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.

 

The Gap Between Rich and Poor Explained in 3 Minutes

page: 1
20

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   



All attempts by government to deal with this through taxation or legislation have failed. There are calls for more, but I’m wondering if we’ve reached ‘peak regulation’.

The fact is it’s a simple, inevitable, direct consequence of our modern fiat system of money. This fiat system, in which governments and banks have the power to create money, benefits those closest to the issuance of money – those who get it first - at the expense of those furthest away - those who get it last.


link

Government monetary system is hurting the middle class and poor, it would be best to get rid of that government monetary system.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
It's simple actually, I don't know why some of us didn't see it earlier. Money and the know of what and when to invest.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Makes a lot of sense. Star and Flag! And it is pretty depressing.
I wonder what came first, the fiat or the FIAT?
I only ask because there are no coincidences.

Fiat was founded in 1899 by a group of investors including Giovanni Agnelli. During its more than century long history, Fiat has also manufactured railway engines and carriages, military vehicles and aircraft. As of 2009, Fiat (not including Chrysler) was the world's ninth largest carmaker and the largest in Italy.en.wikipedia.org...

Industry - Automotive, media, financial services, metallurgy
Products - Autos, auto parts, financing, newspaper publishing


edit on 25-9-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


I am more surprised about how many people still don't get it.

Paying their debts by taking new loans which then create even bigger debt. Same tactic that our governments use to get us in even bigger debts while cutting our incomes and raising taxes. Above all that still only few people dare to ask to who do we (and our government) own all that money.

Related video:



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Hmmm.....okay so our money system is flawed. I understand that part. I certainly do have a few questions though.

First question. What system should we replace our current system with and how would it be better than our current one?

Second question. If we distributed the wealth evenly amongst all of the people in the world, wouldn't the wealthy people just make all of their money back? It seems to me that people who are wealthy are wealthy because they understand the system and use their intelligence and natural abilities to increase their wealth. Maybe some wealthy people would be broke like most of us but I think that most wealthy people would just end up earning their way back to the top. It may take a few generations but I believe this to be true.

Third question. Do people really HAVE to take on debt to live a decent life or do they CHOOSE to? A lot of the anti-banking arguments I hear tend to point to the idea that those who have less must take on debt. I do not have any debt and live barely above the poverty line but am quite happy and do not understand why some people MUST take on debt.

Fourth question. Wouldn't increasing our exports and decreasing our imports raise the value of our currency and lead to a higher standard of living? Okay, that's not a real question. I already know that this is the biggest problem a lot of countries face and that if we were able to be more competitive in the global markets then we would increase employment and wealth in our country. I am not anti-union but will say that when people make $40+ an hour to do jobs that could easily be done for less, it's really hard to compete with a company that pays much less for the labor. If you want to make $40 to do simple tasks then God bless your little heart but don't expect other nations to pay for your product and don't expect your children to have those same opportunities.

Like I said, I am not anti-union. This is just the trade-offs that we make. The same can be said about environmental preservation. We may want to limit our deforestation but the trade-off is higher costs and higher regulation. I love nature and believe in the rights of the worker but these are the choices we make and there are consequences to these choices. Both positive and negative.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Nice video. I guess this is why most welfare is really given to the rich and corporate interests. Because if they bailed out the little guy, the person losing their home, the person defaulting on their car payment, the person needing food...if they did that by the time the money got to the rich it would have lost its value. This is why the rich hijacked the Republican and Tea Party. They want people mad at entitlements for the people so they can make off like bandits and rip everyone else off.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 

Fiat money came long before Fiat the company......


Apart from medieval China, which invented both paper and printing centuries before the West, the world had never seen government paper money until the colonial government of Massachusetts emitted a fiat paper issue in 1690.


The Origins of Government Paper Money.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by newcovenant
 

Fiat money came long before Fiat the company......


Apart from medieval China, which invented both paper and printing centuries before the West, the world had never seen government paper money until the colonial government of Massachusetts emitted a fiat paper issue in 1690.


The Origins of Government Paper Money.


I still think to a large extent everything that transpires is controlled and manipulated by original families the Anunnaki put in charge. They are still in charge, for all intents and purposes.


We only appear to be self governing and have any sort of a say. We are not self governing and we have no say. Elections don't make any significant difference since Politicians don't run things, they are only tools of these Royal Lineages. It is all a giant "world" diorama and we are controlled by the watchers, who watch.




It would appear our misery and ultimate fall is amusing entertainment. This reminds me of a biblical story...something about fallen angels out to sabotage mankind. Could we be the victims of such a plot?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
This video accurately illustrates why nobody can say 'Ron Paul doesn't care about poor people'. Any idiot that makes that claim is simple-minded, and is either incapable of seeing the big picture or simply choses not to. Welfare, subsidies, government healthcare etc are all insignificant compared to the fraud that is our ENTIRE MONETARY SYSTEM. The fact that Ron Paul wants to abolish our central bank, return to the gold standard and put a stop to this fiat madness is singular proof that he's the only one who has a chance at really getting to the root of the entire problem



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
This video seems to suppress the fact that money and time are productive. Meaning that credits granted without interest would cause massive deflation.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by premierepastimes
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Hmmm.....okay so our money system is flawed. I understand that part. I certainly do have a few questions though.

First question. What system should we replace our current system with and how would it be better than our current one?

Second question. If we distributed the wealth evenly amongst all of the people in the world, wouldn't the wealthy people just make all of their money back? It seems to me that people who are wealthy are wealthy because they understand the system and use their intelligence and natural abilities to increase their wealth. Maybe some wealthy people would be broke like most of us but I think that most wealthy people would just end up earning their way back to the top. It may take a few generations but I believe this to be true.

Third question. Do people really HAVE to take on debt to live a decent life or do they CHOOSE to? A lot of the anti-banking arguments I hear tend to point to the idea that those who have less must take on debt. I do not have any debt and live barely above the poverty line but am quite happy and do not understand why some people MUST take on debt.

Fourth question. Wouldn't increasing our exports and decreasing our imports raise the value of our currency and lead to a higher standard of living? Okay, that's not a real question. I already know that this is the biggest problem a lot of countries face and that if we were able to be more competitive in the global markets then we would increase employment and wealth in our country. I am not anti-union but will say that when people make $40+ an hour to do jobs that could easily be done for less, it's really hard to compete with a company that pays much less for the labor. If you want to make $40 to do simple tasks then God bless your little heart but don't expect other nations to pay for your product and don't expect your children to have those same opportunities.

Like I said, I am not anti-union. This is just the trade-offs that we make. The same can be said about environmental preservation. We may want to limit our deforestation but the trade-off is higher costs and higher regulation. I love nature and believe in the rights of the worker but these are the choices we make and there are consequences to these choices. Both positive and negative.



It is good that this is raising questions in your mind. I will not spell out every answer here, but I hope that you will continue to research this and eventually answer them yourself.

With regards to question 1: There are two parts to problem solving, the first requires understanding the problem, and the latter executing the solution. The majority of Americans do not even understand a problem exists, which needs to be rectified first (recent events may show more and more are becoming aware). The solution itself will become obvious to you when you fully understand the problem, it's contributors (not people, economic contributors), and it's implications on society. To start you off, you must first attack the problem of WHY people need money to live. Then, weigh the pro's and con's of our current answer to that problem (the job). I will note that some people live happily without any income (including welfare and such programs, which are NOT the solution). The answer should describe how members of society could live sustainably and happily without a job, but WITHOUT living off the labor of his brother. Think, mate.

Second question: Not the answer. Social programs have not solved much of anything at all. Those who support them do have the right idea, in that they understand wealth gaps are a problem, but they do not understand why they are a problem. Distributing wealth is akin to trying to drain a flooded sick without first turning off the water.

In most cases, yes. If you explore the problem, most people in the debt hole do not know how they got there, and to them, there is no end in sight. Research the more impoverished counties, just because you may have a job that just 'gets you by' does not mean the majority of the poor do. Consider that costs of living may vary a lot higher than they are where you live, and that the overwhelming majority of the 'accessible' jobs, don't pay enough to live off of (consider the cases of single parents working 2 full time jobs at restaurants and such to make ends meet). Also consider that the education required to land a job that might get you out of poverty also requires money, and will often land you deeper in the whole. This truly is a complex issue.

I have no response for your comment on unions.

-stArill



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
good video but as long as the people on top keep fulfilling their endless greed we will never see things change



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
It can't all be reduced to a single factor.

However, the largest factor is the Federal Reserve enabling a lending-driven economy to exist. Most of our economy is "spent" three or more years in advance - that is how far in debt most people are. This, inherently, leads to a concentration of wealth. The difference exists between those who live on debt and those who live with a net worth.

Without the federal reserve, most banks would not even think of issuing loans to over half the people who have them. This would force far more people and families to live within a means that they have in the present time - rather than presuming I will have a $50K+ job a year for the next 20 years to pay off a mortgage, I will have to live with relatives or rent cheaply until I can save enough to purchase a house (arguably, the cost of housing will go down immensely when most of the people in the market for new homes are newly budding families who need the extra room).

Rather, government programs have encouraged hazardous lending practices (because every man deserves his own castle, right?) and the Federal Reserve system has enabled it.

It's not the government's job to tell people what to do and what not to do with their money - what loans they can take and what loans they can't. However, financial institutions should not be coerced into blatantly risky business practices through manipulation of the free market (if you -aren't- lending money to everyone who comes through the door... then you are missing a customer that someone else -will- lend money to, because the Feds have removed all liability from you in the case that person defaults).

The "wealthy" get an unfair set of prejudices against them, in many cases. In all honesty, I see more greed and maliciousness within those calling for 'redistribution of wealth' (or whatever terms you wish to apply to it - semantics can't obfuscate the dynamics from those of us with a vocabulary). The entire concept is based on fixation with reducing everything to the lowest common denominator. If you have more than someone - you are indefensibly wrong and cannot be allowed to possess it.

It's an inherently greedy concept based off of comparisons between what you and another has. You will notice - few who advocate this type of system open their homes and resources to help others (that's not to say those who follow along are the same - but many of your pivotal leaders and motivators of this mantra). They get royalties off of the merchandise sold at their rallies and spend their evenings inviting celebrities to "summits" at fine hotels or summer homes.

"But, Aim, you're being rather judgmental, there, aren't you? Almost hypocritical, even?"

Perhaps to a degree. However, just because I realize the discrepancy between another standard of living and my own does not mean I seek to wrest it from them. It does, however, grind my gears to see people led down a corrupt and selfish path by hypocrites.

Nothing but destruction can be born of attempts to "redistribute" wealth by force (that includes taxation). The best way to 'redistribute' the wealth is to make it easier for the average person to make an honest living, producing something that another person needs and/or wants. That can be as an employee, or as a private business, or as a business owner... it really doesn't matter.




top topics



 
20

log in

join