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.

 

The 5 Laws of Gold: (aka the conspiracy of the rich)

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

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.



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.


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.



I believe you are mistaken about this, according to everything I've read, except where daughters are concerned.


Please check the link I provided. 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. 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.


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.

I have replied to some of your other comments elsewhere in the thread…



They derive no power from the poor, because the poor have jack squat to offer them.


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.

Please check out Bill Moyer’s Secret Government
video.google.com...

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.



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? To you support and taxation lobby group?



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.


OMG, your referring to destruction of local economies as a “matter of personal taste” it’s not. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize short-term profits. If they don’t return these profits investors, CEO’s are replaced.


They not only have to want more money, but also have to have an interest in a labor-intensive market.

I’m not sure what you mean by this?



Most rich people don't want more money because it's already coming in droves from interest.

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)



Most people in capitalist country who are poor, choose to be


Yes. There is no social class, it’s all a dream. Let’s blame the victim.




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…

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.


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.



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.


Ceterus paribus is a phrase used in economics to mean “All else being equal”. The reason they use it is because they can’t possibly make mathematical models to explain real economics, so they have to discount all other variables, focusing only on few at a time. It gives us pretty models, but doesn’t give us any assessment of reality. Real economics is an extremely complex system. Economists are pseudo-scientist. Real progress in the field of economics is not rewarded. Micro-economics justifies central banking and Macro-economics justifies corporate welfare.


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?


There’s nothing to do now. I’m not sure if you noticed the bulging stock market bubble? (don’t worry, you will
)



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.


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!! Money is supposed to be printed when wealth is created, not at the whim of some bank manager at Chase-Manhattan. Think of what fractional banking truly does. It create money that isn’t there! That creates inflation.



1.) Bank = $1000, Bob = $0.
2.) Bank = -$1000 -> Bob's new account +$1000, Bank net = $0


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)

See: See: Magical World of Money Creation

BTW, I've seen your excellent corporate thread in RATS, I'm positive we can eventualy agree on some things.




posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
CN23, you have some very insightful questions, which I would be happy to answer, but am about to go away on a weekend trip. I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring your most recent post, I just don't have time to respond to it immediately. I will respond probably by monday.

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.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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.


No, it doesn’t. I just chose to focus on the conspiratorial issues. Your posts are highly informative and ceterus paribus
, it’s the only sure way to achieve financial independence. (for those with no trust funds out there)

Also, may I suggest using a personal finance application such as Quicken. You can easily know where your money is going. There's excellent pie charts and summaries available.

+ if you follow the system outlined by Libra previously you can see your net worth grow every month. (or your outstanding depth shrink if the case may be.)



[edit on 17/11/06 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

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.



Here's my refutation, as promised.

"Today, the top 1 percent of Americans control 38 percent of the household wealth, and the top 20 percent control 83 percent" - Time

"One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth." - Harper Business

"As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%" - UCSC

Now... what's funny, is that people completely ignore that the wealthy actually own LESS of the wealth than they used to...

"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. Additionally, I would like to point out that each time the Hyper-Mega-Super-Dooper Rich hit an historic high, there was a major disaster. Following the 1906 high was a bombing of the JP Morgan Bank (which nowadays would just raise eyebrows on the evening news, but back then was a SERIOUS problem). In 1929, when the top 1% was at another historic high of controlling 45% of the wealth, the stock market crashed.

Then Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed a tax that ate up 91-94% of the wealthiest peoples' incomes, bringing them down to a mere 20% of the national wealth in the 1970's. Then globalization began, then internet commerce, then the dot-com boom, which once again led to record wealth for the top 1% in 1997... 3 years later, the Dot-Com Bust happened, where the Nasdaq Composite lost 78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11

What you are witnessing, my friend, is not some grand conspiracy by the Super-Rich to rule the world. They already rule their own world, and to hell with the rest of it. What is actually happening is the natural cycles of capitalism, and it's been cyclical, and ongoing since even before The Gilded Age. Capitalism is what allows mega-rich outside of the government or criminal organizations to exist.

Now, you'll also find, after a good bit of looking into it, that currently the top 1/5th make more than half of the value of the GNP in America. Frankly, that's acceptable to me. Why?

Think back to your school days. How many kids in a non-blowoff class got straight-A's compared to the rest of the class? Would 1/5 sound about right? Perhaps even over-generous? Now I'm sure some of them had a helping hand, perhaps an influential parent on the schoolboard, or the child of a friend, or a teacher's pet, etc... but really, honestly, to get good grades in school across the board, AND to maintain those grades, you had to work your arse off studying and applying those skills, facts, etc, and then be able to perform on command with that knowledge (ie. tests)

The same applies to Wealth. Those who study the history and knowledge and science, learn how to apply them, and then continue to practice the proper maintenance of their wealth, will keep it through hard times and see it grow in good times, regardless of how they started out. Those who don't study the Laws of Gold or apply them to their wealth will almost certainly see that wealth lost, even if they are among the Mega-Rich due to inheritence.

A good example of this is The Hunt Family from Texas, whom at one time were one of the richest families in the World. HL Hunt had never really learned how to control the wealth he made. This is one reason he went bankrupt over, and over, and over, despite obtaining enormous wealth in the interim. He left a fortune to his sons whom also never bothered learning how to properly manage their money.

With their father's fortune and a godlike advantage over the other rich, in the 1970's, the Hunt Brothers thought they would rule the economic world by investing in Silver. But the family had never learned the most basic precepts of maintaining one's wealth. Once the crash of the silver market paupered their shares, the family could no longer maintain its standard of living by interest alone. So they started dipping into the principle of the family fortune, assuming some other lucky venture would save them.

Of course, it didn't. Because lucky windfalls are the exception to the rule that lasting fortune is made over the course of time with interest. So the Hunt family went bankrupt again and are now little more than a historical footnote about oil and silver. This doubtless served as an example to the other rich--learn to manage your money, or risk losing it all.

Time is the great equalizer. Barring some sort of horrible accident, in 100 years, my family will become "Old Money" multi-billionaires. Now it might happen a lot sooner than that if we are extremely lucky, but if I only continue to earn what I do now, and go with what are commonly available interest rates, and then set up the fund to survive after I am dead, roughly 100 years from now, my family will be multi-billionaires. From the bottom of society, to Old Money. That's good stuff, and a helluva motivator.

Now unfortunately the same thing also applies to the mega-rich, except on a far grander scale because they started out with more money than I did. If I invest the exact same way as a billionaire, my fortunes will not exceed theirs. However, if as a result I end up a millionaire myself, or a billionaire, I could care less if someone else is mega-rich or not, and I suspect a lot of people would feel the same way.

I'm running out of space in this post, will continue with your other points in the next one.

[edit on 11/20/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

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.


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.

1791 - Alexander Hamilton charters the first central bank in the United States (The First Bank of the United States), chartered for 20 years.

1816 - The Second Bank of the United States was chartered for 20 years.

1836 - Pres. Andrew Jackson (not exactly the cream of the crop as Presidents go) succeeds in preventing the SBUS from being renewed.

1837 - The Free Banking Era Begins...until a progressive and increasingly greater number of nationwide bank panics brought on by the National Banking act create a demade for a strong centralized banking system.

1907 - Credit mismanagement and poor speculation causes the "Panic of 1907", TWO major stock market crashes within the same year causing a run on the Knickerbocker Trust, and subsequently, every bank in New York. The healthiest corporations in the country were plummeting and the national economy was rapidly headed towards complete economic ruin.

JP Morgan (one of the hyper-rich) then stepped forward and organized a team of bankers and trustees to redirect money between banks, secure international lines of credit, and buy stocks of the companies affected by the Panic.

1908 Confidence in the American Economy is restored. In the wake of the very near collapse of our nation, the National Monetary Commission was formed to figure out why the panics kept happening, and how to keep it from happening again (sorta like the 9/11 Commission or the Iraq Study Group).

1913, the findings of the NMC are presented in the form of recommended legislation "The Federal Reserve Act", which advocated the creation of a strong central banking system designed to prevent and control future panics. On December 23rd, the act is passed.

So, while it is easy to just throw out a blanket accusation like "the rich created the Federal Reserve to keep themselves in power", that's really not the case. 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.




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.


(chuckles) You really need to check more than just one source before quoting any statistic as fact. If you just buy into anything you read, you're setting yourself up to be a puppet of the very people you're trying to fight.

"For the large majority of affluent families, inherited wealth is not important. Only 30 percent had inherited assets. For those who did, the median inheritance level was $36,000." - Consumer Federation of America

"Only 20 percent of those families had wealth that was inherited. In other words, 80 percent was wealth that was created through innovation, through entrepreneurialship, et cetera" - PBS

"42% (of the wealthiest people) inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400" - United For A Fair Economy

As for "A Class War" going on... That's just common sense. The Have-Nots are always going to resent or admire the Haves. The Haves are either going to pity or have disdain for the Have Nots. Those in the middle receive equal derision from both because they refuse to accept the notion that they must remain poor, the poor consider them to be traitors somehow, and the rich consider them to be wannabes.

It is indeed "The Most Important War" but for the reasons you are implying. The "Class War" is what mobilizes fortune. It is what causes the swing between humanity and prosperity in legislation. It is the reason why people exist who do achieve rags to riches.

And, by the way, according to PBS, 31% of the wealthiest people were born to "families whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees." So your assertion that "Rags to Riches is largely a myth" would appear to be false, as 1/3 of the Forbes 400 would attest to.



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.


And? This is neither surprising nor is it particularly sinister. If 91-94% of my hard-won fortune was being taxed, I'd find a way to shelter my fortunes too. Why in god's name would I feel any compunction to voluntarily give up all that cheddar when, regardless of how much I actually paid, how much I gave to charity, how many hospitals, libraries, universities, etc, I founded, people like yourself would automatically assume I was an evil NWO member bent on ruling the world, just because I had more money. Yeah, I'd try and hide as much as I could, and I'd probably live under an assumed name while I was at it.



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.


No... no it doesn't. Maybe in your world, but where I come from, millionaires are still considered rich. And, according to Forbes, 31% of the top 400 richest people in the world DID, in fact, start with nothing. So I'm afraid either Forbes is wrong, or your throwout assertion is debunked.


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.


That is indeed a bloody tragedy. I am appalled by what some U.S. Corporations do in other countries. However, this is neither unique to the U.S. nor is it the responsibility of a corporation in one nation to look out for the enlightenment and protection of people in another country. I think Nike's Chinese sweatshops filled with overworked children is a disgrace. However, the fact remains that the Chinese government allows this to happen to its own people, and China's police could shut down the operation at any time if they felt human rights were a high enough priority. I lament the loss of the Brazillian rain forests to logging companies, etc, but the fact remains that the Brazillians themselves happily set millions and millions of acres of rainforest on fire just to burn it down and use it as farmland. The root cause of these problems is not neccessarily that a corporation is exploiting existing injustices, but that the countries themselves allow the injustices to exist, to be exploited, and to perpetuate the status quo.

Now, granted there are exceptions to the rule, like DynCorp for instance (shiver) is just plain flat out evil, and I don't mean that in a cliched sort of "Jaded Member of Generation-X hates corporations" sorta way, but rather a "these people run slave-prostitute rings of little children in Bosnia" sort of evil. So don't think I'm naive enough to think there aren't some evil mofo's out there.

There's also gray areas, like what's going on with the oil platforms in Nigeria.

However, to implicate all corporations, all rich, and the entire federal government as being responsible for all the other places being FUBAR'd...well, that's just as naive as assuming all corporations and the USG is nothiing but happy rainbows and unicorns.



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.


I could QUOTE you the whole story word for word from memory. I did a writeup on it years ago entitled "The Truth Behind Chiquita Bananas". When your brother is the director of the CIA, I imagine you can get a lot of things accomplished. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the story, and I agree, it's also a tragedy. History is full of tragedies, and bad people doing bad things to other people. I agree, it's absolutley horrible, quite possibly one of the top ranking low moments in American history...that century... Try checking back even earlier, when the corporations and government decimated 500 indigenous nations in the name of Manifest Destiny.

I have no love for corporations. I advocate a way for the poor to become rich through budgeting, saving their money, and looking for better interest rates. Your implication that this somehow throws me in the same lot with people who commit genocide is not only ignorant, but is a rather sickening insult, considering the US and State governments murdered over 90% of my people. By your own logic, I could just as easily claim you'd like to be in Al'Qaeda because you don't like the U.S. foreign policy. Please choose your words more carefully in the future.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I agree that there are some barriers to achieving great wealth, but with enough diligence and hard work you can break through them.

I would recommend that you read the book "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley and William Danko as it provides a very realistic view of millionaires in the US and how they got that way.

Here is a good writeup about the book

www.nytimes.com...


Some examples I frequently think of are Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who are the #1 and #2 richest people in the world! They didn't inherit their fortunes, and didn't come from extremely wealthy familys. I've heard Gates father was an attorney so they certainly had some money, but not billions AFAIK. Both of those men worked for their fortunes and just about anyone could do the same.

The google guys made like 12 billion dollars each in 7 years with an idea they started in their dorm room


Some people do inherit their wealth like the Walton family of Walmart for instance, but I think the vast majority of extremely wealthy people worked for it.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

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?


Absolutely, as does any financial planner worth their salt. See my above post. With only a modest $1mil in the bank when I retire 35 years from now, set into a trust fund for 70 years at 10% compound interest, it will come into full maturity with a value of over $1 Billion dollars. And that STILL leaves the wife and I $3.5 million to play (our estimated final value at age 65 will be $4.6 million tax-free) within our lifetimes, which is more than enough.

What you seem to have some grasp of is that TIME is the great equalizer. Quantum Physics aside, everyone moves through time at roughly the same rate. None of us know exactly how much of it we have left, but we can use it to calculate out and realize our goals.

And again, I fail to see how someone else, far richer than myself, having a team of tax attourneys disproves what I said in my quote. Spending your money on accountants and tax attourneys and financial advisers, if you choose the right ones, is a very wise investment if the amount of money you stand to gain from using them merits it.


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.


Again, incorrect. You are mistaking current market-force trends (which, incidentally, are starting to change) for the purpose of a corporation.

The real purpose of a corporation is to act as a virtual person, where individuals each specialize in one duty of the overall trade. A very mobile, efficient, and multi-armed person. A blacksmith can only process so much iron into steel and hammer it out into so many tools AND manage a shop at the same time. The customers are limited by his selection, and his selection is limited to what he knows his customers want.

