History of Housing Prices Chart - *SHOCKING* You Need To See This!

reply to post by K-Raz


Most immigrants I know, and there are a great number of them where I come from, bury themselves in debt. You have these women driving these giant SUVs who have barely learned to drive. You have janitors who own numerous houses, all with giant mortgages bought in the last five years. Sorry, greed is a universal vice.

Socialism isn't any better, it is just the flip side of the same foolish idealistic coin. At best socialism leads to a 2nd world economy.

Development of a competitive market system regulated by a representative government is by far the best system mankind has come up with so far. For a competitive market to exist, you have to have an evenly enforced fair set of rules in place, and that is what we are sadly lacking at this point in time.

Under the foolish belief that greed is good, under the GW kleptocracy, the people who developed our technology were pushed aside for cheap immigrant tech workers, and the results are that technology has gone backwards. School doesn't teach how things work in the real world, so when things go wrong, all these new people know how to do is play games, concentrate on saving their jobs. Things as basic as calibration are performed incorrectly. Anyone who points out the mistakes is viewed as a danger to the status quo, and they are let go. When your instrumentation is incorrect, then you are trying to conduct R&D in the dark. This is but one easy to illustrate aspect which is why technology is currently going backwards. Ten years ago technology was advancing at an amazing rate, and top engineers were making twice to five times what they are making now. The greed game destroyed all that.

reply to post by yellowcard


If tax cuts increase tax revenues, then why were the Reagan - Bush - Bush years periods in which our nation sank so heavily in debt? If their tax cuts had increased revenues enough to make up for the cuts, than we shouldn't have had the massive levels of government debt built up.

Military spending verses spending on infrastructure is just a different version of Keynesian economics. The whole tired argument about need to counter the Soviets is equally ridiculous, so before you go off on that tangent, let me point out that we were subsidizing the Soviets long before Reagan ever got into office, as the Soviet system was collapsing long before Reagan ever got into office. The only legitimate threat the Soviets offered was a ground invasion of Europe based on the exaggerated capabilities of their tanks, and upgrading our tanks was one of the last things Reagan reluctantly agreed to. Most of the military contracts were nothing but a huge windfall in income for the well connected, with a contract system designed to extract the most money from the government.

I agree with you on Medicaid, it is a horrible system that only serves to subsidize illegal immigration. I think what we really need is considerable effort to establish non-profit insurance companies, or better yet, tax free medical savings accounts similar to 401k programs.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by poet1b]

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
Where are the moderators? I just read a post that was extremely offense language. I see no reason for cursing to get one's point across.

Awwwww

Maybe you don't belong here. Since its being pretty fringe and all. Join a bible study group, or something else that wont hurt your feelings, little pup.

If you don't want your personal borders challenged, stay of the internet instead of crying to the parent to help you.

Tard

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by yellowcard

 

If tax cuts increase tax revenues, then why were the Reagan - Bush - Bush years periods in which our nation sank so heavily in debt? If their tax cuts had increased revenues enough to make up for the cuts, than we shouldn't have had the massive levels of government debt built up.

Military spending verses spending on infrastructure is just a different version of Keynesian economics. The whole tired argument about need to counter the Soviets is equally ridiculous, so before you go off on that tangent, let me point out that we were subsidizing the Soviets long before Reagan ever got into office, as the Soviet system was collapsing long before Reagan ever got into office. The only legitimate threat the Soviets offered was a ground invasion of Europe based on the exaggerated capabilities of their tanks, and upgrading our tanks was one of the last things Reagan reluctantly agreed to. Most of the military contracts were nothing but a huge windfall in income for the well connected, with a contract system designed to extract the most money from the government.

I agree with you on Medicaid, it is a horrible system that only serves to subsidize illegal immigration. I think what we really need is considerable effort to establish non-profit insurance companies, or better yet, tax free medical savings accounts similar to 401k programs.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by poet1b]

Because they spent more money than they had in tax revenue with spending increases? Seems pretty logical to me, it's a fact that tax receipts increase during periods of tax cuts. There is no argument there, as far as military spending, I think it should be cut as well, the military industrial complex needs to be dealt with. Clinton didn't succeed in cutting the deficit to a surplus with tax increases, he did it with welfare reform and military spending cuts. The government needs to tighten up it's belt, instead of cutting loose, as it has under the current administration and the last.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Not Authorized

 

Except you don't realize that Obama's hasn't been in office long enough to change anything, but a few laws and the budget, which mostly won't take effect until next year. It will be about two years before any of the changes taking place now begin to have any meaningful effect on the economy.

What the guy in the film forgot to mention in his propaganda piece is that the year the great depression ended, is also the year in which U.S. government debt was the highest ever in relation to GDP.




So, when looking at the example of history, Obama is doing the right thing at this moment to turn our economy around. Just the turn around hasn't begun instantly, and the economy continues to sink has nothing to do with Obama.

Sigh.

Poet, he has been in some form of public office for 13 YEARS. Not 13 days. He was a senator for 4 of those years. Why do you refuse to look at his political history as a whole to understand he's part of this problem just as much as Bush and the rest of the politicians?

Oh and that budget? In case you missed it, part of it was the budget he worked on prior to becoming president. Hence why he removed his name from his items as it would be unconstitutional. Oops?

But since we are on history, didn't FDR send a record number of bills to congress the first 100 days at that time, including the much needed Glass-Stegall act that restored some form of confidence and created the FDIC?

What has Obama given us again? Lots of pretty speeches and ran up a gigantic fricking hotel bill in the White House already. Lets ignore the fact too that he's had over 100 days already knowing he would be president.

The problem with the markets is a loss of confidence. There's other economic indicators that you are ignoring. Bank confidence fell off a cliff recently, by another 30% -- and yes, it was his lies that caused it. He promised a plan, and delivered uh, what plan again? Lie lie lie. Guess the market reaction to that lie? Yet, it's Bushes fault. Ok.

It's all about confidence poet. He does not have time for on the job training. Either poop or get off the pot. FDR for as much as his failings, understood that. He needs to stand up and be a leader. Not a partisan lackey toting the party line as many had suspected with his election.

How long does it take to call the FBI and begin criminal probes over all the rampant fraud in the financial industry including the SEC? 10 minutes? How about asking congress to re-institute Glass-Stegall and get rid of the GLB Act? How about re-imposing a 12:1 leverage ratio? How about asking for congressional hearings with hard evidence of the fraud? How about sending those banker pigs to jail, instead of home arrest?

Wheres the beef poet? It's been 4 weeks.

Oh and as far as your comment on spending at the end of the great depression. From 1933 to 1941, National debt as % of GNP remained flat at ~40% from 20% from hoover. World War 2 was the trigger for the spike. The spending didn't get us out of the depression -- The mass of people going to work for WW2 did.

Instead we got his 'stimulus' bill that included remolding some government building, $13 a week in tax cuts, and a high speed train from LA to Vegas. Sorry but FDR and Obama is no where NEAR each other. They are not even in the same league.

reply to post by yellowcard

Seems pretty logical to me, it's a fact that tax receipts increase during periods of tax cuts.

Tax revenue also increased during times of tax increases, see the Clinton years.

Yeah, there is an overwhelming argument that tax cuts do not necessarily result in increased tax revenues. Tax revenue increases after tax cuts were always preceded by huge increases in government spending financed by debt. The government pumps more money into the economy through creation of money, more money circulating through the economy means more tax revenue. It should cause inflation but that can be disguised through various means, with the old saying, figures do not lie, but liars do figure.

reply to post by Not Authorized


SIGH!!! Vast numbers of politicians have been in office for numerous years, what makes Obama's minor role in politics up until now so much more influential than all those other politicians. You must see Obama as some omnipotent pol.

The massive spending for the war effort is what sent the masses to work to pull us out of the great depression. You provided the answer as to why FDRs reforms failed to pull us out of the Great Depression.

From 1933 to 1941, National debt as % of GNP remained flat at ~40%

The fed simply did not spend enough money to pull us out of the great depression. It took the war effort to achieve the necessary stimulus.

It is not all about confidence, it is about paying people fair wages for their efforts, and that is not happening in this corrupt system built up by the GW admin. I agree, ending corruption and prosecuting the white collar criminals will be a necessary step, but first, the democrats who have taken over the executive branch must succeed in taking over the reigns of power from the former GW admin, and that ain't gonna happen in one month. Six months is more of an appropriate time frame, and then actions can just begin.

