Forum Post: 1% hold more than 50% of the wealth. If they won't give it up, what do we, the 99% do?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 11, 2011, 8:03 p.m. EST by MiKEYD
(55)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Just a reality check here. The 1% have all this money. When we change the tax laws, they will likely move the money off shore to one of the economies where we sent all of our jobs. What then?
Work
supporting a local economy in your community. it is more sustainable, equitable, and humane. a good start has begun with the recapitalization of credit unions and local banks. hopefully, this will spur investment in local businesses and institutions that will create more jobs. corporations rely on cheap labor and energy costs. with both costs going up in the future, we need to become more self-sustaining as both a matter of survival and simply because it makes a lot of sense on many different levels.
Boycotting a corporation that can provide you a good or service for less leaves you no where expecting spending more for those items locally or going without. So there you are with less in your pocket. Are you better off then?
true, goods are cheaper at big box stores like target, costco, walmart, etc. but do we really want to continue to be slaves to corporations without having a choice. dont you think that only shopping and eating at corporate stores and restaurants can be dull after awhile? the problem that we have with this business model of the big box retailers as an example is uniquely tied to the sprawl development that exists everywhere in this country. such a model when you are dealing with these economies of scale only exists because of cheap energy costs and cheap labor from abroad. as we can see in recent years, gas prices has enormously affected the price we paid for food and other goods and services. yes, today, comparable goods from a local store will likely cost more but we need to begin somewhere. a good example of this would be the food industry. because of the popularity of food shows and the emergence of a food culture, locally produced food has a growing market for its product which is viewed as higher quality, more sustainable and helps support local growers and small businesses, like local restaurants. i think a similar effort can be repeated in other industries as well, especially with the economic climate today where starting a factory in china may not be as cost effective.
for now, many communities are currently planning to build more densely and becoming more multi-modal, relying less on cars as our only means of transportation. in this future scenario, there will be a more diverse local economy that will become more viable and competitive with the larger retailers. i am not suggesting that we boycott corporations entirely - that would be impractical and infeasible. what i am saying is that we need more balance in our local economy where more small businesses can thrive and be supported as well.
The French Revolution in the 18th century provided one way to approach the problem, but I would prefer a non-violent method if possible. However, in the end, freedom from tyranny must be achieved in whatever manner is necessary.
We can beat them at their own game. They hold so much wealth because they own ownership of the things that create wealth: corporations. Corporations are greedy because their owners are greedy. They want an ever bigger slice of the pie. So we the people take ownership of the money machines, the corporations. And as money cycles through the economy, it starts colecting in our pockets instead of theirs. Major companies like this already exist. They're called cooperative corporations. Join them & boycott the companies you don't have a stake in.
[Removed]
In 2008 the top 1% paid 38% of all federal income taxes while the bottom 50% paid just 3%. So who is it who doesn't pay their fair share?
When you consider that the wealthiest 1% paid ~17% of their total income (Capital gains and Income), while the poorest paid more than 20% after accounting for payroll taxes, vice taxes, excise taxes, etc, Its looking like the 1% isn't paying their share.
Besides, this thread isn't about our non-progressive progressive tax code. Its about fixing wealth inequality.
What's the problem with wealth inequality? People aren't just entitled to have money. In order to change the distribution of wealth you must take from one person to give to another? Why would anyone deserve the money that I worked for more than I do?
I'll gotten gains. Madoff, for instance, is being made to repay a few of the people he tooled over.
Whether the gains are ill gotten or not, a healthy middle class is good for the country, even the rich in the country.
I have no problem with the middle class. I just don't believe that one person should be forced to subsidize the existence of another. The wealthy should not have to give money to others simply because they don't have as much money. Additionally it is equally wrong for taxpayers to have to subsidize the losses of corporations. We are all responsible for our own financial well being and should be entitled to money we earn and liable for our debt/losses. Madoff is a thief and should be forced to repay all the money he stole. No one has the right to take what rightfully belongs to someone else.
They will ask for donations, and the 1% of OWS who collects it will try to become the OTHER 1%... free money baby
Oh, panama..
Seperate them from it.
First, realize that workers are just a commodity to the 1%. If there are less workers the value of the remaining workers goes up. How do you restrict the supply of workers? Organize the workplace, go on strike, organize boycotts. The most effective way would be for poor people to stop having kids. These become the future workers and disenfranchised. The 1% knows this logic would be devastating to their empire. This is why they consistently oppose family planning programs, abortions, and birth control practices. This is also why they encourage creationist things to be taught in schools because this is an example of how they use religious repression to forward their agenda.
Second, quit smoking and alcohol consumption. These cause nothing but misery, in the long run, for the 99%. The same for illegal drugs and most pharmaceuticals. Cannabis is an exception, It should not be smoked, but instead taken in a variety of other forms.
Which brings me to a third point. Eat healthy, Exercise. Cut the crap out of the diet. Grow more of your own food. Do this in groups.
Point four, as you take care of the body, the mind follows. Don't let the enticements originated by the 1% mess with your head. Take anything the 1% has to say with a huge grain of salt, or preferably not at all. Remember, 99% of the 1% are just after your money.
Point five, keep it simple. Life simply. I thought about adding more points, but let's just keep it simple!
[Removed]
You got point one.
Point two: We are addicted to too many things in the society. Granted most of this is on the 1%, but much falls on the 99% such as health care assistance programs using pharmaceutical drugs, rather than other methods to deal with some medical conditions. Smoking is also a BIG problem. I see more poor people smoking than rich, by proportion in the population. Inhaling the products of incomplete combustion, whether it be cannabis, auto exhaust, industrial air pollution, cigarette smoke, or smoke from burning forests, is just plain unhealthy, and ultimately, costly. Let's not feed the pharmaceutical industry, pet of the 1%.
Point three is about health. It actually costs more in the long run to be unhealthy than to be healthy. Find ways to get and eat healthy food. Exercise and avoid the health care monstrosity.
Care for the mind is what point four is about. Don't take just anything the 1% has to tell you via the media, advertising, government propaganda, religious leaders, or anyone else. Observe what is going on and think for yourself.
Point five quotes Gandhi. Be the change you wish to see. Live Simply. Enough already! Power to the 99%!!!
OK, its official. You are trolling. Let me know if you care to respond, or are just going to blather on.
$ is gone......buh bye!
Ah the old Robin Hood idea. Why not make a better world yourselves.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-war-with-america-was-won-before-the-first-shot/
Check out financialfairness.org and look at their frame for The Peoples Financial Bill of Rights.
no one has heard of capital controls - very simple solution
Fact check:
If we start using a local currency which cannot be converted to existing Dollar currency, all the dollars that wealthy people have stashed is worthless. Rich people have hoarded dollars since they think other people will provide goods and services in exchange for their dollars. If other people (99%) stop accepting dollars, they the 1% are doomed.
[Removed]
Then...we go kill them , and take all their money, and divide it up with everyone in Zuccotti park. I thought that was the plan all along.
This looks fascinating. I admit I did not read it completely in depth. I think I would need an advanced degree for some of it! Was anything resolved for you here? Can you give me the cliffnotes?! For a time I thought someone would bring up global currency. But then no. Also, what is a illegitimate debt?
The urgent and important topic is purchasing power. We know that they corrupted it and we can look at history to see them doing it then too. Since the 8th century, the special interests picked up their pace in corrupting purchasing power with their counterfeit money and in ramming that down the throats of the populace using legal tender laws (laws that meant, "Use our money or don't buy anything.").
But how are we going to restore our purchasing power? For a moment, if we were to tease away the 1%'ers and the governments from the picture and just look at ourselves, it may be a simple proposition. Let's look at yourself and ask what would I want to have in my bank account 35 - 45 years from now, when I am no longer working? If you work for the State and have a pension or with any organization that does, ask yourself what would I want my pension to keep now in my name such that when I retire I can count on it to be considered valuable enough to buy my necessities? Taking a long term view in answering that will also answer the question for today. If it'll buy you then, what it can buy you now, then it must be good. Come back with your answer and then bring back into the picture the 1%'ers and governments. Compare your answer to theirs. If you have the same answer, then you're dead. If you're answer varies slightly from theirs, then you're sol because their in control of their answer, not you. But if you have a different answer from theirs altogether, then you have a just and righteous fight and can explain why your are angry. You'll also get more of their smoke blow into your hive because they'll know that they are about to get stung big time!
You say, "When we change the tax laws, ..." but I'm not sure that you really mean "we". Sure, we want to change the law and we will influence the change but the same people who created and maintain the laws on taxation are not us. They are the 1%-ers and outside their circle their mouthpieces in education and government. They'll be the ones dictating the writing of the new laws. As to moving money off shore, the 1%-ers don't care what country they shuttle their interests to as long as they control their interests. As their mouthpieces change the tax laws, they'll be blowing enough smoke into our hives that we'll calm down from the mis-belief that there is no danger to us in what their doing. Don't calm down!
[Removed]
Got it. I'd suggest this.
Make sense?
Sounds very esoteric. I'm a fan of concrete actions.
You change the banking law that requires the 99% be forced into a credit rating default before they can restructure their debts. The default is being declared by the very entities that caused the person to need their debt restructured in the first place.
Lack of justifiable debt restructure without being declared in default has been a significant reason for the loss of 7.3 trillion dollars in home equity value since the beginningof 2006.
So fight to change the "debt restructure requires a default law" to one that states "justifiable debt restructure DOES NOT require a default", and suddenly main street can KEEP the wealth they still have and begin to nourish a more local economy.
[Removed]
It's still possible that if the home valuation has stumbled very badly that a super low interest rate may be a way to offset much of that difference. However, this would probably result in higher income taxes since there will be less interest charges to deduct.
But still, this could offer significant relief for underwater homeowners.
Plus, the government should offer down payment rebate incentives if someone wants to leave an underwater home. Right now, underwater homeowners have virtually no choices other than to stay where they are if they can afford the payments.
Not sure how this deals with fixing the wealth inequality, but wasn't lending to people with zero down (or negative money in, in these cases) a root cause of the whole mess?
You areaccurately describing a symptom that resulted from the root cause.
I would suggest the root cause was the government and the federal reserve walking away from overseeing home mortgages about a decade ago.
I wrote a blog article that addresses this issue exactly.
http://swarmthebanks.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-did-pension-fund-managers-invest.html
[Removed]
Chicken or egg? the government and the fed stop doing real work so they can instead print money for wars? You call that chicken or egg?
I'll write an article on how exactly debt restructuring would work for the 99%.
[Removed]
Make sure the prickly part is facing down.
Oral sodomy is fun. Nothing is better than a good face f*cking with a dildo. I also like dog poop spread in armpits and licking it is a yummy treat
Start a business and build a great product. Market the product to the 1% so that they will want to buy it. That's the best way to get the money from the 1%. That's what the 1% did. Obviously....it works.
[Removed]
Funny you mention that. I just had an offer from a very large corporation that wants to buy my small manufacturing company. I didn't sell.
I have to admit, they offered a very large number. It's not about the money. It's about creating something of lasting value for my family and my employee's family's.
And, you are correct. They were just looking to eliminate me as their competition.
Bravo! Altruism may still be alive after all. We need to try to foster this attitude, instead of self interest.
Sad to hear about AT&T and T-Mobile. AT&T has this bad habit of setting up accounts for me that never get activated, or stop working, but they keep billing me no matter what.
Take back the land, occupy the foreclosures. Land is the only true wealth.
[Removed]
The Interior designer I worked for before starting my own business was almost wiped out due to Mr. B.M. (Bowel Movement). Not because he had investments with B.M., but because B.M. wiped out most of his client base (elderly Jewish 1%'s). I quit this job in '99, the same year Bank of America and I bought my house. I Quit a $75,000 job with great benefits because I couldn't stand being taken advantage of anymore.
Than take it- if you can maintain the property i.e. use it you should have Bernie Madoffs old house. Honestly it is far too much for me to handle.
[Removed]
Stop cooperating. Money is an abstraction that induces people to cooperate, in the form of providing productive labor and the creation of finished goods. We just agree that we don't want their money, and find a new method of exchanging goods among ourselves and let the useless classes fend for themselves.
[Removed]
A good first step would be to have a national burn your plastic day to repudiate credic card debt. It's nothing but legalized loan sharking. That would be an act much more effective that the symbolic Boston Tea Party. I think it could garner VER wide spread approval.
If the FED keeps paying the bets of the wealthy Wall Street gamblers it will so degrade our currency that enough people will feel the pain. Millions out in the streets can accomplish real change.
[Removed]
I know this might sound too idealistic, but what I'd really like to see is the Bank of We the People, a government option, so to speak. Money is really part of the commons. It was meant to be minted by We the Peoples' government. It was meant to serve us in our transactions, not to enslave us to tyrants. The Bank of We the People would not be the lender of last resort and all profits from interest would go to infrastructure projects and eliminating poverty.
This is how banking started, by primitive groups of people hoarding food and grain for future use and distribution for the benefit of there group as a whole. It stared to go haywire when the tribal leaders started to control the flow more for their own personal benefit that that of the collective, with lasting benefits being passed on to their heirs (the beginnings of Monarchy). Absolute power corrupts. Who would control The Bank of the People"?
The peoples government and it would mandated as a non-profit - as in constitutional mandate. If you're going to have a third party in control of the money supply, I'd rather it be the government than Wall Street.
True that!
[Removed]
Look into State banks. Those states with their own banks are doing much better than those states without. My point is an economic crises could be avoided altogether if a central bank was making loans - not to other banks - but directly to businesses at low interest rates. Part of the problem is that the bankers do whatever they want even when we give them money, and they're not making loans. If they had serious competition, they wouldn't have such a strangle-hold on our economy.
[Removed]
I just down loaded "How to Liberate America from Wall Street Rule." It pretty much talks about going to a system of state and community banks. The OWS link didn't work for me so I'll try posting this one...
http://www.yesmagazine.org/pdf/liberateamericadownload.pdf
Then what they have invested in American companies will be less and the economy will be worse. What did you expect them to do? Surrender? Besides our federal government is in bed with these creeps. This is something BOTH the left and the right believe. But since we think you guys are kooks and socialists we'll never join forces and they'll negotiate a firm but reasonable corporate tax which will look like 'mission accomplished' for your movement but will be more of the same for the cronies.
We need to hold politicians accountable. Reduce the federal government to the duties assigned in the Constitution. Let the states govern the duties not assigned in the US Constitution. Implementing a Direct Democracy in a given state would be constitutional (afaik) easier to implement and manage by the people. Conservatives would start to understand and involve in the movement. I wonder...
You're not 99% without the rest of us. (This forum needs sigs)
[Removed]
People are influenced by the media. This is the form of control we live in. Left vs Right. "Divided we fall" and so on. My media outlet says that OWS are socialists and their media outlet most likely says that conservatives favor the rich and are gun toting Jesus freaks. A nation's internal conflict makes us pliable by the ruling class.
So... The social programs and policies brought in by the federal government while maybe well intentioned serve to intensify these differences and go against the powers granted in the Constitution. They also give ALL americans no chance of not living under these policies. We have states for a reason. Anything implemented by the Federal government can be (and should be should that state duly choose so) implemented by the state. If you want direct democracy then work for that on a state level. I stay free. I respect your decision to enact a new form of government that I believe may favor the majority. I can still move one state over and be 'free'. Also if we change to a federal level direct democracy and it flat out sucks... What is it going to take to get it back?
And as for presenting a 'Tea Party Solution'. The tea party isn't active to get in the way of liberals the people but liberal the idea. The idea that our laws and policies need to reach as far as possible so that nobody has a chance to not live by them. They are not too fond of OWS granted but at the same time This movement has it's sights set cleanly on Wall street but not the politicians taking the money to look the other way.
So enough pandering...
I most likely cant get people to make ethical decisions. But EVERYONE is unhappy now. So that makes me think we're all looking for solutions. And I'm sure I'm in over my head thinking I can talk to people in a shade of ... purple (red and blue , left and right) in the event that the left just assumes that since the federal government already taken so much that we'll never get it back so might as well use them to our own end. It's oppressive and the general public wont go for it.
I dont care who they vote for as long as they got their fingers straight when they pledge to "support and protect the Constitution". Meaning they understand what is and is not within their power. At the state level I dont care because I can move to a different state but still be an American. I think that all bill writing in the last ... far too long, is bogus. It's all written to be vague and "therein", "Hereofwhich" and allows them to take 'artistic license' with the laws that they are passing. We should be able to see what they are passing without having to get a politician or better the biased medias who "represent our views" to spew it back to us in their own sweet flavor. So no. I dont think we should reinstate anything written in lawyer speak. I think that a law prohibiting a bank, business or person from being allowed to sell a good with the foreknowledge that that good (be it security, stock or toaster over) is defective.
And then distribution of wealth. sigh. Please no. We have businesses for jobs. Even corporations serve a purpose. If the cronie money gets out of politics the "Too big to fails" will fail because that's what happens to a business that is run poorly. The businesses in bed with the politicians get no favors and their competition will have better positioning offering more products to consumers at better prices, people buy, business grows. Unemployment is the cause of wealth inequality. A strong economy makes for more jobs. When the job market becomes saturated wages increase. Not artificially because the government says "this is the least amount you can pay some one" which as we all know isn't enough to live on; the wages increase because businesses are then competing for skilled labor and workers. This is healthy growth.
God this is long. Okay... So closing word. #1 rule in government spending? Why buy one when you can get two for twice the price? OR the legendary $10,000 hammer? Taxes are wasted capital. The government destroys wealth. Businesses create wealth. When the government gets into bed with businesses then they create wealth enough to share with their pals and destroy the rest.
It seems like some of us are in the market for a new economy\government so is it easier or does it make more sense to fix the one we have, which is FREE. Or trade it in for a new one that is FAIR. Or by using the Constitution as it was intended, throwing away (or tucking them neatly in our belts) our preconceptions of each other which are most likely fuming at the moment and experimenting to see if they are truly manipulating us and there is a way to have most of what each side wants or if I'm turning into a conspiracy nut.
I feel like this came out like mad (as in 'Hatter') ranting but posting it anyway...
You're not 99% without the rest of us. (This forum needs sigs)
[Removed]
North Dakota has had the nation's lowest unemployment ever since the economy tanked. What's its secret?
In an article in The New York Times on August 19th titled “The North Dakota Miracle,” Catherine Rampell writes:
Forget the Texas Miracle. Let’s instead take a look at North Dakota, which has the lowest unemployment rate and the fastest job growth rate in the country.
According to new data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics today, North Dakota had an unemployment rate of just 3.3 percent in July—Why is North Dakota doing so well? For one of the same reasons that Texas has been doing well: oil.
Oil is certainly a factor, but it is not what has put North Dakota over the top. Alaska has roughly the same population as North Dakota and produces nearly twice as much oil, yet unemployment in Alaska is running at 7.7 percent. Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming have all benefited from a boom in energy prices, with Montana and Wyoming extracting much more gas than North Dakota has. Yet Montana’s unemployment rate, like Alaska’s, is 7.7% percent.
North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet is so strong that it recently reduced individual income taxes and property taxes by a combined $400 million, and is debating further cuts. It also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default rate in the country, and it has had NO bank failures in at least the last decade.
If its secret isn’t oil, what is so unique about the state? North Dakota has one thing that no other state has: its own state-owned bank.
Access to credit is the enabling factor that has fostered both a boom in oil and record profits from agriculture in North Dakota. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) does not compete with local banks but partners with them, helping with capital and liquidity requirements. It participates in loans, provides guarantees, and acts as a sort of mini-Fed for the state. In 2010, according to the BND’s annual report:
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/north_dakota.php
If it really comes to 99% vs 1%.
The 99% will make their own competing currency (or currencies) and isolate the 1%.
Most of the existing wealth is fake anyway... http://www.creditcontraction.com/images/affiliate/Great-Credit-Contraction-Liquidity-Pyramid-Large.jpg
[Removed]
It would depend largely on the public. How many would willingly let the system reset its fraudulent debts? Especially if this means they may lose a huge portion of inflated money they've spent their life accumulating.
Unfortunately I don't see any alternative to resetting the financial situation for a monetary reform. Perhaps a new system could be phased in while denying fraudulent forms of wealth to be traded in. Although that would be extremely difficult to monitor.
Personally I would like a resource based economic model to be adopted. It could potentially replace money as technology. It would need to develop within a monetary system by first developing test cities to see whether it is feasible. Unfortunately many fear technology even though our society is already dependent on tech, so I'm not sure how many would willingly commit resources to such a plan just yet.
A reformed monetary system would likely be based off some rare commodity (such as silver/gold) or time itself. This will depend largely on the global community as the global economy continues to collapse. For example a world central bank has been proposed which would unify the world currency but keep the fraudulent debt systems in place. (and possibly form a world government in the process which would undermine our constitution)
There are so many variables that it is nearly impossible to claim any one scenario will occur. But in order to avoid major wars and conflicts emerging from this Many people will need to become aware of the current economic situation and the options available to them.
But again, I personally would prefer a resource based economy (which isn't dependent on debt creation) to develop but that'll take quite a collaborative effort. In the meantime, advocate sustainability and open communication. These are the two keys to ensuring the transition into whatever system lies ahead will be as smooth as possible.
[Removed]
There would likely be a land tax in proportion to the land's utility.
This would in turn reverse the effects of sprawl by promoting greater population densities. More population density unconsciously leads to more sustainable lifestyles. (Believe it or not, per resident Manhattan is the greenest city in America)
Also much of our infrastructure is already crumbling. Roadways, bridges, aqueducts, dams, power lines, and many more are several decades old. I do not advocate re-patching unnecessary infrastructure which has promoted sprawl (low density populations). Although this could serve as a major source of job creation. I would prefer if self sustainable test cities advocated by the Venus Project were implemented instead as that would transition us away from debt based practices. And it too could provide a source of many jobs in the transition.
As for war. War itself is the direct result of misunderstanding and general complacency by the people to promote such activities. War is a HUGE income generator and has/will be used to prop up the collapsing system. The only way to prevent war is to begin conversations at a global grass roots level and to educate as many people as possible on all the reasons to NOT lead countries into war. The mainstream media has created a biased form of militainment for the sole purpose of selling war to the public.
As for debts, I can't think of a single country that is not in debt... to corporations and banking institutions. But then again, money itself is debt. The only way to permanently clear debts is to implement an alternative technology to money.
Education, and open transparent conversation is the only way to progress society away from the current corrupt practices. Only then can we begin adopting sustainable technologies on a large scale with the intent of progressing society forward.
[Removed]
A land tax would free up alot of land allowing it to return to nature. Without some sort of disincentive to acquire land in a monetary system nature will continue to be destroyed by sprawl, suburban development.
As for profits on large housing developments, this would likely be offset by cooperatives developing new urban infrastructure to capitalize on the increased demand. Also if the venus project is supported by the government, the creation of new high tech sustainable cities would offer many jobs in multiple fields in addition to housing.
As for dictatorships, reaching them would require the support of many countries working in tandem to appeal to the conscience of their citizens and more importantly, their soldiers. If such countries are already using force to suppress their citizens then it is their military and those supporting their military which must be reached. If conflict is inevitable I must stress the use of non-lethal defensive technologies. Utilizing violence is not equal to utilizing restraint and it will reflect on the general outlook their people hold.
But I do believe global conversations can prevent this 'if' we successfully prove the changes we make would improve everyone's quality of life. This task won't be easy and this is another reason I advocate the creation of sustainable high tech test cities. These cities could at least show objective evidence of a higher quality lifestyle. But even then, there are those addicted to power and possibly several sociopaths in charge.
In that case our best bet is to appeal to the lower part of their social hierarchy and work our way up as high as we can. Again, global conversations are a priority to prevent war.
[Removed]
Unfortunately I don't have an answer for the income inequality as many people will still possess an unequal portion of assets and money itself is designed to promote inequality. The only way to limit the monopolies in a monetary system is to provide alternatives (competition). I don't believe the land tax would be implemented in a way that would force a massive migration away from suburbs all at once. That would at least give cooperative apartments and other urban infrastructure time to develop.
Yes unquestionable loyalty to government is a problem when the government is controlled through wealth. The government is supposed to represent the people and if a majority of the people oppose the government, the only excuse police and troops have to follow that dictatorship is to make money or to abuse their power. As for governmental disobedience the power vacuum would likely be filled by like-minded individuals seeking power and wealth. So either the government would collapse as you mentioned or it will turn towards fascism. And in that case violent civil unrest, combined with external pressures from a majority of people of multiple nations will increasingly weaken and isolate these dictatorships.
[Removed]
It doesn't phase me too much. I don't place too much personal value in paper.
Many don't understand that money is a means and not an end. People with less money can potentially live higher quality lives if they find alternative ways of gaining access to their desired needs/wants.
Goodwill is a common alternative social currency. Altruism and ethical behavior form their own emotional bank account with individuals and most people abide by this. e.g. Who would offer assistance to mother Teresa if she requested it (or even if she didn't)? The trick is offering something which the other person/people value(s).
Another way of limiting the need for money is to become as self sustainable as possible. Obtain a filter and thermos rather than using bottled water. Insulate your home properly. Create a permaculture garden, install geothermal, wind, solar, or other alternative energy systems for your own home or community. Support sustainable community projects.
Then there's also the option of limiting the amount of crap purchased. Most items have some sort of planned or inbuilt obsolescence. Understanding what inefficiencies exist in products (by comparing similar products) help people purchase items that will at least last longer. (in return reducing the amount of money spent over time) Or by understanding how they are made it's easier to choose businesses that are more sustainable (greener).
Finally, seek occupations that actually contribute to society. Many obtain jobs just to get paid and their efforts then become completely centered around money. So they willingly enslave a major part of their life to money. Their attitude often reflects their sacrifice and it becomes very difficult for them to offer and utilize goodwill. They lose their motivation to give more value than they receive.
So one piece of advice I'd offer everyone is to live without money being their primary motivator.
[Removed]
apparently some of that money belongs to us. the bail outs went to pay those ceo's they are living on our charity..
[Removed]
The group, created in 2006, accepted tens of billions of dollars of Merrill's Triple A-rated mortgage-backed assets, with disastrous results. The value of the securities fell to pennies on the dollar and helped to sink the iconic firm. Merrill was sold to Bank of America, which was in turn was bailed out by taxpayers. What became of the bankers who created this arrangement and the traders who took the now-toxic assets? They walked away with millions. Some still hold senior positions at prominent financial firms.
[Removed]
i do not think they have paid back 10s of billions of dollars this was only a few years ago
[Removed]
Seize it by force! Find out who they are and storm their mansions!
Drive up inflation to the point where money has no value, hence everyone is on an even playing field. Then everyone must barter to get what they need.
OK, thats a start. but what about all the assets? Land, houses, cars, planes, etc. Wouldn't that still leave them as the 1%?
Stop voting, stop buying from their corp.s and encourage others to do the same.
Further, you create the world you want. You don't get other people to do it for you, they will invariably do what they want. Sound familiar, voters?
Right now the people are living in a way which causes a large disparity in wealth. Although there are some external (non-human) factors in play too, of course.
The stop voting comments are rather juvenile.
I would argue a system where there are only two people who you can choose to be leader of your country who have themselves been selected and funded with billions of corporate campaign contributions; and when they get in they break the majority of their pledges and just carry on more or less in the same way as their predecessor is moronic.
By not voting, you are expressing more than voting. You express that you see the system as archaic and that a better one could come in or it could be modified. There seems to be a lot of stagnation. Apparently, the current order is the height of human achievement and nothing better can be attained.
Most of the people already don't vote so it's not that big of a statement. I have not voted in ages because it seemed pointless, but now I'm tempted to go vote and write in some unheard of or nonexistent candidate - maybe Mr. "Voting Ispointless".
Here is where I feel OWS could add something to that act of not voting by making it an organised statement that the current system is seen as dated and in need of a rehash ... or something along those lines.
I think the 'or something' part should answer any other questions then.
Yeah, that'll show 'em. That's what the Republicans are hoping OWS does.
I thought they'd be more worried the Dems will manage to dredge up a few million first time voters by co-opting OWS. Can't see the Rep.s getting anything out of it unless they roll out Ron Lawl.
OWS will be the death of the Democrats this time around I'm afraid. I hear more anti Obama talk than ever. The Democrats aren't co-opting OWS, unions are. But of course unions put more money into politics than corporations. It boggles the mind.
If the Reps were smart they get Roemer out there.
As a Democrat (guess) what are your thought on Ron Lawl? Quite a few seem to have a soft spot for him, or at least recognise him as a genuine person.
Other than the fact that I can't vote, Paul is the only one I would come out for. Or Nader if he came out. We have no one like them in the UK - people who acknowledge the real problems and have a track record of opposing them.
Well, my husband votes Nader every chance he gets. I'd LOVE to see something like that happen. I couldn't vote for RP, because I am extremely pro-choie. I'll vote for Obama - I'm not convinced he is the cause of our problems, but the reps blocking him at every turn. I would, however, be interested for them to get Roemer into the debates.
Quite a few want Nader to be RPs VP, though I doubt he'd get better than Sec. of Com. or Lab.
You would like the UK. I've never heard any mention of pro-life or choice here. It's a non-issue. Nor do you hear much about race and gay rights as you do in the U.S.
I've been to the UK and did love it. But the Nader loving hubby is Greek and wants those damn marbles back so he refuses to go back with me. Ha.
Perhaps if the other half of the voting population voted things would not be as bad. I feel that not voting is a cop out. Heard it for years, "What's the point?" The point is voting is not just a right, it's a duty.
Not even laptops to post on OWS sites?
I should maybe have been more explicit. Only a fool could encourage the boycotting of all businesses, but equally only a fool could pass off all opposition to corporations throwing their weight around as hippy flusters.
If you must know, I am using a small netbook, made in Japan, not one made in China, where your jobs have been so feverishly sequestered. There are also a number of tech companies I will not give money too, particularly HP.
The problem a lot of people have is they aren't happy buying from any corporations in a particular niche, because of their activities and want more choice. I feel this is part of a lot of people's frustration who are involved with OWS.
To expand, I am an open source developer. I and others make the software that is used by cira 99% of the WWW and we do it for free, but still make good wages in employment. You seem to like using this web we have helped make accessible to you for free. If open source developers had not been so diligent, you would be surfing a Microsoft dominated Internet where the cost of running a website would be extremely cost prohibitive. If you want to run a serrious website using MS technology today, you need to pay more for a slower server susceptible to viruses etc., with a windows licence and then more for other licences, such as a database server, which can cost over $1,000 / month in some cases. If you instead use open source software, it's all free and this is a huge hand for online businesses, particularly SMEs. If it wasn't for open source, the internet would be dominated by corporations and there would be little variety.
I believe the above illustrates the benefits of alternatives to oligopoly in the context of the www. I can't speak for all supporters of the OWS movement, but I believe such diversity should flourish elsewhere and not be the reserve of a handful of companies providing little variety. I think the above very clearly shows how an unconventional (non-crony-capitalism) "model" is, I think, unquestionably better than the reality that would have manifested if MS controlled the www. I would ask people to think outside of the box. Not everyone is calling for socialism, communism and endless entitlements. Just because the current model is OK in some regards, doesn't mean it should always stay the same, it should improve. 100s of years ago, there was the concept that men should "fall on their sword" if their honour is stripped from them. We could still be living in that world, but we have moved on. And we will move on from the current system.
You open source developers are heroes as far as I'm concerned. Gates and Co have done more to hold computer development back than they ever did to advance it. Computers would be years ahead of where they are now had MS not had such a stranglehold on the industry.
Yeah. It's great to see MS loosing on all fronts to open source in hand with companies with better "business ethics".
The RealMediaNetwork has fallen to iStore Windows Media Player to iTunes Windows Mobile to Android and others ASP to PHP MS Office is falling to Open Office Internet Explorer to Firefox et. al. Outlook to Thunderbird et. al. Live to Facebook Linux is becoming more popular as an OS on netbooks and laptops from the manufactuere Windows is no longer the No. 1 OS in Japan Silverlight slopped against Flash Bing + Yahoo can't compete with Google
The reason being that MSs business model cannot compete with the competition, which is either free or more liberal and ... better. The only slices they are retaining are based on long standing monopolies.
Yep. I use Open Office for word processing, Firefox for web, Gimp for image manipulation. Most of those monopolies you refer to were built using strong arm tactics more suited to the Mafia, but you probably know this. Most people don't realize how Microsoft got where they are, don't realize how many little guys were crushed on their way to the top. It's time for MS to go, they've had their place in history. Sorry for the rant. Not a big Gates fan, to say the least.
Then keep trucking on doing what you're doing. I use Linux. Haven't given a penny to MS in years. But I have no beef with MS (just don't care for Windows); I find that Gates has turned out to be a pretty decent human being - he is at least using the money we all gave him to do some good on this planet. I like Shuttleworth as well, even more. What you do is convert and spread the word. Ubuntu and community is a good example of cooperation and helping others.
No offense, but if you think Gates is a decent human being, you haven't looked too closely into his past. I've followed his rise over the last fifteen years and believe me, although he puts on a good face for the public, he's far from a decent human being. I could spend a good hour telling you about it. And as to all the good things he's doing with his money I'll say two things. He's giving away tons of money for the same reason many of the super-rich do the same: tax benefits. And he's giving to good causes largely for good p.r., nothing more. It's to make himself look good in the public's eyes, since those of us 'in the know' know what a dick he really is.
Yeah, the self absorbed Steve Jobs did much more for the indigent of the world. Macs are so affordable. No one seems to ever see the faults with him - they stick to the Gates sucks mentality of the 90s. (yes, I know you didn't mention Jobs, so leave it) I really don't need you to tell me about it. I've seen it. And you don't need me to tell you about it, we've both got our minds made up. Gates is evil. I've heard it all a million times.
Sorry about that, I do have a tendency to let my blood pressure rise a bit when I hear about Gates. If Jobs would've come up, I would've said some negative things about him also, he just wasn't part of the conversation. It does suck that Jobs was worth over 2 billion dollars and never gave a dime to charity, not even to orphans, of which I hear he was one. I saw a small video clip of him at an Apple store opening where a man in a wheelchair asked him for an autograph. He tells the guy, "Sign it yourself." Then tells him, "Oh, now you're gonna play the guilt card." What a douche. Again, I apologize, don't take it personal.
No, I don't take it personally. Ubuntu!
You might want to look a bit further into Bill Gates, although maybe you will like what you find. Among his pursuits are testing untested medication on unsuspecting people in Africa, as opposed to paying yanks to take the trials. His main concern is reducing the population. I agree with this, but not with his aggressive and inhumane methods. Not the first guy I would put forward continue messing around in Africa.
You seem to agree that open source is good, not only as an option, but your own choice. Do you not think that other industries may benefit from a similar, more open playing-field? I am not really sure of your position, but it seems you are for a continuation of the current banking a corporate landscape. If not, what is your position?
Whoa. Please site some research for these claims... They're pretty extraordinary, so you're going to need something concrete to be taken seriously.
Not true about Gates - the foundation is something I keep close tabs on, as I used to be an MS "basher" of sorts. Then I traveled in Africa, which changed a lot of my feelings. Cheap PCs and access to the information age is a beautiful thing.
I do, however, agree that corporations get away with too much and stifle smaller business ventures - small farmers, for instance. I agree with quite a bit of what is coming out of OWS. I don't believe that the tactics of OWS are the best approach. Changing people's attitudes about what they buy and who they buy it through, changing mindsets, can be achieved in much more peaceful ways. Stifling other citizen's voices just because you disagree with them is something I find to be spinning out of control, causing unproductive chaos.
To above as well, on Gates, just do some Googeling on "experimental vaccines" in Africa. It is public knowledge that experimental vaccines go out there. It is however, not so well known that Bill is in on it with his mates at Glaxo, as Bill's foundation doesn't provide much blurbs on their activities. I heard about it from someone who used to work at the foundation. They left because Bill used goodies like free computers and footballs to get trust and then give them the vaccines. I don't claim to know anything about the science of vaccines, but one thing I keep up with is enforced vaccinations and vaccination side effects in deaths. Happens all the time, do some Googleing. A few that come to mind are over 100 people vaccinated at gun point a few months back (Malawi Voice) and earlier in the year there were riots in a village in India after 20-something (I think) people died from vaccines.
Agree with your later comment with people being forceful with their ideas.
Yeah, well, there's a lot of stuff out there on the internet. Some legit, some conspiracy theorist, and some somewhere in-between. I trust the sources I read.
take care.
Most of what Americans consume is made in China and the like. Even the OWS folks are afraid to take a stance and stop buying from the corporations that they love to hate. You know why? Because they would have to give up the comforts of life then. No one wants to give up the comforts.
I have no idea what your point is about open source software.
I agree that there are no doubt some people that don't practice what they preach. I do as much as I can. I don't have many possessions, in particular a car or a mobile. I used to bike 48 miles a day to work and back.
I am surprised that you don't understand my open source analogy. It is quite simple. I may be wrong, but you seem to been happy for things to stay as they are, where a small number of corporations in a niche make their products in China, engage in abuses etc. In my analogy I gave you an example of an industry (the www) which corporations were not able to dominate. No one could deny that the Internet is the most diverse of all man's endeavours and this is because corporations are not players in the market. If corporations didn't dominate other industries, you will no doubt find more choice, less abuse, less foul play.
The internet runs on corporate hardware. No open source for that.
Yes, it does. This does not change the fact that the internet is more open and has more variety than it would be if the same was true of hardware. You seem to ignore points you would have to concede on an are only interested in coming up with more rebuttals for someone you seem to perceive as being on the other side of the fence.
Nor is everyone proposing that all corporations just be shut down. I am a critic of the hardware industry, and would like it to move forward. You do also have open source hardware and new smaller companies, adding competition, variety. If you are an ardent capitalist, you should love this.
As long as prices keep dropping I am happy. I really don't care whose gear I am running.
I see. I may be wrong, as I don't buy much, but I thought prices were going up pretty much across the board.
I'm sure there are plenty of people on here who would give you a mouthful of their ideas here, but that is not my game. I guess it is good to hear some diversity in opinion and imagine that you were not expecting to find someone saying that here ... who is on the other side of the fence. Although, I guess you are sitting on it.
Prices going up in h/w? Which world do you live in? Prices are dropping hard for decades.
Sorry, I thought you meant in general. I was thinking of food, energy, gold etc. Yeah, a lot of hardware has gone down, but I think Sony has stayed quite expensive, which I am happy to pay, particularly as it's the best quality, but the main reason I use Sony is you can trade your old hardware in for something new and they recycle the old one; rather than dumping it in a hole in the ground.
In general, inflation is at an all time low. People just like to whine.
well, lets not go crazy. Of course we can still by laptops, but not Dells. Dell is the Devil.
What about iPads?
Money is just paper, its only worth what society allows it to be worth.
But these people don't just hold paper. They have tangible assets. Homes, cars, yachts, buildings, planes, land. We get rid of currency, won't they still hold most of the wealth? What can we do about that?
democratically redistribute their resources. This is class warfare the losers don't get to keep their stuff.
What would that look like? Would Obama just freeze their accounts and hand it out as stimulus?
It would look like sea voyage in the Pacific Ocean at dawn.
I'm trying to be serious here. We need solutions, not babbling.
Ive read enough of your posts to know that your never serious.
Seriousness could break out at any moment. Especially if someone had a plan. Right now, you sound like a man without a plan.
LOL. Oh no look out, there is seriousness spreading through the OWS camps. LOL
I saw a guy hiding in the bushes being serious. I know it is true because FOX told me.
How about we don't change the tax laws?
Yah, but how do we fix this wealth inequality? They have the money, we want it, how do we get it?
I don't want their money...a lot of people don't. At least not in the sense that we think we deserve it.
If you don't think wealth inequality is an issue, I think it is safe to say you are not OWS, so this question is not really for you. If you think it is an issue, and you have an idea to address it, I'd like to hear it.
It is an issue, but setting up a Robin Hood system would not benefit this country all to much.
Regardless, you seem to be confused about what OWS stands for. I invite you to look over the article that started OWS (on Adbusters), where it clearly states that the one demand is separating money from politics. Nothing about redistribution of wealth.
[Removed]
Get a job, open your own business. Stop looking for handouts.
We got sold out man. We need to fix this!
You got that right. Go to Alaska and mine for gold!
Work hard and make more money. It's what I did. And good freaking grief. They don't have all the money.
occupy there too.
Es gibt auch anders denkende Linke:
http://www.ahriman.com
Silvio Gesell: Ein progressiver Anarchist in Deutschland
http://www.freiwirte.de
Ich bin Mitglied im Dt. Freiwirtschaftsbund!
Es lebe die Schweiz:
http://www.zeit-fragen.ch
BüSo
http://www.bueso.de
Buchinfo DIE DEUTSCHEN
http://juergenelsaesser.wordpress.com/buchinfo-die-deutschen/
try working your way up to a position that pays more
[Removed]
There aren't trillions of dollars in circulation..
[Removed]
Alex Jones Infowar: About the FED
http://www.infowars.com/
15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America. Information Clearing House, Grafiken über Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung in den USA
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25399.htm
http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/?p=11384
http://elboheme.blogspot.com/2010/05/die-wahren-ursachen-der-krise_12.html
[Removed]
Well Canada had a good banking system...stable in the crisis and a social wellfare state...
And the City of London is mettling a lot into American Politics, whether you like it or not...Lord Rothschild for example...
http://www.bilderberg.org
You clearly missed the part where I said I don't care what foreigners think. When the bilderberg's come on this forum to spread their ideology, they'll get the same treatment.
[Removed]
Take it from them. Invade their houses, invade their offices and invade their banks, even their churches. They have no right to this money, we need to stand up and show the 1% we mean business.
If they truly had money, they could just transfer it to another country, get the exchange rate value in another currency and there is absolutely nothing the US or its people could do.
However, most of their "money" is tied up in stocks and bonds. US bonds are the only safe bonds these days "even with the debt status downgrade". You can't transfer a US company to another country overnight. You'd have to shut it down over time and build a new on in the new country.
They can't just take it. They are dependant on the US as much as we are on them.
[Removed]
Oh my goodness yes.
1) Pass the following Constitutional Amendment. "Only Political Organizations, having all of their money donated by citizens of the United States of America, can spend money politically. All other organizations may not." This effectively gets the corporate influence out of politics. Of course, after the amendment was signed, we would have to pass laws and regulations to define what political spending is and the hefty fines for transgressors, and create another bureaucracy to track political donations and expenditures, and that takes time, but Rome wasn't built in a day.
2) Raise Corporate taxes by 10% and do not allow corporations to include the top 10% of wage earners in their deductions. Any money they pay to their top executives will be completely taxable. The more they pay their top execs, the more taxes they pay to support the rest of us.
3) Raise Capital Gains taxes by 10%.
That's it.
[Removed]
Wait!!!
Of course, all of this is theory, and people can corrupt anything. I just want to get Corporations, ESPECIALLY MULTI-NATIONALLY OWNED CORPORATIONS out of my government.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Again you failed to address the fairness issue of having a taxes due without having made a profit. Consider your desire to avoid the fairness issue, an then imagine trying to get the bill through congress. If you cant make it sound fair to a sympathetic ear on a public forum, you could never sell it to the American public, which makes it a non-starter. Regarding your advice on business structure, why would I start a partnership if I wanted to one day sell my business, or if I wanted to one day seek VC? You are trying to crunch people into an inappropriate business structure to satisfy the needs of an inherently unfair tax law.
Its already being done. GE owns MSNBC. GE also owns the chair seat in Obama's job's council. One might call it "Extreme lobbying", and your legislation does nothing to address it, despite the fact GE pays nothing in Federal taxes on it's 15 Billion dollars of income.
You are now contradicting yourself. Earlier you said any money donated by an individual is a legitimate campaign donation. Now you appear to be revising and qualifying your earlier statement, by saying individuals who indirectly benefit financially(Unions, high paid corporate employees) from their political donations cannot donate. Is that what you are saying? Please clarify.
when the tax code had incomes over $1,000,000 paying 90%, corporations changed their business practices to accommodate the new new tax rates. That is what I'm saying you would have to do. In other words, if you choose to pay a person $450k, and you knew you were going to have a loss because of it, that's your choice. If a corporation today spends more on capital expenditures than its revenue, it too operates at a loss, but it does so with its future in mind, and THAT IS FAIR!!! There is nothing unfair about it.
okay?
Consitutional Amendment - remember? "Only Political Organizations, having all of their money donated by citizens of the United States of America, can spend money politically. All other organizations may not." In other word, money should not come from any organization into the political process unless that organization is funded directly from citizens. Any organization that tries to get its money in, directly or indirectly, would be closed down. I'm not contradicting myself.
Consultancies and law firms have very few capital expenditures. Nearly all of their expenditures are salaries. You seem to value equipment more than people. It is most definitely unfair.
Sure. Its OK. Swift Boat Vets for Truth. OK. Hillary the Movie, OK. Fahrenheit 911, OK. Its like a bag of shit. You squeeze one end, it all shifts over to the other side.
So if all the employees of a particular union donate to a particular campaign, how are you going to prosecute them? If all the top execs for a particular company donate to the same campaign, how are you going to prosecute them. Sorry to inform you of this, but we don't prosecute people on innuendo in this country. Present your solution.
WE kick their sorry asses out. Let them go where their $$ is, that's what they love the most. Their traitors.
[Removed]
Confiscate it all. Its all got a poison root. Remember, we need to declare them traitors and that's exactly what they are. They care nothing for the country.
Isn't this what they did in certain African continental countries? As I recall that didn't work out too well for them. Not everyone is cut out for greatness, or leadership. The world needs ditch diggers too, but I don't want them running things. Who at that point could represent us without eventually becoming corrupt themselves. What was that saying about absolute power?
Just enforce the laws on the books , hell at least investigate the Wall St. banks. Even during the Reagan period over 1,500 bankers went to jail in the S & L banking debacle. Today, its so bad that these huge Int'l banks crash the economy steal trillions and then the Pres. says just a mos. ago they did nothing illegal? How about fraud in the inducement for a start and it goes on from there . He's bought and so are most of the Congressmen and many in the courts.
Wasn't McCain involved with the "Keating Five" fallout fom the S & L scandals somehow? I vaguely remember him narrowly escaping that.
[Removed]
Isn't this what they did in certain African continental countries? As I recall that didn't work out too well for them. Not everyone is cut out for greatness, or leadership. The world needs ditch diggers too, but I don't want them running things. Who at that point could represent us without eventually becoming corrupt themselves. What was that saying about absolute power?
Google how they did it during the French and Russian Revolutions.
"Let Them Eat Cake!"
[Removed]
I disagree, the problem isn't that we lack the nos. its that they are spread over a huge area.
[Removed]
Something on the order of 50 mil. Americans live below the poverty line for one thing.
[Removed]
Why do you folks somehow think owning a few crappy electronics and refrig. qualifies a person as part of the middle class in this society? I guess from your pt. of view, unless these folks are reduced to 3rd or 4th world poverty they need not be counted as poor? Being poor in America today is having no job and not being able to find one having one that doesn't pay enough to do much more then feed you. Or being older then 50 without a job anymore. Not the shit you own. Because without a job or a huge savings account your screwed pretty fast and all your shit gets u pennies on the dollar in a yard sale.
[Removed]
We have the resources of the masses. Raise money and use it to help the desperate poor.
[Removed]
Sell them something. Like the church, everlasting life. Just kidding. OWS raised hundreds of thousands without trying. A dollar per citizen is $300,000,000.
[Removed]
No. I am saying that if every person in the US contributed $1 then there would be $300,000,000. That has nothing to do with redistribution. It only means that instead of buying a $3 piece of bubble gum you buy the $2 one an contribute $1. It's much simpler than trying to change and redistribute. I am talking about a viable way to help thousands of needy people with $1 each.
[Removed]
I'm not opposing you. I am talking about a viable way to make a change NOW. Not when we change the system. Americans struggle NOW.
Initiate: PUBLIC VOTE OPTION on the COMPETING FINAL DEMOCRATIC vs FINAL REPUBLICAN vs INDEPENDENT VERSIONS of a CONGRESSIONAL BILL.
That's the title of a White House petition http://wh.gov/bhC Petitions receiving 25,000 votes in 30 days, are referred for evaluation followed by official White House statement.
[Removed]
A Public Vote Option on competing versions of a bill would re-direct the constant campaign CASH FLOW. Re-striking the balance of power ultimately between representation and democracy.
[Removed]
The PUBLIC VOTE OPTION idea is that elected representatives still write the COMPETING VERSIONS of the bills...then it's up to We the People to make the hard decisions...just like we're continuously told in every election. The White House petition http://wh.gov/bhC is how make the simulated democracy go live.
[Removed]
Much of the wealth that they claim to have is really non-existent. Putting the banking system through a Glass Steagall bankruptcy reorganization would show that to be so.
After bankruptcy reorganization wipes out the debt that we have been endlessly bailing out, a national bank would be able to begin creating credit at low interest rates to finance economic development projects. In this way, wealth would be distributed more to the 99%
THANK YOU!!! Finally someone with an answer. Ok, so we wipe out US sovereign debt, held by people and groups here in the US and abroad, which would then collapse the currency. A few questions.
What do we do about China, and several other nations, some of which are our strong allies, who wont like that? Wouldn't that either bring us to war or collapse a few governments (maybe our own)?
When the currency dust settles, there will still be assets. I have to concur that elimination of trillions of dollars nobody has ever seen would reduce the size of the pie, leaving less to be divided up, but it seems the rich would still control a disproportionate amount of whats left.
Again, what does life look like in the aftermath?
They don't like to think about the aftermath in their utopian dreamworld. They don't want to think about the price of goods, or inflation, or anything like that because it is too difficult.
What you are worth will be determined by what you can do instead of how much you have.
[Removed]
Don't misconstrue, your post was about debt and currency.
[Removed]
Funny you blow a hole in his argument immediately and he comes back with a peace and love answer.
In a compassionate society the sick and the elderly are respected and cared for. People cooperate in providing for all because they know that one day the will eventually be old or sick.
[Removed]
When money is a person's only value system, they are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
[Removed]
I talked about caring for the sick and elderly, you talk about "how much they get".
As your value system is based on money, you are precluded from even imagining any other system.
[Removed]
What faction of the Illuminati are you from nucleus? Are you a Romanoff...or are you one of the Chinese families. What of the inherent problems with Meritocracy? Why does ANYONE have to rule? What of sovereignty and people becoming locally self-sufficient again? My whole life, I dreamed of a global society and everyone being good to one another, until I realized that globalization was already well under way. The problem with that, is that there will ALWAYS be someone who wants to take over the world, and so sovereignty is the best way to make sure that it has the least likelihood of happening.
Your fellow human being
Leynna
I doubt very much that you'll get an answer. That's because nucleus is talking about a total reset of the financial system over to a system called "Meritocracy" as being discussed by the Intelligentsia or the supposedly original Illuminati and the White Dragon Society who is trying to remove the ruling elite from power. There is a war going on between the factions of the richest people in the world that we know nothing about. Trust me, nucleus sees him/her self as far more enlightened than you and thereby, above you. So, they propose that we go from the megalomaniac ruling elite controlling our lives to a Meritocratic society where another group of super wealthy is going to decide our lives for us. I'm sure this is the last we've heard from nucleus.
I do not support the idea of "meritocracy" any more than capitalism.
A person who sweeps the streets, grows vegetables, builds or maintains building, cares for the sick, etc., provides valuable tangible goods or services.
A person who shuffles money from one place to another, profiting from gambling, hedging (betting on collapse and then causing the collapse), and a host of other strategies that view people as profit centers and leveraged assets, as well as who take fees for doing such, are not productive and do not contribute positive value to society.
Leynna, if you would like to participate constructively in a discussion, you would do well not to put words in mouths of others.
Once again, try reviving the Constitution from its near death experience: Initiate: PUBLIC VOTE OPTION on the COMPETING FINAL DEMOCRATIC vs FINAL REPUBLICAN vs INDEPENDENT VERSIONS of a CONGRESSIONAL BILL.
That's the title of a White House petition http://wh.gov/bhC Petitions receiving 25,000 votes in 30 days, are referred for evaluation followed by official White House statement.
If MiKEYD you still think you can elect some fabricated personality to the broken system to make the perpetual decisions you bring up...I'll quit posting this idea on your thread. Just say the word:
[Removed]
We would wipe out the illegitimate debts as determined by the Glass Steagall standard.
Regarding China, the idea is that nations would open national banks to create credit for projects, and these projects could be international as well. For example, building a bridge or tunnel from Alaska across the Bering Strait to Siberia, and down through China and the rest of Asia.
Russia and China are already striking deals for similar projects, and are hoping for the Americans to join in, instead of attacking Iran and starting a world war.
[Removed]
I don't believe it is the debt with China that is restructured under Glass Steagall. It is more the debt created through trading in derivatives that is considered illegitimate.
Concerning the debt with China, the Chinese want to buy tons of high tech goods from the US, but the US won't sell it because of the high tech trade ban. If this ban were lifted, we could eliminate the trade deficit and get rich selling stuff to the Chinese. We'd have to gear up a bit, but it's doable.
The big projects like NAWAPA would create high paying jobs for millions of poor people. Then they could buy houses and cars and put their kids through college, creating a next generation of even smarter people.
I don't think it is a matter of the currency becoming worthless. Just eliminating the illegitimate debts. Than development projects would create real value for our currency.
This stuff was all done before by Roosevelt, it's how we got out of the Great Depression. No reason we can't do it again.
[Removed]
Glass Steagall doesn't move money, but the development projects that should follow, would, by giving good paying jobs to the poor.
The US can produce advanced electronic and mechanical goods that the Chinese want and can't make for themselves yet. Advanced machine tools, etc.
The IOUs of which you speak were created by the rich people who gambled in derivatives, but they are more like UOMEs, that they issue when demanding for us to bail out their banks.
There are a number of people who talk about Glass Steagall here, I suggest you talk to them as well.
[Removed]
But also, a special bank would be created just for economic development projects, that could inject huge amounts of funds into the economy. It's ok to print money, if you invest it wisely in real development projects. Than the investment pays itself off through increased economic activity and tax revenue.
From what I hear, the Chinese need certain machine tools that are very complex, which they could use to produce better quality products. Also things like caterpillar tractors to build roads to their small villages that don't have roads.
Yes, you can have a guy that says "your notes are no good". Glass Steagall was a "standard" that was used to determine which debts were legitimate and which were not.
[Removed]
The ability to make money on money created the problems we face.
This isn't about making money off money, it is about improving the physical economy, the real source of wealth.
If you have lot's of money, but nothing else, you are very limited. A developed economy has advanced physical infrastructure that allows it to function at a higher level.
That infrastructure, plus the quality of people living in the country, are what should determine the real value of a currency.
[Removed]
This is more like what I had in mind:
The British Monarchy and related monetary-financial organizations of the empire, intend to kill, in a genocidal fashion, most of the human beings on the planet, for no other reason than they think it is their oligarchical right to do so.
It was for exactly this reason that Barack Nero-bama was installed (with the help of British drug money) as president here in the United States. He will, on orders of the empire, ignite a new World War, centered in the Middle East, with the ultimate goal of nuclear world war. Let the assassination of Gaddafi, and the regime change in Libya be a small taste of what’s to come domestically and internationally, if Obama is not removed, peacefully, from the office of the presidency, NOW.
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20263
I think you must be unaware that there is a certain group of people in the world who have the definite objective of reducing the population substantially, by up to 90%.
[Removed]
The question is though, what will be the blow back from China and Russia.
[Removed]
China's and Russia's interests will be threatened since they get a lot of their oil from that region. Some think that the whole purpose of a war with Iran would be to trigger a bigger world war, which would depopulate the planet, allowing the .01% who have hid away in their bunkers to come back out and takeover what remains.
