Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

what would it be like if the Elite weren't hoarding money?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
Which stifles real innovation and holds back the standard of living all at the same time. Way to prove the point... skip.

The problem is greed.... plain and simple.
edit on 3-9-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)


Like USSR innovation and standard of living?
Please zip your ass. Now.




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


If the 'means of production' were publicly owned, and resources were not kept artificially scarce in order to make more profit for those private owners, who not only hoard money but control your money, and your access to the resources you need, we could be even better off than that. Imagine the starving having their land back, so they can grow food instead of it being used to raise cows for Mcburger.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
Like USSR innovation and standard of living?
Please zip your ass. Now.


The reason the USSR's economy was the way it was, was because they had a closed economy, they didn't do business with wealthier countries. It was lack of resources that dictated their economy.

They were not a communist country, they still had private ownership of the means of production (capitalism). Politically they were a centralized republic, meaning the people in theory held some control over their government, just like in the good 'Ol USA. See things are really not as different as you think and not for the reasons you think, or have been conditioned to think through your state controlled media propaganda.

The capitalist class has been planning a world economy since the industrial revolution, it's just taken a couple of world wars, and will probably take a third, before isolationists countries, Korea etc., join in. Those countries are demonized not because they're 'communist', but because they are not part of the global capitalist system. It's so we can invade and force 'democracy' on them, or economic sanctions, but of course 'democracy' really means the capitalist class's, globalist control of their government and resources.

edit on 9/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The reason the USSR's economy was the way it was, was because they had a closed economy, they didn't do business with wealthier countries. It was lack of resources that dictated their economy.

They were not a communist country, they still had private ownership of the means of production (capitalism).


Oh, please. The USSR was a continent in itself. It had massive resources.

Yeah, but no one was allowed to get really wealthy. And because of that few were motivated to become enterprising. Why bother when you can just work for points?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Considering that the starving are from the cities, they wouldn't know what to do with land if you gave them one. And most people would rather become beggars in the city than plow the land. Few people in the world desire to be farmers.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by ANOK
 


Considering that the starving are from the cities, they wouldn't know what to do with land if you gave them one. And most people would rather become beggars in the city than plow the land. Few people in the world desire to be farmers.


What? I was referring to the starving in Africa and such, they don't live in cities.

The people who's land was stolen, that I was referring to, were farmers. If you are starving, and you have land, you will do what we have done for centuries before capitalism took away the ability, you will grow food.

edit on 9/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
If there is anyone still reading this thread in detail
and not gobbling through it like a bag of disposable popcorn
I present the following bit of steak with a glass of wine.

For those interested in some historical data on the matter
please consider the following.



Pollock v. The Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 1895

The Supreme Court declared in a 5 to 4 decision that a tax on incomes was a "direct" tax and hence had to be apportioned among the states according to population. Since an income tax, by its very nature, would be effective only if applied on a basis of individual wealth and would have no reality if reckoned on the distribution of population, the Court had made it impossible to levey such a tax.


A History of the United States, Since 1865
T. Harry Williams, Louisiana State University
Richard N. Current, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Frank Freidel, Harvard University
page 209



Doesn't sound anything like the wealth destroying version of income tax we have these days does it.



When the Pollock case was argued before the Court, the lawyers appearing against the income tax passionately appealed to the Court to preserve the sanctity of property and halt the onward march of radicalism. Some of the justices responded with opinions more sociological than legal. One wrote:

"The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests [color=gold] will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness."


A History of the United States, Since 1865
T. Harry Williams, Louisiana State University
Richard N. Current, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Frank Freidel, Harvard University
page 209



But that didn't stop the Big Banks, Federal Reserve, or The Powers That Be. The income tax became real. People started to loose their property. Let's look at what happened later after that 1895 decision.




This is what happened to farm prices


Cotton per pound
    1919 35.5 cents
    1929 16.7 cents
    1932 6.5




Corn per bushel
    1919 $1.51
    1929 $0.79
    1932 $0.31




Wheat per bushel
    1919 $2.16
    1929 $1.03
    1932 $0.38





A History of the United States, Since 1865
T. Harry Williams, Louisiana State University
Richard N. Current, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Frank Freidel, Harvard University
page 498




Oh....
that's right.
The great depression happened.

I submit to the reader that it never ended.


David Grouchy
edit on 3-9-2011 by davidgrouchy because: format



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
You are living in a gigantic experiment. It is an experiment in complex systems, in which you are essentially living out a full scale What-If like when Starbucks picked a market in which it attempted to saturate an area with stores to see how many it could sustain in an area.

How much can we get away with before we break this system? You are a victim of your own success. The other experiments collapsed earlier, and therefore have more time to pull together their pieces.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You do realize that the people starved in Africa because of drought and crop failures, etc. and not lack of land?

And if you're talking about Africa, then why'd you mention McBurger considering they don't sell meat to US and Europe because of subsidies in those places?
edit on 9/3/2011 by eldard because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
You are living in a gigantic experiment. It is an experiment in complex systems, in which you are essentially living out a full scale What-If like when Starbucks picked a market in which it attempted to saturate an area with stores to see how many it could sustain in an area.

How much can we get away with before we break this system? You are a victim of your own success. The other experiments collapsed earlier, and therefore have more time to pull together their pieces.


We still have a system to break?

lol.

It's an experiment alright,
don't get me wrong I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'm just saying that these experiments they are running...
well there is no foundation left to run them on.

It's like we are trapped in one big echo chamber.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I'm at a loss as to how the elite 'hoard' money?

Do they bundle it and store it in the walls?

Make giant beds of bills to jump into?

The wealthy don't hoard anything. They use their money to make them more money. Money in motion is profitable, money in stasis is wasted.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiuk They earned their money they get to spend it.


What if they 'earned' it by deception and lies.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by ANOK
 


You do realize that the people starved in Africa because of drought and crop failures, etc. and not lack of land?

And if you're talking about Africa, then why'd you mention McBurger considering they don't sell meat to US and Europe because of subsidies in those places?
edit on 9/3/2011 by eldard because: (no reason given)


Their land was taken generations ago. If they had their land then the impact of drought etc., would not be so devastating. They are effected by it so much because they have no control over it. Africa has always had droughts, just like we do in other countries, the fact that they have no land or control over the land is why they are effected by it so much.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Curious as to why this is. The facts speak for themselves.


70% of lotto winners will squander their winnings.
It seemed as though Michael Begin was deliberately trying to rain on Lincoln’s parade when he and his partner, Darl LePage, sent out a Wednesday warning that Nebraska’s Powerball winners’ joy may be short-lived.

“The reality is that 70 percent of all lottery winners will squander away their winnings in a few years,” the Connecticut financial advisers said in a news release. “In the process, they will see family and friendships destroyed and the financial security they hoped for disappear.”
askville.amazon.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiuk
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


My point was, hoarding money effectively takes it out of circulation.


That is wrong on many levels. It's not like the money is sitting under a mattress. It is likely sitting in banks, being used to leverage 10X the amount of loans than the money represents. If this money was taken away from the banks the money supply would shrink severely setting off deflation and contraction. In order to work it would have to be accompanied by a huge printing of money to offset the decrease in bank leverage.

I think if we got rid of debt based money and fractional reserve banking and just printed the money to pay off the USA debt and to run operations going forward, we would likely end up at a very solid equilibrium. Inflation in any event, should not set in until the amount of goods that the economy can produce is below the demand that exists for those products. Demand is at such a low level that it can rise significantly before being inflationary. We have inflation now because of contrived shortages of supply not due to excess demand relative to production abilities.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join