Billionaire investor warns: U.S. "wealth disparity" will end in "revolution, taxes, or war"

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Llewellyn Moss, Oct 9, 2017.

  1. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. Not true. If you took your income and bought Solyndra stock in 2009, you wouldn't have any wealth. It's about smart financial decisions, even if that means putting it under your mattress.
     
  2. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    With respect....Go back and read what I wrote again....A stock is not a "thing of real value". It is an unrealized asset until you sell it. Once you sell it, you are left with money. When you use the money to buy something of real value you have wealth. Simple.

    Here, I'll type it again...

    Income becomes wealth when you trade money for things of real value.
     
  3. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I grew up 4 miles from downtown Boston in a lower-middle-class family in the 1980's. I know what it's like to lack parental guidance because your father works on the road and is rarely home while you are awake. And mom get's home in just enough time to make dinner before your bedtime. Neither of my parents graduated high school and couldn't help me with homework nor instill the importance of doing it. They couldn't afford a tutor and I lived too far from my High School to stay after and my parents got home too late to pick me up.

    As a result, I didn't do very well initially, but I was extremely fortunate that Dad was able to bring home PC's from work and I found them interesting and taught myself how to use them. Today I'm quite successful, but I know my situation is unusual and at least 51% due to my personality (at the risk of tossing my modesty out the window). My fortune has been as much about luck as it has been hard work.

    I did manage to achieve 3 out of the 4 things on your list as keeping jobs hasn't always been my choice, but I could have easily been caught as a kid doing stupid kid things and have ended up with a criminal record. Lucky I had a dad who showed me what a rubber was and the importance of using it. But not all kids have a dad, and not all dads have that conversation with their kids.

    So yes, I think, when you grow up with uneducated parents (if you're lucky enough to have 2) and you live in or near the inner city most of the things on your list can be pretty hard especially when you are young.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2017
  4. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Hello everyone,
    I do agree that the wealth inequality is a big problem, and Trump is not helping to solve the problem but the real problem is not Trump.
    The real problem is that the banks are getting way too much power and they are increasing the wealth inequality at an accelerated rate.
    In my view, the current Western banking system is nothing else that the biggest organized crime group in the history of the humanity (e.g. Libor scandal - The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever, April 25, 2013, Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone)
    Today, the banking system controls the mainstream media (through their puppets - or cardboard billionaires) and they control the vast majority of the politicians. Trump's problem is that he is not a puppet of the banks. He is not a major obstacle, he is not willing to stay against the banks (and, most likely, he doesn't even understand what is going on), however, he is only a ridiculous clown, and the banks want a very obedient puppet (like all the other US presidents after the WWI). That's the reason why the MSM is attacking Trump so furiously.
    Only Obama made the banks a gift of some 4 trillion $US - free money (the pompously called "Quantitative Easing")

    The banks are putting more and more miserable people in power in politics and the corruption is growing steadily everywhere in the West. There is only one possible outcome of such a process: The economy and even the administration will collapse.
    - the public debts of the Western countries are increasing steadily
    - the retirement funds are lending money to the corrupt governments who can only make more debts and who will never return the money. So they will collapse, making so many retired people very "happy"
    - the trillions of free $US and Euros the money are getting lately ("in order to stimulate the consumption and to spin the wheel of the economy" - yeah, right!) are giving unlimited power to the banks to control the politicians and they can create inflation whenever they want, by simply starting to use those money to buy goods.
    - the politicians are heavily involved in the looting, together with the banks and the banks have all the compromising data. Whenever they want, the banks can reveal the compromising documents, and the people will get infuriated, chaos will take place, and the administration will fall.

    The banks wanted to collapse the economy in 2018 (to convince the public to implement a world currency - the event is publicly announced since 30 years ago), but they have a problem with Trump, that's the reason why the media is so infuriated and it's attacking him so desperately.

    The banks and their pet politicians transformed the Western economies into nothing else than a collection of infinite Ponzi schemes. Like any Ponzi scheme, the result is inevitable: collapse.
    But it's important to understand who is the real cause of all this mess, which is nothing else than a carefully planed and well executed process, in fact.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2017
  5. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    The solution is easy: Tax the rich. Put a one-time tax of 10% on their wealth in order to reduce the wealth inequality. If necessary, do it again the next year, and so on.
    If you tax the wealth of the rich, that doesn't hurt their companies. You are not taxing their companies, you are just getting 10% of the wealth of the rich: money in bank accounts, real estate properties and 10% of the shares they own in various companies. Such a tax won't hurt the economy. By the contrary, it will greatly improve the economy. The poor will have more money to spend, and that will create jobs. For the moment, the rich people keep the money hooked, preventing their use.
    If you can get the money from the poor to give it to the rich, then you can also do the opposite: get the money from the rich to give it to the poor. Such things are completely reversible.

    However, if you want to tax the rich, then you have to stop legalizing theft and criminality (tax havens). You can't stop crime when you legalize crime.

    After taxing the rich, the government can give contracts to cooperatives instead of giving contracts to private companies. The equality of incomes in the cooperatives should be a major factor into choosing the cooperative to give contracts too. That will prevent the wealth inequality for the future.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  6. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, however, the bigger problem is one of understanding.

    There is both:

    1) Economic accounting - Things that are true regardless of what we think about them. Just as an example, spending=income.

    2) Political economic policy - These are policies implemented with the goal of achieving a specific outcome. However, understanding #1 is a prequisite to getting #2 correct.

    The problem is that most people conflate and confuse these two ideas when discussing economics.

    You cannot knowledgeably address #2 if you don't understand #1

    This is an extremely vague statement, though I will agree that income and wealth disparity is one of the core problems the US faces. What "power" is it you believe that banks have? How are banks increasing wealth disparity?

    The problem isn't limited to banks, it seems to pervade US corporate culture.

    When looking at the largest lobbying groups, I'm surprised to find out how poorly finance as an industry is represented. That's not to say they aren't, but there are clearly other groups with much better representation. However, a look at political donations by industry, finance is well represented, though it is categorized with real estate and insurance.

    Having said that, it wouldn't appear that finance is in a special place when it comes to political influence.

    I disagree. Trump is being attacked because he routinely proves he has little understanding of the issues he's dealing with ("who knew healthcare could be so complicated?"). His foreign policy is a nightmare. His own aids continually contradict him showing little consistency in the administration. We constantly get reports of his childish tirades. He needs constant positive renforcement from those around him and cable news. He lies, obfuscates and does little to help himself when issues like racism and sexual abuse come up. All of that is off the top of my head.

    Go back to the first thing I said....

    You don't understand #1

    You don't understand what QE was or how it's affected the banking system given your statement above.

    Please, learn how the economy works, because clearly, you do not.

    Now I share your concern about wealth disparity, but the causes of that disparity aren't rooted in banking. Banking serves a critical public purpose. Villification of banking as a system rather than focusing on specific examples of corruption by people involved in banking is dangerous.

    Oh for Christs sakes. I would have ignored this whole post if I had read this tinfoil hattery first.

    /Sigh
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  7. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Again....You don't understand #1 above so you don't understand the purpose of taxes.

    This falsely assumes that money given to the "poor" in the form of entitlements comes from the rich.

    This is why the wealthy vote Republican.

    Taxing wealth removes money from the economy, period.

    Government deficit spending adds net dollars to the economy.

    There is little doubt that money trickles up and it always has. Failure to prevent increasing dollars in the hands of a relative few is creating very real problems in America. We are headed toward a more feudal society. But the solutions you offer, aren't the solution and, IMO would make a bad situation worse.

    Again, you are engaging in #2 from my last post without an understanding of #1.
     
  8. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    top 1% pay 42% of all taxes now up from 20% under Reagan. Liberal ghettos live off tax collections from the rich now and you want them even more entitled to live as crippled leeches as if that would make a better America. Spike Lee made a film about how Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan. Do you understand?

    if you want to help the bottom, ship 30 million illegals home tomorrow, and end the liberals policies: taxes, unions, deficits, regulations, that shipped another 20 million jobs off shore. Now do you understand?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  9. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    actually their wealth is in the companies they own for the most part. 1+1=2. Taking wealth at gun point is just more senseless liberal violence. Elon Musk is worth $20 billion and all in the company. Make sense now? Notice the liberal solution is always violent?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  10. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,874
    Likes Received:
    8,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not even close to highest in the world. Repeating another Trump lie, I see.
     
  11. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    obviously 100% wrong of course. the poor get free housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and defense which they could not pay for in a million years unless wealth trickled down to them.
     
  13. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    (Sorry for the delayed answer, I just could not find enough time to answer sooner)
    You are right. Spending = income.
    Today, the spending of the population = Incomes for the super-rich
    Today, in Europe, the spending of the consumer = Incomes for the owners of the production facilities in China, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. Exception: Switzerland, a country with strict protectionist laws.

    I presented the link about the Libor Scandal. Look what The Rolling Stones say:
    "Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game."
    And it's the banks that are involved in such things, not other industries.
    Another thing is that, when the USA is issuing new money (for the simplicity of language we can call that "printing new money"), the money become the property of the private banks - the banks that form the Federal Reserve. Instead, the money should be the property of the government and the government should simply lend (for free if they want) the money to the banks. But why to bother when they can simply give the money (that belongs to the population) to the rich?
    Therefore the Quantitative Easing is nothing else than a 4 trillion $US gift to the private banks - under the pretext of "saving the economy". You can't save the economy by printing new money, but you can save it by keeping the jobs in the country, by reducing the wealth and income inequality and by cutting the unjustified expenses (i.e. reducing corruption).
    By printing more money, the loans become cheaper, so the companies and the consumers have more money to spend... and to make more jobs in China. Therefore you can't create jobs if you print money, but you can create jobs if you protect your country.
    With such enormous amounts of money, the banks are getting virtually an unlimited power to further influence the more and more corrupt politicians.

    More: Obama’s $4 trillion gift to the rich, John Crudele, October 12, 2014, New York Post

    In Europe the situation is the same. The new money issued with Quantitative Easing are wasted and furiously looted - the same with the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund.
    The structural funds give money to all kind of ghost companies who are supposed to build production facilities and to create jobs. The money are simply looted. The corruption is already so high that such things are not reported in the media anymore, but you can get it from the word of mouth.
    The money issued with the QE go to the consumers who.. spend their money and create jobs in China.
    Who's going to pay for all those expenses? The poor, of course. They will pay more and more taxes, to pay for such "improvements of the economy".

    The problem originates from the banks. The banks control the corporations too. They financial system is the one who is investing money into and growing all kind of startups and they are controlling the corrupt politicians who are giving fat contracts to the corporations.
    They also control the media and they proliferate a culture of greed, selfishness, depravity, indifference, self-pleasing and ignorance. They spread a lot of lies in the media and in the academic communities, and then, the people with intellectual concerns are easily fooled to believe in all kind of nonsense. On top of that, all those victims believe that they are actually more intelligent if they believe in such idiotic stuff.
    This culture is spread not only using the media and the academic communities, but also through the corporations. The people go to work in a corporation, their boss is telling them a lot of stupid stuff, and then they come home and they repeat that stupid ideas to their families. They are impressed by the enormous power of the corporations, so they believe in that stuff. It is not uncommon to find people who believe that "corruption is good because the money return in the economy" or that "without poverty you have no economy". These are ideas planted into the people's heads by the corporate culture. Such ideas are too idiotic to be told on TV, Radio or newspapers, but they are spread in the corporations. And the population believes in such idiotic stuff.
    In any case, the Western (not only the US) culture is under heavy attack. The super-rich are attacking the very core of the society: the moral values of the people. And that affects all the economic agents too, from small companies to corporations.

    Right. When looking who is controlling the administration, it's the banks.
    When looking who is lobbying (i.e. trying to loot from the economy and share with the politicians), it's the rest of the industries.
    This is like comparing elephants with little doggies.

    Maybe on another planet. Because on this planet, it's the financial system running the entire world. Have you ever heard of the IMF and WB? Those components of the financial sector who are influencing the politicians from all over the third world countries and they drag the populations in deeper and deeper misery.
    The corrupt politicians from the third world save their money in the Western banks. That means the financial sector has the money. Then they lend the money to the poor countries, in exchange for political-economic decisions in those countries. That actually means political influence.

    Have you heard about "virtual senate"? Noam Chomsky explains the term very well.

    The world is ruled by a “virtual senate”.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: The term is not mine. I am borrowing it from the professional literature on international economics. The “virtual senate” consists of investors and lenders. They can effectively decide social and economic policy by capital flight, attacks on currency that undermine the economy, and other means that have been provided by the neoliberal framework of the past thirty years.
    More in this link: http://chomsky.info/2003____/

    Before 1970, 90% of the foreign exchange was trade of goods and investments.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market#Hedge_funds_as_speculators
    About 70% to 90% of the foreign exchange transactions conducted are speculative. This means the person or institution that bought or sold the currency has no plan to actually take delivery of the currency in the end; rather, they were solely speculating on the movement of that particular currency. Since 1996, hedge funds have gained a reputation for aggressive currency speculation. They control billions of dollars of equity and may borrow billions more, and thus may overwhelm intervention by central banks to support almost any currency, if the economic fundamentals are in the hedge funds' favor.

    Yes, most of the time the West are using banks and various financial entities for controlling entire countries. But where they can, they directly put ultra-corrupt people in power (examples: Iraq, Afghanistan) and everywhere else they encourage corruption, harboring the organized crime who saves their money in the West.
    In the Western banks. Therefore the banks have the power.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
  14. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Healthcare is not so complicated. But the money are siphoned by the corrupt elements of the administration in charge with implementing public health care. This is why the public health care is so expensive in the USA - because of the looting. In the Western Europe, excellent public health care is something absolutely normal. The same with public infrastructure like roads, trains, subways and other means of public transportation - things that USA seem to be never capable to fix.
    Trump is too naive to imagine what kind of horrible and massive looting is going on. And the other corrupt agencies of the administration are doing their best to fool him.
    The Bush and Obama's foreign policy was a nightmare. Trump is actually interested to exert some necessary pressure on other countries, when necessary. He wants peace with Russia, unlike Obama who was following the orders of his masters who want a conflict with Russia (to justify a lot of military spending). Obama left Libya in a mess, and that's how the European migrant crisis was possible. Everywhere Bush and Obama went, they left a disaster after them. Because they can..
    Many of the aids of Trump are just as corrupt as the rest of the politicians. Those childish tirades are a million times better than the disasters made by Obama or Bush. Trump is ridiculous because he is a clown but Obama, Bush and Clinton(s) are nothing else than miserable scumbag puppets of the banking mafia.
    The mainstream media say lies about Trump (and not only about Trump) and furiously attack him for whatever reason they can invent. E.g. ‘I’m an idiot’: New York Times sports editor on misleading photos of Patriots’ visits to White House
    The public's trust in the media is at the lowest point in the recorded history and that's not a simple coincidence.
    There are indeed some very few racism and sexual abuses issues about Trump but the MSM magnify them a million times, making it look like those issues are everywhere.

    Good. So I'm glad you understand that printing money saves the economy by increasing consumption and creating jobs in China. Also by increasing the looting. Have you ever heard about "no accountability for failure"? The same cretin bankers who created the economic crisis in 2008 are getting even more money to keep their cretin practices. One can only wonder "what can be wrong with that?"

    Thanks. So maybe I'll go back to watch CNN and BBC to learn the quintessential core about the economy. I haven't opened the TV since some 3 years ago. For some two years, I was feeling like I'm getting physically sick, just thinking about watching them or opening their websites.

    The banking system is a vital component of an economy. But that can't prove that any ultra-corrupt bank is good for the economy.

    I was giving the example of Libor scandal.
    The whole world is dragged in misery by the IMF and WB - including the country where I come from - Romania.
    Read about "virtual senate". I suggest looking at some of the Noam Chomsky's videos. For example this one is very good - Noam Chomsky: "Free Markets?"
    The economic crisis was created by the banks.
    And it's extremely hard to provide evidence about how the banking system controls the administration since they are the very ones who are supposed to look for evidence. Just like the president Eisenhower could not come with evidence about the military-industrial complex.These things were way bigger than him. But he warned the people about this danger. You are asking for evidence about crimes, evidence coming from the very criminals who commit those crimes (the administration). You want evidence from the people who spread lies (mainstream media). Impossible.
    Of course it's dangerous to accuse the banks. But that's dangerous for the banks themselves.

    Ponzi schemes?
    - Instead of creating public housing (check for example Austria's Gemeindebau - Today, about 600,000 people (not necessarily poor ones), about a third of the population of Vienna, live in apartments owned by the city), that can keep the housing prices low, today the real estate speculation is reported as "a sign of economic improvement".
    - The housing, health care and education is getting more and more expensive, reducing the buying power of the people and dragging them in more and more debts. All those things are considered signs of "economic improvements"
    - The MSM claims that the mass immigration is good because "the immigrants are improving for the economy". The immigrants come and take the jobs that we refuse to do, and therefore it's obviously necessary to bring more and more immigrants. Therefore they improve our living standards. They also improve the safety and security.
    - The public debt is increasing, "to improve the economy".
    - The debts of the people increase, and "that improves the economy"
    - The poor people have to live in deeper and deeper misery, "in order to reduce the budget deficit" and to pay the country's debts.
    - Taxing lunacy: more taxes for the poor, less taxes for the rich. The situation of those Europe's 11 million empty homes can only exist because the rich real estate owners have to pay little tax, so they don't have to bother to rent them.
    - Increasing the price of the food for the poor by growing biofuel crops. There are intense debates about overpopulation and about the capacity of the Earth to feed the poor, yet the land is used more and more to produce biofuels, instead of being used to actually feed the poor.

    These are infinite Ponzi schemes. In such conditions, the collapse is inevitable. The only solution is to reverse all those actions and to stop those Ponzi schemes.

    Sorry to bother you with such boring stuff.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
  15. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    When I say the rich should pay more taxes, I don't mean the money should be used to feed the leeches.
    The money should be used in order to help the workers (not the leeches) so they can get a better life: public housing, public healthcare, public education, public transportation etc.
    Focus on improving the life of the workers so the leeches will be encouraged to get a job, so they can also benefit from those improvements.
    For the moment the welfare is used to provide a good life to the leeches who terrorize the decent workers.
    Except for the disabled, the people living from welfare for more than say two years should do something in return: clean the streets, the parks, edit Wikipedia etc.

    Maybe the middle class rich people pay more taxes, but not the super-rich for sure. The wealth inequality is growing because the super-rich are getting more and more money and they pay less and less taxes.
    The rich people are rich because they pay low wages to their workers, otherwise they won't be rich anymore. It's really that easy.

    If the rich and the super-rich will pay more taxes, then instead of feeding the leeches, the money can be used to fix the country.

    I am against mass immigration too. That's the main reason why I left the Ars Technica forum recently - it's full of leftists ready to insult you if you dare to disagree with them. They say lies without any shame and they ask you to provide evidence in order to prove the contrary. The moderators show you that you'll be banned when you'll make the next statement so I left.
    The leftists pompously bring the "famous Pew Research Institute" study that "proves that the mass immigration improve security".
    The Western Europe has a lot of immigrants from the Arab countries and they get terrorist attacks. Recently there was such an attack close to where I live. The Eastern Europe does not accept mass immigration from the Arab countries and they have no terrorist attacks. It's really that easy, yet the leftists somehow can't see such basic stuff. Instead, the Eastern Europeans are getting heavy insults for being "racists" and "anti-democratic", simply because they dare to be concerned about their safety. The same happens in the USA with the people who dare to disagree with the leftists.
    Today, the ethnic criminal gangs in the USA are a real danger, and in the future it will be even more so. The corruption is growing, the economy can collapse any moment, dragging the administration down with it. When the government will fall, who's going to defend you in front of these elements?
    In any case, even if the administration will not collapse, when the corruption will be big enough, the corrupt policemen and officials will start to protect the criminal gangs who terrorize the people on the street. That's exactly how things work in the third world, including Romania - the country where I come from. There the police is nothing else than a terrorist organization.

    I agree, they should be sent home. But that doesn't mean it's ok to keep looting their countries. Stop the IMF/WB insanity. Stop providing a safe heaven for all the drug lords, corrupt politicians and mass murderers in those poor countries. Pressure their countries to reduce corruption. It's not easy for you to reduce the corruption in your own country so it's extremely cynical to claim that they should fix everything on their own.
    Help them to get a decent life in their own country so they won't come to your country as (illegal) immigrants.

    But the ghettoization and leeching are encouraged and grown by the both political parties:
    - The Democrats use the humanitarian excuse
    - The Republicans want to "prove" that the taxes paid by the rich are hurting the country, by feeding the leeches. So when they pay taxes, they use it to grow the problems, instead of fixing them.
    And all of them serve the "greater purpose" of the plutocracy masters who are controlling both political parties: to disintegrate the society. They have important targets like creating the New World Order and to "ecologize" the planet. You need chaos if you want to achieve that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
  16. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    If you own 80% of a company, paying a 10% tax on wealth, that means 8% of the company shares will change the owner: the government will be the new owner of those shares. The company doesn't have to pay a single cent. You remain the majority shareholder with 72% of the company.
    Then the government sells those shares and then it's getting money to build cheap public housing, public health care, public education and to pay the country's debts.

    The government is actually taxing the poor and the average citizen at gun point (e.g. Milton William Cooper). The rich were always spared from that. You wonder why?
    The rich are ready to react violently to such measures and this is nothing new. In fact, this is a universal principle: throughout the history, when the people were talking about taxing the rich, they were getting killed.

    In times of crisis, the response of the government was to increase the taxes for the poor and to reduce the taxes for the (super-)rich. For example the Great Depression (1930). Or the Great Recession ( 2008 )
    To remove the rights of the poor and to increase the rights of the rich. To starve the poor to death "in order to improve the economy". For example the Irish Genocide (1850).

    Once and for all, such insanity should be stopped and it should also be reversed. Let the rich also pay the bill for the economic crisis. First of all, stop legalizing the tax fraud (tax havens), because it's the super-rich that take advantage of it, not the rich people.

    When I talk about the poor, I mean the decent workers. When you talk about the poor, you mean the leeches. The leeches the rich are happily feeding, in order to "prove" that "the rich should not pay taxes".
    If you chose to pretend the decent workers don't matter and you decide to focus on the leeches, that's your own choice, but that can't help to make a coherent dialogue. It can only help the super-rich who want to divide and rule. They want you to focus on a few topics and to ignore the rest, just as they want the leftists to do the same. So you fight against each other while they laugh and take advantage of it.

    In any case, taxing the rich should start with the super-rich first. They are the real danger for the society. For them, the rich people are nothing else than useful morons, because their point is to divide the society between rich and poor.
    The rich people defend the plutocracy because they believe they have something in common: the desire to pay less taxes. So they think they should defend each others. While in reality, the plutocracy doesn't give a damn about the rich.

    This is not a liberal solution. This is the "solution" of the super-rich. Check the Irish Famine for example. The super-rich and the rich starved the poor workers to death. While the country was exporting food (maize).
    The real violence comes from the plutocracy. They are in a war with the rest of the society.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
  17. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    And they avoid that tax because the corrupt administration is legalizing tax fraud (tax havens).
    And even if they pay some taxes, they don't care because they get bailouts, subventions or access to all kind of R&D funds.
    Trump won't fix this because he also wants to take advantage of the tax havens and he doesn't understand how big the corruption is today in the US.

    Increasing the taxes is not enough. It is a million times more important to reduce corruption and the insane decisions like paying subventions to the poor, so they can pay overpriced housing, education and health care. Instead, provide them cheap housing, education and health care.
    No matter how much you increase the taxes, you can never pay for the goods that are increasingly overpriced. Just stop the insanity and stop the speculation. Or else it's like trying to close a black hole or like pouring water in the desert.
     
  18. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    The poor workers are poor because the rich are sucking their blood in the first place (together with the corrupt politicians). There are tens of millions of poor workers even in the European Union. If the rich stop sucking their blood, then they would be able to pay for housing, bills, clothes etc. The healthcare, education, infrastructure and the defense should be paid by the government with the money they are getting from the taxes - taxes collected from everyone.
    The poor workers should not get free housing. They should be able to access cheap housing. That's easy to achieve if the governments would make public housing like in Austria or at least, if they would do some proper taxation (the real estate owners pay so little tax that they can afford to keep their properties empty).
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
  19. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No problem. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

    It doesn't matter who does the spending, people or entities within the private sector or the government from without.

    The point is, you cannot "save" to prosperity. GDP is an aggregation of all spending. On average dollars are spent 1.5 times (M2) or 5.5 times (M1), something I presume you know as velocity.

    Thus, if the government cut's deficit spending, GDP declines by 1.5 time that amount.

    For example, let's say that the government "saves" $100 billion by cutting spending on (insert entitlements here).

    That means GDP wll fall by 1.5 times that or $150 billion.

    The money "saved" does not add to the economy in some other way.

    Why?

    Because just like spending=income, investment=savings. Investment adds to GDP but every dollar saved is a dollar whose velocity is zero.

    Let me explain it like this:

    It begins with what’s called “the paradox of thrift” in the economics textbooks, which goes something like this: In our economy, spending must equal all income, including profits, for the output of the economy to get sold. (something we just covered) If anyone attempts to save by spending less than his income, at least one other person must make up for that by spending more than his own income, or else the output of the economy won’t get sold. Unsold output means excess inventories, and the low sales means production and employment cuts, and thus less total income. And that shortfall of income is equal to the amount not spent by the person trying to save. Think of it as the person who’s trying to save (by not spending his income) losing his job, and then not getting any income, because his employer can’t sell all the output.

    There seems to be this assumption that this can all be made up for by "increased growth", but the failure to spend does the exact opposite.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the wealthy are doing things that favor the wealthy, however, I don't believe for a second that there is this global conspiracy of wealthy people who move through the centuries enslaving the poor. I think the wealthy do what's good for the wealthy and without direct coordination, they help each other.

    It is a failure of public policy that is the problem, but that can be traced back to a lack of understanding on the part of voters who are largely ignorant of how the economy actually works. So they vote people to Congress who do not understand money any better than the public.

    Now the wealthy are happy to promote this ignorance, but, honestly, they are just as ignorant as the poor and middle class, they just know they benefit from the status quo and are just promoting what works for them.

    There is a lot to unpack here, and frankly, the rest of this conversation is going to hang on these points, so I'd really like to come to some understanding on these points before we continue.

    First, I agree that QE was a failure, but it wasn't a scheme to fleece the poor concocted by the Rothschilds. It was the believe in the quantity theory of money, a theory put forward by Milton Freidman. So unless you think Freidman is in cahoots with the Illuminati or the Rothschilds (or whoever), it's just an example of a failed monetary theory.

    MV=PQ

    QE increased M and the equation balanced itself out by lowering V:

    [​IMG]

    While I suspect we agree that QE has also managed to inflate asset prices because interest rates are far lower than the expected rate of return on Wall St.

    Borrow $1 million dollars at 3-5% make a short-term investment and earn a 15-20% return. Free money. That's called leverage.

    That would all be fine if the investments in question were the kinds of investments that put the lower and middle classes to work. If the investments in question drove up the demand for workers to the point that income growth was sharply exceeding inflation for the bottom 60% of America, but that's not what's happening. Income growth in the bottom 60% is declining against inflation, while income growth in the top 20% is higher than it's been since just before the Great Depression.

