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.

 

Happy New year for Goldman fat cats!

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I don't remember governments bailing out sports stars with tax payers money when they get caught cheating a reply to: Xtrozero


edit on 1-1-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi


Yes, there is much debate over the long-term impact of QE. Schiff could be right. He made the same argument when gold prices were at 1700. It could last 20 years like it has in Japan.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I don't remember governments bailing out sports stars with tax payers money when they get caught cheating a reply to: Xtrozero



Goldman Sachs paid it back within 2 years. Who do you think built that nice stadium so LeBron can play? Hint: Most of it is tax payers money...



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I don't remember governments bailing out sports stars with tax payers money when they get caught cheating a reply to: Xtrozero



Goldman Sachs paid it back within 2 years. Who do you think built that nice stadium so LeBron can play? Hint: Most of it is tax payers money...




Ok lets me gets this straight.


If a Bank cocks up its ok for the government to bail them out and for the CEO to get a clean pass.


As a CEO of my own company if I cock up badly its ok for the government to leave me to fail and the courts to size my asset to pay for any debts if there is bad finical managing?


Im failing to see who a free market can exist with double standards.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I don't like the "you didn't make that" attitude when I have to buy something. The profit from my purchase makes it possible for a business to pay the bank off plus interest and make a profit margin for the company.

I used to dig chicks with glasses, not so much any more.


I agree 100%. The money you pay to get stuff provides the profit for the companies to pay back the banks and scale up.

It's win-win-win.

My point was consumers get the end benefit of the development of the technology without having to take on the financial risk up front.


That wasn't my point. The money you spend on a product is why it is made to begin with. So in a since, the consumer, through demand, creates everything. That is a good way to misdirect my point, agree with it then turn it back to the money thing.

I hope you can manage a way to take it with you when you die. Perhaps you can do us all a favor by speeding up the process a little so you can enjoy your wealth in the here after. Your materialism reeks like a rotten corpse.



Being jealous of those who brought value and made the lives of 500 million people better is a reflection on you, not them. Wanting more of their money because you contributed $500 in the entire equation makes no sense.

You think you should get the iPhone and get paid extra because you wanted to have an iPhone? Seriously?


Once again, you seem to love putting words in people's mouths. I never said I was jealous of anyone, in fact I pity you're kind. You must be some kind of physic to know what I think. Of course, if you were physic, you'd have a very clear picture of what I really do mean. By the way, no iPhone here, no cell phone at all. Yes, I know that was an example, but you pigeon hole me in the wrong crowd. I'm sure of the value of being plugged in, just not to those who are plugged in of course.

Your delusional in your materialistic mind set. I don't want to be paid for owning anything I have, unless I want to sell it. I don't want "more of their money" and it's interesting that you feel that way, "their money", very interesting indeed.

Undoubtedly you'll never get where I'm coming from and I no longer feel like beating on a dead horse, literally. I'll let you be, you're so understanding and popular in the short time you've on ATS, I sense you'll have many people on here who support your POV. Our system is on the verge of change, and I don't think you'll be ready for that.

Here's some lyrics for a song you can sing on the way down.

"Money (That's What I Want)"

The best things in life are free
But you can keep them for the birds and bees
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

You're lovin' gives me a thrill
But you're lovin' don't pay my bills
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Money don't get everything it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want, wah

Money don't get everything it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Well now give me money
A lot of money
Wow, yeah, I wanna be free
Oh I want money
That's what I want
That's what I want, well
Now give me money
A lot of money
Wow, yeah, you need money
Now, give me money
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

edit on 1-1-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Typo



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Thanks for the diagram, because I don't understand QE at all. But one half of diagram looks like an incestuous relationship. I don't see any arrows pointing to the poor or workers. Loan, no, conduct business, no, hold funds, no, buy stocks, no.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

But the banks receive profits from QE money, they shouldnt. Let me rephrase that, they receive LOTS of profits from QE money, QE money should not exist at all. This is LOTS of money taken out of the workers of america, and put into the pockets of the bankers. They make investments in the large corporations, the extremely wealthy shareholders of the banks stock, become ever more wealthy, because the banks are receiving a steady stream of trillions of QE, and this is supposedly the idea of trickle down. Give trillions of dollars, from the collective americans wallet, to the richest people in the world, to invest it in their rich friends companies, and the collective americans wallet will benefit from it. It is unjust, that the bankers have access to SO much (any at all) taxpayer money, so this is in effect a form of elite communism of sorts, instead of the taxpayers democratically deciding what corporations to collectively invest their money in, the government is creating massive amounts of debt, sorry, MASSIVE, amounts of debt for the public, just via printing it, and again due to the nature of printing it and being loaned it with interest, and then the 'elected representatives' or risk less gamblers of the banks get to have all the cake and eat it too, investing in the companies with the americans dime they see fit, the poor and middle class see very little benefit, their buying power constantly decreasing, the only reason it is not showing, is because the companies dont have to raise their prices, because they are receiving so much of their profits already from the people, before they purchase them, via the corporate welfare, via QE, distributed by banks, this is communism, or corporate communism, or corporatocracy, or oligarchy.

I dont think the big banks should pay any taxes, I think all the would be tax money, should be sent as untaxed checks to the american public, and I believe also everyone in the american public should receive a monthly check on a totaled percentage of profit made with the QE money by each bank.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Thanks for the diagram, because I don't understand QE at all. But one half of diagram looks like an incestuous relationship. I don't see any arrows pointing to the poor or workers. Loan, no, conduct business, no, hold funds, no, buy stocks, no.


Did you watch the video?

Maybe this is an easier way to explain it. The QE money goes to the 18 broker/dealers, including Goldman Sachs. Each of these companies are HUGE global financial institutions with dozens of business models within their broker/dealer.

They borrow the QE money. They then use that money to do a number of things. One of those things is to buy U.S. Treasuries. This is what keeps bond prices up, and interest rates down.

Then, rather than sit on billions of dollars they just borrowed, they use it in their business models, which include loaning money to people who are going to put the money to work in the economy somehow. They make the spread in interest rates. They use the money to generate profits.

The money gets into the hands of businesses, large and small, and individuals, who use the money for things like buying cars, houses, etc. Businesses use it to buy equipment.

Without the QE money, interest rates would go up because the bond prices would fall. The economy will head into another deep recession. That''s going to be inevitable at some point. The Federal Reserve and Administration dictate the policy. Of course the administrations, both Democrat and Republican, are always staffed by former employees at the large investment banks.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: ImaFungi


Yes, there is much debate over the long-term impact of QE. Schiff could be right. He made the same argument when gold prices were at 1700. It could last 20 years like it has in Japan.


It could last 20 years? It could last way more, thats not the point, the point is it is an illusion and a crime, and not a net positive long term, and not a good strategy as a nation competing with other nations. Its great for the rich individual to get rich. Its great for the rich individual to have a plateau to gamble from. Its great for the banks and bankers. Its great for the companies who receive the money from the tax payers via the bankers investing the tax payer money. Its not great for the value of the american dollar compared historically (inflation), and compared globally, while other economies may grow with more real asset based systems of value and production and export, while our main value is 'creating money from thin air to make it look like our economy is growing because there is more money and therefore more money being spent so thats good'. It is good for many people, but it is not good for the majority, and it will not be good when some of the countries, or china, asks for some asset return on all of our debt its bought and all its money its lent us. Its purely selfish and nihilistic. If it was good in theory at all, it would work just as well, but be directly better for the average american, if you took all the QE money from the last 4 years, 100 trillion or something id guess, split it evenly between every american, and say there will be for 1 month a tv program like 'americas got talent' though it will be corporations and companies and experts who will be telling their plans etc. and the QE money will be split between every america, each given a check, but the catch is by the end of the month 4/5ths of the money MUST be invested. Why would this trickle up approach not work? If corporations only exist because consumers exist, why would the consumer not be trusted now?



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: douglas5

You do realize that everything in your world that you use, and that you did absolutely ZERO to earn or produce, like your phone, the internet, Google, your food, where you live, your entertainment, your transportation, just about everything, was made possible by investment banks providing liquidity to the markets and VC money, right?

Do you think there would be any of the technology we take for granted if it weren't for the investment banks you like to demonize?


Hedge funds and investment banks don't provide liquidity out of the goodness of their heart like it's some great service to mankind. They buy up other people's positions so they can trade against it. Do you have *any* idea what that means?

It means that if a hedge fund buys up an asset that you are selling, say like in the FX market: XBT for RUB. As the market maker when they buy up your XBT with their stockpiles of Rubles they provide "liquidity." In reality though what they are actually doing is dumping the Ruble side and propping up the side that they are buying into (moving value from one thing to the next always devalues the original asset by a percentage amount).

In the background investment banks and hedge funds like Pantera purchase XBT through dark pools so no one knows what the real order book looks like. Once the capital has been moved, effort are made to set off momentum ignition in the asset the hedge fund is fleeing, weaker hands sell out of their position, and market pressure on public exchanges eventually reveals how weak the original asset (the Ruble) is. The market makers then sell the new position once the price drops below the mean to buy back into the devalued original position at a gain.

Rinse repeat.

This is what happens every day, day in, day out, with real world trades especially in "low liquidity" markets. It is manipulation pure and simple and the only people who can play the game are investment banks and hedge funds because they are the ones with the controlling volume of capital.

Are you really so simple as to believe that market makers use their leverage for the noble purpose of helping start-ups and to grow the economy? I can't even begin to explain how laughable that is. Hedge funds and investment banks use their leverage to skim a percent on each swing of the market.

That is what you are holding up as praiseworthy. An edifice that defrauds average people out of their value like what has happened with the Argentine Peso.
edit on 2015-1-1 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: ImaFungi


Yes, there is much debate over the long-term impact of QE. Schiff could be right. He made the same argument when gold prices were at 1700. It could last 20 years like it has in Japan.


It could last 20 years? It could last way more, thats not the point, the point is it is an illusion and a crime, and not a net positive long term, and not a good strategy as a nation competing with other nations. Its great for the rich individual to get rich. Its great for the rich individual to have a plateau to gamble from. Its great for the banks and bankers. Its great for the companies who receive the money from the tax payers via the bankers investing the tax payer money. Its not great for the value of the american dollar compared historically (inflation), and compared globally, while other economies may grow with more real asset based systems of value and production and export, while our main value is 'creating money from thin air to make it look like our economy is growing because there is more money and therefore more money being spent so thats good'. It is good for many people, but it is not good for the majority, and it will not be good when some of the countries, or china, asks for some asset return on all of our debt its bought and all its money its lent us. Its purely selfish and nihilistic. If it was good in theory at all, it would work just as well, but be directly better for the average american, if you took all the QE money from the last 4 years, 100 trillion or something id guess, split it evenly between every american, and say there will be for 1 month a tv program like 'americas got talent' though it will be corporations and companies and experts who will be telling their plans etc. and the QE money will be split between every america, each given a check, but the catch is by the end of the month 4/5ths of the money MUST be invested. Why would this trickle up approach not work? If corporations only exist because consumers exist, why would the consumer not be trusted now?


What's the alternative?

We're no longer on the gold standard. We're on a fiat money system. We can't undo what happened on Jekyll Island easily or painlessly.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtraeme

originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: douglas5

You do realize that everything in your world that you use, and that you did absolutely ZERO to earn or produce, like your phone, the internet, Google, your food, where you live, your entertainment, your transportation, just about everything, was made possible by investment banks providing liquidity to the markets and VC money, right?

Do you think there would be any of the technology we take for granted if it weren't for the investment banks you like to demonize?


