Liberal Forum

Sorry.. but the way most of you people talk about the economy is complete rubbish. I am quite tired of all debates over whether we are in a 'recession' and nonsense like that. All your numbers and charts and graphs are irrelevant and fake and stupid. 

Here's the bottom line; Humans are life forms. In order for us to 'break even' ...everyone needs to have an average of slightly more than one child (slightly more to account for untimely death)...or slightly more than 2 per couple

and they need to have a decent quality of life. 

That means

1) a single income household (somebody has to raise, cook,clean, change diapers, etc)

2) their own house

3) a decent education

4) a decently safe neighborhood...being able to actually play in the backyard without getting abducted raped and killed

5) the ability to retire and survive as some point (70 or so)

And you know...whatever else is a basic necessity.

That needs to be the AVERAGE. Maybe there is wealth inequality. Say 50% of the people cannot afford this. Then the other 50% need to be able to have 4 children...and they also would need to actually do it...since a bunch of rich infertile people will still cause population decline. 

Such a 50/50 division would be cause for serious concern, however...since the survivors would be increasingly inbred and the people who failed to reproduce may have been poor for reasons other than being useless, and their heritable traits are being lost to the gene pool. 

Now since we survive, it is clear that EVERY European society in history was able to manage this. You might think the English of the 12th century were desperately poor, but they could manage the above stipulations...and even better...since their population grew

what about the usa? What % of our housholds can afford 2 children with a decent quality of life?

I'm sorry...but just my personal experience of the cost of raising children decently and living in a decent area...I can't help but feel like less than 10% of thr people can even afford it. Me and my gf are bothe technically in the 1%, and we would struggle to afford such a thing. I can't get health insurance...and she only just recently paid off student loans. 

So sorry guys...but using a more tangible and real way to measure the economy. The modern usa seems like the poorest country in the history ofbthe world.

Seriously.

All of your graphs and money printing and whatever other crap you wanna do or talk about simply isn't working. We are a dying population, BECAUSE we are poor. Because we are far more poor than any African country with an exploding population.

This seemed to occur along with the loss of manufacturing in this country.

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am

Sorry.. but the way most of you people talk about the economy is complete rubbish. I am quite tired of all debates over whether we are in a 'recession' and nonsense like that. All your numbers and charts and graphs are irrelevant and fake and stupid. 

Here's the bottom line; Humans are life forms. In order for us to 'break even' ...everyone needs to have an average of slightly more than one child (slightly more to account for untimely death)...or slightly more than 2 per couple

and they need to have a decent quality of life. 

That means

1) a single income household (somebody has to raise, cook,clean, change diapers, etc)

2) their own house

3) a decent education

4) a decently safe neighborhood...being able to actually play in the backyard without getting abducted raped and killed

5) the ability to retire and survive as some point (70 or so)

And you know...whatever else is a basic necessity.

That needs to be the AVERAGE. Maybe there is wealth inequality. Say 50% of the people cannot afford this. Then the other 50% need to be able to have 4 children...and they also would need to actually do it...since a bunch of rich infertile people will still cause population decline. 

Such a 50/50 division would be cause for serious concern, however...since the survivors would be increasingly inbred and the people who failed to reproduce may have been poor for reasons other than being useless, and their heritable traits are being lost to the gene pool. 

Now since we survive, it is clear that EVERY European society in history was able to manage this. You might think the English of the 12th century were desperately poor, but they could manage the above stipulations...and even better...since their population grew

what about the usa? What % of our housholds can afford 2 children with a decent quality of life?

I'm sorry...but just my personal experience of the cost of raising children decently and living in a decent area...I can't help but feel like less than 10% of thr people can even afford it. Me and my gf are bothe technically in the 1%, and we would struggle to afford such a thing. I can't get health insurance...and she only just recently paid off student loans.

Just as a measure of your ****.

To qualify as "top 1%", you and this alleged gf must EACH pull in about 600 k per year, 1.2 million combined.

Let's be generous and say you live in the highest tax jurisdictions in the country, and pay the full marginal rate...we'll knock 50% off your gross.

600,000/yr, and you can't raise ONE kid?

The problem is NOT the Economy, I assure you.



 

Blackvegetable » 01 Dec 2022, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 10:20 am

Just as a measure of your ****.

To qualify as "top 1%", you and this alleged gf must EACH pull in about 600 k per year, 1.2 million combined.

Let's be generous and say you live in the highest tax jurisdictions in the country, and pay the full marginal rate...we'll knock 50% off your gross.

600,000/yr, and you can't raise ONE kid?

The problem is NOT the Economy, I assure you.

600k? No. Perhaps I am unclear on what 1% is exactly. We both make about 200k/year. That is enough to live decently in a nice part of the city...but she isn't gonna have a million saved up for retirement...and my income comes from my savings so I can't spend it 


But let's think about what you are saying. A person in the 1% is only 1% of the population...so they would need to have what...200 children?

women cant do that.

