I can't even figure out if I am poor, middle class, living in poverty, or something else.

I don't really feel like I have much to lose. I don't own a house or car. I have never vacationed in Hawaii, traveled to Europe, etc.

I would welcome an environment where people are focused on people rather than on consuming commodities.

Hopefully something good comes out of whatever happens. Maybe everybody will reacquaint themselves with community and nature after a system that was probably unsustainable all along implodes into a heap of rubble.

Supposedly we are different from the "barbarians" of pre-Enlightenment times. That may be about to be tested. Will we transition peacefully to a more sustainable way of life, or will it be "Easter Island: The Sequel"?

While always imagine the bank system as kind of shady, I never thought that they actually rig the system in a way that it is a given that they will 'win' no matter what happens. — dclements

Of course they do. Just look at the 08 crash. They made a killing on fraudulent default loans and other extremely risky investments, and then when millions lost their homes on savings, they got all their money back (even their bonuses) and just went on to rip off investors again. And they keep all the politicians greased--from Obama to Clinton to Trump--to make sure nothing illegal they do is prosecuted and all regulations are weak and unenforced.

People had to take those loans for it to work.

I'm​ about to get kicked out of my apartment, I hear. Just moved in a few months ago. Not long after that we were all informed: new owner.

Instead of $550 per month for 1 BR it is going to be $810, I hear.

As far as I can tell, a few cosmetic changes and some new appliances will be the only difference.

Yet, those who can afford it will be camping outside the leasing office so they can be first in line to pay higher prices for the same product, apparently. The words "newly remodeled" in advertisements must be powerful.

If nobody takes the fraudulent loans; if nobody rents the nondescript apartments for more than a mortgage payment; if nobody buys the same food at Whole Foods that they could get from a discount grocery store for much less; if nobody accepts the credit cards and spends money they don't have, it doesn't work.

But for some reason household consumers never seem to be anywhere on the radar of people looking to indict and convict economic and political actors in the court of public opinion.

People had to take those loans for it to work.

Sorry, you're shamelessly blaming the victims here when the banks and the loaning agents actively used predatory tactics by seeking out people they knew couldn't pay the loans and avoiding telling them of the great increase of rates in the coming years. So, save your scorn for those who deserve it.

I'm​ about to get kicked out of my apartment, I hear. Just moved in a few months ago. Not long after that we were all informed: new owner.

Instead of $550 per month for 1 BR it is going to be $810, I hear.

As far as I can tell, a few cosmetic changes and some new appliances will be the only difference.

Yet, those who can afford it will be camping outside the leasing office so they can be first in line to pay higher prices for the same product, apparently. The words "newly remodeled" in advertisements must be powerful.

None of this has anything to discuss what I've been discussing, go see my first paragraph for reference.

If nobody takes the fraudulent loans; if nobody rents the nondescript apartments for more than a mortgage payment; if nobody buys the same food at Whole Foods that they could get from a discount grocery store for much less; if nobody accepts the credit cards and spends money they don't have, it doesn't work.

First, we were specifically discussing the default loans of 08, so don't try to muddy the water with other irrelevant issues. Secondly, you're again shamelessly blaming the victims while showing no scorn for the victimizers. Nice. I suggest you talk to some of the victims who've got deceived. You clearly have no compassion for them at all. Again, go you need to read my first paragraph on this post.

But for some reason household consumers never seem to be anywhere on the radar of people looking to indict and convict economic and political actors in the court of public opinion.

You actually want to indict people who lose their home but not the banks who screwed them over? I hate to say it, but you make Trump look compassionate.

Why?

I answered that question in another post today.

Two great social-scientists, P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields, have the answer to that question:

P.T. Barnum said that there's sucker born every minute.

W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break."

Between them, those two experts explain society and the way it is (and always will be).

-------------------------------

Why are our world's people like that?

I suggest that natural-selection created a large class of suckers, because a two-tiered system of sheep and herders was adaptive (at least in prehistoric times).

The sheep (suckers) are matched to their herders like a glove to a hand. It's uncanily like Huxeley's "Brave New Worldl", except that there's nothing new about it. ...and, where, in the novel, it was done by drugging, in real life, it was done by natural selection.

Yes, we have a lot to thank evolution, natural-selection for. But it just happens that it resulted in a population of sheep. ...suckers.

Get used to it. Accept it.

------------------------------------------

But need things have been like that?

I don't know. It could be argued that any social species is likely to end up like that, due to conditions during its early evolution.

But the Eastern religious/philosophical traditions say that there's a wide variety of worlds in which people are born--some like ours, some a lot better, and no doubt some that are worse.

Maybe we were all born into the Land of the Lost because that was what we were (for some reason) deserving of, good for, or inclined toward in some way.

I don't know.

I'd like to add that it seems to me that, if there's reincarnation, past-lives are indeterminate. This life doesn't need an explanation, in terms of a past life. Each life, such as this one, is free-standing and independent, without need of any past-life origin or explanation.

But nevertheless, if there's reincnarnation, then, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there are likely to be life possibility-stories that would lead to this life, as their next one.

I realize that reincarnation isn't a universally-accepted fact. But this discussion of possible explanations for how things are led to it.

I mention reincarnation because I wanted to mention various explanations for how things are in this world. ...and a possible explanation for all of us being born in the Land of the Lost.

Michael Ossipoff

I can't even figure out if I am poor, middle class, living in poverty, or something else. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I can answer these two questions for you:

IF you depend on a wage (payment that you have to work for to receive) then you are, by definition, working class. Most people are working class. If they don't work, they don't get paid, then they starve to death. Even if your wage adds up to 100,000 a year, you are still working class.

IF you own a small business and employ other people, and you live on the proceeds of your small business, OR if you are a professional living on the proceeds of your practice, then you are middle class. About 10-15% of the population is middle class. Middle class people don't starve to death very often. If you live off of investments and don't have to work at all, then you are upper class. Upper class people never starve. If you are in the top 1% of rich people, then you get to make other people starve.

Here are the Federal Poverty Guidelines: Some programs define eligibility at 100% of the guideline, and others define it as 133% of the guide. (Actually, the numbers go up to 400% of the guideline.)

2016 Federal Poverty Guidelines
-----100%----133%
1 $11,880----$15,800
2 $16,020----$21,307
3 $20,160----$26,813
4 $24,300----$32,319

So a single person earning $11,880 per year is flat out poor. At 133% of the poverty level, you are still poor. A family of 4 is poor at 24,300; they are still poor at $32,319.

If you were single and making $16 per hour (33,600 annually), you individually might still be a bit poor, and certainly not rolling in extra cash. If you had a wife and two children to support on $16 per hour, you'd still be pretty poor.

If you were single and making $25 an hour, or $52,500 a year, you would not be poor. You'd be somewhat well off. But if you had a wife and two children, you'd only be at 400% of the poverty level.

People had to take those loans for it to work. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, that's true, but there is a pent up demand for single-family homes, and many of the people who took those loans were financially illiterate (which the banks knew), or the loan officers misrepresented the nature of the loans to people who were a bit more savvy. How? Well, they told them that the interest rates were very low. That was true, but only for a while -- maybe only a few months. Then the interest rates started rising. If they could just barely afford the mortgage at 1% interest, they probably could not afford it at 4% or 5% -- or higher. Plus, the houses were grossly overvalued at the time, and lots of people -- not just the financially illiterate -- thought that very high housing prices would continue indefinitely. When housing values dropped 20% to 30% or more, the found themselves totally screwed.

Very well said.

Obama introduced the Dodds Frank Act:

Passed as a response to the financial crisis of 2007–2008, it brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression.[2][3][4][5] It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affected all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services industry.[6][7]

Trump announced as soon as he got into office that he was going to abolish it, which he has.

Trump can't pass any actual legislation, but he's great at tearing up regulations, especially those that interfere with business.

Sure, but don't forget Obama let his banker buddies get off scott-free and even made verbal excuses for their horrid behavior. Trump is worse than Obama, but Obama-level corruption isn't good enough either.

"Of course they do. Just look at the 08 crash. They made a killing on fraudulent default loans and other extremely risky investments, and then when millions lost their homes on savings, they got all their money back (even their bonuses) and just went on to rip off investors again. And they keep all the politicians greased--from Obama to Clinton to Trump--to make sure nothing illegal they do is prosecuted and all regulations are weak and unenforced."
----Thanatos Sand
I agree, but then again if you own the printing press that can legally turn monopoly money into legal tender than it might be in your best interest to make bad loans and/or bad investment choices since you can always print more money and/or bail yourself out when you need to (with the latter being hardly any different than doing the former), and if the money you are using is merely just your own bogus monopoly money in the first place then the goal is mostly just to get other people to continue to accept it while doing a slow but steady (or fast and reckless if you really want to) exchange your nearly worthless currency with something else that may have value. Even if you someone sells you worthless junk stocks and bonds every so often, it will not hurt you as long as enough other investors make some of the same mistakes as well. The big boys who own and run the Fed and the banks don't play the game to beat the market (because really THEY ARE THE MARKET), the play the game to beat Mr Joe Average small time investor and other players (whether big or small) who wish to be able to own a piece of the pie as well. As long as they get us to play their game at their table, it is almost a given they will have some sort of insider knowledge/tactics that gives them the upper hand and often in more ways than one.

Also whenever the market crashes, they're still more solvent than anyone else (since they can merely print money whenever they need to) and they can just go out and buy stocks, commodities, etc. that might have been too expensive before but it is either at fair value or even too undervalued than it should be. As a person who use to invest myself, it is hard to explain how hard it is to cough up the cash to buy under valued stocks after a crash since that is the time people are either trying to hold on many of their stocks they saw lose 50% of their value and/or have to liquidate whatever your assets are to make up for financial shortfalls (loss of job,business, etc).

I guess on the up side I think you and me might have more in common than we previously thought (ie a few days ago I thought our values were like night and day), or at least I hope that we do. :D

"People had to take those loans for it to work.

I'm​ about to get kicked out of my apartment, I hear. Just moved in a few months ago. Not long after that we were all informed: new owner.

Instead of $550 per month for 1 BR it is going to be $810, I hear.

As far as I can tell, a few cosmetic changes and some new appliances will be the only difference.

Yet, those who can afford it will be camping outside the leasing office so they can be first in line to pay higher prices for the same product, apparently. The words "newly remodeled" in advertisements must be powerful.

If nobody takes the fraudulent loans; if nobody rents the nondescript apartments for more than a mortgage payment; if nobody buys the same food at Whole Foods that they could get from a discount grocery store for much less; if nobody accepts the credit cards and spends money they don't have, it doesn't work.

But for some reason household consumers never seem to be anywhere on the radar of people looking to indict and convict economic and political actors in the court of public opinion."
--WISDOMfromPO-MO

I know this doesn't help you, but right now I'm living in a house with around ten other people (plus 4 cats, 2 dogs), it is pretty cramped, and just last year me and my Mom was evicted from the apartment we lived in which at the time they tried to BOTH collect rent and threaten/strong arm us with an eviction whenever we couldn't pay all or back rent at once - PLUS WHATEVER FEES they felt like hitting us with.

One of the main reasons we couldn't pay rent was I had become disabled (or more accurately I was already disabled but had finally lost my job), but another reason was the place we lived was too expense for us to afford. Although there is no one for us to blame for the second problem then ourselves, part of the issues was we were in a bad situation and the move was a bit of an emergency move (where we didn't have time/energy to really think and plan what we were doing) and it wasn't that different than what happens to some refugees who end up in a number of bad set of situations because they are constantly trying to run from one bad thing, survive the process of running away, only to end up in other bad situation or short end of the stick in one way or another because they didn't really know what they were running into. Or at least that is the way I see it.

Personally I think the powers that be, kind of like families (other than their own of course) to kind of be dysfunctional as well as societies and governments as well. I remember in a psychology 101 class (or something like it) that gangs and certain organizations (perhaps it was military) prefer recruiting kids from ghettos and projects since they are already use to abuse/dysfunctional relationships and are more loyal to anyone/any group that can provide any kind of security or structure in their lives since they have none already.

I think the term some psychologist use for such people that are use to dealing with drug addicts/drug dealers, corrosive and/or abusive relationships, etc. and are terrified of getting out of such situations (since when you are down and out, the grass looks even meaner on the other side) is called CODEPENDENT. While I probably sound crazy saying that there is a conspiracy to make as many of us as possible to be codependent on those who abuse us, I think history shows us (such as the beginning of the cold war) that such tactics have been often used in the past both by us and in other countries. Below is a link to excerpt from "Atomic Cafe" that sort of visually shows and talks about this kind of condition:

The Atomic Cafe | 1982 | Part 2/4 (17 minutes into the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kR73wIrm0#t=17m01s
("in time of social crisis and tension, in times of changes that happen so think and fast that the individual can no longer place himself in his group,when he knows something is wrong but he doesn't know what, when he feels himself upon, in times like these MOST MEN BECOME HIGHLY SUGGESTIBLE, THEY LISTEN EAGERLY FOR ANY VOICE WHICH SOUNDS AUTHORITATIVE, they listen eagerly for any voice who can tell them what is wrong,and what to do to right it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kR73wIrm0#t=17m01s

Unfortunately, this might also explain some of the reasons the US is sometimes to eager to enter into a war (since wars often help the incumbent party if people think it is the right thing) and/or it might help explain why someone like Trump can get into office; even though he is not typically what one would expect to become president (hot temper, single minded, etc) he also talks with enough authority/ about solving problems that for some people neck deep in it they are willing to give it a shot.


.
.

"Why?

I answered that question in another post today.

Two great social-scientists, P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields, have the answer to that question:

P.T. Barnum said that there's sucker born every minute.

W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break."

Between them, those two experts explain society and the way it is (and always will be)."
---Michael Ossipoff

I agree with what you say is true, but I also that such problems are aspects of the human condition and blaming people for being suckers in certain situations is almost like blaming animals for having to walk on four legs instead of two. Often when we are young we can sense that the world is messed up but in order to fit in and/or maintain our sanity we cut ourselves off from some of these senses and if the powers that be rig the system to take advantage of us because we take part in a kind of group which has this negative aspect of it, I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Our society often promotes those that act as bobble head/yes-man type mentalities and penalizes those who think for themselves or those who "don't always work well in groups". When the 1% surround themselves with too many bobble heads, it because nearly impossible for them to get a counter opinion to whatever they think and believe because they are surrounded by those unable and/or unwilling of getting a opposing opinion based upon what they are doing wrong. Hopefully I have not gone on a tangent from what you said in your post.... .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why are our world's people like that?

I suggest that natural-selection created a large class of suckers, because a two-tiered system of sheep and herders was adaptive (at least in prehistoric times).

The sheep (suckers) are matched to their herders like a glove to a hand. It's uncanily like Huxeley's "Brave New Worldl", except that there's nothing new about it. ...and, where, in the novel, it was done by drugging, in real life, it was done by natural selection.

Yes, we have a lot to thank evolution, natural-selection for. But it just happens that it resulted in a population of sheep. ...suckers.

Get used to it. Accept it."
---Michael Ossipoff

Or maybe we are already partly HARDWIRED to be sheep because of an aspect of evolution which happen in the past. Julian Jaynes's book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" he explains his theory that in our early evolution we were not conscience/self aware as we are today and instead had a "talker"/"listener" aspects instead. I'm kind of guessing the "ego" was almost split between the superego and the id, and the ego/id would try it's best to do what was expected by the "ego/superego" since it acted as a commanding voice/authority of what it "ought" to be doing at any given time.

Or another way to put it, for both the bicameral as well as post bicameral(modern people) minds, slef awareness, rationality, etc is often trickier than we normally think it should be since our minds were really never designed to function in such a way because our nature CRAVES for a more simplistic world...perhaps where enough of us are still in bicameral mode and we don't have to worry about others trying to find ways to trick and use us for their own purposes. Also this might explain a little bita bout religion as well, but I covered that in another post..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But need things have been like that?

I don't know. It could be argued that any social species is likely to end up like that, due to conditions during its early evolution.

