Regardless of what color it is posted in; you're still pathetic dunce.
HAVE WE ENTERED A NEW GILDED AGE?
- Thread starter Dantès
- Start date
Regardless of what color it is posted in; you're still pathetic dunce.
Have some cheese with that pathetic vagina man whine dunce. Im amused that you think the remote few threads you start in this forum are even worthy of response. Your commentaries are too stupid for words.
Don't liberals like to whine about "cowardice" when they cry about thread bans?
My post wasn't meant to be fodder for your diarrhea mill, but advice to the OP.
You made no points worthy of countering, and like Legion Troll (Big Money), your content consists of disgusting insults. Do you talk to your grandmother that way?
Think there was no Gilded Age (not guided like you wrote the first time or guilded like you wrote the second time), you have clearly never been to Newport Rhode Island, the terminus of the Blackstone River where the Industrial Age began.
Believe me , Dumbfuck; I am an architectural metalsmith, I work in the conclaves of the wealthiest people in the world, and the gilding is proceeding like a space launch.
I guess even though you learned it in your great education you forgot the names of the authors whose satirically referred to this as the gilded age didn't you?
Where does the rightie myth come from that these robber barons worked their asses off? If you call golf, bridge tournaments, polo, trips to Europe and other leisure activities that the poor can only envy, yes they worked hard, indeed.
Prove it!
In the first place most of this reads more like opinion than fact, "some are said" is hardly definitive. Giving money to construct libraries is a good thing but now most libraries are in trouble and don't have the funding they need to remain open and many have been forced to cut hours. Yet, the Kochs and their ilk have never had it so good, and they have given little to solve problems that benefit the average person. Giving ten of millions to the New York Symphony is not going to make it easier for me to attend.
I'll let you refute this yourself:
I guess that settles that doesn't it. Speaking of being retarded or whatever you are implying with you "leftard" comment: you much have thought no one would read this shit didn't you?
Certainly: "The wealthiest 1 percent of families in 1890 owned 51 percent of the real and personal property; the 44 percent of families at the bottom owned only 1.2 percent of all the property. Together the wealthy and well-to-do (12 percent of families) owned 86 percent of the wealth. The poorer and middle classes, who represented 88 percent of families, owned 14 percent of the wealth.
Family income from wages and salaries was distributed less inequitably than wealth. The poorest one-half of families received one-fifth of wages and salaries. Adding in income from rent, however, produced more marked contrasts. The wealthiest 2 percent of families received more than half the aggregate income...This tiny class of rentiers received as large a total income from its property as the poor half of the families received from both property and wages. Living off their investments wealthy rentiers did not need to work.
Over the long term, wages changed little in the late nineteenth century, when most workers earned less than about $800 a year...
Large numbers of working people people were needy because of regularly experienced unemployment in the form of layoffs. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries between 23 and 30 percent of the work force was out of work for some period every year."
Those who lived off the rents and investments never experienced such hardships nor did they have to make do with little to pay off bills accrued during periods of forced layoff.
Indeed, such income is commonly referred to as rent, interest, and return on investment; and I just did above, but thanks for asking again.
For the fourth or fifth time mister educated before education started failing those who went to college, read Gabriel Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism:A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 (1963) Its slightly over 300 pages of documentation of how business was the impetus for most of the changes in government regulation that occurred during the so-called progressive era. Read and learn, if you can. I have already given the example of the meat packing industry and why business requested the inspection regime, above. Similarly ,the insurance industry also requested changes in regulation. Kolko asserts that, "the federal government was always involved in the economy in crucial ways, and that laissez faire never existed in an economy where local and federal governments financed the construction of a significant part of the railroad system, and provided lucrative means of obtaining fortunes." In other words, the country you think ever existed didn't; but you'll never believe it because you have chosen a faith based reality and you have no regard for facts.
I think I have covered this and you are being moronic not the authors of the books that I have read and you have decried. see comment #1
The old everything else was worse. I have to hand it to you that is a hard argument to confront let alone refute. But I think I already did in my comment about what counts as success at comment #14.
Unsubstantiated opinion. Again I refer you to comment #14 above.
Fanciful daydreaming. Do you have anything else to support what you think the founders who are no doubt long dust are doing in their graves? And in spite of what many here have said it is the "Gilded Age!" And it was named that for a reason.
And I think the two authors you are referring to above and couldn't remember are Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner and their novel was called The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today (1873). So I guess not only was my self-education at least as good as your store bought one, but I can also remember things that you have long forgotten. But as with most of what you said here you were good with generalities not so much with the particulars as evidenced by your repeated use of "massive" for more exact and factual figures.
Be advised this was far more effort than your overblown propaganda and gibberish deserved, but I was bored and I have been up all night so I did what I felt necessary to put your mostly unsubstantiated bullshit where it belongs.
Last edited:
I just destroyed you fool!
Small brained whiney vagina men tend to wallow in their own hypocrisy and irony.
No one is banned from this thread. I welcome all you idiots to give it your best fucking shot. I will mop the board with you!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Another dimwitted dunce response from a brain dead twit; yay you eh dunce?
Carry on. Your clueless ramblings are only matched by your pathetic vagina man whining.
No you didn't dunce; you merely regurgitated the same dullard bile that continually erupts from your keyboard originating in that empty head of yours. Your dullard claims that the rich got that way through "rents", "interest" and "returns on investment" merely illustrate what a painfully ignorant lefttard you are.
You don't answer questions, you erupt emotional about things you truly haven't the slightest clue about.
Gates, Truet Cathy, Tom Monaghan or Steven Jobs didn't get wealthy because of "returns on investment" any more than it was from rents you dunce, any more than Rockefeller or DuPont did.
As for the authors who coined the satirical "gilded age" you so laughably wax ignorant about, of course I know who they are shit-for-brains.
I'm still waiting to hear how Government has benefited mankind more than these entrepreneurs and how it creates jobs.
But again, I'm debating a simple minded vagina man butt boy for Snarla; you'll only exceed my lowest expectations of your complete and utter lack of intelligence.
I'm still laughing at your "return on investment" comment; epically stupid.
Last edited:
LMAO
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Greed is/will destroy America!
Greed is/will destroy America!
LMAO
Already have; but they were infinately above your third grade comprehension level.
Why don't you explain how Government is better than capitalism; we can use another laugh.
Why don't you show where this claim is made, and while you are at it define "infinately".
infinitely
in·fi·nite
[in-fuh-nit] Show IPA
adjective 1. immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2. indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5. Mathematics . a. not finite.
b. (of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
Last edited: