Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do the WEALTHY realize that a lot of their wealth is digital?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 26, 2011, 1:11 p.m. EST by fabianmockian (225)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but maybe I'm not, but isn't most money an illusion. Isn't there only a small fraction of physical dollars actually in existence? Other than their giant homes, pricey cars and other modes of transportation, gold, silver and whatever, isn't wealth these days simply a matter of saying someone has a certain amount of wealth, which only exists in some computer or series of computers somewhere? And, if so, can't groups like ANONYMOUS simply come along and take that wealth and redistribute it to whomever they choose? I know there is all kinds of security out there to prevent such an occurrence, but hasn't ANONYMOUS already proven that it has changed the rules under which those in charge would force us to live? Is there any computer system in existence that is infallible or is digital security a mere illusion as well. Even if it isn't, what happens to all the digital wealth accumulated when people find that there is no use in the dollar, because only a few people have this currency?

66 Comments

66 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

See http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-money/ and note that I am a 5%'er whose wealth currently occupies 24 bits of memory in a hundred nanometers of silicon.

[-] 0 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Eewww. Sorry to hear that, because the 1% will be coming after your assets next.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Yea, I know. That's why I tend not to get too excited about the number of bits of memory my wealth occupies. There are more important things.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

Try starving someday Rico.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I have suffered through periods where I honestly didn't know if I was going to make it. At one time, I was down to about 100 lb from my normal 170. It was a long time ago, but it still remains vivid in my mind. That experience likely explains why I have lived so far below my means and saved so much ever since.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Agree

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I'm on vacation in Mexico at this very moment, by the way. Yesterday, my wife and I were in a 'rundown' Mexican village with ramshackle houses, dirt roads, and the works. We concluded that the people living there appeared happier than most Americans. The streets were full of children playing, and everyone was out in the front of their homes greeting their neighbors, talking, and laughing. It dawned on us that by working so hard not to need each other, we Americans have lost touch.

In Mexico, your "insurance" is your community, your "daycare" is your neighbors, and everyone raises the children according to community values which, in this case, are the traditional Christian values of family, honesty, hard work, and charity.

I'm not so sure it's just the 1% who have lost track of what's important. It seems we have all been seduced away from what's good for us. My wife and I honestly believe we may be happier living in a ramshackle house on a dirt road full of family, friends, and neighbors than we are living in suburbia.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

You sound like this movie where the white guy paints himself black to live amongst the coloreds, because he needs the scholarship only offered to blacks or like the character in the William Shatner remake of "Common People" where being poor or disadvantaged sounds good until you actually try it out. But when you do try it out, there's no fear, because you know you can always goes back to the life you knew before. Why not buy a ramshackle and leave just enough money in your account to live the rest of your lives in Mexico and donate the rest to charity for the rich. You are a tourist, literally and figuratively. Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTMWgOduFM&ob=av3e

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Granted. You are absolutely correct.

I do not suggest we all become like poor Mexican villagers, but I do suggest we could learn something from them in terms of community. I'm going to work harder on this own aspect of my life.

I will also argue that America has been periodically renewed by the infusion of values and culture from our immigrants. Frankly, the Mexicans I have seen here as well the the Mexican Americans I have known my entire life by rights of living near our souther border exhibit better 'American Family Values' than most Americans I know. I am simultaneously saddened and embarrassed by our xenophobia in regards our friends to the south. We should open our arms to them and welcome them as valuable and valued contributors to America.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

I applaud this reply and I agree with everything you've said. I have expressed my concern with the materialism that I see in our country and the lack of wonderment that I see in so many kids coming up today. Our country has become one where propaganda dictates, what clothes we wear, what cell phones we use, what food we eat and what programs, at least in my kids case, that we watch over and over and over. My kids watch the same Disney programs constantly, not just the same programs, but the same episodes. The little recites the entire dialogue of most shows she watches these days and neither seem to be fascinated by anything. I understand Disney's point of view: Fewer shows to produce, while keeping the same ratings equals bigger profits, but this does nothing for the creativity of our kids, except stifle it. Sorry about getting side-tracked, but again I agree with your post and I'm glad to see that there is common ground even though we seem to be come from different viewpoints. Happy New Year

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Your wife would agree with studies that suggest that longevity is more reliant on a sense of community than a good diet or even exercise. The book the referencing this study was called "outliers", by Gladstone something or something Gladstone

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I know she would agree.

I just expanded my story as a primary post just to share.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

But would she really prefer to live in a ramshackle house? Doesn't she realize that if you two lived in a ramshackle house it would probably mean that you were poor and we all know how the republicans feel about the poor. No medicare, no social security. Is that the future you would entrust our government to these days? Americans may be spoiled compared to the rest of the world, but do you think America should lower its standards to those of the rest of the world? Do you want the drug wars that Mexico is blessed with these days, because no one can get a job, because they've all gone to other countries. I went to Nicaragua and Costa Rica a few years back and I stayed with locals in Nicaragua and I can honestly say that those people respected day to day life more than Americans, but that was because it was so much more tenuous than it is here. Even the countryside (Mountains) were littered with garbage for miles and miles and miles, like a sidewalk made of garbage. My friend said I was luck enough to have gone during the summer, because I didn't see the true extent of the garbage sidewalks that is visible when the foliage falls off in the winter. If you honestly think that life is better in a ramshackle try it out. You could probably buy one very cheap in Mexico, or here, for that matter, nowadays. There are plenty of poor neighborhoods that you can go and live in to see how nice the neighbors are, especially the ones who need to make money, because the rent or electricity or the gas bill is due.

[-] 2 points by Keepitsimple (110) 2 years ago

I think the secret they don't want us to know is to just change to a people's currency based on work and cooperation. Then their euros and dollars are worthless and proves it was actually made out of thin air. Let them get a job!!!

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 2 years ago

Ron Paul vs Bernanke: Is Gold Money? - July 13, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJnL10vZ1Y

[-] 1 points by Keepitsimple (110) 2 years ago

Yes, I saw the video a few weeks ago. Gold has always been money but the gov and wall street don't want you to count it as money. I feel if we went to a gold standard, the 1% would be the biggest gainers. They say "power corrupts". Same with gold, power, greed. I think what we need is an ethical standard. What that is, I have no idea. Do you?

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 2 years ago

Bill Still challenges the Gold Standard idea: Go 13 minutes into this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drBQ48XtjPA

Max Keiser is a big question mark to me, but in this case, I am most interested in Bill Still.

[-] 1 points by Keepitsimple (110) 2 years ago

Thank, I'll try to watch it today. I questioned what Max was dong when he was pushing everyone to buy more and more silver at $50 an once.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

I'm trying to change the currency in this country to Bartors (for barter), which is exactly what you mentioned. We need to get off the valueless monetary merry-go-round that the federal reserve has us on.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

No. Digital security is no mere illusion; it's just very difficult and rare, but it IS physically possible.

Secondly, most of the systems which couldn't tolerate digital failure (logically) don't rely on digital security.

Thirdly, the truly rich-and-powerful, have plenty of food, plenty of arms, plenty of goons, plenty of real money, and plenty of safe places to go.

All "we" have is our own will to live -- this site goes to show that we don't even have each other.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

But your statement that we don't have each other is slowly becoming a thing of the past. All of the security, food and goons you speak of could have been used in reference to Egypt, Tunisia and other countries, but as the people realized their shared desire for something other than the corruption that ruled their lives, the pendulum swung in the other direction. And like those other countries, people in America are starting and will continue to realize that their own worse enemy is their own complacency and that is being eroded by the continued attacks on their freedom, security and futures. I have no illusions that our current system of government is willing to turn to violence to keep things status quo, but when wave after wave of peaceful uprisings confront those in power their strength will wane and a more fair system of governance will emerge once again.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Wow, I must be wealthy 'cause all of my money is digital. And since it's a $3 fee to use an ATM I would have to deposit $1 to get my last two bucks.

[-] 2 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

That's funny, but if you lose your $1 dollar, are you really that much more broke than you were before? I saw a post on here, or was it at alternet.org that spoke about how the poor get screwed on daily basis and your example was one of those ways listed, except the example used a poor person getting out $5 dollars (which ATM in poorer neighborhoods do) and paying the $2 dollar fee as opposed to a middle class person getting out $500 with the same $2 dollar fee. That $2 dollars represents a much greater percentage of the poor transaction than it does for the middle class transaction, so the poor get screwed on a daily basis in ways the rest of us may not ever consider.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Logic and Statistics? Must have been alternet.org! lol :) No way it was the msm!

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Probably

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 2 years ago

Precious Metals in WTC 4 Vault: Only a Fraction Recovered?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

"Do the WEALTHY realize that a lot of their wealth is digital?" The Rothschilds do understand this.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

As it becomes easier to move money around, it becomes easier for ponzis to develop. To slow things down and provide something to be counted once in a while, there should be some physical aspect to money. (on the dangers of digitized and fiat currency)

[-] 1 points by mrkeyjr (29) 2 years ago

No it isnt. Perhaps someone who thinks spending their time screaming at hard working people from their tent camp in a park is a constructive way of spending their time thinks your argument to be true, but lets be honest. Any intelligent person knows how much money their have in their bank accts, how much their portfolios are worth, and how much their physical property is worth. Granted, due to inflation and other factors, the value of said items listed above may fluctuate, but, again, any intelligent person can hedge against this. I say this as I type from my computer in my warm study in my home, which I earned thanks to hard work and effort. Not as a result of a life of privilege as OWS people so often claim successful people come out of. Perhaps you should go my route rather than spout Marxist Communist drivel. Or, if you'd prefer, try your route. It really worked out well for the nations of ...... Oh yeah, that's right. It constantly fails. Best of luck to you. Ill wave to you in your tent on my way to work tomorrow.

Oh, and finally, paper or metal currency has always reigned supreme even when there was far more (or far less) of it than there is today, be it for good or bad. There will always be far more value behind the dollar (or, more importantly the investment items purchased by said dollar or euro or yen.....) than a sack of wheat or a sack of potatoes. Check your history books for proof.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

your naivete is shocking. you completely missed the point of the question in the post.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Thank you

[-] 0 points by mrkeyjr (29) 2 years ago

My fault. I must have not full grasped it while sitting in the home i own and looking at my portfolio online. Even though, in your opinion, I missed his point, Ill take solace in knowing that neither me, nor my children will ever sit and whine in a park. And not because I was spoiled, nor are my children spoiled. Rather, because I busted my ass to succeed and will see to it that my kids do the same. Perhaps I am not the naive one. You are the one supporting this movement that thinks the govt should be some sort of fairy godmother handing out gifts to all.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

You are one who does not understand this movement at all.

"sitting in the home i own and looking at my portfolio online"

Is that all you got, your "ad for Etrade" life? Enjoy it, sucka!

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

People also thought that real estate increasing in value was a given. You try to say that I'm a communist, but I believe in capitalism, just capitalism that isn't rigged to harm those with less money. Today Capitalism is more like Poker: The one with the most money can continue to raise until everyone else either folds or runs out of money. You think that the people on Wall Street really work harder than all of the policemen, firemen, plumbers, carpenters, electricians and others who lost their pensions and homes. You are misguided as they come. Go back to FOX and just ignore OWS, which is apparently a waste of time for you. Why are you posting here, if OWS is only made up of what you described in your response.

[-] 1 points by mrkeyjr (29) 2 years ago

Your post is 100% wrong on so many levels there Fabian. Most intelligent people who knew the market didnt think that real estate purchases increasing in value in the early 2000s was a given. While in the past and now again in the future real estate was considered a very intelligent investment, most saw the real estate market in the late 1990s and early 2000s as something akin to the internet bubble of the early 1990s. Back then, as now, I got my info from the New York Times and CNN (despite your claims) and their reporters and writers even stated that.

Most who knew fluctuations in the real estate market (and I mean even a rudimentary knowledge of it) could immediately recognize that what was going on was a massive fluke. And what went on in the real estate market in the early 2000s wasn't rigged to harm those with less money, it was "rigged" to harm those who were too damned dumb or lazy to read the fine print. A poor person can look at some sort of half assed APR mortgage and realize just as quickly as a rich person and say to themselves, "crap, this is a bad idea, i probably shouldn't sign this".

Now, I assume, based upon your reference to policemen, plumbers, etc... and then juxtaposing that with a reference to wall street, that you think I am some sort of white collar professional. And, I assume, based upon your reference to FOX that you think I am some sort of card carrying Republican. I hope both of my assumptions are wrong, because i am neither a Republican nor some sort of Wall Street professional (but I hold no sort of animosity towards either group). What I am is an educated human being who earned his education. Then I got a good, albeit not great job, that provides the free time to trade on my own which greatly supplements my own income, and more importantly spend time with my family. But please, keep on building me up to be some sort of tyrant.

While you are doing that, get your goddammned facts straight. Every "blue collar" profession you mentioned has guaranteed pensions unless the individuals failed to meet a minimum number of years or get fired. None of the professions you mentioned lost their pensions. They are union jobs you idiot. Show me a union that allows for said benefits to go away and Ill show you a union that goes away.

And, if some people in the professions you listed above lost their homes, again, it was because they failed to see the fine print. I grew up the son of a plumber and a hair dresser. And guess what, I know for a fact that they are sleeping nicely in their home right now. ANd it was a home they bought 15 years ago. They just read the details of the mortgage carefully. Its why they are still sleeping in it. Again, its not Wall Street's fault people who couldn't afford homes convinced themselves they could. Have fun in your tent tonight.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

I disagree. Please provide proof of your claim that CNN and NYT was predicting the real estate bubble anything but a few months prior to it actually bursting. And you find it so easy to blame the poor person who is not a lawyer of a mortgage broke for signing a loan that that lawyer, mortgage broker knew they shouldn't have been offered in the first place. People borrow money from loaan sharks with more understanding of what that loan represented than they did with loans from supposedly reputable banks and lending institutions. the poor did not seek out these loans, the predators at the banks sought out the poor and sold them loans that they knew would fail, then they hedged against those loans, so you who thinks he' know the market so well is an idiot if you think that the majority of the blame should go to the poor: If you have a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand dollars, but you do not come to me, there is no way I could borrow that money. And maybe a poor person could look at the APR mortgage and realize it a bad deal, but my point is that bad had to be presented to that poor person, so don't try to blame those who were victimized you dunce. If your rich and deliberately go into a bad neighborhood in hopes that someone robs you so you can have the pleasure of killing that person, you are accountable for that murder as much as that person would be accountable if you got mugged or shot. And no, I don't think your some white collar professional, I think you're some misinformed person who likes voting against his own best interests, because someone has told that whatever they are selling is good for you. So, you went to college, I did too and you work in a job that you claim pays okay. I actually get paid well for what I do (Electrical Engineer) and I too play the stock market, so I find it quit unfair that those with accounts smaller than $25 K can only perform 3 day trades every five business days, because it sure is easier to make money when you can get in and out of trades daily. So, why don't you try not assuming that you are talking to someone who doesn't know about these things as well. And as for he guaranteed pensions, how long will they be guaranteed with pols like Walker, Scott, Kasich and more out there? How long will WE as a people have our freedom with the insane laws that are being passed in the name of liberty. As each new law that gives the government more opportunity to incarcerate people, for little or no reason, are you still going to sit behind your desk and feel safe trading you stocks? When they raise the limit to $50 K as the requirement for more than 3 day trades per 5 trading sessions are you going to feel safe? How about $100K or more? And speaking of fine print, why is there a need for fine print. This, in and of itself is sneaky and serves only to get things past the consumer. How do you justify fine print and don't say it saves trees, because corporations don't give a crap about the environment. If there is something in the fine print that is harmful to the consumer than it should be brought to the consumer's attention. And here we have the consumer protection agency that the republicans refuse to appoint a head to, because the agency can't get most of its funding. Where do you stand on issues such as this? Should there not be an agency that strives to eliminate the fine print that you seem fond of? Why don't you try selling your lines to someone who doesn't know people who've been hurt by the misdeeds of financial institutions, even those who did not buy homes, which you seem to be basing your argument upon. And it wasn't the poor people who couldn't afford the loans that convinced themselves they could afford them, it was the person who came to them and gave them the loan that convinced them they could afford it, but you will never see it that way, so put your blinders back on and go back to your day trading, Good Luck to you sir.

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

oh yeah, you beleived that the housing market was a bubble before it was a bubble. Well you would have either been considered a crackpot or else you were part of the the 1% who knew the real deal. The public sector would have ridiculed you if you said the housing market was a bubble.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28268) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is why we are here this is why you are needed.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/

Share, circulate, educate, inspire.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

This is what happened in Iceland, but our economic collapse started in the 90's when Bill Clinton's administration deregulated derivatives as well as repealing the Glass-Stegall Act, which had protected the public against the risky behavior of investment banks. People like Brookesley Born and a few Senators warned against deregulation, but Greenspan, Summers, Rubin and others stifled these whistle blowers. Although I haven't finished it, this documentary doesn't seem to go back far enough to address our economic downfall. Good documentary however and thanks for sharing

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28268) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your welcome. The documentary did start out in covering the Iceland incident.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Yeah, I think I saw that documentary before. It was very informative. Thanks again.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

And would you want them taking your wealth? Or whatever it is you call wealth.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

I don't want them taking my wealth. I'm simply saying that pushed to the brink, people will react in ways unexpected. And as far as taking my wealth, I would have to say that that has already been done. It was done the same time that millions lost 30-50% of their pensions, due to financial advisers who knew next to nothing about the volatility of credit default swaps and securitized derivatives. It happened when jobs were outsourced to other countries and wages were lowered here, so I am really not that concerned about the wealthy protecting their assets.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

It was an in general not directly from Anonymous. But you would be concerned about any of your remaining assets? Doesn't quite seem fair to me.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

You're right, it doesn't seem fair that Wall Street stole the futures of so many people, and it's just as unfair that you would expect anyone who did get taken advantage of to care about wealthy people's money. I don't think anyone who wasn't a part of the theft that resulted in the lose of wealth of so many should have any of their assets taken. As for those who did steal, they're fair game. Are you saying that those who were part of the fraud on Wall Street should be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I never said that I just want to know where everyone gets the information where they know for sure that Wall Street is full of different versions of the same wolf. Its sort of the innocent until proven guilty thing.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

I agree with that sentiment, but what seems to be happening with Wall Street is that no one is guilty. .. period, because there are instances when fraud is known to have happened, but no arrests yet. That's why people are complaining and blaming them all, because the government's complacency implies that everyone is innocent and we both know this is not true.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Ok I understand that but then why the OWS sentiment that every rich person is satan spawned. I'm exaggerating by the way but you know what I mean.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Exaggeration is right. OWS doesn't proclaim to hate all rich people. OWS doesn't like rich people who do harm to our country, its people and its democracy by manipulating all three with money. If you think we have leaders who won't sell out to the highest bidder, think again. There should be no one in government who follows the teachings of Ayn Rand, especially the ones who claim they follow the teachings of Christianity. Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, was also a philosopher who created "Collectivism" and was an atheist. Hence one reason any politician who says he's Christian should follow her. Collectivism is the belief that every single person should only look out for themselves even if it means causing harm to others, which leads to the second reason no Christian should follow her: She idolized a psychotic killer named William Hickman, who killed a 12 year old girl then propped her body up to get the ransom from her father, only to chop her body up later. Ayn Rand said he was a superman, because he only saw to his needs and saw no need to care for others. So, when you question why OWS does make it seem like some rich are evil, think about the fact that Ron Paul, Clarence Thomas and Paul Ryan all espouse her teachings. Clarence Thomas makes his law students read her writings, Ron Paul says she's the greatest writer ever (interview can be found on Youtube) and Paul Ryan says he makes his entire staff read her books or just Atlas Shrugged, which is one thousand pages of really small type. And Paul Ryan claims that Ayn Rand could get this country out of the mess that it's in now if she were alive. . . He's an idiot and Ryan plan shows that he believes as Rand did that people who need help are parasites. And more proof that he's an idiot is the fact that Ayn Rand's most famous disciple (Allan Greenspan) agrees that deregulation of the banks as he, Rubins and Summers did in the Clinton administration was the wrong way to go, the way that Ayn Rands teachings had him choose. If however you think that people with a winner takes all mentality is the right type of person to lead a nation, any nation then keep voting for those who praise Rand and watch how much worse this country gets. If you noticed, I pointed out Clinton's administration as the start of the problem, so no one could say I'm some liberal democrat. but I still don't get how people could even consider republicans, who tell us that they believe in winner takes all and show us that they believe people in need are parasites by trying to eliminate medicare and social security. Instead of posting here, try reading about those who say they want to lead us and look at what media like FOX news says and then compare their words to the real world, because trust me, there's a big disconnect between FOX News and the truth. CNN isn't even getting to the truth these days. MSNBC does speak the truth, but they try to push the democrats too much for me to say they are unbiased.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I thought she created objectivism and I think is as perfectly good a philosophy to follow as whatever OWS does endorse. I don't lessons on her writings I know how long they are and have read both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead and found them both to be good novels. I'm not saying she's the best author in the world, I leave that to Heinlein but thanks for the information on the politicians, they are that much more attractive to me now.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Sorry, I get them backwards. Collectivism was what she was opposed to. Thanks for the correction. You're welcome, but didn't Fountainhead promote terrorism? And as far as your vote goes. Just remember, the people get the government they vote for, so when their actions affect you negatively, rejoice in that. Good luck to you King for today

