dow jones and nasdaq falling hard

[danyboy27]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/overview/default.stm

us governement is trying to step in and to invest more money into buying more corporate debts to stimulate the economy, meaningwhile the deficit is more larger than what they have expected, unemployement rate is getting bigger.

another blatant proof that the economy is stupid.

[Buffalo Souljah]

"the economy is stronger"
"the economy is stronger"
"the economy is stronger"

"the economy is stronger"

"the economy is stronger"

"the economy is stronger"

if I say it enough I will convince myself.

[S.Artesian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/overview/default.stm

us governement is trying to step in and to invest more money into buying more corporate debts to stimulate the economy, meaningwhile the deficit is more larger than what they have expected, unemployement rate is getting bigger.

another blatant proof that the economy is stupid.

No, that's not at all what's happening. The Fed just downgraded its expectations for the "recovery" from "moderate" to uncertain, and as part of its readjustment has decided to invest the proceeds from maturing mortgage backed securities issued by FNMA and FMAC into US Treasury debt, not corporate.

While not, in itself, representing an increase in the money supply, it does keep the Fed's balance sheet a bit swollen at $2300 billion, and the downgrade has spooked Wall Street.

Everything you need to know about capitalism can be summed up in two words, "fear" and "greed."

Now it's fear's turn.

Corporate debt is doing quite well in the US.

[thesadmafioso]

us governement is trying to step in and to invest more money into buying more corporate debts to stimulate the economy, meaningwhile the deficit is more larger than what they have expected, unemployement rate is getting bigger.

another blatant proof that the economy is stupid.

Even when these markets soar, it is still as the expense of someone. You cannot use the markets of capitalism to judge the economic situation of a nation or the world, just because the Fortune 500 companies are doing alright that does not mean that the world is sharing in their success. And unemployment rates can hardly be traced to this government intervention so much as to the nature of capitalism and its tendency to have various different booms and busts. That and the fact that these unemployment numbers exist mainly due to circumstances laid many years ago make it difficult to lay blame on one single thing like Keynesian economic policies introduced in an attempt to remedy the situation.

And the economy is not stupid, partially because it is not a sentient being and thus cannot have intelligence, meaning it cannot be stupid or intelligent or anything in between or beyond. Also because it is designed not to benefit all, but to benefit a select few, and that is its purpose. So by presuming that by stupid you meant that it was not fulfilling its purpose, then I am afraid that you would be incorrect as well.

[danyboy27]

Even when these markets soar, it is still as the expense of someone. You cannot use the markets of capitalism to judge the economic situation of a nation or the world, just because the Fortune 500 companies are doing alright that does not mean that the world is sharing in their success. And unemployment rates can hardly be traced to this government intervention so much as to the nature of capitalism and its tendency to have various different booms and busts. That and the fact that these unemployment numbers exist mainly due to circumstances laid many years ago make it difficult to lay blame on one single thing like Keynesian economic policies introduced in an attempt to remedy the situation.

And the economy is not stupid, partially because it is not a sentient being and thus cannot have intelligence, meaning it cannot be stupid or intelligent or anything in between or beyond. Also because it is designed not to benefit all, but to benefit a select few, and that is its purpose. So by presuming that by stupid you meant that it was not fulfilling its purpose, then I am afraid that you would be incorrect as well.

i know all that, and i know the economy is not a sentient being has well.

what i am saying is that, the relative ''stability'' of the current fortune 500 companies, the elites of capitalism are crashing down.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Double dip on the way - and worse for capitalism (and the working class) ten years of stagnation to follow.

[thesadmafioso]

i know all that, and i know the economy is not a sentient being has well.

what i am saying is that, the relative ''stability'' of the current fortune 500 companies, the elites of capitalism are crashing down.

That is the thing though, they really are not. The people behind the wealth are not foolish enough to lose it and to allow their system to collapse in a typical recession. They will retain their economic clout with relative ease, they know how their own system functions. Sure, a few companies may collapse or see their profits decline, but this loss will be felt by workers and not those behind the real power in the economy.

In short, if capitalism can survive the Great Depression, I think it will be able to survive a little recession.

[Ele'ill]

Let's introduce those tight rope walking mother fuckers to a pair of scissors.

[Jolly Red Giant]

In short, if capitalism can survive the Great Depression, I think it will be able to survive a little recession.
I have lived through the oil crisis of 1973 and the subsequent recession and every recession since and I can assure you that this one is a hell of a lot worse than 'a little recession'. The current depression is heading towards the scale of a major slump on the scale of the 1930's. It may not reach such a crisis point (the capitalist class have learned some lessons) but it will be a lot closer to the 1930's than the recession of the mid-1970's. even wrose for capitalism - the current crisis has the potential to lead to a long-term period of stagnation (particularly with the European economies engaging in huge austerity programmes).

The capitalist class have suffered a major shock - large numbers of extremely wealthy people have lost massive amounts of wealth. Their system is in crisis and they will have difficulty (and many more crises) trying to get out of it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

whats irritating is over the past few months there have been triple digit drops but it ddnt shake the base of the economy. IT would have to be sustained for a few days of 2-300 point drops to really get the ball rollin on a second dip. if its the same situation tomorrow, ill be convinced that it is the event horizon.

[thesadmafioso]

I have lived through the oil crisis of 1973 and the subsequent recession and every recession since and I can assure you that this one is a hell of a lot worse than 'a little recession'. The current depression is heading towards the scale of a major slump on the scale of the 1930's. It may not reach such a crisis point (the capitalist class have learned some lessons) but it will be a lot closer to the 1930's than the recession of the mid-1970's. even wrose for capitalism - the current crisis has the potential to lead to a long-term period of stagnation (particularly with the European economies engaging in huge austerity programmes).

The capitalist class have suffered a major shock - large numbers of extremely wealthy people have lost massive amounts of wealth. Their system is in crisis and they will have difficulty (and many more crises) trying to get out of it.

My use of little was meant to be relative to the overall stability of the system, which remains quite intact to this day. The infrastructure of state capitalism is always there as a backup as well, to provide emergency bailouts if necessary to maintain the systems existence. And as I recall Banks are still lending out money, you can still retrieve savings as there has not been a major banking collapse, the stock market may have had some dips, but it has yet to replicate anything comparable to 1929, and unemployment is still below 20%. So, we really have not reached levels of economic decline that are really comparable to the Great Depression. Mind you that even such levels reached during this time did not seem adequate enough to bring about the demise of capitalism, so why should we entertain these blatantly false and illusionary notions that it is collapsing now?

[Adi Shankara]

who says that the Dow Jones and NASDAQ are failing hard? corporate profits are up for this quarter, so maybe the 99% of the population that isn't in the ruling class is failing, getting laid off, getting their salaries cut, losing their benefits...but hey, the capitalist masters are happy so what's there to complain about? they're all that matter, right?

right?

[thesadmafioso]

whats irritating is over the past few months there have been triple digit drops but it ddnt shake the base of the economy. IT would have to be sustained for a few days of 2-300 point drops to really get the ball rollin on a second dip. if its the same situation tomorrow, ill be convinced that it is the event horizon.

If I recall correctly, wasn't that drop due to a accounting error of sorts that was correctly in the following days? I am fairly sure a instance like that occurred, but I am not aware if there were others which you are referencing.

And off topic, but that is a splendid choice in avatar.

[Tatarin]

In any case, people must have something to replace this system with - and to want it replaced. Without this, capitalism can survive any depression, hell even a meteorite crash or alien invasion if you want. People must want to get beyond capitalism, else they will only try to rebuild what the only known system - capitalism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

If I recall correctly, wasn't that drop due to a accounting error of sorts that was correctly in the following days? I am fairly sure a instance like that occurred, but I am not aware if there were others which you are referencing.

And off topic, but that is a splendid choice in avatar.
haha thanks :D i see you like GY!BE and probably ASMZ as well.


anyways, that drop was a computer glitch but there have been several instances of 100-200 point drops, and even a sustained nearly 700 point drop in late june i think.
it didnt shake the market like some would think.
if it intensifies and lasts for more than one day, it might just do that. i think the next trend in prices will be deflation, and then after that hyper inflation.

[thesadmafioso]

In any case, people must have something to replace this system with - and to want it replaced. Without this, capitalism can survive any depression, hell even a meteorite crash or alien invasion if you want. People must want to get beyond capitalism, else they will only try to rebuild what the only known system - capitalism.

This is a incredibly valid point, having the means to utilize circumstances are essential to revolution or revolutionary change. No matter how much a situation opens itself up to sweeping change, you still need basic things like a ideal to mobilize around and people to gather support behind it. Without the proper framework, lasting revolution is quite near the real of impossibility.


haha thanks :D i see you like GY!BE and probably ASMZ as well.


anyways, that drop was a computer glitch but there have been several instances of 100-200 point drops, and even a sustained nearly 700 point drop in late june i think.
it didnt shake the market like some would think.
if it intensifies and lasts for more than one day, it might just do that. i think the next trend in prices will be deflation, and then after that hyper inflation.


