Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth

page: 15
105
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
On one level, "Small is beautiful" means that keeping things small (corporations, governments, institutions, systems), prevents power from being consolidated in one place, and fewer bad things can happen.


Ah ok - I agree with that on a lot of levels, but it comes back to the damned if ya do, damned if ya don't thing:

To keep things like corporations small you need some sort of regulation/oversight - therefore bigger government...so it's almost like a "pick your poison" kind of deal.

The thing is I would rather take my chances with a government that at least in theory is supposed to represent the best interests of it's people, rather than a corporation that is primarily concerned with the best interests of its profit margin.

The problem is, as you say, corporations and governments have basically become one entity anyway. But the solution to this problem isn't simply "less government", because then all you're really doing is removing the fox guarding the henhouse and letting the wolves walk right in.

And that's what I love about the tea party crowd - they are absolutely, blissfully, CLUELESS to the fact that this is exactly what they're fighting for.




posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I agree that reducing government ONLY is a recipe for disaster.

Same goes for ONLY expanding government.

The corruption must be checked from every which angle.

It seems possible to increase regulation and oversight, while reducing the size of government, if we eliminate all the bloat in the process.

Many programs can be reduced in size, else eliminated all together.

At the same time, more regulations to keep corporations in check, and out of governmental influences must be had.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Yeah for sure - I don't think it's even a question of bigger or smaller - it's really a matter of smarter, more responsible, honest, accountable, etc.

The problem with that is, in a democratic state - it requires the voting public to demonstrate the SAME qualities in order to vote the right people in ...and...well, ugggh... good luck!



Sometimes I think we seriously need a system where you have to pass an IQ test to get a vote.

It doesn't have to be super-hard, just something that shows an ability to think critically and independently - and not merely react to low level emotions like fear, or mindlessly regurgitate whatever the talking heads want you to think.



Some people might say this is horribly elitist and unequal - but really is it any different than the so-called "free" society we live in today?

The way things work now it's the ones with the most money who determine politics, through campaign contributions, advertising, ownership of the media, etc.

Maybe we need to find a way to steer this imbalance into the hands of the people smart enough to at least see through all that bull#



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Yeah for sure - I don't think it's even a question of bigger or smaller - it's really a matter of smarter, more responsible, honest, accountable, etc.


Yes, but very few vote "independent". They are either for larger government --democrat--, or smaller government --republican. Both are absurd stances, and seem to be but a means to get the good people fighting each other.


The problem with that is, in a democratic state - it requires the voting public to demonstrate the SAME qualities in order to vote the right people in ...and...well, ugggh... good luck!


Yes, and this is why I'm losing faith in democracy.



Sometimes I think we seriously need a system where you have to pass an IQ test to get a vote.

It doesn't have to be super-hard, just something that shows an ability to think critically and independently - and not merely react to low level emotions like fear, or mindlessly regurgitate whatever the talking heads want you to think.


I'm all for getting the sheep, defined as those lacking the will to use critical thought, out of the voters booth. The question is: what test can be devised to find an individual over a sheep? At what arbitrary point does one become able minded


I don't think there is a good enough answer for that, yet. I get the impression that a standard IQ test isn't the best method of accurately assessing this, for some reason. I've known people who would likely not score high on an IQ test, but have high skills of independent thought & creativity, and can see through more bs than many with sky high IQ's.

I would generally agree that someone with an IQ under ~90 has no place in casting a vote. It seems a relatively high IQ, plus other qualities are needed to attain a high degree of independent + critical thought.




Some people might say this is horribly elitist and unequal - but really is it any different than the so-called "free" society we live in today?


No, it's a huge improvement, imo.


The way things work now it's the ones with the most money who determine politics, through campaign contributions, advertising, ownership of the media, etc.

Maybe we need to find a way to steer this imbalance into the hands of the people smart enough to at least see through all that bull#


Agreed.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 




If you had any knowledge of the U.S. economy you would know when I say that the rest of the world is more hostile to corporations than the U.S., you would know this to be true.

The U.S. has lower regulations and lower taxes for corporations than any first world nation. While ICs manufacture in third world countries, their political systems are too unstable for any more investment than they currently make, and their productivity is actually decreasing.

Stop listening to the propaganda nonsense and look at the realities. ICs invest more money in the U.S., by far, than any other country in the world.

Wealth is created by two human resources, labor and ideas, and the U.S. produces far more of these human resources than any other country. The ICs don't create the wealth, the people create the wealth, which is why ICs love to invest in the U.S., and why ICs will never leave the U.S..

The corporations didn't flee back in the fifties and the sixties when corporate taxes were much higher, and our economy was much stronger then. They won't flee now. The only people making such a claim are propagandists spreading lies, and those people who believe those lies.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
You consistantly begin your posts to me with your rolly eye face, displaying your obvious contempt. After this post i bow out, i have no desire to discuss such things further with you. I would hope to discuss such things with adults in the future.


Originally posted by poet1b
If you had any knowledge of the U.S. economy you would know when I say that the rest of the world is more hostile to corporations than the U.S., you would know this to be true.

The U.S. has lower regulations and lower taxes for corporations than any first world nation. While ICs manufacture in third world countries, their political systems are too unstable for any more investment than they currently make, and their productivity is actually decreasing.

Do you have any idea what your talking about anymore? You claim the reason corporations and businesses stay in the US is because of a low tax load and few restrictions, all the while advocating you pile on restrictions and make them shoulder the massive US debt load.

Let me show you a couple of your quotes in case you may have forgotten:

Originally posted by poet1b
Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a tax that charges business activities for federal oversight, that allows them to conduct business in the U.S.. The national debt and associated interest payments will be paid for exclusively by businesses that conduct international and interstate business.

Drug companies and food companies would pay for the FDA, when the goods they produced cross state and national borders, as they should. If we are going to have any drug laws, and laws that control food, then the companies who conduct commerce in these areas should pay the cost of regulation. Companies that engage in industries that use or produce large amounts of toxic poisons, all of which inevitably, at least potentially, cross state borders, they will pay for the EPA. Law firms will pay for the judiciary, and so forth.

There will be a federal agency created to combat fraud, and it will be paid for by the finance industry.

All U.S. military operations overseas will be paid for by taxes levied on imports and exports.


Each one of these ideas will hurt your economy. Taken together, they will destroy it. As you can see your not making much of a point. And while you dont seem to think i know much about the US economy, you obviously dont know anything about the world beyond your borders. A common US citizen fault. You tend to think your the center of the universe and businesses or corporations could never exist beyond your borders. But your wrong.

www.canadianmanufacturing.com...

This is a report done in 2010 by a global consulting firm. I would wager that before the crash of 2008-09 the US was number one. But this isnt the 1950s anymore as you suggested earlier. Your reasoning of corporations not fleeing in the 1950s is flawed as well.


Originally posted by poet1b
The corporations didn't flee back in the fifties and the sixties when corporate taxes were much higher, and our economy was much stronger then. They won't flee now. The only people making such a claim are propagandists spreading lies, and those people who believe those lies.

Yes, they had a higher taxload then, but after WW2, there was endless optimism in the USA. They had won the war, the economy was booming and they had overtaken the Brits as the worlds number one economy. Your hopelessly naive to think that in 2011 consumers, businesses or corporation share that optimism. Quite the opposite. Everywhere you look, its doom and gloom for the US economy. China is soon to surpass you as the leading world economy and power. Your deluded to think the 50's are any indication of our current times.

I asked you before to explain to me why corporations would stay in the US under your regime. You simply pointed to a time in the past and said "if we did it then, we can do it now". But that really isnt an explaination, is it? And as i have shown, what you would like to do is nothing like was done in the 50-60's. Please, i encourage you to actually TRY and show why a pharmacutical R+D company would stay in the good old USA when so many other countries would be much happier to host them, and heap many less restrictions and taxes on them.

I think your simply deluded and assume the US is the only option. Looking forward to seeing your next condescending laughy-face!
edit on 29-8-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


You get the rolling eyes because you constantly make absurd claims.

Like this one.


Your statement of the rest of the world being much more hostile to corporations in nonsense though. If you believe this, tell me why you believe it to be true. I doubt you can.


Now once the obvious is pointed out, you try to claim that the only reason corporations are in the U.S. is because of low regulations and taxes, ignoring that corporations were here before all those changes, back when the U.S. economy was well regulated and highly taxed.

Then you try to rewrite history.


The U.S. was an economic powerhouse long before WW II, we emerged as the dominant military power after WW II, but we were more deeply in debt than we ever have been as a nation, yet we paid for the rebuilding of our former enemies, engaged in two wars, plus a cold war, built up our nations infrastructure, and reduced the national debt down to low levels, all with high taxes on corporations and the super rich. It worked then, and it will work now.

