[rudebwoy]

Country was sold out in 1933.

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/the-ba...rica-1933/

[Tail Gunner]

(06-19-2018 09:16 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

Country was sold out in 1933.

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/the-ba...rica-1933/

Like I said, it was the woman's vote. FDR would not have been elected President and none of the laws that you cite would have been enacted, or signed into law, if not for the woman's vote. So, you are off by a decade or two.

[rudebwoy]

(06-19-2018 09:19 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 09:16 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

Country was sold out in 1933.

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/the-ba...rica-1933/

Like I said, it was the woman's vote. FDR would not have been elected President and none of the laws that you cite would have been enacted, or signed into law, if not for the woman's vote. So, you are off by a decade or two.

Do you understand why they gave women the right to vote?

It started with the Federal Reserve Act, that set the ball in motion.

https://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/woodrow...l_reserve/
President Wilson regrets selling out the country.

[Tail Gunner]

(06-19-2018 09:43 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 09:19 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 09:16 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

Country was sold out in 1933.

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/the-ba...rica-1933/

Like I said, it was the woman's vote. FDR would not have been elected President and none of the laws that you cite would have been enacted, or signed into law, if not for the woman's vote. So, you are off by a decade or two.

Do you understand why they gave women the right to vote?

It started with the Federal Reserve Act, that set the ball in motion.

https://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/woodrow...l_reserve/
President Wilson regrets selling out the country.

Exactly. That is why I corrected your earlier post, where you stated that the "Country was sold out in 1933." It was sold out much earlier than that, in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and women's suffrage in 1920. See my earlier post.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(06-19-2018 08:32 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:04 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 09:33 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

America doesn't have poor areas? lol

How can you move to a country with no work experience and no education, thinking your going to get a good job. This isn't 1950, this is 2018.

With a good education and the right skills, you can move up a lot quicker in America.

In the 1960s a steelworker with no education and not much skill was able to make more than a middle management Starbucks manager, was able to pay off a house in 7 years, support a wife, 2 kids and 2 cars on the income he made in his steel mill.

That American dream was being eliminated in the 1970s.

The American dream ended long before that, when the country was sold out.

Your talking about an era half a century ago, not very realistic is it.

And why should it not be realistic? Norway and Switzerland still has those options. In both of those countries hard work is enough to get a very very comfortable standard of living. I know waitresses in Norway making 60.000-80.000$ and I have met immigrant store employees in Switzerland who are happy as a clam working in retail, since the income is generous enough to feed their family. And don't get me started on industrial workers - all of those are solid middle class in both countries.

It is realistic, but it is sold out - I'll give you that - the Fed is part of the monetary policy and matrix, but the reasons for the decline came later:



The Fed was just the cherry on the fractional reserve pie - and even with that privately owned or controlled central bank you can do a lot - Norway, Swizerland and Japan also have central banks ruled by the same bunch. But they fought valiantly against many other concepts of loosening the labor market. The US has willfully forgotten the poor factory towns and disputes like the Battle of Blair Mountain:
https://www.history.com/news/americas-la...r-mountain

The old generation still remembered partly how the robber barons had workers shot down or eliminated small competition. Those lessons were later just forgotten as Americans were indoctrinated to consider themselves as not poor or working class - just as inconvenienced millionaires. And while this is a good mentality to have individually and long-term, it is not realistic for the entirety of the population. And I am not against free market - I just know it's weaknesses and the necessity to have the other side represented and a sheriff policing it all - or you get excesses on both sides.

And don't take me wrong - I berated my friend for being so naive and blue-eyed about the US. I knew the realities and how things have changed - it was more a shock to him.

[dr.feelgood]

I ve just moved to Greece from US. Now roaming the countryside, before traveling to the Greek islands. Cities like look ok, but no game would ever bring results here.

[Tail Gunner]

(06-20-2018 03:40 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 08:32 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:04 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 09:33 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

America doesn't have poor areas? lol

How can you move to a country with no work experience and no education, thinking your going to get a good job. This isn't 1950, this is 2018.

With a good education and the right skills, you can move up a lot quicker in America.

In the 1960s a steelworker with no education and not much skill was able to make more than a middle management Starbucks manager, was able to pay off a house in 7 years, support a wife, 2 kids and 2 cars on the income he made in his steel mill.

That American dream was being eliminated in the 1970s.

The American dream ended long before that, when the country was sold out.

Your talking about an era half a century ago, not very realistic is it.

You cite a book -- written by a former staffer for a liberal Democrat Congressman who was partly responsible for America's economic decline and which touts the radical "Occupy Wallstreet" movement -- as if it could possibly reflect actual reality. Seriously?

Ever wonder why the super-wealthy (Silicone Valley, Wallstreet) promote socialism and the Democratic Party? Ever wonder why Goldman Sachs was the largest political contributor to Senator Obama in his first presidential race? You will not discover the answer by reading this book, which describes the exact opposite of reality (and is, in fact, purposely designed to do so). When Occupy Wallstreet stages a protest outside of a building on Wallstreet almost every voter inside and outside of that building provides money, aid, and comfort to the socialist party that destroyed America.

"Crony capitalism" has nothing to do with capitalism; it is a form of socialism.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< No one has done true capitalism right eh?

The very term capitalism should give you a hint in what system you live. You don't live in free-marketism - you live in the rule of capital and usury.

Dennis Marker was more an independent thinker and spent 21 years traveling the world. He was opposed to certain policies - sure.

But what he is saying in terms of opposing forces within an economic structure - that is correct.

My own economic model is more basic in terms of revolution and based on usury free monetary system with demurrage, strong unions, high tariffs, small government, close to zero taxes (with usury-free budget easy to do), strong anti-trust laws, but otherwise highly liberal economic system that leaves companies alone unless they break the rules or create an oligopoly. Monopolization of markets is one of the weaknesses of capitalism - and if you leave usury unchecked then that one group ends up owning it all.

It's partly even acknowledged by the mainstream already:

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/110...5728v2.pdf

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...t-own-all/

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/int...economics/ Here if you want to pore over the aspects. And you can believe me - economic system ideas differ strongly from one economist to the next.

The book by Marker is correct regarding the key issues, less about his own ideas of how solutions must look like. Crony capitalism as you and Libertarians call it is a natural progression of capitalism - just further along the time scale.

[Tail Gunner]

(06-20-2018 09:24 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

My own economic model is more basic in terms of revolution and based on usury free monetary system with demurrage, strong unions, high tariffs, small government, close to zero taxes (with usury-free budget easy to do), strong anti-trust laws, but otherwise highly liberal economic system that leaves companies alone unless they break the rules or create an oligopoly. Monopolization of markets is one of the weaknesses of capitalism - and if you leave usury unchecked then that one group ends up owning it all.

I am not a Libertarian, although I have a strong libertarian streak. We seem to overlap regarding many of our economic views, although some parts of your wish list are highly contradictory (e.g., strong unions provide a tidal wave of cash to anti-free-market socialists -- and experimentation by the fifty States has definitively proven that right-to-work states have far stronger and healthier economies than states that have a strong union stranglehold).

Pat Buchanan railed against "The network of global corporate control" of multi-national corporations (cited in your web link) decades before liberal radicals formed Occupy Wallstreet, which railed against the very policies created by the very same political party that it supports.

Read a book by someone who actually warned about the problem as it was happening ("The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy," by Pat Buchanan, written twenty years ago in 1998) instead of reading a book by someone who helped cause the problem. "Markets should serve people, says Buchanan, not the other way around."

"The book by Marker is correct regarding the key issues, less about his own ideas of how solutions must look like." You may want to ask yourself why that is. Socialists create problems so that they can provide "solutions" that control the populace and that serve the State (in fact, this is right out of the Karl Marx playbook), which is what Marker promotes. Just a few quick examples:

--Destroy the manufacturing base to eliminate the middle class so that the populace must rely on government welfare programs.

-- Destroy the family unit to create a dysfunctional society where we breed sociopaths who murder and maim, so that we can disarm the populace.

-- Create policies that force banks to lend to unqualified people, which creates a financial crisis -- and then blame capitalism rather than the socialist policies that created the crisis and then use the crisis as an excuse to impose even more socialist policies.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. … This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before." Rahm Israel Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Unions for example in Europe were designed highly different than in the US. I understood that the communists and mafia flocked to the unions like crazy. This has been absent in Europe for most of the time.

Most people who are open to solutions are not the problem. I have had discussions with even pure Libertarians - if it were between both of us, then we simply test out slightly different models in certain areas and we could easily find out which model is working better. But this is an argument made between two non-corrupt non-crazy non-dogmatic individuals.

And yes - Buchanan is correct - an economy and a market HAS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE. It should be illegal to hire foreign IT workers for half the wages, hire illegals anywhere (with massive penalties), it should also be illegal to move a factory abroad for 10% of the wage/regulation structure and then tell the ones at home to compete. What compete? Energy and health care cost more than the Chinese made in 3 month. Globalized economies should be about common sense and give and take. Now the plan is to shift the work abroad while expecting the now unemployed workers to still buy the products.

The economy has to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not companies. And if owners and CEOs make 70% less cash, but everyone is employed in the country and has the pockets filled with cash, then I consider this well-served. The companies will have a much more lasting strength. The Dickensian economy is not some kind of great ideal - we know that more well-off people make large corporations profit more, at best some individuals make less cash, but the entire 1% and 0,1% group make significantly more if everyone is employed and doing good.

[Mikestar]

I wrote this thread with haste, I have now been for over a week in Mexico. All I can say is that I no longer feel that I would like to move to the USA, all of the points here seem clear now that USA is not the place to move to.

More realistically, I want to move to Mexico City. I just got offered a social media job here amongst others through connections, would pay around £650 a month. There is everything for me in this city: culture, friends, good food, weather, women - it is cheap and livable too.

The dilemma is this, I am 19 and go to university in England doing a degree which I don't really care about. My grades are mediocre and so is my passion. So which option should I do?

A) finish degree with no passion (its not free) in 2 years then move to Mexico.

B) drop out of university, save up some cash and move to Mexico permanently, work in social media and build up connections to get more jobs and money - this option would make me the happiest. (My parents wouldn't be happy with this option)

[kuqezi]

(06-29-2018 09:54 AM)Mikestar Wrote:  

I wrote this thread with haste, I have now been for over a week in Mexico. All I can say is that I no longer feel that I would like to move to the USA, all of the points here seem clear now that USA is not the place to move to.

More realistically, I want to move to Mexico City. I just got offered a social media job here amongst others through connections, would pay around £650 a month. There is everything for me in this city: culture, friends, good food, weather, women - it is cheap and livable too.

The dilemma is this, I am 19 and go to university in England doing a degree which I don't really care about. My grades are mediocre and so is my passion. So which option should I do?

A) finish degree with no passion (its not free) in 2 years then move to Mexico.

B) drop out of university, save up some cash and move to Mexico permanently, work in social media and build up connections to get more jobs and money - this option would make me the happiest. (My parents wouldn't be happy with this option)

What's your future with option 1 compared to option 2?
Don't make life decisions because you felt great visiting a place compared to living there.

To my point of view option 2 is exactly that, the spur of a moment.

[Mikestar]

Future option 1 is confined to doing a boring job within England - which I want to get out of but I could potentially network internationally in my university to try and get a job in Mexico. There is another option:

C) do the same as B but in a gap year, then see if it works out. If I prosper in Mexican society then I could move there, if not I could go back to university

Edit: I just failed 3 modules in my university, that is also partially the reason I want to disembark from the university path, I don't feel it provides me value nor do I put in effort.

[Tail Gunner]

(06-29-2018 09:54 AM)Mikestar Wrote:  

I wrote this thread with haste, I have now been for over a week in Mexico. All I can say is that I no longer feel that I would like to move to the USA, all of the points here seem clear now that USA is not the place to move to.

More realistically, I want to move to Mexico City. I just got offered a social media job here amongst others through connections, would pay around £650 a month. There is everything for me in this city: culture, friends, good food, weather, women - it is cheap and livable too.

The dilemma is this, I am 19 and go to university in England doing a degree which I don't really care about. My grades are mediocre and so is my passion. So which option should I do?

A) finish degree with no passion (its not free) in 2 years then move to Mexico.

B) drop out of university, save up some cash and move to Mexico permanently, work in social media and build up connections to get more jobs and money - this option would make me the happiest. (My parents wouldn't be happy with this option)

If your parents are paying for your education and you do not take advantage of it, then you are a immature fool who is limiting his future options. It truly is that simple. Grow up and get serious. Ninety percent of the Earth's population would kill for such an opportunity. Simply change your major and get a useful degree in an area that interests you. Having said that, many degrees are not very useful, they are simply the necessary entrance fee to a higher paying job.

If you are incurring the debt, then create a on-line business that provides a good income. That is the future. You can always go back to university later, if you wish.

[Mikestar]

No no my parents are not paying for it, I would not be foolish enough to waste my parents money, it is just on student loans which have to be paid back until I earn a certain amount. I like your second option, an online business is something which has been on my mind for a long time.

[bojangles]

(06-29-2018 10:46 AM)Mikestar Wrote:  

No no my parents are not paying for it, I would not be foolish enough to waste my parents money, it is just on student loans which have to be paid back until I earn a certain amount. I like your second option, an online business is something which has been on my mind for a long time.

I dropped out of uni after the first year because i failed one module (which meant having to repeat that one module for an entire year whilst paying the full student loan) so I thought fuck that and left. However I worked manual jobs whilst studying for an actual professional qualification in project management. Not having a degree isn't the end of the world, the company I work for truly does not give a shit about academic qualifications - they only ask for it as a minimum on graduate entry jobs. For all other jobs, experience and professional qualifications are key.

If you plan to drop out of university make sure you start studying for professional qualifications. And don't stop at one, do multiple in your field of expertise. Your 20's are where you should maximise your wealth and income earning, it'll make the rest of your life easier.

[kuqezi]

If I can add something...a job in social media is NOT a job.

[Mikestar]

If it makes money, why not? My main aim is to make money online (which I am already doing partially via 2 streams) so I can be self sufficient. I would have other options to work other than social media such as graphic design.

@bojangles - thanks for your insight but what is the situation like in Mexico? Would I be safe working there without a degree?

[Tail Gunner]

(06-29-2018 10:59 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

If you plan to drop out of university make sure you start studying for professional qualifications. And don't stop at one, do multiple in your field of expertise. Your 20's are where you should maximise your wealth and income earning, it'll make the rest of your life easier.

If you skip university, that is the key. Build an on-line business, obtain professional qualifications, or gain experience in a field where you can eventually start your own business. Do not waste the time to "find yourself" or dithering around in worthless activities -- or you will "find yourself" without opportunities in life.

[Putin Closes]

Drop out of college to get a social media job that pays $1000 a month? No, don't be a fool

[bojangles]

(06-29-2018 11:35 AM)Mikestar Wrote:  

If it makes money, why not? My main aim is to make money online (which I am already doing partially via 2 streams) so I can be self sufficient. I would have other options to work other than social media such as graphic design.

@bojangles - thanks for your insight but what is the situation like in Mexico? Would I be safe working there without a degree?