If such a situation were to arise, I could very well see such damage to the markets being inflicted. Markets tend to be based heavily upon speculation, and if momentum like were to build in such a downward fashion, one can only imagine the level and speed through which it would build upon itself.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100811-715505.html


NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Blue-chip heavyweights Alcoa, Boeing and Caterpillar led broad declines in U.S. stocks Wednesday as signs of weakening growth in China exacerbated fears about a global economic slowdown.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 265.42 points, or 2.49%, to 10378.83, in its biggest one-day point drop since June 29. Wednesday marked the 11th time the Dow fell more than 200 points in a day this year, and the decline put it into negative territory for the year. The measure is now off 0.47% for 2010.
All 30 of the Dow's components fell, with Alcoa, Boeing and Caterpillar hit the hardest. Alcoa dropped 69 cents, or 6.1%, to 10.66, while Boeing fell 3.02, or 4.4%, to 65.60, and Caterpillar declined 2.71, or 3.8%, to 68.71.
The Nasdaq Composite slid 68.54, or 3.01%, to 2208.63. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 31.59, or 2.82%, to 1089.47. For both measures, Wednesday marked the biggest one-day drop since July 16.
Just five of the S&P 500's components managed to end Wednesday's session in positive territory, including Macy's, which climbed 1.14, or 5.9%, to 20.52. The department-store operator's fiscal second-quarter earnings soared, topping analysts' expectations. Macy's also raised its earnings forecast for the year.
The declines elsewhere came as a string of economic reports from China, including retail sales and industrial output, indicated the nation's economic growth is slowing. China is a big source of demand for U.S. companies, especially in the materials sector. In turn, investors are concerned about its impact on the U.S. economy, especially after the U.S. Federal Reserve noted Tuesday the U.S. economic recovery is "more modest" than anticipated.
Following the market's strong recovery from the March 2009 lows, it is now "into the period where you go, 'uh oh, is it over, are we going to double dip?'" said John Schonberg, portfolio manager at Columbia Management.
"The biggest worry is worldwide growth slowing more than people think it should and the U.S. economy kind of stagnating and heading back into flat economic growth," he added.
Cree (Nasdaq) dropped 9.15, or 13%, to 59.81. The semiconductor and light-emitting-diode company's fiscal fourth-quarter profit surged on strong revenue growth and improved margins, but it projected fiscal first-quarter revenue below analysts' estimates.
CareFusion climbed 1.86, or 8.7%, to 23.26. The maker of hospital drug-delivery systems posted a 46% drop in fiscal fourth-quarter earnings, but its earnings excluding charges topped analysts' estimates, as did revenue. The company also announced a restructuring effort aimed at saving more than $100 million annually.
Regency Energy Partners LP (Nasdaq) slipped 1.16, or 4.7%, to 23.60. The natural-gas processor and distributor said it would offer at least 14 million limited-partnership units, boosting the amount outstanding by about 15%, and use the proceeds to repay debt under its revolving credit facility.
Prudential Financial fell 2.63, or 4.4%, to 56.60. Rep. Edolphus Towns (D., N.Y.) announced an investigation into the life insurer, alleging the company failed to pay cash to families of deceased soldiers.
Amgen (Nasdaq) slipped 2.03, or 3.6%, to 53.69, after the company reported "disappointing" results from a late-stage study of one of its treatments for use on patients with head and neck cancer, saying the study missed its primary endpoint.
URS Corp. dropped 4.21, or 10%, to 37.22. The engineering-and-construction company's second-quarter earnings dropped 35% as revenue surprisingly fell.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber declined 45 cents, or 4.1%, to 10.44. The tire maker boosted the size of its planned 10-year note sale by 20% to $900 million as the debt will carry a 8.25% yield. The proceeds are being used to pay off other debt maturing next year.
QEP Resources shed 1.83, or 5.4%, to 31.78. The oil-and-gas producer announced plans to sell $500 million of 11-year notes to raise funds for debt repayment.

[Ele'ill]

who says that the Dow Jones and NASDAQ are failing hard? corporate profits are up for this quarter, so maybe the 99% of the population that isn't in the ruling class is failing, getting laid off, getting their salaries cut, losing their benefits...but hey, the capitalist masters are happy so what's there to complain about? they're all that matter, right?

right?


Dead on.

Companies are using a 'bad economy' as justification to rake in millions of dollars by cutting support to their work force. The support is everything you could imagine a worker could need- including fellow workers- duh

While that point in a company's hierarchy that divides the going somewheres and the will never be able to even afford housing grows the top of those hierarchies get bonuses while we get layoffs- longer hours and less pay. Fuck that.

[danyboy27]

That is the thing though, they really are not. The people behind the wealth are not foolish enough to lose it and to allow their system to collapse in a typical recession. They will retain their economic clout with relative ease, they know how their own system functions. Sure, a few companies may collapse or see their profits decline, but this loss will be felt by workers and not those behind the real power in the economy.

In short, if capitalism can survive the Great Depression, I think it will be able to survive a little recession.
you are overestimating the power of the american state and the capability for the big 500 to actually control a system they never really controlled.

the us governement is in big trouble and cant really do much to help the big 500 anymore.

the current instability of the system cannot be corrected, and those big buisness are gonna keep on loosing money.

The us got out of the great depression beccause of ww2, take that factor out of the equation, and the whole system would have crashed down long time ago.

even if the us goes to war with iran, it will not be able to fuel the current decay of the economic system, at best it can buy a bit more time, but that about it.

the only Unthinkable solution would be for the us to just say fuck our free market principles and lets bully the corporation, Nationalize IBM and the other big 500, and do like china.

[Rusty Shackleford]

you are overestimating the power of the american state and the capability for the big 500 to actually control a system they never really controlled.

the us governement is in big trouble and cant really do much to help the big 500 anymore.

the current instability of the system cannot be corrected, and those big buisness are gonna keep on loosing money.

The us got out of the great depression beccause of ww2, take that factor out of the equation, and the whole system would have crashed down long time ago.

even if the us goes to war with iran, it will not be able to fuel the current decay of the economic system, at best it can buy a bit more time, but that about it.

the only Unthinkable solution would be for the us to just say fuck our free market principles and lets bully the corporation, Nationalize IBM and the other big 500, and do like china.

2 very possible wars are on the horizon. Even if they dont happen, it will take a lot to take down american capitalism. it will happen but not this year, or the next. the great depression lasted a decade and only the war could save it. yes. but if there is a war now, it may actually destroy it.

[thesadmafioso]

you are overestimating the power of the american state and the capability for the big 500 to actually control a system they never really controlled.

the us governement is in big trouble and cant really do much to help the big 500 anymore.

the current instability of the system cannot be corrected, and those big buisness are gonna keep on loosing money.

The us got out of the great depression beccause of ww2, take that factor out of the equation, and the whole system would have crashed down long time ago.

even if the us goes to war with iran, it will not be able to fuel the current decay of the economic system, at best it can buy a bit more time, but that about it.

the only Unthinkable solution would be for the us to just say fuck our free market principles and lets bully the corporation, Nationalize IBM and the other big 500, and do like china.

I think you may have missed the purpose of my comparison to the Great Depression, it was meant to show that the current economic state is much more stable then the Great Depression. And since your remarks hinged upon the economic conditions of the present matching up with those of the Great Depression, I am afraid your refutation of my previous point holds little validity.

Oh, and it would be very unlikely for the American or global economy to witness any sort of boom due to war with Iran. If you look at comparable conflicts that would be able to act as a means of predicting the economic implications of such a hypothetical situation, those being Iraq and Afghanistan, they actually damaged our economy quite considerably. That is because the historical context of World War Two was much different then that of the modern day middle east. This is actually a quite intricate matter, but in short World War Two only served to pull our economy out of depression because of the simple fact that most of our major economic competitors were bombed into oblivion. Through invading Iran this would not be accomplished, thus creating a much different situation. Though it would most certainly prove to economically benefit certain elites in the military-industrial complex, it would not prove to be helpful to global or national economics in the slightest.

I would also suggest you look at economic trends of the past, our economy has suffered a great many economic periods of decline, only to emerge years later just as strong. Capitalism is a economic system based upon predictable instability, consisting of various different periods of booms and busts. Based upon this information I find it hard to believe the argument that economic collapse is upon the American system, because this has happened so many times prior to this.

And lastly, the US government has been in major economic trouble since Regan and his massive deficit spending, and yet that didn't stop the bailout from happening. Point here being that we have a tendency to spend money that we do not have, it hasn't stooped the US government in the past and I see no reason why they would stop now.

[Salyut]

More fun is coming. :D (http://exiledonline.com/confessions-of-a-wall-st-nihilist-forget-about-goldman-sachs-our-entire-economy-is-built-on-fraud/)

[Who?]

More fun is coming. :D (http://exiledonline.com/confessions-of-a-wall-st-nihilist-forget-about-goldman-sachs-our-entire-economy-is-built-on-fraud/)

We should imprison the top 1%.

[Rusty Shackleford]

More fun is coming. :D (http://exiledonline.com/confessions-of-a-wall-st-nihilist-forget-about-goldman-sachs-our-entire-economy-is-built-on-fraud/)
still reading this, but its very entertaining :D

[danyboy27]

I think you may have missed the purpose of my comparison to the Great Depression, it was meant to show that the current economic state is much more stable then the Great Depression. And since your remarks hinged upon the economic conditions of the present matching up with those of the Great Depression, I am afraid your refutation of my previous point holds little validity.
.
fair enough



Oh, and it would be very unlikely for the American or global economy to witness any sort of boom due to war with Iran. If you look at comparable conflicts that would be able to act as a means of predicting the economic implications of such a hypothetical situation, those being Iraq and Afghanistan, they actually damaged our economy quite considerably. That is because the historical context of World War Two was much different then that of the modern day middle east. This is actually a quite intricate matter, but in short World War Two only served to pull our economy out of depression because of the simple fact that most of our major economic competitors were bombed into oblivion. Through invading Iran this would not be accomplished, thus creating a much different situation. Though it would most certainly prove to economically benefit certain elites in the military-industrial complex, it would not prove to be helpful to global or national economics in the slightest.
.
i know that, that what i just said, that a war with iran wouldnt save america economy, but it would allow to the us governement to delay payment to several nations, buying time to baillout more.



I would also suggest you look at economic trends of the past, our economy has suffered a great many economic periods of decline, only to emerge years later just as strong. Capitalism is a economic system based upon predictable instability, consisting of various different periods of booms and busts. Based upon this information I find it hard to believe the argument that economic collapse is upon the American system, because this has happened so many times prior to this.
.
But the number of crisis, bubble and other so called predictable crisis dramaticly increased over the year, They cant keep it up forever.




And lastly, the US government has been in major economic trouble since Regan and his massive deficit spending, and yet that didn't stop the bailout from happening. Point here being that we have a tendency to spend money that we do not have, it hasn't stooped the US government in the past and I see no reason why they would stop now.

well, the size of the current us foreign debt is almost excessing the us GDP, they will eventually need to find money to pay the interrest to foreign investor like china, and the debt is keeping growing, growing, growing..

you cant base your affirmation on thing that where true back then, its not the 70s anymore man.