[Removed]
In the face of the emerging threat of war, China and Russia are strengthening their relationship with Iran, making clear whose side they would take. From what I hear, Obama even has nukes in mind for Iran, so what are Russia and China likely to do about that?
[Removed]
But economic collapse could lead to world war, just like it did after the great depression. Obama's already arming middle eastern countries to the teeth in preparation for a war on Iran. This could destabilize all of Asia, resulting in famine and plague, not to mention a nuclear holocaust.
[Removed]
For some reason, many of your posts lack a reply link.
Certainly the Chinese are not as well off as us, but their economy is growing while ours is shrinking. If things continue in that direction, they would logically surpass us.
Unless our collapse causes them to collapse in a chain reaction, which I think is more likely.
[Removed]
For some reason, I can't reply to your more recent post, so I will post it here, regarding "the Chinese government doesn't do squat..."
A new World Bank report calls China’s progress in reducing poverty “enviable” and shows that the percent of the Chinese population living below the poverty line declined from 65 percent in 1981 to 4 percent in 2007.
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/04/10/china-rapidly-reduces-poverty-60-percent-decline-in-25-years/4922/
[Removed]
By investing the money in worthwhile projects, it acquires worth.
If we chose to, the US could reverse direction immediately, and rapidly outpace the Chinese. Remember also, only about 300 million Chinese people are relatively well off. About a billion are still quite poor.
I believe it was the debts, but can't prove it off the top of my head.
I'm going to crash now, nice talking to you though. Hope we can talk more another time.
[Removed]
Probably leaving the poor a little more poor actually. But I haven't read beyond this point. I bet zorno has the answer. (I bet there's a unicorn in it somewhere?!?)
So, Russia and China have all of these virtuous things figured out, right? You could possibly be of help to someone if you would quit dealing with all of your fantasies.
Look up Shanghai corporation at google if you want to know more about the Russians, Chinese and others working together for economic development.
Do you have any idea why they would do that? Come on, say why you think they would.
For their mutual benefit, what's hard to believe about that?
The mutual benefit has less to do about what is good for their citizens (when has Russia and China been known to care about their own people?) than it has to do with strengthen their geopolitical position in the world.
Here's the link:
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/04/10/china-rapidly-reduces-poverty-60-percent-decline-in-25-years/4922/
A new World Bank report calls China’s progress in reducing poverty “enviable” and shows that the percent of the Chinese population living below the poverty line declined from 65 percent in 1981 to 4 percent in 2007.
What other country has accomplished this in recent years? Western countries are all reducing more and more of their population into poverty through job destruction and foreclosure on homes.
OWS screams at companies that source manufacturing out of the US, ie moving jobs overseas. How the hell do you think the Chinese put their people to work? The make things for Americans for less than our workers will accept.
Why do you think there are OWS protests?
I thought that too before I went there, then found it not to be so. I'm not saying it is perfect there, but it probably is not so bad as you would imagine. If you have a chance, go see for yourself someday.
What do you think it would be like? People following you around, watching what you are doing?
The Chinese police always come visit foreigners, and as a foreigner, you do have to register with the police, but I never had any problem with them.
You think the people of China are free, you are crazy or misinformed. OWS screams about the lack of democracy here, do you think there is any real democracy in China? Not any.
Google filters the internet as well, from what I have read. It is part of the propaganda system in the west.
The west is evil relative to the east?
I felt absolutely no restriction on my freedom when I was there. I was teaching English, and most of my students also expressed their opinions quite openly. One student stood up one day and gave a long talk about how he thought that Mao was a "devil". Most of the other students, including CCP members just shrugged as if to say "so what".
Then I suggest you got to that nirvana you know as China. China is no more free than a cage animal.
I lived in China for a year. From what I saw, most Chinese people are patriotic and support their government. But they also criticize it when they feel a need to.
For me, life wasn't a lot different there then it is here in the US. Sometimes, I think I would like to go back.
I wouldnt mind if you did. That's up to you. However, it is unbelievable that someone could equate the two countries when it comes to basic freedoms.
Anyone else want to chime in on the relative freedoms between the US and China?
Sure that's true but the Chinese do a lot of development work within their society as well, building infrastructure, like train lines which are literally intended to distribute the wealth, as well as advanced energy systems.
So, you think the repressive, dictatorial oligarchy that rules China ruthlessly is a model on which to build? They only modernized to the extent that they have because they have a group that makes up .0000001% that control the entire country and they are facing a couple billion people want to move out of little towns into the cities.
It's funny that the OWS who screams about the so-called 1% in the USA, finds virtue in China where the power and wealth is so much more concentrated. What the middle to lower classes have is only what the elite has allowed, which is just enough to keep them out of the streets.
When you see China for what it is, you should not want any part of it. Just ask google how free China is.
The national bank must be publicly controlled. The U.S. Constitution states that Congress SHALL coin and regulate the currency.
The Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express.
Yep, that's right.
The privately controlled Federal Reserve is the ROOT of our many problems.
Actually, the root of most of our problems is the PEOPLE that own the federal reserve. Once they've been publicly exposed, they won't be in power for long.
i agree the people that own it are the problem - but their power emanates from their ability to create money out of thin air.
Indeed it is.
How do interest rates get any lower than a negative yield or 0% like they are now?
I have read some really stupid things on this board, but that one tops all of the others. Really.
Hooray someone gets it!
Haha that's a joke. It's already off shore.
Please don't say this movement is futile. Come up with a solution!
There is no solution and I'll tell you why. We are a people of many differences. The intent of Occupy, ultimately, is to occupy Congress. But even if you can wrest power from the money mongers, our differences will defeat us. Because our rising minority populations are at odds with the working and middle class who generate the revenue.
That sounds defeatist. We need ideas even if the ideas have little chance of success.
Ultimately you must Occupy Congress. But not in your present form as many forces diametrically opposed.
We could just kill them all and we take their shit, oh yeah! Is that the answer you were looking for?
I'm looking for a means to an end, a logical path. If that is the only path, then fine, lets establish that, though I doubt that would find much support. There are certainly enough people to effect some change with a common complaint. Whats the solution?
You could always try working for some of it!?! Just a thought...
I think we can agree that the idea that wealth inequality is bad, is a core value of OWS.
In consideration of that core value, how do we fix it? Getting a job and working for it won't even move the needle.
Just to play devils advocate, how is wealth inequality bad? Bill Gates is crazy rich but he did something that changed the world for the better, you're using it right now! Does he not deserve that money? I'm not a wealthy guy, but I haven't done anything comparable to what he did to become wealthy. He wasn't always rich, he was a college dropout who got started in his garage. Should those who have not contributed to the advancement of the human condition the way Bill Gates has have the right to take the wealth that he has worked to accumulate?
At some point, enough is enough. How much wealth does one man need? Millions? 10s of millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions?
Fine let him be rich, but fix the inequality. How?
I think the solution is equality in rights and protection under the law. You can never completely level all income inequality or you would destroy the incentive to change the world. By the way, his wife is a professional philanthropist. That means her job is to give money away to charity.
Sure she gives money away, but for Bill Gates to feel the same pain you and I feel when we lose a quarter in the couch, he would have to lose close to a Million dollars. Let them eat cake?
Perhaps you should quit bitching and dreaming about communism and get a job. You obviously have too much time on your hands.
So deal with it. Got it.
What Bill Gates did was foster mass mind and I'm not certain that's a good thing. In fact, it is in direct opposition to those that desire more localization in the form of the distinct community.
What?!? Are we talking about the same guy? The founder of Microsoft. He developed the first user friendly operating system for personal computers. You didn't have to buy one, but you did because it was a great product that made your life easier.
But the tool he created was immediately put to use by the masses as a tool of communication. What it represents is the physical manifestation of mass mind. I'm not at all certain that's a good thing.
[Removed]
We don't have the technology, not the trust in our scientists to make this happen. Interesting though.
Genius comments here - I can tell this was really thought out lol!
Let me guess. Take it by force? We the people.....
Let's be honest all you cute little marxists. Take it from them. You know that's what you want to say. Rip it from their homes and their lives.