Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth, page 3

reply to post by kro32

---

I believe that as long as their is one single millionaire in the world people like you would say they are the root of all evil because they simply have more than you.

The problem is not "millionaires" the problem is nasty unethical FRAUD!

If a millionaire invest his wealth into a start-up corporation that is fine and dandy. However that is not what happens. Instead through a sleight of hand called Fractional Reserve (now zero reserve) banking they STEAL wealth from everyone in the country by printing fiat money. This is the wealth they invest and collect interest on YOUR wealth not THEIRS.

When a bank creates a loan out of nothing with a couple of key strokes and place a "mortgage" on a new home, they collect MORE in interest than all the workers and suppliers are paid combined!!!!

97% of the USA money supply is now in the form of bank loans so the bankers are creaming a minimum of 5% off the GNP of this country. It is no coincidence that the US dollar has lost 95% of it's value.

That value has flowed into the pockets of the wealthy through a combination of wage devalueation and consumer price inflation.

From the beginning of 1964 ($54 billion) to the end of 2010 the bankers have made $1961.967 billion dollars in fiat currency! That is the amount they increased the money supply

Of course those in the know were not about to get "sheared" along with the sheeple so when Nixon took the USA off the gold standard they made sure their wages kept up with inflation unlike the poor smucks in the factories and offices. In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker.


This is the nitty gritty of how the transfer is made.

New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money. This was one of Mises's original contributions to monetary theory, one that is ignored by all other schools of economic analysis.... Mises argued that the losses of the late-coming losers are the source of income for the early arrival winners....

...This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises's monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game.... The economic benefits obtained by the early users of new money, even gold, are made at the expense of those who gain access to it after it has altered the array of prices.... www.lewrockwell.com...

reply to post by kro32

---

Absolutely not. That is a welfare state and before you know it nobody will be motivated to do anything. They will just let a few people accumulate wealth and sit back because they know their check is in the mail.

The ability to fail or succeed is what drives this country and always has. If nobody has a reason to work harder they won't as Soviet Russia proved.

Dude, I'm not saying take every penny that isn't being used by the millionaires. I'm just saying tax them more than the average person.

Let's say some dude has $30 million sitting in a bank, even taking away the incredibly massive amount of $1 million in taxes leaves him with $29 million dollars. That is still a ton of money, and he's helping out the country. I'm sure he can hold off on buying the newer model of commercial jet, and settle for the $29 million jet that doesn't have the in flight jacuzzi

But taxing the rich to that severe of a degree that I've suggested probably wouldn't fly, but even with such an extreme tax, he is still stinky filthing rich!

reply to post by TupacShakur

---

Your one of those people that love teachers that grade on a curve aren't you.

I don't bust my ass for days researching, writing and rewriting papers to get an A just to have it dropped because people like you decide to write you paper an hour before class starts.

According to you i'm gonna pass anyways so I don't need that high grade but your struggling so you deserve some of my hard work.

funny

reply to post by TupacShakur

---

Hold on. If you work your butt of and get rich that is kool. You can't hold that against anyone but we all must pay a fair share. Flat tax, no loopholes. The problem is it never works that way.
Laws must bind high and low or they are not laws at all. Corporations are not people and should not be treated as such.

reply to post by kro32

---

Your one of those people that love teachers that grade on a curve aren't you.

Uh no, because when I ace that s*** the idiots in the class drag me down kro!

I don't bust my ass for days researching, writing and rewriting papers to get an A just to have it dropped because people like you decide to write you paper an hour before class starts.

We're not talking about college buddy, we're talking about taxes here. But it's nice to see that you made a massive assumption of my motivation and amount of work I put into school based on my view of taxing the rich, when in reality you know nothing about how much effort I put into that.

Sure, if somebody works really hard on a paper, and people just copy and and paste stuff from Wikipedia or whatever, it's unfair that the person who works hard gets a B because everybody in the class did terrible and averaged a 60%.

But with money, if a person inherits millions of dollars when their rich relative dies or is born into a rich family, they aren't working hard, they're living a relaxing, relatively stress free life. Sure, there are many people who work hard their whole life and make a ton of money, and they deserve it.

I am not suggesting taking all of their money to the point that they are left with the same amount of money as people who work for minimum wage, I'm just saying tax them much more than the poor. Taxing them to the degree that I'm suggesting will still leave them rich at the end of the year, they will still have millions of dollars, much more than 99% of people will make in their whole lives, and that will also greatly help out the country.

reply to post by TupacShakur

---

Well I certainly have no problem adjusting tax rates and closing loop holes and think that would be a wise thing to do also then.

Thanks for the debate

reply to post by kro32

---

There are plenty of people who have made it from being poor to rich so ask youself why some can do it and others can't.

The issue of the OP is the issue of accumulated wealth in the hands of a very few and its effects on the global economy, not how to get rich. Do you really suppose that those who question the imbalance in wealth have never asked themselves how some get rich and others don't. Please..... We have asked this question and arrived at answers quite different from the ones you suggest.

Some people would rather have children or other priorities other than sacrificing what they need to in order to achieve financial security so like I said it's either desire, intelligence, or hard work the poor people are lacking.

Did you really just add having children to the list of reasons some people are not rich?
Amazing.

I will make a note however that some people are beyond choice. Those with sever handicaps or injuries are unfortunately stuck with limited choices.

This is the whole issue of the OP. It is not about people with sever handicaps or injuries who are hampered in pursuing a better life. It is all of us who are limited by the choices we are left by this system which is based on the concept of winner take all. Once the money(power) is in the hands of a few, the choices for everyone else are limited to the choices allowed by the rich. Only a very few manage to break through this barrier.

reply to post by KoolerKing

---

Hold on. If you work your butt of and get rich that is kool. You can't hold that against anyone but we all must pay a fair share. Flat tax, no loopholes.

Nah man, I don't think a "fair share" is really fair. If you have tons of money that you're not going to spend, regardless of whether you inherited it or worked your butt off for your entire life, you should chip in and pay more in taxes than the Average Joe.

The problem is it never works that way.
Laws must bind high and low or they are not laws at all. Corporations are not people and should not be treated as such.

What do you mean by this? I'm kinda confused Are you saying that when it comes to individuals, they should be taxed the same if they're a millionaire or not, however with corporations they should be taxed more?

reply to post by KoolerKing

---

Mitt Romney says they are, therefore they are people

Seriously though, the real problem of this whole dilemma falls with our public school systems and universities. No where in the curriculum do they teach anyone about how to manage finances. I find this very disturbing. We are supposed to be teaching our children how to survive in this game of life, how to better themselves and their community, yet we never teach them the very basic fundamentals that allow them achieve ongoing success. Why do we not teach them this? Why do we not teach them how to "pay themselves first"? How to invest? How to save for a rainy day? How to budget? Why do we not teach them that credit cards are bad? This is the fundamental problem with today's society. If we actually taught fiscal responsibility to our children, they would grow up knowing how to manage money and how to stay out of debt.

But that's not the way it works, and the government knows it. Think about it. You buy a house with a 30 year mortgage. Now you have to work for 30 years to pay it off. So for 30 years the government can count on sucking taxes from you. Unfortunately people figured out how to beat the system and started paying them off early and retiring early. Less tax money. How to keep them trapped? Raise college fees so now kids can't work their way through college. Mom and dad have to get a second mortgage to pay for college. Now they work past the 30 years and the government gets more funds. It is never ending, and that is what has gotten us to this level. This is why the middle class is shrinking. When SHTF in 2008, these people lost what was supposed to be their nest egg. Now they have to work longer to try and recover at least some of it.

Point of this rant is it is the governments fault in coercion with the bankers to ensure you pay taxes for a very long time.

reply to post by KoolerKing

---

Well doesn' sound like your to old but you in for a real treat in the next few years. What happened for love,sympathy and compassion for mankind? Oh that is right there is no profit in it. Silly me.

You can't buy dignity and self respect. The system does not see value in it, but it does not mean that nothing is there. Money is not going to help you in the next world as the repercussions of your influence remain.

As for my age, about 35 and already have enough mistakes to contend with. If I can through the rest of my life without gaining too many more it will be an achievement that I can peacefully die with.

reply to post by TupacShakur

---

A fair share is no tax breaks. If I make a million on a deal why should I be taxed higher than someone making 100.
One of the problems is people on both sides are ripping off the middle. Politicians should not be allowed to profit while in office and until 15 years after they leave office. Until we fix that we have no hope.

reply to post by haarvik

---

I agree they should teach finance but it's more my job as a parent. It is all a sham brother. It's about control and slavery to a system of crooks and I'm to blame as is everybody else. I just can't blame a person for making more than me and I don't feel they should be taxed more. Until the politicians have the profit motive taken away from them nothing will change. A politician should look like a welfare worker but there is more money made in politics.

Originally posted by kro32
...snip

It's not hard and if you are not rich or not in the process of becoming wealthy you lack one of three things:

The desire

The intelligence

The hard work

People need to ask themselves which of those areas they are failing in and address that instead of shifting blame to those that have already made it.

How hopelessly simplistic and deluded, I hope you don't actually believe that drivel.

The desire:
Well who in their right mind in a capitalist society DOESN'T have the desire? Even those with purely altruistic goals would desire wealth so that they can redistribute it to the less fortunate.

The intelligence:
As measured by what exactly Kro? Their IQ? Their ability to do well in a test? Emotional intelligence? How about London Cab Drivers who are known to be fiercely "intelligent." Ever seen a rich cabby?

The hard work:
So a waiter/waitress working 10 hours a day for minimum wage plus tips is NOT working hard? They're never going to be rich but there is no doubt they are working bloody hard.

So I can meet your 3 criteria with people who will never be wealthy. As I said before, drivel.

reply to post by kro32

---

There are plenty of people who have made it from being poor to rich so ask youself why some can do it and others can't.

Why don't YOU ask yourself that question on a deeper level than the simpleton "poor people are poor cause they like to have babies" logic?


...
Let's say you're born poor but you're at least one of the "lucky" ones fortunate enough to still have access to good health, food, clean water, public education, no other family members to take care of, and a solid enough upbringing that you don't slip away into a life of desolation, apathy, drug abuse, crime, etc.

You work your way through public school and decide you're going to be rich by becoming a doctor. Now all you have to do is go to 4 years of university and then on through medical school. So after tuition fees, living expenses etc - you're looking at what, maybe $250,000 of debt?

And that's exactly what it is - DEBT. Since obviously your family didn't have the money to pay for it, so you had to take out student loans. So even if you work hard enough to be in one of the most lucrative self-earned positions you can be - you're stuck paying for it for the majority of your life.

The point is yes, in theory anyone can become rich too, but they have to pay the entrance fee - and it involves much more than this cliched, bull# delusion of good old fashioned elbow grease and hard work.
It involves an exhorbitant amount of hard work - implicitly in debt to someone already much richer than them, and most likely for life.

And this analogy extends to almost anywhere you want to look: from the banksters owning people by way of strict mortgages and business loans to the IMF holding entire countries by the b*lls.

The whole thing is a sham and it's nothing but a cloaked form of modern slavery. We live in a plutarchy - a system inherently rigged to serve the rich, to protect the rich, and to always keep it that way.

Similarly we are also trained like seals to worship them - from 13-year old girls who obsess over celebrities to 75-year old FOX News-obsessed Republicans who apparently think each and every one of them has simply earned their place at the top of this pyramid scheme.

You clearly seem to fall somewhere in this category, so enjoy your Kool-aid. Just make sure you hold on to the receipt in case you ever wanna wake the hell up.

Kro and people that share his POV believe in the basic premise that everyone has the right to concentrate as much wealth as they possibly can and should not be bounded by those who choose not to follow the same path. Usually, the argument that everyone does not have the same opportunity is pushed aside as nonsense.

Using Bill Gates as an exmaple of 'millionaires' is entirely disingenuous and wholly invalid. Mr Gates is essentially self-made, has made his fortune by creating product and has devoted the remainder of his life to philanthropic activities. Hardly a typical millionaire.

The wealthy have concentrated wealth --- not only in this country but in most of the developed world --- at an unprecedented rate. It has long been established that the stability of a society runs inversely proportional to the disparity of wealth in that society.

Link 1

Link 2

The issue is not some communist/socialist system or weather it is morally wrong to be a millionaire. The issue is whether those with money should be allowed to disproprtionately affect and direct the political system, laws and policy of a society. They do so at their own peril. In order to boost their ability to increase wealth they are 'allowed' to move jobs to foreign countries where they can take advantage of lower wages, lax environmental laws, non-existent worker safe guards and circumvent tax law in the process.

China is facing a similar problem. Although the number of wealthy Chinese have increased at a rate never before seen in that country they are eager to leave.

Link 3

This leaves the less well-off to carry the financial burden of supporting the infrastructure and social programs which, in turn, foments class tensions. There is a difference between chasing wealth and predating on the economy. We have built a system where it easier (and more profitable) to gamble on market swings than it is to create something tangible --- as Bill Gates did. And that will be our demise.

reply to post by wantsome

---

I have always thought 'bubble up' economics is a more logical model than their 'trickle down economics'. In a bubble up economy, it is the workers and citizens that stimulate the economy as their investments and purchases solidified the financial foundations of the national economy. If the initial bailout in 2008 was $800B to the consumer, we could have replenished the foundations of our financial stability. But in their eyes, empowering the consumer is a dangerous practice as we would have financial authority and a larger voice in the events unfolding. We could have restabilized our own economy by purchasing and paying down our individual debt (hence alleviating the growing national debt). The bubble up model reduces the socal stratifications and the oncoming extinction of financial elitism. Class wars would only be a subtlety. The trickle down model is the same as painting a roof. It starts there, and stays there. It solidifies a radical social status therefore seperating the elite by leaps and bounds, as we now become subservient to them in order to perpetuate our animal behaviors (24/7 TV, Xbox, Crackberries, iPads, Ethan Allen homes with golf grass, monetary peer pressure, etc).
We can consider ourselves like a monkey in a cage. When we press the button, food drops into a bin, assuming the PTB put food into the supply hopper). It's a common Pavlovian conditioned culture. But the catch is, the cage has always been unlocked. We just stay in the cage because it's easier to push the button so our food shows up. Money is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Much of the time that tool is not a necessity. Just ask our kind ancestors who lived without all this financial aggrivation 200 years ago. Their job was to tend their land and home and family. The family did their part and the survival of family was good.
You cannot fix an absolutely corrupt and indignant system which is controlled by selfish bankers with inhumane agendas. While they still stand, we will forever be subservient to them. That ugly circle needs to be broken.

reply to post by KoolerKing

---

If you work your butt of and get rich that is kool.

What about the people who work their butt off just to survive? It takes a lot of hours on minimum wage just to get the necessaries of life, let alone any of the luxuries. A lot of these jobs are also hard, dirty work that society needs to function. If you are a single parent with kids the pressure is intense on the whole family unit.

I do agree that people who study, train and improve there skills and capabilities do deserve more to provide incentive and motivation for all of society to improve, progress and develop. However the system where executives can write their own pay checks and unjustifiably take from the combined efforts of the company is losing touch with reality. We are all paying for this.

Responsibility is one excuse to do this, but these people are not held personally liable for the social implications of their actions and I do find it hard to accept that anyone has more responsibly than the head of state. I do agree that an award system is needed to regulate the conflict of interest that is getting way out of control and comprehension.

reply to post by OuttaTime

---

I have always thought 'bubble up' economics is a more logical model than their 'trickle down economics'.

Absolutely

There are an immense amount of interactions that go on in an economy. When this becomes centralised it stifles development and progress. The ability to direct the individual supply and demand requirements is inhibited and all of society suffers with reduced development and progress.

Mainstream Media IGNORES Iceland Revolution
  Posted 8 days ago with 96 member flags

Nigel Farage: The EU Titanic Has Now Hit The Iceberg
  Posted 19 days ago with 26 member flags

Here Are The 5 Worst Places To Be When The Dollar Collapses
  Posted 5 days ago with 19 member flags

The Coming Canadian Housing Crash
  Posted 15 days ago with 18 member flags

What is *THE* domino you\'re waiting for, and why?
  Posted 8 days ago with 17 member flags

Google Trends - The Powers That Be should be scared
  Posted 1 days ago with 16 member flags

Greece bank run
  Posted 12 days ago with 15 member flags

25 May 2012 (the day europe collapsed)
  Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: