[XBoxBoy]

I work programming video games on the XBox360. It was the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment.

[XBoxBoy]

I work programming video games on the XBox360. It was the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment.

[XBoxBoy]

I work programming video games on the XBox360. It was the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution.[/quote]

Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.

I’m only an armchair historian, so I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that revolutions rarely brought about much improvement for the middle and lower classes. The big gains for middle class generally come when there is stability. I’d guess that the biggest gains for middle class in this country occurred in the 1950’s and surely that was not a revolutionary time.

Also, there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example. (Or the Bolshevik revolution in Russia)

Also, if we stick to the US, I believe that in general the period after the US Revolution was not particularly good for the poor or middle class, as the country was trying desperately to pay off debts incurred in the revolution. I don’t think that much middle class grew until after the civil war. I’d guess that the emergence of a middle class in America didn’t get going until the roaring 90’s. (That would be 1890s)

But I admit to not being an expert, and I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s arguments that supply historical examples to substantiate this claim that the middle class and poor only advance as the result of revolution.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=XBoxBoy] The asset holders are probably wealthy, but the ones who owe lots of money are just as likely to be poor or middle class as wealthy.[/quote]

You’re wrong here. Wealthy people owe a lot of money. They got rich thanks to leverage, especially if they did so in just one generation.

Leverage can send rich folks to the poor house just like leverage made them rich.

[/quote]

Ummmm…. I think you misread what I wrote… I think it clearly says that people who owe money can be poor, or middle class or wealthy.

Also, I will take exception with your blanket statement “Wealthy people owe a lot of money” if by that you mean All wealthy people. Some wealthy people do owe a lot of money. Some do not. I personally know a couple of very wealthy people that don’t have any debt whatsoever.

For what it’s worth, most people that I’ve known who got rich in one generation did so by starting their own company and making a success out of that. Leverage had very little to do with it. I’m sure it’s different on wall street but by no means is wall street the only road to wealth.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=XBoxBoy] The asset holders are probably wealthy, but the ones who owe lots of money are just as likely to be poor or middle class as wealthy.[/quote]

You’re wrong here. Wealthy people owe a lot of money. They got rich thanks to leverage, especially if they did so in just one generation.

Leverage can send rich folks to the poor house just like leverage made them rich.

[/quote]

Ummmm…. I think you misread what I wrote… I think it clearly says that people who owe money can be poor, or middle class or wealthy.

Also, I will take exception with your blanket statement “Wealthy people owe a lot of money” if by that you mean All wealthy people. Some wealthy people do owe a lot of money. Some do not. I personally know a couple of very wealthy people that don’t have any debt whatsoever.

For what it’s worth, most people that I’ve known who got rich in one generation did so by starting their own company and making a success out of that. Leverage had very little to do with it. I’m sure it’s different on wall street but by no means is wall street the only road to wealth.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=XBoxBoy] The asset holders are probably wealthy, but the ones who owe lots of money are just as likely to be poor or middle class as wealthy.[/quote]

You’re wrong here. Wealthy people owe a lot of money. They got rich thanks to leverage, especially if they did so in just one generation.

Leverage can send rich folks to the poor house just like leverage made them rich.

[/quote]

Ummmm…. I think you misread what I wrote… I think it clearly says that people who owe money can be poor, or middle class or wealthy.

Also, I will take exception with your blanket statement “Wealthy people owe a lot of money” if by that you mean All wealthy people. Some wealthy people do owe a lot of money. Some do not. I personally know a couple of very wealthy people that don’t have any debt whatsoever.

For what it’s worth, most people that I’ve known who got rich in one generation did so by starting their own company and making a success out of that. Leverage had very little to do with it. I’m sure it’s different on wall street but by no means is wall street the only road to wealth.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=XBoxBoy] The asset holders are probably wealthy, but the ones who owe lots of money are just as likely to be poor or middle class as wealthy.[/quote]

You’re wrong here. Wealthy people owe a lot of money. They got rich thanks to leverage, especially if they did so in just one generation.

Leverage can send rich folks to the poor house just like leverage made them rich.

[/quote]

Ummmm…. I think you misread what I wrote… I think it clearly says that people who owe money can be poor, or middle class or wealthy.

Also, I will take exception with your blanket statement “Wealthy people owe a lot of money” if by that you mean All wealthy people. Some wealthy people do owe a lot of money. Some do not. I personally know a couple of very wealthy people that don’t have any debt whatsoever.

For what it’s worth, most people that I’ve known who got rich in one generation did so by starting their own company and making a success out of that. Leverage had very little to do with it. I’m sure it’s different on wall street but by no means is wall street the only road to wealth.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1][quote=XBoxBoy] The asset holders are probably wealthy, but the ones who owe lots of money are just as likely to be poor or middle class as wealthy.[/quote]

You’re wrong here. Wealthy people owe a lot of money. They got rich thanks to leverage, especially if they did so in just one generation.

Leverage can send rich folks to the poor house just like leverage made them rich.

[/quote]

Ummmm…. I think you misread what I wrote… I think it clearly says that people who owe money can be poor, or middle class or wealthy.

Also, I will take exception with your blanket statement “Wealthy people owe a lot of money” if by that you mean All wealthy people. Some wealthy people do owe a lot of money. Some do not. I personally know a couple of very wealthy people that don’t have any debt whatsoever.

For what it’s worth, most people that I’ve known who got rich in one generation did so by starting their own company and making a success out of that. Leverage had very little to do with it. I’m sure it’s different on wall street but by no means is wall street the only road to wealth.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]The way I look at, deflation is really bad for the rich people (snip). (On the other hand, inflation is bad for ordinary folks
[/quote]

I think this is a really bad way to view things. Deflation is really bad for those who own assets and for people who owe lots of money.

Think about that for a minute. The asset holders are probably wealthy, but the ones who owe lots of money are just as likely to be poor or middle class as wealthy.

Conversely, deflation is good for those who have lots of savings or have few if any debts and people on fixed income. Again, think about it. The ones who are likely to have savings are probably wealthier, but those will little debt could be anywhere on the spectrum, and those on fixed income are usually retired or on disability (generally not what I think of as wealthy).

So, it seems to me that trying to define this issue in terms of class is fairly unsupportable when you think it through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker]The way I look at, deflation is really bad for the rich people (snip). (On the other hand, inflation is bad for ordinary folks
[/quote]

I think this is a really bad way to view things. Deflation is really bad for those who own assets and for people who owe lots of money.

Think about that for a minute. The asset holders are probably wealthy, but the ones who owe lots of money are just as likely to be poor or middle class as wealthy.

Conversely, deflation is good for those who have lots of savings or have few if any debts and people on fixed income. Again, think about it. The ones who are likely to have savings are probably wealthier, but those will little debt could be anywhere on the spectrum, and those on fixed income are usually retired or on disability (generally not what I think of as wealthy).

So, it seems to me that trying to define this issue in terms of class is fairly unsupportable when you think it through.

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts