Sad but true (and relevant):

Seven of nation’s 10 most affluent counties are in Washington region

Quote:Quote:

The stability of an economy built on the pillars of the federal government, its legions of contractors and a flourishing high-tech sector is evident in the income rankings.

It's pretty sad when so much of your growth is coming from a place that basically, produces laws, and loopholes.

Quote: (05-20-2014 02:55 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 02:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 02:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 01:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Get real Canadians, the only reason your socialism hasn't consumed itself yet is because you don't have as many dependents as the USA nor do you have a large expensive military to pay for.

Don't worry though, you're going down the path to insolvency like everyone else. Once America goes broke and Americans start flooding your boarders we'll see how well your socialism holds up.

Damn, you sound like a hater. Just rooting for Canada's fall so you can prove a point. Are you also rooting for the EU nations and Australia to fall as well?

Were the critics of the USSR haters too? Socialistic systems consume more than they produce, because they distort the price mechanisms of the free market, so they always fail in the long run due to inefficiencies.

And this critique doesn't even mention the terrible cultural consequences of socialism, creating entitlement, laziness, and a decline of innovative skills.

Does China consume more than it produces? Seems like they produce a hell of a lot to me, namely practically everything we purchase. Didn't they just surpass the U.S. as the largest economy? Is Germany failing? Is Australia failing? Their economy is on fire. They are certainly more socialistic than the U.S. Is Scandinavia's economy failing? And how are these places distorting the price mechanisms of the free-market? Communist countries control the prices of goods. You are conflating communism with socialism. Socialism means a a wide safety net, things like universal health coverage and unemployment insurance and providing for disabled and elderly. It has nothing to do with setting the price of anything in the marketplace. Germany is more socialist than the USA, are they not innovative? On a per capita basis, they beat us in new patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intel...Indicators

Believe it or not, Samseau, a decade ago I had opinions identical to yours. I would go on forums full of liberals basically arguing the same things you do point for point. And I felt like I was enlightening them. I then later came to realize that many of these "socialist" countries I was demonizing were every bit as productive as this one was, with less inequality, higher standard of living, better health care, better education and unemployment rates no worse than here. Falling back on a bunch of Bill O'Reilly style talking points was no substitute for looking at reality in other places.

Bill O'Reily is not my inspiration by a long shot. Try Von Mises, Hayek, Baptiste Say, and (somewhat by extension) Adam Smith.

The problem with socialist thinking is that it is not long-term. Sure, a socialist country can tell all of it's women to make money instead of having kids and then experience an economic boom.

Or, a socialist country can take care of it's poor with lavish programs that slowly bankrupt the nation and decay the morals.

In the short run, socialism does well. But in the long run, you've got:

- Mass population decline
- Cultural collapse
- Eventual bankruptcy

Austrian economists are different from mainstream economists because they aren't focused on the short-term return. They want to see a country exist into perpetuity.

That is why John Maynard Keynes said to Friedrich Hayek, who challenged him along these lines of long-term thinking:

"In the long-run, we're dead."

Which sums up how socialists think. All for themselves and their temporary lives, and they could give fuck all for anyone else or their culture.

Hence why every single socialist government (there have been many in the history of man, from late-Rome to the late-Ottoman empire to the Wiemar Republic) always fail.

^^^ The declining birthrates having nothing to do with socialism. This happens across the board. Keep in mind America's native birthrates are like Europe's. America only continues to grow because of immigration from Asia and Latin America.

The decline in birthrate has to do with affluence, changing roles of women, and wanting fewer kids but higher investment in them. By that last point I mean rather than having 6 kids that you hope will work the farm and take care of you in old age, you have 2 and invest a lot in their future with expensive day care, pre-school, college funds, etc.

Even places like Mexico has had fertility rate plummet as more entire the middle class. Supporting a kid with a middle class lifestyle is so much more expensive than supporting a kid in rural, subsistence poverty. They can live off a dollar a day. But think about how much money goes into raising a kid with a middle class lifestyle.

Quote:Quote:

Hence why every single socialist government (there have been many in the history of man, from late-Rome to the late-Ottoman empire to the Wiemar Republic) always fail.

India is not a socialist country. How is that working out?

Quote: (05-20-2014 06:19 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

^^^ The declining birthrates having nothing to do with socialism. This happens across the board. Keep in mind America's native birthrates are like Europe's. America only continues to grow because of immigration from Asia and Latin America.

I did not say socialism was necessary for declining birthrates but sufficient.

Quote:Quote:

The decline in birthrate has to do with affluence, changing roles of women, and wanting fewer kids but higher investment in them. By that last point I mean rather than having 6 kids that you hope will work the farm and take care of you in old age, you have 2 and invest a lot in their future with expensive day care, pre-school, college funds, etc.

Even places like Mexico has had fertility rate plummet as more entire the middle class. Supporting a kid with a middle class lifestyle is so much more expensive than supporting a kid in rural, subsistence poverty. They can live off a dollar a day. But think about how much money goes into raising a kid with a middle class lifestyle.

But most of the "lifestyle" middle class parents think they are getting is an illusion. It's all artificial wants they do not actually need.

Now you may claim this is a product of capitalism but indeed history shows many affluent cultures succumb to wealth.

I would argue that the decadence comes in when the men become giant pussies and stop fighting to keep laws in place which empower men and let women run the show.

But the hallmark of when men become pussies is when they let socialism take root instead of fighting for individual freedoms that benefit men.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Hence why every single socialist government (there have been many in the history of man, from late-Rome to the late-Ottoman empire to the Wiemar Republic) always fail.

India is not a socialist country. How is that working out?

India will be around in 700 years, but I doubt America will be.

Quote: (05-20-2014 02:01 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

It's pretty hard saving tons of money if:

1. you don't work a cushy goverment job with tons of benefits and a pension. Or your rich daddy gets you a job: rare

2. You're being taxed in everything you use and consume:
a. Rent
b. income taxes
c. Sales taxes

3. Almost every price is inflated because of inflation/government intervention (via easy credit):
a. Home Prices
b. College Education
c. Healthcare Costs

This post tells me everything I need to know. The idea that it's hard to save money if you DON'T work a government job or are a trust-fund baby is laughable. And your list of excuses following that assertion are even worse.

Here, I'll give everyone here an easy formula on saving money:

1. Assess your own Fair Market Value (degrees, skills, relevant job experience, past job performance)
2. Demand your Fair Market Value
3. Live below your means

In the event that your Fair Market Value does not generate enough revenue to meet a bare minimum lifestyle, then acquire required degrees, skills, relevant job experience, and greater job performance that will increase your Fair Market Value.

It is this simple and anything else is just making excuses or being lazy.

Quote: (05-20-2014 08:21 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 02:01 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

It's pretty hard saving tons of money if:

1. you don't work a cushy goverment job with tons of benefits and a pension. Or your rich daddy gets you a job: rare

2. You're being taxed in everything you use and consume:
a. Rent
b. income taxes
c. Sales taxes

3. Almost every price is inflated because of inflation/government intervention (via easy credit):
a. Home Prices
b. College Education
c. Healthcare Costs

This post tells me everything I need to know. The idea that it's hard to save money if you DON'T work a government job or are a trust-fund baby is laughable. And your list of excuses following that assertion are even worse.

Here, I'll give everyone here an easy formula on saving money:

1. Assess your own Fair Market Value (degrees, skills, relevant job experience, past job performance)
2. Demand your Fair Market Value
3. Live below your means

In the event that your Fair Market Value does not generate enough revenue to meet a bare minimum lifestyle, then acquire required degrees, skills, relevant job experience, and greater job performance that will increase your Fair Market Value.

It is this simple and anything else is just making excuses or being lazy.

Meanwhile, as you live frugally and prudently, whores are being knocked up and put on your tax paycheck, invasions around the world are being done to satisfy some oil companies, women are taught money is more valuable than men, and little boys are educated on how to wear a skirt.

