It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:24 AM

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: undo

Such systems, along with a plethora of others, are already in the works.

Distribution is tricky, not necessarily the design/manufacturing.

really? got any links?? if you're talking about things like the fellow who created hydroponic farm skyscrapers, i think it's fantastic idea, i just don't like that he includes with his concept that people of his perfect city, would have to be necessarily non religious. doh. it's like saying if you have freckles, you shouldn't be allowed to share in the bounty of technology or the future, even if your own ancestors helped to develop the sciences being employed. a great idea, tossed into the waste receptacle with all the other plans to design utopias where massive amounts of people have to be murdered in order for it to work. and it never pans out like it said it would, but alot of people had to suffer just to see if it would. repeated ad nauseum. i'm beginning to think it's just an engine for population reduction, driven by the inability of people of differing world views, to actually allow independent thoughts of people they disagree with.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:27 AM
a reply to: undo

No links.

Like I said, distribution is the tricky part. There is a system in place to prevent these types of things from really reaching full market saturation without interference from industry titans who have everything but real world value as a central focus.

Once it reaches a tipping point, there will be links aplenty.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:27 AM
Total Socialist drivel

You can deny it, you can get scared just by the name, whatever.

Truth is, the US needs a portion of "socialism" to fix the problems it is having. If a multi-billionaire gets it, so should you.

However, as I said further above, higher minimum wage alone won't cut it. This will not be enough to grow a healthier, wealthier middle-class.
You can NOT grow a healthy, wealthy middle-class here in this country by outsourcing manufacturing and whatever other jobs to India. The problem is there are no regulations in place that would forbid that to an entrepreneur or business.
edit on 6/29/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:33 AM

originally posted by: ArcAngel
I truly believe this is inconsequential. Think about it for a moment.

There's over 7.2 billion people in this world ( and it's growing every second.

They all need food and water and a way to provide this for their families and themselves (I am in there too). We all need energy for the trucks, planes and rail that deliver this food to us. If that stopped, our world would literally change in 3 days. That's when the food runs out.

At current consumption, we have 53 years of oil left (

An excellent blog that explains far better than I could with data states:
that the use of fossil fuels since 1820 has allowed GDP to rise faster than population, for pretty much the first time. Prior to 1820, the vast majority of world GDP growth was absorbed by population growth.

If we compare the later time periods to the earlier ones, Figure 11 shows a pattern of increasing growth rates for both population and GDP. We know that in the 1000 to 1500 and 1500 to 1820 time periods, early energy sources (peat moss, water power, wind power, animal labor) became more widespread. These changes no doubt contributed to the rising growth rates. The biggest change, however, came with the addition of fossil fuels, in the period after 1820.

Looking back, the question seems to become: How many people can the world support, at what standard of living, with a given quantity of fuel? If our per capita energy consumption drops to the level it was in 1905, can we realistically expect to have robust international trade, and will other systems hold together? While it is easy to make estimates that make the transition sound easy, when a person looks at the historical data, making the transition to using less fuel looks quite difficult, even in a best-case scenario. One thing is clear: It is very difficult to keep up with rising world population.

So, my point is that the wealth distribution world wide won't matter much for anyone's family, rich or poor in a generation or two. We are all in that boat and it's about to capsize.

Now, with that perspective, what would you do if you were part of the 1% or say the 0.01%. Read the Georgia Guidestones again and see what's coming. There's a few ways to correct an inequality. One would be to make both terms equal (share the wealth). But that won't happen. Human nature will make sure of that. Or eliminate one of the terms. This seems to be mankind's preferred method for survival.

How would this happen? Or could it even happen? Honeastly I don't know for sure. But I wouldn't be surprised. Remember this from 2009?

Czech newspapers are questioning if the shocking discovery of vaccines contaminated with the deadly avian flu virus which were distributed to 18 countries by the American company Baxter were part of a conspiracy to provoke a pandemic.

This would be one way.

So, there won't be any pitchforks in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd world countries, there will be "manageable populations"

Brilliantly analyzed and expressed, ArchAngel.
I'm still getting a pitchfork...just in case.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:36 AM
a reply to: Chiftel

okay here's his description

Step 1

legalizing marijunan, taxing it and using these tax dollars to exclusively fund health care for the uninsured. it leaves in place the liberty and freedom of all americans and the right not to be forced into mandatory health insurance. hemp is used for thousands of products. a whole new booming industry.

Step 2

Pay the working poor $20/hour and give the employer a $5 direct tax write off for each $1 paid to the employee over the federal minimum wage, times the number of hours each employee works. Effect: Significant increase in pay of employees without a penny increase in product cost. This is the only FAIR WAY TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH, as it cuts out the middle man, "i.e. government" and allows an employer to pay his employees what he or she is really worth. It also allows the number of employees and employer hires, to be used as a tax write off. This means more people working and paying taxes, which takes care of the issue of the tax write offs of the employer. in effect, the more people working and paying taxes, the less you have to worry that tax write offs for the wealthy will negatively impact the tax system.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:38 AM

originally posted by: Snarl
Nice find.

He's right.