[Animal Farm Pig]

What's funny is that while "the economy is declining", we're not losing people, skills, or means of production. Raw material is still being expended, but at a declining rate, which may be good for the post-capitalist future-- more stuff sitting around to be used.

I'm just waiting for the hyper-inflation. When, a six pack of beer costs $10,000, I'll be able to pay off my (fixed interest rate) car loan for the price of a six pack. My father will be able to pay off his mortgage for the cost of a fancy night out. Heavily indebted poor countries with debt obligations in dollars will be able to throw off their chains. State capitalist China (which holds a lot of debt in dollars) is going to lose a significant amount of wealth. The rich in the USA will be scrambling to dump the dollar like rats leaving a sinking ship, and they're going to step all over each other in the process.

Let it come down!

[thesadmafioso]

fair enough


i know that, that what i just said, that a war with iran wouldnt save america economy, but it would allow to the us governement to delay payment to several nations, buying time to baillout more.


But the number of crisis, bubble and other so called predictable crisis dramaticly increased over the year, They cant keep it up forever.




well, the size of the current us foreign debt is almost excessing the us GDP, they will eventually need to find money to pay the interrest to foreign investor like china, and the debt is keeping growing, growing, growing..

you cant base your affirmation on thing that where true back then, its not the 70s anymore man.

Debt does not work like that though. Hypothetically speaking, if America for some reason were to declare war on Iran, which as I have previously stated would be incredibly unlikely, nations to which we owe a debt would not defer payments. We borrowed capital from them, and set in place a plan of payment that does not just take a break due to conflict. And the US government has plenty of money to spend, and it will most certainly not run out of the funds necessary to pay back our loans anytime soon. There would be many signs preluding to such a unlikely catastrophe as well, and none of which have yet to occur. Yes, it is a problem, but you exaggerate the severity of it greatly.

I did not say capitalism would persist indefinitely, just that an economic recession is not a sign of imminent collapse. And the rate of economic recession and boom really has not increased in recent years, it has maintained a predictable enough course. A basic knowledge of the history of the American economy would tell you too that this sort of occurrence is normal within a capitalistic market. I don't know what more to tell you, it is hard to argue about against things that already happened, you cannot just make history disappear.

Honestly, I can't teach you all of the material that would be required to understand what I am attempting to convey, so all I can really suggest is that you do some more research into the subject matter before commenting further. I mean no offense by this, it is just that your remarks can be refuted by a basic understanding of the American economy.

[theAnarch]

On the news this morning before the market opened predicted it would fall because of the Dems state bailout bill.

Strange how they can round up billions for wall Street by not a cent for universal health care.

[danyboy27]

I think you may have missed the purpose of my comparison to the Great Depression, it was meant to show that the current economic state is much more stable then the Great Depression. And since your remarks hinged upon the economic conditions of the present matching up with those of the Great Depression, I am afraid your refutation of my previous point holds little validity.

Oh, and it would be very unlikely for the American or global economy to witness any sort of boom due to war with Iran. If you look at comparable conflicts that would be able to act as a means of predicting the economic implications of such a hypothetical situation, those being Iraq and Afghanistan, they actually damaged our economy quite considerably. That is because the historical context of World War Two was much different then that of the modern day middle east. This is actually a quite intricate matter, but in short World War Two only served to pull our economy out of depression because of the simple fact that most of our major economic competitors were bombed into oblivion. Through invading Iran this would not be accomplished, thus creating a much different situation. Though it would most certainly prove to economically benefit certain elites in the military-industrial complex, it would not prove to be helpful to global or national economics in the slightest.

I would also suggest you look at economic trends of the past, our economy has suffered a great many economic periods of decline, only to emerge years later just as strong. Capitalism is a economic system based upon predictable instability, consisting of various different periods of booms and busts. Based upon this information I find it hard to believe the argument that economic collapse is upon the American system, because this has happened so many times prior to this.

And lastly, the US government has been in major economic trouble since Regan and his massive deficit spending, and yet that didn't stop the bailout from happening. Point here being that we have a tendency to spend money that we do not have, it hasn't stooped the US government in the past and I see no reason why they would stop now.

my mistake, i didnt mean to actually compare the great depression with today crisis, both are extremely different, and the current order of things are more ''stable'' that it was back then.

if you can explain me where the governement hide all that wonderful money to pull themselves out of this mess, tell me, i am really interested.

[thesadmafioso]

my mistake, i didnt mean to actually compare the great depression with today crisis, both are extremely different, and the current order of things are more ''stable'' that it was back then.

if you can explain me where the governement hide all that wonderful money to pull themselves out of this mess, tell me, i am really interested.

That is what I was trying to say, it is not that they have ready access to the money and like it exists in some physical form, but rather we have access to the means through which it could be created. For instance, take something like our military budget. If we were to undertake massive cuts, we would undoubtedly free up billions of dollars for this use, and even more if we think outside of a yearly span. If the the national debt got to a truly disastrous point, we would thus see more signs like that.

There is also the concept that who is really going to call the US on its debt, because doing something like that would likely cause global economic failure of a massive degree, as the US is a major importer of many products, and without its economic stability it would likely cease such high levels of importation in regards to economics.

Yes, it is a horribly flawed system focused not on the overall collective good of any country or the global economy itself and rather one of short term profit and sustainability, but that is how it works and we must take it upon ourselves not to underestimate our enemy.

[piet11111]

The economy of the states is only stable because of the dollars status as the world currency.
Without that status the dollar would have gone up in flames already.

The recovery after the great depression was caused by the destruction of the productive forces of europe and by the savings the american working class built up during the war.
However with an impoverished working class they can not consume their way out this crisis and certainly not with austerity forced upon them.
Recovery this time is going to have to come from somewhere else.

[Thirsty Crow]

still reading this, but its very entertaining :D

‘OK, we’re supposed to be a free market economy, and we’re supposed to be the Republicans—let’s try something different for a change since nothing else is working. Let’s go out on a limb and actually give this “free market” thing a whirl. Who knows? Maybe the “free market” really works the way we always say it does. Nothing else seems to work, let’s let the free market decide Lehman’s fate. Maybe corporate-socialism isn’t the answer.’ So they hung Lehman out in the free-market, and BAM! The. Shit. Hit. The. Fan. No shit, dudes—the free market is for suckers, didn’t your daddy teach you idiots that?:D:D:D oh the lulz...

EDIT: And one of the more epic statements I've encountered recently...

And people are right: Jefferson was an imbecile. He should have been a folk singer, not a Founding fucking Father
It's hillarious and pretty scary...can anyone, who is well versed in economics, back up such claims? Are they true?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

(Reuters) - The rich grew richer last year, even as the world endured the worst recession in decades.

A stock market rebound helped the world's ranks of millionaires climb 17 percent to 10 million, while their collective wealth surged 19 percent to $39 trillion (26.4 trillion pounds), nearly recouping losses from the financial crisis, according to the latest Merrill Lynch-Capgemini world wealth report.

Stock values rose by half, while hedge funds recovered most of their 2008 losses, in a year marked by government stimulus spending and central bank easing.

"We are already seeing distinct signs of recovery and, in some areas, a complete return to 2007 levels of wealth and growth," Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) wealth management chief Sallie Krawcheck said.

The fastest growth in wealth took place in India, China and Brazil, some of the hardest hit markets in 2008. Wealth in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific soared to record highs.

Asia's millionaire ranks rose to 3 million, matching Europe for the first time, paced by a 4.5 percent economic expansion.

Asian millionaires' combined wealth surged 31 percent to $9.7 trillion, surpassing Europe's $9.5 trillion.

In North America, the ranks of the rich rose 17 percent and their wealth grew 18 percent to $10.7 trillion.

The United States was home to the most millionaires in 2009 -- 2.87 million -- followed by Japan with 1.65 million, Germany with 861,000, and China with 477,000.

Switzerland had the highest concentration of millionaires: nearly 35 for every 1,000 adults.

Yet as portfolios bounced back, investors remained wary after a collapse that erased a decade of stock gains, fuelled a contraction in the global economy and sent unemployment soaring.

The report, based on surveys with more than 1,100 wealthy investors with 23 firms, found that the rich were well served by holding a broad range of investments, including commodities and real estate.

"The wealthy allocated, as opposed to concentrated, their investments," Merrill Lynch head of U.S. wealth management Lyle LaMothe said in an interview.

Millionaires poured more of their money into fixed-income investments seeking predictable returns and cash flow. The challenge ahead for brokers is convincing clients to move off the sidelines and pursue riskier, more fruitful investments.

"There is still a hesitancy," LaMothe said. "Liquidity is incredibly important and people need cash flow to preserve their lifestyle -- but they want to replace that cash flow in a way that does not increase their risk profile."

The report found that investor confidence in advisers and regulators remains shaken. The rich are actively managing their investments, seeking customized advice and demanding full disclosure about the securities they buy.

There were signs that investors were shaking off their concerns. Families that kept money closer to home during the crisis began shifting money to foreign markets, particularly the developing nations.

North American and European investors are expected to increase their exposure to Asian markets, which are projected to lead the world in economic expansion. Europe's wealthy are seen increasing their U.S. and Canadian holdings.

More wealthy clients also are taking a harder look at large companies that pay healthy dividends, as an alternative to bonds and their razor-thin yields.

"Investors are open to areas they hadn't thought about before as they try to preserve their ability to be philanthropic, to preserve their lifestyle," LaMothe said. "To me, the report underscored clients are involved and they're not inclined to stay in 1 percent savings accounts."

[Delenda Carthago]

you really feel like its for the best for the economy of the US to crash right now?

[Delenda Carthago]

What I mean is,you dont have a strong revolutionary movement like you used to in the 60s and 70s and you have the socialfascist China and Russia on the corner waiting for the USA to fail in order for them to take over.And believe me,if you think US is antidemocratic,you should really check out them two countries...

