The Big 3 Are Fucked

that smells too much like effort to me

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:so are there any actual facts/examples in that diatribe? thought not. just more socialist bollocks that you cant back up because lets face it you just read it on the web somewhere


judgement huh? its all going to come crashing to its feet hey? looks like its still doing ok to me....


http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/_/_ftse

IF in a couple of years time the FTSE is back to 1000 then you can come back spouting your socialist crap, and even though you still wont have a fucking clue what you're talking about but by sheer coincidence we might have to entertain your ranting. until that point, STFU

i understand that whilst i might spend my day looking at the ftse, most of you will be more familiar with the dow jones. so, here we see the disastrous effect 'reagonomics' had on the US economy in the 1980s. a huge increase. how god damned awful!! But its ok because as Les says its all coming crashing down......except its not. It had a blip. It had one in 2001 too. It can lose a good 90% of its value before it even begins to reach the heady heights of the pre-Reagan era.


http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/_/_dji

The only bullocks is your tripe. The markets are collapsing world wide. Govt. especially the US are creating money out of thin air like it's going out of style. Interest rates are being slashed yet nobody is or can borrow because they are all tapped out in ability to get credit because for the most part we all have lived a lie and lifestyles in ways that are UNSUSTAINABLE!!! The last 25+ years have been one big wet dream... You just either are too stupid to see it or refuse to. Either way you are lost in the woods not being able to see the proverbial trees trough the forest and it certainly is not the unions fault, at least not by any measure a significant fault of unions. It's a creation selfishness and greed beginning with the corporate elites pushed by cooperative and manipulated govt. along with mindless, irresponsible consumerism where avg. Joe and Mary Six-pack thought they too were entitled to live like Kings and Queens. This was the bull shit of a false economic model as pushed by St. Ronnie and others just like him and worse than him. It took 25+ years to fuck us over it's going to take many years of struggle along with a fundamental shift in consumer mentality, market ideology and how and what govt. participation in it all to get us out of it.

You're right, the current situation has nothing to do with having unions. However it also has nothing at all to do with not having unions. What is happening right now is completely irrelevant.

Or ignoring that last line, perhaps you could argue that that the former greed of the unions acting on behalf of the individuals has been taken on board and ran with by the individuals themselves, and that is why we're in the state we are.

dunnas wrote:You're right, the current situation has nothing to do with having unions. However it also has nothing at all to do with not having unions. What is happening right now is completely irrelevant.

Or ignoring that last line, perhaps you could argue that that the former greed of the unions acting on behalf of the individuals has been taken on board and ran with by the individuals themselves, and that is why we're in the state we are.

I think the two points were pretty seperate anyway. Firstly i showed him his example of how unions have fucked a country over and then how that country did well after taking away their power. He then went on some rant about Reagan again so i showed how the past 25 years werent built on a paper tower and arent going to come crashing down.

But it's Les spouting the usual bullshit about how wonderful socialism is. Do you really expect him to listen?

Say Les, why dont you give ME an example of where Socialism has ever worked? I can sure give you a long ass list of examples where it hasn't....

Clement Attlee's Labour Party
Hugo Chavez
Soviet Union
Cuba
China
Korea
Vietnam
About half of Africa

I await your response....

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

dunnas wrote:You're right, the current situation has nothing to do with having unions. However it also has nothing at all to do with not having unions. What is happening right now is completely irrelevant.

Or ignoring that last line, perhaps you could argue that that the former greed of the unions acting on behalf of the individuals has been taken on board and ran with by the individuals themselves, and that is why we're in the state we are.

I think the two points were pretty seperate anyway. Firstly i showed him his example of how unions have fucked a country over and then how that country did well after taking away their power. He then went on some rant about Reagan again so i showed how the past 25 years werent built on a paper tower and arent going to come crashing down.

But it's Les spouting the usual bullshit about how wonderful socialism is. Do you really expect him to listen?

Say Les, why dont you give ME an example of where Socialism has ever worked? I can sure give you a long ass list of examples where it hasn't....

Clement Attlee's Labour Party
Hugo Chavez
Soviet Union
Cuba
China
Korea
Vietnam
About half of Africa

I await your response....

Ummm... Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, England, Canada, America, Japan... I could go on, but every single major western democracy / economy is a socialist state. Further, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and (I assume you meant North) Korea are all Communist nations. Vietnam is doing just fine, and the problem with Africa is not it's political affiliation, but, rather, simply poverty and it's ultimate cause, years of Imperial reign that destroyed the land, demolished natural boundaries and replaced them with arbitrary lines on the map which had little, if any basis in geo-political realities. It is precisely the same problem that's going on in the Middle East.

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

dunnas wrote:You're right, the current situation has nothing to do with having unions. However it also has nothing at all to do with not having unions. What is happening right now is completely irrelevant.

Or ignoring that last line, perhaps you could argue that that the former greed of the unions acting on behalf of the individuals has been taken on board and ran with by the individuals themselves, and that is why we're in the state we are.

I think the two points were pretty seperate anyway. Firstly i showed him his example of how unions have fucked a country over and then how that country did well after taking away their power. He then went on some rant about Reagan again so i showed how the past 25 years werent built on a paper tower and arent going to come crashing down.

But it's Les spouting the usual bullshit about how wonderful socialism is. Do you really expect him to listen?

Say Les, why dont you give ME an example of where Socialism has ever worked? I can sure give you a long ass list of examples where it hasn't....

Clement Attlee's Labour Party
Hugo Chavez
Soviet Union
Cuba
China
Korea
Vietnam
About half of Africa

I await your response....

Ummm... Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, England, Canada, America, Japan... I could go on, but every single major western democracy / economy is a socialist state. Further, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and (I assume you meant North) Korea are all Communist nations. Vietnam is doing just fine, and the problem with Africa is not it's political affiliation, but, rather, simply poverty and it's ultimate cause, years of Imperial reign that destroyed the land, demolished natural boundaries and replaced them with arbitrary lines on the map which had little, if any basis in geo-political realities. It is precisely the same problem that's going on in the Middle East.

By that logic Wally every country in the world is every political leaning. None of those countries you mentioned are purely socialist states. You have no point, you just want to stick you oar in, and you know it. Les thinks pure socialism is utopia. I'm telling him that every government that's ever gone that way has failed

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

dunnas wrote:You're right, the current situation has nothing to do with having unions. However it also has nothing at all to do with not having unions. What is happening right now is completely irrelevant.

Or ignoring that last line, perhaps you could argue that that the former greed of the unions acting on behalf of the individuals has been taken on board and ran with by the individuals themselves, and that is why we're in the state we are.

I think the two points were pretty seperate anyway. Firstly i showed him his example of how unions have fucked a country over and then how that country did well after taking away their power. He then went on some rant about Reagan again so i showed how the past 25 years werent built on a paper tower and arent going to come crashing down.

But it's Les spouting the usual bullshit about how wonderful socialism is. Do you really expect him to listen?

Say Les, why dont you give ME an example of where Socialism has ever worked? I can sure give you a long ass list of examples where it hasn't....

Clement Attlee's Labour Party
Hugo Chavez
Soviet Union
Cuba
China
Korea
Vietnam
About half of Africa

I await your response....

Ummm... Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, England, Canada, America, Japan... I could go on, but every single major western democracy / economy is a socialist state. Further, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and (I assume you meant North) Korea are all Communist nations. Vietnam is doing just fine, and the problem with Africa is not it's political affiliation, but, rather, simply poverty and it's ultimate cause, years of Imperial reign that destroyed the land, demolished natural boundaries and replaced them with arbitrary lines on the map which had little, if any basis in geo-political realities. It is precisely the same problem that's going on in the Middle East.

By that logic Wally every country in the world is every political leaning. None of those countries you mentioned are purely socialist states. You have no point, you just want to stick you oar in, and you know it. Les thinks pure socialism is utopia. I'm telling him that every government that's ever gone that way has failed

No, all of those states are, to a degree, socialist states. That in no way implies that every country in the world is every political leaning. Further I can't think of any country has exactly one political leaning either. You can rightly classify every nation I listed as being, to a degree, a socialist society. Period. You asked for examples of nations where socialism has worked and each of the countries on my list is an example of a nation where the basic tenants of socialism - in combination with liberal democracy and a limited free market economy - has worked. You proceeded to list off examples of hard line communist regimes that have failed. That's you trying to win the argument by setting arbitrary definitions that have no basis in reality, and yes, I'll call you on it - if you want to define that as me wanting to 'stick my oar in', go right ahead. But when someone tries to define a subject, as nuanced as political theory, in black and white terms, I'll say something.

a purely socialist economy doesn't work as efficiently as a capitalist economy. pennz cited some examples; there are countless studies dedicated to this.

all western governments are a blend of socialism and capitalism; however, the US was always the least socialist, which is why people come here to do business. side note: the reason china started changing so fast is that they significantly reduced their socialist/communist tendencies where the economy is concerned. once the doors were opened, business flooded in.

economic performance is always relative. if country 'X' has a socialist agenda, potential business 'Y' will just look for a country with a less socialist agenda until they find what they're looking for. that's why the US became such a destination for everything: we were the most friendly to business. same with wages. why are ipods made in china? because they'll build them for less money than americans will. why are hondas and toyotas better? because they'll build them for less than the americans will.

there will always somebody that will do something cheaper, and having unions in the 21st century does nothing but reduce a company's competitive advantage. it may sound ugly, but it is what it is.

Aristotle wrote:a purely socialist economy doesn't work as efficiently as a capitalist economy. pennz cited some examples; there are countless studies dedicated to this.

all western governments are a blend of socialism and capitalism; however, the US was always the least socialist, which is why people come here to do business. side note: the reason china started changing so fast is that they significantly reduced their socialist/communist tendencies where the economy is concerned. once the doors were opened, business flooded in.

economic performance is always relative. if country 'X' has a socialist agenda, potential business 'Y' will just look for a country with a less socialist agenda until they find what they're looking for. that's why the US became such a destination for everything: we were the most friendly to business. same with wages. why are ipods made in china? because they'll build them for less money than americans will. why are hondas and toyotas better? because they'll build them for less than the americans will.

there will always somebody that will do something cheaper, and having unions in the 21st century does nothing but reduce a company's competitive advantage. it may sound ugly, but it is what it is.

If you take it to the extremes in either direction - pure capitalism or pure communism you'll find substantial failures. Both might be called elegant theories that fail to take into account normal human failings. Right now, call me cynical, but I trust corporations about as far as I can throw them. Being fictitious legal entities it is, of course, impossible to throw corporations any distance at all. I also don't trust governments or unions, obviously, but I think a liberal democratic nation with a constrained and regulated free market economy is about as good as we can get.

It's not like it matters anyway. Civilization is just a fancy way of biding our time until nature kicks us (individuals, species, etc) off her planet.

Fuck people.

quite right, wally.

the interesting thing about capitalism is that it must be fed aggressively to thrive, or even just to survive, really. miss a few meals, and the sickness sets in; then the staph infection...followed by the artificial breathing tube......and then sweet, merciful expiration.

Aristotle wrote:quite right, wally.

the interesting thing about capitalism is that it must be fed aggressively to thrive, or even just to survive, really. miss a few meals, and the sickness sets in; then the staph infection...followed by the artificial breathing tube......and then sweet, merciful expiration.

God do I ever crave that sweet merciful expiration.

the lakes are carbonated there!

Aristotle wrote:the lakes are carbonated there!

I hear that drowning to death is quite peaceful. Once you get past all the terror.

my buddy actually read this book and said it was great

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Breath-Adventure-Peter-Stark/dp/0345441516/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228846679&sr=1-1

Aristotle wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Die-Outdoors-Interesting-Ways/dp/1570340196/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228846474&sr=1-16

Where has this book been all my life?