Originally posted by K-Raz
... i dont need the biggest car, since my penis is avarage sized and it's just used for getting me from point a to point b in a reliable, economic way........

The term "Lost in Translation" is coming to mind.

So what does your "teenie weenie" have to do with the type of car you drive?

Is is some type of V8 envy thing or do you simply have mommie issues?

BTW, as another poster already pointed out, your language is vulgar.
I suggest you zip it up.

Back on topic:
Regardless if the chart is actually factual, Mr. Beck is merely speculating on the trend of the graph going forward. He kinda reminds me of Barney Fife on Mayberry. Like his atom-sized brain figured this all out.

He is nothing more than a FOX News Shock Jock.

Regards....KK


[edit on 27-2-2009 by kinda kurious]

I'm not being vulgar. If you think that is vulgar, you haven't spent nearly enough time on the internet.

Oh, and that was a "fecal" stab at my post. I like your cars, but i don't wake up every monrning thinking about what everyone else has.

My point still stands. Now go to church

See the article written by James Lieber.

www.villagevoice.com...

If true, it explains why the derivatives have the politicians very scared at the moment. In a nutshell, if the housing market completely collapses, we as a country will be in debt by 600 trillion. I'd like to see Mr. Beck tackle that one.

Originally posted by Not Authorized
How much do you want to tax them JBA? 50%, 75%, 100%? No seriously. I ask in earnest. What do you propose to tax them at? What is their 'fair' share?
[edit on 26-2-2009 by Not Authorized]

That's a good question. I don't think there is any "absolute from God" or scientifically provable answer about what the best future rate will be - before we live it. People have different guesses, usually based more on belief systems than on evidence. Absent any evidence of best outcomes, "Fairness" alas becomes a swamp of subjective judgments.

But we could look at other countries, or at our own history, and find a rate that actually "worked" well for the nation and its people; not just in some political theory of what we think should ought to work, but what has actually worked in the real world.

How about this? The US experienced a period of relatively stable economic growth under the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower, with Republicans dominating the Congress, back before the liberals got so involved in adjusting the economy in the 60's. How about we return to the US tax rates of that economically happier time? From hindsight, we can see that the tax rates then were obviously compatible with solid economic growth, modest inflation, increasing home ownership, technology advances, and a positive balance of trade. Rich people and poor worked hard for the after-tax rewards they received. More people believed in the American Dream then than now.

How does that sound? Return to the Republican tax rates of the mid 1950's? (With tax tables adjusted for inflation obviously!).

reasoner

Originally posted by Not Authorized
Poet, he has been in some form of public office for 13 YEARS. Not 13 days.

You consider this relevant figure to bring to a rational discussion, in the sense that his political weight has been a significant factor in the US economy for 13 years, and his decisions were a substantial factor in getting us to the current state? Interesting. Do you really think that or are you just arguing?

Originally posted by Not Authorized
Oh and as far as your comment on spending at the end of the great depression. From 1933 to 1941, National debt as % of GNP remained flat at ~40% from 20% from hoover. World War 2 was the trigger for the spike. The spending didn't get us out of the depression -- The mass of people going to work for WW2 did.

Hmm. And just what entity spent the money that it took to hire all those people, directy or indirectly? How can you separate spending and providing employment as if they were disparate?

The premise of many economists is that when the private sector goes into a deflationary spiral then government spending - in particular spending that directly or indirectly employs people - is the only tool for getting to the other side of the curve (where more begets more rather than less begetting less). This include economists who think that the government should minimize its role in the economy in other circumstances. There seems to be some evidence, tho not proof, of that assertion; and not everybody agrees. BUT - the crisis of WW II politically justified exactly that kind of radical spending, in a way that the 1930's political mixture did not. I find it hard to see your how one would use WW II's increased spending and employment as discrediting rather than supporting the spend-to-break-the-spiral thesis.

----

Obama seems to be going beyond pretty speeches now. Now he's being criticised as being too radical. Heh. Gonna happen.

I find your advocacy of fraud trials etc interesting. Part of me certainly wants to hold some people responsible (tho I'm afraid that many of the largest culprits were probably unethical but may not have broken the laws on the books at the time).

Is this something you advocate only because it's right and just in your view, or do you think such prosecution would somehow help the economy?

