America the 'undeveloped' country

[Mtsui]

Found this on the INTJ forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46MEqEgdLTg

what do you think?

[avolkiteshvara]

Fox brought him on to subtlely link his chaos predictions with Obama.

Sounds more like he is trying to sell a book though.

[Evignus]

Found this on the INTJ forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46MEqEgdLTg

what do you think?

I think he might be right that there will be tax revolts and possibly revolution etc.. America during the last great depression had very active and effective tax resistance movements/organizations. Anyone who is interested in tax resistance and economic depression in America from a historical and current perspective and should listen to this podcast. :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-12-18_087_depression_and_tax_resistance.mp3

Also, the tax issue is very pertinent and of paramount importance because :

"Don't fall for the liberal-conservative dichotomy. It is false and misleading, and is easily used by tyrants to restrict freedom. For example, our 'conservative' tyrants have given us a 'war on drugs' which has eviscerated many of our rights; while our liberal tyrants have given us 'civil rights' which have eviscerated even more rights. The point is that the only real political divide is between small government (whose harm is limited) and Big Government (whose harm seems to be unlimited) -- a divide which really translates into the question of how much taxes should the government be allowed to impose on us (right now American taxpayers are estimated to pay 40% of their incomes, which I imagine is actually a far too conservative number if the hidden taxes such as 'fees' and (government- caused) inflation are taken into account)."--- John Bryant

(actually at the time of writing that John Bryant was probably right in that it was officially estimated at 40% but last year around March I heard it estimated at around 30.8% which is probably far too conservative a number as well but whether it is around 30.8% or 40% or even more than that percent doesn't matter much since that is way too much taxes if any of those are the current reality . I'm not exactly sure when Bryant penned that quote but most certainly wasn't recently. I have no idea what the exact current estimate is but you can be sure that it is NOT less than the above figures)

And If anyone currently reading is so 'politically correct' and brainwashed as to not understand how 'civil rights' could have possibly taken away any our so called 'rights' I'll just mention the most obvious one for the sake of brevity : "freedom of association" (which also just happens to be mentioned in the American Constitution as well).Also, IMHO political correctness is cultural Marxism so you won't see me respecting such fools. If anyone wants to argue that such 'freedom of association' merely implies political association I would mention that this is false theoretically speaking (since freedom of association politically speaking naturally only arises from personal freedom of association and not vice versa) :


"Freedom of association is a term popular in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community or be part of an organization whose values or culture are closely related to one's preferences; or, on a more basic level, to associate with any individual one chooses."


"Libertarians also argue that freedom of association, in a political context, is merely the extension of the right to determine with whom to associate in one's personal life. For example, somebody who valued good manners or etiquette may not relish associating with someone who was not decent or was uncouth. Or, a homophobe probably would not enjoy associating with gay people. In both instances, a person is voluntarily deciding with whom to associate, based on his/her own volition. Libertarians believe that freedom of association, in the political sphere, is not such a fanciful or unrealistic notion, since individual human beings already choose with whom they would like to associate based on a variety of reasons."

Both Democrats and Republicans want to restrict personal liberties (albeit in different ways but essentially their behavior is the same meaning the difference between them is basically a sham and a delusion). Only Libertarians advocate for small government and significantly less taxes currently. Old school Republicans were for smaller government tradtionally. However, that party is no more it died a while ago and the last neocon Bush regime seems to have sealed it's fate. Although modern Republicans might still be for tax decreases for the wealthy but they are not for overall less taxation by any means. They still want us to buy into their false trickle down economic theories.

*note for British readers the above might be confusing since the political terminology is distinctly American. In Britain a 'liberal' actually means 'classical liberal' which is something quite different here in the USA. Liberals are not related to Libertarians here in the USA. 'classical liberal' in American terminology would be a 'minarchist Libertarian' and not a 'liberal' i.e 'modern liberal' proper.

[Scarecrow]

Fox News proves again why it is widely known for its unbiased credibility.

[Huston]

<snip>

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3J6LNTcJaMo

I have to buy this book. The left-right dichotomy in politics is just a statist tool, so one can easily understand the Libertarian perspective. This is a very good introduction by Rothbard.

Nevermind. The book can be found for free here:
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

[Bking]

I believe a revolution will happen. But the reasons it will happen i dont think will be Obama's fault. We may be on the brink of something from the likes of which its origins are not from the self destructive thoughts of mankind.

[Huston]

I believe a revolution will happen. But the reasons it will happen i dont think will be Obama's fault. We may be on the brink of something from the likes of which its origins are not from the self destructive thoughts of mankind.

Of course it will be Obama's fault, because he will be the one leading. Of course, this will not be the revolution 'free' people want. I.e., not a Ron Paul Revolution or a 1776, or 1789 revolution.

[Bking]

:mellow: ...conspiracy theory beginning to take form.

[Huston]

:mellow: ...conspiracy theory beginning to take form.

No. What is conspiracy theory about what I said?

[CEOofRawness]

Found this on the INTJ forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46MEqEgdLTg

what do you think?

I think people should stop making predictions and start figuring out solutions.

We know we're fucked if something big doesn't happen. :sadbanana:

[joft]

Fox brought him on to subtlely link his chaos predictions with Obama.

Sounds more like he is trying to sell a book though.

"subtly"? their banner on the bottom of the screen says "PREDICTING OBAMA'S IMPACT"

[Gracchus]

Reading this article he wrote in 1997 is not making me too confident in his predictive abilities. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-19970201-000024&print=1

"The house is once again becoming a home, rather than just a home base. The problem is that most households are losing economic ground. in the 1980s people would buy a "starter" home and then trade up to something better. Now they'll have to fix up and live with what they have. They'll make their house more like an entertainment center, and rather than spending their money on travel they'll spend it on things like swimming pools."

Maybe he just accidentally left out the last several years of house-flipping that would happen before the house might "finally" became a "home" (although my bet's on the house becoming a cardboard box).

"The return of individuality will spell an end to the multibillion-dollar fashion industry The bulk of day-to-day apparel will consist of durable mass-produced casual wear. Where appearance matters, the combination of computerization and declining wages will bring custom tailoring back to an affordable price range. The result--personally designed "smartwear"--will bridge the gap between casual and formal: appearance-enhancing but comfortable."

Really? Because my recollection of the last 12 years was going from the more individualized "anti-fashion" to every girl you see in the club now wearing the same $200 pair of 7's and "appearance-enhancing but comfortable" 6-inch heels. In fact, I remember 1997 being the lull right before the sudden Attack of the Abercrombie & Fitch Clones.

This guy to me is bologna, just seems to take current trends and extrapolate them into the future in a linear fashion. It almost makes me feel better about the future knowing that this guy is predicting the "Greatest Great Depression."

[MCYhon]

Reading this article he wrote in 1997 is not making me too confident in his predictive abilities. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-19970201-000024&print=1

"The house is once again becoming a home, rather than just a home base. The problem is that most households are losing economic ground. in the 1980s people would buy a "starter" home and then trade up to something better. Now they'll have to fix up and live with what they have. They'll make their house more like an entertainment center, and rather than spending their money on travel they'll spend it on things like swimming pools."

Maybe he just accidentally left out the last several years of house-flipping that would happen before the house might "finally" became a "home" (although my bet's on the house becoming a cardboard box).

"The return of individuality will spell an end to the multibillion-dollar fashion industry The bulk of day-to-day apparel will consist of durable mass-produced casual wear. Where appearance matters, the combination of computerization and declining wages will bring custom tailoring back to an affordable price range. The result--personally designed "smartwear"--will bridge the gap between casual and formal: appearance-enhancing but comfortable."

Really? Because my recollection of the last 12 years was going from the more individualized "anti-fashion" to every girl you see in the club now wearing the same $200 pair of 7's and "appearance-enhancing but comfortable" 6-inch heels. In fact, I remember 1997 being the lull right before the sudden Attack of the Abercrombie & Fitch Clones.

This guy to me is bologna, just seems to take current trends and extrapolate them into the future in a linear fashion. It almost makes me feel better about the future knowing that this guy is predicting the "Greatest Great Depression."

you reject him because of one wrong prediction?

[rhinosaur]

Why are they in a bar? Did Fox News sell all its studio space?