Ultra-rich man's letter: "To My Fellow Filthy Rich Americans: The Pitchforks Are Coming"

His premise is to increase the minimum wage and in general to create again a more-affluent middle-class since without a affluent middle-class companies go out of business. As simple as that.

He is correct there and I entirely agree, HOWEVER raising minimum wage alone won't cut it as long as outsourcing and abroad manufacturing is going on. Worse, companies may/will take the higher minimum wage just as another reason to outsource even more. India, Pakistan, China ... This is how I see it.

A story is told from one society that experienced a revolition.

Before the revolution, a rich man was skeptically reading a journalist's essay on the possibility of coming revolt. He turned to his servant and said, "Do you believe this hogwash? This man writes that the servants will rise up against their masters. Can you see yourself butchering me, my wife and the kids? Could you really bring yourself to do that, after working your whole life for me here at the manor? Are you telling me that when the time comes, you'll cut my throat?" The rich man snorted in disbelief.

The servant replied calmly, "Of course not, sir. I could never cut your throat. I'll go over to the manor next door and cut their throats, and their servants will come here and kill you."

What astounds me, is the fact that you in your own mind, believe that is the goal to attain. As if it mattered. Why subject yourself to inanimate objects? Although, we are all one.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Reply to Karen's Holiday

Fantastic article; rarely have I read so much good sense so cogently expressed.

Tea-Party types and other right-wing extremists on ATS would do well to heed his words:

The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don’t need food stamps. They don’t need rent assistance. They don’t need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won’t need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.

*

Reply to: alienjuggalo

Read the article. The answer to your question is in there.

Total Socialist drivel - get rid of all Federal & State Taxes and oppressive regulations & this country would take off like a rocket ship...don't need some scam artist Billionaire to figure that out. They all know this Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner & the idiot that wrote this article. Rats in a cage!

Would simply would direct any gullible idiot to the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto:

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Communist Manifesto

He is a super paranoid scaredy cat. Oh and modest too.

Like he boasted , he is able to foresee what the future holds. He sees utter chaos and losing everything he worked for, or even his life. He's devising a plan he hopes the other rich bastards go along with. The best part is, he gets even richer. ( see below)

The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression—so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer. Read more: www.politico.com...

As usual anything they say or do benefits them. Of course he doesn't mind losing a bit of money to avoid losing everything. It's just a numbers game to him.

He can play the game and it works out for the 99%.

originally posted by: jrflipjr
a reply to: Sremmos80

Please read my question. I believe you may have misunderstood what I am trying to say. The "nonsensical" issue I refer to is the media's exploitation of issues, polarization of opinions and sensationalism of political objectives.

I did, and I had also missed your above post which puts it more in context
Apologize

Charles Dickens wrote a book about this, it is called "A tale of two cities".
Well maybe not, but things will be much the same.
Only difference is, the purge of aristocrats will not stop at the US border.
Just my belief.

Private armies are on the rise in America, full of 'people' who will shoot anything on two legs, after the bloodbath, thing might get better, things wont get any worse.

It is very amusing to think that the 1% seriously think that their paid guards are going to be willing to die to protect them in a SHTF scenario.

When a heavily armed mob approaches those guards are very likely to change sides faster that you can make fast food burgers and hell out, 'Follow me, I know where the safe room is!'

P

I've seen a documentary by this guy as well as read some of his other writing. He's completely right, my own policy on economic changes (which I posted in the Above Politics section many months ago) came to the same conclusion. When people have more money, they spend more money. It ends up creating multiplier effects throughout the economy and everyone ends up with more.

The problem is that this is something that has to be enforced. Capitalism when left to human nature destroys itself just as Communism does. As people seek labor reductions they move further and further towards subsistence wages and ultimately slavery. This starts with the worst unskilled jobs and trickles up the ladder. Eventually everyone but the business owners are in that situation. That said, there's merit to what those who oppose the minimum wage say when businesses simply can't afford to hire more people. Businesses can't handle the rapid shock, it's something that needs to be phased in slowly.

If we want to end the recession and prevent the next one, we need to start increasing the minimum wage. If we don't he's right about the pitchforks and they're not far off at this point, probably one banking collapse away (meaning ~4 years going by the averages).

