FEOS wrote:
It doesn't reflect reality. It reflects that over 70% of Americans let the media think for them instead of thinking for themselves.TSI wrote:
According to CNN, over 70% of Americans think things are bad in the US. Source
Does this reflect reality? Is America really going down, sooner than most thought? Or is it simply mass-media blowup again?
Your thoughts.
Each time you open a newspaper or turn on a TV, you'll hear how unhappy, glum and dissatisfied Americans are. Don't believe it. The U.S. is, to borrow a phrase, the happiest place on Earth.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle … 8141203594A long-forgotten 1960s movie title pretty much sums up how Americans feel about their lives: "What's So Bad About Feeling Good?" According to a new Gallup Poll, for most people that's not just a rhetorical question.
"Most Americans say they are generally happy, with a slim majority saying they are 'very happy,' " according to the Gallup Poll released on the final day of 2007. "More than 8 in 10 Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives at this time, including a solid majority who say they are 'very satisfied.' "
Another extensive survey conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center found that 65% of Americans termed themselves "satisfied" with their lives. That compares with the four economic powerhouses of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, which averaged about 53%.
This difference isn't something new. It's been around for a long time. It's a part of what foreign-affairs mavens call "American exceptionalism." The question is, why are Americans so darned happy?
For one thing, Americans are far richer than those in other countries. And yes, this matters. Contrary to popular belief, neither the Europeans nor the Japanese lead better lives than Americans.
A study a few years back by Sweden's Timbro think tank came to these startling conclusions: Virtually every nation in Europe lagged the U.S. in income. Indeed, if it were a state, the EU would rank 47th in per capita GDP — on par with Mississippi and West Virginia.
Americans' homes have roughly twice the square footage per occupant as those in the EU, Americans own more appliances, and, on average, they spend about 77% more each year than Europeans.
Yet, though the U.S. economy is head-and-shoulders above the others, you'd never know it from our friends in the mainstream media. As repeated surveys show, U.S. media coverage of the economy is overwhelmingly slanted toward the negative side of things.
But a look at the facts shows something quite different.
U.S. household wealth climbed from $38.8 trillion in 2002 to $58.6 trillion in the third quarter of 2007, an unprecedented 51% surge in just five years. That includes the recent meltdown in home prices.
By any historical standard, Americans are unbelievably wealthy.
Moreover, despite the near-collapse in housing, the U.S. economy remains strong. It grew at a 3.1% rate during the first three quarters, and almost certainly kept growing in the final three months.
Economist Irwin Stelzer adds another reason why Americans are happy right now: a million new jobs over the last year, a milestone that is underpinning U.S. economic growth right now.
But can economics really matter that much? You bet. Money may not buy love, but it helps buy happiness. In fact, according to the Pew folks, there's a 72% correlation between per capita GDP growth in a country and its citizens' happiness.
What about social trends? As economist Irwin Stelzer recently noted, "teenage drug use, pregnancies, smoking and drinking are all on the decline; welfare reform is working, bringing down child poverty, and the divorce rate is falling."
Oh, and we're having more babies than at any time since the 1970s — not something that a gloomy, depressed society does. Our 2.1 babies per adult woman puts us at the top of the developed world's fertility rankings (Europe, by comparison, has a population-shrinking 1.5 rate). A child is the biggest bet on a happy future that two people can make.
Then there's religion. A 2006 Harris Poll found on average that 43% of those in Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and France believed in a Supreme Being. In the U.S., it's 73%. That suggests a link, in developed nations anyway, between religiosity and happiness.
Face it, Americans are an unusually happy, optimistic people. In a way, it defines us. A big reason is our economy — huge, innovative, low-tax and less regulated than others.
That's what makes us different. Vive la difference!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FEOS wrote:
Very few...about the same that thought he was behind it originally. I think that if the media had reported it to be the case (they didn't), most of the US populace would have thought that, too.PBAsydney wrote:
How much percentage of America still think Saddam was behind 9/11?FEOS wrote:
It doesn't reflect reality. It reflects that over 70% of Americans let the media think for them instead of thinking for themselves.
