On 16-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

NO one "gets" anything - productivity increased because of imported
materials and equipment (lowering costs - same output with less cost =
greater productivity). Automotion (a good thing) was the other half of
productivity. Your labors are no longer needed.

IOW you think people don't get wages. interesting view of the economy
you have

You don't "get" your pay, you earn your pay, or hopefully earned it (unless
your'e incompetent and protected by the mob) Once you're paid, veryone's
even, no one owes you anything. What you "get" from that point forward
depends on your viability as a useful laborer wage-earner.


and if labor is no longer needed...

why was there full employment for the 10 years before bush's
depression?

No depression, no recession -

1) a flood of money that bloated the financial marketplace as a result of
IRAs and 401k's etc., such accounts only becoming available to the average
schlub in the early 80's, That money supply made the cost of investment (and
borrowing) low so investments were made. and 2) the personal computer
industry, which employed millions and spawned complementary
industries/services. That's all that gave jobs to the otherwise
unemployable.

During the same period (1992 or 1993 and beyond) began the greatest escape
of productive output ever seen, and will never be seen again (too little to
leave). Automobiles, steel, machinery, tools and dies, refined alloys,
electronics, televisions, consumer goods - all off to Mexico and China due
to trade agreements promoted and put into place by Bush 1, Clinton and Bush
2.

When the paper investment market burst (I predicted it for 10 years; the
real estate orgy was obvious to anyone), the PC market reached maturity and
finally left the U.S. in combination with the simultaneous escape of firms
having to leave the U.S., unemployment skyrocketed. (fear by the consumer
kills retail - but so what? It's al foreign anyway - who gain's - Walmart
jerkimo's?) Where will future employment come from? Prisons, minimum wage
retail sales and scams like the financial markets, insurance and
medical/legal fraud. Prisons and retail will employ many but not
reestablish a middle class; the remainder is too small of a group. The
current condition is the new "service economy" you've heard discussed but
not described, hundreds of millions of poor people and a hundred thousand
high income people. There is no recession, "it" won't "get better." (Unless
you get to another country where opportunities exist, to simulate the former
U.S.)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:17:33 GMT, "Colonel Kurtz"
wrote:


On 16-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

NO one "gets" anything - productivity increased because of imported
materials and equipment (lowering costs - same output with less cost =
greater productivity). Automotion (a good thing) was the other half of
productivity. Your labors are no longer needed.

IOW you think people don't get wages. interesting view of the economy
you have

You don't "get" your pay, you earn your pay, or hopefully earned it (unless
your'e incompetent and protected by the mob) Once you're paid, veryone's
even, no one owes you anything. What you "get" from that point forward
depends on your viability as a useful laborer wage-earner.

uh, who made up this rule? you're surprised that the middle class has
no money with your view of wages?

and, no, it doesn't depend on ability. middle class wages have not
grown in 37 years.


how is that accounted for in your 'utlity' view given that OTHER
countries havent seen a run up in the GINI coefficient like the US
has?

oh. you don't know what the GINI coefficient is...


and if labor is no longer needed...

why was there full employment for the 10 years before bush's
depression?

No depression, no recession -

1) a flood of money that bloated the financial marketplace as a result of
IRAs and 401k's etc., such accounts only becoming available to the average
schlub in the early 80's, That money supply made the cost of investment (and
borrowing) low so investments were made. and 2) the personal computer
industry, which employed millions and spawned complementary
industries/services. That's all that gave jobs to the otherwise
unemployable.

nope. the money from 401k's is deferred spending FROM the middle
class. money that wall street coveted and thought, like you, the
middle class didnt deserve.

again, if labor is no longer needed, why did this happen only in the
last 3 years?

and jobs to the otherwise unemployable? what the hell does THAT mean?

During the same period (1992 or 1993 and beyond) began the greatest escape
of productive output ever seen, and will never be seen again (too little to
leave). Automobiles, steel, machinery, tools and dies, refined alloys,
electronics, televisions, consumer goods - all off to Mexico and China due
to trade agreements promoted and put into place by Bush 1, Clinton and Bush
2.

