Why United States is going to lose the War on Terror

[Comrade]

Comrade,

Profit margins are not profits. Margins may be lower, but total profits are higher.

I guess you haven't told me what an inelastic demand curve looks like yet.

So what's the point in me discussing economics of the oil market with you? Just tell me you don't know and I'll try to explain, if you want.

I admit my statement about capitalism is rather unilateral. The fact is we do not have unrestricted capitalism.

Agreed.

But the point is, the realtively unrestricted capitalism we do have is leading to a rather small number of corporate entities becomming more and more powerful. And, as these entities become more and more international rather than national, they become less and less restricted.

Hmmm... very rarely do monopolies emerge in a truly free market, and when they do, they are usually a product of national subsidy. Like Ma Bell.

Look at the total wealth created in the last 50 years, and look at the distribution of that wealth as it changes each year, and you can see that more and more of it is held by fewer and fewer people.

The disparity of incomes was drastic some 100 years ago, and horrendously obscene 80 years ago, and then most fair in the 50's and 60's and less fair in the 80's, and then more fair in the 90's.... just offhand.. I may be wrong... if you have a graph I'd like to see it.

Keep in mind also that never in history has any society survived two full generations with the top 1/2% of the population holding more than 34% of the wealth (not counting slaves). We passed that level over a decade ago. While this forumula for societal collapse has not yet been tested in the post-industrial world, it is something to think about as we continue to allow a higher and higher % of the wealth to be held by the top 1/2%.

Specifically who collapsed under such a disparity? Feudal Europe lasted 1,000 or so years that way. But I suppose you mean a Democracy. Name one Democracy who collapsed under this situation.

 

[wade]

I guess you haven't told me what an inelastic demand curve looks like yet.

So what's the point in me discussing economics of the oil market with you? Just tell me you don't know and I'll try to explain, if you want.

Elasticity is a relative term, all goods are elastic to some degree. Are you trying to say the demand for oil is inelastic? LOL

Hmmm... very rarely do monopolies emerge in a truly free market, and when they do, they are usually a product of national subsidy. Like Ma Bell.

Hmmm... have you ever heard of Carnegy, Hearst, or most notably Rockefeller (Standard Oil)? Any market that involves significant barriers to entry is at risk for monopoly. Ever hear of Microsoft? Or (to a lesser but increasingly signficant degree) Walmart?

The disparity of incomes was drastic some 100 years ago, and horrendously obscene 80 years ago, and then most fair in the 50's and 60's and less fair in the 80's, and then more fair in the 90's.... just offhand.. I may be wrong... if you have a graph I'd like to see it.

The disparity of incomes, and more specifically, of wealth, have become more sigificant not less significant in the 90's to present. Without looking it up, I believe the figures are that real income for the middle class rose something like 17% in the 90's, where for the wealthy, it was something near 200%.

Specifically who collapsed under such a disparity? Feudal Europe lasted 1,000 or so years that way. But I suppose you mean a Democracy. Name one Democracy who collapsed under this situation.

No I mean any society. Hmmm... well, the Romans and the French are two big examples. But there are a host of other examples. Fuedal Europe went through many collapses. I'd have to dig out my Professor's book to list all the examples, there are dozens. He showed how in each case, other factors were blamed for the fall, but in fact what had happend was the wealthy had taken on more 1/3rd of the societal wealth and that this in turn motivated the factors which lead to collapse.

You wanted some graphs so I've included some. Note these only show income, graphs of wealth would be much more significant but I will have to search for them tommarow. Notice the first graph, which shows that real incomes for the bottom 60% of families has fallen, not risen.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Elasticity is a relative term, all goods are elastic to some degree. Are you trying to say the demand for oil is inelastic? LOL

Yes.

Hmmm... have you ever heard of Carnegy, Hearst, or most notably Rockefeller (Standard Oil)? Any market that involves significant barriers to entry is at risk for monopoly. Ever hear of Microsoft? Or (to a lesser but increasingly signficant degree) Walmart?

Well sure, these are rare examples. Not really pure monopolies, though, with Standard owning 90% of the oil refinery market and Microsoft also selling 90% of O.S. software. We let the owners keep their shares after breaking any company up, thankfully.

