It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 8
122
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Maybe we are headed back to a feudal system.

There are still plenty of distractions, bread, and circuses for most Americans not to worry about this gap.

The world has changed fast. Social media has proved mass ignorance here in the states, at least to me.




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel
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.

I didn't use the word "deserving", and if that term means to you that someone has the right to something because they created it their self, then that is certainly not what I meant either.

The person I was staying with a few weeks ago started out as a fighter pilot for his country- he takes risks in life. Later he set out to start his own company, and built houses. It grew, and many people came to work for him and many of them became rich too, through what he created and they worked on. As he rose, so did the number of people becoming more wealthy in his company. I am not sure how many people exactly became comfortable because of his risk taking and creativity, but your objection is that it was not an entire country? Or what?





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.



I should have read your entire post before beginning to respond. Obviously, as in the case of this particular friend, he took huge risks, he and his wife and child had times of struggle in the beginning, and could not afford to eat at times. But he ended up creating more money for lots of people, many many families.





Cause, I mean, they must've discovered cold fusion or a cure for polio or something, right?


Is that what makes someone ethically "good" in your judgement?
Anyone who isn't doing scientific innovation and discovery is "bad" or immoral?
That's a very original idea. I can't say I share it.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
the inequality is there

a simple question i came up with as a kid to my parents about wallmart

if they dont pay out to the workers+cost what they make wont they eventualy one day have all the money

i was told yes but when that day comes the people will have a revolution and everything will be balanced again the the cycle will resume

i still belive that today you can only go on so long as a huge company untell you have all the money and than what

eventualy wiltou paying out what you make be it 1000 years they will have it all this is a unstopable cycle

its unsubstanable do i have a true solution ... not without stoping innovation and progress but none the less eventualy we will all be starved and just like any we will eat our own if we must ... sadly this includes the ones who make progress happen its the cycle of life we created



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation
We cannot shoulder World Poverty, period. What Nation can?


... not that we should have to shoulder anything.. but everyone should realize that this Earth is a closed system.

A problem existing in any part of the world will eventually affect everyone - whether it is poverty, ill habit and culture, or ill views and beliefs. You cannot just isolate it somewhere.
edit on 30-6-2014 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The only issue with this guy is this: these people likely have escape routs plotted and planned just in case the natives finally get fed up enough then go out and start attacking the elite. Like in the French revolution


The state can do anything it pleases.

The rich can't carry their real estate and physical assets, hard, corporal tangible wealth over the border. They can, maybe, carry jewellery, gold and money.

But, you see, the government can, if it wanted to, nationalize the right to issue the currency, abolish all banks and start an inflationary run wherein it distributes new money equally to its remaining citizens.

And the value of the dollar plunges.

But most of the population is net better off because their nominal wealth in dollars has increased faster than inflation has devalued it.

Let me explain.

Suppose we have the following people in a micro-economy:

1. a wealthy person with 1000 dollars to their name
2. a rich person with 200 dollars to their name
3. a well-to-do person with 100 dollars to their name
4. a person with 50 dollars to their name
5. a person with 25 dollars to their name
6. a person with 12.5 dollars to their name
7. a person with 6.125 dollars to their name

The money supply is $1393.625.

Suppose the government prints $490 ($70 dollars per citizen) and distributes it equally. The money supply grows to $1883.625. Inflation is 35%. A dollar is now worth 73,98% what it was before the government started printing.

So you'd think everyone would be worse off, cause that's what the right wing propaganda wants you to believe.

Wrong. Inflation is only a redistribution tool and a zero sum game. There is no net win or lose for everyone. It is never the case that everyone loses because of inflation. False. Someone always benefits and someone always loses. So why can't it be the rich guys are the ones to lose for once?

Until now the rich bastards have used inflation to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. But inflation can work the other way too.

Now we have the following situation:

- the person with $6.125 to their name now has $76.125. A nominal increase in wealth of 1142.85% and a real increase in wealth (accounting for inflation) of 819.54%.

- the person with $12.5 to their name now has $82.5. A nominal increase in wealth of 560% and a real increase in wealth (accounting for inflation) of 388.30%.

- the person with $25 to their name now has $95. A nominal increase in wealth of 280% and a real increase in wealth (accounting for inflation) of 181.14%.

- the person with $50 to their name now has $120. A nominal increase in wealth of 140% and a real increase in wealth (accounting for inflation) of 77.56%.

- the person with $100 to their name now has $170. A nominal increase in wealth of 70% and a real increase in wealth (accounting for inflation) of 25.77%.

- the person with $200 to their name now has $270. A nominal increase in wealth of 35% and a real increase in wealth (accounting for inflation) of -0.11%.

- the person with $1000 to their name now has $1070. A nominal increase in wealth of 7% and a real increase in wealth (accounting for inflation) of -20.83%.

The rich guy, with $1000 to his name, loses 21% of his wealth to inflation. The second richest guy loses 0,11% and everyone else sees a net gain.

That's the way you fix inequality: with the printing press.

Simple mathematics. Check it, it's bulletproof.

Don't believe the right wing propaganda tripe that inflation always hurts everyone. It never has, never will. Inflation (asset price inflation) is how the rich get rich in the first place. Because they use their banks' that they own power to issue new money to inflate the prices of assets they invested in.

Fleece the rich by abolishing banking and renationalising the right to issue the nation's currency, per the Constitution. They more than deserve it.
edit on C0358f30America/ChicagoMonday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

They can raise minimum wage, and start paying people what they deserve, and stop diverting mass amounts of revenue into wasteful and destructive r&d. The reason that technology has advanced so much in 10 years is because these corporations in there unfathomable greed have spent much of the money they make improving or remolding products to SELL SELL SELL, instead of paying their worker's just wages. The reason we have recession in this country is because these corporations, rather than pay just wages or cut back on R&D, they outsource their labor to countries where people are basically slaves.

Think of the slaves that built the pyramids, they were fed and given quarter, basically what we are doing now, we work for some large corp. and they give us just enough for food and quarter. nothing has changed...



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation

originally posted by: jrod

The gap in the US's wealth is the largest now than it has ever has been.


Well of course it is jrod. If they keep on letting in more, and more, and more, and more poor people while there are not even enough jobs for U.S citizens to begin with, what the hell exactly do you expect the result to be my friend? I mean, am I the only one missing something here? We cannot shoulder World Poverty, period. What Nation can?


Yup. It's the poor brown people's fault, not the rich bastards'.

And, of course, it wouldn't be the case that the rich assholes want cheaper labour, a downward pressure on the price of labour and labour's power to negotiate a better price and that's why they allow immigration, both legal and otherwise?

That is to say, NAFTA can't possibly be a gift to the rich and their corporations?

No, couldn't be the case.

It must be some plot orchestrated by the bleading heart liberals to help the poor brown people that come to steal jobs and mooch off social programs.




originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Chiftel


Where do you live?

Surely the place I live is irrelevant to the topic under discussion?

I live in a place that, during my lifetime, has seen an attempted (and failed) military coup, two failed popular revolutions, an ethnic war that lasted a generation and, currently, the occasional religious pogrom. I have seen plenty of corpses: the bodies of summary execution victims, mostly, dumped on the side of the road, burnt on tyres or strung up from bridges as an example to others. One of my best friends, someone I'd known since childhood and one of the leading intellectuals of his generation, was murdered by a government death-squad; the head of state who ordered that execution was later blown up by a bomb. I once had to help my father change a tyre in the middle of a burning suburb during an ethnic riot.

Satisfied?

Of course, I could be lying. It happens that I am not.


So it's a secret then. Ok, cool. No need to make such a fuss of it.
edit on C0354f30America/ChicagoMonday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: smarterthanyou

oh is chiftel a communist?
there is not a critter known as communism. it's all this:


I fail to understand why the powers that were in the Entente wanted their eastern ally in the fight against the Central Powers out of the fight.

Can you please explain that to me? Cause some old geezer (prolly pushing daisies now) simply claiming that bolșevism was a wall street plot does not pass mustard with me.

I prefer to consider myself a statist, authoritarian socialist.

I would like to see a one world federal government and the whole world run as a huge submarine or spaceship. Where everyone works to the best of their abilities, in the field they're best at because that is what is best for society as a whole and, consequently, themselves as well.

I know, an unthinkable concept: to work what you feel, sense, intuitively know you are best at for free, towards the betterment of the whole of society.

Complete co-operation. No competition except of and in ideas, concepts, research, development and quantity and quality of knowledge and performance.

No competition in who can appropriate for themselves more of another's labour or fruits thereof, like in capitalism.

That is to say, competition only as in who can contribute the most to society's advancement (especially scientific and technological) today.

The communists believe in the abolition of the state. I don't.

But I do believe in abolishing private property (replacing it with limited private usufruct - that is to say private usufruct with an upper quantitative limit) and right of access (either completely exclusive, time exclusive or neither) instead of right of ownership (a la Zeitgeist Movement).

As well as the abolition of money and, as a consequence of abolishing private property, abolishing the right of inheritance as well.
edit on C0417f30America/ChicagoMonday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: KarensHoliday




This article is significant because he's not some ranting hillbilly in a trailor park somewhere...


Seriously??
He's more believable because he's rich?

I respect the thread, but still it tells me that someone is getting more respect simply because of the size of his wallet.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
The leadership is well aware of it. America and other G8 Nations have foot stamps and housing for most of the disenfranchised. That was not the case with the French revolution. It still amounts to scraps considering the way the global economy has grown since the sunking was on the throne, but for many it might be just enough to return to their video games and series downloads.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
and they did all that, for their socialist one world government. already the european nations have formed a super state of social democracies inching toward the final goal of totalitarianism.


Keep telling yourself that. That all this is somehow some form of socialism or other. That's what your masters want you to believe.

Also, keep telling yourself that the banks ever had the money in the first place, it seems a big favourite of the right wing leaning populace to believe banks have monies. I think it's right up there with the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and other such myths on the right side of the isle.

Banks don't have money. They only have make believe monies. Which they are legally allowed to conjure up out of thin air by entering them on their books. But only for the purpose of loaning it out at interest. They can't just give themselves the money they conjure up out of thin air unless they do it reciprocally (like they did in Island, look it up).

That's the only difference between an ordinary bank and an illegal fraudster or counterfeiter. The counterfeiter gifts himself the new counterfeit monies he just produced.

Whereas the bank loans it out at interest and may keep the interest it then accrues on money it never had to loan in the first place, yet did. And legally.

Loaning out money you don't have is tantamount to fraud and counterfeiting. Especially as you allow recipients of said imaginary money to pay with said money by using you as the intermediary so you can simply lie to the sellers they buy from that they have paid with real money just like you lied to the buyers when you loaned them the imaginary money that it was real.

People who really don't grasp at least that much should really refrain from uttering the words:

- government.
- socialism.
- fascism.
- communism

etc.

Banks are legalized fraud. Plain and simple. All banks, not just the central banks.

If you can't get your mind wrapped around the very simple fact that banks loan into existence imaginary money, money they never had, then I, personally, would go so far as to question your eligibility for the right to vote.

We simply can't afford such level of irrationality and ignorance to be able to muck it up for the rest of us as well.

Of course, as +90% of the right wing leaning people actually believe banks really loan real money (and only the big, bad central bank/federal reserve commits legal fraud/counterfeiting, none of the other banks), which ever hath existed, then... well... tough.
edit on C0546f30America/ChicagoMonday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
The rich rely on people not having sense enough to live "below" their means and going into debt for what they merely "want" which makes it unavoidable that they either use less of what they "need" or they go further into debt for that too.

I know a few rich people, they can't come up with much cash quickly, but the bank is more than happy to write them a loan at interest, underwriting a loan at interest is the ultimate example of living "below" one's mans, but with the risk of not being paid back makes it a bad idea for most people to attempt.

It takes money to make money, and it's even better if one can use somebody else's money to earn more.It's not really the rich people so much as it is the banks and corporations, the riches of the rich.

Easy to remedy if you can take the short term pain.

Don't feed the animals, eventually you will hold out your hand and it will be bit off, then they'll proceed with eating the rest of you and yours. They don't want friendship, they just want to withdraw into their living room and be entertained and make an occasional trip to the fridge to feed their fat faces.