I'm curious whether you think your economic policies would be politically more viable, or would command a higher approval rating than Obamas, or mobilize both parties to work together or what? (I presume you believe they would work better if somehow implemented). For example, could you as president of the country in it's current state implement your policies democratically, or would you need to have autocratic authority to impose the correct policies by fiat because doing the right thing economically just wouldn't mobilize enough of the right people? That's a real question, please do think about it before answering.

reasoner

Oddly enough, I think there is some truth in the graph presented in the video. But it needs more analysis. Hear me out.

There really was a housing bubble. By that I mean that home prices rose to historically unprecedented levels (as ratios to earnings) fueled by speculation. Meaning people spent (and lender lent them) way more than the house was worth to them *just as a house*, believing that they would in turn later be able to sell it again at a healthy profit. The portion of people's net worth, and of our national weath, which resided in nominal home values increased dramatically - without any real increase in material wealth or productivity to "create" a durable substance underneath that explosion of paper wealth. When speculators find they can't sell for more than they bought it for, a house of cards collapses. pfft No enough solid behind the smoke.

I put more value in a price to wages ratio than in the graph presented, because GWB's administration published adjusted inflation figures that understated inflation by not including housing. We can go find the sources if you doubt that. With understated inflation, home prices would be somewhat artificially exaggerated in that graph. But price to wage ratios are in same year dollars and is both more truly relevant to affordability, and less subject to political distortion. HOWEVER, both curves (inflation adjusted and price to wage) show an exponential increase during the housing bubble. So I believe the problem of the spike collapsing is real.

Anyway, even believing there is some truth to the idea that housing prices may need to eventually come back down to a historically consistent price to wage ratio - what is the best course NOW? Should we allow prices to fall all the way down without intervention? This is sort of like taking a patient off certain drugs - even if there's no doubt we have to stop, what's the best approach? Depending on the drug (note I did not say illegal drug), a sudden stop may or may not produce the best outcome.

I think there is room to disagree with Obama's stated desire to stabilize home prices now - but it would be unfair to ridicule it as obviously wrong. George Bush and most past presidents of both parties would have the same goal, whether because they believed the housing prices could actually stay high forever, or because they wanted to slow the descent, or because they were politicians and not economists and knew their electorate very much wanted to stabilize home prices, or because they didn't understand the question could you repeat it?

What I'd like to see him do is elaborate on his own prescription, acknowledging the probable downsides as well as upsides as well as why those tradeoffs are better. So for example, what would the full effects on the economy be if 50 or 60% of mortages were "under water"? How long would it take to recover from that?

Given that there are no "good" solutions to this mess and so it's entirely about choosing between different sets of tradeoffs, it's easy to take cheap shots at ANY plan ANYBODY presents by pointing to the problems it must have, if you don't have to show there is another alternative with fewer problems. (Of course, people will claim larger upsides and smaller downsides to their pet approach even then, but it's even worse if they only critisize without having to weigh the tradeoffs involved).

Personally, if housing prices could fall back to historic ratios while wages and employment remain high, it would be a godsend to me. I could buy back into the market I left a couple of years before the peak. But you don't get to pick and choose these indicators like M&Ms, these things are linked. Cheap houses are no good to me if I lose my job or there is no credit available.

So I *might* support slowing the descent of housing prices even if it means I continue to rent - and also work - for a while. And even if I believe (more or less) the graph.

reasoner

Originally posted by TNT13
wants to keep the housing prices up to keep us in debt. I love the "this is fox news line", I watch CNN all the time and Beck is more liberal then 98% of the people on there, so whats your point other then to post non-sense because you don't like fox news.

I don't know his concern, but for me the problem is not whether somebody is conservative or liberal, but whether there is credible quality control and trustworthiness. A source isn't valuable just because it agrees with my view, or bogus if it disagrees - I'm sick and tired of liberal=true/conservative=false, AND of liberal=false/conservative=true.

I read the Economist for credible conservative views; they are often well reasoned whether I agree or not.

But Fox in my own opinion has close to zero journalistic integrity. It seems to be largely blatent propaganda when I see it at the gym. That's of no value to me, whether liberal or conservative; Fox just happens to be conservative but I would avoid it even if it was liberal.

Something from fox might nevertheless be correct, but the source gives me no confidence.