Hedge funds and investment banks don't provide liquidity out of the goodness of their heart like it's some great service to mankind. They buy up other people's positions so they can trade against it. Do you have *any* idea what that means?

It means that if a hedge fund buys up an asset that you are selling, say like in the FX market: XBT for RUB. As the market maker when they buy up your XBT with their stockpiles of Rubles they provide "liquidity." In reality though what they are actually doing is dumping the Ruble side and propping up the side that they are buying into (moving value from one thing to the next always devalues the original asset by a percentage amount).

In the background investment banks and hedge funds like Pantera purchase XBT through dark pools so no one knows what the real order book looks like. Once the capital has been moved, effort are made to set off momentum ignition in the asset the hedge fund is fleeing, weaker hands sell out of their position, and market pressure on public exchanges eventually reveals how weak the original asset (the Ruble) is. The market makers then sell the new position once the price drops below the mean to buy back into the devalued original position at a gain.

Rinse repeat.

This is what happens every day, day in, day out, with real world trades especially in "low liquidity" markets. It is manipulation pure and simple and the only people who can play the game are investment banks and hedge funds because they are the ones with the controlling volume of capital.

Are you really that simple as to believe that market makers use their leverage for the noble purpose of helping start-ups and to grow the economy? I can't even begin to explain how laughable that is. Hedge funds and investment banks use their leverage to skim a percent on each swing of the market.

That is what you are holding up as praiseworthy. An edifice that defrauds average people out of their value like what has happened with the Argentine Peso.


Yes, market makers get paid to make markets and provide liquidity. If it weren't for market makers, I'm not sure how you would sell your pesos? On eBay?

There's nothing devious about it. Every trader knows this is how market makers work.

There are thousands of hedge funds, each with different strategies. Some make big bets and lose money. Others make money.

There is also money invested into start-ups. In 2013, about $30 billion was invested into start-ups by VCs.

No, the average guy isn't going to typically win in a trading competition with professional traders. And yes, registered broker/dealers can play and win this game. Goldman Sachs was founded in 1869. You're lifetime of experience isn't going to compete against them at their game.

Just like you will have a difficult time if you want to create your own car, airline, computer company, furniture company, etc. Companies with experience, resources, and money will win the competition.

That said, I'm not going to sit here typing on my $600 laptop, checking my iPhone for text messages, watch 300 channels on my flat screen television, book $300 plane tickets to Mexico and choose from hundreds of hotels in 30 seconds, and then whine and complain about how unfair life is because somebody else got a $3 million bonus.

I'm grateful for all that I have the benefit of enjoying, and all the opportunities I have. I choose gratitude over bitching every time my friend.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Why do banks pay such low interest rates on savings?



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1


When it comes to currencies, people who live in third world countries are competing whether they realize it or not. If a hedge fund has tens of billions of dollars to move a market, they can dramatically affect which way the market swings and corral people in a weaker position to convert to what they perceive is the stronger asset, and thereby in affect simultaneously prop up their primary holdings. This is exactly what is happening with the Peso to Greenback swaps. Average people who think they are doing the right thing by saving their national currency, that they worked for through blood and sweat, have no idea they are playing a game. And they lose, just as you say,


No, the average guy isn't going to typically win in a trading competition with professional traders. And yes, registered broker/dealers can play and win this game.

Every time.

So if you don't care about that bonus, you really have no idea what's going on.

But I guess the Argentine's should just be grateful for you and your $600 laptop.

There is a solution to the liquidity problem. If you want some ideas about a way to a better future look up the name Bernard Lietaer, Michael Linton, and Edgar Cahn. Mr. Lietaer doesn't have all the pieces figured out just yet, but he's light years beyond most economists.
edit on 2015-1-1 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
Do you have a suggestion for a better system than what's evolved?


What we have on this planet is labour and raw materials. People acquire raw materials using their wits and labour. By grace of their intelligence they create products. These products have a purpose, they help people live longer, happier lives. That's the essence of it.

