Posts by restlesscrane152

Thanks for the tip. Just picked it up today. Keyboard feels alright, though the keys are driving me a little nuts. Really wish it had those LED indicators for caps lock 😢

Anyone tried this yet? How's the quality?

Tried digging up some reviews online but came up totally empty...

wiredmason19 said:So, you have this one group that essentially orchestrates an entire revolution just to seize control of the government... I mean, what exactly is so strange about that part...😁

Whatever. Just another war fought for nothing but greed and power. That's all there ever is.

wiredmason19 said:If you had taken a closer look at my previous post, you might have noticed I actually wrote that... once all the other distinctions fade away (you know, when we eventually all share the same nationality, religion, skin color, eye color, and whatever else makes us different), that's when the only conflicts left will be between the haves and the have-nots...

And one more thing... I’d bet anything that the Hundred Years' War wasn't fought over something trivial like quail in New Zealand... oh wait, it wasn't... it was fought to grab more wealth and consolidate power... there isn't a single war in history that hasn't been driven by the pursuit of new territory, riches, or influence...

Even the Bolshevik Revolution...

rustydrifter10 said:I honestly don't think any union like this has ever truly worked in our neck of the woods, though I have to admit, it feels like the European Union actually has a real shot at pulling it off.

The member nations share so many overlapping interests, especially when you look at the economic side of things.
But man, the hurdles are massive. You’ve got language barriers, cultural divides, religious differences, and just different ways of looking at the world... you can't just brush those aside.

It also really comes down to where the European Union is headed over the next fifty years—what its core priorities will be and who's going to be calling the shots at the top.

If you ask me, it would be much smarter if the European Union focused on an economic roadmap; honestly, the organization already has more than enough politics baked into it as it is.

I highly doubt the European Union will ever function like the USA does regarding the Constitution, because even with all this talk of unity, most countries are going to fight tooth and nail to protect their own sovereignty whenever they can.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not some nostalgic dreamer longing for old-school communism, but this cutthroat, hardcore capitalism just doesn't sit right with me. It isn't just about the money; it's the mental toll it takes. I really think it would be healthier to sprinkle in a little bit of socialism—not as a rule, but just as a reminder that we’re living in a society where other people exist, and we all impact one another, even if it doesn't feel that way at first glance.

Europe is already way more socialist than it needs to be. Honestly? I’d go even further—they're leaning way too hard into socialism, and it's gonna bite them right in the face eventually.

mistyhound2 said:How much truth is actually in that?

* * * * * * *

Nothing’s changed. A handful of powerful elites run everything else. And when you factor in that greed is basically a contagious disease, you end up right back where we started. The poor stay poor—mostly because they don't know any other way to live—while the rich just keep stacking more on top of what they've already got...

Look on the bright side—at least the people aren't in charge! Honestly, even if the current crowd is greedy, full of smoke and mirrors, and totally corrupt, at least they actually know how to run things. If you handed all that power over to the masses, it would be the exact same mess, except instead of a greedy minority, you'd have a greedy majority that wouldn't have a clue what they're doing.😂

Ethan Howard said:Ha... you’d almost think he was actually around during the whole privatization mess and the transition era...

Or maybe I just had some blind spots regarding that "perfectly equal" socialism we all lived under... ahhh... let's call them "oversights," shall we? If we even had forums or actual freedom of speech back then to discuss it.

Put the money right here, immediately... but don't send it to the government... send it to the hospitals, the nursing homes, the daycare centers, and so on...

Sadly, even if he swiped those 2 billion, it’s still not enough to fix all the massive messes he left behind, especially this absolute disaster of a Social Security system.

@Patrick Castillo4

When has any government or international body ever actually delivered results?

In my book, the idea of a state or an organization being accountable to its shareholders—or even its taxpayers—is a total oxymoron. It just doesn't exist. These governments and global organizations would basically fall apart if they were actually forced to show what they're getting for the money.

Gregory Williams7 said:It is beside the point. I am not claiming that the Chinese person is becoming the primary consumer; rather, my argument is that the entire world is evolving into an equal landscape of producers and consumers.
And do you truly believe the upper class hasn't suffered losses already? Have you forgotten what happened just a few months ago? There was a wealthy businessman in Germany who took his own life because he couldn't restructure the debt for his pharmaceutical company. That man employed hundreds of people. In this shift, the upper class has lost the most. But, as I stated before, it is irrelevant...

Two questions again—can the planet actually handle that much consumption, and who’s doing the manufacturing? Because let's be real, once people stop yapping on forums about how those poor Chinese people are working for $1 a day, they head straight to Best Buy to grab a new plasma TV—which, surprise surprise, comes from China. Personally, I think people are either super hypocritical or just too clueless to realize that buying that TV basically supports that "exploitation."

Also, gotta mention that this "exploitation" isn't even that black and white. Yeah, they're making a measly dollar for foreign entrepreneurs. Local workers wouldn't even get that much. Their other option is relying on the harvest—so if the crops fail, they starve. From what I see, that $1 is their best shot.