Most of the US populace did think Saddam was behind 9/11 when the invasion of Iraq began. Even now it's not far of half who think it. Seeing as the majority of people get their information from the media, where else could half of the populace have gotten the idea from?Galluppoll wrote:
Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, or not?
Yes, was involved No, was not No opinion
2006 Mar 10-12 39 54 7
2004 Oct 1-3 42 53 5
2004 Jun 21-23 44 51 5
2003 Dec 15-16 53 42 5
2003 Sep 19-21 43 50 7
2003 Mar 14-15 51 41 8
2002 Aug 19-21 53 34 13
At one point about 70% of Americans believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11.Very few...about the same that thought he was behind it originally.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … iraq_x.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy … 2-2003Sep5
Thats what happens when your Commander in Chief says "We were attacked by terrorists, we must therefore attack Iraq"
Fuck Israel
Well, it still supports my original point: The people believe what the media tells them to believe, not what is real.
Anyone with more than a passing interest/knowledge of the 9/11 attacks knew Saddam wasn't involved. Yet the media kept doing polls about it and reporting it...hmmm.
Anyone with more than a passing interest/knowledge of the 9/11 attacks knew Saddam wasn't involved. Yet the media kept doing polls about it and reporting it...hmmm.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What, that 'very few' people believed it?Well, it still supports my original point:
Oh right, the 'media' had been planning to invade Iraq and depose Saddam?Anyone with more than a passing interest/knowledge of the 9/11 attacks knew Saddam wasn't involved. Yet the media kept doing polls about it and reporting it...hmmm.
Fuck Israel
"Original" generally means first, smartass.Dilbert_X wrote:
What, that 'very few' people believed it?Well, it still supports my original point:
FEOS wrote:
It doesn't reflect reality. It reflects that over 70% of Americans let the media think for them instead of thinking for themselves.
Nice tactic of changing the burden of the argument. It was about the media speculating on links between Saddam and 9/11 and you decide to try to make it about the invasion of Iraq. While related, the two are separate issues.Dilbert_X wrote:
Oh right, the 'media' had been planning to invade Iraq and depose Saddam?Anyone with more than a passing interest/knowledge of the 9/11 attacks knew Saddam wasn't involved. Yet the media kept doing polls about it and reporting it...hmmm.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Perhaps because it isn't true. The dollar is the same value against the pound as it was last week. It's been up and down a bit, but has remained the same. The Euro has fallen slightly this week, which is why it looks stronger against that. I don't pay much attention to the Yen, so couldn't comment on that.FEOS wrote:
Did I say there wasn't a problem? No.
I said it's not nearly as bad as the media portrays it. They put the bad news up because it sells. The Dow finished above 13,000 this week. The dollar gained ground on the euro, pound, and yen. Oil prices dropped. The job report wasn't as bad as the analysts had predicted.
Did any of that make the news? No.
Finishing on 1.9843.
This is the pound against the Euro:
And oil prices are still at record highs. Tiny dips and rises make no difference - especially since despite the slight lull in oil prices (due to the end of the strikes in Nigeria and Scotland) this week prices at the pumps have continued to rise (due to the fall in gasoline inventories throughout the US driven by rising demand).
Interest rates in the US are about as low as they can go and of course low interest rates will do nothing to bolster the dollar - but may help to keep the housing market afloat.
Of course it applies in a global economy. That's the whole point you numpty.FEOS wrote:
If you had seen that in addition to the other news, would you think it's as bad as you do? I'd bet not.
And as for blaming the US for the UK's woes...doesn't really apply in a global economy.
It is bad. Very bad. You're not taking into consideration the long term effects of all of this. Low interest rates mean lack of investment in the US, which damages the dollar which makes oil comparatively more expensive for the US, which is bad. You can't raise interest rates because of the lack of available credit and this in turn impacts even more on the housing market.
It is bad. It's not just portrayed as being bad by the media. Economically, things are bad.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-05-04 09:44:09)
Then I could turn around and say problems in the UK are contributing to the US's economic problems. See what I did there? That's why you can't apply that logic in a global economy (ie, it's one large entity, not a bunch of smaller ones).Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it applies in a global economy. That's the whole point you numpty.FEOS wrote:
If you had seen that in addition to the other news, would you think it's as bad as you do? I'd bet not.