Thanks for your hard work!

Quote: (05-20-2014 08:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 08:21 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 02:01 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

It's pretty hard saving tons of money if:

1. you don't work a cushy goverment job with tons of benefits and a pension. Or your rich daddy gets you a job: rare

2. You're being taxed in everything you use and consume:
a. Rent
b. income taxes
c. Sales taxes

3. Almost every price is inflated because of inflation/government intervention (via easy credit):
a. Home Prices
b. College Education
c. Healthcare Costs

This post tells me everything I need to know. The idea that it's hard to save money if you DON'T work a government job or are a trust-fund baby is laughable. And your list of excuses following that assertion are even worse.

Here, I'll give everyone here an easy formula on saving money:

1. Assess your own Fair Market Value (degrees, skills, relevant job experience, past job performance)
2. Demand your Fair Market Value
3. Live below your means

In the event that your Fair Market Value does not generate enough revenue to meet a bare minimum lifestyle, then acquire required degrees, skills, relevant job experience, and greater job performance that will increase your Fair Market Value.

It is this simple and anything else is just making excuses or being lazy.

Meanwhile, as you live frugally and prudently, whores are being knocked up and put on your tax paycheck, invasions around the world are being done to satisfy some oil companies, women are taught money is more valuable than men, and little boys are educated on how to wear a skirt.

Thanks for your hard work!

What a condescending and bullshit post. Nice try to marginalize me but the truth is you have no clue how my investments are allocated or what percentage of my investments are tax deferred, i.e. not touchable by Uncle Sam. I'm sure you or one of the other Chicken Littles in this thread will tell me that pretty soon all my assets will be seized by the gubment and we'll all be waiting in line to pay $1000 for a head of cabbage.

The rest of you pay just as much tax as I do, maybe slightly more or less depending on your taxable income, so the fact that I live prudently and frugally doesn't mean that I'm any more the butt of a joke than anyone else, as your post seems to imply. If you don't like how this country spends its citizens' taxes then just renounce your citizenship.

speakeasy: To be honest, Australia is failing. It's just a few years behind places like the U.S., propped up by selling resources to China. If/when the wheels come off that even slightly, there is going to be carnage.

Two governments ago, the centre right party at the time got kicked out of power. The budget was in surplus.

The last government (centre left) ran up the debt again and was a walking train wreck for many reasons (including some pretty bitter in-fighting). They got demolished at the last election for a number of reasons, but one of the main issues was that the cente right party promised to get the economy back on track.

The centre right government just released a very unpopular budget that contained -- shock horror -- all sorts of public spending cuts and tax increases (not aided by falling export revenues to China, and I also think they're dreaming about their forward projections for growth in the next few years). They have handled the politics of this badly (including flip-flopping on several issues). They should have spent the past seven months hammering home the message that there was going to be a fair bit of pain involved. Now, everyone is all over them, especially the media.

The balance of power in the Senate is controlled by all sorts of independents and minor parties. Many have openly said that they will block the budget. It's looking like there is going to be a constitutional crisis. Ultimately, if the standoff continues, one of two things will happen.

Either the government itself will dissolve both houses of parliament (a double dissolution) and call a new election, or the Governor-General may do it instead. The last time that happened was in 1975 (when the shoe was on the other foot and the cente left were in power and the centre right cockblocked them). People have never shut up about it since.

The government has been handed an extremely poisoned chalice in this. Even if they get kicked out in a new election, their replacement will still need to address the debt...or not. I guess they could just kick the can down the road and not address it. Then everyone would love them. This is where I finally get to the crux of this whole post.

The current government, like them or not, was handed a mandate. Now everyone is whining like a stuck pig for actually having the gall to give people what they not only knew they needed, but voted for (though there was a massive amount of sour grapes on election night from those who didn't vote for those who got in). Underlying most Western societies right now is an incredible amount of narcissism (channeling 2Wycked here). It's all about me, me, me and my services and my tax cuts; you, however, need to have your services cut and your taxes increased because that's for the good of the nation (well, let's be honest, it's good for me). Or it's that some people really are stupid and think that money grows on trees. It's also worth noting that during a decade-long economic boom that was the biggest in a century, Australians have been busy spending such wealth on boozy trips to Bali, big screen TVs from China, or speculating on property.

I used to think that Australians weren't as far gone as Americans in this respect. Now I think it's just that China has been propping that illusion up all along. If Australia hadn't had massive seams of coal or iron ore to export, it would probably be just as bad as many other countries in the West.

When you get a culture that is corrupt to its core, the economics soon follow. Only external factors may prolong the illusion. Australia is in for a very big fall this decade if/when sugar daddy China has any problems of its own. Mark my words.

Quote: (05-20-2014 12:14 PM)berserk Wrote:  

You're basically saying, lets eat all our food in the summer and save none for winter. Or the famous saying: "After us, the flood, I care not what happens when I am dead and gone". Of course, a few years that mistress of the King had her head chopped off in the guillotine.

"Apres moi, le deluge" is a quote generally attributable to the mistress of Louis XV, not his grandson Louis XVI.

It's pertinent here because it evidences a misunderstanding of Keynesian economics. Keynesianism is not just about deficit spending: the other, almost universally overlook half of it is about national surplus saving. Under a Keynesian system, you put away money you don't need during the "summer months" to smooth over economic downturns during the "winters." The purpose is to save a citizenry from the natural business cycle, which is a fancy way of saying that people in free markets are too perennially short-sighted to adequately provide for their long-term needs, which causes reverberation effects across the entire population in the form of liquidity crises when bubbles pop and recession hits. Protecting people from their own idiocies and misfortunes through collectivized action is a large part of what post-agrarian civilization is all about.

Go ahead, call me a socialist.

Quote: (05-20-2014 08:57 PM)lurker Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 12:14 PM)berserk Wrote:  

You're basically saying, lets eat all our food in the summer and save none for winter. Or the famous saying: "After us, the flood, I care not what happens when I am dead and gone". Of course, a few years that mistress of the King had her head chopped off in the guillotine.

"Apres moi, le deluge" is a quote generally attributable to the mistress of Louis XV, not his grandson Louis XVI.

It's pertinent here because it evidences a misunderstanding of Keynesian economics. Keynesianism is not just about deficit spending: the other, almost universally overlook half of it is about national surplus saving. Under a Keynesian system, you put away money you don't need during the "summer months" to smooth over economic downturns during the "winters." The purpose is to save a citizenry from the natural business cycle, which is a fancy way of saying that people in free markets are too perennially short-sighted to adequately provide for their long-term needs, which causes reverberation effects across the entire population in the form of liquidity crises when bubbles pop and recession hits. Protecting people from their own idiocies and misfortunes through collectivized action is a large part of what post-agrarian civilization is all about.

Go ahead, call me a socialist.

So how have those Keynesian surpluses worked out during the boom cycle? Rather than save them up for the inevitable bust cycle, government always just gets expanded, at least whilst left wing parties are in power. If right wing parties get in power, it's a case of this, at least in the outline of the past two decades of federal Australian politics illustrate:

Quote:Quote:

Democratic politics also corrodes right-wing economic policy even more directly. The lesson from Reaganism is especially stark. From the beginning, political competence is expressed by a single dominant insight: any gains made by a right-wing administration in the direction of fiscal responsibility is simply a savings account for the opposition. It can be predicated, with absolute confidence, that each step painfully taken away from public insolvency will be reversed, with opposite political sign, as soon as the Left gets its turn once again. Thus, the Reaganite stance that any intelligent conservative government is bound to the proclamation ‘deficits don’t matter’. It is only by keeping public finances hard up against the edge of bankruptcy that fiscal laxity can be prevented from reverting to its natural state, as a fund available for the promotion of leftward social acceleration. Private saving is profoundly compromised by democratic governance. Public saving — or even moderated indebtedness — is simply impossible.