[danyboy27]

That is what I was trying to say, it is not that they have ready access to the money and like it exists in some physical form, but rather we have access to the means through which it could be created. For instance, take something like our military budget. If we were to undertake massive cuts, we would undoubtedly free up billions of dollars for this use, and even more if we think outside of a yearly span. If the the national debt got to a truly disastrous point, we would thus see more signs like that.

There is also the concept that who is really going to call the US on its debt, because doing something like that would likely cause global economic failure of a massive degree, as the US is a major importer of many products, and without its economic stability it would likely cease such high levels of importation in regards to economics.

Yes, it is a horribly flawed system focused not on the overall collective good of any country or the global economy itself and rather one of short term profit and sustainability, but that is how it works and we must take it upon ourselves not to underestimate our enemy.

of course the us could shrink the size of its military in order to save money, but at what cost? thousand of servicemen, left without income, not being able to pump money into the economy, imagine the political and social mess it would create.

developing more inferastructure? this take a lot of time, year, decades before to have a potent result.


the chinese governement have the ability to make the us governement suffer, without even calling back the debt.

Personally i think they should just sell them Texas.

[Reznov]

The us got out of the great depression beccause of ww2, take that factor out of the equation, and the whole system would have crashed down long time ago.

even if the us goes to war with iran, it will not be able to fuel the current decay of the economic system, at best it can buy a bit more time, but that about it.


Iran, North Korea, Syria.

I think the Middle East and parts around South Korea and Japan are going to need "Liberating" soon.

[piet11111]

Iran, North Korea, Syria.

I think the Middle East and parts around South Korea and Japan are going to need "Liberating" soon.

Unless the usa "liberates" china that would still not cover their massive debts.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Hmm... so the oversize casino is finally crumbling... considering the stress that the wars are creating, the stress of the debt and the economy... things are going to get very, very shitty in the near future... and with all of the dissatisfaction within the nation... I can see all stability going to hell in a hand bag... ugh...:(

[Rusty Shackleford]

dow jones down 90 points already today. not very significant though

[Jolly Red Giant]

Honestly, I can't teach you all of the material that would be required to understand what I am attempting to convey, so all I can really suggest is that you do some more research into the subject matter before commenting further. I mean no offense by this, it is just that your remarks can be refuted by a basic understanding of the American economy.
I would suggest that you are reading too many of the wrong type of books.

Capitalism is a system of booms and slumps - and given time capitalism will inevitably work its way out of any slump. the nature of the economic crisis is important (and I have no intention of going into it here) but it is not the key point. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum - it is an economic system that presides over the exploitation of the vast majority of society by a very small percentage of the population. The exploited masses are not passive players in any crisis. The instability in the system is not brought about by the nature of the economic system, but by the reaction of the masses and the nature and extend to the attacks on the working class that the bourgeoisie embark on.

The current crisis is creating huge instability in the system precisely because of the scale of attacks the establishment feel it necessary to embark on and the already widespead reaction from the working class. No one can predict how the class struggle will work itself out - but one thing is certain - the major instability that currently exists will get worse and the scale of class conflict will escalate substantially over the next period (the working class has no other option but to fight).

[Rusty Shackleford]

this video is still relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

[thesadmafioso]

I would suggest that you are reading too many of the wrong type of books.

Capitalism is a system of booms and slumps - and given time capitalism will inevitably work its way out of any slump. the nature of the economic crisis is important (and I have no intention of going into it here) but it is not the key point. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum - it is an economic system that presides over the exploitation of the vast majority of society by a very small percentage of the population. The exploited masses are not passive players in any crisis. The instability in the system is not brought about by the nature of the economic system, but by the reaction of the masses and the nature and extend to the attacks on the working class that the bourgeoisie embark on.

The current crisis is creating huge instability in the system precisely because of the scale of attacks the establishment feel it necessary to embark on and the already widespead reaction from the working class. No one can predict how the class struggle will work itself out - but one thing is certain - the major instability that currently exists will get worse and the scale of class conflict will escalate substantially over the next period (the working class has no other option but to fight).

What sort of books do you believe that I read? I really don't see how anything I am saying is much beyond simply being realistic and not underestimating the capabilities of the American economy to recover and for everything to return to 'normal'.

I don't recall making any remarks that implied that capitalism exists in a vacuum of any sort. My historical examples all were said with the intent of the political, social, and economic circumstances of the time being taken into account, and I didn't feel as if elaborating on that was necessary. And my statements in regards to the current economic state of the country as well as the world were made based off of those comparisons. Yes, some instability has been caused that is not exactly normal by American standards, though this is not uncommon when taking the much larger historical picture into mind, as it is typical for an economic crisis to cause such unrest. I don't think anyone really needs a history lecture too badly, so I will spare the gritty details, but it is a solid enough point which you have not disproved. All you have stated is that unrest is present and that people are playing a part in this current crisis, something I don't think anyone disagrees with but also something that hardly denotes massive economic collapse on the scale being discussed here.

You are right about the unpredictability of the whole matter though, and I think we can agree on that, but I just feel as if your optimism is misplaced. Historical evidence suggests that this recession is a common enough occurrence and that it is not a sign of impending doom for the capitalistic system of economics.




of course the us could shrink the size of its military in order to save money, but at what cost? thousand of servicemen, left without income, not being able to pump money into the economy, imagine the political and social mess it would create.

developing more inferastructure? this take a lot of time, year, decades before to have a potent result.


the chinese governement have the ability to make the us governement suffer, without even calling back the debt.

Personally i think they should just sell them Texas.

When I made an example out of the military I was referring to its excessive and unnecessary programs in research and to the military industrial complex and its tendency to overproduce machines of war. Even if cutting military spending did put a large amount of servicemen out of work, there is always the possibility of applying their skills in more peaceful roles such as building infrastructure. It would be a lot cheaper to finance too I would imagine.

You comments on China are quite correct though, but most of the options which would harm the US would also harm China due to the high levels of economic dependency which the two share.

I agree with Texas though, I would sell that in a moments notice, minus Austin and maybe a few other bits.

[danyboy27]

When I made an example out of the military I was referring to its excessive and unnecessary programs in research and to the military industrial complex and its tendency to overproduce machines of war. Even if cutting military spending did put a large amount of servicemen out of work, there is always the possibility of applying their skills in more peaceful roles such as building infrastructure. It would be a lot cheaper to finance too I would imagine.
.
this ''overspending'' is only proportional to the number of people using the stuff, and the people working on those project win great salaries that are also pumped into the economy, those thousand of engineer have homes, buy ton of shit, you shut down the militaro-industrial complex, you will put a lot of extremely qualified worker out of work, those people are more likely to go to india or china to get paid to develop their military machines.

verry fews soldier have specialised job that could be useful on an economical point of view, most of grunt and low level soldier have been trained all their lives to blow shit up, shoot a gun, arrest people, and also, blowing shit up.

now, in a more socialised society, it would be actually possible to still pay those folks and ask them to build dam bridge and many other stuff, but the goal here is to find money to actually finance those kind of project.

hey dont look at me, that the way capitalism work, its a fucking trainwreck.

[thesadmafioso]

this ''overspending'' is only proportional to the number of people using the stuff, and the people working on those project win great salaries that are also pumped into the economy, those thousand of engineer have homes, buy ton of shit, you shut down the militaro-industrial complex, you will put a lot of extremely qualified worker out of work, those people are more likely to go to india or china to get paid to develop their military machines.

verry fews soldier have specialised job that could be useful on an economical point of view, most of grunt and low level soldier have been trained all their lives to blow shit up, shoot a gun, arrest people, and also, blowing shit up.

now, in a more socialised society, it would be actually possible to still pay those folks and ask them to build dam bridge and many other stuff, but the goal here is to find money to actually finance those kind of project.

hey dont look at me, that the way capitalism work, its a fucking trainwreck.

Oh, so I imagine that the cost of something along the lines of a B2 stealth bomber is mostly for those hard working engineers that are putting so much money into the economy, and not actually from the excessively greedy nature of a large corporation out to make profits for its CEOs? Do you honestly believe that the cost of those things stems primarily from paying the labor force which makes them?

And you are missing my point, it was simply that there is money that could be used if the national debt were to reach a point where it threatened our national economic stability. Yes, it would not be the best thing for the economy, but the point is that money is there.

And your average solider is fit enough to undertake a multitude of jobs which involve little skill and that are based upon physical labor. Obviously the ability to fight a war would not be the attribute that would be applied for economic purposes.

[danyboy27]

Oh, so I imagine that the cost of something along the lines of a B2 stealth bomber is mostly for those hard working engineers that are putting so much money into the economy, and not actually from the excessively greedy nature of a large corporation out to make profits for its CEOs? Do you honestly believe that the cost of those things stems primarily from paying the labor force which makes them?
.
well of course no, but dismantling the militaro-industrial complex would make the actual system just fucking collapse even more faster, and the us governement is probably fully aware of that. Industries like boeing, nortrop grunman, they put their surplus they receive from their buyer into banks, financial institution, banks, etc etc. They are greedy has fuck, but they still put large sum of money into the economy. Hell, the whole manufacturing process of planes, m-16 and other weapon are one of the last bastion of the manifacturing industry of the U.S.A, temper with that and the whole shit gonna fall down. dont get me wrong, i think it would be awsome, but i dont think the us governement is stupid enough to make that move.



And you are missing my point, it was simply that there is money that could be used if the national debt were to reach a point where it threatened our national economic stability. Yes, it would not be the best thing for the economy, but the point is that money is there.

if you give away all your lunch money to a bully, your gonna come out without a scratch, but you will still be starving.

its a loose loose situation, either the U.S beccome subject to the constant Perssure of china until the crash down, or they could crash their own system down themselve by paying their debts and liquidating the us in a gigantic garage sale.




And your average solider is fit enough to undertake a multitude of jobs which involve little skill and that are based upon physical labor. Obviously the ability to fight a war would not be the attribute that would be applied for economic purposes.
yea but in order to do that, you have to pay them, and if you pay them you need to find the money somewhere, and if your money isnt worth jack shit, well they might just say fuck off and work for haliburton in saudi arabia and get paid in gold.

[thesadmafioso]

well of course no, but dismantling the militaro-industrial complex would make the actual system just fucking collapse even more faster, and the us governement is probably fully aware of that. Industries like boeing, nortrop grunman, they put their surplus they receive from their buyer into banks, financial institution, banks, etc etc. They are greedy has fuck, but they still put large sum of money into the economy. Hell, the whole manufacturing process of planes, m-16 and other weapon are one of the last bastion of the manifacturing industry of the U.S.A, temper with that and the whole shit gonna fall down. dont get me wrong, i think it would be awsome, but i dont think the us governement is stupid enough to make that move.


if you give away all your lunch money to a bully, your gonna come out without a scratch, but you will still be starving.

its a loose loose situation, either the U.S beccome subject to the constant Perssure of china until the crash down, or they could crash their own system down themselve by paying their debts and liquidating the us in a gigantic garage sale.



yea but in order to do that, you have to pay them, and if you pay them you need to find the money somewhere, and if your money isnt worth jack shit, well they might just say fuck off and work for haliburton in saudi arabia and get paid in gold.


You really are not getting my point here, I was just making trying to explain how the US has the means to pay off its debt it if really needed to. If you recall I didn't even outline this as a likely option, I was just stating that the money was there.

And in regards to my example of the military industrial complex, you are simply going to in depth it and avoiding the grander point that I am trying to make here. It is to a point where you are basing your arguments upon these broad hypothetical assumptions, that are quite detailed and thus open to interpretation in any way. If you recall all that I stated was that the US could pay China back its debt if it needed to. But at risk of sounding too defensive here, and since I guess I was the one who brought it up, the US economy has in the past survived substantial cuts to its defense budget. If you look at even the time leading up to 9/11, our military spending was not nearly as high as its current levels, we were running budget surpluses, and we were beginning to pay back our debt at a quickened pace. I am certainly no fan of Mr.Clinton, but it still serves its purpose as proof of how an economy can survive without a thriving defense industry.

All of this is of course without even getting into my suggestion that the US economy could easily withstand and even prove to benefit in the long run from shifts in its budget, as there are many fields with far more opportunity for economic growth. And there are many possible investment options that would stimulate the economy just as well, because when you get down to it the US government is still putting taxpayer dollars into circulation either way. Once again, I am not saying this is likely, but just that since the US has not truly considered such action that it is proof of the insignificance of the national debt. It just goes to build upon my original point in defense of the stability of the American economy. I don't like to admit that it is in such a state and that it will likely remain so, but evidence just points to this being the truth of things, and undue optimism will serve little purpose under these circumstances.

You comparison to the situation to that of dealing with a school bully seems inadequate as well, due to the very different context of the two matters. In the situation involving the US and China, we see legitimate investment in a Nation through loans, that must be paid back with interest, with both parties consenting to these terms. With a bully, you are just being robbed. Hardly what I would consider to be an ideal comparison.

And in regard to your comment about Haliburton, soldiers are not exactly paid too well, due to the jobs minimal necessary skill set and the occupations tendency to be filled by those of the lower classes, so I really don't think money plays too big of a role in this hypothetical situation. A situation which if I may add was not exactly elaborated on much by yourself

[Salyut]

Welp. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/According-to-Technical-etfguide-2878664801.html;_ylt=A0PDkx1jH2NMsiYA4gW7YWsA;_ylu =X3oDMTFhMWx2NWZxBHBvcwM1BHNlYwNzcGVjaWFsRmVhdHVyZ XMEc2xrA3RlY2huaWNhbHNzdQ--?x=0)

[Rusty Shackleford]

you know what i just realized. from now on, almost everyone in the us is just waiting for that final nosedive and plunge into the second recession.

this whole thing may blow over, but the media is already scared.
next time it happens, the media may even exacerbate the effect.
its on everyone's mind that there might be a second dip. and every little twitch makes some people jump. when it twitches more, more people jump.

[Jolly Red Giant]

You are right about the unpredictability of the whole matter though, and I think we can agree on that, but I just feel as if your optimism is misplaced. Historical evidence suggests that this recession is a common enough occurrence and that it is not a sign of impending doom for the capitalistic system of economics.

Two quick questions
1. What 'optimism' am I talking about?
2. Where did I say capitalism faced 'impending doom'?

Now to state again - this economic crisis is very severe - more severe than anything since the 1930's. It is not a run-fo-the-mill recession - it is a severe depression in the world economy and is likely to be a double-dip depression given what is currently happening in the USA.

Finally - you have completely ignored my comments about the reaction of the working class. You continue to talk mechanically about the economy while at the same time claiming you are not talking about the recession in a 'vacuum'. If you ignore the class struggle then you are talking about the entire topic in a vacuum.

[thesadmafioso]

Two quick questions
1. What 'optimism' am I talking about?
2. Where did I say capitalism faced 'impending doom'?

Now to state again - this economic crisis is very severe - more severe than anything since the 1930's. It is not a run-fo-the-mill recession - it is a severe depression in the world economy and is likely to be a double-dip depression given what is currently happening in the USA.

Finally - you have completely ignored my comments about the reaction of the working class. You continue to talk mechanically about the economy while at the same time claiming you are not talking about the recession in a 'vacuum'. If you ignore the class struggle then you are talking about the entire topic in a vacuum.

Your optimism in regards to your apparent misplaced hope towards the probability of economic collapse. And you obviously never said that, but rather it was implied clearly enough in your comments. I don't recall putting that into quotations though, so it is puzzling as to why point number two is really needed as I never stated that you said that.

I am not denying the fact that the current recession is quite serious, and that its severity puts it slightly out of what one would consider to be a more average economic decline, just that it does not seem likely that any revolutionary action is possible and that recover is still quite likely.

And I did not completely ignore your comments on the working class struggle and their class conflict, they were touched on in my remarks about the history of economic decline. Just because I did not blatantly spell them out and chose to rely upon what seemed to be obvious enough connotations does not mean I ignored anything. Perhaps your more literal interpretation of my post brought about such a result, but in that case it would seem that there is a certain irony to it all as you ignored by response to your comments, and then proceeded to call me out on ignoring your remarks.

But I suppose that spelling out my intended connotations is necessary. In previous times of economic decline, there has always been a certain level of disgruntlement among those suffering. The current class conflict which you reference has been present in most any example of historical economic decline, and the result of it is primarily dependent upon how these sentiments are handled. As in which ideology has the best infrastructure to capitalize on the emotional upset caused by the crisis. And often enough, in American history, that has been the federal government, and order has been maintained long enough for economic stability to be restored. This is not even taking into account the fact that while the current recession has caused many to turn more radical in their politics, that for the most part the shift has been to the right as opposed to the left, and that while all of this happens you still have a nation where slightly less then half of its voting age citizens do not even choose to vote in elections, implying mass apathy in the place knowledge of the class conflict which we are in the midst of. Yes, you do have some who choose not to vote on moral grounds that they do not support the system and the like, but the argument that these numbers stem from apathy is far more powerful and I hardly think it needs much attention paid to it. The major point here is that the working class of America and of many developed nations is just not aware of the struggle it finds itself in, and is too easily subdued by right wing propaganda and the promise of economic recovery and thus additions to their own personal wealth to do anything noteworthy. The class of the proletariat retains tremendous ignorance of the true gravity of the situation and is too divided as a class to prove to be of any significance in this equation as the situation currently stands.

In short, my response to your remarks on the matter of the reaction of the working class to this crisis is this, they have yet to gain enough political consciousness to do anything that would further threaten the systems instability, they most likely won't do it anytime soon.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Your optimism in regards to your apparent misplaced hope towards the probability of economic collapse. And you obviously never said that, but rather it was implied clearly enough in your comments. I don't recall putting that into quotations though, so it is puzzling as to why point number two is really needed as I never stated that you said that.
Again you go on about 'optimism' (are those quotation marks okay for you?) - it has nothing to do with optimism - just like billions of other working class and poor people I do not want to be in any kind of a recession. I have responsibility to provide for my family - put a roof over their head - put food on the table - pay for school and college for my kids etc etc etc. Like every other working class person in the world the last thing I want is a recession or depression.

My comments have nothing to do with personal feelings - the reflect the reality of the current economic situation and it's likely impact on the working class.


I am not denying the fact that the current recession is quite serious, and that its severity puts it slightly out of what one would consider to be a more average economic decline, just that it does not seem likely that any revolutionary action is possible and that recover is still quite likely.
Why?


And I did not completely ignore your comments on the working class struggle and their class conflict, they were touched on in my remarks about the history of economic decline. Just because I did not blatantly spell them out and chose to rely upon what seemed to be obvious enough connotations does not mean I ignored anything. Perhaps your more literal interpretation of my post brought about such a result, but in that case it would seem that there is a certain irony to it all as you ignored by response to your comments, and then proceeded to call me out on ignoring your remarks.
Maybe you can clarify it for me (I'm not the smartest chip off the old block) - where have you not ignored the class struggle in your comments?


But I suppose that spelling out my intended connotations is necessary. In previous times of economic decline, there has always been a certain level of disgruntlement among those suffering. The current class conflict which you reference has been present in most any example of historical economic decline, and the result of it is primarily dependent upon how these sentiments are handled. As in which ideology has the best infrastructure to capitalize on the emotional upset caused by the crisis. And often enough, in American history, that has been the federal government, and order has been maintained long enough for economic stability to be restored. This is not even taking into account the fact that while the current recession has caused many to turn more radical in their politics, that for the most part the shift has been to the right as opposed to the left, and that while all of this happens you still have a nation where slightly less then half of its voting age citizens do not even choose to vote in elections, implying mass apathy in the place knowledge of the class conflict which we are in the midst of. Yes, you do have some who choose not to vote on moral grounds that they do not support the system and the like, but the argument that these numbers stem from apathy is far more powerful and I hardly think it needs much attention paid to it. The major point here is that the working class of America and of many developed nations is just not aware of the struggle it finds itself in, and is too easily subdued by right wing propaganda and the promise of economic recovery and thus additions to their own personal wealth to do anything noteworthy. The class of the proletariat retains tremendous ignorance of the true gravity of the situation and is too divided as a class to prove to be of any significance in this equation as the situation currently stands.
1. America is not the world
2. I disagree with your assessment that working class Americans are shifting to the right - too much looking at Fox News I would suggest.
3. You clearly have no confidence in the ability of the American working class to act in defence of its interests.
4. You clearly have no understanding of the nature of class consciousness and how it develops.


