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.
Originally posted by thelibra
Yeah... I've heard all sorts of statistics like that, and they all say x-% of the wealth is held by y-% of the people. And not a single one has agreed with any of the other stats.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that using the existance of Super-Rich, or the imagination of a world-wide conspiracy to keep them super-rich, as an excuse to remain poor, is a serious lack of reason and logic.
I believe you are mistaken about this, according to everything I've read, except where daughters are concerned.
Rags to Riches is not mythology. I am living proof of this.
They derive no power from the poor, because the poor have jack squat to offer them.
Any power the rich have is because they used their money, their time, and their budgeting skills wisely.
Perhaps they can make more money by having tons of low-paid workers slaving over factories all day in a third-world country, but realistically, that's just a matter of personal taste.
They not only have to want more money, but also have to have an interest in a labor-intensive market.
Most rich people don't want more money because it's already coming in droves from interest.
Most people in capitalist country who are poor, choose to be
Even assuming this was a bad system, and needed to change, how are you most likely to be able to change it? As a ragamuffin with no money, no influence, and no real property to your name?
And even if the NWO does exist, frankly, I'd rather be in their good graces, if not actually running the show myself. Life sucks too much at the bottom of the pile to want to go back out of some sort of misguided sense that the poor are in any way more noble than the rich. Lemme tell you, firsthand, they aren't. Human is human is human.
But ceterus paribus, I'm more likley to listen to someone who not only has their life together, but is continually advancing themselves in some way.
Ceterus Paribus, people keep themselves poor.
Even assuming this was a bad system, and needed to change, how are you most likely to be able to change it? As a ragamuffin with no money, no influence, and no real property to your name?
Gold - Gold stays inversely valued to the stock market for some reason.
Incorrect. At 4.32%, Inflation is currently right about where it should be considering what's happened within the housing market the last few years.
1.) Bank = $1000, Bob = $0.
2.) Bank = -$1000 -> Bob's new account +$1000, Bank net = $0
Originally posted by thelibra
In the meantime, however, nothing you said detracts from the ability of an individual to attain wealth through saving their money, budgeting, and applying their money to smart (not lucky) investments.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Originally posted by thelibra
Yeah... I've heard all sorts of statistics like that, and they all say x-% of the wealth is held by y-% of the people. And not a single one has agreed with any of the other stats.
I gave you the link, you're free to check out the stat and refute it.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
The super-rich are rich because they have created institutions such as the Federal Reserve, the WB and the IMF that keeps them that way.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Up to 60% of wealth is inherited. This is not a small number by any means. There is a class war going on, and it is the most important of all war.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Have you ever wondered why there are so many tax laws? It’s because they don’t apply to you, they apply to the rich who are constantly finding new tax holes that have to be filed. Of course the super-rich already have most of their assets safely tucked away in foundations and other tax instrument.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Rags to Riches is not mythology. I am living proof of this.
Rags to riches usually implies enormous wealth, a la Rothschils or Bill Gates if you prefer.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Let’s not be naïve about US foreign policy! That’s what they do!!!, maintain a safe climate for corporation worldwide. The local population receives little or no money while their lands are being raped.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Pay attention to the part where the CIA removed Arbenz of Guatemala for the United Fruit Company!!! That’s what happens when you stand up to them. Don’t worry there not coming after you, they love people like you. You want to be them.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Any power the rich have is because they used their money, their time, and their budgeting skills wisely.
Because they have the time necessary. Most don’t try to increase their wealth, but simply try to maintain it. (they’re sharks out there) They also have excellent tax lawyers and teams of financial advisers. Some of them are worried about their grand-children’s trust fund!! Are you planning 100 years ahead?
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
The purpose of a corporation is to maximize short-term profits. If they don’t return these profits investors, CEO’s are replaced.
No most rich fear inflation the same way you do. There’s more than one central bank worldwide and they are all part of the same scam; that is debasing the currency. I don’t think any one group does this. (Rothschild would be top contenders if there is)
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Most people in capitalist country who are poor, choose to be
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Author Noam Chomsky states that one of the biggest problem if that most people rather be the elite, than remove the elite class. Much in line with your philosophy.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Ceterus paribus is a phrase used in economics to mean “All else being equal”.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Micro-economics justifies central banking and Macro-economics justifies corporate welfare.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Gold - Gold stays inversely valued to the stock market for some reason.
This might have something to do with the Rothschilds, but that would be actual conspiracy talk which is perhaps not suitable for this thread.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Incorrect. At 4.32%, Inflation is currently right about where it should be considering what's happened within the housing market the last few years.