If, however, there were a person whose only job was to process iron into steel, another to forge the steel into tools, and another to man the shop, and another to walk around advertising the shop and gathering information on what other steel items people would want to buy, much more profit could be made. This is a corporation, it is a trade that used to be handled by a single person, and expanded so that different people use different strengths to do the same job better, more often, and for less money.

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.



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)


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. If you really want to pick out some true-to life conspiracies though, you really don't have to look far. Just look at how the Vanderbilt's promoted pharmaceutical medicine for its profitability rather than its effectiveness. Still, I fail to see how any of this makes it hard for anyone else to become rich.



Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Most people in capitalist country who are poor, choose to be


Yes. There is no social class, it’s all a dream. Let’s blame the victim.



A.) I am so not going over this f---ing statement again. You can re-read what I already wrote a dozen times about it.

B.) Yes. Sometimes the "victim" needs to be blamed. I for one am sick of Professional Victim Culture, where nothing is anyone's fault, and no one has to claim any responsibility for their own life or actions.


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.


Yeah, so? I'm not a communist. Personally, I think if I work my ass off, save my money, and invest it wisely, then I deserve to live better than someone who sits at home collecting unemployment bitching about how the world owes him something.

I dig Chomsky, don't get me wrong. He has an excellent way of stating the bluntly obvious in such a way that makes people new to this whole "philosophy thing" think revolutionary ideas. Good on him. Unfortunately, in the meantime, before that magical land of happy unicorns and rainbows and everyone living in luxury together on equal ground, the rest of us have to survive and look out for our families.



Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Ceterus paribus is a phrase used in economics to mean “All else being equal”.


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...again...since it was already clarified a few times I believe.


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Micro-economics justifies central banking and Macro-economics justifies corporate welfare.


No it doesn't. That's like saying "The Bible justifies murder." Yeah, it's in there, and there's a format that it fits within, but ultimately the responsibility for action or inaction rests upon the individual and what society deems to be neccessary or acceptable at the time.


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.


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.


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!!


I hate to break out the old "My professor in college said blah blah blah..." but since I did major in Engineering Route to Business Administration from the University of Texas at Austin, and every Micro and Macro economics book and professor said the same thing "4% is the natural rate of unemployment", and these people had PHDs from actual Universities, and incidentally, most of them had no love for the Federal Reserve, then, 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.

Now if you wanted to go with something along the lines of "They just TELL us that 4% is natural to make us feel better" you may want to do just a teensy bit more looking into it because they actually DID do that, only what they "said, to make us feel better" is that 6% was the natural rate of unemployment. That was what the Federal Reserve was claiming in the mid-90's, and each of the economics professors were only too quick to point out what a line of tripe that was, and that according to the real-world numbers, 4% was the natural level.

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. TRUE Unemployment is when someone is actively seeking a job (within their field), but cannot get hired. It gives businesses a larger pool of talent to draw from, allows for larger pay to those that are employed, and acts as a competitive market force for workers to improve their skillsets. 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.


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)


In all fairness, I said as much when I wrote it in the first place, that I was probably butchering the description of the process. It is a FAR more complex process than I could have fit into a single post.


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
BTW, I've seen your excellent corporate thread in RATS, I'm positive we can eventualy agree on some things.


Thank you, and we do actually agree on many things, I think you are misinformed about quite a few of them that gives you the impression we don't.

(whew...finished)

(edit add) ConspiracyNut, I do want to thank you, even though I disagree with much of what you said, because you made me really have to stop and think about why I believe the way I do about wealth. I hold no punches on the subject, but I hope I didn't come across too insulting or condescending. If I did, I apologize in advance.

[edit on 11/20/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Excellent posts.


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. In fact, I had a hard time concentrating today (at work) because I would constantly go over some of the points in my head. (Writing illegible notes) Forgive me if some of my points seem unclear, as I said previously, it’ll take a wile to settle in.

From our exchange, I’ve concluded that the NWO entrance is a revolving door. The Rulers of the world’s (the “ruling class”) membership is constantly in flux. An individual might reach a peak in his lifetime and be invited to join the Bilderberg or the Trilats, but by the third generation, most fortunes have been dissipated.

The NWO is real, but it’s an idea. The NWO represents an idea that is not transmitted from father to son, but rather from one tycoon to another. A way of thinking where greed is encourage. It’s members are non-permanent and are subjected to the great equalizer mentioned by Libra above, time.

If there are any “permanent” member of the Ruling Class that would indeed be an impressive task.

Libra makes it perfectly clear above that we all have a shot at becoming part of the Ruling class. I (or more likely Libra) have a shot at becoming the next Jond D. I pray more individuals with high moral standard and a great sense of altruism joins the class.

However once you begin owning a lot of property you begin wanting to protect that property and this usually means supporting the current authority and supporting the Status Quo. But essentially its just keeping the poorer people from getting your stuff. Like kids in a sandbox. Come on now, kids, share! (BTW, sharing is called communism
)


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 we can say that 1% of the population owns 30-60% of the world’s wealth . Either way you look at it That’s still an extremely disproportionate amount. Thanks for the links.
(very good sources) They now control a smaller percentage of a bigger pie.