But the Eastern religious/philosophical traditions say that there's a wide variety of worlds in which people are born--some like ours, some a lot better, and no doubt some that are worse.

Maybe we were all born into the Land of the Lost because that was what we were (for some reason) deserving of, good for, or inclined toward in some way.

I don't know.

I'd like to add that it seems to me that, if there's reincarnation, past-lives are indeterminate. This life doesn't need an explanation, in terms of a past life. Each life, such as this one, is free-standing and independent, without need of any past-life origin or explanation.

But nevertheless, if there's reincnarnation, then, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there are likely to be life possibility-stories that would lead to this life, as their next one.

I realize that reincarnation isn't a universally-accepted fact. But this discussion of possible explanations for how things are led to it.

I mention reincarnation because I wanted to mention various explanations for how things are in this world. ...and a possible explanation for all of us being born in the Land of the Lost."
----Michael Ossipoff

If reincarnation exists I think it works in that whatever animals or plants that use the water, minerals, vitamins, etc are sort of "you" (just as "you are a sort of a representation of any being that used the same resources that makes up you at this particular moment) after you are no longer here but since there is no construct to save our memory and our mind (the main source of what makes up our conscience), I have a bit of a problem with any reincarnation that doesn't resolve this. Because of this I think it is probably best for anyone/everyone to delay going off to the great beyond, even if it takes being put into an ice cube for centuries or millenniums is need be. As the old saying goes "any port in a storm", or I at least that is the proper analogy at least.

"I can answer these two questions for you:

IF you depend on a wage (payment that you have to work for to receive) then you are, by definition, working class. Most people are working class. If they don't work, they don't get paid, then they starve to death. Even if your wage adds up to 100,000 a year, you are still working class.

IF you own a small business and employ other people, and you live on the proceeds of your small business, OR if you are a professional living on the proceeds of your practice, then you are middle class. About 10-15% of the population is middle class. Middle class people don't starve to death very often. If you live off of investments and don't have to work at all, then you are upper class. Upper class people never starve. If you are in the top 1% of rich people, then you get to make other people starve.

Here are the Federal Poverty Guidelines: Some programs define eligibility at 100% of the guideline, and others define it as 133% of the guide. (Actually, the numbers go up to 400% of the guideline.)

2016 Federal Poverty Guidelines
-----100%----133%
1 $11,880----$15,800
2 $16,020----$21,307
3 $20,160----$26,813
4 $24,300----$32,319

So a single person earning $11,880 per year is flat out poor. At 133% of the poverty level, you are still poor. A family of 4 is poor at 24,300; they are still poor at $32,319.

If you were single and making $16 per hour (33,600 annually), you individually might still be a bit poor, and certainly not rolling in extra cash. If you had a wife and two children to support on $16 per hour, you'd still be pretty poor.

If you were single and making $25 an hour, or $52,500 a year, you would not be poor. You'd be somewhat well off. But if you had a wife and two children, you'd only be at 400% of the poverty level."
--Wayfarer

Excellent post! :D

I always like seeing things that involve number, statistics, although I will admit I don't always know how to read and/or use them properly. :)

From what little I know the price of many consumer goods like video game consoles, computers, etc which use too be too expensive for the average consumer have become more affordable, but certain necessities such as insurance, education, health care,, a house, etc has seemed to become so expensive that they seem to out of reach even for working class with somewhat decent incomes. While it is a given that some if not all) young adults who are on only minimum wage will struggle to make ends meet if they provide for EVERYTHING they really need out of their own pocket, to me it is a bit of a head scratchier if this is also true of those who have more experience/earn much more than minimum wage. If someone doesn't have health insurance and/or other benefits from their employer (so they don't have to pay to much out of pocket) they might really not be financially secure enough to really be "out of poverty" since they are walking a thin line with financially disaster if anything should happen to them or their family. I may be wrong but those numbers may be "obsolete" if one factors in the number of potential financial pot holes and other risks one faces in today's economy.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I vaguely remember an economic philosopher back in the 80's who talked about how US companies (both manufacturing and other) should move away from "dealing with unions" and adopt the model often used inn other countries "were workers were paid only for the value of the work they do" or more accurately whatever management think the value is of their efforts and/or whatever they can get away with paying them. Of course this guy also said in the same breath when he said this "everyone (which I imagine includes janitors, baggers at grocery stores, Micky D worker and anyone else who can only work a certain position for whatever reason but they have at least been doing it for about 5-10 years) should still be paid enough to "have a decent standard of living and be able to live with (more or less) the same dignity as everyone else does".

