This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by cricket. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Childrens-Guide-to-Growing-Up-Social-Class-System

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Childrens-Guide-to-Growing-Up-Social-Class-System-1

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Childrens-Guide-to-Growing-Up-Social-Class-System-1

did i say i was ok with elites perception of those lesser?i do not subscribe to a class system.so please refrain from injecting intentions i never specified. i was simply making a statement that should be obvious to any free-thinking human being.its not like they keep their disdain secret.

i just dont really care what they think of me,as i am quite sure they could care less what i thought of them.

and of course the rest of my comment is beneath you.thats exactly how those "elites" we are speaking of think.
which is basically you have no retort,no response and no argument.

because there is NO response.
you got called out...deal with it.

or do you DENY targeted downvoting my pque without watching the content?
do you DENY not adding any context nor nuance to help people understand your position better?
do you REALLY think this video has merit?
and not just knuckle-dragging "ugh..goverment bad..politicians lie"

and if so,could you please explain,with some clarity,the reasons behind this video? because,as you stated,we agree WHAT obamacare actually is.so?what are your thoughts?

and please make them your thoughts and not some copy/pasted plagiarized argument from the von mises web-page.

have a little self-respect.

"I hate geographical names"
"Your child's called India"

/argument

@dag was talking about the lack of class system in the US. Here, my good people, is a prime example of everything that is wrong with the class system in the UK. People who equate money and family with worth and intelligence while frequently possessing neither.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Now now - you sound like the my kids' classmates. I will defend that statement.

The US is generally an optimistic place - and having lived in places where there are real class systems - I do appreciate that we don't have that imperial baggage.

Cynical NetRunner says it'll never happen because the Confederacy will stop at nothing to prevent any further dilution of the whiteness of the electorate, and voting en masse against reasonable things is pretty much what they're known for.

Optimistic NetRunner says it could be that the Confederacy will wisen up slightly and decide that this is a perfect opportunity for them to start down the path of courting latinos in earnest, since it's becoming obvious even to them that they're going to need to enlist the help of at least one of the non-white demographic groups if they're ever going to destroy the New Deal and return America to the rigid class system they enjoyed before Lincoln fucked it all up by freeing the slaves.

And yes, I realize there's not an awful lot of daylight between optimistic and cynical NetRunner these days...

I'm wondering if this isn't a case of misapplied cause and effect.

Was the rape of the daughter really related to converting to Islam?

Or was the Son of the Boss just one sick pervert who was protected under a class system where farm workers/lower class citizens treated as less than human?

Oh, and it is really easy to deal with quantumushroom. Just put him on ignore and never, ever read him. It makes life so much more pleasant on the Sift. He is only torture if you allow him to torture you.

Ignore. It's a great little feature!

>> ^quantumushroom:

I thought socialism would have turned England into a utopian paradise by now!


How can Britain be socialist? They invented the term "class system".

if you have warfare, its because you have a class system of some kind ... i think. right now its warfare on the poor class who are fighting the wars for the rich. neato

The report is from Pakistan and the language is Urdu
India/Pakistan, same thing almost.


It's even funnier if you know what they're saying:

-----------------
Anchorwoman:
... what do you see out there and how is the fervor amongst the youth regarding new years night?

Reporter:
The young ones are out shouting slogans whilst the police is trying to clear the street. When it was 12 o'clock people started dancing a lot of bhangra, chanted "Long live Pakistan", they even shot guns into the air, the police also baton charged the crowd, and people shot more guns into the air.... *whack!*

Achorwoman continues as if it's not a biggie: Well there you are ladies and gentlement so and so reporter informing us about people celebrating new years.
------------------

*This btw was that last report in the news that's always a 'general interest story'.


>> ^westy:

>> ^rich_magnet:
Maybe it's a language barrier, but I can't really tell what's happening in this reportage. I think I need to rewind and see it about 15 more times, in ever slower-mo. Maybe then I'll see what's going on.

Well this peace is so deep in subtext , I definitely think think its a valid commentary on the class system in India.

>> ^rich_magnet:

Maybe it's a language barrier, but I can't really tell what's happening in this reportage. I think I need to rewind and see it about 15 more times, in ever slower-mo. Maybe then I'll see what's going on.


Well this peace is so deep in subtext , I definitely think think its a valid commentary on the class system in India.

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Slvry