And as for blaming the US for the UK's woes...doesn't really apply in a global economy.
Pardon me if I don't buy into the "sky is falling" theory. It's worse than it has been, but it's not as bad as it has been, either. In historical context, this is a blip. We still haven't had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. It has slowed dramatically, but it hasn't reversed. But I guess it's more convenient to claim doom and gloom than to be objective.Berster7 wrote:
It is bad. Very bad. You're not taking into consideration the long term effects of all of this. Low interest rates mean lack of investment in the US, which damages the dollar which makes oil comparatively more expensive for the US, which is bad. You can't raise interest rates because of the lack of available credit and this in turn impacts even more on the housing market.
It is bad. It's not just portrayed as being bad by the media. Economically, things are bad.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You could say that. It just wouldn't make any sense and you wouldn't have anything of substance to base that argument on. Whereas economists have been predicting the problems in the US and their impact on other economies across the globe for some time now. There were problems in the US which stemmed from the housing market, these have had a knock on effect on other sectors and spread across the globe.FEOS wrote:
Then I could turn around and say problems in the UK are contributing to the US's economic problems. See what I did there? That's why you can't apply that logic in a global economy (ie, it's one large entity, not a bunch of smaller ones).Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it applies in a global economy. That's the whole point you numpty.FEOS wrote:
If you had seen that in addition to the other news, would you think it's as bad as you do? I'd bet not.
And as for blaming the US for the UK's woes...doesn't really apply in a global economy.
It's not like I'm the one who first observed that the US economic downturn has caused the economic slump across much of the world - most economists and politicians have identified that as the cause.
As for the sky is falling point, it's not - as I made abundantly clear in my original post. But it is bad, which is what this whole topic is about. Denying it is bad will only make things worse and is the recourse of an idiot.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-05-04 11:18:04)
And once again, I'm not denying that it's bad. I'm just saying it isn't nearly as bad as is being portrayed...particularly on this forum.
And wasn't there an Asian downturn immediately preceding the US downturn? I blame them.
And wasn't there an Asian downturn immediately preceding the US downturn? I blame them.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-05-04 11:35:55)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I have a B.A. in International Economics, and I lean more in the protectionist direction. Why? Because lately, America has supported free trade while many of its partners have not. Free trade must be a 2-way street in order to work. It makes no sense to open up trade with a country but not have that country open itself up to our markets.pierro wrote:
-America focusing on a serviced-based economy and letting the manufacturing/agricultural jobs die off is a positive for not only America but the rest of the world...if the US supports uncompetitive industries (through subsidization/tarrifs) that means they are hurting everybody (directly and with increases in the prices) to prop up a couple of people in inneficient manufacturing jobs...if you don't understand the problems with protectionism and selective subsidies (the only thing that will defend most of America's primary and secondary industries) then you have no grasp of economics (litterally learned in the first week of economics 101)
In short, reciprocal trade policy makes more sense than pure free trade or pure protectionism. Open up your markets only as much as your trading partners do.
This is true, but the ratio still holds true that the average American city compared to a Canadian city of the same size will generally have a much higher murder per capita than the Canadian city.pierro wrote:
-Sociatal complaints are overblown, Crime in the United States has been steadily declining for the last 40 years (its our standards that are getting higher)
For example, the murder rate in Toronto for 2007 was slightly more than three per 100,000 people. Detroit's murder rate in 2006 was 47.3, while D.C.'s was 29.1.
The big deal is that, while wealth disparity greatly decreased from the Great Depression up to the early 60s, it started increasing from the 80s onward. We're essentially moving backwards in terms of income equality.pierro wrote:
-In the gilded age (late 1800s) with robber barons, corporate control of the United States and poor wealth distribution was far worse then it was today...the US got out of it in the term of a single president (FDR)...it's not that big a deal
While this is somewhat true, there is another side to this. We currently depend heavily on Third World manufacturing. The Chinese Yuan has risen considerably in the last few years (ever since the pegging ended). While it will be a good thing to move away from our dependency on China, it will be a rough start switching to other poor countries to depend on for our consumption.pierro wrote:
--A falling US dollar is positive for Americans...it won't affect consumers' buying power (they've seen that before...basically McDonalds and Toyota are to afraid to lower their prices) and Americans in general have their debt in dollars and their assets in capital, which means a declining dollar is declining debts
If anything, we need to reassure our foreign investors that we have some sense of fiscal responsibility, which means lowering federal deficits and paying down more of the federal debt.
