Interesting thought. Try wearing a mitten on your non-dominant hand for 8 hours a day, except splint it so that your hands can't move at all and put in supports to mold to the shape of your hand. I give it 30 days before your hand is so weak that trying to type with it causes pain and gets sore after more than a few words. Arch supports serve no purpose besides stopping the muscles in your feet from working.
When I ditched shoes, the pain that I had in my joints when I wore shoes disappeared, and I can now exercise many hours a day and live my life pain free. Shoes were slowly destroying my health. Many barefooters have done it for decades and are reporting positive results into their 60s, and even 70s.
I was pretty clear that I wore shoes in the stream, a pair of Vibram 5 fingers. None of the barefooters I know (and I know many) have gotten severely injured. Only minor cuts and scrapes.
On the other hand, there is enormous evidence that shoes with any kind of sole on them at all, the thicker and the more stiff it is, the more likely injury is. Serious injuries like broken ankles too, because they decrease your lateral stability and make it easy to roll your ankle. Not to mention shoes inevitably cause fungal infections if you don't follow the CDC guidelines for only wearing any certain pair of shoes once every 3 days to let them adequately dry out, and not wearing them for more than 1 hour at a time, and washing your hands or wearing gloves while handling them.
I wasn't stating moral superiority, I just want to be able to live my life without total assholes always telling me to wear shoes wherever I go despite the harm it does to me and my body.
And this is/. facts are supposed to matter here. Not 'screw you and your facts, leave us alone' kind of crap.
Thats just it, the jury isn't still out, there are enormous piles of research, not to mention anecdotal evidence from people who haven't worn shoes for years, in environments from woodland trails to urban wastelands, never with any issues, everything from walking to sprinting.
Second, there has never been a study, a research paper, or any evidence whatsoever that footwear can provide any kind of help whatsoever, but tons of evidence that shoes are incredibly harmful.
I read through the article he posted, and it was full of hate language, the language was angry and just smelled of bias, and the information presented was the same old urban myths about the possible benefits of shoes that have never been proven, but are often disproven.
And let me guess, you wear shoes all the time? The skin on your feet is probably what, 1/8 of an inch thick? 1/16th? That is not natural. The skin on my feet is more like 1/4 inch thick, soft and leathery, and I have never gotten a sliver in 2 years of urban barefooting, walking over broken glass for part of my walks every single day, traversing more than 2 miles per day. So Bullshit on you.
Assuming that was attacking me (as it was a response to my message) then let me just say that that is totally fallacious. I know podiatrists and have been going barefoot for years, as have hundreds of others on www.barefooters.org and none of us have ever had a parasite issue, none of us have ever run into anything but minor injuries and cuts (nothing comparable to a broken ankle though), and it foot wear does far more harm than good.
Take this for example: Going barefoot, there is a *small chance* of minor injury like cuts and scrapes. Wearing shoes, there is a *large chance* of major injuries like broken ankles, permanent ankle, knee, hip, back joint damage and it is *inevitable* that you will acquire fungal infections of the foot wearing closed shoes more than 2 hours a day.
I would take small chance of minor injury over large chance of major injury and inevitable health problems in eventuality.
All parasites that enter the human body do so through the digestive track, from either end, with a few exceptions that enter the body anywhere on the skin, and those are far more likely to penetrate the thin skin of the arms, legs, chest, stomach, back, than they are to enter the very thick, strong skin on the soles of the feet or the palms of the hand.
Clearly you are misinformed, there are huge bodies of research studying the biomechanics of walking in and out of shoes. Shoes force feet into unnaturally contorted positions, permanently deforming them, atrophying the muscles and skin, and destroying a persons feet.
Two years ago, I wore shoes all the time, I had nasty, ugly feet. I have been going barefoot for two years, and my feet have transformed to looking absolutely sexy. Most girls I know agree with me, and many other time lapse photos of barefooters feet show drastic improvements once shoes have been ditched. Clearly you don't have a fucking clue.
That article was poorly written, sickeningly biased, presented no evidence, no studies, no anything at all to back up its claims.
Two years ago, when I walked long distance, my ankles hurt, my feet hurt, my knees and back hurt, and I wore shoes with strong arch supports. Fast forward to today, after 2 years of no footwear whatsoever, and I have no foot, ankle, knee, or back pain at all anymore.
Those are all completely false allegations. First of all, anything large you can avoid stepping on, and anything small doesn't penetrate the skin. Worms need an opening to get through, and in primitive peoples entered most often from the food people ate, not from the surface of the skin.
Also, shoes increase the likelihood of getting an injury infected. Shoes are, like I said, warm, dark, and dank. Perfect for bacteria to grow and multiply. Wearing shoes keeps the injuring material in the foot, and the hazard carries bacteria from the shoe into the wound.
Also, the furthest back record of shoes is 10,000 years ago, and in those cases all that was found was simple, flexible leather soles. The first record of closed toed shoes was only 3,000 years ago, and the first record of rigid soled shoes was purely high fashion around the past few hundred years, but barefooting has been standard behavior for almost everyone in society everywhere in the world except China and parts of the Arab world for all but the past 40 years.
It appears you are not only clueless, but deluded, moronic, and prone to make snap judgements when you have no information pertaining to the subject at hand. It is people like you that have allowed sick bastards to work their way into our legal system for the express purpose of making the rich richer at the expense of everybody else in society, while hurting business, markets, consumers, the environment, and long term economic and political stability. You should be ashamed.
Also, I have a pair of Vibram 5 fingers only because footwear is required in my chemistry labs, and for a research project I did last semester that involved studying an urban stream full of rusted metal, glass, and crap like that that was obstructed from view by murky water and mud. For everyday walking, I much prefer to keep my feet out in the open air, showing off my wonderfully well kept feet and bold colors of nail polish. Not in those disgusting foot coffins thank you.
Hominids have been walking barefoot for 1.5 million years. We had simple sandals, thin leather, to make running long distances easier. Right now we don't have that, we have thick, obstructive, ridiculous blocks of plastic.
Also, thin slivers of wood, cactus needles, rocks, and obsidian, snakes, and any other harmful things to step on. People dealt with it, and shoes were at most for occassional use, or very cold weather. Not this 24/7 obsession with the beastly shit.
Go barefoot. It is healthy, clean, fun, cheap, easy, etc. The dangers that you will undoubtedly list in response to this are not dangerous at all, I, and many people I know, have spent years walking long distances, even running them, totally barefoot on everything from gravel to bushwhacking to hot asphalt. Shoes collect sweat and hold it against the skin, in a dank, warm, dark environment. Perfect for growing fungus and bacteria. The feet of a barefooter look leaps and bounds better those of a shoe-person.
So seriously, if you want to be environmentally friendly, just stop wearing shoes altogether.
You used highly specific and abnormal language to describe taxation that is only found in Anarchist cults, and the so called libertarians and tea partiers right now.
You also confuse an insult with a fallacy. I address your points in the linked comment, I could insult you all day and it makes no difference to the quality of my arguments.
You said "Also, the only entity in the whole situation capable of "holding a knife" to anyone (using force and violence) is the government." in direct connection to taxation, which I was contradicting by saying that economic forces are more powerful than violence, and more effective, and harder to throw off of your back.
See, your entire argument for ignoring everything I said was an ad hominem. You really should take a refresher course in logic.
See my comment here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1996634&cid=35223640 For a detailed account of the ways in which you are wrong about economics, and percieving the situation in an infantile and incorrect way that neglects many factors ofbusiness.
Also, your language shows you are part of the growing anarchist cult, and in my experience cultists like you are completely and incapable of reasoning whatsoever, or accepting facts that contradict their opinion. I spent months debating an anarchist not too long ago, and even after I had systematically deconstructed everything they said, explained exactly how and why they were wrong in great detail, and provided strong evidence to back up all of my claims and disprove theirs, they still would not give up, and eventually started throwing crazy profanities at me, then just stopped replying entirely.
If you think the government is the only one removing wealth from people, then you need to consider that economic forces can get people to bow to your will far more easily than violence can, and companies that are large enough to control the markets, keep others out of the markets, and keep workers too poor to start a competing business are doing just that, holding a proverbial knife at their throat, except this knife is not violence, it is poverty and eventual starvation. If you can't see that, then I am positive you will not be able to understand, to any extent whatsoever, the enormous capacity with which you are wrong.
It is absolutely not true that people stop donating to fake charities. Just look at TOMS shoes, they perpetuate terrible working conditions by manufacturing their shoes in sweatshops in 3rd world countries, charge huge markups to sell them to people, the companies top brass are filthy rich, and they force shoes into new markets where study after study shows them doing more harm than good, and many people, including myself, have spread as much information about this scam as possible, but its business still grows every year.
Next, you make a massive logical error that leaves a hole so big you could fit the earth threw it, that all Republicans make and none of them realize. If you stopped all welfare programs right now, millions would have no source of income. Now lets say they all have to get jobs to make money, as you suggest they should do, as if they are jobless right now because they are lazy. But there are no jobs. There aren't even enough jobs for those who are looking, and without capital, and without growing markets, nobody in poverty could start a new business or make jobs. The simple fact of the matter is that most on unemployment, social security, and many on welfare are trying to make better lives for themselves, and are trying to contribute to society, but are part of a system which does not allow it, in which there is no possible way for them to make money, to get an education, or to do anything with their lives. Many of these education programs are to get low income earners and the totally impoverished into a position where they can get a real job, or start a business, or contribute to society, not to throwing money down a pit.
Also, there are very few documented cases of people turning down jobs because unemployment is better, and unemployment is for a finite time, then it expires and you are without a job. In any system there are bound to be anomalies, but I can guarantee you they account for less than.001% of the total number of people on government assistance.
Also, you try getting a job without any knowledge of relevant new culture, access to the internet at home, or a way to be reached any time. These are necessities of the modern world to get any kind of job out there at all, and are often cheaper than driving to communicate with friends and family.
Your ignorance on these issues is stunning, and clearly you have not spent any time whatsoever examining your own political or economic thought on these issues, and you clearly have never been, and know nobody in such situations. I advise you educate yourself on the issues and get a grip on reality before it gets a grip on you.
"some economists" who claim government help prolonged the great depression are idiots. Total idiots. their theory of why this is so is based on the idea that markets are inherently cyclical and will always rise and fall and then rise again, and that any interference hurts this 'natural' process. But that is entirely psuedoscience with no basis whatsoever in reality, no causal explanations, and no facts to back it up. In reality, economic downturns happen whenever markets shrink, or do not grow fast enough to keep up with the growth of businesses. This happens (in the modern era) due to serious issues in problems with financial products and debt, and the way people are paid for their work. You see, businesses exploit workers, they make far more profit off of the work of the workers than the workers make. People do not get paid fairly for the work that they do. This alone is not a problem (besides an ethical one) until you examine what work they do and how their exploitation effects the market.
So lets say we have this guy, John, making cars. For simplicity sake, lets just say he builds the entire car. His boss buys parts for 1,000 dollars. His boss then sells the car for 20,000 dollars and pays John 500 dollars. If john then wants to buy a car, he has to build 40 cars in order to be able to afford one. On the large scale of businesses and interacting market forces, excessive
And you have placed me in a category to which I don't belong and assumed I take sides, which I can only imagine is your projection of your hate of non-you onto me by placing me in a category of people which you fundamentally hate.
Also, your post is bland and it is difficult to tell exactly what you are referring to, but it is worth point out that a "stimulus" to the rich because they held a knife to the throat of the economy and said give us a shit ton of money or we will slit her throat, and pumping money into the markets to grow them so that businesses can grow, develop, and hire more people.
But your statement paints the massive individualized corruption as if it were the ultimate end goal of massive groups of people working together on both sides, which is indeed a conspiracy theory. There is no doubt however, that individualized corruption is rampant and nasty.
Sure, there are mild similarities. The differences are more important here though, as the Glenn Becks of the world are doing it for profit, and others are doing it to make the world a better place for themselves, their children, and others.
True, but I hate the cold and love the land and a good number of the people in this country.
And true, democrats aren't much better, especially lately making so many concessions to republicans on important pro-average person legislation. Certainly better than the party whose stated goal is basically (after applying economics to it) "lets sink America's Economy as far as possible so that the top 5% can get richer"
Of course, disproving a concept that is by definition impossible to prove or disprove hasn't been done. But there is no evidence whatsoever for believing in any of the biblical stories whatsoever, and any reasonable person looking at the evidence before them could piece together the sociological process by which religion developed, and is a total load of bull that nobody should subject themselves to.
Its like saying "I believe there is a tea kettle orbiting mars" You have no evidence to prove it, and it is certainly possible, but there is also no evidence whatsoever that it is true, and basing your entire life on such a posit is infinitely absurd, childish, and disgusting.