Taken from here.

The red pill on politics is recognising the ratchet that is the democratic political process. In this case, what happens is that in a truly parasitic way, the left in Australia uses the surpluses of the right against them to shore up the pork. Then, they pass the mess onto the right again just in time to build up a new pork fund for the left to then distribute as the "nice guys". Don't mistake this for me being pro-centre right though. They're a bunch of useful idiots, enablers and downright masochists.

Quote: (05-20-2014 11:36 AM)bacon Wrote:  

I know guys like cattle rustler and iknowexactly are very pro government workers even inspite of legitament criticism of the benefit package they get when local governments can't afford it. I'm curious how would you resolve these pension issues when local governments are unable to pay it.

Study and hate bro--like the wall streeters, we already HAVE our money (in our case in our pension fund...)-- we're sitting on the second largest pile in the country after the Federal employees.... we have more cash than Apple. See screenshot from today below from calpers.org. Because our predecessors ORGANIZED.

And look at the second graphic showing who you're hating-- the average monthly pension a Riviera Five Star $2629 monthly-- after 20 years. You're hating the wrong people, of course. The right people stay invisible, steering the ship where they want it.

Don't you think the rich organize? They have labor representatives too. They're called the Congress. If you don't organize ( unless you are very talented and can start something all on your own) you get the sharp end right up the butt.

Gubmint jobs have been one of the ONLY ways a reliable, honest man who is somewhat mediocre (like me) and isn't selling stuff could get into the middle class... they're trying to use scare tactics to take even that so you ALL work 'til you're 70.. and you're cheering the guys behind the scenes, the exact guys reaming you...

It's not over 'til the fat lady squeals...



ooooh do me hard baby!

No elected official has EVER cut the size of the government during booms, because there are no votes in that.

That alone renders Keynesiasm useless.

Liquidity crises come from the Federal Reserve and nowhere else.

This thread escalated from how to make a middle classmen into a millionaire into a debate on Socialist, Capitalist and dare I say Communist policies. All I have to say is that forget about the policies, yes the States is leaning towards a mixed economy, but the fact of the matter is anyone can become a millionaire as thedude3737 and I have previously stated. You just have to forgo the instant gratification that has been impressed upon you since birth, and look at buying un-sexy assets that produce a passive income first and foremost. Then you can buy the Lamborghini when your assets have bought it for you.

Quote: (05-20-2014 08:38 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 08:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 08:21 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 02:01 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

It's pretty hard saving tons of money if:

1. you don't work a cushy goverment job with tons of benefits and a pension. Or your rich daddy gets you a job: rare

2. You're being taxed in everything you use and consume:
a. Rent
b. income taxes
c. Sales taxes

3. Almost every price is inflated because of inflation/government intervention (via easy credit):
a. Home Prices
b. College Education
c. Healthcare Costs

This post tells me everything I need to know. The idea that it's hard to save money if you DON'T work a government job or are a trust-fund baby is laughable. And your list of excuses following that assertion are even worse.

Here, I'll give everyone here an easy formula on saving money:

1. Assess your own Fair Market Value (degrees, skills, relevant job experience, past job performance)
2. Demand your Fair Market Value
3. Live below your means

In the event that your Fair Market Value does not generate enough revenue to meet a bare minimum lifestyle, then acquire required degrees, skills, relevant job experience, and greater job performance that will increase your Fair Market Value.

It is this simple and anything else is just making excuses or being lazy.

Meanwhile, as you live frugally and prudently, whores are being knocked up and put on your tax paycheck, invasions around the world are being done to satisfy some oil companies, women are taught money is more valuable than men, and little boys are educated on how to wear a skirt.

Thanks for your hard work!

What a condescending and bullshit post. Nice try to marginalize me but the truth is you have no clue how my investments are allocated or what percentage of my investments are tax deferred, i.e. not touchable by Uncle Sam. I'm sure you or one of the other Chicken Littles in this thread will tell me that pretty soon all my assets will be seized by the gubment and we'll all be waiting in line to pay $1000 for a head of cabbage.