Very true. However, this demonstrates that, realistically, we cannot expect to remain so decadent for long. We will likely fall towards the bottom of the First World because of our size and wealth disparity. We have much greater poverty issues than most First World nations, and the illegal immigrant situation isn't helping things any.pierro wrote:
-While the US is living beyond its means (a couple of percentage points) it is living 30% better then any other large developed country, so there's room to fall...also, American debt is comparatively low against many other developed countries eg Japan, Canada
-The current small mortgage thing is showing that economic woes in America quickly spreads...it is the benefit to everybody if America does well
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-04 12:03:32)
+1 and QFTMarinejuana wrote:
this is such fuzzy regurgitated logic. the media just sells fear? thats the whole agenda? okay, lol. they also sell an awful lot of false hope, how do u explain that?FEOS wrote:
Did I say there wasn't a problem? No.
I said it's not nearly as bad as the media portrays it. They put the bad news up because it sells. The Dow finished above 13,000 this week. The dollar gained ground on the euro, pound, and yen. Oil prices dropped. The job report wasn't as bad as the analysts had predicted.
Did any of that make the news? No.
If you had seen that in addition to the other news, would you think it's as bad as you do? I'd bet not.
And as for blaming the US for the UK's woes...doesn't really apply in a global economy.
the media never even addresses the issue as a whole. in every sense, the independent families of america are losing their bargaining power and losing their rights. we were once a nation owned, run and protected by the people. throughout the last century, everything that we owned has been systematically sold to the same diaspora of stockholders/corporations that also own the media. now the average american has little or no stake in the infrastructure that they depend on each day to survive. we live on borrowed time, or in other words, on highly temporary and disposable loaned food and shelter, with no personal access to the source. despite the fact that all american cities are about 48 hours from starvation on any given day, we still consider ourselves relatively wealthy because we have been playing in the safety net since birth and dont realize the inherent vulnerability of our import driven lifestyle.
this was made possible by some banking acts (from ~1910) that essentially made it legal for our top tier banks to create currency out of nothing. this fake wealth has been used to exchange everything of value, in terms of infrastructure, from private hands to the hands of an empire that now exists on a larger scale than any of the geopolitical empires that we learned about in public education. and this empire is so much more powerful than any of the previous empires, because it doesnt have borders and it doesnt have one flag or one symbol so the average american doesnt realize it even exists, and the media, the ultimate source of nearly all of the public's information, never portrays it as one structure. the "global economy" is just a word for how this fraudulent money monopoly was used to also buy up infrastructure globally. so today, there is no escape, just about any country you go to has been weaned from its previous subsistence strategies and now lives at the whim and permission of the world trade supply line, all in the name of "development," as if our culture's transformation is an inevitability.
thats why we have all these compartmentalized problems. the real problem is that we have been silently invaded by the same corporations that brought rise to fascism 70 years ago. we live in a paramilitary police state where your home can be invaded by a team of soldiers on the basis of thought and other victimless crimes. espionage is permitted amongst the ruling class. we live in a place where you are legally compelled to provide identification to authorities while making your daily commute, as if you are a second class citizen and they are your authority or master. and it is so pervasive because we refer to the gestalt as freedom and believe that we have a range of checks and balances that somehow put us in charge. you can even find people saying that we are still free to do what we want even if it means we are free to be abducted and imprisoned for exercising that "freedom." any weapons you own must be declared to the govt and military industrial complex so that you can be conveniently disarmed on their order.
our right to bear military arms has been paired down to "gun rights," which everyone thinks arent supposed to even be weapons, but rather, tools for hunting and sport, will next be paired down to a right to own useless blades that will just get you shot by our mps like in the UK or china. the purpose of our 2nd amendment has been phased out since the militia is limited to century old technology. the small issues that we hear about on the news are largely there to teach us, one issue at a time, that while things may be bad, they are bad due to natural forces and unavoidable sociological processes, but not bad because those in power have the specific goal to buy up the resources of the world and reign as corporate, not national, emperors. or put another way, they have the goal of legally obtaining ownership of our infrastructure (which has already happened) so that all people can become artificially dependent on a class of people that actually produce and contribute nothing, but enjoy, by virtue of ownership, any or all of the earth's luxuries. good luck buying non-gmo seeds now that monsanto owns the majority of the world's small seed producers. even the farmers, the prehistoric basis of sedentary living, are now artificially dependent on bloodsucking corporations to BUY seed (not to mention all the chemicals that the seeds are engineered to require). there was a lesser extent of global social stratification under feudalism compared with present day capitalism (aka, modern unencumbered imperialism).
we are meant to think that everyone is in this together, and that the corporations and govt have us in their best interests but simply cannot control the slide. "speculators" with their unscrupulous trading have somehow undermined the value of the dollar! nevermind that banks get ~90% new free principle every time they issue a loan. u cant blame the speculators when there is an ocean of blue beads for them to scoop up and trade before the music stops. in every sense, we are taught that this process of overt centralization is actually the product of individual freedom and chaos. its "free market capitalism."
the whole concept of the political nation is obsolete, but we still follow the dialogue as inevitably as we watch the world series, or you in europe follow your futbol seasons. our political leaders are like actors or sports heroes, they dont do anything beyond captivating us so that we are not equipped to interfere with the actual agenda.
there is a world empire. but this time they arent going to give us a swastika for convenient identification. our only hope is for the people of the world to research fascism and its policies and learn to recognize it structurally, as opposed superficially. there is a whole lot more to it than gas chambers and blitzkriegs. most of all, it is a matter of industrial centralization and control. without that, you cant have world wars and barring unprecedented global environmental catastrophes, you also cant have world famine or depression (oh sorry, "recession").
the antithesis of this agenda is local ownership, trade, defense, and in general, sustainability/subsistence (you must have the ability to physically defend it with weapons against all potential invaders). with modern technology, this is overwhelmingly feasible.
support your local farmers, businesses, and industry.
i know most of u will instantly dismiss all of this. i cant support all my points without writing a book here. try reading a combo of amory starr's naming the enemy, noam chomsky's manufacturing consent, and vandana shiva's monocultures of the mind. if you keep educating yourself with corporate textbooks and mass media news you will only be conditioned to accept what you are given.
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Agreed. I only take issue with things like NAFTA and CAFTA because they mostly only benefit multinational corporations, not our people or often even the people of our trading partners. Following comparative advantage is one thing, but when policies are specifically designed to essentially give our partners the advantage at our expense, that's not a good thing.pierro wrote:
-Fair enough, I was oversimplifying in the general sense, but the point remains … the dissapearance of inefficient industries isn’t going to “bring America down” and it would hurt everybody if we decided to continue subsidizing farming(i.e. farming and manufacturing) whether it is through subsidies or introducing tariffs hurts everybody -It is a good thing that inefficient industries such as farming and manufacturing are dissapearing and is hardly going to “bring America down”
Touche, but a similar argument could be made that overall crime is also higher in American cities when compared to their numerical Canadian equals. Granted, the differences between us are less skewed when looking at overall crime.pierro wrote:
-Right, America does have more problems with violence then other countries (the reasons for that are arguable) even if its getting better…but homicide rates make up .00004% of deaths… should it really be used as a major indicator of how well a country is doing?