That is absolutely not true at all, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Tell you what, go take a class in thermodynamics, then research global warming just a little bit, and if you don't realize how much of a dumbass you were in the above statement by then, you might as well kill yourself.
The difference? Michael Moore's documentaries reflect the lives of real americans, some of whom are in the same situation as many I know. Nothing fear mongering or evil about bringing the everday reality of the non-rich to the well off. Al Gore? An idiot that exaggerated global warming, it is an issue, many cities will be under water, but there ain't shit we can do about it. We can live more efficient lives and more sustainable ones though, as that is better not just for earth, but for us and our wallets., and I don't know George Soros.
Murdoch, Limbaugh, and Beck make up total fairy tales and nothing they say passes even a rudamentary fact check. They scare people with fears of demons, evil, communism, and other bullshit like that.
McCain knows how to make the rich richer, he doesn't know how to get an economy running well. Low taxes for the rich and cutting all government spending historically have harmed and shrank the markets, like in the mid-late 1920s. As the businesses kept growing even though the markets had shrank because of government withdrawl, and so much crap was based on margin, that shit went to hell. Same thing happened in 2008.
That is the cornerstone of republican economics, and it is doomed to fail in all cases. I don't know how you defend them.
Also, charities often lie and steal from donars and make people rich. Shit happens, and they walk away with money. Governments, you fire them and hire new people.
Does the welfare system need massive improvement? Yes, do we need to take away the only source of income for millions with no alternate plan, just because they are dirty poor people? If you said yes, then you said Republican. If you said no, you said democrat.
And really, none of these changes can happen because republicans won't let reform occur in any of these areas, they just brand it communist satan devil gay sex and vote it down. So if you want shit to go well, don't vote republican.
1929 and 2008. Two notable examples. By destroyed I don't mean everybody is dead and the nation is over, I mean shit sucks for a lot of people and we have failed (if even temporarily) as a nation to do what is right and do it well.
Slashdot Mirror
The danger of invasive species is indeed a big worry with a product like this, ignoring its other, more pressing and short term problems.
Interesting thought. Try wearing a mitten on your non-dominant hand for 8 hours a day, except splint it so that your hands can't move at all and put in supports to mold to the shape of your hand. I give it 30 days before your hand is so weak that trying to type with it causes pain and gets sore after more than a few words. Arch supports serve no purpose besides stopping the muscles in your feet from working.
When I ditched shoes, the pain that I had in my joints when I wore shoes disappeared, and I can now exercise many hours a day and live my life pain free. Shoes were slowly destroying my health. Many barefooters have done it for decades and are reporting positive results into their 60s, and even 70s.
I was pretty clear that I wore shoes in the stream, a pair of Vibram 5 fingers. None of the barefooters I know (and I know many) have gotten severely injured. Only minor cuts and scrapes.
On the other hand, there is enormous evidence that shoes with any kind of sole on them at all, the thicker and the more stiff it is, the more likely injury is. Serious injuries like broken ankles too, because they decrease your lateral stability and make it easy to roll your ankle. Not to mention shoes inevitably cause fungal infections if you don't follow the CDC guidelines for only wearing any certain pair of shoes once every 3 days to let them adequately dry out, and not wearing them for more than 1 hour at a time, and washing your hands or wearing gloves while handling them.
I wasn't stating moral superiority, I just want to be able to live my life without total assholes always telling me to wear shoes wherever I go despite the harm it does to me and my body.
And this is /. facts are supposed to matter here. Not 'screw you and your facts, leave us alone' kind of crap.
Thats just it, the jury isn't still out, there are enormous piles of research, not to mention anecdotal evidence from people who haven't worn shoes for years, in environments from woodland trails to urban wastelands, never with any issues, everything from walking to sprinting.
Second, there has never been a study, a research paper, or any evidence whatsoever that footwear can provide any kind of help whatsoever, but tons of evidence that shoes are incredibly harmful.
I read through the article he posted, and it was full of hate language, the language was angry and just smelled of bias, and the information presented was the same old urban myths about the possible benefits of shoes that have never been proven, but are often disproven.
