ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 8
58
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It was not fine.

Only the people who wrote everything down, and had all the power could cover up or dismiss the problems that their self-serving creation caused.

Explain all the cultures around the world and tell me how great all the women have it. How the culture "values" them.

You can't because it is pure fiction. The few people it works out for have the TIME and ENERGY to talk about how great they got it. The rest of the people are too busy walking twenty miles to water and feed the children that were gotten on them because they are owned and have no protection to say no to having those children.

If all the things that are promoted for women are so fantastic....how come you guys fight the government doing exactly the same thing to you? Do you only like the fiction of it when it is in your favour?




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I stopped short of making a major violation of the T&C before I wiped what I had wrote and calmed down.

I don't WANT to work, I HAVE to work, I have a family to support and working means food and other necessities that my children cannot live without. I think that the OP forgot all of the women in the world who work solely to provide, not because we want to go out and buy a new scarf or handbag.

To say that women working is the root cause of the financial crisis is just ignorance at it's best.

My toned down reply..



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Your commentary is full of emotion. The entire concept you promote is based on emotion.

You aren't my equal.

Fortune for you that there are laws protecting you from the fact that you are not my equal in any way, merely based on the fact that you are also human.


[edit on 2009/3/3 by Aeons]



Sorry Aeon,

But this quote above is also textbook in that it is a womans way of getting in the last word. It does however take away from the quality of the thread and is predictable. It is not intelligence or sophism nor the last word.

Merigold,
I agree there is nothing wrong with emotions.......except....when they are used to get over on someone else. To get someone else to take risks and cede goods and services to another who is not willing themselves to take the risks for them. To get others to be silent while some default through as is often the trend in politics and social engineering ..through the "Victim dictum" and other politics.

Drama has become the standard format for this kind of political default ..the prefered method of operation. This board is textbook of this illustration and becoming more so.

I did not say that there was something inherantly wrong with emotions. I said that emotions are not intelligence to me. There is a big difference here and in the emotionional entitlement beliefs...their religion if you like... some people.. tend to misconstrue what I stated. There are those out here who have made a career of catering to their emotions to put forth points which when thought through ..are not intelligence at all. I dont agree with this technique as it is so often in the forefront of trying to pass as the moral high ground in threads like this one. It is how these threads are often hijacked.
Thanks for your very considered post.

Logarock,

I dont entirely agree about getting away from the candle making days.
I know women who are in the arts and crafts buisness on the side and make good moneys to suppliment their other jobs or just make moneys on the side. More power to them if it works out. I am all for independent self sustaining buisness..no matter who is doing it.
No matter what the buisness. I am all for small buisness. Lawful of course. I should probably insert that last statement.
When I can I prefer to go to smaller mom and pop stores or even the barber shop rather than the big franchises.

If a woman can come up with a way of making moneys..go for it. No problems with me here. I just dont believe by the nature of most of the posts here...that the women of this country will be willing to support the men and families in the traditional manner it has been done for them. With no safety net under them. I think it is mostly smoke and mirrors...verses haveing government programs as a substitute male/wallet/options.

Aeon,


The people who say emotions and intelligence can't go together are usually very emotional, and so unintelligent that they don't even recognize it.


Still getting in the last word!!?? LOL LOL.

Undo


burkhas are ridiculous


I agree ..burkhas are ridiculous..so hence I dont appreciate a woman trying out such a technique on me. It is wasted drama and I stated so.

I am hence not interested in that site or any others on burkhas since I dont like a women/woman I see to wear one. I am also not interested in a woman foisting off her insecurities on me. Nor any man for all that matter. I like and respect a secure woman.... not a drama queen.

Drama Queens are become a dime a dozen...today..male and female.

No thanks,

Nikanio,


My final point:

If men want women to stay at home and take care of them, and not work, then they should be someone that we would want to stay at home for.


I know what you mean...you lead he follows. But if it goes south...you stand out on the limb with no safety net and navigate your way out of it by yourself ..right!!! All the time this is going on you are providing a safety net for him and the children...right??

Since I have a great respect and admiration for Whitewave..I will respont to her post seperately.

Thanks,
Orangetom








[edit on 3-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
I stopped short of making a major violation of the T&C before I wiped what I had wrote and calmed down.

I don't WANT to work, I HAVE to work, I have a family to support and working means food and other necessities that my children cannot live without. I think that the OP forgot all of the women in the world who work solely to provide, not because we want to go out and buy a new scarf or handbag.

To say that women working is the root cause of the financial crisis is just ignorance at it's best.

My toned down reply..


Here is the "conspiracy" aspect for you.

Rich powerful men who created the problem, then managed to get men all worked up to support them stealing billions of dollars of taxpayer money so that they could give themselves bonuses for screwing everything up.

Then those powerful men use emotional arguments that appeal to a subset of men to promote the ideas that:
1. the crisis wasn't caused by mismanagement and rich people taking big risks with billions of dollars in resources but was instead somehow caused by really poor people taking on 45 year mortgages on cheap old homes.
2. that the problem could be solved by giving men personal financial dominance in their personal lives, to distract them and pay them off for ignroing the real problem.



[edit on 2009/3/3 by Aeons]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Umm - why you do that to her arm?

Anyways - I feel there is a lot of truth here that is of course irritating to modern sensibilities - but the fact is people like Edward Bernays tried to codify psychological manipulation of the masses to encourage consumerism.

From their the techniquies took a logical progression to disrupting traditional family roles in favor of more workers and less family connection.

(spending quality time with the family is too cheap - and thus counter productive - don't you know!)

Over time the Govt's of the World also recognized that the breakdown of the family unit increased their power over individuals - and the eventual logical extreme of that is excellently portrayed in Brave New World where people are grown as independent individuals (dependant only on the state).

Now - this is not to say that traditional roles are required - and that over time they won't become somewhat anachronistic - however - in the rigid psuedo-tribal heirarchies that Humans currently live in - traditional roles still make sense - despite the ability of either partner to overcome them.

Basically like other posters have stated - we have fallen into consummerisms trap - and when one partner, through accident or inevitabole layoff, becomes without income - the whole family starts to fall apart.

What I think we need to do is to completely remove debt from our money supply - and once money creation is no longer immediately associated with debt - than real wealth creation can begin again - and Westerners will again have the financial option to return to traditional roles.

(and those who reject that can still reject that)

Eventually, however, I believe we will come to a point of resource abundance that will allow both partners full self actualization both inside and out side the family - as seen in the Star Trek type psuedo Utopian society.

There are many people (like myself) who know how to bring this about - and it is only a matter of time before people reject the old tribalism and embrace a new type of leadership in society.

Let us hope that this change in mentality will occur before it is too late!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Wait, what is the argument again?

Did we not agree that a woman has the right to work if she wants to while some of us believe this has some harmful affects on the family unit (specifically the lack of mother-child nurturing).



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


The op-ed piece wrongly assumes that there are a fixed amount of jobs available. This is not true. More jobs generally mean more stuff is being made... more wealth is being created. And that additional wealth may be used to create yet more jobs as long as additional resources are available. Women in the workforce is a positive effect on the economy so long as the resources: additional farmland, water, raw materials, etc are available. Only now are we starting to get to the point where our resources are strained. So you could call that too many employees ("overpopulation"), too few resources, or just wasteful use of resources.

The only way that women in the workforce is harmful to the economy is that women who are "unemployed" actually were not employed. Women were doing jobs that have now simply been abandoned. When they were "unemployed" women did things like grow food in a gardens, investing time in their children, etc. So in that respect that additional wealth being created by women workers is offset by other jobs at home being abandoned.

As for additional jobs causing inflation that is *extremely* wrong. Additional jobs cause deflation. You will see that in currency trading, that what you look at the closest is the employment figures. Declining employment is "bad" for a currency, meaning it gets a reduced(inflated) value. So declining employment results in price inflation. Increasing employment on the other hand causes the value of the dollar to increase, meaning deflation.

Why? Simple math. First, with additional workers there is less money available per worker to buy goods and services because instead of splitting the available money supply amoung 50 million males it is distributed as income amoung 100 million people. For example, if there is $1 million in a nations economy, and 1 million workers, and one dollar is spent each year in that economy, then each worker on average can recieve up to $1. Then imagine instead of 1 million male workers you get 2 million male + female workers now you have only 50 cents available to each worker. This means when they go to the store they will have less money to spend. Yet at the same time, twice as much is in the stores to be purchased because there are twice as many workers. (Obviously these are approximations). So instead of that bread loaf costing $1, it will now cost 25 cents. Firstly, you have half as much money to spend. But secondly you have twice as many loaves of bread on the shelf that must be sold.

The cause of the credit crunch is the government printing out worthless dollars. Sure, the economic boom was caused by women and by computer technology. But it was greatly eggaturated by the government. The eggaturation is what is causing the crash, not the boom itself. What is destroying the USA and many other countries is fascism and socialism.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Aakron]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


still a bit hard to feel secure if the situation doesn't call for it. you should not rest secure if you aren't, in other words. it would be incredibly easy to fall back into the belief that women are the cause of the trouble on the planet. just look at the gendercide in china -- traditional views resulted in the abortion and murder of something like 500 million female children and female unborns, not to mention the orphanges being full of females. this type of belief system - that women are a problem, a nuisance, a financial rock around the necks of men --is still rampant in most of the world.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
White Wave,

First off..what happened to your avatar? I really liked it. Was a bit surprised to see it gone.