    So my first point here is that QE wasn't a conspiracy theory planned by the ultra-rich, it was en embrace of a theory put forward by the Chicago School of economic thought that was naturally embraced by the wealthy because of the benifits they new it would bring them.

    America still believes in "Trickle Down" and no matter how many times it fails, we keep trying it. This is the definition of insanity.

    Now let's address the Fed.

    The Fed is not a private bank and it's not run by private bankers.


    Here's what I have to say about the Fed.....

    The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone. Although parts of the Federal Reserve System share some characteristics with private-sector entities, the Federal Reserve was established to serve the public interest.

    The Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress, which created the System in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. This central banking "system" has three important features: (1) a central governing board--the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Federal Reserve Banks; and (3) a blend of public and private characteristics.

    The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government. The Board--appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate--provides general guidance for the Federal Reserve System and oversees the 12 Reserve Banks. The Board reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress but, unlike many other public agencies, it is not funded by congressional appropriations. In addition, though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board--and the Fed's monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committe--about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.

    Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors. Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District's Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund.

    There is no stock in "the Fed".

    The Fed consists of "agency-like" entities, like the Board of Governors, which members are federally appointed, and who take federal oaths of office.

    The Fed also consists of twelve regional banks, which are wholesale banks. They do not make monetary policy. They're banks.

    The stock is in the banks. When a member bank buys stock in the Richmond Fed, it's ONLY stock in the regional bank in Richmond.

    It gives that bank no say over monetary policy.

    Do stockholders get any profits? No. Like preferred stockholders, they get a guaranteed 6% dividend on paid-in capital. In other words, no matter how much "profit" the regional bank makes, they get the same 6% of their paid- in capital as a dividend.

    Banks are also subject to assessments, or cash calls.

    Banks cannot trade their stock. They can only sell it back to the regional bank at the same price they bought it.

    Banks cannot buy more or less stock. The Fed tells them, based on their size, how much capital they must pay in to be Fed member banks. No matter how much they are assessed, they have one vote. One share, one vote. Your local bank, if a Fed member, has exactly the same number of votes as Citibank - one.

    All profits made by regional banks (less operating costs and the 6% dividend) are surrendered to the Board of Governors, who surrenders them to Treasury (the Fed's books are available on their website).

    But doesn't the Fed print money and charge is interest on it? No.

    The Fed prints no money. Currency is printed by the Treasury, who "loans" it to the Board of governors (those profits turned over to Treasury are nominally interest on all Federal Reserve Notes on circulation).

    The BoG then sells the notes to the regional banks, who sell them to your bank - for one dollar each.

    "Printing money" really isn't monetary policy. Currency is just distributed to respond to your demand at the ATM machine.

    "But aren't Fed employees and expenses not paid by the Federal government"?

    Sure they are. Federal monetary operations make money. Every year, the Fed turns its profits over to Congress. That's the government's money. The Fed's expenses and payroll are paid with money that would be paid to Congress - in other words, they come out of government's pockets.

    Also, nobody disputes that the Postal Service is federally owned, and its expenses are paid exactly the same way.

    So is the Fed privately owned? No.

    Not even a little bit. It does function as a "private entity" in very limited circumstances. If a truck owned by a regional bank hits you, you have no case against the government -

    Just against the regional bank.

    But there are no - count 'en, zero - private owners of the Fed.

    Let's leave it there for now. Once we get past this, we can address you other points.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
  20. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    since the poor get free health housing food education etc from the rich it seems you have it backwards. Why not tell us how the rich suck the poor's blood?????
     
  21. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    perfect liberal lunacy of course!! If the govt spends less it can tax less thus the private sector has more money
    to boost GDP. Govt spending is soviet waste so the more they spend the more they waste and the lower GDP. Now do you understand it?
     
  22. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it never fails. Apple invented the iphone super computer and thanks to trickle down capitalism 100 million Americans now have them. Did you want to give more welfare out in liberal ghetto in hopes they will use it to invent the next iphone?? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
     
  23. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Cut's in deficit spending decrease incomes earned. Cutting taxes, while generally speaking, I have no issue with, cannot be cut equal to income lost.

    Furthermore, we don't make tax policy every year. My statement is true, regardless of the level of taxes. It would be true of the tax rate were zero.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
  24. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "Trickle Down" has resulted in income growth only in the top 20% over the last 20 years.