Money is not essential. If we would simply all keep doing what we did today - leave money out of the question - we'd all end up exactly where we are now, probably even would be better off in the end. Only the thieves we know as "bankers" and "investers" would not have much left - they might find themselves in a positon in which they actually had to CONTRIBUTE to society.

Most people frown on this: "why would people work if there was no reward?" - answer: indeed, they would not. But money is not the reward, it are the services and goods that money can buy that are. Take out the money, keep services and goods in place. Simple.

Now, perhaps you'd wonder how in my brave new world would we decide WHAT to develop? Where would 'investments' come from? Well, like today, we'd have a group of people that would decide that for us. They would not base their decisions on 'profitability' - but on 'usefulness to society'. They would also ensure that there would be sound competition by stimulating that there always be two or more competing entities to make something or deliver a service. The best one would publicly be recognised for it - and that's it. These 'investors' - maybe Senators would be the better term - would be under strict control of the population and if you'd like to be an "investor" you needed to be elected by a significant group of people - you'd need to be trusted. And if your decisions weren't like by the people, you had to step down - in some cases you would be publicly disgraced, a fate worse than death in trust based societies.

So, in "my" society you'd work for the benefit of all, not for the benefit of just you. If all give, all receive. If all take, nothing is left. So simple.

I'll have to go now, but may elaborate on this later - if there is a need, if there are questions. If not, I'll simply let it be.



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Jamie1


Would you prefer they give out their money to those who don't work for them?


Do you think these people actually do work that is actually worth what they are being paid? This just shows how these bankers are screwing the people over.


Of course they deserve the money. Money doesn't end up in their bank account by luck. Other people and organizations put it there on their own free will. The money had to come from somewhere, right?

Do you have any evidence they screwed anybody over, is it that you've just been brainwashed and don't understand how investment banks work?


You really have no clue as to how money generation (fiat currency) works, do you? The money is created out of thin air as a debt, it's a negative instrument. Think on this for a second, the total world gross yearly product is about 70 trillion dollars and yet the total world debt is about 700 trillion dollars. Do a bit of research.

The entire thing is a ponzi scheme and confidence game. The lot of them should be hung.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Jamie1


Would you prefer they give out their money to those who don't work for them?


Do you think these people actually do work that is actually worth what they are being paid? This just shows how these bankers are screwing the people over.


Of course they deserve the money. Money doesn't end up in their bank account by luck. Other people and organizations put it there on their own free will. The money had to come from somewhere, right?

Do you have any evidence they screwed anybody over, is it that you've just been brainwashed and don't understand how investment banks work?


You really have no clue as to how money generation (fiat currency) works, do you? The money is created out of thin air as a debt, it's a negative instrument. Think on this for a second, the total world gross yearly product is about 70 trillion dollars and yet the total world debt is about 700 trillion dollars. Do a bit of research.

The entire thing is a ponzi scheme and confidence game. The lot of them should be hung.

Cheers - Dave


lol, yes, I understand how the fiat money system works. It's financed technological and economic growth beyond anything a commodity based system could have done. Do you really think all the technological advancements would have been possible if we were still using the gold standard?



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Jamie1


Would you prefer they give out their money to those who don't work for them?


Do you think these people actually do work that is actually worth what they are being paid? This just shows how these bankers are screwing the people over.


The hospital ship, Tenno Maru, arrived at Yoksuka Naval Base loaded with causalities from the Philippines and 2,000 metric tons of gold. Days later it moved to Maizura Naval Base, where additional treasure was put aboard. The ship then sailed at night. Its crew was murdered and the ship sunk in the bay. In a secret operation in 1987,

gold.greyfalcon.us...



that might have helped

Of course they deserve the money. Money doesn't end up in their bank account by luck. Other people and organizations put it there on their own free will. The money had to come from somewhere, right?

Do you have any evidence they screwed anybody over, is it that you've just been brainwashed and don't understand how investment banks work?