What upper class? We aren't talking about the same thing. You've got a pro doing a high-stakes, high-paying job and managing to scrape together maybe 10 million, versus a family like the Kennedys who have a massive trust fund and swim in millions of dollars. And yeah, people are killing themselves, but suicide isn't exactly news in today's world, right?

Gregory Williams7 said:redmaker33, I was active on the market when the Nasdaq was sitting at 5,000. I stayed through 4,000. I was still there when it hit 3,000, and that is exactly when I exited—just as everyone was shouting that a recovery was imminent because things simply couldn't drop any further. They argued the P/E ratio was bottomed out. Now, the Nasdaq is hovering around 1,300 with nothing but minor rallies, and if current trends hold, it’s heading toward 1,000. Earnings will eventually adjust until the P/E hits 30. Personally, I find great satisfaction in knowing I got out "on time." I will take my losses now, while you can sit around waiting thirty years for a recovery. We shall see who made the smarter move in the end.

restlesscrane152, after all the insults and condescension you've thrown my way, I refuse to respond with similar vitriol. Instead, I will attempt to explain this clearly, in the hope that you might actually grasp the concept:
If an average Chinese person earned the same as a German person, that worker would transition from a mere producer to a consumer. That consumer would then fuel the global economy just as much as the current economic superpowers do today. Manufacturing itself means absolutely nothing without CONSUMPTION. Is that clear enough, or do I need to draw a diagram? The redistribution of wealth is an unavoidable consequence of a globalized economy.

My bad if I offended you. But about this "consumption" thing—just think about what happens to that very same consumption if:

a) China stops being the world's cheap labor source
b) millions of Chinese people stop being the main producers and become the main consumers

And yeah, wealth redistribution is inevitable, sure, but it's happening because Western middle-class wealth is flowing straight to the East.

Gregory Williams7 said:But let’s be realistic here. Do you honestly believe there will be private investors willing to step in and buy these banks? Ever? Not until the economy actually recovers.
Go ahead and start a poll on the stocks subforum. Ask people when they think the Nasdaq will hit 5,000 again. Give them whatever options you want, but include "more than 20 years" as one choice and watch what happens. 99% of them will pick that. Or better yet, ask them when they think the S&P 500 will return to its old peak of 14,000. I guarantee 99% of people will say it will take over 50 years.

In all honesty, nobody believes in a recovery anymore. That is precisely why people are saving instead of spending. They aren't buying anything, even if they have the cash and the prices look attractive. You could argue they are "punishing" the sellers because those sellers hiked up prices like fools before, and now it's clear business can be done at much lower rates. For me, it is a matter of principle. I refuse to buy a house just because banks and developers jacked up their margins and interest rates. I won't provide turnover to a predatory gang of usurers.

Now, to revisit your theory for a moment. It sounds fine if a recovery were actually imminent. However, a true recovery driven by globalization won't happen until wealth is distributed more equally across the globe. We won't see it until a small Chinese person earns the same as a German person for the same job—once you factor out shipping and tariffs. But that isn't the reality. Currently, a Chinese person might still be working for a dollar a day. That has to change first. Without that shift, there is no recovery. Both political parties can declare war or set arbitrary deadlines all they want. Until the standard of living in America goes up, this country will not see a recovery.

Bailing out those banks isn't some quick short-term play—but trust me, it’s way more profitable than just throwing money at poverty!

Back to that theory of yours for a sec. It’s solid if we’re talking about a recovery happening anytime soon. But look, globalization isn't gonna fix anything until wealth is actually spread out globally. We won't see a real comeback until a Chinese person is getting paid the same as a German person for the exact same job—minus the shipping costs and tariffs. And let’s be real, that’s just not the case right now. You've still got people working for a dollar a day over there. That'll change fast, though. But without leveling that playing field? No recovery. Both sides can go to war and set whatever deadlines they want for all I care. Until America lowers its standard of living, this country isn't seeing a recovery. Period.

If that Chinese person started pulling in the same paycheck as a German person, China would be gone from the world stage overnight. All that production would just shift straight to Germany—or more likely, some other developing nation where labor is cheap. Honestly, it’s way better if that Chinese person is making a buck a day than having nothing at all or relying on a harvest.

Blaming globalization for the lack of a recovery or acting like everything hinges on some "wealth redistribution" scheme is just childish. It’s got zero connection to what’s actually going on in the world right now. Total nonsense!

Not even close. The government’s probably just gonna sell off the banks to private equity once this crisis blows over to claw back the cash.

But the real kicker is the message they're sending—basically, "it's fine to screw things up because the government will just bail you out of the mess later."

markotros, if you ask me, I’d let those banks go belly up and let the competition scoop up the pieces. But hey, as a taxpayer, I really don't want tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and dumping all that weight on the government—that's the real kicker.