When the paper investment market burst (I predicted it for 10 years; the
real estate orgy was obvious to anyone), the PC market reached maturity and
finally left the U.S. in combination with the simultaneous escape of firms
having to leave the U.S., unemployment skyrocketed. (fear by the consumer
kills retail - but so what? It's al foreign anyway - who gain's - Walmart
jerkimo's?) Where will future employment come from? Prisons, minimum wage
retail sales and scams like the financial markets, insurance and
medical/legal fraud. Prisons and retail will employ many but not
reestablish a middle class; the remainder is too small of a group. The
current condition is the new "service economy" you've heard discussed but
not described, hundreds of millions of poor people and a hundred thousand
high income people. There is no recession, "it" won't "get better." (Unless
you get to another country where opportunities exist, to simulate the former
U.S.)

uh no. there IS a recession caused by the artificial creation of
financial instruments, primarily CDO's

CDO's went from ONE trillion in 1997 to SIXTY TWO TRILLION in 2007.

why? because wall street got greedy.

home ownership stayed constant at about 64% of the population. what
changed was wall street created a bubble in housing prices, in LIEU OF
wage increases. rather than PAYING people good wages, investors
impoverished the middle class and ran up the price of our houses so we
could use them as piggy banks.

we then borrowed against these to cover expenses since our WAGES WERE
DECREASING vs inflation

the CDO market collapsed when people couldnt afford to borrow and
spend

if the elites had PAID DECENT WAGES NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED

but wall street greed destroyed america

and the right wing continues to tell us how the unregulated free
market creates wealth

WHERE IS IT?

On 17-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

You don't "get" your pay, you earn your pay, or hopefully earned it
(unless
your'e incompetent and protected by the mob) Once you're paid, veryone's
even, no one owes you anything. What you "get" from that point forward
depends on your viability as a useful laborer wage-earner.

uh, who made up this rule? you're surprised that the middle class has
no money with your view of wages?

Supply and demand is the rule - in the current U.S., there is a huge supply
of labor, but little demand.


and, no, it doesn't depend on ability. middle class wages have not
grown in 37 years.


how is that accounted for in your 'utility' view given that OTHER
countries haven't seen a run up in the GINI coefficient like the US
has?

oh. you don't know what the GINI coefficient is...

I know what it is, don't care, and it's accurate. Millions of people doing
nothing and a few being productive skew the scale to "inequality" which is a
perfectly natural occurrence.




and if labor is no longer needed...

why was there full employment for the 10 years before bush's
depression?

No depression, no recession -

1) a flood of money that bloated the financial marketplace as a result of
IRAs and 401k's etc., such accounts only becoming available to the
average
schlub in the early 80's, That money supply made the cost of investment
(and
borrowing) low so investments were made. and 2) the personal computer
industry, which employed millions and spawned complementary
industries/services. That's all that gave jobs to the otherwise
unemployable.

nope. the money from 401k's is deferred spending FROM the middle
class. money that wall street coveted and thought, like you, the
middle class didn't deserve.

401k's were a means for the feds to pander to the masses wanting independent
investment. If you put it in a risky position, once again, it's your
behavior. 401k's were never mandatory. The investments in companies went to
hell because of the faulty house of cards. All investments are wagers.
Intangible investments are pure wagers based on "gee I hope."



again, if labor is no longer needed, why did this happen only in the
last 3 years?

I explained that 10 messages ago - the markets dried up for (then) new
products, and producers had to move overseas to compete with unabated
foreign onslaught.

Let's pretend for a moment you are productive and have a little company
making furniture in your home town, Weasel **** Creek, Arkansas. One day
you notice large chains are selling a thousand times as much furniture as
you are, albeit shoddy, all imported from East Butt**** China (which cost
the reseller pennies). Their customers are dragging the junk home (in
Toyota's etc) at prices 85% of your prices. You have no business. What do
you do? 1) Close the business and ****can your employees, or if you have
the wherewithal, 2) move overseas, and/or import also. Now all the employees
that are left are retail sales stooges. POOF went the middle class
(managers, designers, skilled trades, etc). Just for ****s and giggles,
expand that occurrence across nearly every industry, and ask, "where did the
jobs (middle class) go?? I'd suspect you could even figure this out. The
government implemented the trade policies making it possible, and the
purchasing public went along with the demise. Worse yet, the purchasing
public will do NOTHING to reverse the trend. That's why a reversal is not
possible.



and jobs to the otherwise unemployable? what the hell does THAT mean?

Unskilled labor requires no skills.


During the same period (1992 or 1993 and beyond) began the greatest
escape
of productive output ever seen, and will never be seen again (too little
to
leave). Automobiles, steel, machinery, tools and dies, refined alloys,
electronics, televisions, consumer goods - all off to Mexico and China
due
to trade agreements promoted and put into place by Bush 1, Clinton and
Bush
2.

