I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

[c1ue]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

WWII was about European borders, as well as European colonialism that determined who had the most resource rich colonies. To be king of Europe, meant that you were king of the world. Germany wanted to be king of Europe - to dethrone England and France. Germany also wanted to plunder the Eastern European countries of resources. Ironically, no one in Europe really won that war - the US won that war, and got the resources and markets.

Uh wrong again. World War II marked the end of the colonial period because there were no more new colonies established after the end of World War II. Within 5 years of the end of World War II, colonies were going independent left and right.

I have no idea where you get your ideas, but again this latest one - much like its predecessors - bears no semblence to reality.

Global War will not break out solely based on the US output gap. Regarding the US using war to get out of the output gap - we have been at war almost a decade already!!! Thus, global war - involving major players, will occur as you said: "because the water hole is shrinking and the smaller crocodiles get eaten first." Remember EJ's statement, and I paraphrase: war for economic survival, not economic advantage. By then, we'll be past output gap issues.

Again you seek to gloss over your error. EJ made no statement whatsoever that war would break out due to economic/scarcity issues. His view was entirely political.

Instead of acknowledging your mis-attribution, you still attempt to sneak on a back door endorsement of your view by EJ when in fact no such thing exists.

There was no EJ statement about economic survival leading to war. War is to break out as a distraction to the American public from the FIRE/debt problems allowed to grow by the existing entire US political class.

While I don't agree with this, on the other hand I do understand what he said.

Clearly you do not.

But enough of that. You're rather impolite way of making your point makes me think you're not so sure of what your saying.

Your inability to make a clear point, to acknowledge your clear errors of attribution and of understanding history, and persistence in continually trying to push forward your view without any actual evidence - these all show who does or does not know what is being said, and by whom.

I am afraid you completely missed the point of the French example, which I raised merely as an example of the revolution of rising expectations that swept the globe in the late 1960s-early '70s. My point was to show that "starvation" is not a necessary condition of revolution. Far from it. The greatest year of labor unrest in the U.S. since 1946 and the highest ever number of wildcat strikes--that is, strikes against union officials as well as the company--was 1972, which happens also to have been the high water mark of U.S. wages.

Revolutionary movements develop when people's expectations exceed the real conditions that they face by a sufficient margin that they now find intolerable conditions which they had previously accepted, and when there is a current of ideas available to them which encourages their aspirations.

Your point was that true suffering was not required in order for revolution to occur.

I pointed out your example was hardly a political nor economic revolution so much as it was a turning against a specific person.

Your later examples certainly can be used to show dissent, but again if you fail to show actual political change occurred, then I'd think the examples are poor ones.

The November Revolution was one of true change: an entire political system destroyed and replaced with something different.

The French Revolution, ditto. The Communist takeover of China, ditto. The Revolutions of 1848 - which failed - had also very dramatically different views on political and economic status quo than what existed.

Merely citing unhappy workers/people itself is only part of the picture. By your definition then the air traffic controllers in 1981 were revolutionaries, but if so that revolution failed pretty miserably.

As for your distaste of Marxism, or Leninism - which are different by the way - that is not relevant.

[flintlock]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

You need to lighten up, c1ue.

No kidding. I'm not sure if c1ue is aware how rude he comes off or just doesn't care, but it's fouling this forum fast.

[lektrode]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

No kidding. I'm not sure if c1ue is aware how rude he comes off or just doesn't care, but it's fouling this forum fast.

oh come on now.... gnk i'm sure can handle it... anybody who climbs in 'the ring' with mr c1ue had _better_ be knowing what theys typing about.

mr stratman can certainly hold his own (and the more i read from him, the more i'm agreeing with him - even if methinks he a closet republican ;)

[cjppjc]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

No kidding. I'm not sure if c1ue is aware how rude he comes off or just doesn't care, but it's fouling this forum fast.

People for the most part have no idea how they come accross. Someone once said, language is a terrible way to communicate.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

People for the most part have no idea how they come accross. Someone once said, language is a terrible way to communicate.

Not trying to be a pain in the ass, but I would second Flintlock's opinion(but think you bring a LOT of value to the forum, as well as challenging some of my assumptions)....and agree completely with your post.

I wonder if an option for the new iTulip.com moving forward would be an option for group videoconferencing?

My wife tells me I'm far less annoying in person than I am online when she reads my stuff.

[c1ue]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

No kidding. I'm not sure if c1ue is aware how rude he comes off or just doesn't care, but it's fouling this forum fast.