The rest of you pay just as much tax as I do, maybe slightly more or less depending on your taxable income, so the fact that I live prudently and frugally doesn't mean that I'm any more the butt of a joke than anyone else, as your post seems to imply. If you don't like how this country spends its citizens' taxes then just renounce your citizenship.

The point I am trying to make is that money is rather unimportant, and all of the petty saving strategies and money counting we do is ultimately used to serve other ends that undermine our own efforts.

My sarcasm was in response to what you said to Mormon Nailer, who was talking about excessive taxation and inflation.

Socialism can work. Just look at Scandinavia as the prime example. All have a very comprehensive social welfare yet they are well developed and rich economies with low unemployment. Yes the taxes are high and its expensive to live but its a good price to pay for a well run country.

Quote: (05-20-2014 11:36 AM)bacon Wrote:  

I know guys like cattle rustler and iknowexactly are very pro government workers even inspite of legitament criticism of the benefit package they get when local governments can't afford it. I'm curious how would you resolve these pension issues when local governments are unable to pay it. These pensions are often expecting 9% plus returns in the stock market every year to stay solvent. What person in a nongovernment gig can expect guaranteed yearly checks like them. Even multimilionares have to adjust their spending to the state if thIeir investments. Only public workers are above the realities of the marketplace.

I'm not much a pro or anti gubbmint employee person but rather a live and let others live individual. Because...guess what? Being an armchair keyboard jockey isn't going to change anything. This thread can turn into 31 pages like the Jew thread but nothing is going to change.

Being a public employee does have it's good and bad things. Good like having job security and plenty of benefits (insurance, pension) and bad like not being rewarded for innovation or efficient.

Do you like that? Then work for the public sector.
Do you dislike that? Go work for the private sector.

There should be no hate directed at those who chose a different lifestyle than ours. That was their choice and it's okay.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All this doom and gloom stuff has been going on for generations, first with them damn italian, then with the dirty germans, follow by races mixing, now it's dem mexicans, commusocialists, and feminists.


Yeah, Australia is going being propped up by China. That's how the economy works, someone is propped up by someone else due to trade that interconnects economies. It's a boom and bust cycle that happens all the time. Alpha Russia will not become an economic power, neither will China. Just look a the confidence of those countries, Chinese buy American products since they distrust Chinese brands and Russians trade Rubbles for greenbacks.

Stop making up excuses, it's somewhat easy to save money quickly. Go to the oilfields and get a job there, share a room with someone and you're drowning in money already. I work an office job and managed to save 13K (after taxes) in 6 months. Let's say 22K in a year, multiplied by 5 years and we're at 110K, not compounding interest or financial gains from SPY.

Oh wait, I forgot SPY is going to thank anytime soon and then king communist in chief is going to tax me 110%.

Quote: (05-20-2014 11:03 PM)LostSoul Wrote:  

Socialism can work. Just look at Scandinavia as the prime example. All have a very comprehensive social welfare yet they are well developed and rich economies with low unemployment. Yes the taxes are high and its expensive to live but its a good price to pay for a well run country.

As long as there is a great USA to virtually pay for all your military and security needs, sure.

But if the USA collapses, those countries would be over run in a matter of a few years, if not quicker. And the USA is not looking very good right now and is headed down the wrong path.

Socialism can NEVER work because it is simply the attempt to replace men with govt. when everyone here knows how important men are to a society and civilization.

Quote: (05-21-2014 12:54 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 11:36 AM)bacon Wrote:  

I know guys like cattle rustler and iknowexactly are very pro government workers even inspite of legitament criticism of the benefit package they get when local governments can't afford it. I'm curious how would you resolve these pension issues when local governments are unable to pay it. These pensions are often expecting 9% plus returns in the stock market every year to stay solvent. What person in a nongovernment gig can expect guaranteed yearly checks like them. Even multimilionares have to adjust their spending to the state if thIeir investments. Only public workers are above the realities of the marketplace.