When the paper investment market burst (I predicted it for 10 years; the
real estate orgy was obvious to anyone), the PC market reached maturity
and
finally left the U.S. in combination with the simultaneous escape of
firms
having to leave the U.S., unemployment skyrocketed. (fear by the consumer
kills retail - but so what? It's al foreign anyway - who gain's - Walmart
jerkimo's?) Where will future employment come from? Prisons, minimum
wage
retail sales and scams like the financial markets, insurance and
medical/legal fraud. Prisons and retail will employ many but not
reestablish a middle class; the remainder is too small of a group. The
current condition is the new "service economy" you've heard discussed but
not described, hundreds of millions of poor people and a hundred thousand
high income people. There is no recession, "it" won't "get better."
(Unless
you get to another country where opportunities exist, to simulate the
former
U.S.)

uh no. there IS a recession caused by the artificial creation of
financial instruments, primarily CDO's

OK, the U.S. government bails you out (with your own money) then, where do
the jobs come from? They will NOT be coming to the United States.


CDO's went from ONE trillion in 1997 to SIXTY TWO TRILLION in 2007.

why? because wall street got greedy.

They held a gun to your head? Nope - you undermined the output the paper
was based upon.


home ownership stayed constant at about 64% of the population. what
changed was wall street created a bubble in housing prices,

Congress created a BOGUS bubble of real estate prices by encouraging banks
to loan money to people that couldn't afford the loan (bad loans, short term
loans). People failed to make the payments, the market value (hyperinflated)
diminished and tons of useless paper was held by the financial institutions.


in LIEU OF
wage increases. rather than PAYING people good wages, investors
impoverished the middle class and ran up the price of our houses so we
could use them as piggy banks.

Investors don't pay many people wages, productive companies making tangible
products do. You elected "people" that undermined that condition,. then
purchased the same overpriced crap that undermined your opportunities.
"Wall Street" is actually a small group of people (getting schmoozed by the
scumbags you elect)


we then borrowed against these to cover expenses since our WAGES WERE
DECREASING vs inflation

the CDO market collapsed when people couldn't afford to borrow and
spend

Investors do NOT borrow and spend without demand. Every day you hear
assholes in the media talking about firms unwilling to spend. NO company is
going to invest or hire unless there is demand for the products. If money
were available "free" (invalid concept) there would be no borrowing - there
has to be demand, and demand is minimal. Few companies (,maybe 1%) produce
at 100% capacity. When demand rises, they increase output with the assets
(equipment, labor) they already have. When demand rises above their capacity
to produce, THEN investment is made, and lastly, labor hired if necessary.
Labor is the LAST thing any company increases.


if the elites had PAID DECENT WAGES NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED

Decent wages are part of demand. If no one needs you, why pay you at all?
Or should the former U.S. adopt some Marx principles?


but wall street greed destroyed America

You destroyed "America" (no such country, but you're influenced by
television), and you not willing to correct your own damn behavior.

and the right wing continues to tell us how the unregulated free
market creates wealth

WHERE IS IT?

It isn't unregulated; investment and output is punished in the former United
States. There is no recession, because there is nothing to "turn around."

I should write a book - "Elementary Economics for Dummies," but then you
have to learn to read.

Learn basic Inglés, I'm getting tired of spell checking your convoluted
"logic."

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:47:02 GMT, "Colonel Kurtz"
wrote:


On 17-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

You don't "get" your pay, you earn your pay, or hopefully earned it
(unless
your'e incompetent and protected by the mob) Once you're paid, veryone's
even, no one owes you anything. What you "get" from that point forward
depends on your viability as a useful laborer wage-earner.

uh, who made up this rule? you're surprised that the middle class has
no money with your view of wages?

Supply and demand is the rule - in the current U.S., there is a huge supply
of labor, but little demand.

and yet when we had FULL employment

wages STILL didn't go up.

oh. rush didnt tell you tha



and, no, it doesn't depend on ability. middle class wages have not
grown in 37 years.


how is that accounted for in your 'utility' view given that OTHER
countries haven't seen a run up in the GINI coefficient like the US
has?

oh. you don't know what the GINI coefficient is...