The disparity of incomes, and more specifically, of wealth, have become more sigificant not less significant in the 90's to present. Without looking it up, I believe the figures are that real income for the middle class rose something like 17% in the 90's, where for the wealthy, it was something near 200%.

Here's a tidy little graph for the weathiest top 1%:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/classes/powpart/22wolff2.gif

No I mean any society. Hmmm... well, the Romans and the French are two big examples. But there are a host of other examples. Fuedal Europe went through many collapses. I'd have to dig out my Professor's book to list all the examples, there are dozens. He showed how in each case, other factors were blamed for the fall, but in fact what had happend was the wealthy had taken on more 1/3rd of the societal wealth and that this in turn motivated the factors which lead to collapse.

I wonder if he assumed any taxation on that top 1% (which seem to average around 1/3 of total wealth in America as well)? Seems like we've been living dangerously for a long time!

Since we've had representative government that these regimes lacked, the other 99% have a great deal to say about tax law and adjust for any greivances long before the revolutionary fever erupts.

You wanted some graphs so I've included some. Note these only show income, graphs of wealth would be much more significant but I will have to search for them tommarow. Notice the first graph, which shows that real incomes for the bottom 60% of families has fallen, not risen.

I'd say there are so many aspects to consider about this, and it's probably not worth looking up for us at this point. The shadow economy has grown continuosly, so that unreported income and other earnings (like drug sales) don't get reflected in these numbers. And more and more sit in jail and now earn $0 than ever before.

But I suppose if you turn out to be right, I'll keep my firearm handy for the great revolution. :teeth:

 

[wade]

Comrade,

Even oil is elastic. If the price rises usage goes down, it is just less elastic than some other goods, such as soda. Raise the price of gas to $5 a gallon and I gaurantee you will see consumption fall significantly.

That graph cannot be right, the top 1/2% hold more wealth than the bottom 95%. I bet it shows incomes, not wealth.

Collapse does not necessarily mean revolution. In many cases, such as the Soviet Union, it simply means the nation falls apart. But yes, I keep my firearms in good condition, keep in practice, and keep a good store of ammo just incase! :firing:

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Comrade,

Even oil is elastic. If the price rises usage goes down, it is just less elastic than some other goods, such as soda. Raise the price of gas to $5 a gallon and I gaurantee you will see consumption fall significantly.

That graph cannot be right, the top 1/2% hold more wealth than the bottom 95%. I bet it shows incomes, not wealth.

It says wealth but I spent too long to try and back it up. But I'll admit to you I do get a sense of extraordinary unrest from the masses of the left. In fact, I was going to post a new threat on that related to the protests in NYC at the RNC.

Keep it locked and loaded, just in case they are serious about a 'spiritual revolution' I've seen Norman Mailer talk about.

:bat:

 

[wade]

Well, researching it a little, I come up with different numbers from different sources. Here are some graphs which seem to be reliable, derived from the US Census bureau. Prior to Reagan and Repubican domination of US politics, all sectors notices similar income growth rates, but thereafter, the rich are making out like bandits.

The problem is the thinking in this country is running behind the facts. People think they are getting a fair shake because for most that is what they grew up with, but the fact is they're getting reamed big time.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Well, researching it a little, I come up with different numbers from different sources. Here are some graphs which seem to be reliable, derived from the US Census bureau. Prior to Reagan and Repubican domination of US politics, all sectors notices similar income growth rates, but thereafter, the rich are making out like bandits.

The problem is the thinking in this country is running behind the facts. People think they are getting a fair shake because for most that is what they grew up with, but the fact is they're getting reamed big time.

Wade.

It's not showing up... if you can link to the page I'll check it out there.

Thanks.

 

[wade]

I've not been able to find total wealth figures, but I have been able to find household wealth figures. The following chart shows household wealth distribution as of 2001. Just like the income figures, the wealth held by the upper most few percent has skyrocketed compared to that of the rest of the population.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Grrrr... why have attachements if they only work for the current post for the poster?

Here are some links:

http://www.inequality.org/facts.html
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/4Inequality.htm
http://karmak.org/archive/2004/04/income&wealth.htm

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Grrrr... why have attachements if they only work for the current post for the poster?

Here are some links:

http://www.inequality.org/facts.html
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/4Inequality.htm
http://karmak.org/archive/2004/04/income&wealth.htm

Wade.

I got em'... which one is best for looking at the last 100 years and the trend within that time frame?

 

[wade]

I got em'... which one is best for looking at the last 100 years and the trend within that time frame?

The "inequality.org" site has comparison data going back to 1946. Prior to this, things are muddy give two World Wars and a major depression. But all those sites are worth at least a quick read.

The point is "the American Dream" seems to be over, but most people don't seem to be awake!

Wade.

 

[dilloduck]

America will never lose the war on terror because there will ALWAYS be an American that will fight back.

 

[WhataMESS!]

Simple:

None of the 9/11 "TERRORISTS" were from Iraq. Why did we choose to go there first? Hmmmm.

Are there any "TERRORISTS" in Iraq now? We sure don't seem to be finding any. Hmmmm....

What about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan? These countries accounted for 75% of the 9/11 "TERRORISTS".

Ask yourself. Why isn't your president sending troops there?

 

[WhataMESS!]

How can anyone vote for a president whose CIA leader/father enabled him to miss 3 drug tests and still get him an honorable discharge, then to turn around and criticize a guy who dodged bullets not the draft?

The Texas Air National Gaurd. Tough duty.

Go ask the Pentagon where the records are. They'll tell you they don't have them.

Shredding Documents. Sounds a bit like Enron. You know "Enron Field" home to the Houston Astros. You're right, there's no connection.

"Hitler, is that you?"

 

[freeandfun1]

Why won't Kerry release his records? Once you answer me that, I will answer the rest of your

 

[Zhukov]

Why did we choose to go there first?

We didn't.

Are there any "TERRORISTS" in Iraq now?

Yes.

What about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan? These countries accounted for 75% of the 9/11 "TERRORISTS".

Ask yourself. Why isn't your president sending troops there?

Yes or No, would you support it if he did?

 

[freeandfun1]

Yes or No, would you support it if he did?

I am willing to bet we DO have operatives in those countries already. I am SURE that the SF and Delta guys are working with the Saudis, Jordanians, etc. Plus, don't forget, Bush isn't afraid of using covert operatives and I am sure those guys are operating in this country.

The left is just mad because they are only hearing about some of the wars. As Bush said, there will be battles the public knows of and there will be those that we only hear rumors about.

I guess the left has forgotten about our soldiers in Mindanao too.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Yes or No, would you support it if he did?

I doubt it. Usually, when liberals bring that up, it's not because they want that to happen.

 

[WhataMESS!]

Very convincing. "I am willing to bet........." and "As Bush said, there will be battles the public knows of and there will be those that we only hear rumors about."

First of all, with Bush's approval rating and his race with Kerry being as tight as it is, don't you all think he'd be bringing light to his accomplishments if even at least one al-Qaeda member was found today? Don't you think it would be in tomorrow's headlines? Okay you're right we did find some three weeks ago right after that false-scare about heightened terror levels--but they were in Great Britain. Hmmm let's see so we can't take credit for that.

Where are they? The whole world waits, Bush builds his pipeline, Cheney makes another million, and you're willing to bet!?

And your comment about "rumors"!? Aren't people in this party a little tired of the false reports, rumors, and incomplete sentences with dangling participles?

Oh wait, you're the "don't-tell-me-anything-bad-about-my-country" type!

Hey did you hear, we found another plane in the sand.....

 

[dilloduck]

Very convincing. "I am willing to bet........." and "As Bush said, there will be battles the public knows of and there will be those that we only hear rumors about."

First of all, with Bush's approval rating and his race with Kerry being as tight as it is, don't you all think he'd be bringing light to his accomplishments if even at least one al-Qaeda member was found today? Don't you think it would be in tomorrow's headlines? Okay you're right we did find some three weeks ago right after that false-scare about heightened terror levels--but they were in Great Britain. Hmmm let's see so we can't take credit for that.

Where are they? The whole world waits, Bush builds his pipeline, Cheney makes another million, and you're willing to bet!?

And your comment about "rumors"!? Aren't people in this party a little tired of the false reports, rumors, and incomplete sentences with dangling participles?

Oh wait, you're the "don't-tell-me-anything-bad-about-my-country" type!

Hey did you hear, we found another plane in the sand.....

and the dems have found all the terrorists or do they just not exist?