I think the point of his argument at the time was that certain senior government, union and or other position got paid a lot of money for doing something that in the end didn't return much value back. Obviously in some of the most senior/powerful positions (higher upper corporate management /higher upper government) someone may either be too embedded or too powerful to remove.but obviously the same can not be said of those much closer to the bottom. Also the idea of using the model of other corporations in certain countries not in the US (or in Europe either) because "they didn't believe that ALL workers where necessarily entitled to the higher pay/benefits that where typically given to those who work their hardest and make the company profitable" that was more often than not possible from everyone working as a team or family, but instead accept the possibility of some of the workers helpers being "marginal"/"much less important players" in the overall..narrative of things.

An easy way to think of it is in these other countries, wealth and social status are often a bit more exclusive and harder to get than here in America (and it is a given that these lower class people will have to work much , much harder to be able to move beyond the status they have been given) and by using the same mentality here it makes it easier to explain why the work of such unimportant people(but somehow still equal to us), and by PAYING them LESS your kind of giving them another reward of sorts by showing them the "error of their ways" if they were happy and efficient when only doing that job. As a productive member of society it is "acceptable" to do menial work at some time in one's life, but if the pay is too low for one to do it long term in order to support themselves and their family it is a given they either have to find and train themselves for better professions, such as a doctor, lawyer, etc or if they are unable to do the work or find and opening it it then it is a given they need to create their own income by staring their own business. An easy way to think of it is that it is kind of "ok" in other countries some some people to part of a group that is thought of as outsiders, untouchables, undesirables, etc and such people are not exactly part of the family we call our society, even if function much in the same capacity as the rest of us. Because of this they can divert some of the work they need to do which is thought of as either sort of unimportant and/or undesirable to do (sort of like how the son of the boss is doing important work by chatting and pow-wowing with his friends and co-workers and is EASILY worth TEN MORE as a pleb hire to work in the mail room for eleven hours racing around trying to get mail, print outs, check various system and whatever else is needed to the right people in order and the right time for them to do their job and all the while get covered in sweat nearly from head to toe doing it before the day is done. After all it is more or less a given that nearly any above average intelligence pleb who is desperate has about a 50%/50% to able to survive working in the mail room for around 6 months to a year and a half or so;which is about average for many of the high stress/high burn out rate jobs where people work in the so called trenches. It is easy to see the pleb couldn't be expected to do the same job as the bosses son, as only the bosses son has the personality skills (namely being the son of the boss) to interact with those in upper management and potentially be able to carry the legacy of having the same family running the company after the boss retires or passes away; which is obviously requires more skill than pretty much any lazy pleb bothered training for or even considers working toward. Also if for some reason someone considers the work the pleb worth more than they get paid, it is easy to point out that if the work was really worth more than any person with even average intelligence and work ethic would refuse to do it and move on to something else and the company would be forced to pay someone what the work was really worth in order to get it filled. However if the company seems to find someone to replace the position with relative easy whenever one pleb can not handle it any longer or moves on to something else, then it is easy to see that the job is one of relatively common and/or easy skill and those that take up such jobs are those who have not yet really consider or worked hard enough to learn a trade that plays an more important role in a place they work and society as a whole. Of course this whole thing about comparing the boss's son and a pleb I'm obviously being sarcastic, but I hope nobody misreads it as what I actually believe)

The bottom line is that by following this corporate and/or social model, the hierarchical pyramid in the US grew a few more tiers in the bottom (and maybe a few in the middle as well) and all the ideals of paying most people well for them to be somewhat comfortable and have some dignity went out the window since obviously if one can't find work that pays well enough to live as such then according to corporate america, Ayn Rand, or somebody somewhere they haven't properly done their "due diligence" that would allow them to find such work.