The ICs didn't leave then, and they won't leave now, because the productivity of the U.S. public is what makes them rich. The real fact is that the giant corporations are nothing but giant leeches.

By the way, the economy of Canada is minuscule compared to the U.S.. The ICs aren't about to abandon the U.S. for Canada. And, they need the U.S. military to keep their overseas operations going. You are completely out to lunch with these claims.

The facts remain the same as I pointed out in my previous post.


Wealth is created by two human resources, labor and ideas, and the U.S. produces far more of these human resources than any other country. The ICs don't create the wealth, the people create the wealth, which is why ICs love to invest in the U.S., and why ICs will never leave the U.S..


Once you stop worshiping at the corporate altar, you will realize what leeches they are.


edit on 30-8-2011 by poet1b because: typo and add comment on size of Canadian economy.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


If people would wake up to what a con job the whole free market concept is, and vote some politicians into office to start doing what the constitution says government should do, crack down on corporate fraud and abuse, put usury laws back in place, stop using our military to back corrupt corporate business overseas, than we could greatly reduce the size of the corporations and government.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Jon Stewart on Warren Buffets comments about taxing the rich, and he is SPOT on.

Daily Show

In the video he brings us the greatly misleading tagline of "51% of Americans do not pay taxes"

[Sarcasm] The bottom 50% own 2.5% of the wealth. 1.45 Trillion dollars is EVERYTHING the bottom 50% of Americans own in the world. How dare they have lower tax burdens! The tax hike Obama wanted would have raised the upper two tiers of taxpayers by 700 billion over the next 10 years. We should just take half of everything the lower 50% own instead..gee that would be 700 billion!!!..Hell like Jon says lets just take all lower 50% have. [/Sarcasm]

One of the more funny things I have heard in awhile and it absolutely has the ring to truth to it.

But you really need to watch the video, as there is much more to it than the couple of things I mentioned.
edit on 30-8-2011 by Dreamwatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
The U.S. was an economic powerhouse long before WW II, we emerged as the dominant military power after WW II, but we were more deeply in debt than we ever have been as a nation, yet we paid for the rebuilding of our former enemies, engaged in two wars, plus a cold war, built up our nations infrastructure, and reduced the national debt down to low levels, all with high taxes on corporations and the super rich. It worked then, and it will work now.

The ICs didn't leave then, and they won't leave now, because the productivity of the U.S. public is what makes them rich. The real fact is that the giant corporations are nothing but giant leeches.


Leeches that create jobs. I agree, the corporations are in need of oversight and restrictions, but your kidding yourself if you think the US is the only option. As i pointed out before, you stated the reason the corporations stay in the USA is because of low taxes and few restrictions, then you go on to advocate doing an about face, and heaping on restrictions and taxes. Backpedal all you will by posting some nonsense about ideas and labor. While the US might have once been the mecca for such things, places like India, Brazil, China and more are going to start showing more and more how innovative the rest of the world can be.


Originally posted by poet1b
By the way, the economy of Canada is minuscule compared to the U.S.. The ICs aren't about to abandon the U.S. for Canada. And, they need the U.S. military to keep their overseas operations going. You are completely out to lunch with these claims.


But that isnt the point, is it? A Canadian headquartered corporation still sells to the USA. You have indicated your willingness to apply tarrifs to imports, but surely it would be much more cost efficient for them to import than to live under your roof.

Please explain to me how the US military ensures the thriving of home soil headquarted US corporations. Im assuming by making this statement, you are stating your willingness to continue Americans overseas imperialism in order to ensure the continued growth of your corporations. If not, i guess you can scratch your "they need the U.S. military to keep their overseas operations going".


Originally posted by poet1b
Once you stop worshiping at the corporate altar, you will realize what leeches they are.


I simply disagree with your idea to shoulder the entire burden of the US debt on corporations and businesses, and you say i worship at the "corporate altar". You thinking this all through? Ive stated time and time again that i agree that corporations abuse power, need to be restricted and need to pay their portion of the taxload. But because i disagree with you on one point, im "on their side". Hilarious. Is the world really that black and white to you? Let me make this plain and simple for you, in easy to understand english and capital letters. I DONT NOT SUPPORT CORPORATIONS AND THEIR ABUSES OF POWER AND TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN. I certainly hope that was clear enough for you, son.

Let me show you a few articles about businesses and the USA in todays day and age:


www.sodahead.com...

peterschiffblog.com...

www.545project.com...

I highly recommend you read the last article. It is very professionally written and explains in detail why businesses are already leaving the USA in droves for much more friendly business climates.