The poor act the same as the rich, the poor are the same as the rich, the only difference is class which is a contrivance.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   
“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”
~George Orwell



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: markovian
the inequality is there

a simple question i came up with as a kid to my parents about wallmart

if they dont pay out to the workers+cost what they make wont they eventualy one day have all the money

i was told yes but when that day comes the people will have a revolution and everything will be balanced again the the cycle will resume

i still belive that today you can only go on so long as a huge company untell you have all the money and than what

eventualy wiltou paying out what you make be it 1000 years they will have it all this is a unstopable cycle

its unsubstanable do i have a true solution ... not without stoping innovation and progress but none the less eventualy we will all be starved and just like any we will eat our own if we must ... sadly this includes the ones who make progress happen its the cycle of life we created


You don't know how right you are.

That's why the money supply has to continually grow exponentially under capitalism.

Otherwise, there is nowhere for:

1. a business's expenses, operating costs towards other businesses (its suppliers)
and
2. its profit

to come from.

Except other businesses not being able to even completely cover their labour and supplier costs, let alone register a profit.

This is what the gold bugs don't understand.

If the money supply ceases to grow or even starts growing at a slower exponential rate then the economy goes into a depression and possibly recession.

Growth of the money supply is to a working capitalist economy what growth of entropy is to performing useful mechanical work (any useful physical activity).

Yet this simple fact eludes simpletons like libertarians, conservatives, 'Austrian' economists etc.
edit on C0634f30America/ChicagoMonday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

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.



You certainly don't understand anything about the Tea party.

And what a lot of folks need and maybe even this guy himself is a basic understanding of how money in an economy really works. Its a hard reality not many want to face or do the math on. This guy sounds more like a pressure valve and maybe even a CIA op from the mind control, cultural perception and pacification control department. Anyone that cant understand what I am talking about....I wish you well.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I haven't read through the thread but I agree with what the OP's linked message from the .01er is saying. I think he is addressing the most glaring educational challenge of our time, how to clue in the oners that unless they reign in their insatiable greed, they are going to bring a catastrophe on themselves

I don't want a revolution. I don't want to overthrow the rich. I don't want to see them hanging from the lamp posts outside their mansions. I don't want a "reign of terror" with tens of thousands of executions of the wealthy.

That sort of thing leads to dictatorship either of the military or of the commune.

But, the oners, by hook or by crook, are taking too much off the table. It's a recipe for disaster.



The wealth pyramid is becoming an inherently unstable "inverted" pyramid. Unless something is done to stop the migration of all the money to the few, the pyramid and the society will collapse.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Chiftel

Much of what you say is true but your "right wing" kick is a hoot! The left wing wants to storm the castle. But after all the booty is divided you mite get a color tv out of the deal. That's about the extent of that mindsets grasp on economics.

History has shown that when you storm the castles all you end up with is the lack of the class. The communists that took over Russia ended up back in the factories and mills working for the state controlled economy drips, standing in bread lines.....after enough of them starved to death to make that even a hope......and dare you say you need two loves you GD flute unless you are a close party member. You just get your azz out there and dig and be thankful we tossed off the "real oppressors", get your mind right and become a true believer.

Anyone wanting to see how this wet dream really turns out read..... Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and get on with living.





Like the sun burns off the morning haze, let the truth bring you clear vision.
edit on 30-6-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel


I prefer to consider myself a statist, authoritarian socialist.

I would like to see a one world federal government and the whole world run as a huge submarine or spaceship. Where everyone works to the best of their abilities, in the field they're best at because that is what is best for society as a whole and, consequently, themselves as well.

No competition in who can appropriate for themselves more of another's labour or fruits thereof, like in capitalism.

The communists believe in the abolition of the state. I don't.



Yea in the field......like the killing fields.



These peoples crime is that they thought they were going to get two bowls of rice now after the castles were stormed.

No appropriation....but by the party and state. And the communists LOVE the state. Just what are you talking about? What new history is this? Doomed to repeat what?
edit on 30-6-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Chiftel


So it's a secret then. Ok, cool. No need to make such a fuss of it.

Did nothing in the account I just gave suggest that I might have very good reasons for not wanting to reveal my country of origin? Not that it's much of a secret, at that...

You have effectively squandered all the sympathy I had for you at the beginning of this thread. If you want to persuade people that your ideas and economic prescriptions have merit, you are making a pretty hash of it, I must say.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Chiftel

actually if you listened to the "wall street funded the bolshevik revolution" video i posted a few posts back, you would hear that it is corporate socialism, so yes, it's socialist. you just haven't come to grips with the reality of socialism yet.




top topics



 
122
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join