......I'm getting a bit tired (got like 4 hours of sleep last night) and I fear that have been rambling on for a bit longer than I should so I leave this part odf my post as this until I can restore enough of my sanity to be able to carry it on in a proper fashion.

. .

I know this doesn't help you, but right now I'm living in a house with around ten other people (plus 4 cats, 2 dogs), it is pretty cramped, and just last year me and my Mom was evicted from the apartment we lived in which at the time they tried to BOTH collect rent and threaten/strong arm us with an eviction whenever we couldn't pay all or back rent at once - PLUS WHATEVER FEES they felt like hitting us with.

One of the main reasons we couldn't pay rent was I had become disabled (or more accurately I was already disabled but had finally lost my job), but another reason was the place we lived was too expense for us to afford. Although there is no one for us to blame for the second problem then ourselves, part of the issues was we were in a bad situation and the move was a bit of an emergency move (where we didn't have time/energy to really think and plan what we were doing) and it wasn't that different than what happens to some refugees who end up in a number of bad set of situations because they are constantly trying to run from one bad thing, survive the process of running away, only to end up in other bad situation or short end of the stick in one way or another because they didn't really know what they were running into. Or at least that is the way I see it. — dclements

I am sorry that you have gone through that.

I did not mean to imply that I have a relatively high degree of misfortune. When I hear what other people are going through--student loan debt of 5+ figures that they can't pay back because of un/underemployment; foreclosure / losing their house; bankruptcy because of medical expenses; and too many other problems--it makes me feel like I have won the lottery compared to many other people, and it scares me into being very careful. It makes me appreciate every advantage, every victory, greatly, such as the fact that $10,000 of student loans are almost completely paid off (balance less than $300 now).

The reason I wrote what I wrote about what I am about to go through is because I find it alarming and I sense that it is part of a pattern of behavior that contributed to the housing bubble, the Great Recession, etc. If they were going to build an indoor swimming pool and a fitness center, connect every unit to high-speed internet service, and other amenities like that, I would not be alarmed that 1 BR is going from $550 per month to $810 per month. But they are changing very little about the property. Yet, apparently there will be people willing to pay 40-50% more for what is essentially the same product. Just like there are people willing to pay a fortune at Whole Foods for the same items they could pay much less for at a discount grocery store.

It feels like more bubbles are being built that will eventually burst.

The point I tried to make is that it is not much of a surprise that things like fraudulent mortgages and then mass foreclosures happened when we seem to have people--typical American households--eager to play right into the hands of the hucksters.

Personally I think the powers that be, kind of like families (other than their own of course) to kind of be dysfunctional as well as societies and governments as well. I remember in a psychology 101 class (or something like it) that gangs and certain organizations (perhaps it was military) prefer recruiting kids from ghettos and projects since they are already use to abuse/dysfunctional relationships and are more loyal to anyone/any group that can provide any kind of security or structure in their lives since they have none already.

I think the term some psychologist use for such people that are use to dealing with drug addicts/drug dealers, corrosive and/or abusive relationships, etc. and are terrified of getting out of such situations (since when you are down and out, the grass looks even meaner on the other side) is called CODEPENDENT. While I probably sound crazy saying that there is a conspiracy to make as many of us as possible to be codependent on those who abuse us, I think history shows us (such as the beginning of the cold war) that such tactics have been often used in the past both by us and in other countries. Below is a link to excerpt from "Atomic Cafe" that sort of visually shows and talks about this kind of condition:

The Atomic Cafe | 1982 | Part 2/4 (17 minutes into the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kR73wIrm0#t=17m01s
("in time of social crisis and tension, in times of changes that happen so think and fast that the individual can no longer place himself in his group,when he knows something is wrong but he doesn't know what, when he feels himself upon, in times like these MOST MEN BECOME HIGHLY SUGGESTIBLE, THEY LISTEN EAGERLY FOR ANY VOICE WHICH SOUNDS AUTHORITATIVE, they listen eagerly for any voice who can tell them what is wrong,and what to do to right it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kR73wIrm0#t=17m01s

Unfortunately, this might also explain some of the reasons the US is sometimes to eager to enter into a war (since wars often help the incumbent party if people think it is the right thing) and/or it might help explain why someone like Trump can get into office; even though he is not typically what one would expect to become president (hot temper, single minded, etc) he also talks with enough authority/ about solving problems that for some people neck deep in it they are willing to give it a shot. — dclements

That is an interesting theory.