And let me guess, you wear shoes all the time? The skin on your feet is probably what, 1/8 of an inch thick? 1/16th? That is not natural. The skin on my feet is more like 1/4 inch thick, soft and leathery, and I have never gotten a sliver in 2 years of urban barefooting, walking over broken glass for part of my walks every single day, traversing more than 2 miles per day. So Bullshit on you.
Assuming that was attacking me (as it was a response to my message) then let me just say that that is totally fallacious. I know podiatrists and have been going barefoot for years, as have hundreds of others on www.barefooters.org and none of us have ever had a parasite issue, none of us have ever run into anything but minor injuries and cuts (nothing comparable to a broken ankle though), and it foot wear does far more harm than good.
Take this for example: Going barefoot, there is a *small chance* of minor injury like cuts and scrapes. Wearing shoes, there is a *large chance* of major injuries like broken ankles, permanent ankle, knee, hip, back joint damage and it is *inevitable* that you will acquire fungal infections of the foot wearing closed shoes more than 2 hours a day.
I would take small chance of minor injury over large chance of major injury and inevitable health problems in eventuality.
All parasites that enter the human body do so through the digestive track, from either end, with a few exceptions that enter the body anywhere on the skin, and those are far more likely to penetrate the thin skin of the arms, legs, chest, stomach, back, than they are to enter the very thick, strong skin on the soles of the feet or the palms of the hand.
But don't let facts stop you.
Clearly you are misinformed, there are huge bodies of research studying the biomechanics of walking in and out of shoes. Shoes force feet into unnaturally contorted positions, permanently deforming them, atrophying the muscles and skin, and destroying a persons feet.
Two years ago, I wore shoes all the time, I had nasty, ugly feet. I have been going barefoot for two years, and my feet have transformed to looking absolutely sexy. Most girls I know agree with me, and many other time lapse photos of barefooters feet show drastic improvements once shoes have been ditched. Clearly you don't have a fucking clue.
That article was poorly written, sickeningly biased, presented no evidence, no studies, no anything at all to back up its claims.
Two years ago, when I walked long distance, my ankles hurt, my feet hurt, my knees and back hurt, and I wore shoes with strong arch supports. Fast forward to today, after 2 years of no footwear whatsoever, and I have no foot, ankle, knee, or back pain at all anymore.
You should be modded -5 Troll
Those are all completely false allegations. First of all, anything large you can avoid stepping on, and anything small doesn't penetrate the skin. Worms need an opening to get through, and in primitive peoples entered most often from the food people ate, not from the surface of the skin.
Also, shoes increase the likelihood of getting an injury infected. Shoes are, like I said, warm, dark, and dank. Perfect for bacteria to grow and multiply. Wearing shoes keeps the injuring material in the foot, and the hazard carries bacteria from the shoe into the wound.
Also, the furthest back record of shoes is 10,000 years ago, and in those cases all that was found was simple, flexible leather soles. The first record of closed toed shoes was only 3,000 years ago, and the first record of rigid soled shoes was purely high fashion around the past few hundred years, but barefooting has been standard behavior for almost everyone in society everywhere in the world except China and parts of the Arab world for all but the past 40 years.
It appears you are not only clueless, but deluded, moronic, and prone to make snap judgements when you have no information pertaining to the subject at hand. It is people like you that have allowed sick bastards to work their way into our legal system for the express purpose of making the rich richer at the expense of everybody else in society, while hurting business, markets, consumers, the environment, and long term economic and political stability. You should be ashamed.
Also, I have a pair of Vibram 5 fingers only because footwear is required in my chemistry labs, and for a research project I did last semester that involved studying an urban stream full of rusted metal, glass, and crap like that that was obstructed from view by murky water and mud. For everyday walking, I much prefer to keep my feet out in the open air, showing off my wonderfully well kept feet and bold colors of nail polish. Not in those disgusting foot coffins thank you.
Anything that small doesn't penetrate the skin.
Hominids have been walking barefoot for 1.5 million years. We had simple sandals, thin leather, to make running long distances easier. Right now we don't have that, we have thick, obstructive, ridiculous blocks of plastic.
Also, thin slivers of wood, cactus needles, rocks, and obsidian, snakes, and any other harmful things to step on. People dealt with it, and shoes were at most for occassional use, or very cold weather. Not this 24/7 obsession with the beastly shit.
Go barefoot. It is healthy, clean, fun, cheap, easy, etc. The dangers that you will undoubtedly list in response to this are not dangerous at all, I, and many people I know, have spent years walking long distances, even running them, totally barefoot on everything from gravel to bushwhacking to hot asphalt. Shoes collect sweat and hold it against the skin, in a dank, warm, dark environment. Perfect for growing fungus and bacteria. The feet of a barefooter look leaps and bounds better those of a shoe-person.
So seriously, if you want to be environmentally friendly, just stop wearing shoes altogether.
You used highly specific and abnormal language to describe taxation that is only found in Anarchist cults, and the so called libertarians and tea partiers right now.
You also confuse an insult with a fallacy. I address your points in the linked comment, I could insult you all day and it makes no difference to the quality of my arguments.
You said "Also, the only entity in the whole situation capable of "holding a knife" to anyone (using force and violence) is the government." in direct connection to taxation, which I was contradicting by saying that economic forces are more powerful than violence, and more effective, and harder to throw off of your back.
See, your entire argument for ignoring everything I said was an ad hominem. You really should take a refresher course in logic.
See my comment here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1996634&cid=35223640
For a detailed account of the ways in which you are wrong about economics, and percieving the situation in an infantile and incorrect way that neglects many factors ofbusiness.
Also, your language shows you are part of the growing anarchist cult, and in my experience cultists like you are completely and incapable of reasoning whatsoever, or accepting facts that contradict their opinion. I spent months debating an anarchist not too long ago, and even after I had systematically deconstructed everything they said, explained exactly how and why they were wrong in great detail, and provided strong evidence to back up all of my claims and disprove theirs, they still would not give up, and eventually started throwing crazy profanities at me, then just stopped replying entirely.
If you think the government is the only one removing wealth from people, then you need to consider that economic forces can get people to bow to your will far more easily than violence can, and companies that are large enough to control the markets, keep others out of the markets, and keep workers too poor to start a competing business are doing just that, holding a proverbial knife at their throat, except this knife is not violence, it is poverty and eventual starvation. If you can't see that, then I am positive you will not be able to understand, to any extent whatsoever, the enormous capacity with which you are wrong.
It is absolutely not true that people stop donating to fake charities. Just look at TOMS shoes, they perpetuate terrible working conditions by manufacturing their shoes in sweatshops in 3rd world countries, charge huge markups to sell them to people, the companies top brass are filthy rich, and they force shoes into new markets where study after study shows them doing more harm than good, and many people, including myself, have spread as much information about this scam as possible, but its business still grows every year.
Next, you make a massive logical error that leaves a hole so big you could fit the earth threw it, that all Republicans make and none of them realize. If you stopped all welfare programs right now, millions would have no source of income. Now lets say they all have to get jobs to make money, as you suggest they should do, as if they are jobless right now because they are lazy. But there are no jobs. There aren't even enough jobs for those who are looking, and without capital, and without growing markets, nobody in poverty could start a new business or make jobs. The simple fact of the matter is that most on unemployment, social security, and many on welfare are trying to make better lives for themselves, and are trying to contribute to society, but are part of a system which does not allow it, in which there is no possible way for them to make money, to get an education, or to do anything with their lives. Many of these education programs are to get low income earners and the totally impoverished into a position where they can get a real job, or start a business, or contribute to society, not to throwing money down a pit.
Also, there are very few documented cases of people turning down jobs because unemployment is better, and unemployment is for a finite time, then it expires and you are without a job. In any system there are bound to be anomalies, but I can guarantee you they account for less than .001% of the total number of people on government assistance.
Also, you try getting a job without any knowledge of relevant new culture, access to the internet at home, or a way to be reached any time. These are necessities of the modern world to get any kind of job out there at all, and are often cheaper than driving to communicate with friends and family.
Your ignorance on these issues is stunning, and clearly you have not spent any time whatsoever examining your own political or economic thought on these issues, and you clearly have never been, and know nobody in such situations. I advise you educate yourself on the issues and get a grip on reality before it gets a grip on you.
"some economists" who claim government help prolonged the great depression are idiots. Total idiots. their theory of why this is so is based on the idea that markets are inherently cyclical and will always rise and fall and then rise again, and that any interference hurts this 'natural' process. But that is entirely psuedoscience with no basis whatsoever in reality, no causal explanations, and no facts to back it up. In reality, economic downturns happen whenever markets shrink, or do not grow fast enough to keep up with the growth of businesses. This happens (in the modern era) due to serious issues in problems with financial products and debt, and the way people are paid for their work. You see, businesses exploit workers, they make far more profit off of the work of the workers than the workers make. People do not get paid fairly for the work that they do. This alone is not a problem (besides an ethical one) until you examine what work they do and how their exploitation effects the market.
So lets say we have this guy, John, making cars. For simplicity sake, lets just say he builds the entire car. His boss buys parts for 1,000 dollars. His boss then sells the car for 20,000 dollars and pays John 500 dollars. If john then wants to buy a car, he has to build 40 cars in order to be able to afford one. On the large scale of businesses and interacting market forces, excessive
And you have placed me in a category to which I don't belong and assumed I take sides, which I can only imagine is your projection of your hate of non-you onto me by placing me in a category of people which you fundamentally hate.
Also, your post is bland and it is difficult to tell exactly what you are referring to, but it is worth point out that a "stimulus" to the rich because they held a knife to the throat of the economy and said give us a shit ton of money or we will slit her throat, and pumping money into the markets to grow them so that businesses can grow, develop, and hire more people.
But your statement paints the massive individualized corruption as if it were the ultimate end goal of massive groups of people working together on both sides, which is indeed a conspiracy theory. There is no doubt however, that individualized corruption is rampant and nasty.
Sure, there are mild similarities. The differences are more important here though, as the Glenn Becks of the world are doing it for profit, and others are doing it to make the world a better place for themselves, their children, and others.
And what exactly are the goals of this massive conspiracy theory?
True, but I hate the cold and love the land and a good number of the people in this country.
And true, democrats aren't much better, especially lately making so many concessions to republicans on important pro-average person legislation. Certainly better than the party whose stated goal is basically (after applying economics to it) "lets sink America's Economy as far as possible so that the top 5% can get richer"
Of course, disproving a concept that is by definition impossible to prove or disprove hasn't been done. But there is no evidence whatsoever for believing in any of the biblical stories whatsoever, and any reasonable person looking at the evidence before them could piece together the sociological process by which religion developed, and is a total load of bull that nobody should subject themselves to.
Its like saying "I believe there is a tea kettle orbiting mars" You have no evidence to prove it, and it is certainly possible, but there is also no evidence whatsoever that it is true, and basing your entire life on such a posit is infinitely absurd, childish, and disgusting.
That is absolutely not true at all, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Tell you what, go take a class in thermodynamics, then research global warming just a little bit, and if you don't realize how much of a dumbass you were in the above statement by then, you might as well kill yourself.
The difference? Michael Moore's documentaries reflect the lives of real americans, some of whom are in the same situation as many I know. Nothing fear mongering or evil about bringing the everday reality of the non-rich to the well off. Al Gore? An idiot that exaggerated global warming, it is an issue, many cities will be under water, but there ain't shit we can do about it. We can live more efficient lives and more sustainable ones though, as that is better not just for earth, but for us and our wallets., and I don't know George Soros.
Murdoch, Limbaugh, and Beck make up total fairy tales and nothing they say passes even a rudamentary fact check. They scare people with fears of demons, evil, communism, and other bullshit like that.
McCain knows how to make the rich richer, he doesn't know how to get an economy running well. Low taxes for the rich and cutting all government spending historically have harmed and shrank the markets, like in the mid-late 1920s. As the businesses kept growing even though the markets had shrank because of government withdrawl, and so much crap was based on margin, that shit went to hell. Same thing happened in 2008.
That is the cornerstone of republican economics, and it is doomed to fail in all cases. I don't know how you defend them.
Also, charities often lie and steal from donars and make people rich. Shit happens, and they walk away with money. Governments, you fire them and hire new people.
Does the welfare system need massive improvement? Yes, do we need to take away the only source of income for millions with no alternate plan, just because they are dirty poor people? If you said yes, then you said Republican. If you said no, you said democrat.
And really, none of these changes can happen because republicans won't let reform occur in any of these areas, they just brand it communist satan devil gay sex and vote it down. So if you want shit to go well, don't vote republican.
My spell check incorrectly auto corrected.
1929 and 2008. Two notable examples. By destroyed I don't mean everybody is dead and the nation is over, I mean shit sucks for a lot of people and we have failed (if even temporarily) as a nation to do what is right and do it well.