I know what it is, don't care, and it's accurate. Millions of people doing
nothing and a few being productive skew the scale to "inequality" which is a
perfectly natural occurrence.

millions of people...oh. IOW it's the fault of the middle class. has
nothing to do with wall street

well, that's pretty much the typical right wing response. the rich
can't be at fault. so it MUST be the middle class.


nope. the money from 401k's is deferred spending FROM the middle
class. money that wall street coveted and thought, like you, the
middle class didn't deserve.

401k's were a means for the feds to pander to the masses wanting independent
investment.

gee. i was around when they invented 401K. no one was screaming for
this at all. it was a way to have the middle class take on more of the
burden of providing for themselves since the right destroyed pensions
after crushing labor unions

If you put it in a risky position, once again, it's your
behavior. 401k's were never mandatory. The investments in companies went to
hell because of the faulty house of cards. All investments are wagers.
Intangible investments are pure wagers based on "gee I hope."

of course they're wagers. that's why the right likes them. eventually
the rich game the system to steal the money



again, if labor is no longer needed, why did this happen only in the
last 3 years?

I explained that 10 messages ago - the markets dried up for (then) new
products, and producers had to move overseas to compete with unabated
foreign onslaught.

so tell me how the middle class caused the markets to dry up?

oh. they didn't. they had nothing to do with this

you DO realize you're spouting bull****, right?

in the last 10 years, productiivity increased 28%

and the middle class didnt get a raise. not a dime. the rich took the
money for themselves

THEN wonders why the middle class isn't spending


Let's pretend for a moment you are productive and have a little company
making furniture in your home town, Weasel **** Creek, Arkansas. One day
you notice large chains are selling a thousand times as much furniture as
you are, albeit shoddy, all imported from East Butt**** China (which cost
the reseller pennies). Their customers are dragging the junk home (in
Toyota's etc) at prices 85% of your prices. You have no business. What do
you do? 1) Close the business and ****can your employees, or if you have
the wherewithal, 2) move overseas, and/or import also. Now all the employees
that are left are retail sales stooges. POOF went the middle class
(managers, designers, skilled trades, etc). Just for ****s and giggles,
expand that occurrence across nearly every industry, and ask, "where did the
jobs (middle class) go?? I'd suspect you could even figure this out. The
government implemented the trade policies making it possible, a


CDO's went from ONE trillion in 1997 to SIXTY TWO TRILLION in 2007.

why? because wall street got greedy.

They held a gun to your head? Nope - you undermined the output the paper
was based upon.

ROFLMAO!! i'm middle class. i have to deal with the cards the rich
hand me.

YES they held a gun to my head. it was called 'my job'. what is the
middle class supposed to do? they voted right wing and got screwed.
they voted for YOUR way of doing things and got destroyed

so you want it both ways. you think the middle class SHOULD vote to
screw itself. when it DOES they you say they're wrong for doing this

you keep biting your own ass



home ownership stayed constant at about 64% of the population. what
changed was wall street created a bubble in housing prices,

Congress created a BOGUS bubble of real estate prices by encouraging banks
to loan money to people that couldn't afford the loan (bad loans, short term
loans). People failed to make the payments, the market value (hyperinflated)
diminished and tons of useless paper was held by the financial institutions.

actually they didn't. as i pointed out, home ownership didn't change
in the last 30 years. about 64% of people own homes...that's been
constant over the last 3 decades

so something ELSE changed. and that was wall street inventing CDO"s.

WALL STREET destroyed this economy NOT the mddle class, in spite of
your bull****.

TONS OF USELESS PAPER??

uh...YEAH. wall street engaged in a HUGE circle jerk and made
themselves rich and US poor



in LIEU OF
wage increases. rather than PAYING people good wages, investors
impoverished the middle class and ran up the price of our houses so we
could use them as piggy banks.

Investors don't pay many people wages, productive companies making tangible
products do

and productivity increased 28% in the last 10 years

full employment

why no increase in wages?

.. You elected "people" that undermined that condition,. then
purchased the same overpriced crap that undermined your opportunities.
"Wall Street" is actually a small group of people (getting schmoozed by the
scumbags you elect)


uh...you keep blaming ME for voting for reagan and bush. sorry, sport.
never happened

YOU voted for them. not me. NOW you want to blame the middle class for
getting screwed for voting right wing??

yep. i agree on that. voting right wing is a way to get ****ed.


we then borrowed against these to cover expenses since our WAGES WERE
DECREASING vs inflation

the CDO market collapsed when people couldn't afford to borrow and
spend

Investors do NOT borrow and spend without demand.