Perhaps, but Democrats of today are considerably more corporate and economically moderate than they were during FDR's time. They pretty much have to be in order to get elected. It's not so much populism that must be implemented as much as it is the ending of corporate welfare, less military spending, increased border security, the phasing out of SS, and the phasing in of socialized medicine. Of course, I'm not so sure Democrats will do any of this. At this point, my main hope is that they get us out of Iraq.pierro wrote:
-Sure but, it’s not that hard to reverse the trend as FDR did I would think with a democrat coming into the white house etc…they’ll start to change this…after all populism is becoming more and more of a force
When I say fall, I mean a fall in the standard of living for the average American. Of course, it would take something extremely dramatic to collapse America, but I'm talking about a fall in the average quality of life here. We can only be decadent for so long when looking at our debts and the global crunch on resources.pierro wrote:
-This dependance goes both ways the more we buy another country’s good, the more they need us to buy it
-Compared to other countries, American debt is by no means huge (I used Canada and Japan as examples before)
-As the budget deficet is minute compared to other portions of the GDP (which is on) it is relatively easy to correct (look how easy it was for Clinton), I would suggest that the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers would provoke the largest strain on the budget…not the debts etc…
-Of course what is occuring with the United States (the huge deficets) is unsustainable, and even though it will cause a fall…the US has a long way to go before it gets to the bottom…on the subject of poverty issues that is mostly due to a disparity in wealth which is easy to correct and will likely correct itself slightly in the upcoming election. I also don’t see how wealth disparity will cause a nation to fall…didn’t the US become the richest country in the world with massive inequalities within wealth?
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-04 17:01:19)
In a global economy if one country plummets pretty much by itself it might be reasonable to assume the problem is there.Then I could turn around and say problems in the UK are contributing to the US's economic problems. See what I did there? That's why you can't apply that logic in a global economy (ie, it's one large entity, not a bunch of smaller ones).
The dollar has dropped against pretty well every currency, including the pound, plus the oil price to you has about trebled.
The question now is whether this is a blip or a trend.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-05 01:06:33)
Fuck Israel
Keeping the public in fear is a wonderful thing... the only way to keep them submissive and allow u to bend them to ur will..FEOS wrote:
Well, it still supports my original point: The people believe what the media tells them to believe, not what is real.
Anyone with more than a passing interest/knowledge of the 9/11 attacks knew Saddam wasn't involved. Yet the media kept doing polls about it and reporting it...hmmm.
Well, that ain't quite right. I'd say the opposite is prolly about right in my town - 70% good, 30% bad...but what do I know, I must be stupid.Bertster7 wrote:
Things ARE bad in the US. That's not in question.FEOS wrote:
It doesn't reflect reality. It reflects that over 70% of Americans let the media think for them instead of thinking for themselves.TSI wrote:
According to CNN, over 70% of Americans think things are bad in the US. Source
Does this reflect reality? Is America really going down, sooner than most thought? Or is it simply mass-media blowup again?
Your thoughts.
Sub-prime mortgages, credit crunch, massive economic downturn - that is things going badly. It's not the end of the world, but it is definitely bad.
Trying to deny something so outrageously obvious would just be stupid. So, 30% of Americans must be stupid by the results of that survey.
"Massive economic downturn" - with a positive gdp?
Well, I'm not saying everything's rosey, but I think you illustrated the OP perfectly - reality versus hype.
Ps. the other day I did see an article saying 65% of Chinese think the future is going to be worse. So I guess we're only 5% different.
Last edited by Pug (2008-05-05 06:17:21)
The oil price to EVERYONE has "trebled". It's not like the price of a barrel of oil is different in Europe than it is in the US.Dilbert_X wrote:
In a global economy if one country plummets pretty much by itself it might be reasonable to assume the problem is there.Then I could turn around and say problems in the UK are contributing to the US's economic problems. See what I did there? That's why you can't apply that logic in a global economy (ie, it's one large entity, not a bunch of smaller ones).
The dollar has dropped against pretty well every currency, including the pound, plus the oil price to you has about trebled.
The question now is whether this is a blip or a trend.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That's right...because this guy who you all claim is a complete imbecile is somehow smart enough to make that all happen.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Keeping the public in fear is a wonderful thing... the only way to keep them submissive and allow u to bend them to ur will..FEOS wrote:
Well, it still supports my original point: The people believe what the media tells them to believe, not what is real.
Anyone with more than a passing interest/knowledge of the 9/11 attacks knew Saddam wasn't involved. Yet the media kept doing polls about it and reporting it...hmmm.
Not all fuckups are intentional or nefarious in nature.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Amen, karma is prevailing
oh lord, you're still alive? I figured you started bleeding internally and eventually exploded because of all the hate for America.rammunition wrote:
Amen, karma is prevailing
LOL, im not here to impress "guys".
silence says it all
lol are you that much of a berkshire?rammunition wrote:
silence says it all
what the fuck are you on about SgtSlutter?