I bet some of those politicians who voted for the bank bailouts feel the same way. They probably realized their voters wouldn't be thrilled about carrying more dead weight, so they just went with the lesser of two evils.

wiredpilot15 said:It’s a pretty interesting perspective, I suppose. When it’s time to hand out bonuses, executive perks, and all that other stuff, banks claim they're strictly private entities. But the second those banks start failing, the government steps in to bail them out—meaning we all foot the bill. And at that point, it’s suddenly not a criminal organization anymore...

Either the government bails them out, or they end up paying social security to tens of thousands of people who lose their jobs when those banks collapse. Do the math. 🙂

Interesting take. When we need cash for a war, a car, a house, or a new TV, we don't give a damn what we're signing—we'd basically sign away the whole country if it meant getting paid.

But the second it’s time to actually pay off those debts? Suddenly, everyone starts calling it a criminal organization. 😁

Anthony Chavez6 said:My line of work is strictly tied to the American regulatory landscape—specifically within the realm of Human Resources—so I honestly don't believe something like this would be feasible here, though the concept itself is quite intriguing; I suppose I'll have to look into it further. Have you ever dealt with anything similar, perhaps regarding registering a business overseas?

Furthermore, I would truly appreciate it if other entrepreneurs would reach out to share their own strategies for navigating the bureaucracy and dealing with the government apparatus. My personal approach relies heavily on patience and a meticulous, almost granular study of the regulations that apply to my situation. I make it a point to always print out the clean, finalized text of the laws pertaining to a specific issue—this allows me to systematically dismantle their arguments when they try to push back. It is genuinely surprising how often you encounter officials who lack even a basic understanding of the very regulations they handle on a daily basis.

Man, I'm probably not the best person to ask for advice here. The only thing I can think of is that a ton of countries with killer tax breaks offer residency permits to investors. Maybe—though I doubt it—some of our neighbors over in the East have super low corporate and income taxes too.

Just a heads up though: always double-check the laws before you dive into stuff like this.

@Anthony Chavez6

Nah, I mean—why even bother doing business in America? Why not just set up shop somewhere else?

Honestly, being an entrepreneur in the US is barely better than being an employee here.

Quick question—why are you still grinding as an entrepreneur here in the States?

I mean, if you factor in those ridiculously high taxes, I honestly don't get why anyone with half a brain would bother starting or running a business in America...

melloworca652 said:I wonder why they didn't step in at the very start of the 2007 crisis when the banking system, specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, began to crumble; instead, they waited until they were weakened and then moved to nationalize them. They even took over the largest bank.

Then there were the two massive banks, like Lehman Brothers, which I believe shed 1,500 employees immediately and lost $2.8 trillion in just a matter of days.

Then you have the third giant, Merrill Lynch, which lost $19.2 billion and declared bankruptcy. It was taken over by Bank of America, and everything seemed fine until about a month later when they announced they were cutting 35,000 jobs.

As for AIG—which we see on the MU jerseys—once the crisis hit, the government stepped in with an $85 billion credit line.

What happens to the small businesses? There are rumors that 1,600 small retail enterprises will lose everything and be forced to lay off their staff. Nobody seems interested in helping them.

And I am not even just talking about the state taking over the auto industry; I mean any large corporation. This is pure socialism. Imagine being a citizen, paying your taxes and saving your money, only to have a government that promises security buy up private companies with your money just to bail someone out. You get nothing from those acquisitions, and if the crisis persists—with the dollar losing value and oil prices dropping globally—it might just mean the crisis spreads further into the American economy. So, you work your whole life and pay into the system, only for the government to make a bad call on a buyout, leaving them unable to honor your hard work. Or worse, they announce layoffs because the budget is overextended. I think anyone would protest in that situation, much like what happened in France.

Thanks

It's because the government in a democracy is basically slow as hell when it comes to reacting. Plus, they had to vote on that $700 billion, and it didn't even pass until the second attempt.

Personally, I think small businesses didn't get saved because they aren't important compared to the massive corporations (mostly looking at the auto industry here), whether you look at total jobs or all the suppliers that rely on them.

melloworca652 said:Thanks for the response. I guess crimsonranger38 pretty much covered everything for you.
Just to add a few more companies that the government decided not to bail out.
I suppose one has to wonder why the US didn't step in to bail out the banks that were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and triggering this entire economic meltdown. It’s curious why they didn't extend a hand to the investment funds either. Instead, it seems the plan is to rescue the auto industry just to save a few specific people's skins. Capitalism, by its very definition, should mean that if you perform well, you rise to the top, and if you fail, you simply cease to exist. The government really shouldn't be intervening at all; honestly, any time the state steps in like this, it feels like nothing more than pure socialism. 🙂

The reason they stepped in to bail out the auto industry? Simple. It’s one of the last massive pillars left in America. We're talking about millions of jobs on the line—not just at places like General Motors or Chrysler, but for all the suppliers and support businesses too. Huge stakes!

And yeah, you could totally call it socialism. I mean, the government stepping in to save jobs just so workers don't end up out on the street? That's basically the definition!