An interesting excerpt from it shows that USA now has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world in industrialized countries. Interestingly enough, this coming at a time when other countries are actually LOWERING their rates to attract said companies.

I could go on for hours. I challenge you to show me how the USA is still the best option, because i can show you article after article and point after point showing how the US is no longer the best corporate choice. All this BEFORE you enact your disasterous scheme to decimate your economy.



edit on 31-8-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


Corporations don't create jobs, they eliminate jobs.

While you see corporations are having problems, you still think corporations are the end all, creators of everything.


Backpedal all you will by posting some nonsense about ideas and labor.


You are completely clueless as to what creates value.

Here is a link for you to read, it is from the Mises institute, but it is about Locke, so that makes it worth reading.

mises.org...

A giant IC based in Canada will still continue to do most of its business in the U.S. because the U.S. economy is so much bigger. It doesn't matter where the headquarters is based, they will still be taxed for their business operations in the U.S.. Maybe China and India will become like the U.S. in the future, but that will be in the distant future. Both are most likely heading in the direction of Japan.

Our biggest differences is that you seem to be absolutely convinced that the U.S. needs corporations, when it does not. If anything, corporations get in the way of U.S.productivity.


Please explain to me how the US military ensures the thriving of home soil headquarted US corporations. Im assuming by making this statement, you are stating your willingness to continue Americans overseas imperialism in order to ensure the continued growth of your corporations. If not, i guess you can scratch your "they need the U.S. military to keep their overseas operations going".


Just the opposite, I want to kick out the corporations and stop backing their overseas corporate imperialism. This has been one of my biggest points from the beginning. Why the corporations should pay U.S. debt, because the money was spent promoting their overseas imperialism. They will pay the money in order to continue doing business in the U.S., and in hopes of regaining control of the U.S., should they loose control once again.

As far as your links go, I think it is great John Deere is building plants in India to sell goods to India. John Deere is one of the few legitimate corporations out there. Doesn't alter my concepts, actually enforces them. Build locally, and sell locally.

While corporations are moving out of the U.S., they are still planning on selling in the U.S.., that is when we hit them with the taxes. Corporations, and all businesses that build in the U.S. and sell in the U.S. will pay lower taxes. Businesses who refuse to follow reasonable environmental and labor standards, should pay higher taxes to do business in the U.S. irregardless of where they manufacture.

Your third article is just a bunch of propaganda garbage. It is the failure of the U.S. government to enforce the laws against corrupt corporations that discourages small business start ups. When Clinton was in office, and regulations were back in effect, we made more start ups than ever before.

What corporations mainly do is push out smaller, more efficient, more innovative smaller businesses by underhanded business practices.

Really hard not to roll my eyes at you.


I challenge you to show me how the USA is still the best option...


Ever hear of GDP? Who cares what those garbage articles say, GDP is the bottom line.

siteresources.worldbank.org...

en.classora.com...

The lions share of new tech still comes from the U.S., and until that changes, the U.S. will remain on top.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
While you see corporations are having problems, you still think corporations are the end all, creators of everything.

Again your deluded. Please show me where i posted that?


Originally posted by poet1b
A giant IC based in Canada will still continue to do most of its business in the U.S. because the U.S. economy is so much bigger. It doesn't matter where the headquarters is based, they will still be taxed for their business operations in the U.S.. Maybe China and India will become like the U.S. in the future, but that will be in the distant future. Both are most likely heading in the direction of Japan.

I dont think you know how taxation of corporations work. Yes, a Canadian based corporation selling products to the USA will be subject to tariffs on imports to your country. But you will not tax anything else. How can you? Perhaps you will tax the hell out of the Apple Stores set up in your malls, fine. But you are not going to tax the products until they arrive on your shores. I dont think your thinking this though. Did i ever once suggest Canada PRODUCES the product? I simply suggested the corporations were headquartered here. Or elsewhere. Like China.


Originally posted by poet1b
Our biggest differences is that you seem to be absolutely convinced that the U.S. needs corporations, when it does not. If anything, corporations get in the way of U.S.productivity.


No. Lets backtrack a bit and take this all into perspective. After disagreeing with you on a few minor points, i asked you what YOU would do to solve problems in the USA. You gave a long list of policies and changes, most of which i agreed with. What i did point out however is your reckless heaping of the entire US debt upon corporations and more importantly, businesses in America.


Originally posted by poet1b
Just the opposite, I want to kick out the corporations and stop backing their overseas corporate imperialism. This has been one of my biggest points from the beginning. Why the corporations should pay U.S. debt, because the money was spent promoting their overseas imperialism. They will pay the money in order to continue doing business in the U.S., and in hopes of regaining control of the U.S., should they loose control once again.


Ok so now we get to the meat of the issue. So you admit in this paragraph you want to kick out the corporations and stop backing imperialism. I can accept that, especially the imperialism part. But you have shouldered your debt on corporations and businesses. So now you get your wish. The corporations leave in droves and we have a happy president. But now smaller businesses are asked to shoulder your entire US debt.

You may say "No problem! They can afford it!", like you seem apt to do, but can they? Large corporations perhaps could. While they would certainly move to other countries to save taxload and provide greater return on investment for their shareholders, the smaller ones may have no choice.

A friend of mine was the owner of small local pizza company. His was doing well for the most part. After being in business for 3 years, he was beggining to turn a modest profit and see a return on his investment. Civic and provincial elections were held, and a very socialist government was elected both on the provincial and civic levels. Provincially, the minimum wage was increased, and locally the business taxes were increased. In order to continue paying his bills, he was forced to raise the price of his product, while the quality remained the same. Purchases dropped, and within a year he was forced out of business. This is what your policies will do to small, struggling businesses. Larger businesses will be forced to downsize and either cut the quality of their product or raise their prices across the board. Im sorry son, but you have no idea about business or finances.


Originally posted by poet1b
Just the opposite, I want to kick out the corporations and stop backing their overseas corporate imperialism.
While corporations are moving out of the U.S., they are still planning on selling in the U.S.., that is when we hit them with the taxes.


Of course thats is when you do. For the longest time you were going on about how it was rediculous that corporatons move after you enact your policies, and now your fully admitting you want them gone. Your as transparent as Dick Cheney.

edit on 1-9-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 





Your as transparent as Dick Cheney.


Now that's funny.

I think the U.S. economy would be better off without the giant ICs, and the world economy, but they aren't going to walk away from the U.S. economy, they will pay the taxes.

And I would say Dick is actually pretty transparent. He doesn't hide who he is. I give him that one. He's got convictions, I just think he has the wrong convictions.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
There was a recent study that found no connection between wealth and intelligence.

As a business owner I can tell you there is a connection between wealth and "compromised morals".

That's really all you need to know about rich people.

There is only so much money out there, and to get more someone else has to lose it.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I fGlobal warming were true, then why isnt it hot everywhere?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican
 


??? Why are you asking about global warming? ...This thread is about the global financial elite - and Global Corporate Government aka corporate economic control of the world.





posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
The OP source reports that 0.1% of American millionaires hold most of the wealth:


While 68.3 million Americans struggle to get enough food to eat and wages are declining for 90 percent of the population, ...US millionaire households now have $38.6 trillion in wealth. On top of the $38.6 trillion this study reveals, they have an estimated $6.3 trillion hidden in offshore accounts.

In total, US millionaire households have at least $45.9 trillion in wealth, the majority of this wealth is held within the upper one-tenth of one percent of the population.


Then mc_squared pointed out: World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth

…Now, OWS protests are focusing on the 1% - but I still want to know who the 0.1% are. The names. And if we have to lose our anonymity on the internet, then I want everyone with off-shore bank accounts to be transparent too.

It's only fair.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Most likely it is the .0001% that owns most of the wealth.

I have heard that there are a whole lot of trophy wives who own a whole lot of wealth. Looks like the world's oldest profession pays off well.

I wouldn't doubt if less than a thousand people own more than half of the nations wealth, although most of that is debt, or receivables, and a great deal of that is based on speculation.

I think if we just erased all that debt, and let people get back to working to make ends meet, we would all be better off, and the ICs could disappear, and nobody would miss them.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Wha?! ...Why on earth are you focusing on trophy wives when psychopathic bankers and CEO's do so much real damage? We probably should thank those women - they help their partners let off steam that might hurt someone else, and I am certain they earn what they get - but they are not real players.

True, some of the big players are women who bring their own bloodline and assets to the table. At that level, marriages are mergers - and the trophies are kept on the side by both partners. No trophy wives for real money - it's all about mergers and maintaining bloodlines.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Just trying to add a little humor to the discussion.

Honestly, I don't buy into the whole bloodline thing.

I see the elites as just greedy people with a big hole inside they try to fill with wealth. There is a point in time where wanting more is just ridiculous.





new topics
top topics
 
105
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join