Aristotle wrote:my buddy actually read this book and said it was great

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Breath-Adventure-Peter-Stark/dp/0345441516/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228846679&sr=1-1

That's very interesting, but I think we all know I'm going to die in the most mundane, boring way possible. Fate wouldn't have it any other way.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

dunnas wrote:You're right, the current situation has nothing to do with having unions. However it also has nothing at all to do with not having unions. What is happening right now is completely irrelevant.

Or ignoring that last line, perhaps you could argue that that the former greed of the unions acting on behalf of the individuals has been taken on board and ran with by the individuals themselves, and that is why we're in the state we are.

I think the two points were pretty seperate anyway. Firstly i showed him his example of how unions have fucked a country over and then how that country did well after taking away their power. He then went on some rant about Reagan again so i showed how the past 25 years werent built on a paper tower and arent going to come crashing down.

But it's Les spouting the usual bullshit about how wonderful socialism is. Do you really expect him to listen?

Say Les, why dont you give ME an example of where Socialism has ever worked? I can sure give you a long ass list of examples where it hasn't....

Clement Attlee's Labour Party
Hugo Chavez
Soviet Union
Cuba
China
Korea
Vietnam
About half of Africa

I await your response....

I'm not advocating socialism Penz! I'm advocating a sustainable economic design built on real growth, real reward for labour and ingenuity along with a mix of some things done by govt. which includes a set of workable regulations by govt. to help make sure we do not go down the same phony path have been for over 25 years. Yes, Penz it is a fact the last 25 years were a big lie in terms of the economy. I'm saying our world cannot keep doing the same idiot things in the economy as espoused by men like St. Ronnie, Margret Thatcher and Milton Friedman and other myopic greed hands and dupes. You can have a basic market economy but it needs to be regulated too. Also not everything in life need to be brought to us by "XYZ Corporation" the govt. should and can do somethings better. Life is not only about consumerism and want 24/7/365. Those who think it is so are the ones who are losing out. Life like all things is about finding a balance, on a larger social scale includes balance in market ideals, balance in the monetary system, balance in what you do and what buy as a person among other things.

An analogy, you, I, all of us are free to get in our cars and drive any roads around us. We can do it day or night, but even though we have freedom to drive and to do so with relative privacy we have rules to follow too while on the roads. No road rules would lead to a break down driving conditions and general efficiency. The market economy, banking, investing are not disallowed nor should they ever be in this world but unless you want to see the breakdown we are seeing repeated over and over we need regulations.

the thing that gets me most about your stance on this les is your constant insistence that thatcher/reagan's policies were completely useless and did more harm than good, because this is so far from the truth its untrue. they are almost solely responible for absolutely enormous levels of growth and advancement over the past 30 years, and we wouldnt have seen half the things we have without them.

are you a believer in market efficiency? i think it stems to pretty much everything....meaning right now the government policies we have are through trial and error pretty much perfectly suited to the world we live in. a drastic change would be a disaster

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:the thing that gets me most about your stance on this les is your constant insistence that thatcher/reagan's policies were completely useless and did more harm than good, because this is so far from the truth its untrue. they are almost solely responible for absolutely enormous levels of growth and advancement over the past 30 years, and we wouldnt have seen half the things we have without them.

are you a believer in market efficiency? i think it stems to pretty much everything....meaning right now the government policies we have are through trial and error pretty much perfectly suited to the world we live in. a drastic change would be a disaster

What growth?

All the growth was built on over-leveraged money and poor lending practices, throw in near unregulated investment practices/schemes, well it's all been a big lie. You can't grow anything by having all people incurring a greater amount of debt. The wealthy nations so to speak use to be in previous generations net savers, now these are filled with a populations of net debtors. All the growth of the last 25+ years is being evaporated before our very eyes, investments in stocks and other markets including home equity is like water evaporating on a hot day. It was an illusion but you refuse to see it.