In short, my response to your remarks on the matter of the reaction of the working class to this crisis is this, they have yet to gain enough political consciousness to do anything that would further threaten the systems instability, they most likely won't do it anytime soon.
In short - you again have not been able to outline any kind of analysys that indicates you are taking political, economic and social aspects of the crisis into account and are arguing a purely mechanical economic point in relation to the depression.


they have yet to gain enough political consciousness to do anything that would further threaten the systems instability, they most likely won't do it anytime soon.
Let's look at the reality -

There is turmoil in Latin America with some countries shifting significantly to the left and opening up the possibility (and nothing more than that at this stage) of workers power. Other countries in Latin America are mired in crisis with generalised class conflict emerging.

There is a Moaist rebellion in Nepal that could (not necessarily will) lead to the overthrow of capitalism - a wisespread Maoist conflict in India (and a general strike planned for a couple of weeks time). There are widespread wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Widespread strike action has occurred in China. Several countries in south east Asia have faced and continue to face widespread class conflict.

Last week there was a one-day public sector strike in South Africa against the austerity programme of the ANC the latest in a long string of strike actions. There have also been widespread protest movements in Burkino Faso, Mali and Senegal. Nigeria is on the verge of collapse both economically and politically. Last year there was a massive general strikes in Cameroon and the Ivory Coast against food price rises. Egypt has recently been engulfed in widespread strikes and protests.

In europe there have been general strikes Cyprus, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Spain. Large scale protests in Belgium, Germany, Romania, Turkey. Parliamentary buildings have been ransacked in Moldova and Slovania. The is a European-wide day of action planned for the end of Spetember with workers in several countries (including Germany) staging general strikes.

In the Carribbean, Guadaloupe was engulfed last year in a massive generals trike that actually threatened to spill over into open revolution and a new general strike is on the cards for the island.

The USA has seen strikes with the Minnesota nurses, teachers in chicago, health workers in Philadelphia and education strikes and protests in California over the past few months.

There is a generalised wave of growing opposition to the austerity programme of world capitalism. World capitalism is in crisis - the majority of US economists are now openly talking about the likelihood of a douple dip depression in the US economy. What is even more worrying for capitalism is the distinct possibility of long-term stagnation in the world economy (directly as a result of the huge mountain of debt that exists). This crisis is going to include widespread working class opposition - it will see the creation of new left-wing parties all over the world - it will see a rapidly developing class consciousness among working class people as the bourgeois class are unable to solve the crisis.

You comments have underestimated the scale of the crisis - have over-estimated the ability of capitalism to recover from the crisis and ignored the growing opposition of working class people to the crisis. This has nothing to do with optimism - but an assessment of the political, economic and social consequences of the current crisis.

[S.Artesian]

I think the issue that thesadmafioso is trying to address is the notion that "this is it!" This is the final collapse, the big black hole from which capitalism cannot escape. That the crisis of capital is the end of capital, and by its own hand.

Crisis is just that, critical, necessary to capital, and to the recomposition of capital. It, crisis, is a result, and is itself an offsetting tendency to the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, and thus acts to restore that rate.

Now certainly the operation of a "crisis" is fraught with danger for the bourgeoisie as it represents not only the predicament and attempt at restoration, but also is the product of the deep-seated contradiction between the means of production and the relations of production, between the productivity of labor, and that labor organized as wage-labor, between the productive apparatus of society and that apparatus encapsulated as capital, within the shell of private property, private appropriation.

So we get intensified class struggle. In the past 2 years we have seen intensified class struggle in Europe, in the US-- the fact that a lot of it has been the bourgeoisie on the offensive is what we should expect in this beginning stage, and believe me, we are only about 1/3 to 1/2 way through this particular predicament, with way, way more to come [the bourgeoisie, looking at the debts coming due in 2011 and 2012 know that].

But either way, the bourgeoisie are not going to crumble on their own, capitalism is not going to sink under its own dead weight-- it will grind everyone to dust first, and willingly, building its castles, not on sand, but on ashes.

Do the bourgeoisie have a solution to their predicament, which is nothing other than overproduction? Of course not. They can't have a solution to overproduction. That's the point. They don't need a solution to overproduction. They just need to make everyone else pay for it. That too is the point. That's why a socialist revolution is necessary. That's why the bourgeoisie has to be overthrown, because it can go on and on in cycles of perpetual diminishment for longer than you, or I, or our children, or our children's children can live through such cycles.

So no... capitalism is not on its last legs. It never is. Until its legs are kicked out from under it. That's why we wear these boots.

[thesadmafioso]

Again you go on about 'optimism' (are those quotation marks okay for you?) - it has nothing to do with optimism - just like billions of other working class and poor people I do not want to be in any kind of a recession. I have responsibility to provide for my family - put a roof over their head - put food on the table - pay for school and college for my kids etc etc etc. Like every other working class person in the world the last thing I want is a recession or depression.

My comments have nothing to do with personal feelings - the reflect the reality of the current economic situation and it's likely impact on the working class.


Why?


Maybe you can clarify it for me (I'm not the smartest chip off the old block) - where have you not ignored the class struggle in your comments?


1. America is not the world
2. I disagree with your assessment that working class Americans are shifting to the right - too much looking at Fox News I would suggest.
3. You clearly have no confidence in the ability of the American working class to act in defence of its interests.
4. You clearly have no understanding of the nature of class consciousness and how it develops.


In short - you again have not been able to outline any kind of analysys that indicates you are taking political, economic and social aspects of the crisis into account and are arguing a purely mechanical economic point in relation to the depression.


Let's look at the reality -

There is turmoil in Latin America with some countries shifting significantly to the left and opening up the possibility (and nothing more than that at this stage) of workers power. Other countries in Latin America are mired in crisis with generalised class conflict emerging.

There is a Moaist rebellion in Nepal that could (not necessarily will) lead to the overthrow of capitalism - a wisespread Maoist conflict in India (and a general strike planned for a couple of weeks time). There are widespread wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Widespread strike action has occurred in China. Several countries in south east Asia have faced and continue to face widespread class conflict.

Last week there was a one-day public sector strike in South Africa against the austerity programme of the ANC the latest in a long string of strike actions. There have also been widespread protest movements in Burkino Faso, Mali and Senegal. Nigeria is on the verge of collapse both economically and politically. Last year there was a massive general strikes in Cameroon and the Ivory Coast against food price rises. Egypt has recently been engulfed in widespread strikes and protests.

In europe there have been general strikes Cyprus, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Spain. Large scale protests in Belgium, Germany, Romania, Turkey. Parliamentary buildings have been ransacked in Moldova and Slovania. The is a European-wide day of action planned for the end of Spetember with workers in several countries (including Germany) staging general strikes.

In the Carribbean, Guadaloupe was engulfed last year in a massive generals trike that actually threatened to spill over into open revolution and a new general strike is on the cards for the island.

The USA has seen strikes with the Minnesota nurses, teachers in chicago, health workers in Philadelphia and education strikes and protests in California over the past few months.

There is a generalised wave of growing opposition to the austerity programme of world capitalism. World capitalism is in crisis - the majority of US economists are now openly talking about the likelihood of a douple dip depression in the US economy. What is even more worrying for capitalism is the distinct possibility of long-term stagnation in the world economy (directly as a result of the huge mountain of debt that exists). This crisis is going to include widespread working class opposition - it will see the creation of new left-wing parties all over the world - it will see a rapidly developing class consciousness among working class people as the bourgeois class are unable to solve the crisis.

You comments have underestimated the scale of the crisis - have over-estimated the ability of capitalism to recover from the crisis and ignored the growing opposition of working class people to the crisis. This has nothing to do with optimism - but an assessment of the political, economic and social consequences of the current crisis.

Yes, you would be using those quotations marks correctly there, as it is a direct quote, but it is quite uncalled for as it was just one single word which you quoted. And your comments truly are optimistic, as they denote sentiments that massive economic collapse and revolution are nearing when factual evidence, which has already been stated in detail, denies it. I don't know if it really can be simplified much more then that.

1.The American economy is so massive that it effects global markets tremendously, and thus the world. If American stops importing goods from other nations due to the fact that its citizens or its government cannot afford them, other nations suffer economically as their profit margins are cut due to a decline in their market, they lay off workers or collapse, less citizens abroad have spending money to stimulate their own economy and to buy foreign goods, ect. It is a system where in the nations with larger economies have far more influence over the economic stability of the world then those with smaller economies, due to all of the aforementioned reasons. I never stated that America is the world, though I had assumed that a basic understanding of economics would lead to its implied significance on the world stage of economics.
2. Alright then, I really do not see any grassroots leftist movements springing up, while we have the tea party running about and gaining more momentum. Yes, most of this has been artificially created by right wing think tanks and fueled by media sources which you have previously cited, but the simple fact of the matter here is not that I watch too much FOX news (well I do watch occasionally, it is quite amusing if you take it for entertainment and not political commentary/news), but rather that the right wing has been gaining more support then the left in the wake of this recent crisis. No left wing organization has risen to such prominence as the tea party, regardless of how artificial it may be. In short, people are angry, as times of economic instability tend to generate such sentiments, and the right has more means (money) to throw at them to draw them to their rhetoric. And the result has been the creation of the tea party, while the left has no real results to show through this crisis because it has not had access to the necessary means to win such support in this capitalistic system of media.
3. Perhaps I do not at the moment, but perhaps this is just realism. Note the at the moment bit, which implies that this train of thought is due more to the current situation as opposed to a definite statement on the revolutionary capability of the American working class as a whole.
4. Petty insults with no factual base to support them are not needed in this conversation, I think we can both agree on that. So moving on then.

In response to your list of various signs of capitalisms imminent demise, I would advise you to take into account the grander scheme of things, as strikes and protests are not exactly the best of empirical evidence to support such a bold claim as the one which you are defending. Strikes and protests have occurred countless times throughout history and led to no such action, so what is to say that they are all of a sudden to take on a more powerful meaning just now? Even when looking at much greater times of crisis, like WWI or the great depression, we see that capitalism emerged from the muck in a relatively preserved condition. I am sure that all of the factors which you cited were present during these times of turmoil, yet we see little that resembles an international collapse of capitalism, which is what you seem to be in defense of.

I suppose that the basic concept that protesters do not necessarily represent the social progression of a entire country needs explaining here though. It is nearly impossible to predict the social trends of the world shifting in one direction or another, as it is such a difficult equation, and since there are not exactly many examples of such broad consensus being achieved. Countries are incredibly diverse, and protests do not by any measure imply that an entire population has shifted this or that way politically. There will most always be opposition to those represented by protests, much like the ones you mentioned. You are using very circumstantial evidence which holds little legitimacy in regards to this argument, and even if we were to interpret you faulty points in their intended fashion they would still be insignificant on the global economic scale.

So it really is little more then optimism which you are representing, I am afraid to say. Your analysis of the situation seems to surpass the reality of the situation in a positive fashion, implying that it is swaying more in our favor. Is that not optimism?

[Jolly Red Giant]

And your comments truly are optimistic, as they denote sentiments that massive economic collapse and revolution are nearing when factual evidence, which has already been stated in detail, denies it.

Where have I said that there is a 'massive economic collapse'?

Where have I said that 'revolution are(is) nearing'?

Now if you want to debate something - at least debate on what I am saying - not what you want to discredit.


I don't know if it really can be simplified much more then that.
Let me make what I am saying clear to you - you have stated that we are in a normal recession and the American/World economic will recover without difficulty. This is fundementally incorrect - even the most optimistic capitalist economist would not make such a statement. The current crisis is the worst since the 1930's and has the potential to be as bad as the 1930's if there is a double dip and long-term stagnation. You are ignoring the potential for working class people to respond to the austerity programme of the capitalist class and the impact that could potentially have on the economic situation.


1.The American economy is so massive that it effects global markets tremendously, and thus the world. If American stops importing goods from other nations due to the fact that its citizens or its government cannot afford them, other nations suffer economically as their profit margins are cut due to a decline in their market, they lay off workers or collapse, less citizens abroad have spending money to stimulate their own economy and to buy foreign goods, ect. It is a system where in the nations with larger economies have far more influence over the economic stability of the world then those with smaller economies, due to all of the aforementioned reasons. I never stated that America is the world, though I had assumed that a basic understanding of economics would lead to its implied significance on the world stage of economics.
What you have ignored is the following -
1. the huge indebtedness of the American economy - both public and personal and the impact this indebtedness will have on the ability of the American economy to pull itself out of recession.
2. The potential of the working class to engage in combative action against the austerity programme of American capitalism - and the possible impact this will have on the economic situation.


2. Alright then, I really do not see any grassroots leftist movements springing up, while we have the tea party running about and gaining more momentum.
I was not talking about 'grassroots leftist movements' - I was talking about sections of the working class (including the American working class) entering into class struggle - and this will happen primarily through existing class organisations. One development that could happen in America out of this crisis is the possibility that an independent trade union based political party could emerge, something which would be a major step forward of the American working class.


3. Perhaps I do not at the moment, but perhaps this is just realism.
Being realistic does not mean you should not have confidence. No matter how bad a situation is - it is always necessary to have confidence in the ability of the working class to defend its interests. If you do not have this confidence then there is little point in being a socialist. Furthermore - a brief glance at events on a worldwide basis - some of which I have outlined in a previous post - should instill confidence in the class struggle.


Note the at the moment bit, which implies that this train of thought is due more to the current situation as opposed to a definite statement on the revolutionary capability of the American working class as a whole.
Socialists are internationalists and take confidence from the actions of the international working class. Class movements on the basis of individual countries can have a profound effect on the working class on a global basis. Even if it was accurate that the American working class were not engaging in action - the fact that the working class globally are doing so will undoubtedly impact on the outlook of American workers in the future.


4. Petty insults with no factual base to support them are not needed in this conversation, I think we can both agree on that. So moving on then.
What I said was accurate - if you understood the nature of class consciousness and how it developed, you would not be making the statements that you have.


In response to your list of various signs of capitalisms imminent demise,

Where have I stated that capitalism is facing 'imminent demise'?


Strikes and protests have occurred countless times throughout history and led to no such action, so what is to say that they are all of a sudden to take on a more powerful meaning just now?

What 'action' are you claiming I suggested they would lead to?


Even when looking at much greater times of crisis, like WWI or the great depression, we see that capitalism emerged from the muck in a relatively preserved condition. I am sure that all of the factors which you cited were present during these times of turmoil, yet we see little that resembles an international collapse of capitalism, which is what you seem to be in defense of.

Where did I talk about the 'international collapse of capitalism'?


I suppose that the basic concept that protesters do not necessarily represent the social progression of a entire country needs explaining here though. It is nearly impossible to predict the social trends of the world shifting in one direction or another, as it is such a difficult equation, and since there are not exactly many examples of such broad consensus being achieved. Countries are incredibly diverse, and protests do not by any measure imply that an entire population has shifted this or that way politically. There will most always be opposition to those represented by protests, much like the ones you mentioned. You are using very circumstantial evidence which holds little legitimacy in regards to this argument, and even if we were to interpret you faulty points in their intended fashion they would still be insignificant on the global economic scale.
To be quite honest - this is bullsh*t - there has been a significant shift to the left among sections of the working class across most of Europe - there is significant emperical evidence for this. The spate of general strikes in europe have been political actions by the working class in an effort to force the ruling elites to abandon their austerity programme. Similarly in parts of Africa (particularly South Africa) sections of the working class have begun to develop a class consciousness that has not existed for a significant period. Are you suggesting that the revolutionary upheavals in Nepal (not matter what your view of the Maoists might be) do not represent a clearly advancing class consciousness among the Nepalese working class?


So it really is little more then optimism which you are representing, I am afraid to say. Your analysis of the situation seems to surpass the reality of the situation in a positive fashion, implying that it is swaying more in our favor. Is that not optimism?
It has nothing to do with optimism. I am and since I became a Marxist always have been optimistic about the ability of the working class to complete its historical tasks. If I was not an optimist about this then there would be little point in being a socialist activist. However - that is not relevent to the current discussion. The current situation is that the world economy is in the most severe crisis in 80 years. The world economy - for a number of reasons, like the level of indebtedness, will have significant difficulty in recovering from this crisis. The world economy will not see a return to the boom of the past 15 years. The crisis will impact significantly on the working class, forcing it into struggle and in the process, facilitate the increased development of a class consciousness. No one can predict how events will pan out - class consciousness will not develop in a linear fashion. Similarly the class struggle will not develop in a linear fashion - there will be victories and defeats. Eventually the economic crisis will work its way out of the system - it will probably take 10 years and possibly even longer. The growth that emerges from the depression will be far more limited and fragile that the growth of the past 15 years (capitalism simply does not have the money - or the credit - to pump-prime it as in recent years). What will be the end result - no one knows. But whatever happens the working class will play a pivotal role.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Wall of text is killing this thread ><

I predict on monday the market will go up on the news about Germany's economy and the gulf coast being (prematurely) re-opened for civvie life. probably not by much but it wont be red.
maybe after a day's gain it might go red again. who knows. the stock market is fucking emotional anarchy. i just hope some capital will be able to move bak into the country(or new capital to be built) so that when the economy takes its next dive, there will be more to seize :D (being a strong optimist here)

[thesadmafioso]

Where have I said that there is a 'massive economic collapse'?

Where have I said that 'revolution are(is) nearing'?

Now if you want to debate something - at least debate on what I am saying - not what you want to discredit.


Let me make what I am saying clear to you - you have stated that we are in a normal recession and the American/World economic will recover without difficulty. This is fundementally incorrect - even the most optimistic capitalist economist would not make such a statement. The current crisis is the worst since the 1930's and has the potential to be as bad as the 1930's if there is a double dip and long-term stagnation. You are ignoring the potential for working class people to respond to the austerity programme of the capitalist class and the impact that could potentially have on the economic situation.


What you have ignored is the following -
1. the huge indebtedness of the American economy - both public and personal and the impact this indebtedness will have on the ability of the American economy to pull itself out of recession.
2. The potential of the working class to engage in combative action against the austerity programme of American capitalism - and the possible impact this will have on the economic situation.


I was not talking about 'grassroots leftist movements' - I was talking about sections of the working class (including the American working class) entering into class struggle - and this will happen primarily through existing class organisations. One development that could happen in America out of this crisis is the possibility that an independent trade union based political party could emerge, something which would be a major step forward of the American working class.


Being realistic does not mean you should not have confidence. No matter how bad a situation is - it is always necessary to have confidence in the ability of the working class to defend its interests. If you do not have this confidence then there is little point in being a socialist. Furthermore - a brief glance at events on a worldwide basis - some of which I have outlined in a previous post - should instill confidence in the class struggle.


Socialists are internationalists and take confidence from the actions of the international working class. Class movements on the basis of individual countries can have a profound effect on the working class on a global basis. Even if it was accurate that the American working class were not engaging in action - the fact that the working class globally are doing so will undoubtedly impact on the outlook of American workers in the future.


What I said was accurate - if you understood the nature of class consciousness and how it developed, you would not be making the statements that you have.



Where have I stated that capitalism is facing 'imminent demise'?



What 'action' are you claiming I suggested they would lead to?



Where did I talk about the 'international collapse of capitalism'?


To be quite honest - this is bullsh*t - there has been a significant shift to the left among sections of the working class across most of Europe - there is significant emperical evidence for this. The spate of general strikes in europe have been political actions by the working class in an effort to force the ruling elites to abandon their austerity programme. Similarly in parts of Africa (particularly South Africa) sections of the working class have begun to develop a class consciousness that has not existed for a significant period. Are you suggesting that the revolutionary upheavals in Nepal (not matter what your view of the Maoists might be) do not represent a clearly advancing class consciousness among the Nepalese working class?


It has nothing to do with optimism. I am and since I became a Marxist always have been optimistic about the ability of the working class to complete its historical tasks. If I was not an optimist about this then there would be little point in being a socialist activist. However - that is not relevent to the current discussion. The current situation is that the world economy is in the most severe crisis in 80 years. The world economy - for a number of reasons, like the level of indebtedness, will have significant difficulty in recovering from this crisis. The world economy will not see a return to the boom of the past 15 years. The crisis will impact significantly on the working class, forcing it into struggle and in the process, facilitate the increased development of a class consciousness. No one can predict how events will pan out - class consciousness will not develop in a linear fashion. Similarly the class struggle will not develop in a linear fashion - there will be victories and defeats. Eventually the economic crisis will work its way out of the system - it will probably take 10 years and possibly even longer. The growth that emerges from the depression will be far more limited and fragile that the growth of the past 15 years (capitalism simply does not have the money - or the credit - to pump-prime it as in recent years). What will be the end result - no one knows. But whatever happens the working class will play a pivotal role.

Alright, well it was amusing for a bit, but I am afraid that I cannot continue this onward in this discussion if you must persist on making comments which completely skew my original words and the clear intent of them, and if you are to continue to ignore obviously implied connotations. The manner through which you make your arguments is fundamentally flawed, and I will not indulge you with the chance to carry on in such a ridiculous manner.

I never once quoted you in my last response, therefore I never stated that you directly said anything, but rather you clearly implied it. If you lack the intellectual capacity to understand this concept, how can a civil discussion be carried out? It is pure nonsense that I need to guide you through such simplistic concepts and yet you insist on insulting my understanding of leftist politics. Such sheer audacity and plain disregard for civility has no place in this topic, and I would hope that you would have enough sense to realize this.

It has gotten to a point where you are just running around in circles, keeping this argument afloat through what can only be described as a tremendous lack of reading comprehension skills. For instance, I never said nor implied anything to the extent that this economic crisis was to be easily overcome, just that it would be. I even referred to it as a crisis in my last post, though at this point I harbor my doubts as to if you even took the time to actually read such words.

I also never stated that I had no confidence, nor said anything which would draw such connotations to the rational mind. Yet another example of your inability to properly hold yourself in a discussion of this magnitude. But specific examples are hardly necessary when the entirety of your response serves the purpose of exposing your intellectual inferiority and faulty logic. Your comments which provide no real counter point to my far more relevant arguments which contain much more historical evidence and superior levels of insight based upon solid evidence, and rather they gravitate more towards something resembling various ramblings on the subject matter of the working class, and how capable and vital they are to the class struggle prevalent under capitalism. If this class is so intelligent and such a vital tool, why is it that every single socialist revolution has so far occurred under the guidance or Marxist intelligentsia? Why is the working class not capable of revolt right now? With all of their foresight they should have the capability of seeing the truth which we see in capitalism, that it is a system of exploration, greed, corruption, and all of the like. With all of their morality there should hardly be petty little things like crime amongst themselves, gangs should really not exist, ect. Oh I know that you have not denied the significance of the intelligentsia in revolution, but since you seem only to speak of the working class you have implied that they are all that is needed in revolt against capitalism quite clearly, and you have not implied anything to the contrary of my previous point.

But all of this is an act of sheer futility against the likes of yourself I would imagine, because it is all but certain that you will not fully comprehend my points like you have shown yourself all to likely to do thus far, skew them out of context and miss some obviously implied statement which you have also proven to be quite good at, or just ignore it because you do not posses the means through which you could counter my point.

How can anyone be expected to carry themselves in a proper fashion in regards to the constraints of logic if they are faced with such blatant disregard for such? Why must the burden of knowledge fall upon myself in educating yourself in basic concepts of economics and history? It is evident that for this discussion to progress further, that you have much to learn on the basic subject matters of history and economics as well as the basic skills such as reading comprehension.

Response in whatever fashion that you choose, it matters not at this point as you have clearly shown yourself to be intellectually incapable of the continuation of discussion on this matter and the legitimacy of most anything you could respond with would be severely tarnished if anyone were to taken into account the foolish manner in which you have conducted yourself in here.

[Salyut]

PARTY HARD. (http://news.google.ca/news/story?q=hindenberg+omen&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:{referrer:source%3F}&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7GWYE&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dXLR0x41CDs-r_M&hl=en&ei=ibRpTKClPMiUnQfhyLjBBQ&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQqgIwAA)

:laugh:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Fight now the 'dive' seems to have stagnated. its red by -1 point. i was wrong in that :D

im going to stop playing stock market guy/gal now.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I never once quoted you in my last response,
No you didn't - you seem to be unable to grasp the old 'quote' button. You should learn how - it should not be that difficult for someone of your intellectual ability and it would make life easier for the rest of us.


For instance, I never said nor implied anything to the extent that this economic crisis was to be easily overcome, just that it would be. I even referred to it as a crisis in my last post, though at this point I harbor my doubts as to if you even took the time to actually read such words.
Well - maybe you can interpret what you meant by 'this little recession' in this earlier post?



In short, if capitalism can survive the Great Depression, I think it will be able to survive a little recession.


I also never stated that I had no confidence, nor said anything which would draw such connotations to the rational mind.
When addressing 3. You clearly have no confidence in the ability of the American working class to act in defence of its interests. you said -


3. Perhaps I do not at the moment, but perhaps this is just realism. Note the at the moment bit, which implies that this train of thought is due more to the current situation as opposed to a definite statement on the revolutionary capability of the American working class as a whole.
So - you don't have confidence in them at the moment - but you might in the future. So - when things are going badly, you have no confidence in the American working class - when things are going well, you might change your mind - and you have yet to indicate how you feel about the revolutionary capability of the American working class as a whole. I think maybe your are more lacking in confidence in your own ideas than anything else.


Yet another example of your inability to properly hold yourself in a discussion of this magnitude. But specific examples are hardly necessary when the entirety of your response serves the purpose of exposing your intellectual inferiority and faulty logic. Your comments which provide no real counter point to my far more relevant arguments which contain much more historical evidence and superior levels of insight based upon solid evidence, and rather they gravitate more towards something resembling various ramblings on the subject matter of the working class, and how capable and vital they are to the class struggle prevalent under capitalism.
My emphasis - once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of Marxism and the nature and role of the working class. And it comes back to your clear lack of confidence in the working class to change society.


If this class is so intelligent and such a vital tool, why is it that every single socialist revolution has so far occurred under the guidance or Marxist intelligentsia?
And here we come to the nub of the problem - the working class are incapable of changing anything - they require a Marxist intelligentsia to guide them. Excuse me for making the mistake in thinking the working class are capable of being anything but cannon fodder. I bow down to the superiority of the 'Marxist' intelligentsia.


Why is the working class not capable of revolt right now?
Even asking this question demonstrates an ignorance about Marxism that makes a mockery of your use of the term 'intellectual inferiority'. You clearly have no understanding of what class consciousness is, how it develops, the role it plays and why it is necessary.


With all of their foresight they should have the capability of seeing the truth which we see in capitalism, that it is a system of exploration, greed, corruption, and all of the like. With all of their morality there should hardly be petty little things like crime amongst themselves, gangs should really not exist, ect.
But sure - we don't have the intelligentsia to guide them.


Oh I know that you have not denied the significance of the intelligentsia in revolution,
I haven't up to know - but I will at this point - The intelligentsia are irrelevent to the workers revolution.


but since you seem only to speak of the working class you have implied that they are all that is needed in revolt against capitalism quite clearly, and you have not implied anything to the contrary of my previous point.
The working class do not need an intelligentsia to guide them to revolution. The working class need to develop a class consciousness and the working class need to build a revolutionary party to assist them in overthrowing capitalism. A working class that does not have a class consciousness will never draw revolutionary conclusions - no matter how much of a Marxist intelligentsia you have to guide them. A working class that hasn't built a revolutionary party will not overthrow capitalism - no matter how much of a Marxist intelligentsia you have to guide them.


But all of this is an act of sheer futility against the likes of yourself I would imagine, because it is all but certain that you will not fully comprehend my points like you have shown yourself all to likely to do thus far, skew them out of context and miss some obviously implied statement which you have also proven to be quite good at, or just ignore it because you do not posses the means through which you could counter my point.
You points make no sense - in fact they are nonsense.


How can anyone be expected to carry themselves in a proper fashion in regards to the constraints of logic if they are faced with such blatant disregard for such?
The only one being constrained by logic is you - as far as you are concerned -
if capitalism can survive the Great Depression, I think it will be able to survive a little recession.
Capitalism may well survive this economic crisis - however that will depend on whether the working class draw the necessary revolutionary conclusions through a developing class consciousness and whether the working class build a mass revolutionary party.

Furthermore - capitalism has just gone through a period of massive boom for nearly 20 years created on the back of spiraling personal and public debt. It cannot do this again - the next period of capitalism will be one of fragile boom, deep slump and ongoing stagnation.



]Why must the burden of knowledge fall upon myself in educating yourself in basic concepts of economics and history?
I bow down to your intellectual superiority :rolleyes:



Response in whatever fashion that you choose, it matters not at this point as you have clearly shown yourself to be intellectually incapable of the continuation of discussion on this matter and the legitimacy of most anything you could respond with would be severely tarnished if anyone were to taken into account the foolish manner in which you have conducted yourself in here.
I suggest that you go and read some of the basic works of Marx and Lenin (even something like 'Socialism Made Easy' by James Connolly would be beneficial to you - then again his wasn't part of the intelligentsia, so maybe not). When you get some sort of a grasp of the basics , come back and we can have a comprehensive discussion about revolutionary politics and we can leave the 'Marxist intelligentsia' at the door.