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.

See revolving door comments in above.



Either way, sorta deflates the whole "I can't get rich cause the NWO controls all the wealth" nonsense.

I think your thread has aptly demonstrated that anyone can be rich. thank you, and yes, I guess it does belong in the NWO section of the Internet’s largest CONSPIRACY forum. In a democratic society anyone has a chance of becoming part of the ruling class.


In 1929, when the top 1% was at another historic high of controlling 45% of the wealth, the stock market crashed.

Milton Friedman concludes that the 1929 Depression was caused by the Fed. 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.

See The South Sea Bubble. I’m sure you’ll notice many parallels.


I am dead, roughly 100 years from now, my family will be multi-billionaires.

Don’t you wish your Grandpa would’ve read the book sooner! ;(



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.

I never claimed the Fed was the first institution put in place??

It’s just one of many institutions that the ruling class constantly works to impose on the lower classes. However, your examples are great precedents. (you’re a great researcher)



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.

The American people had clearly demonstrated that they were not interesting in a central bank. You cited other attempts at a central bank, the people just didn’t want it. They had to pass the Bank he Act on December 23rd when most congressmen were home for the Holidays.



No... no it doesn't. Maybe in your world, but where I come from, millionaires are still considered rich.

Lol, we come from different worlds… But again I’m talking about the ruling class, not the millionaire next door.


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.

Of course I’m referring to current markets trends.


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.

I’m not. As you pointed above it’s the current market trend.



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.

Indeed researching the Rothschild it’s extremely difficult. There is a web of neo-Nazism and anti-Semitist mythology surrounding the family. But many members on this board take them seriously (ie. Gools, Twitchy) and they like myself, are far from being racist. Which the reference to the Protocols usually imply.



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...

Sorry, I didn’t mean to appear condescending ,  I’m not sure we have much of an audience at this point, lol. Your 3 last posts were 11 pages combined in Word!!!


God knows how long this reply is going to be. BTW do you have any idea why you can write longer posts than me? (I’m limited at 8000), is this relevant to #of posts (than I should change at 1000) or is it related to # of applauses? (then I should write posts that people actually read, lol)

Continues on Next post…



[edit on 21/11/06 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   


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 pointed it out because of the Rothschild’s intimate connection to the gold market.


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.

Unemployment?? I haven’t mentioned unemployment anywhere. I simply asked you to apply the concept of compound interesting to this “normal” 4% a year in Inflation. That’s how much money gets diluted every year. (well according to an ever changing baskets of goods) That’s how much your purchasing power goes down by every year. The Fed says that 3-5% is normal. I’m sorry but unless you explain the reasoning behind your teacher’s claim, I’m not simply going to believe it.

Think about it, what would debased our currency the most? What is the biggest cause of inflation? Fractional Banking. With a reserve ratio of 10% they can create more than 10 times what the Fed prints. This seriously dilutes the value of the currency! The first thing we need to combat inflation is 100% reserve-ratio.



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.

I heard the first part in school too.
(I was an Econ. Major)

I have no idea why you think that full unemployment would reduce motivation to improve oneself? If you were guaranteed a job, wouldn’t that motivate you more? There are many disgruntled students as we speak who are disgruntled because they know they will not find a job after graduation, wouldn’t full employment motivate them more? Maybe even get a more advanced degree?

power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely -- Lord Acton



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
After a full four days of over-eating, over-drinking, and over-exposure to family, I feel enriched enough (sorry, bad pun) to continue the discussion. Hope y'all had a great holiday.



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.


Likewise, a lot of what you said I've been thinking about and still pondering some of it.


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
From our exchange, I’ve concluded that the NWO entrance is a revolving door.


I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, you nicely sum it up later with:


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
They now control a smaller percentage of a bigger pie.


Which is absolutely true. I'd also go so far as to say they control more wealth than they did before, as, like you've mentioned, there's a lot more money around today than there was yesterday (a larger pie), but the overall percentage of the pie has decreased.

Still, if I owned 60% of a $1 billion dollar economy a hundred years ago (600mil), vs. 30% of a $1 trillion dollar economy ($300 billion) now, that's still a... (does some mental math...) 50,000% increase in wealth... that's... a lot. A helluva lot... So you've given me something to think about here.

Absolutely, the hyper-rich, and even the plain old rich (millionaires) have a definitive advantage over the poor in terms of just how-much wealth they can generate in a lifetime, on a 1 vs 1 basis. If a hyper-rich individual can generate more money from interest in one year than a poor person can through a lifetime of savings and investment, it would seem, on the surface, to be a hopeless battle from a sheer numbers 1v1 scenario.

Fortunately for us, the real world is so much more complex.

For one, there's the aspect of wealth relativity. One who works their way from the poverty line to the upper middle class or lower upper class line, has improved their standard of living to such a degree that, logically, more efficient and appreciative use of that wealth can be made.

I
got the pleasure of touring the outside of Bill Gates' house once, while working for Microsoft. He spent, on property alone, over $200mil on it. That doesn't count the house itself or the clever little doodads inside it, or his private library of DaVinci artwork. The calculated middle-class equivolent of this would be ordering a large delivery pizza (about $20 after tip).

Now, I ask, how much more pleasure does Bill Gates get out of his $200mil lakeside property in Washington, vs. John Doe's $200k lakeside property in Oregon? Assuming both are relatively close to their respective work and family, that their houses provide adequate shelter, a nice view, and a respectable neighborhood, then aside from the price tag, the difference is really quite minimal.

Past a certain point, there's just really not much point in the number of zeroes right of the first digit. You mentioned a book called "The Millionaire Next Door", a great read, and one of the things they mentioned is that the truly wealthy generally don't go around buy multi-million dollar houses, driving $100k+ cars, and wearing thousand-dollar shoes. The majority of wealthy people live in houses that cost under $1mil, drive sensible, comfortable reliable cars with decent mileage (about $40k or less), and dress in sensible, comfortable clothes. You could, quite literally, be living next door to a millionaire and never know it, because rather than living high, they just retain and reinvest wealth, and leave the glitz and high profile images for Hollywood to sort out.

And, ironically, those that DO buy the multi-billion dollar house, the hand-made Porche, and wear $8,000 Armani suits, usually have less actual wealth than our modest next-door millionaire, because the person who lives high does so at the expense of money they could be investing.


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Milton Friedman concludes that the 1929 Depression was caused by the Fed.


Hmmm... I definitely need to pick up a copy of A Monetary History of the United States, looks like a helluva good read. I can't really comment on this yet, as I haven't read it yet. Nice source though, I look forward to reading it.


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.


Certainly, but that's also been the case since the dawn of trade. In fact, you'd really be hard pressed for your investments to not be, technically, speculative... a series of floating balances if you will.

If you were a farmer, your wealth would be tied up almost entirely in your farm, the vast majority of every year. Every penny you've put into buying/renting land, seed, fuel, fertilizer, equipment, hired help, etc, is all speculation that there will be a decent crop, a minimal amount of spoilage between field and market, that there would be a decent price at market, and a demand sufficient to buy your stock. Depending on what you are growing, you might be running entirely on an insane amount of debt for 11 months out of every year, just to make the big payout that one month.

Now, in that one month, after market has bought up all the product, the farmer might now, after repaying his debts, making sure there is enough to bring the crop next year, and setting aside enough money to just get by the next year, juuuuust might have enough extra to expand his holdings, or try a more lucrative crop, or just throw it away on hookers and blow, but overall, the vast majority of the year, the farmer is in real-time debt for speculation of a return at the end of the harvest.

Now, from a modern perspective, that's an insane way to run a business, but unless you're Del Monte, or Sunkist, you really can't afford to run a farm any other way. The reason the whole agricultural system doesn't collapse though, is because of confidence in the market brought on by generation after generation of people who realize that some foods really only come into season certain parts of the year, and more often than not, the farmers are right.

So, as a result, they get financiers, who decide they'll invest in the agricultural sector, and the financier sends money by way of other money handlers, who eventually deposit it into a large account that lends out money to farmers, of which you, the farmer, receive a loan to pay for that extra tractor you needed on speculation that it could return more in crop over it's lifespan of 20 years of work than it cost to buy.
So now in addition to speculating that you'll make more in one month than you spend in the other eleven per year, you are now betting on a long term 20-year investment that can't really be accurately translated into numbers.

Now, that bank that just lent you the money for that tractor, and holds the title to your mortgage, also does the same for all the other farmers in that nice little Wisconsin backwater town. The local tractor dealership, as a result, has had a nice little boost in the confidence of their sales, and as a result, invests some speculative money in newer models and advertising to the other farmers, who subsequently go to the bank, to get a loan, on the idea that the tractors they buy will provide more bang for buck over the long haul...

...Back to the investor who checks their stock shortly after harvest season to find out their expected profit has turned negative, because the bank has given out so many loans. Disgusted, the investor sells his stock, which lowers the price further, which causes others to sell their stock sensing a downturn, which, after the money changes hands a few more times, the bank is forced to pay out, which means they have to call due some of those loans, which unfortunately can't be paid because the bill comes due during those 11 other months. The farmer, with no means to pay his loan, defaults, is turned off the land, and since the money is now tied up in public auction with pennies on the dollar being made in return, the other farmers debts are called in, which they cannot pay in debt, which causes them to be turned off the land...

...suddenly you have a lot of empty fields, rusting tractors, and a destroyed economy for that town, which in turn affects the rest of the state, and the market for whatever product you were growing as well.