Govt. around the world still try to prop up a flawed model by creating trillions of dollars from thin air on the taxpayers bill, actually the next 3-4-5 generation of taxpayers bill to throw this money at the greed hands who put us here. The greedy are laughing today but they too will lose in the end as the system crashes. They will be able to point out their billions but the cash will be worth less and less as result of us refusing to accept the sham we have been sold.

Like an alcoholic, until we accept our problem we won't fix it. We will only make it worse, just like the boozer will drink more and more of his/her life away. We are at a crossroads Penz, a crossroads in history and humanity and how we run our economies and manage a greater society will tell all. We can try to ignore the huge monster in the room but it is eating us up one by one, nation by nation, dollar by dollar. You are just refusing to see the facts.

God our species sucks.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:the thing that gets me most about your stance on this les is your constant insistence that thatcher/reagan's policies were completely useless and did more harm than good, because this is so far from the truth its untrue. they are almost solely responible for absolutely enormous levels of growth and advancement over the past 30 years, and we wouldnt have seen half the things we have without them.

are you a believer in market efficiency? i think it stems to pretty much everything....meaning right now the government policies we have are through trial and error pretty much perfectly suited to the world we live in. a drastic change would be a disaster

What growth?

All the growth was built on over-leveraged money and poor lending practices, throw in near unregulated investment practices/schemes, well it's all been a big lie. You can't grow anything by having all people incurring a greater amount of debt. The wealthy nations so to speak use to be in previous generations net savers, now these are filled with a populations of net debtors. All the growth of the last 25+ years is being evaporated before our very eyes, investments in stocks and other markets including home equity is like water evaporating on a hot day. It was an illusion but you refuse to see it.

Govt. around the world still try to prop up a flawed model by creating trillions of dollars from thin air on the taxpayers bill, actually the next 3-4-5 generation of taxpayers bill to throw this money at the greed hands who put us here. The greedy are laughing today but they too will lose in the end as the system crashes. They will be able to point out their billions but the cash will be worth less and less as result of us refusing to accept the sham we have been sold.

Like an alcoholic, until we accept our problem we won't fix it. We will only make it worse, just like the boozer will drink more and more of his/her life away. We are at a crossroads Penz, a crossroads in history and humanity and how we run our economies and manage a greater society will tell all. We can try to ignore the huge monster in the room but it is eating us up one by one, nation by nation, dollar by dollar. You are just refusing to see the facts.

you make it sound like its fucking judgement day or something. the economy has dropped 10% or so below its trend. so fucking what, it did it in 2001 too. If the economy grew at a steady rate since 1930 the Dow would now be somewhere around 1,000. Yes we're in for some rough times and you might need to watch your expenditure, but given that the close today was just under 9,000, we've got a pretty long way to fall before we really need to start panicking. In short, get over it Les, your prophecies about Reagan ain't coming true anytime soon.

Wow... Pennz doesn't know the difference betweem socialists and communists. Unexpected, even for him.

As usual, the answer to this lies between the left wing nut (les) and the right wing nut (pennz).

Unions are not the answer and they do fuck things up.
But the whole "leave salaries to the market" thing is bullshit. With no regulation whatsoever, all employers will lower wages to a ridiculous amount, and where will the workers go? Ah, there is nowhere to go, everybody is paying shit... so good for "market regulation".

The_Edge wrote:Wow... Pennz doesn't know the difference betweem socialists and communists. Unexpected, even for him.

As usual, the answer to this lies between the left wing nut (les) and the right wing nut (pennz).

Unions are not the answer and they do fuck things up.
But the whole "leave salaries to the market" thing is bullshit. With no regulation whatsoever, all employers will lower wages to a ridiculous amount, and where will the workers go? Ah, there is nowhere to go, everybody is paying shit... so good for "market regulation".

p.s.: Shut up miller.

hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:the thing that gets me most about your stance on this les is your constant insistence that thatcher/reagan's policies were completely useless and did more harm than good, because this is so far from the truth its untrue. they are almost solely responible for absolutely enormous levels of growth and advancement over the past 30 years, and we wouldnt have seen half the things we have without them.

are you a believer in market efficiency? i think it stems to pretty much everything....meaning right now the government policies we have are through trial and error pretty much perfectly suited to the world we live in. a drastic change would be a disaster

What growth?

