves. Are you really complaining that the money flows to people that do this and not toward people that choose t osit on their fat asses and let the govt. take care of them?topal63 wrote:
That's not true, that they just earn more because of some free-market assumption existing in the workforce; workplace; market. Their is no way they can earn more unless the laws and governmental monetary policies support the flow of money - to one specific sector first in society as a preference over it flowing to another source. It flows from the Federal Reserve to the Financial sector. That is monetary policy - it isn't a necessary flow of capital (the money supply existing for "we the people" of the Nation and not a specific sector or group). It just is.lowing wrote:
Really, in translation you must mean people at the top earn more than people on welfare. Stealing is stealing, if someone is stealing be they on welfare or Wall Street they should be arrested and punished. I support that. It seems what you are bitching about are those people that just simple earn more than others and this is not "fair" so you gotta hate them.
It can be done vastly differently. As indicated before in another thread the greatest concentration of wealth has been flowing to the financial sector for the last twenty or more years - at vastly faster rates in the last 8-10 years. The top 0.1% of income earners have a wealth concentration nearly the same as the robber baron days of the early 1900s.
I would hope and want a flow of money that rewards achievement and success over govt. tit sucking.
Not saying what you earn is more than you need, I'm saying if you earn >$200,000 pa, your not going to need welfare payments to help your children pay for text books and go to school.lowing wrote:
"I don't need it if I have already succeeded"? and just exactly who do you suppose should have the authority to tell me how much "I need" or don't need regardless of what I might have worked to achieve? That statement is the perfect example as to why I am not a liberal. No one should decided in America how much I earn is more than "I need" and will summarily take it from for wealth redistribution.
Nothing, except in America if you wanna grow up to be a CEO you are FREE to try and do so.nukchebi0 wrote:
Are the really receiving what they deserve, though? What makes a COO any more important than the engineers who design a product, and really, are the basis of the company's vitality?lowing wrote:
I see no difference. A person has ambition gets educated works hard, and achieves. Are you really complaining that the money flows to people that do this and not toward people that choose t osit on their fat asses and let the govt. take care of them?topal63 wrote:
That's not true, that they just earn more because of some free-market assumption existing in the workforce; workplace; market. Their is no way they can earn more unless the laws and governmental monetary policies support the flow of money - to one specific sector first in society as a preference over it flowing to another source. It flows from the Federal Reserve to the Financial sector. That is monetary policy - it isn't a necessary flow of capital (the money supply existing for "we the people" of the Nation and not a specific sector or group). It just is.
It can be done vastly differently. As indicated before in another thread the greatest concentration of wealth has been flowing to the financial sector for the last twenty or more years - at vastly faster rates in the last 8-10 years. The top 0.1% of income earners have a wealth concentration nearly the same as the robber baron days of the early 1900s.
I would hope and want a flow of money that rewards achievement and success over govt. tit sucking.
Ahhhhhhhh if only welfare money was actually spent on textbooks and school.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Not saying what you earn is more than you need, I'm saying if you earn >$200,000 pa, your not going to need welfare payments to help your children pay for text books and go to school.lowing wrote:
"I don't need it if I have already succeeded"? and just exactly who do you suppose should have the authority to tell me how much "I need" or don't need regardless of what I might have worked to achieve? That statement is the perfect example as to why I am not a liberal. No one should decided in America how much I earn is more than "I need" and will summarily take it from for wealth redistribution.
You clearly do not understand... what else can I say. You've admitted that you don't. I haven't even tried to be comprehensive about how for example... that there is no such thing as a free-market. There are so many systemic unjust laws. It's apparently pointless to point out they are not right - that they often just are (and are indentifiably unjust).lowing wrote:
I see no difference. A person has ambition gets educated works hard, and achieves. Are you really complaining that the money flows to people that do this and not toward people that choose to sit on their fat asses and let the govt. take care of them?topal63 wrote:
That's not true, that they just earn more because of some free-market assumption existing in the workforce; workplace; market. Their is no way they can earn more unless the laws and governmental monetary policies support the flow of money - to one specific sector first in society as a preference over it flowing to another source. It flows from the Federal Reserve to the Financial sector. That is monetary policy - it isn't a necessary flow of capital (the money supply existing for "we the people" of the Nation and not a specific sector or group). It just is.lowing wrote:
Really, in translation you must mean people at the top earn more than people on welfare. Stealing is stealing, if someone is stealing be they on welfare or Wall Street they should be arrested and punished. I support that. It seems what you are bitching about are those people that just simple earn more than others and this is not "fair" so you gotta hate them.
It can be done vastly differently. As indicated before in another thread the greatest concentration of wealth has been flowing to the financial sector for the last twenty or more years - at vastly faster rates in the last 8-10 years. The top 0.1% of income earners have a wealth concentration nearly the same as the robber baron days of the early 1900s.
I would hope and want a flow of money that rewards achievement and success over govt. tit sucking.
The fattest asses not doing anything are the financial middlemen littering society. Capital is not money: it is a person, knowledge, a tractor, a hammer, etc. It is distinctly different from financial capital - because that is not not inherently value-added; as it is not work itself; a work product; or the ability to do work.