You really have no clue as to how money generation (fiat currency) works, do you? The money is created out of thin air as a debt, it's a negative instrument. Think on this for a second, the total world gross yearly product is about 70 trillion dollars and yet the total world debt is about 700 trillion dollars. Do a bit of research.

The entire thing is a ponzi scheme and confidence game. The lot of them should be hung.

Cheers - Dave


lol, yes, I understand how the fiat money system works. It's financed technological and economic growth beyond anything a commodity based system could have done. Do you really think all the technological advancements would have been possible if we were still using the gold standard?



The hospital ship, Tenno Maru, arrived at Yoksuka Naval Base loaded with causalities from the Philippines and 2,000 metric tons of gold. Days later it moved to Maizura Naval Base, where additional treasure was put aboard. The ship then sailed at night. Its crew was murdered and the ship sunk in the bay. In a secret operation in 1987,

gold.greyfalcon.us...



that might have helped

edit on 2/1/2015 by douglas5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: ImaFungi


Yes, there is much debate over the long-term impact of QE. Schiff could be right. He made the same argument when gold prices were at 1700. It could last 20 years like it has in Japan.


It could last 20 years? It could last way more, thats not the point, the point is it is an illusion and a crime, and not a net positive long term, and not a good strategy as a nation competing with other nations. Its great for the rich individual to get rich. Its great for the rich individual to have a plateau to gamble from. Its great for the banks and bankers. Its great for the companies who receive the money from the tax payers via the bankers investing the tax payer money. Its not great for the value of the american dollar compared historically (inflation), and compared globally, while other economies may grow with more real asset based systems of value and production and export, while our main value is 'creating money from thin air to make it look like our economy is growing because there is more money and therefore more money being spent so thats good'. It is good for many people, but it is not good for the majority, and it will not be good when some of the countries, or china, asks for some asset return on all of our debt its bought and all its money its lent us. Its purely selfish and nihilistic. If it was good in theory at all, it would work just as well, but be directly better for the average american, if you took all the QE money from the last 4 years, 100 trillion or something id guess, split it evenly between every american, and say there will be for 1 month a tv program like 'americas got talent' though it will be corporations and companies and experts who will be telling their plans etc. and the QE money will be split between every america, each given a check, but the catch is by the end of the month 4/5ths of the money MUST be invested. Why would this trickle up approach not work? If corporations only exist because consumers exist, why would the consumer not be trusted now?


What's the alternative?

We're no longer on the gold standard. We're on a fiat money system. We can't undo what happened on Jekyll Island easily or painlessly.


Um, yes, of course what was done can be undone. The system is entirely devised for the small percentage of rich to get much richer. That is what will be undone. The solution is putting a well devised cap on the amount of money a single person (and family) can claim and have access to, and this will be carefully scrutinized so there is no going around it. When this is implemented, all the excess money from all these singularities/black holes of wealth, I am not entirely sure obviously about the exact or even general ways to go about this, but it may be most beneficial to literally destroy a percentage of it, while keep a percentage of it in a 'collective account of sorts' to be used to rebuild the new world/system. Those who are for what you are about, and milking the system and living large, they most literally, do not care. They are unaffected by anything, their only concern is the constant advancement of dwellment in luxury, and most of them no longer need to play any games to progress in those desired regards. What I am saying is, the rich will not be hurt by QE ending, and they were only helped by QE starting and continuing. It was, elite welfare, nothing more, it is. Instead of small amount of welfare money being spread to many people, it is a large amount of welfare money being spread to a few people. Welfare and charity are no solutions, real, systemic, institutional, concrete, though dynamic to speak in such general and absolute terms, changes, to corrupt, unjust systems, are needed in solution. The completely selfish scum you represent, do not care about the purchasing power of the dollar, they have millions and billions in global assets, but they will whine like the most demonic babies if you mention stopping the milk from their QE teet. Because, they dont care, about people, that are not them, and their family. A supreme intelligence would agree with me that they deserve public humiliation, extreme physical torture, and then slow death.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join