Too bad he doesn't know the date of the ball. I'm just about ready to dance.

Got my shoes all nice and shiny and my tux back from the cleaners. It is coming, and it will not be pretty.

The ignorant will lash out at everyone who is blamed, it will be like the Salem witch trials or the Spanish inquisition.

One group will end up having power above all others, and they will exert their version of the world on everyone.

Eventually there will be a "cleansing" to rid society of the undesirables, and then it will get worse.

One day sanity will return, mankind will move forward towards its next collapse.

Sad cycle really.

We will never learn I fear.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:40 AM
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Social Democracy is probably the answer.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:53 AM
a reply to: olaru12

That's cute, but private armies are just merc's and anyone who can be bought can be bought again at an even higher price.

Put another way: why should I -- the young, strong and able -- defend you and your pretty wife / daughters from the hordes when I can just kill you, and take your women and your stuff?

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

That is a brilliant insight. And is why capitalism, for stability, requires a slope rather than this pike:

A pole or pike is far more likely to topple over than a ramp or a pyramid.

This simple fact eludes those at the top of the pole, who think people will kill and die for a fraction of their money instead of just taking it for themselves and sharing it with the mob.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:06 AM
a reply to: Chiftel

By the way, Chiftel, I have read your posts, and want you to know that I actually agree with you and starred them.

You asked for Republicans who support this idea, and I gave you some. I did not mean to shoot down your premise.
I see the "turning" of those mentioned in the OP, and in the sources I posted, as a breath of fresh air.

Oh, and...welcome to ATS - I'm a newb myself, but noticed you're "newber". LOL

edit on 6/29/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:11 AM
Can you please links to actual quotes or recordings of them stating that there should be a $15/hr national/federal minimum wage? If not $15 then $12, even?

Thank you.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:17 AM

Here is a member of the 0.1 percent talking about bridging the economic gap between the rich and poor, I guess that makes him one the 0.0001 percent.

Many people automatically equate excessive wealth with corruption and greed, but it's the acts of the few that have given the wealthy a bad name. Bill gates, George Lucas and co have donated billions to charity and kudos must go to them.

But on the other hand you've got people like Gina Reinheart, one of the richest women in the world who tells us to work harder for our money even though she inherited her wealth and her empire, and now she's denying her children her trust fund. The irony is priceless.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:19 AM
a reply to: olaru12

Yeah just ask SWAT.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:21 AM
a reply to: Chiftel

I can for Ron Unz:

RON UNZ: Well, I think there are very strong liberal and conservative reasons for raising the minimum wage. Right now, $250 billion a year in social welfare spending goes to workers who can't survive on their paychecks. What we're talking about is a massive system of hidden government subsidies for these low-wage employers where they can shift the costs of the workforce over to the taxpayer. I think businesses should stand on their own two feet and have to pay their workers instead of forcing the taxpayers to make up the difference.

NEARY: Now, do you think that people who, let's say, they have two kids, maybe they're living in a city like Los Angeles, do you think that they won't still need some government help?

UNZ: Well, certainly in some cases in expensive cities still need some help but much less help. On a minimum wage of $12 an hour, a couple - two full-time minimum wage workers - would earn $50,000 a year. That certainly doesn't make you affluent, it doesn't make you rich, but you can get by reasonably well on $50,000 a year.

As far as the others, simply do a search for the names and add "on minimum wage".

You can listen to the piece on the NPR site, or just read the transcript. I posted the transcript, because some ATS members can't do the video or listen thing.

edit on 6/29/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:43 AM
I suspect that we have a tendancy to be more sceptical of the super rich than is realistic.

I mean, we have some friends who are in the billionaire class, spent some time a couple weeks ago with some of them, trying out some of their Ferrari's, planes and boats. Something that became strikingly clear to me when we began to get to know these people was that I was seeing through a poor mentality- a coping mechanism gone haywire.

Because I was poor growing up, but surrounded by much wealthier people, suffering from jealousy and envy, I comforted and calmed myself through the belief that I was superior to them morally, ethically... "they may be rich, but i am a better human being! They are greedy inhumaine evil people".

The fact is, I was very wrong, at least about some of the people we've gotten to know now. They didn't get where they are by being evil and unsympathetic. Other humans put trust in them partly because their ethical and moral bones were strong. They care about others, and they strive to be fair. These are some really good people.

Some of our conversations have turned around how to bring about more equilibrium for the poor and the middle class- many are perfectly ready and willing to live a less flamboyant lifestyle and give up some of their luxuries to help this happen. Some of them do hope to find ways of doing that which don't mean just throwing money out the windows- they'd like to see the hardworking peoples rewarded (and are aware that is not always what happens).

I do not mean to say all rich people are saints, only let's not get carried away in our demonization of all the super rich... some are human.

But also, I was talking with my husband yesterday about this thing in France, where you can buy an apartment, and be a co-owner (I was explaining to him we can't find that in Florida). There is no individual owner, just a group, and all works on democracy- if the majority votes on some sort of work to be done on the building, all owners must pay a share.

It strikes me as very socialist and I don't like it, but what I found interesting is that this is not obligatory in France- it is an option. It is a possibility, for those who prefer that. Some people like that. Others that don't can rent and apartment, the buildling owned by an individual; or own apartment buildings that others rent.

The same kinda thing goes for medical care, you can have the national payment system, or private insurance... government owned facilities or private ones.

This made it clear to me that socialism and capitalism can co-inhabit, side by side. I find that fascinating, because I was always taught they can't.
Why don't we ever consider that??

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:02 PM
a reply to: Bluesma

So they want to make sure only deserving people get monies, huh?

Like they're deserving of their Ferraris and yacht, that kind of deserving, right?

Cause, I mean, they designed and built them. And also researched the technology that went into them and exploited and refined the natural resources.


The same with their mansion, and all their other property.

They built it all themselves, with their own two hands. Or traded it for their own labour or fruits thereof, fair and square. No legal fraud and money counterfeiting on either their part or their business partners, no systemic coercion (as in people who don't own means of production having the 'freedom' to choose between wage slavery for peanuts or outright homelessness and starvation), no nuttin'.

Yeah, sure.

Of course you have to be evil to be rich.

You know you could help so many people so much without compromising your own security, without risking to also need help yourself and... you don't.

But that's somehow moral.

Cause, I mean, they must've discovered cold fusion or a cure for polio or something, right?
edit on C1203f30America/ChicagoSunday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:40 PM

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

Many people automatically equate excessive wealth with corruption and greed, but it's the acts of the few that have given the wealthy a bad name. Bill gates, George Lucas and co have donated billions to charity and kudos must go to them.

No need to give Kudos to any billionaires.

If they were so inclined they would have set up equal profit sharing for everyone that worked for them.

There are companies set up like this in the USA and the employees, management, CEO's all share equally and have a say equally.

When only a few are in charge and have the ultimate say, then ultimate entitlement is bound to happen.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:43 PM
a reply to: KarensHoliday

S & F.

This is a perfect example of the old adage "Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it".

Unfortunately, unlike in the past, we now live in a time where despots have the technological means to put down revolutions more easily than any time in the past.

Its already taking place in a fashion. Over the past 20 years, countless jobs have been eradicated by technology advances and automation. One can only wonder, will those in power push for technologies to deal with the eventuality of an uprising? Will they use a germ, or nanotechnology, or even some sort of robots, to "cull the herd"?

I fear these people are playing for keeps, and they will use their resources to devise all sorts of ways to keep us down. The movie Elysium comes to mind. If you think the kinds of robots in that movie are not possible, I suggest you look at some darpa videos on youtube, and extrapolate the technology advances over the next twenty years.

The truth is, to the elites, we are becoming obsolete as a commodity to be utilized. They do not want to share this world or its resources with us, the "useless eaters". They will rationalize their actions as being for the greater good, but its just another extension of their arrogance and greed.

The only thing that will save humanity at this point is a true and sincere change of moral conscience. I have not given up hope on this as the one percent, after all, are human beings like the rest of us. Its just a pity they dont see it that way.

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:55 PM
a reply to: Chiftel

on the other hand, benefiting from the fruits of civilization that came about as the result of everyone's efforts, should not mean that people who managed to make more than others from those fruits, are auto-evil. i know, for example, that as a white person it's assumed i am - rich, sexually promiscuous, a slave owner, greedy, racist and benefiting off the backs of minorities all around the world. yet, all i had to do was be born onto this planet to have those labels pinned on me. i wasn't rich, my family wasn't rich, still not rich, will likely never be rich, wasn't sexually promiscuous, still not, will never be, never a slave owner, neither were my parents or grand parents, not racist, and definitely not benefiting off the backs of minorities. but, i'm all those things because of my skin color, automatically, just for being born. same thing is said about rich people, even if they started off poor, came up with a good idea, and did the only logical thing -- made it into a product and sold it/gave it away, to others.

did you read my husband's response to you?

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:58 PM
a reply to: Chiftel

Of course you have to be evil to be rich.

I've been agreeing with you and starring your posts all this time, but this is going too far.

Like Bluesma, I know lots of rich, even very rich people, and they are no more (and no less) evil than poor people.

I was thinking today about how it must have been to be a king in times when kings were despots. Since kingship was also hereditary, men didn't (by and large) get to choose to be king. It was something they were born to. But once they achieved kingship, they had to be forever vigilant of those who might seek to depose them, often by dint of regicide.

Some of the shifts to which they were driven in order to do that were undoubtedly evil, but the motive was simple self-preservation.

Imagine the anxiety, the suspicion, the justified paranoia that must have engendered.

The rich — whether they have made their fortunes or inherited them — are in a similar position. Being in that position creates a certain mindset; it also obliges you to do certain things to stay alive, well and solvent. Even those who do not aspire to prey upon the rich are still envious enough to hate them, and many would do them harm if only they could. If you doubt it, honestly examine your own feelings.

Of course nobody 'deserves' a Ferrari. But Bluesma wasn't saying that. You were saying that.

Have a care that you don't, as in the old Yogic saying, become what you hate.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in