The government owns the right to print money; currency; on behalf of the people (all the people). It is there as a system / currency / benefit for everyone. But, it does not benefit everyone equally by the mere creation of it . Our monetary policies directly injure the currency by systemically causing perpetual inflation. To a retired person on a fixed income - that specifally means they are taxed with each new dollar created in the economy. There is nothing remotely fair about that. It amounts to a system of wealth transfer immediately to the financial sector spending the newly created money.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-13 20:06:29)
Why would a retired person who saved and planned for retirment NOt have his money? Work is rewarded in this country, it has a value, just like education. There is a free market and I believe the consumer is in control of that market. The consumer decides big business fate every day.topal63 wrote:
You clearly do not understand... what else can I say. You've admitted that you don't. I haven't even tried to be comprehensive about how for example... that there is no such thing as a free-market. There are so many systemic unjust laws. It's apparently pointless to point out they are not right - that the often just are (and unjust).lowing wrote:
I see no difference. A person has ambition gets educated works hard, and achieves. Are you really complaining that the money flows to people that do this and not toward people that choose to sit on their fat asses and let the govt. take care of them?topal63 wrote:
That's not true, that they just earn more because of some free-market assumption existing in the workforce; workplace; market. Their is no way they can earn more unless the laws and governmental monetary policies support the flow of money - to one specific sector first in society as a preference over it flowing to another source. It flows from the Federal Reserve to the Financial sector. That is monetary policy - it isn't a necessary flow of capital (the money supply existing for "we the people" of the Nation and not a specific sector or group). It just is.
It can be done vastly differently. As indicated before in another thread the greatest concentration of wealth has been flowing to the financial sector for the last twenty or more years - at vastly faster rates in the last 8-10 years. The top 0.1% of income earners have a wealth concentration nearly the same as the robber baron days of the early 1900s.
I would hope and want a flow of money that rewards achievement and success over govt. tit sucking.
The fattest asses not doing anything are the financial middlemen littering society. Capital is not money: it is a person, knowledge, a tractor, a hammer, etc. It is distinctly different from financial capital - because that is not not inherently value-added; as it is not work itself; a work product; or the ability to do work.
The government owns the right to print money; currency; on behalf of the people (all the people). It is there as a system / currency / benefit for everyone. But, it does not benefit everyone equally by the mere creation of it . Our monetary policies directly injure the currency by systemically causing perpetual inflation. To a retired person on a fixed income - that specifally means they are taxed with each new dollar created in the economy. There is nothing remotely fair about that. It amounts to a system of wealth transfer immediately to the financial sector spending the newly created money.
What is the finacial sector spending money on? Rand D? Bigger Building to accomadate growth which translates into more jobs? Cranking out better widgets for the consumers to purchase?
What I don't understand is why everyone insists on laying blame everywhere EXCEPT their own feet.
I can use me as an example. I am 42, I have not saved like I should have, I will probably never be able to retire due to career and personal decisions I have made. It is not "THE MANS" fault,. It is my fault. I compare myself to my friend and co-worker who has made correct decsions and will probably retire early.
Last edited by lowing (2008-10-13 20:13:05)
Wal-Mart
Malloy must go
You forgot CEO's "$20 million for leaving" pay.lowing wrote:
What is the finacial sector spending money on? Rand D? Bigger Building to accomadate growth which translates into more jobs? Cranking out better widgets for the consumers to purchase?
Paid by the stock holders, not the consumers. If the consumers do not like it then do not buy their product.TheAussieReaper wrote:
You forgot CEO's "$20 million for leaving" pay.lowing wrote:
What is the finacial sector spending money on? Rand D? Bigger Building to accomadate growth which translates into more jobs? Cranking out better widgets for the consumers to purchase?
Last edited by lowing (2008-10-13 20:14:51)
That doesn't really make sense.lowing wrote:
Why would a retired person who saved and planned for retirment NOt have his money?
I'll try again. When new money is created - it obtains value by stealing value from the existing money supply. Inflation is devaluation of the dollar. It is a well-known systemic flaw. That means as I pointed out in the example; a retired person on a fixed income has lost value in whatever money they have (we all have, I have, you have); the value was diluted into the money supply as it has increased. Inflation is a hidden tax; it transfers wealth by dilution as new money always steals value from the exsiting money supply and that new-money almost always flows (in the billions) from the Federal Reserve directly to the Financial sector.
PS: Fuck, I forgot to bring my glasses to my office. I am having trouble reading what I am typing.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-13 20:23:27)
Try explaining it like this to him, :there's many more rocks than gold lowing, so gold is more valuable. If there was a lot of gold, it wouldn't be worth much.topal63 wrote:
That doesn't really make sense.lowing wrote:
Why would a retired person who saved and planned for retirment NOt have his money?
I'll try again. When new money is created - it obtains value by stealing value from the existing money supply. Inflation is devaluation of the dollar. That means as I pointed out in the example; a retired person on a fixed income has lost value of whatever money they have (we all have, I have, you have); the value was diluted into the money supply as it has increased. Inflation is a hidden tax; it transfers wealth by dilution as new money almost always flows (in the billions) from the Federal Reserve directly to the Financial sector.
LOL
and let me try again., this "economic crisis" is what, a few weeks old and is recovering? Anyone that is bitching about how broke they are now, clearly did not plan like they should have. Money value goes up and down like a yo yo. People who are retired now knew that when they planned for retirement. If you did not plan well enough then you are at fault.topal63 wrote:
That doesn't really make sense.lowing wrote:
Why would a retired person who saved and planned for retirment NOt have his money?
I'll try again. When new money is created - it obtains value by stealing value from the existing money supply. Inflation is devaluation of the dollar. That means as I pointed out in the example; a retired person on a fixed income has lost value in whatever money they have (we all have, I have, you have); the value was diluted into the money supply as it has increased. Inflation is a hidden tax; it transfers wealth by dilution as new money almost steals value from the exsiting money supply and that new-money almost always flows (in the billions) from the Federal Reserve directly to the Financial sector.
Where do you get the notion that investment is ALWAYS going to pay off for you and it is now a crime when it does not and someone must pay.
Did it ever occur to you that the money made from investing that people rake in during the good times, also had to come from someone else?