WRONG!! this is where you ****ed up!!

they INVENT **** to sell to themselves, knowing the govt will bail
them out when they get in trouble. so they trade these CDO's to
themselves...and then when the economy tanks because the middle class
got ****ed, the CDO's come due

you are SUCH a ****ing child the way you believe in the market.

Every day you hear
assholes in the media talking about firms unwilling to spend. NO company is
going to invest or hire unless there is demand for the products. If money
were available "free" (invalid concept) there would be no borrowing - there
has to be demand, and demand is minimal. Few companies (,maybe 1%) produce
at 100% capacity. When demand rises, they increase output with the assets
(equipment, labor) they already have. When demand rises above their capacity
to produce, THEN investment is made, and lastly, labor hired if necessary.
Labor is the LAST thing any company increases.

DEMAND...ah...DEMAND....

where does demand come from?

the middle class

the middle class HAS NO MONEY....why?

BECAUSE RIGHT WINGERS ENSURED THE MIDDLE CLASS HAS NO MONEY



if the elites had PAID DECENT WAGES NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED

Decent wages are part of demand. If no one needs you, why pay you at all?
Or should the former U.S. adopt some Marx principles?

WRONG. WRONG.

bull****. elites in the US decided NOT to increase wages. the GINI
coefficient tells us this. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR BULL****.



but wall street greed destroyed America

You destroyed "America" (no such country, but you're influenced by
television), and you not willing to correct your own damn behavior.

YOU and your right wing buddies destroyed the MIDDLE CLASS and thereby
destroyed the US. it's YOUR fairy tales about supply and demand that
killed the middle class

YOU voted for right wing poltiicians. YOU voted for wall street. YOU
voted for the rich

and they KILLED us.


and the right wing continues to tell us how the unregulated free
market creates wealth

WHERE IS IT?

It isn't unregulated; investment and output is punished in the former United
States. There is no recession, because there is nothing to "turn around."

bull****. this is meaningless mythology invented by the right to
ensure the middle class continues to pay for the rich


I should write a book - "Elementary Economics for Dummies," but then you
have to learn to read.

HAHAhHAAHA you write a book on economics!!!

that's rich! ever think of going into comedy?


Learn basic Inglés, I'm getting tired of spell checking your convoluted
"logic."

basics?

you who dont even know the middle class hasnt had a raise in 37
years...telling us it's the fault of the middle class

HAHAHAHAH!!

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:06:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Supply and demand is the rule - in the current U.S., there is a huge supply
of labor, but little demand.

and yet when we had FULL employment

wages STILL didn't go up.

oh. rush didnt tell you tha

They certainly went up here. Day laborers were making $14 an hour.,
trades were making $60,000-$70,000 a year, buying new trucks and
bigger boats.

I guess Andrew Sullivan didn't tell you that.

would you like me to post the data again? your little fairy tales
aren't evidence. sorry

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:49:35 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:14:42 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:06:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Supply and demand is the rule - in the current U.S., there is a huge supply
of labor, but little demand.

and yet when we had FULL employment

wages STILL didn't go up.

oh. rush didnt tell you tha

They certainly went up here. Day laborers were making $14 an hour.,
trades were making $60,000-$70,000 a year, buying new trucks and
bigger boats.

I guess Andrew Sullivan didn't tell you that.

would you like me to post the data again? your little fairy tales
aren't evidence. sorry

You keep posting a chart that says the average person makes x and the
average person made x 37 years ago but that doesn't talk about where
the rich people came from or acknowledge that people moved up through
that range.

what it shows is that the rich are getting richer by taking money from
the middle class

and social mobility is very low in the US compared to other countries

want me to give you the evidence on that too? i have it.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:14:42 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:06:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:19:46 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Supply and demand is the rule - in the current U.S., there is a huge supply
of labor, but little demand.

and yet when we had FULL employment

wages STILL didn't go up.

oh. rush didnt tell you tha

They certainly went up here. Day laborers were making $14 an hour.,
trades were making $60,000-$70,000 a year, buying new trucks and
bigger boats.

I guess Andrew Sullivan didn't tell you that.

would you like me to post the data again? your little fairy tales
aren't evidence. sorry

You keep posting a chart that says the average person makes x and the
average person made x 37 years ago but that doesn't talk about where
the rich people came from or acknowledge that people moved up through
that range.

The sheep will always be led to the slaughter.