I'm not much a pro or anti gubbmint employee person but rather a live and let others live individual. Because...guess what? Being an armchair keyboard jockey isn't going to change anything. This thread can turn into 31 pages like the Jew thread but nothing is going to change.

Being a public employee does have it's good and bad things. Good like having job security and plenty of benefits (insurance, pension) and bad like not being rewarded for innovation or efficient.

Do you like that? Then work for the public sector.
Do you dislike that? Go work for the private sector.

There should be no hate directed at those who chose a different lifestyle than ours. That was their choice and it's okay.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All this doom and gloom stuff has been going on for generations, first with them damn italian, then with the dirty germans, follow by races mixing, now it's dem mexicans, commusocialists, and feminists.


Yeah, Australia is going being propped up by China. That's how the economy works, someone is propped up by someone else due to trade that interconnects economies. It's a boom and bust cycle that happens all the time. Alpha Russia will not become an economic power, neither will China. Just look a the confidence of those countries, Chinese buy American products since they distrust Chinese brands and Russians trade Rubbles for greenbacks.

Stop making up excuses, it's somewhat easy to save money quickly. Go to the oilfields and get a job there, share a room with someone and you're drowning in money already. I work an office job and managed to save 13K (after taxes) in 6 months. Let's say 22K in a year, multiplied by 5 years and we're at 110K, not compounding interest or financial gains from SPY.

Oh wait, I forgot SPY is going to thank anytime soon and then king communist in chief is going to tax me 110%.

And then collapse happens. All great empires have collapsed, which is why we must study our history and learn from past mistakes.

Instead, following this socialist big brother govt, rather than learning from past mistakes, we are following them lock in step.

Quote: (05-21-2014 03:06 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 11:03 PM)LostSoul Wrote:  

Socialism can work. Just look at Scandinavia as the prime example. All have a very comprehensive social welfare yet they are well developed and rich economies with low unemployment. Yes the taxes are high and its expensive to live but its a good price to pay for a well run country.

As long as there is a great USA to virtually pay for all your military and security needs, sure.

But if the USA collapses, those countries would be over run in a matter of a few years, if not quicker. And the USA is not looking very good right now and is headed down the wrong path.

Socialism can NEVER work because it is simply the attempt to replace men with govt. when everyone here knows how important men are to a society and civilization.

Well why is USA paying for their military and security?? I thought that was more of a European Union deal.
Also, if USA collapses surely that would be the biggest example that free capitalism is a failure (too) !?
Bottom line there is no flawless and sustainable economic system out there and global collapse will happen one way or another.

Quote: (05-21-2014 07:02 AM)LostSoul Wrote:  

Quote: (05-21-2014 03:06 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote: (05-20-2014 11:03 PM)LostSoul Wrote:  

Socialism can work. Just look at Scandinavia as the prime example. All have a very comprehensive social welfare yet they are well developed and rich economies with low unemployment. Yes the taxes are high and its expensive to live but its a good price to pay for a well run country.

As long as there is a great USA to virtually pay for all your military and security needs, sure.

But if the USA collapses, those countries would be over run in a matter of a few years, if not quicker. And the USA is not looking very good right now and is headed down the wrong path.

Socialism can NEVER work because it is simply the attempt to replace men with govt. when everyone here knows how important men are to a society and civilization.

Well why is USA paying for their military and security?? I thought that was more of a European Union deal.
Also, if USA collapses surely that would be the biggest example that free capitalism is a failure (too) !?
Bottom line there is no flawless and sustainable economic system out there and global collapse will happen one way or another.

Because the Democratic and Republican party get their campaigns paid for and buy some votes by increasing the military industrial complex, along with their "war on terror" that will be never ending. And the American voters are too excited about a football game or American Idol to inform themselves and vote libertarian.

If the USA collapses, it will be due to govt. spending/waste/fraud aka socialism replacing capitalism and failing as socialism always fails.

Of course there is no flawless system, nothing in life is flawless. You have to look for the best system and work within it. Capitalism is by far the best system, and that goes 10 fold for men, alphas and betas.