Now I think we can safely say my example is a bit narrow and extreme, but hopefully provides enough of a tiny sliver of how speculation works on the tiniest of scales. Speculation isn't entirely a bad thing. It is what allows industry to exist and expand. Without it, growth would be minimal at best, and non-existant as a rule. It does, however, carry dangers like what I listed above. No one was evil, or even wrong, but rather the impatience and weak stomach of a short-term investor can ruin the entire machine.

Which kind of brings me, in a very roundabout fashion, to my original point, which is that long-term investments are the only way to reliably build true wealth. In a different timeline, the wise investor decides to trust the farmer, and leaves his money in the market for 25 years (long enough to let that tractor get its money's worth out of the Earth), and as a result sees a generous profit margin when he finally sells, and countless ripples throughout that time stimulate the speculative economy in other ways.

Almost all investments, really, when you get right down to it, are speculative. Hence why they are investments, rather than purchases.

(more to come, but time to go home)



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Hello to everyone, just to congratulate this excellent topic you've created libra... You made me join the forum just in order to be able to write this post...

I totally agree with you in many terms, specially when you say there's no conspiracy at all from some Order that keeps anyone else poor. I do say though those orders help their members stay in top, they protect themselves and help among each other. I think this is common knowledge, and I am pretty familiar to this since, not myself, but some people I know actually are part of an ancient order...

Anyways what capted me was your ideals of how you can make your way to the top... Always pay yourself first etc etc...

~I understand most the things you've said...although I don't know if they apply everywhere. For instance I live in Portugal, Europe... I tried to just do a little research online thru some bank homepages to check their interest rates... you state a life savings account should give something from 7%-12%;
i can't find here any higher than 4.5% which is ridiculous in my opinion for a retirement plan account.

If I understood IRA is Investment Retiring Account ? Right ?

Since I am only 17, I am still in no way financially independent and I Was thinking of following the premises you stated in the topic... I am already on ym way of buying the book "The Richest Man in Babylon" , and since I am only 17 I have no expenses, since I live with my parents, I would be willing to try this and take advantage while I have no expenses at all... I earn a wage of around 600 €uros a month (I work a partime job) and I'd be willing to put aside at least 400 €uros/month, and I have like 2,000€ doing nothing just sitting in my bank account awaiting for me to do something...

So are those high interest rates only available in US ? or is that kind of IRA something else other than a retirement plan ? I have no clue on how the banking system works globally yet, but I intend to learn more... What would you advise as best read in terms of globally and not just focused on US Economy ?

Also for a long term saving accounts, since once you "sign in" you can't take out your money without losing so much for fees etc...since the money is going to be there a long time we should look carefully on which banks offer the best rates, since if we put our money into let's say a bank that offers 6% and then we later on find one that offers 8% it will be too late since the payable fees for witdrawing the money from an account that was supposed to be there for 30 years probably would be too much to bear and the difference wouldn't be worthy right ?

So what would be the best advice in finding the best accounts etc ? Going to several banks and ask for their financial expertise ?

Thank you , I hope you don't mind that I digged this topic out of no where...it seems no one post for more than a year...

And thank you for sharing your life story it sure sounds inspiring. I know it did inspire me...

My best regards to you



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
This topic is all fine but it assumes employment. One cant pay themselves 10% first if they have zero income to start.

Then there are those that simly cant afford to set aside 10%.

I disagree that there isnt a group out there trying to keep the masses poor. They control the banks, they control the economies, they create inflation. They destroy jobs simply by manipulating interest rates.

They control most of the colleges around. They price education so high it forces us to go into debt even before we enter the work world.

They lobby goverments for tax breaks and stick the middle and poor class with the burden

They hire lawyers to hide their assets in blind trusts and nonprofit foundations. The Rockefellers are worth trillions yet pay zero income tax.

They influence goverments to spend tax money on wars and massive programs that benefit only them. Money that could be better spent on the middle class and poor. Do we have universal healthcare...NO. Do we have free daycare for our children...NO. But we do have a 500 billion dollar a year military budget and hundreds of billions more spent on black projects.

Explain to me how someone can save any money when they

1. cant find a job
2. cant find a job that pays enough to cover daycare costs

Im a college graduate. I have been unemployed for 4 years now. I havent even scored an interview in 2 years. We moved away from the Philadelphia area because I couldnt find anything. I have yet to find anything in the Boise area. I cant even get hired by Target or Best Buy. And even if I could get one those lousy lowpaying jobs, it wouldnt cover daycare expenses.

Im not even counting the 25,000 I owe in student loans which has been in deferrement building interest over the years.

The days of working for a company pushing papers for 50k a year are dying. The days of working for a factory for 25 dollars and hr plus full benefits and retirement are gone.

The only jobs I see these days are service oriented which dont cover gas and daycare costs. Or I can go the commission sales route which is totally erratic.

The main employer around here is Micron. They just laid off 5,000 people and there are rumors that Micron will be moving to India or some other 3rd world nation to lower labor costs. How will I possibly ever get a job when another 10,000 people enter the work market desperate to take anything ?