You’ve been conditioned to think it’s right. I’m sure with all your reading you know about compound interest. (money invested at 10% doubles every 7 years etc.)
4.32% is far from normal!!
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Your description about how a bank makes money is completely whacked. I suggest you check out Fractional Banking. That $1000 is not necessarily deposited there by anyone. (It’s created out of nothing)
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
BTW, I've seen your excellent corporate thread in RATS, I'm positive we can eventualy agree on some things.
Originally posted by thelibra
"By 1906, the end of the gilded age, the top 1 percent of Americans owned as much as 60 percent of all US wealth, led by mega-millionaires like John D. Rockefeller, and in the middle there J.P. Morgan -- but a backlash brought reformers to power." - PBS
So, if there is a NWO dating back centuries to control the wealth, they're either doing a piss poor job of it, or there's so much wealth out there that they just can't manage to control it all.
Either way, sorta deflates the whole "I can't get rich cause the NWO controls all the wealth" nonsense.
In 1929, when the top 1% was at another historic high of controlling 45% of the wealth, the stock market crashed.
I am dead, roughly 100 years from now, my family will be multi-billionaires.
Originally posted by thelibra
Incorrect, I'm afraid, and a simple check of the history books will show exactly why "The Fed" was created, and how it was far from being the first such institution.
In point of fact, the nation was just sick and tired of having it's banking system gutted every few years, and the elected officials did the best they could to try and keep it from happening again and again and again.
No... no it doesn't. Maybe in your world, but where I come from, millionaires are still considered rich.
regarding corporations maximizing short-term profits.
Again, incorrect. You are mistaking current market-force trends (which, incidentally, are starting to change) for the purpose of a corporation.
As Milton Friedman correctly says, though in slightly different words, the board of directors of a corporation actually has a legal obligation to be a monster, an ethical monster. Their legal obligation is to maximize profits for the shareholders, the stockholders. They’re not supposed to do nice things. If they are, it’s probably illegal, unless it’s intended to mollify people, or improve market share, or something. That’s the way it works. You don’t expect corporations to be benevolent any more than you expect dictatorships to be benevolent.
www.zmag.org...
I can see how you would confuse this with "maximizing short-term profits" but in point of fact, that is only a style of MANAGEMENT, and a very poor one at that.
One of these days I'll get around to reading the stuff about the Rothschild's. I'm guessing it's probably about on par with the whole Elders of Zion forgery.
Yes, thank you for teaching your gramps to chew bubblegum. The way I used it is quite correct, but I'm sure our audience is grateful for the clarification...
Meh... you can, but frankly, I think blaming a rich family for everything under the sun is escapist professional victim bullsh-t. But you are absolutely welcome to your own beliefs. That's the great thing about this country.
I'm just gonna go ahead and go with what they've "conditioned" me to believe, thanks.
…
And, incidentally, unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with compound interest.
Additionally, and I can't wait to see what you say against this, but a certain degree of unemployment is actually healthier for the economy. …. If unemployment were at 0%, there would be no motivation for anyone to improve, and businesses would be stuck quite literally hiring the worst possible workers.
power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely -- Lord Acton
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Thank you, a lot of what you said required some reflection on my part, and it might take a few days (weeks) before it fully sets in.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
From our exchange, I’ve concluded that the NWO entrance is a revolving door.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
They now control a smaller percentage of a bigger pie.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Milton Friedman concludes that the 1929 Depression was caused by the Fed.
Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
We have do make a distinction between real wealth and speculative wealth. A lot of the so-called wealth being created today is not real, it is simply markets held up by speculators.
Originally posted by thelibra
Now, less than a year away from 30, I have a nice apartment, am looking at buying a $125-150K house, have one car paid off, another car paid off in a couple of months (both in fine condition), managed to buy my fiance a $6,500 engagement ring, and a $12,000 wedding. I'm putting her through school, and then I myself am returning to school. I earn roughly $35k/year before taxes, have no benefits. My fiance earns less than $10k/year. I have also brought my debt down to 2/3 what it was. I've got so much money saved up right now, I've got to start diversifying my accounts in order to get better rates of interest. Assuming no change in my wage, for the rest of my life, I will have $1.7 million dollars in liquid cash in 35 years. How many of you can say the same thing, right now?
Now, ask me how long it took to get from point A to point B?
About a year.
You must have walked into a really well paid job to be able to do all that in a year and still save. I work and even if I saved 10% every month in a year I wouldnt be near that kind of living. Still a good idea and I shall start saving my 10% and see where that takes me