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.

 

Lapping it up: fat cats earn more than enough for two lifetimes

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Lapping it up: fat cats earn more than enough for two lifetimes


www.smh.com.au

YOU could work every day of your life, for two lifetimes, and still earn less than what Australia's top executives are paid in one year.

As debate rages about fat-cat salaries, figures published by the Australian Council of Super Investors reveal the 10 highest paid chief executives received, on average, more than 200 times the average workers' salary last year.

While workers were paid an average of a little over $59,000, the 10 executives pocketed an average of nearly $13 million each, including base salary, bonuses and long-term incentives.

A former Macquarie banker, Allan Moss, t
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
This is not only true for Australia, this displays the MASSIVE difference between the average workers pay and those of the 'fat-cats' around the world. While we have hundreds of millions, even billions, of people who are struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table, these men are laughing their collective asses off at us.

It's time we took our world back people, by force if necessary.

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
No one gets "paid" more than those who enjoy the exclusive privilege of collecting interest on money created out of thin air and loaned to governments.

Don't let the paltry few millions distract you from people who are 75,000 times richer.

When people hear words like "spread the wealth" they mistakenly count themselves in that group if they make more than $100k per year.

You're not even IN the club until you collect $100 million per year IN INTEREST. The world's wealthiest aren't millionaires, they're not even listed in the Forbes 400. They don't want to show up on the radar, so they BUY the radar system and make sure it doesn't alert the public to what's going on.

Yes, the wealth needs to be spread around, but start at the very top, with those families who conceal everything they own, don't pay taxes, control banks and governments, and have been doing it for generations. But leave the working man alone.





[edit on 28-9-2009 by 30_seconds]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Yeah but you basically have to sell your soul to get a job like these. You have to to throw away all your morals and only concentrate on the bottom line of the business. Also once you mess up as a CEO you will never get another job again. At least thats the ideal situation, there are CEO's though that are appointed simply because they are well connected, this happens here in South Africa alot. I guess i dont really know what to think of it except that if their salary was divided amongst all the workers in the business it would probably amount to nothing.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


There is no force that can take those out of their spots and spread their wealth.

If you are talking strong arm techniques what do you propose?

Legal techniques will simply take your last dollar while ensuring that they keep everything they have if not gaining what you have.

Taking our world back would require a lot more than most believe or are willing to do. To retake the world everyone one must loose what they have and start from the bottom. After this is done you will still have those who will work their way to the top. At first they will have reason to be on top because they are the best at what they do and their skills are much needed. After some time you will have those who are in their position for reasons other than their skill that is sought by the people.

If you have a means of taking our world back by all means share with us.

I am curious about the statement of “It's time we took our world back people, by force if necessary”. What force are you talking about exactly?

Raist



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


It's more of a call to action, a call to start talking about how we could accomplish this. By no means am I declaring that we should pick up our pitchforks and storm the castle (so to speak) as you seem to believe I am saying.

I am of the belief that nothing is impossible, only improbable.

[edit on 28/9/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


I am not presuming anything taking by force means just that. There is no way to do something by force and do it lightly. When you make a call for force you will get those who will answer and only make things worse.

To take our world back by force means we need to remove them from their positions in a forcible manner.

We could try legal strong arm techniques, but again they have far more financial backings to basically burry anyone trying to remove them in that manner. The court systems have almost completely sold out because of greed.

Sitting back and protesting them is not going to help either ass they will simply close the blinds so they do not have to see “the dirty people outside” or they will pay politicians to have laws passed to keep us from protesting (they are already working on that).

If we strike and cost them labor we only take money from our own pockets that are nearly empty and filling with lint. There are plenty of others that are more than happy to take our jobs for even less so they can put food on the table (look at illegal immigrants in the U.S. now).

The only way to fix thing is to start everyone on the bottom again. The chances you will get many backers for that idea are slim though as too many are more than willing to continue in the rut they are in for the slight rewards they get from their masters. Dogs are always happy to come running back to your side no matter their treatment when you offer them a treat.

Raist



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I think as time goes on people are seeing with more clarity the flaws in Capitalism.

While the intention of Democratic Republics was to undo the Tyranny and wealth of the few, the adoption of a Capitalistic economic model undermined that promise of equality. Instead of the Aristocracy and the Hierarchy of the Church having all the power and wealth, we have replaced them with the CEOs and Bankers having all the power and the wealth instead.

All Capitalism has done for Democracy is replaced one group of Tyrants for another!

Although words like "Socialism" are still regarded as naughty words by those in the West, we need to recognize that Capitalism need not go hand-in-hand with Democracy. Democracy is a political model. Capitalism is an economic model. They are two separate things that are entirely independent of one another. Democracy isn't as flawed as it's marriage to Capitalism happens to be. If you force a divorce of one from the other, you would find that Democracy becomes all the better for it.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


Absolutely agree. I find the very fact that most governments have paid lobbyists influencing political decisions absolutely appalling and a prime example of how the marriage of Democracy and Capitalism has produced corruption and greed to it's very core.

As for the 'starting from the bottom' well, I have no problem with that if that's the way it must be done. I recognise, however, that I am a minority view in this case as far too many people enjoy their perks and pay-packets to be bothered rescuing the world from tyranny.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 



reply to post by Kryties
 



Capitalism itself is not the evil tool many make it out to be. The problem is the human factor of capitalism. People are greedy and seemingly easily corrupted. Capitalism though allows for the small guy a chance to get ahead and someday be a big guy. I know of several businesses around here in fact that started as really small organizations with only a few employees. Through time these places took off and expanded their production lines and quantities.

Both places were seen as excellent places to be employed at because the management really cared for and even enjoyed their employees (because they once were the small guys they were currently employing). Over time though those who stated the placed grew older and were not as willing or able to keep with the headaches of running a business that was ever growing. They were getting offers from bigger businesses though who wanted to expand their own operations. Which would be a good thing if the bigger businesses were not the type that stepped on the small guy and gave them just enough to keep them coming back. Sadly both of those places sold to the bigger places over time who sold to even bigger places later on. Now the places are seen a a place to work but the times of old are long gone to never be seen again.

I can see one more place here that is on the verge of doing this. The first place opened here years ago with only the owner doing the job. Now he has another place like this one in Texas. It is only time before his daughter gets the places and later sells them off to the biggest bidder because having met her she had greed written all over her. It will truly be a sad day when one more local business sells out to the big guy.

The problem is not capitalism itself but humans in general.

Greed has always been a problem now though we have unchecked and unbalanced payrolls. You have those making so much money they could never spend it all. While there are those laboring for them that have to collect cans (for recycling) to help put food on their tables.

Add to all of this double income and hands full of credit cards that not so very long ago was no a common thing. Prices have doubled and doubled many more times since when there was only single incomes coming into the average household. Then came the credit cards that anyone could get a handful of and spending started growing faster than the income. Income has stayed on the same level while the average spending has doubled. Of course those who are in charge of all this money and credit are making huge amounts of cash because they keep those they employ at the same level of pay while taking the money they pay them from the other hand.


Raist



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


SIGHhhh. "Socialism is EXACTLY what the bankers and corporate elite WANT.

THINK please. The bankers and corporations have controlled the media since 1917. They definitely control it (and you) today. Media controlled? by 118 people... So what system of economics. does the media support -SOCIALISM what is the system of economics the media vilify - CAPITALISM. The bankers hate real capitalism and have waged a war against it since the USA was founded. The finally killed it completely in 1913.



The banking/corporate cartels decided that “socialism” was an excellent vehicle for seducing the “peasants” into cooperating. “What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control...” search.marxists.org...
The cartels have found socialism very useful in manipulating political activists as they set up their economic empire.

“The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller speaking at the Bilderberger meeting in June 1991 in Baden Baden


When speaking at the UN Business Council in Sept 17 1994
"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller"





“They [Warburg and the Jekyll Island gang] gave large amounts of money to some of the better known universities in America; they created newly formed departments of economics with that money; they hand picked their own people to be the professors to head up those departments and then those professors with all of their academic credentials gave speeches and wrote scholarly essays extolling the virtues of the Federal Reserve System. www.bigeye.com...


What does the "Socialist" Maurice Strong, World Bank Chief Advisor and president of oil companies, say. "”current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Notice it is not the multi-millionaries and billionaires who are the target it is the middle class.

The Bankers definition of "Socialism" is everyone should live in grinding poverty but our overlords and their favored Corporate pets.

I rather have REAL Capitalism back.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I think the only way to destroy the filthy rich, is to stop the circulation of ALL monies. That means that the majority of people in the World, would have to stop exchanging money, for however long it takes.

That can be a very affective choke hold and regulatory tool to use against these dirty sons of $%@#



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I've always thought we would be better off going back to a system of bartering rather than have a physical currency. Yes, I know there are many issues with that idea that would need to be resolved, but it worked for a few thousand years so I say there is something to it!



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The problem is not mainly Capitalism. You want to tell me that high ranking beurocrats in Cuba/N. Korea have financial problems? And that dozens of hard working and sometimes hungry people could not enjoy more equality in those not capitalistic systems?
The problem is in US (not as USA, but as a social group). This is a problem Humanity cannot solve, and does not want to solve. There are richer and poorer in African tribes where barter system is used. Greed is the problem. Nothing else. And greed is part of all of us, socialists, marxists, capitalists, enviromentalists.
Ideal system would be when not greed or a whip drives a civilization forward. And i do not know how it can happen. Until then, comparing how people from my social class live in capitalist countries and how in alternative versions, choice of "better" system is not hard. Make a little mental exercise yourself. Think of 10 countries where you would really like to live and grow kids, and then check its economic system and how fat-cats are well fed there.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by juzchilln
 


That might be, but I doubt my bank would be happy if I stopped paying on my house.

I could live on the street but my wife and son might not like that either, actually come to think of it I sort of like being out of the environment myself.


That idea could work but only if things were as cheap as they were even 50 years ago. At that rate I could have my home paid off already.

Raist



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


How many people do you know that are willing to take a chicken or cow as payment? Of course we could always use precious metals but then you are going to end up with the same system we have now.

The problem is greed. Fix mankind and you can fix the greed and the problem.


Raist



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


Exactly there has always been a problem with those having more than others and not sharing. Throughout time it has always been this way regardless of the economic system they used.

The only way to fix the real problem is to fix mankind. If anyone has the ability to do that and they are not they are worse than those listed in the OP.

Mankind has been trying to find a way to fix that problem and others that seem to be a part of being human since the dawn of time. No one has come close to fixing it. There are those who have improved upon themselves and limit these problems to fewer than others but everyone is plagued with some issue.

Raist



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join