I have no idea about Mexico, personally from what I've read online it seems like a shithole. Any place where 100 politicians are murdered in 6-9 (?) months seems like a shithole to me. No wonder Trump wants to build a wall.

But from reading the entire thread, how long have you actually spent in first the US then in Mexico? Have you really spent long enough there to make a good decision?

[Bikal]

(06-29-2018 09:54 AM)Mikestar Wrote:  

I wrote this thread with haste, I have now been for over a week in Mexico. All I can say is that I no longer feel that I would like to move to the USA, all of the points here seem clear now that USA is not the place to move to.

More realistically, I want to move to Mexico City. I just got offered a social media job here amongst others through connections, would pay around £650 a month. There is everything for me in this city: culture, friends, good food, weather, women - it is cheap and livable too.

The dilemma is this, I am 19 and go to university in England doing a degree which I don't really care about. My grades are mediocre and so is my passion. So which option should I do?

A) finish degree with no passion (its not free) in 2 years then move to Mexico.

B) drop out of university, save up some cash and move to Mexico permanently, work in social media and build up connections to get more jobs and money - this option would make me the happiest. (My parents wouldn't be happy with this option)

You're currently in the UK, my best advice is to complete your degree, get an internship under your belt then a graduate scheme before moving anywhere, your first year counts for shit btw, pull your socks up in years 2 and 3, you can easily walk away with a first or at the very least a 2:1.

Dropping out of uni in the UK is a silly thing to do, you'll be lucky to end up in retail the way things are going and working in social media isn't a job, marketing and branding is a job that includes social media and online content, but most require a degree or experience outside of your own personal accounts.

Have you thought about switching degrees? You get 4 years total funding so you could switch, start all over, you're 19 and it can go your way easily. Switch to a degree you're passionate about, business and marketing from a decent university along with a solid portfolio will get you in the door at most agencies, above all, network.

I've worked in social media and it's shit, marketing as a whole is great but social media isn't a job, it's an extension to the marketing team where you do very little that's not automated, usually it's answering client queries although I was lucky to do branding and campaigns more than social media updates.

[Tail Gunner]

(06-29-2018 02:52 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

I have no idea about Mexico, personally from what I've read online it seems like a shithole. Any place where 100 politicians are murdered in 6-9 (?) months seems like a shithole to me. No wonder Trump wants to build a wall.

Most of Mexico is safe. Like anyplace else, just avoid the high crime areas and do not hang out with scumbags.

As an American, this topic comes up all the time in Europe. I always tell Europeans that as long as you avoid the ghetto areas of the big cities in the U.S., the U.S. is safer than Europe -- and most certainly safer than the UK (where the murder rate has soared since the ban on handguns). Nearly 70 percent of all the murders in the United States take place in 5 percent of the nation’s counties -- and more than half of all homicides occur in just two percent of its counties.

“From 1977 to 2000 – on average – 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders,” the researchers pointed out. "Those conducting the study pointed out that even in the counties with the highest number of homicides – such as Los Angeles County in California, which registered the highest in 2014 at 526 – the murders are predominantly concentrated to small and distinct areas, leaving most cities within the area virtually murder-free."

https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2017/...s-counties

[Mikestar]

Mexico city is safe. Ive met many people here from UK/USA who work online and live here permanently. All of them have told me a degree is not too useful if youre smart about working online - I already have 3 options of income like that here. I know 19 is super young to make such a giant decision but im the type of guy to prosper.

[godzilla]

(06-19-2018 09:19 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 09:16 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

Country was sold out in 1933.

https://anticorruptionsociety.com/the-ba...rica-1933/

Like I said, it was the woman's vote. FDR would not have been elected President and none of the laws that you cite would have been enacted, or signed into law, if not for the woman's vote. So, you are off by a decade or two.

There are no statistical studies of how gender voted up until a much later time period. There is some evidence that women were voting more for Republicans then men up until feminism and the 60s. The Republican party was a lot more progressive back then though, but not as progressive as some Northern Democrats.