In fact, I do.

I get annoyed when unsubstantiated, sweeping statements continue to be made - and subsequent attempts to reconcile with historical fact are ignored.

Everyone has one or more areas in which they have strong opinions, that's fine.

If you're going to stick your neck out and make a statement, you should be prepared to defend it.

I've had plenty of civil discussions with those who are willing to actually discuss - and even with those whom I thoroughly disagree with.

However, if someone only seeks to promote their own agenda by spewing baseless speculation, then I will not just ignore it.

You'll note the very different character between the discussion with Dave Stratman vs. gnk: in the former I ask for specific examples and then use them to point out an alternative viewpoint as to validity.

With the latter I do mercilessly attack beliefs which seem to have zero basis in documented history.

[aaron]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

Working people in the U.S. for some years now have tolerated conditions (loss of their pensions, unemployment, attacks on social programs, wage and benefit cuts) that they would have never stood for in the 1960s and '70s. Why? They were far more secure in those years. But that is just the point. It was their sense of security--among other things--that allowed them to dare challenge The Man, whether on the factory floor, in the streets, on the campus, or in the jungle in Vietnam. This is precisely why the ruling class has spent the last forty years attacking those things which give people some security in their lives.

I think there is much truth in this paragraph. I wonder what will happen when the _________ decides to cut further back on the bread and circuses.

[touchring]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

I think there is much truth in this paragraph. I wonder what will happen when the _________ decides to cut further back on the bread and circuses.

China proves that suppression does work.

[gnk]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

oh come on now.... gnk i'm sure can handle it... anybody who climbs in 'the ring' with mr c1ue had _better_ be knowing what theys typing about.

mr stratman can certainly hold his own (and the more i read from him, the more i'm agreeing with him - even if methinks he a closet republican ;)

lektrode, your right, I usually can handle it... I think we're all opinionated blowhards to a degree and I even expect it occasionally, and I'm sure I come off that way too sometimes... but c1ue is taking it too far, being insulting on every post/response. It's not worth continuing this debate with him... I do have better things to do.

[Dave Stratman]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

mr stratman can certainly hold his own (and the more i read from him, the more i'm agreeing with him - even if methinks he a closet republican ;)

A closet Republican! Oh no, lektrode, say it isn't so!

[c1ue]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

It's not worth continuing this debate with him...

Indeed you're right as you cannot seem to actually debate.

Each historical inaccuracy you put forward which has been slapped down, you've yet to even attempt to defend.

[lektrode]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

...I think we're all opinionated blowhards to a degree and I even expect it occasionally, and I'm sure I come off that way too sometimes..

nah - and i dont trust people who dont have an opinion - that they are willing to voice/type - on anything in general, never mind on anything in particular

non-opinionated types = The Problem, IMHO

[lektrode]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

A closet Republican! Oh no, lektrode, say it isn't so!

that was a joke dave.
as i'm sure you gathered... ;)

and i know _you_ have an opinion, and an educated one at that - thats why i like to read your stuff... i may not agree with it all, but you are better than most at expressing your POV and i find your material to be quite mind expanding and illuminating - the audience here should feel privileged.

and anybody who can keep mr c1ue engaged without getting him agitated is good, very good... and frankly, i think he's at his best whenever he's challenged, on _any_ topic - and some of us, me anyway - find these discussions quite fascinating, in that more good info - 'teachable moments' - is exchanged here than any forum eye have ever...

[gnk]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

Uh wrong again. World War II marked the end of the colonial period because there were no more new colonies established after the end of World War II. Within 5 years of the end of World War II, colonies were going independent left and right.

I have no idea where you get your ideas, but again this latest one - much like its predecessors - bears no semblence to reality.



Again you seek to gloss over your error. EJ made no statement whatsoever that war would break out due to economic/scarcity issues. His view was entirely political.

Instead of acknowledging your mis-attribution, you still attempt to sneak on a back door endorsement of your view by EJ when in fact no such thing exists.

There was no EJ statement about economic survival leading to war. War is to break out as a distraction to the American public from the FIRE/debt problems allowed to grow by the existing entire US political class.

While I don't agree with this, on the other hand I do understand what he said.

Clearly you do not.

Due to your last abrasive response, I will return the favor and respond accordingly.

1) Sure Colonialism ended after WWII - but only in name - for those that are easily fooled by terms as "colonialism" and "democratization". You know what a "puppet" gov't is?