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Well I think most of us know it isn't if, it's when just as he said. His peers think he is bonkers from my perspective he is just being realistic.


Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

A very famous scientist once said:

"The thing about Smart people is they sound like crazy people to stupid people!"

Pitch forks? Remember how those folks in walmart acted when the EBT went down? Imagine what the outcome of that could have been, if the store had not relented and allowed all of that thievery to take place. It would have been unreal.

It`s true that the ultra rich feel untouchable and they don`t fear any sort of peasant uprising against themselves because the scyops in govt. are steering ideologically opposed groups like the far left and far right against each other,making each side look bat # crazy to the other side.If all goes to plan the rich will still get there reset due to a catastrophic collapse of society but unlike incidents of the past like the French revolution where the royalty and the rich were the vermin being killed and fought against in order to achieve freedom,this time the collapse will be caused by the all out civil war between the liberals and conservatives.The uber rich will just tuck away till it`s over and then proceed to lay the groundwork on how they will # over the next manifestation of civilization.
The super rich look at us as disposable and something to use for there own wants and needs.They payed off congress and the potus to pass NAFTA and CAFTA,which has completely destroyed American industry,and now even though unemployment is 4% in Mexico the hoards of illegals are streaming across the border taking most remaining jobs away from Americans or planting there fat asses on the couch collecting benefits that they have no right to.Congress wants amnesty because there overlords want cheap labor and they continue to lobby for it despite overwhelming disapproval for amnesty by the public.They figure if they have enough money for campaigning they can just bombard there constituents with misleading attacks on there opponents or simply lie to them about there intentions and that will be enough to sway the stupid masses into re-electing them,and unfortunately in a lot of cases it an accurate assessment. (Thad Cochran anybody?)

originally posted by: fartsmeller46
It`s true that the ultra rich feel untouchable and they don`t fear any sort of peasant uprising against themselves because the scyops in govt. are steering ideologically opposed groups like the far left and far right against each other,making each side look bat # crazy to the other side.If all goes to plan the rich will still get there reset due to a catastrophic collapse of society but unlike incidents of the past like the French revolution where the royalty and the rich were the vermin being killed and fought against in order to achieve freedom,this time the collapse will be caused by the all out civil war between the liberals and conservatives.The uber rich will just tuck away till it`s over and then proceed to lay the groundwork on how they will # over the next manifestation of civilization.
The super rich look at us as disposable and something to use for there own wants and needs.They payed off congress and the potus to pass NAFTA and CAFTA,which has completely destroyed American industry,and now even though unemployment is 4% in Mexico the hoards of illegals are streaming across the border taking most remaining jobs away from Americans or planting there fat asses on the couch collecting benefits that they have no right to.Congress wants amnesty because there overlords want cheap labor and they continue to lobby for it despite overwhelming disapproval for amnesty by the public.They figure if they have enough money for campaigning they can just bombard there constituents with misleading attacks on there opponents or simply lie to them about there intentions and that will be enough to sway the stupid masses into re-electing them,and unfortunately in a lot of cases it an accurate assessment. (Thad Cochran anybody?)

Bull#.

The right has always been for the interests of the rich and ultra rich to the detriment of everyone else's and nothing else.

Always.

Against humanity, against the well being of the many, the poor, the weak, the frail, the downtrodden, the environment, the commons (if, when and is as much as the right countenance to tolerate there being such a thing as commons).

Always for those who own against those who (actually) work or neither can work or find work, nor own anything worth mentioning.

Always.

You are either knowingly perpetuating propaganda that the left and the right are the same or ... you actually believe what you're saying.

Which is tragic and a testament to the sophistication and effectiveness of the right's propaganda.

That so many people buy it.

Perhaps you all secretly believe and hope you'll be one of the rich some day as well, if only you root for them long and hard enough. So that is why you disown and betray your own class's interests.

Well, you aren't.

The longer capitalism goes on the greater the divide in wealth and power of the few and the money and the smaller percentage of the population that aren't poor.

Nick Hanauer tells the truth whilst also telling a lie.

On the one hand, yes he is a "capitalist", but he is a born into money capitalist.
You know...the type that simply invests the money/assets they inherit from their family without actually doing anything novel or innovative themselves therefore his opinion is no more worthy than your average person.

How many billionaires are there out there who actually started from scratch?

Capitalism is not the problem, it's people who pretend the capitalist ideal of rags to ritches exists when in fact, most people who are billionaires, didnt make the money themselves and compete with the backing of a zero risk gamble.

Even worse...most of these inherited fortunes were founded on exploitative practicies that would now be widely preceived as immoral or in most cases - illegal.

If capitalism was like professional sport where the amount of money you could make was based on a measurable ability that is competed on a level playing field and with rules that are transparent to everyone; capitalism and human egos would co-exist peacefully (most people know when they are beat fair and square and have the capacity to process).

As it is, it's just an appealing social constuct that benefits people who lack motivation and ability but have plentifull amounts of money they are willing to lose-mainly because they didnt earn it in the first place!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
You don't need much more than a passing familiarity with history to recognize the repeating pattern.

EDIT:

Not everyone gets it though. Remember these pictures?

That's because they know we have been fed fluoridated water since childhood and spoon fed Monsanto GM goodness. Too busy stuck trying to provide for our families that no one wants to risk rocking the boat. Yet, each year that dollar becomes more and more difficult to stretch and your debt is growing larger. No matter how difficult people fear a revolution more. How do you feed your children if the government collapses? Not everyone can grow a garden or hunt animals.

Americans have grown soft and overly dependent. The .001% know that we are trapped and clueless of our own potential. Those that look down upon society as depicted in that photo is a scene that has continued throughout time with different players and same results. What's more, an armed rebellion is exactly what they'd want as it justifies martial law. Let's also not forget the hidden hands actions in revolutions such as that of France. Even if we think we engineered a revolution, truth is, it rarely seems the case. Just another sleight of hand and back into the serfdom role we go, albeit feeling a little more self-assured until after enough time has passed we realize, yet again we've been duped.

That is why the laugh. "Let them eat cake!"

One point that I fail to understand.

He makes a case of how, in history, there has never been ONE single society that did not devolve into a plutocracy (with pitchforky consequences) and *then* goes on to argue about how he is a proud capitalist, and how the capitalist system is so great. Wut ?

How does he fail to recognise that the problem spouts from the system ? Surely the logical conclusion to these points should be that wealth accumulation and social inequality are the trademark of any market-driven society. And that since such societies only ever function as a cyclic downward spiral of violence and misery for the greater number, maybe it's time to try something else ?

originally posted by: Ismail
One point that I fail to understand.

He makes a case of how, in history, there has never been ONE single society that did not devolve into a plutocracy (with pitchforky consequences) and *then* goes on to argue about how he is a proud capitalist, and how the capitalist system is so great. Wut ?

How does he fail to recognise that the problem spouts from the system ? Surely the logical conclusion to these points should be that wealth accumulation and social inequality are the trademark of any market-driven society. And that since such societies only ever function as a cyclic downward spiral of violence and misery for the greater number, maybe it's time to try something else ?

A tool, system or device isn't inherently evil, it is the intent of the user.

originally posted by: Ismail
One point that I fail to understand.

He makes a case of how, in history, there has never been ONE single society that did not devolve into a plutocracy (with pitchforky consequences) and *then* goes on to argue about how he is a proud capitalist, and how the capitalist system is so great. Wut ?

How does he fail to recognise that the problem spouts from the system ? Surely the logical conclusion to these points should be that wealth accumulation and social inequality are the trademark of any market-driven society. And that since such societies only ever function as a cyclic downward spiral of violence and misery for the greater number, maybe it's time to try something else ?

He is a realist capitalist, not one of those insane or fantasy-land types.

He is willing to pay a percentage of what he has rather than forfeit all. It's as simple as that.

He is basically advertising that he is willing to use part of his loot that he stole under/using capitalism as bribe money to bribe the plebs.

He thinks the plebs are stupid enough to be bought by being paid back a portion, a fraction of the wealth they created entirely and had stolen from them entirely by the thief now advertising he is willing to pay some of his stolen loot back so he can keep the rest.

I say no half-measures. Take it all.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

When did I ever use the word evil ?

Irrespective of intent, when a tool is inherently broken/dysfunctional, you don't use it.
Also, a tool/system may be something to be wielded, but it's very design says a lot about how it should/can be used. You don't use a hammer for catching fish. Or a gun for babysitting.