If it wasnt for my wife's job, we'd be homeless. So please explain to me how anyone can simply save and become wealthy ?

And Im not alone. There are millions like me that are one paycheck from being homeless. We have no hope for saving anything.

Oh and inflation typically outpaces savings regardless.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
thelibra, one thing you say I disagree though... when you state everyone can become wealthy. I don't agree but let me finish... My point of view is, if everyone would become wealthy, rich whatever... there would not be many resources to accomplish that... hmm I can't explain it that well, Î mean if everyone became rich you'd be stuck in the same spot you were before, as if, Imagine a crowd watching a show: if you stand on your toes sure you will see better, but now if everyone stands on your toes their view will be the same as before so there was no benefit. This is a fallacy, the truth in a part, doesn't guarantee it in the whole.

I hope I could make my point clear enough for you to understand what I mean. Other than that I do believe the same way, that one could climb all the way to a comfortable position by following all those guidelines.

Once again my best regards, I'll look forward to exchange some opinions with you...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by admriker444
 


I know quite a few college graduates and even people with graduate degrees who are unemployed or working at Wal-Mart. While I make no assumptions about your background, I can only talk about what I've seen from the people whose background I do know: without end, they are either all (1) holders of worthless degrees, and/or (2) went to a low ranked university.

By (1) I mean people who majored in philosophy, religion, history, english, or some other liberal art. These are the hardest degrees to get a job with, unless you come from a "prestigious" school.

People have been lured into the trap of thinking that a college degree guarantees them a job - it doesn't - and it certainly doesn't entitle them to a good job. College degrees, and even graduate degrees, are a dime a dozen. They aren't worth the loans people take out - unless your in a high paying field at a good school.

Anyone can save and become wealthy, if they sacrifice enough. That means going into a field with a huge demand and little supply. It means having no life to go and do good in a prestigious school. Alternatively, it means being a entrepreneur and plowing your money into an idea instead of a formal education - or doing both.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
the rich will certainly find new ways to keep being rich....


what do you think about the sudden stop to all gold & platnium mining in South Africa?

see www.kitco.com...

* bloomberg 25 jan 2008, 'Gold Platnium rise to records as mines close'
* morningstar.com jan 25 2008,'AngloGold halts mining operations in South Africa'
* 'Gold mines come to a halt'
* 'S. African power crisis halts gold, platnium mining'
(several other current, 25th jan 2008 articles & reports)



I suspect that the money elites are engineering, manipulating the South African mining operations of gold & platnium..for the reason of creating another artifical 'bubble' in P.Metals.
After their money trees of -> dot.com bubble & the housing bubble & the credit crunch and the soon to be litigated scandelous bubbles of fraudlent rating bubble, and various hedge fund bubbles...they have exhausted all available revenue sources.

It might seem pausable that the electric grid suppliers in South Africa
are reporting anticipated power disruptions and untimely outages for
long periods... but that sounds suspiciously contrived to my ear,
but a real danger to mine safety so therefore the nationwide shutdown of PM mining to the rest of the world,

wonder who or how many other mining operations will assess problems
like South Africa is expecting and shut down & sit on their proven reserves until the 'Price Is Right'



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Thelibra, this is salvadorveiga, and a few months after reading this thread I have to thank you... I am still young (student in college) and the last 2 months have been applying my savings in stocks etc... Once I saw your thread I first read The Richest Man in Babylon and from there a few others such as Poor Dad Rich Dad, Warren Buffett books, Peter Lynch's books, all kinds of books...I created a portfolio for the long term with stock picking, I own 30 stocks that I expect to beat the market in 3-5 years...and a small portfolio for short term trades which I am really being quite sucessful with it in this market...

Thank you for providing me such a life change.

My regards



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
All the wealth of the world has been taken from poor people. Inflation is a tool to remove money from the poor. This is all controlled by bankers.
Now, tell me, what drives inflation? Money should not lose value as some of it is destroyed.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Great Thread Libra!

I recently read (listened to in audio) the Riches Man in Babylon and was looking for the 5 Laws of Gold typed up somewhere on the net. I found them in this thread and have copied/printed them for my future reading. Thank You!

To all the kind people who have posted in retort, argument, or dissaproval, it is my belief that you would spend your time better trying to understand what has been written and to use it to your advantage, not to try and refute it. All things in this book are true and Libra is a wise man for believing in this philosophy as well. As my own humble fortune grows, I am able to give more to charity. This for me is the true value of education and wealth, you earn the ability to share and to give, with little fear of it leaving you forever.

If you believe that the Rich are out to get the poor, why do Bill Gates and Warrent Buffet and so many others return billions to charity each year? There is no law that forces them to do so. Bill Gates just retired from CEO of Microsoft to lead the largest charity in the U.S. He owns it of course, but I dont think he is spending his time there to make more money, he has done quite well at that allready.

Consider first how anothers point of view may help you to achieve what you most desire in this world, then share that information for others to enjoy. It requires little skill to refute the ideas of others.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

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



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join