Thank you for pointing it out.

The point I tried to make is that it is not much of a surprise that things like fraudulent mortgages and then mass foreclosures happened when we have people--typical American households--eager to play right into the hands of the hucksters.

They weren't eager to play into the hucksters; they were eager to have their own home, as almost all Americans are. The people they gave money to were established bankers working for major banks. They shouldn't have had to go to those people thinking those professionals were going to screw them out of our money. We don't do that when we go to buy a car anymore, and we shouldnt' have to do that when we're buying a home. So, don't blame the victims for not expecting legal businesses to criminally rob them of their savings.

I couldn't find this thread, till I checked the Interesting-Things heading. Hence my late reply.

I agree with what you say is true, but I also that such problems are aspects of the human condition and blaming people for being suckers in certain situations is almost like blaming animals for having to walk on four legs instead of two. — dclements

Agreed. They're just the way they they were evolved and born to be.
C

Often when we are young we can sense that the world is messed up but in order to fit in and/or maintain our sanity we cut ourselves off from some of these senses and if the powers that be rig the system to take advantage of us because we take part in a kind of group which has this negative aspect of it, I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Nothing can be done about it.

Fortunately this possibility-world is only one of infinitely-many possibility worlds. This one is the Land-Of-The-Lost. According to Eastern traditions, there are much better worlds.

Or maybe we are already partly HARDWIRED to be sheep because of an aspect of evolution which happen in the past. — dclements

Certainly.

If reincarnation exists I think it works in that whatever animals or plants that use the water, minerals, vitamins, etc are sort of "you" (just as "you are a sort of a representation of any being that used the same resources that makes up you at this particular moment) after you are no longer here — dclements

Reincarnation isn't about the re-use of material resources. It's about a continuity of experience from one life to another. That life needn't be, and presumably wouldn't usually be, in the same world as the previous one. (But it would likely at least be in a very similar one, being a continuation.)

but since there is no construct to save our memory and our mind (the main source of what makes up our conscience), I have a bit of a problem with any reincarnation that doesn't resolve this.

Correct, there is no such construct in Physicalism ("Naturalism")

If you believe in Physicalism or Naturalism, then, in your belief, there can be no reincarnation.

I've described my metaphysics at various topic-threads,.

Reincarnation is consistent with, and maybe even implied by, my metaphysics, which I call Skepticism.

Briefly, I point out that the same reason for this life of yours beginning, will remain at the end of this life. ...meaning that you'll be in another life, after this one, for the same reason that you're in this one.

In Physicalism, that wouldn't make any sense. I'm not a Physicalist.

I go into that matter more, in the Reincarnation topic-thread.

Because of this I think it is probably best for anyone/everyone to delay going off to the great beyond

No argument there. We're here for a reason, because we want or need to be in a life, and you're not done till you're done.

, even if it takes being put into an ice cube for centuries or millenniums is need be.

Certainly not.

If you strongly don't feel that you'll be done at the end of this life, then you probably won't be, and you'll probably be reincarnated. In fact, that's a certainty, according to Eastern traditions, and I tend to agree with them on that. You'll be reincarnated unless you're that very rare person who has genuinely completed hir (his/her) lives, and has, remaining, no un-discharged consequences of consequence-causing acts.

Neither you, nor I, nor probably anyone we know, fits that description of that very rare kind of person.

But Cryonics, which you've referred to, doesn't guarantee anything. When you die, and they freeze your body, and then thaw it millennia later, and repair it as good as new, that won't be you. It will be someone just like you. But you died. Reviving the body won't change that.

Michael Ossipoff

...And, knowing that, those people in future millennia probably wont revive crionic frozen bodies. ...because they'll know that it accomplishes nothing whatsoever for the patient who got hirself frozen. ...someone who died long ago, and is irretrievably gone.

Michael Ossipoff