All the growth was built on over-leveraged money and poor lending practices, throw in near unregulated investment practices/schemes, well it's all been a big lie. You can't grow anything by having all people incurring a greater amount of debt. The wealthy nations so to speak use to be in previous generations net savers, now these are filled with a populations of net debtors. All the growth of the last 25+ years is being evaporated before our very eyes, investments in stocks and other markets including home equity is like water evaporating on a hot day. It was an illusion but you refuse to see it.

Govt. around the world still try to prop up a flawed model by creating trillions of dollars from thin air on the taxpayers bill, actually the next 3-4-5 generation of taxpayers bill to throw this money at the greed hands who put us here. The greedy are laughing today but they too will lose in the end as the system crashes. They will be able to point out their billions but the cash will be worth less and less as result of us refusing to accept the sham we have been sold.

Like an alcoholic, until we accept our problem we won't fix it. We will only make it worse, just like the boozer will drink more and more of his/her life away. We are at a crossroads Penz, a crossroads in history and humanity and how we run our economies and manage a greater society will tell all. We can try to ignore the huge monster in the room but it is eating us up one by one, nation by nation, dollar by dollar. You are just refusing to see the facts.

you make it sound like its fucking judgement day or something. the economy has dropped 10% or so below its trend. so fucking what, it did it in 2001 too. If the economy grew at a steady rate since 1930 the Dow would now be somewhere around 1,000. Yes we're in for some rough times and you might need to watch your expenditure, but given that the close today was just under 9,000, we've got a pretty long way to fall before we really need to start panicking. In short, get over it Les, your prophecies about Reagan ain't coming true anytime soon.

The DOW has drop over 6000 points in about 2.5 months. 1 in 4 US homes are worth less than the mortgages, over 1000 Americans per day are losing their homes, the US govt. in 3 months has borrowed over 3 Trillion (created out of thin air money which will eventually devalue the US dollar and all assets priced in US dollars) to give to the greed hands. The total debt of the USA is over $54 trillion, its GDP is less than $13 Trillion. The unemployment rate in the USA is over 6% officially but in real terms about double. Businesses are going bankrupt all over the USA. I can go on with other nations too just like your jolly ole England ain't doing any better, some say maybe even worse than the USA. The whole world is feeling this and it's nothing like what we have seen until one goes back to the 30's for the wide ranging scope and pain. It's not even close to any bottom yet Penz ( though I hope we find bottom soon). This is nothing like 2001. Penz this is a whole new thing and nobody knows exactly what to do about it but many in power want to keep propping up a corrupted and failed system brought to us by St. Ronnie and cronies like him. If you were around between 1929 and 1933 you'd be saying the same stuff you are now "Nothing to worry about folks."

It's not the 30's all over, no it's different but it's likely going to be as serious and as hard to fix. But it's the greed hands and it goes back to men like Reagan who fucked us up by putting us an this shitty economic track.

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:the thing that gets me most about your stance on this les is your constant insistence that thatcher/reagan's policies were completely useless and did more harm than good, because this is so far from the truth its untrue. they are almost solely responible for absolutely enormous levels of growth and advancement over the past 30 years, and we wouldnt have seen half the things we have without them.

are you a believer in market efficiency? i think it stems to pretty much everything....meaning right now the government policies we have are through trial and error pretty much perfectly suited to the world we live in. a drastic change would be a disaster

What growth?

All the growth was built on over-leveraged money and poor lending practices, throw in near unregulated investment practices/schemes, well it's all been a big lie. You can't grow anything by having all people incurring a greater amount of debt. The wealthy nations so to speak use to be in previous generations net savers, now these are filled with a populations of net debtors. All the growth of the last 25+ years is being evaporated before our very eyes, investments in stocks and other markets including home equity is like water evaporating on a hot day. It was an illusion but you refuse to see it.

Govt. around the world still try to prop up a flawed model by creating trillions of dollars from thin air on the taxpayers bill, actually the next 3-4-5 generation of taxpayers bill to throw this money at the greed hands who put us here. The greedy are laughing today but they too will lose in the end as the system crashes. They will be able to point out their billions but the cash will be worth less and less as result of us refusing to accept the sham we have been sold.

Like an alcoholic, until we accept our problem we won't fix it. We will only make it worse, just like the boozer will drink more and more of his/her life away. We are at a crossroads Penz, a crossroads in history and humanity and how we run our economies and manage a greater society will tell all. We can try to ignore the huge monster in the room but it is eating us up one by one, nation by nation, dollar by dollar. You are just refusing to see the facts.

you make it sound like its fucking judgement day or something. the economy has dropped 10% or so below its trend. so fucking what, it did it in 2001 too. If the economy grew at a steady rate since 1930 the Dow would now be somewhere around 1,000. Yes we're in for some rough times and you might need to watch your expenditure, but given that the close today was just under 9,000, we've got a pretty long way to fall before we really need to start panicking. In short, get over it Les, your prophecies about Reagan ain't coming true anytime soon.

The DOW has drop over 6000 points in about 2.5 months. 1 in 4 US homes are worth less than the mortgages, over 1000 Americans per day are losing their homes, the US govt. in 3 months has borrowed over 3 Trillion (created out of thin air money which will eventually devalue the US dollar and all assets priced in US dollars) to give to the greed hands. The total debt of the USA is over $54 trillion, its GDP is less than $13 Trillion. The unemployment rate in the USA is over 6% officially but in real terms about double. Businesses are going bankrupt all over the USA. I can go on with other nations too just like your jolly ole England ain't doing any better, some say maybe even worse than the USA. The whole world is feeling this and it's nothing like what we have seen until one goes back to the 30's for the wide ranging scope and pain. It's not even close to any bottom yet Penz ( though I hope we find bottom soon). This is nothing like 2001. Penz this is a whole new thing and nobody knows exactly what to do about it but many in power want to keep propping up a corrupted and failed system brought to us by St. Ronnie and cronies like him. If you were around between 1929 and 1933 you'd be saying the same stuff you are now "Nothing to worry about folks."

It's not the 30's all over, no it's different but it's likely going to be as serious and as hard to fix. But it's the greed hands and it goes back to men like Reagan who fucked us up by putting us an this shitty economic track.

England is doing worse than the USA and you could prove it if you didn't rely on total debt. Since total debt doesn't belong to a country.

More importantly, the last 25 years have seen amazing things. Do you honestly think internet forums and even free online newspapers would exist if not for this rapid and aggressive economic growth? The emerging markets would not exist and China and India would not have their hundreds of millions of middle class citizens. The world has opened up completely - Google Maps; Wikipedia; the knowledge of everyone on Earth who shares a common interest is now freely available and shared.

The current situation is a correction and not even the fault of government policy. Apart from stagnant countries like Japan, goverhments were generally encouraging individuals to save and decrease debt levels right up until the bubble burst.

Lastly, while the last 15 years was a period of opportunity for entrepreneurial types, the next four or five will be a chance for people who have been responsible up until now to make some sound long-term investments. Les, from the sound of your preaching you knew this was coming and have not fallen for the trappings of contemporary life. Therefore, now's your moment to not just whinge, but actually reap the reward that the foolish masses are deserting. If you really think the last generation of politicians brought this on the world, someone in your position should be thanking them. Even petrol's cheap again.

Ignoring the odd war or two, I think the last two decades have been very good to humans. Now Australia's stock market is sufferring like everyone else's. It's halved since this time last year. It's down to 2004 levels. Funny thing is, I don't recall anyone panicking in 2004.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

Dunnas... don't get me started. You know exactly what I would reply, I know exactly what you would reply to it, etc etc.

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

So pennz is just randomly dropping Rod's name into threads, right after Rod posts? But that doesn't imply that he saw Rod's posts? Give me a break.

Pennz replied to post Aris made that said "hahaha, the preemptive miller attack" which came straight after 2 of Rod's posts.

So no, it absolutely does not imply that he saw Rod's posts. You're the one that needs to give me a break I think. You did this to me the other day claiming that I start shit when you had actually completely missed Rod's post before mine. Can you please go back and look at the posts a little closer the next time you're thinking of posting something like that.

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

Dunnas... don't get me started. You know exactly what I would reply, I know exactly what you would reply to it, etc etc.

I don't want to get you started. I just can't follow the logic that you claim proves that Pennz has seen those two posts.

dunnas wrote:Pennz replied to post Aris made that said "hahaha, the preemptive miller attack" which came straight after 2 of Rod's posts.

So no, it absolutely does not imply that he saw Rod's posts. You're the one that needs to give me a break I think. You did this to me the other day claiming that I start shit when you had actually completely missed Rod's post before mine. Can you please go back and look at the posts a little closer the next time you're thinking of posting something like that.

Rod gets attacked from all sides an awful lot. I was wrong that last time, I'll admit that. I'm not wrong now.

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

dunnas wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hahaha

the preemptive miller attack.

fucking psycho rod

wonder if hes realised nobody reads his posts yet?

Good thing you dismissed his first post which was, really, correct.

I was also proving a theory.... without the second post, he'd claim he's got me on ignore because, there's no way he can respond back to it. Now I proved that 1) He did see it 2) He's got no answer.

Um, What? Nothing that Pennz did proves he saw either of your posts.

Dunnas... don't get me started. You know exactly what I would reply, I know exactly what you would reply to it, etc etc.

I don't want to get you started. I just can't follow the logic that you claim proves that Pennz has seen those two posts.

Are you that fucking stupid? Look moron, I am trying to be civilized here. I warned you, but you don't give a shit. You knew this was coming.

You're playing ONCE AGAIN the "poor, innocent bystander" card, in which you "naively" "do not understand" what I mean and/or "nicely and innocently point out a flaw in my post", when you're just stirring the pot and hoping a huge flame war breaks.

You also know that I will ONCE AGAIN call you out and point your gayness in doing so, and also provide proof on how stupid your remarks were (which is now not necessary, given that wally did that).

When I wipe the floor with your fat, pimple infested ass, you will then reply that I am a psycho and that I am being such a mean bitch to someone "as nice" as you. Pennz will then join the flame war and BOOM! Pandora box is open once again.

I tried to keep that from happening, but you're just so damned annoying. Hit that ignore button already and stop pretending you're all cute 'cuz you're as irritating as you're ugly. Like I said before countless times, you're just a sad, ugly fat loser who feels worse than the rest of people.

You and pennz are the perfect symbiosis, you feel worse than everyone else and he feels better than everyone else. Like an AF'er said in the old AF, "of course, pennz and dunnas will always be pennz and dunnas".

And with this, you tried de-rail my real reply (the answer lies between what the left wing nut -les- says about unions, and what the right wing nut -your boyfriend pennz-says about "the market regulating wages") in order to protect the chav you have such a huge hard on for.

Fuck you dunnas, just be a man and hit the ignore button like you said you would.

dunnas wrote:Pennz replied to post Aris made that said "hahaha, the preemptive miller attack" which came straight after 2 of Rod's posts.

So no, it absolutely does not imply that he saw Rod's posts. You're the one that needs to give me a break I think. You did this to me the other day claiming that I start shit when you had actually completely missed Rod's post before mine. Can you please go back and look at the posts a little closer the next time you're thinking of posting something like that.

You can't blame him for not following posts as close as you do. You know, hitting the search button and looking for hours for proof for your shit, reading and proof-reading, trying to find incriminatory quotes, pics... man, that's so exhaustive. Most people have a life. When you get friends and most importantly, your first girlfriend, you will see what I mean.

When you finally get sex you didn't have to pay for... you will either become a much more pleasant person or an arrogant jerk like pennz, because your mr. wrinkly got wet. Let's see what happens. If it happens.