    [​IMG]
     
  25. Blizzard

    Blizzard Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    This is blatantly false. Taxing wealth brings the money into the pocket of the government. The government is spending the money so the money return into the economy. If the government is spending the money in good faith (no corruption) then the money actually return to the workers - that means to the people who produce the value of that money in the first place. This way the money return to where they rightfully belong - to the people who were stolen by the rich and humiliated with low wages.
    Taxing the rich removes money from the economy of the rich. That's true indeed. But in the same time, it returns the money in the economy. The super-rich are keeping the money hooked, preventing the population to access it.
    You can remove money from the economy when you destroy them or when you keep them hooked into the pockets of the super-rich.

    You never heard of the US Army? CIA? FBI? Police? These are institutions paid by the government who is collecting taxes. The government is paying them wages and equipment and that means the money return into economy.

    The deficit adds net dollars to the economy. Then the money are getting into the pockets of the super-rich (thanks to the corruption). So in reality the deficit spending adds net dollars in the economy of the super-rich.
    And then the poor workers will have to pay bigger taxes and to accept more and more misery in order to pay the public debt. The super-rich never pay taxes so they never pay for the public debt.
    If you don't believe me, then look what is happening at the entire world: The people of the poor countries are dragged into deeper and deeper poverty in order to pay the debt and "to reduce the deficit spending (the budget deficit)". And that's exactly what the super-rich want: to transform the Western countries into third world countries. That's why they increase the deficit spending and subsequently the public debt.

    You mean that stopping to legalize crime (tax havens) and starting to have some sane taxation will make the situation worse? How, exactly?
    You mean that offering cheap, affordable housing to the workers (like in Austria for example) will make the situation worse? I am an exploited worker for example and I'm not an isolated case - there are tens of millions of others like me only in the West. I can't afford to rent an apartment or to pay for a loan, so I have to share an apartment with other people. I find this situation humiliating and miserable. If the government would tax the super-rich and then build cheap apartments, then they will be able to rent those apartments for cheap and cover the management costs with the money they get from renting. No subventions needed. Instead, the government applies your super-intelligent solution to increase the deficit spending and the public debt, and then, in the future, they will pay the debt by increasing the taxes and reducing the expenses for the oppressed workers like me: less public education, less public health care, less public housing, less public infrastructure, lower wages for the people working in the administration (and subsequently lower wages for the workers in the whole economy). And they will also give generous tax cuts for the rich, "because they create jabs, man!!"
    You mean that keeping the jobs in the country by implementing a decent amount of protectionism (Switzerland is a very good example) will make the situation worse? How, exactly?
    You mean that reducing the enormous power of the cretin bankers who created the economic crisis ( 2008 ) will make the situation worse? How, exactly?
    You mean that reducing the corruption will make the situation worse? How, exactly?

    Therefore your solution is to increase the taxes for the poor and reduce the taxes for the rich. Less rights for the poor and more privileges for the rich. So your solution is that the millions of people like me have to live in deeper and deeper misery in order to improve the economy of the people like you, isn't it?
    Let's see how well that worked throughout the history:

    Causes of the Great Depression (1930's)
    The government did little to address the growing maldistribution of wealth. In fact, government action worsened the problem. Andrew Mellon (1855–1937), secretary of the treasury under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, was one of America's richest men. He saw to it that tax cuts for the wealthy passed through Congress in the 1920s, helping the rich retain even more of their wealth. When workers tried to organize and use unions and strikes to improve their wage and health benefits, the government was hostile to such activities. For a time the wealthy offset problems by investing in businesses, factories, and new beautiful buildings. But when Wall Street crashed, they pulled back, ceasing all investing. The wealth of the richest families was not based on the soaring stock market but on decades of banking and ownership of manufacturing companies. So, unlike the newly rich whose money was all in stocks, these families did not lose everything in the market crash.. Nevertheless, in late 1929 they retreated from investing and conserved their vast wealth.

    Great Irish Famine (1848-1852)
    The Code of Cheap Ejectment was therefore improved for the use of Irish landlords. As the laws of England and of Ireland are extremely different in regard to franchise and to land-tenure; and as the Ejectment-laws were invented exclusively for Ireland, to clear off the "surplus population"
    - John Mitchel: Extract from 'The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps)' pertaining to the Famine, November 2012 - Proving the Irish Famine was genocide by the British, June 25, 2016, Niall O'Dowd, Irish Central - http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/before.htm

    Sorry for not understanding that starving the poor to death and working them to death is improving the economy. Sorry for not understanding that increasing the taxes for the poor and reducing the taxes for the rich is improving the economy. Sorry for not understanding that dragging the people into deeper and deeper misery (by forcing them to pay for the increasing public debt and for the increasing public deficit) and by spending the money in order to fill the pockets of the super-rich is improving the economy.

    What you actually want is to improve the economy of the super-rich, by sinking the population in deeper and deeper poverty.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017

Share This Page