So ok I looked up what the current stats actually are. They have changed DRASTICALLY since the 2008 crisis and since covid https://www.investopedia.com/personal-f ... op-1-5-10/

So imagine this....a person in the top 10% makes 173k/year? And woukd have to be able to raise over 10 children without gvt assistence to achieve reproductive parity.

Is that possible? Hell no

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am

Sorry.. but the way most of you people talk about the economy is complete rubbish. I am quite tired of all debates over whether we are in a 'recession' and nonsense like that. All your numbers and charts and graphs are irrelevant and fake and stupid. 

Here's the bottom line; Humans are life forms. In order for us to 'break even' ...everyone needs to have an average of slightly more than one child (slightly more to account for untimely death)...or slightly more than 2 per couple

and they need to have a decent quality of life. 

That means

1) a single income household (somebody has to raise, cook,clean, change diapers, etc)

2) their own house

3) a decent education

4) a decently safe neighborhood...being able to actually play in the backyard without getting abducted raped and killed

5) the ability to retire and survive as some point (70 or so)

And you know...whatever else is a basic necessity.

That needs to be the AVERAGE. Maybe there is wealth inequality. Say 50% of the people cannot afford this. Then the other 50% need to be able to have 4 children...and they also would need to actually do it...since a bunch of rich infertile people will still cause population decline. 

Such a 50/50 division would be cause for serious concern, however...since the survivors would be increasingly inbred and the people who failed to reproduce may have been poor for reasons other than being useless, and their heritable traits are being lost to the gene pool. 

Now since we survive, it is clear that EVERY European society in history was able to manage this. You might think the English of the 12th century were desperately poor, but they could manage the above stipulations...and even better...since their population grew

what about the usa? What % of our housholds can afford 2 children with a decent quality of life?

I'm sorry...but just my personal experience of the cost of raising children decently and living in a decent area...I can't help but feel like less than 10% of thr people can even afford it. Me and my gf are bothe technically in the 1%, and we would struggle to afford such a thing. I can't get health insurance...and she only just recently paid off student loans. 

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You are nothing more than a dedicated denier of why you exist in the first place giving everyone else an education about why economics became a social fruition ancestrally going on now.

When you prioritize reality you sacrifice understanding the real moment to defend ideas that don't exist without denying the self evident kinetic results of genetic evolving doesn't exceed being alive now..

I mean...people should be reproducing in their 20s. Biologically speaking that is when you should do it. And historically it is when we all did. 

Now what % of the population in their 20s could afford to have a family without gvt assistence?

It seems like close to 0%

And if you are white from a normal family, you aren't gonna be getting gvt assistance.

What does that mean?? The whole country is dying of poverty.. that is all.
 
 

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 11:14 am

I mean...people should be reproducing in their 20s. Biologically speaking that is when you should do it. And historically it is when we all did. 

Now what % of the population in their 20s could afford to have a family without gvt assistence?

It seems like close to 0$

And if you are white from a normal family, you aren't gonna be getting gvt assistance.

What does that mean?? The whole country is dying of poverty.. that is all.
 

90% up until 1970's

omh » 01 Dec 2022, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 11:19 am

90% up until 1970's

OK well what changed exactly? Cause tbh based on my own studies the 1970s is the time jews seized power in the usa

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 11:41 am

OK well what changed exactly? Cause tbh based on my own studies the 1970s is the time jews seized power in the usa

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. your mind has no brain activity of its own.

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am

Sorry.. but the way most of you people talk about the economy is complete rubbish. I am quite tired of all debates over whether we are in a 'recession' and nonsense like that. All your numbers and charts and graphs are irrelevant and fake and stupid. 

Here's the bottom line; Humans are life forms. In order for us to 'break even' ...everyone needs to have an average of slightly more than one child (slightly more to account for untimely death)...or slightly more than 2 per couple

and they need to have a decent quality of life. 

That means

1) a single income household (somebody has to raise, cook,clean, change diapers, etc)

2) their own house

3) a decent education

4) a decently safe neighborhood...being able to actually play in the backyard without getting abducted raped and killed

5) the ability to retire and survive as some point (70 or so)

And you know...whatever else is a basic necessity.

That needs to be the AVERAGE. Maybe there is wealth inequality. Say 50% of the people cannot afford this. Then the other 50% need to be able to have 4 children...and they also would need to actually do it...since a bunch of rich infertile people will still cause population decline. 

Such a 50/50 division would be cause for serious concern, however...since the survivors would be increasingly inbred and the people who failed to reproduce may have been poor for reasons other than being useless, and their heritable traits are being lost to the gene pool. 

Now since we survive, it is clear that EVERY European society in history was able to manage this. You might think the English of the 12th century were desperately poor, but they could manage the above stipulations...and even better...since their population grew

what about the usa? What % of our housholds can afford 2 children with a decent quality of life?

I'm sorry...but just my personal experience of the cost of raising children decently and living in a decent area...I can't help but feel like less than 10% of thr people can even afford it. Me and my gf are bothe technically in the 1%, and we would struggle to afford such a thing. I can't get health insurance...and she only just recently paid off student loans.

Why can't you get health insurance then. LOLOL apply for Bama-care  :lol:  

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am

Sorry.. but the way most of you people talk about the economy is complete rubbish. I am quite tired of all debates over whether we are in a 'recession' and nonsense like that. All your numbers and charts and graphs are irrelevant and fake and stupid. 

Here's the bottom line; Humans are life forms. In order for us to 'break even' ...everyone needs to have an average of slightly more than one child (slightly more to account for untimely death)...or slightly more than 2 per couple

and they need to have a decent quality of life. 

That means

1) a single income household (somebody has to raise, cook,clean, change diapers, etc)

2) their own house

3) a decent education

4) a decently safe neighborhood...being able to actually play in the backyard without getting abducted raped and killed

5) the ability to retire and survive as some point (70 or so)

And you know...whatever else is a basic necessity.

That needs to be the AVERAGE. Maybe there is wealth inequality. Say 50% of the people cannot afford this. Then the other 50% need to be able to have 4 children...and they also would need to actually do it...since a bunch of rich infertile people will still cause population decline. 

Such a 50/50 division would be cause for serious concern, however...since the survivors would be increasingly inbred and the people who failed to reproduce may have been poor for reasons other than being useless, and their heritable traits are being lost to the gene pool. 

Now since we survive, it is clear that EVERY European society in history was able to manage this. You might think the English of the 12th century were desperately poor, but they could manage the above stipulations...and even better...since their population grew

what about the usa? What % of our housholds can afford 2 children with a decent quality of life?

I'm sorry...but just my personal experience of the cost of raising children decently and living in a decent area...I can't help but feel like less than 10% of thr people can even afford it. Me and my gf are bothe technically in the 1%, and we would struggle to afford such a thing. I can't get health insurance...and she only just recently paid off student loans.

I would say it's far more than 50% that can't afford it. They have kids anyway, though they can't afford to support them adequately. Thus, the government writes them checks. 

America, generally speaking, has been founded on the idea that everyone should have equal opportunity to attain their own wealth. This is a beautiful theory, but hardly crosses over to application. As soon as we liberated ourselves from Britain, we used exploitation, not freedom for all, as a means to accumulate wealth. It hasn't changed. Therefore, there will always be more than 50% who left out to dry. 

Vegas » 01 Dec 2022, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 1:53 pm

I would say it's far more than 50% that can't afford it. They have kids anyway, though they can't afford to support them adequately. Thus, the government writes them checks. 

America, generally speaking, has been founded on the idea that everyone should have equal opportunity to attain their own wealth. This is a beautiful theory, but hardly crosses over to application. As soon as we liberated ourselves from Britain, we used exploitation, not freedom for all, as a means to accumulate wealth. It hasn't changed. Therefore, there will always be more than 50% who left out to dry.

America has changed drastically since 1800

sootedupCyndi » 01 Dec 2022, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 1:33 pm

Why can't you get health insurance then. LOLOL apply for Bama-care  

i have too much money to apply. trust me, i have tried.


the last time i had health insurance it cost 1.5k per month.

too much.

and that was like what...5 years ago?

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 10:27 am

600k? No. Perhaps I am unclear on what 1% is exactly. We both make about 200k/year. That is enough to live decently in a nice part of the city...but she isn't gonna have a million saved up for retirement...and my income comes from my savings so I can't spend it 

But let's think about what you are saying. A person in the 1% is only 1% of the population...so they would need to have what...200 children?

women cant do that.

If she make 200 G and can't squirrel away a milly by retirement she need rehab.
 
 

Cedar » 01 Dec 2022, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 3:42 pm

If she make 220 G and can't squirrel away a milly by retirement she need rehab.

it is expensive here

SJConspirator » 01 Dec 2022, 3:33 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 3:33 pm

America has changed drastically since 1800

Yes. We progressed in some things but digressed in others. I am all for advancing in technology, especially in the area of medicine. The downside is that it makes us too comfortable, to a fault. I have seen people go full on rage from different software/technology going down. If their wifi is down, then my God. It's like the end of the world for some people. 

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 3:43 pm

it is expensive here

Move.
 

Cedar » 01 Dec 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 3:46 pm

Move.

nah

Vegas » 01 Dec 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022, 3:46 pm

Yes. We progressed in some things but digressed in others. I am all for advancing in technology, especially in the area of medicine. The downside is that it makes us too comfortable, to a fault. I have seen people go full on rage from different software/technology going down. If their wifi is down, then my God. It's like the end of the world for some people.

digressed in the ways that matter.