Yes, I cannot stress this enough. Capitalism, being dog eat dog, benefits men as we are naturally the stronger of the sexes. How men can support Socialism is beyond me.

Men are the only things that keep a civilization going. When the men become disenfranchised that is the day the civilization dies. Happened in Sparta. Happened in Rome. Happened in the Byzantine Empire. Happened in the Ottoman Empire.

It's not even hard to find out about this stuff. You can look it up on Wikipedia, it's such common knowledge.

Quote:Quote:

Socialism can work. Just look at Scandinavia as the prime example. All have a very comprehensive social welfare yet they are well developed and rich economies with low unemployment. Yes the taxes are high and its expensive to live but its a good price to pay for a well run country.

Even if Scandinavia didn't need the American military, it is still headed for ruin. Negative birth rates? Time to get real. Just as bad as Japan.

Quote: (05-21-2014 09:41 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Yes, I cannot stress this enough. Capitalism, being dog eat dog, benefits men as we are naturally the stronger of the sexes. How men can support Socialism is beyond me.

Men are the only things that keep a civilization going. When the men become disenfranchised that is the day the civilization dies. Happened in Sparta. Happened in Rome. Happened in the Byzantine Empire. Happened in the Ottoman Empire.

It's not even hard to find out about this stuff. You can look it up on Wikipedia, it's such common knowledge.

Quote:Quote:

Socialism can work. Just look at Scandinavia as the prime example. All have a very comprehensive social welfare yet they are well developed and rich economies with low unemployment. Yes the taxes are high and its expensive to live but its a good price to pay for a well run country.

Even if Scandinavia didn't need the American military, it is still headed for ruin. Negative birth rates? Time to get real. Just as bad as Japan.

Excellent post. Yes, in 100 years, if the Scandinavia countries don't change their ways, they will cease to exist as we know them today. They will either be barren 3rd world nations or Muslim controlled.

As for country that collapsed under the weight of anti-male policies, the best example happened in our life time...

USSR. The USSR not long ago was the most powerful country in the world. The most land mass, the most resources, great scientists captured from the Eastern Block and Germany. They beat the USA into space. They caused people to quiver in fear due to their military might.

Then poof, they collapsed almost over night. It happened so fast, in the mid 1980's for all we knew they were world power, by 1992 they didn't even exist. Socialism failed again.

China got the message and gave up on socialistic economic policies and moved to a capitalist economy under the control of a communist regime.

Quote: (05-21-2014 03:24 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

And then collapse happens. All great empires have collapsed, which is why we must study our history and learn from past mistakes.

Instead, following this socialist big brother govt, rather than learning from past mistakes, we are following them lock in step.

Are you going to take arms, fight for a change, and take over capitol hill?

If not, arguing is futile. Think about it as approach anxiety.

Quote: (05-21-2014 09:53 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Quote: (05-21-2014 03:24 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

And then collapse happens. All great empires have collapsed, which is why we must study our history and learn from past mistakes.

Instead, following this socialist big brother govt, rather than learning from past mistakes, we are following them lock in step.

Are you going to take arms, fight for a change, and take over capitol hill?

If not, arguing is futile. Think about it as approach anxiety.

I would rather try to educate the voters and get more of those informed to spread the word.

But TBH, I am not too hopeful that this will happen soon enough. So plan B is for the last decade+ I have been saving every penny I make and learning to do things on the side to make money so I can move out of the USA before what appears to be a very likely crash.

I may not make it, but at least I know I am giving it all I have to get out of here...

"But every country will be hurt if the USA does collapse".

Yes, but not hurt as badly as the USA will be, and not be nearly as dangerous as the USA would become.

And if I am wrong, there are still many other countries I would rather live and raise my kids in than what the USA is becoming today.

In my opinion the US puts too much emphasis on material success. In (continental) Europe people seem more concerned with overall quality of life, and see things like decent food and time off spent with family as things that should be enjoyed by all, regardless of station.