A rare survey of the one percent (propaganda?)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Though little reliable survey research exists about the nation’s wealthiest one percent, public discourse is rife with claims about their opinions and attitudes. Now a Northwestern University pilot study sheds light on philanthropic and other behaviors of the so-called one percent.

link to source

in an effort to spin the 1%ers as "good people" a study has been carried out by reasurchers on the top 1%,

the problem with this sort of study is "what or who" motivated the study and who paid for it.
the other obvious problems is the people in the study while wealthy are not the 1%

they are the highest paid 99% the authors try to pass of the top of the 99% as 1%ers.

in one sence they try to explain that the top of the 99% are giving time and money in a charitable way,
with out pointing out that the "true" 1% are millionairs, they are billionairs.

this is a hit piece on the occupy movement that distorts "who" the one percent acually is, and instead pretends the one persent is charitable by using the top of the 99% to show how good the one percent is.

questions,
who paid for this reasurch?
what reason was given to start reasurch?
why was the top 1% missrepresented as the top of the 99%

is this study a direct result of the call for cover for the acual 1%?

i feel there is a political reason this is being released right now,
and i think it seeks to paint a picture where the 1% is generous and caring, while not even sampling the acual 1%

is this science for political purposes?

i think so, what is your opinion

xploder

Would... uh... someone care to clarify what the "1%" is?

Many people take this term and make it synonymous with CEOs.

The problem with that line of reasoning? CEOs of mega-corporations may be in the top 1% of wage earners but not in the top 1% of wealth holders.

Of course, I draw issue with the definition of wealth in today's society. I like to refer to it as capital reserves - but it's really a game of semantics that few people can appreciate - just know that if you think wealth and money are the same thing - you're wrong, and the debate will only frustrate you.

Of course, we can further differentiate between those who have liquid capital versus capital tied up in investments (such as stocks or material assets such as silver, gold, etc).

But that's hardly an accurate representation of the 1% that are actually in control of things. For that, we need to look at majority share holders, executive offices, public officials, subject matter experts and key researchers (I'm encompassing a lot of fields, but am probably missing a few). Some of those 1% are not necessarily living in mansions - but play a critical role in making decisions for large businesses, industry, legislation, and media coverage.

With that said, you will find the "1%" is everywhere and everyone, depending upon the criteria used to determine the "top 1%."

It is, in my opinion, fundamentally ignorant to attempt to identify a single group to rest sole blame upon for the state of things, today. It is akin to a modern day witch-hunt, and a very dangerous way of thinking.

Further, this fixation on what other people have is not healthy, either. I don't want other people to not have something - I really don't care what they have - be it a nickel or a 20 kilogram gold bar. I have a standard of living I want to achieve because it is what I want. I really couldn't care less if someone has more than me or not - or if someone makes a reasonable profit off of the things I buy. If it's too expensive - I'll go somewhere else. If I can do it better, I will.

I fail to comprehend why it is that people have become so fixated on the possessions and lives of others. Over the past 60 years, it's like everyone believes it's their right and responsibility to come along and decide how it is you should live.

It's a very immature standard of reasoning. I grew out of it after my teens (the whole idea that I was somehow entrusted to crusade my standards of living and acting upon others). When are the rest of you?

While I was busy typing away this thread showed up here and I want to say thanks for keeping alert on this.

The question of exactly who the 1% is problematic.

Especially if we include such things as "corporate persons" like General Electric, Apple, or other such "entities" who are immortal, but no one is truly liable for their behavior. I think that is the 1% most people are

If you want to see my extra-verbose take on this : www.abovetopsecret.com... in Breaking Alternative News.

PS - YES IT IS PROPAGANDA

reply to post by Aim64C


to be clear,
IMHO
the top 1% by definition would be the money creators, money changers, and money loaners
they would be the group who decide who gets into political office by simply donating time (labour) money (donations and political contributions) and air time (positive news coverage or lack of investigative stories)

and through free speach (money) and political office (representitives) always have their way over the public good by sponcerring laws that benifit them approx 1% of the population, while deficiting the 99%

the easyest way to see their effect is govenment subsidies,

one example of a direct govenment subsidies is 13 trillion dollars in banking aid
another is the grain or wheat subsidies,

no matter how hard you work, these groups are able to cercumvent "our law" and by way of money and politiccal influence. are represented over the interests of a nation.

the people who make the most of this shift in wealth are the 1%

they guys who decided to pass legislation to make it cheaper in china by altering tax laws,
they are the 1%

do you see how it works for the rest of the 99%,
you work hard and pay taxes and cant afford medical expenses,
because the 1% kept lobbying and buying influence and crafted laws to make medicine and health care more expensive.

this is at the expence of peoples health,
but increases the profits for the 1%

do you see what in my opinion is the 1%?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


I just call them people looking for more power, and try not to attach percentiles to it.

There will always be people looking for more power and influence over the lives of others. The leaders of the OWS movement will soon become what they despise as they attempt to wrest control of resources and decision making power from individuals and corporations.

It's a mentality that cannot be described by position, income, or percentiles. It is an objective and personal viewpoint that an individual has. That viewpoint is that they are justified and/or tasked with controlling the lives of others.

This is why fixation on the lives and status of others is inherently a dangerous thing to do - as it twists and distorts a person until they see the solution as dominating and controlling the lives of others. Be them a minority, or a majority.

Which is why you will never get me on this "99%" or "1%" bandwagon. It's ignorant and self-destructive. Keep your head on a swivel and realize that there are people out there who will take advantage of you. Do not expect anything to be easy or handed to you.

People just want a witch to burn, and it honestly disgusts me. Even if the "witch" deserves it.

Originally posted by XPLodER

in one sence they try to explain that the top of the 99% are giving time and money in a charitable way,
with out pointing out that the "true" 1% are millionairs, they are billionairs.

this is a hit piece on the occupy movement that distorts "who" the one percent acually is, and instead pretends the one persent is charitable by using the top of the 99% to show how good the one percent is.

xploder

this is exactly what a majority of people who read this survey will think and you saw it right away...

this is a survey of a small percentage of wealthy Americans and the top tier of the 99% if anything this report shows how the 99% of the US is being split up against each other by the 1%, as you pointed out in your 2nd post they control every aspect of our false democracy.