You say colonies were going independent left and right after WWII. Oh really? Independent of whom? Ask that of 1950s Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Phillippines, many, many nations in Africa, and South America... The leaders in many of those countries could not exist without US involvement and support. You call that independent?!!!! Maybe you should try living in such countries to get a different perspective.

How many democracies were established in Africa and the Middle East after WWII? C'Mon c1ue - you need to get a clue. All that happened after WWII was that the keys to the store were handed to the US by Britain. (reluctantly so) Your use of the term "independent" was irresponsible. (See I can act like a snob too)

2. Regarding EJ - Are you a select premium member? The EJ statement I paraphrased I believe was in the Premium area, which I was a subscriber at the time(I need to renew my subscription.) War for Economic survival, not advantage.... which is an opinion I have held for years. I am on the extreme end of the doomer scale, FWIW. Been so for many years now.

c1ue - your snobbishness, often unjustified, takes a lot away from your arguments.

It's not helping you out. Maybe you should meet more people face to face and brush up on some human interaction skills? You never know, it could be fun.

[c1ue]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

1) Sure Colonialism ended after WWII - but only in name - for those that are easily fooled by terms as "colonialism" and "democratization". You know what a "puppet" gov't is?

So how many of these colonies were established after WW II?

An existing colony which had not yet become independent clearly doesn't count.

But then facts don't seem to matter for you.

You say colonies were going independent left and right after WWII. Oh really? Independent of whom? Ask that of 1950s Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Phillippines, many, many nations in Africa, and South America...

Saudi Arabia was established by fiat after World War I. Wrong.

Iran was independent both before and after World War II - the war period itself being the only exception. Having the same titular family ruling both before and after hardly supports your assertion of Iran being a colony. Wrong.

Libya also became independent after World War II. Wrong.

Phillipines - a Spanish colony taken over by the US in 1904, became independent in 1946. Wrong.

How many more examples of you being wrong do you want?

The leaders in many of those countries could not exist without US involvement and support. You call that independent?!!!! Maybe you should try living in such countries to get a different perspective.

Another idiotic assertion. Sure, many nations receive aid from the US, but these same nations also receive aid from Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union in the Cold War era, etc etc.

What exactly are you trying to say? That anyone who receives an aid dollar is in fact a colony?

How many democracies were established in Africa and the Middle East after WWII? C'Mon c1ue - you need to get a clue. All that happened after WWII was that the keys to the store were handed to the US by Britain. (reluctantly so) Your use of the term "independent" was irresponsible. (See I can act like a snob too)

And what exactly does democracy have to do with not-being a colony?

Nothing. But perhaps this explains your mental confusion: not a democracy, therefore a puppet of the colonial powers.

But wait, many democracies also receive aid from the US. Does that make them a colony, or a free country?

Your lack of clarity and coherence continues.

2. Regarding EJ - Are you a select premium member? The EJ statement I paraphrased I believe was in the Premium area, which I was a subscriber at the time(I need to renew my subscription.) War for Economic survival, not advantage.... which is an opinion I have held for years. I am on the extreme end of the doomer scale, FWIW. Been so for many years now.

EJ's statement is in the public area.

If you cannot back up your assertion with fact, then you should just acknowledge your error.

Perhaps instead you can re-read what was actually written:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...d-Eric-Janszen

I agree that the next great war will not be fought in the way past two world wars were fought, but will have key features in common. The next great war will begin as all previous great wars have, with the shared belief among combatant states that the war will be a half dozen months long, contained, be prosecuted with minimal casualties, and end in a conventional way, with one side giving in to the other. Then, after many years and after expanding unpredictably and uncontrollably, the war ends in a way that was not foreseen at the outset with a scale of casualties beyond imagination. When the history is written after the next great war, the start may be traced back to the Iraq invasion in 2003, or whatever event is seen to tip the balance of power, to get the ball rolling. The war will follow a foreseeable course as you describe as it proceeds according to the logic dictated by the current balance of military power, then suddenly veer offtrack to escalate and develop in ways that no one could have imagined happening. None will choose to fight a "real" world war. The war will happen to them, and could in fact be said to be happening now.

Does this sound like a statement saying that World War III will be a knock down, drag out resource monopolization war of domination?

Or does this sound like WW III will occur because the political leadership thinks a "short, victorious war" will reinvigorate their nations politically and economically?

Of course I shouldn't pose a question since you clearly will not derive the logical answer.