Your milage may vary; you may think that regardless of conservative/liberal slant, Fox news has the highest journalistic integrity and most thoughtful analysis on television. If so, I'd be interested in your reasoning on that, rather than trying to reframe it into just the hackneyed liberal/conservative clothing.

reasoner

Originally posted by ReelView
Don't understand his chart. The average home price in 1890 was $80,000? More like $6,000. Still his basic concept is right.

He says the chart is adjusted for inflation. Yes, a home in 1890 would have been far cheaper in 1890 dollars, but wages and other prices were also far smaller numbers. So the chart is using some unstated base year and adjusting for inflation.

That said, the rate of inflation is not a scientific fact like the speed of light. There are assumptions made. A basket of "typical" food in 1890 and 2009 would differ quite a bit; there were not enough cars in 1890 to matter economically, so should a car's price today be compared to two horses plus a carriage or just to a single horse in 1890? How much oats equals how much gasoline? Various people do a good faith attempt to find comparables, substituting portions the index goods gradually over time. But this is a simplified model of reality, not a fact. Still it's not meaningless, just take it with a grain of salt as they say.

That's why I prefer a home price to wage index (using same year dollars). But such indexes also show a tendency for a relatively more stable equilibrium that keeps being returned to followed by a big spike in recent years, collapsing at the end of the Bush administration.

reasoner

Originally posted by Not Authorized
They have lied time and time again, and the markets call it, every time.

Why can't people see this? I too am frustrated David.

Heh, heh.

The bloated financial sector leads us into a huge recession (at minimum) under the previous administration, all while promising that no regulation of derivatives is needed and bribing all political parties with $100 million (not kidding) of lobbying. The stock market has the greatest losses of all time and incredible volatility in 2008.

Now suddenly that same market that led us over a cliff under Bush (most recently) is a wise guru, and every rally and dip is wisdom incarnate about the new president. The same folks that dismayed Fed Chief Ben Bernake (not exactly a liberal) with their deceptions, greed and lack of ethics - are raising and lowering stock prices as a worthy barometer of somebody else's truthfullness. I had to laugh the concept of using daily fluctuations of stock prices as a guide to what's best for the nation. I have a some AAA rated bundled derivatives to sell to anybody who will buy that.

The reason "people can't see this" is perhaps because it takes an extremely biased view of reality to suddenly believe the market suddenly switched from massively stupid / corrupt to wise / trustworthy on Jan 20 of 2009, when the new scapegoat in chief took office. I suspect you might frequently be "frustrated" at how stupid other people are, in not perceiving the world through your lenses.

My prediction, before the election, was that the next president would serve only a single term, no matter who was elected. There just ain't nobody who could possibly fix this mess we've spent 20 years creating under both parties, in four years, so whoever got the job was going to turn unpopular as people looked for somebody to blame. Since a Democrat won this time, I expect a Republican to be elected in 2012 (it would have been R then D if McCain had won). Obama would need to be the economic and political genius of the century to get re-elected (likewise McCain or any other candidate).

Within a week of inauguration, large numbers of people made themselves feel better by trying to primarily blame Obama for the mess he inherited (having been no more than a tiny part of creating it as a junior senator supposedly "without enough experience" with the reins of government).

I can understand disagreeing with Obama (I often do), but blame shifting's another matter. That's not analysis or wisdom, it's an irrational coping behavior which is transparently obvious to fellow citizens; whether or not Obama's approach turns out later to have mitigated or worsened the crisis he inherited, rewriting history is rewriting history.

I voted against the previous president in 2000 - but I certainly didn't blame or credit him for the state of the nation within weeks of his inauguration! It's sadly self deluding to be doing so now, and then be thinking somehow everybody else is frustratingly dense for not seeing it the same way.

I share concerns about an "entitlement" generation or two, who look for some magical power to fix things without seeing the tradeoffs and hard work involved. What some may not yet perceive is that scapegoating a new president for not fixing everything immediatly comes from the same psychological roots as wanting the government to bail out everybody's mortgages - just expressed through different political filters. It's easy to see that manifestation in other folks with different politics, hard to see or admit when we fall into our own version of the same coping mechanisms.

I still hope for better from this country.

reasoner

reply to post by vigusa


2 ok three things, what carter through clinton proposed had nothing do with forcing banks to grant bad loans to people with bad credit and no jobs. I sold real estate in michigan both before the boom time and after the buble started, whats more I worked mostly with first time home buyers. Before 2002 it was very hard to get buyers through with shakey credit, I am talking 600 and below, if you were selfemployed you had to have 3 years of records etc.. suddenly it all changed. The mortgage guy i worked with could get anyone trhough. I mean I left the business because he got a friend of mine a 100,000 dollar house who was on SSI , and had not worked in 6 years, that was in 2004 btw..

The redlinning rule that keeps getting tossed around was ment to stop the practise of taking a area, say a street and saying anyone who lives in that area or wants to live in that area cannot possibly afford a house and must be a poor credit risk. Funny thing was most those areas redlinned were in low income, mostly black or latino neighborhoods. Go back and look at the news reports for the 70 and 80's in Detroit, redlinning applied to everything from Car loans, to insurance, to small business loans.

What people like to call exotic loans have always been around, no money down used mostly to develop land, adjustable rate and no doc used mostly for young hiqgh potential careers like docters who are just out of school. Things went south ,I think, when the supply of good, quilified and stable folks who needed to buy a home ran out, they need to draw new customers in so they started handing out mortgages once rarely used to the general public like a Santa hands out candy canes at Chrsitmas..
No government hijinks, just good old fashioned greed.

reply to post by David9176


Did any of you listen to what Glenn Beck is saying? It's all the fault of the family next door or down the street who aren't making their mortgage payment, so the government is making you pay their share. That's nonesense. The government has and is giving this "bailout" money to the "people" (corporations) who don't need it. That's right. The bailout (corporate handout) has not and is not stopping the bank's from foreclosing on the house of the family down the street who Glenn Beck says is the bad guy in the mortgage melt down. Those people aren't getting the bailout money. They will not see any of it. The banks who got the bailout money are taking that guy's house anyway to sit empty, become rodent infested, and just waste away in many cases.

The money is going into the pockets of corporations whose management and boards of directors made bad investments with their shareholders' money. The bailout is propping up the rich who need no propping up. Many and most of them will still be rich after they take their losses. Just not as rich as before. They should be left to take their losses just like the family down the street whose home is being taken away after paying years of mortgage installments with interest rates as high as 14% and higher in some cases after their ARM adjustment clauses kicked in. Wake up people and notice what's going on just this one time. Glenn Beck knows as much about what's going on as Mickey Mouse. Maybe he knows and he isn't telling.

Everyone is blinded by the government's and MSM's use of broad and generalized terminolgy which fails to describe what's going on in terms that the average person can understand. And, yes, they could explain it in terms that we can all comprehend. But that would plainly show the emporer has no clothes and you'd all be up in arms. Better to placate you with fuzzy terminolgy that sounds good but which does nothing more than perpetuate your misundertsanding and ignorance.

[edit on 2/28/2009 by dubiousone]

reply to post by David9176


My parents bought their home new in 1979. We bought a similar one built around the same time 2 years ago. They paid $50K for their home, or about two year's salary based on what my Dad was making at the time. In comparison, our house cost five times that amount, and it was nowhere near new, to say the least. By the way, theirs has also 'appreciated' to the same level.

This to me reveals the incredible mess we have made with our fractional reserve system. Things cost more-- much more- today than 30 years ago, but they aren't 'worth' more in the tangible sense. Nor have our incomes risen commensurate with the true inflation rate (as opposed to the bogus rate the feds jigger up for us).

Coincidentally, the early 70's marked the end of the gold standard, while 2006 marked the end of the reporting of the M3 (the total currency in circulation). The first event disconnected money from any safeguard to curb its overcreation, and the second allowed our government to conceal the long-coming results thereof. Our government has run the printing presses to the point that they could and did run up a huge housing bubble, the proceeds of which likely helped subsidize the Iraq war. Now the bubble is deflating and they're feverishing trying to re-inflate with trillions in FDR-style big government socialism. Then as now, it will only make things worse, and put home ownership out of the reach of all but the most wealthy.

Glenn Beck is angry at the symptoms while ignoring the cause-- our money is worthless.

The bankers and the progressive liberal government have finally united in 'the perfect storm'.....

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, SR from Minnesota before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.

"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance.

The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.
When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

From New American, February, 1934.
"Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and successfully accomplished."