Agree about the inflation. However I still stand by what I stated to Rockpuck early on in this thread. Women are the prime determiners of what items get purchased in this economy..especially big ticket items as well as the daily items. Women are the prime economic force in this nation...hence also the prime political force to be catered to for votes..this means drama cultivation. Constantly. Emotional issues. This is obvious by the trend line in this thread. Women and the effeminate can be more easily stroked emotionally for votes.

By the way..that is a very interesting video by Aaron Russo on page 6 of this thread. A Lot of it on which I do agree.

Oh..I figured that you spotted the bait..Whitewave..well done. I realized this when you took your time in responding. No problems I have always enjoyed your posts..even in disagreement with my positions.

It is indeed an increase in the money supplies. Inflation..and we will soon enough find out what it causes. I too agree with Skeptic Overlords post on the current financial happenings.

I merely point out that the markets even with inflation are primarily a female oriented marketplace..not male oriented.

I am going to take the liberty here of posting something mostly for you Whitewave. Many of the posters here would think this crazy and take offense but no problem with this. I think you will understand this more than most though it may ruffle your feathers so so speak. My apologies in advance if it does. It is not so intended

The ability to create an increase in the money supply and finance projects at cost to the taxpayer ...thus inflating the money supply...is the ability to get something for nothing. It is a slight of hand..a subtilty. To do this over and over and over ad nauseum..is theft. To do this over and over again..year after year....with the dicipline necessary to keep it hidden from most of the public while they debate emotions/placebos like on this thread...betells strongly at a religion in play. A devout , diciplined religion. A religion specializing in chaos. But one very hidden from those affected by or subject to it. This type of religion is and must needs be very feminine/subtle in its nature..Occult. Something for nothing or at very little RISK. RISK here being put off on others to make good. Male and female both.


As long as we are all pointing fingers at one another we will not have our eyes on the source of the problem-an increase in the supply of money.


I am in agreement with you here on your quote above.

Thanks again for your post,
Orangetom


[edit on 3-3-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
ok, any christian men reading this thread, please consider that you were instructed to love your wives as christ loves the church. this does not mean you insist she stay home or make less money than you do. he gave you your free will, reciprocate the favor. i'm concerned when we finally witness the great judgement, there will be alot of very surprised men who wanted to have their cake and eat it too.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
This is just a piss-take.

Newton Emerson writes a "humorous" column weekly for the IT. He was the guy behind the Portadown News, i think.

He's not as funny as he thinks he is.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I completly agree with this, under the guise of freeing women from the home both men and women have been exploited for material gain and profit. In turn that has mnde families vunerable, children that don't know their own parents and all the social ills that go with it.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I completly agree with this, under the guise of freeing women from the home both men and women have been exploited for material gain and profit. In turn that has mnde families vunerable, children that don't know their own parents and all the social ills that go with it.



LOL LOL LOL...Good Lord Almighty....I cant believe it!! I am agreeing with Magicmushroom. I need to have my head examined. LOL LOL

Well stated Mushroom..well said.

I'd better quit while I'm ahead.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Please QUIT BLAMING WOMEN for every little thing that goes wrong on the planet! STOP! Cease and desist! KNOCK IT THE HECK OFF!

thank you.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
...not women, which is what some of our girls are getting their backs up about.

(now now girls, as if I would
)


You made some good points in your post but, honestly, it took me awhile to get through it. The fact that you refered to your female ATSers as "GIRLS" is highly offensive and indeed fanning the flames of sexism in this thread.

I'm sure you meant no ill intent but, you must admit refering to us female ATSers as GIRLS is demeaning at the very least. How would you feel if we were to refer to all of you as BOYS. It would be hard to read past that word wouldn't it? I'm not a girl, haven't been for a long time. I'm a grown woman and should be addressed as such.

If we can get past the sexism and the bickering I think we are uncovering some very interesting points. I refuse to address posts by those who are intentionally trying to derail this thread by citing 'emotion' and other sexist comments. I don't feel the man I quoted here was intentional, just insensitive.

What I find most interesting in this discussion is how it is extremely obvious that the Ruling Elite have engineered the collapse of our society and culture. Traditional standards were working too well. By manipulating the economy and forcing mothers to work they have, in effect, destroyed the family unit. Divorce rates, crime, child abuse (by caretakers) are just a few of the results.

Instead of placing blame (which is what I feel they want us to do), maybe we should look at who is to benefit. What do they gain?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Then those powerful men use emotional arguments that appeal to a subset of men to promote the ideas that:
1. the crisis wasn't caused by mismanagement and rich people taking big risks with billions of dollars in resources but was instead somehow caused by really poor people taking on 45 year mortgages on cheap old homes.
2. that the problem could be solved by giving men personal financial dominance in their personal lives, to distract them and pay them off for ignroing the real problem.



If only everyone was as wise as you were in this post. We are all stupid for playing the games they throw at us. We blame each other, we blame gender, race and everything but the real problem.

How do we fix it all? This is our world and our streets

The USA is too busy pointing its collective brainwashed finger the wrong way.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It was about fifteen years ago that a professor friend (in political economics) pointed out to me that the shift towards dual income families to make ends meet was in effect what in labor terms is called a "speedup". The family unit has to put in more labor in order to maintain a standard of living. Most of the economic growth of family income over recent decades has to do with dual incomes; per worker incomes after inflation have largely be stagnant or even declined.

I don't think you will find any serious opposition to the following: it would be better for society if wages vs prices allowed families to prosper with a single earner, so that women (or men) had the choice of working rather than being forced to do so.

I know a LOT of women (and some men) who would love to stay home and take care of the kids (for a few years or many years), or perhaps have a part time job. Even parents who would like to have some "out of the house" adult time would often be glad to get that volunteering rather than working for money - if they could afford it.

Feminism was never about forcing women to work; it was about creating more freedom and opportunities to choose. Instead, industry has created less freedom, with far to many families needing two incomes to get by.

It would be naive to think that women leaving the workplace would mean that prices would drop and men would make enough to support the family - in an environment where jobs are bleeding away to cheaper locations. If women's departure caused some job shortages in some areas, the wages would rise at least temporarily (but not double!), but then that increase in domestic labor costs would cause more jobs to be exported (not necessarily the same jobs that women vacated), until the wages for men were not much higher than now.

Mostly what would happen is that the sum of all worker "productivity" would go dramatically down for the nation as a whole (Ireland or the US or whatever) as well as for each household, meaning that consumption would have to go down correspondingly. Meaning jobs would be lost. It could lead to a deflationary spiral.

By the way, it's normal that in hard times for employment, people will look for somebody to blame. Women, immigrants (legal or not), and ethnic minorities are typical targets - for taking our jobs. That is, blame those with even less power within the system (BELOW you in the food chain), because that's safer than blaming those ABOVE you in the food chain. The latter might take more courage.

Emotionally, some people unconsciously prefer to pick on the weaker, not the stronger, and the mind will then rationalize it somehow. But it's a pretty transparent coping behavior for the disempowered. We'll be seeing more of it, just watch - and try to keep enough detachment not to buy the "hey, look over there" distraction that motivates this focus.

reasoner



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The power to change things is in our collective hands, and it doesn't require an anti equality slogan, nor on the other hand a disrespect for primary caregivers in their homes. The power to change things is for us to be really smart, and start to buy from each other and boycott corperations. Also, to as organized citizens groups, let the governments know that they will not be re-elected, and even may be removed, should patents and ownership of technology not be a public patent, belonging to the people, and all advancements for them, because their businesses aren't going to honor this aspect.

We created these tyrants and we have to take back our power and the economy by cutting them and their draconian laws that profit themselves and protect their lofty positions be eradicated.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by mystiq]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Ok, I should have gotten into this thread from the beginning... but here we go.

(Cracks Knuckles)

First off... Men and women are not equal.

Equality is a mathematical argument that has no place in describing biological organisms.

Men and women are Complementary opposites.


Secondly, with the virtual DOUBLING of the labor pool after the introduction of Feminism, you essentially devalued labor, and thus, people got paid less.

The "Economy" as is associated with the numbers on wall street DID increase.

But the bottom lines of a few large corperations is a poor way to judge the overall economic stability and prosperity of a nation.

Case in point, if you cross correlate the US GDP from 1800 to today, and the Value of the dollar as based on Gold... you will see an interesting thing.

in 1800 our gdp was roughly 500 billion

NOW it is 13.4 trillion.

in 1800 the value of a dollar (as based on one twentieth the value of an ounce of gold) was approximately 1$

TODAY, the value of the dollar is roughly $.03 (as compared to the previous value)

Which means, that our GDP measured in actual VALUE (not mathematically manipulated numbers)

is only about 600 billion dollars.

so, while we see our economy as having grown by some several thousand percent... it has, in actuality only grown by about one fifth.

-Edrick



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Please QUIT BLAMING WOMEN for every little thing that goes wrong on the planet! STOP! Cease and desist! KNOCK IT THE HECK OFF!

thank you.


Obvious Troll is obvious!

HOLY #$@% Feminism is a giant hoax, Rockefeller invented it to get more taxes and to raise children via TV to become his slaves of capitalism!!!1!one





top topics
 
58
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join