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I didn't get that from the fountain head but its been a couple years since I've read it. The way I understood it she wrote Atlas Shrugged because her message in the Fountain head wasn't clear enough for her liking. To me that says they have a similar message. Sadly I can't vote yet. I miss out on the 2012 elections by just months.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

This is what your republicans are doing: Blocking an agency that is tasked with looking out for the consumer. How could this be right? http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/12/nullification-makes-comeback

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

They are hardly my republicans. Like I said you don't know me so get off my ass.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Sorry, if I offended you. It's good to see that you are an independent. Now all you need to do is figure out a way to get an independent government elected. That is the benefit of youth, you have more time to correct those things that are wrong with our country. I just ask of you, this one favor. Do not follow Ayn Rand teachings, if you ever hope to consider yourself a leader of humanity, because right or wrong, her philosophy cannot apply to anyone who sincerely hopes to lead people in the right direction. Her philosophy is one of selfishness and I doubt you will find that word in any definition of a leader. Best of luck to you Kingcrosssection and Happy New Year

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Touchy, but you said you would vote for those who follow Ayn Rand's teachings and the only politicians who I've seen claim her as their mentor and our savior are the republicans, which is kind of ironic given that they seem so opposed to immigration and she was an immigrant. So, maybe I don't know you, but I know what people like you are thinking when you praise politicians who serve a Russian immigrant's philosophy before they serve the best interests of the American public they are sworn to serve. I know that leaders who put a pledge to Grover Norquist above the oath they took when they were inaugurated into office are worthless to anyone except themselves. I know that you obviously don't know who you would vote for, if you could even vote, because you don't realize that you are voting for people who say they're going to screw you over by limiting access to education and firing janitors to give those jobs to kids at lower pay. So, no I don't know you, but I know your kind. You are the kind of person who spews opinions that they could not truly believe, because they don't even know what those opinions entail, so why don't you get off your own ass and get out in the real world and find out what is really going on and how the choices those idiots, (both democrats and republicans) make affect your future in an inordinately negative way.

[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Yes I would vote for them because they have ideas that I agree the most with. If democrats had a change of mind and the ideas agreed more then I would change over. Both have good ideas I'm actually probably an independent.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

So you're not 18 yet? If this is true, then you, my friend are in for harsh reality, because your opinions are probably formed by your parents opinions and you probably haven't looked into forming your own through informed discussion or reading. As I said, one Ayn Rand's greatest students (Alan Greenspan) now believes that that what he did to our banking system (which was in line with Ayn Rand's philosophy) was a grave error, but you still want to vote for pols who follow her. This is a exhibit of ignorance on your part, but it's a free country and no one is forced to be an educated citizen. If your party of choice wins, I hope their actions don't change your mind for the 2014 mid-terms or the 2016 elections and by the way, the architect in The Fountainhead blows up his own building. Is that okay in your mind?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I don't see a reason for you to classify me as anything because of my age. You were entirely willing to take my ideas without a lecture before you knew I couldn't vote. For your information I form my own ideas outside that of what my parents believe. My mom,a christian, wanted me to believe in god but I rejected that when I was 5. I am perfectly capable of forming my own thoughts and opinions so don't even put me in the same class as most or every other teenager you've ever talked to. Yes I agree with her values and I am perfectly willing to change my opinions when the the situation calls for it. I never like Alan Greenspan even though he and I shared similar ideas.

No one is forced to be a respectful citizen but hey is it to much for me to ask for yours when I give you mine?

And yes blowing up his own building is fine by me. The reasons were there. Any other implied disrespect you want to throw my way so I can care less?

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Not classifying you because of your age, just wondering how you've come to develop such a dislike for something you have yet to take any real part of. Your age can possibly be the reason you are so willing to attack here: Because you have not formed your own opinion as yet, but like putting forth the views of your elders, who could be right, but who could also be wrong. No one is infallible, myself included, but I can tell that you have done little to educate yourself objectively. So, continue to claim your elders opinions as your own, hopefully it will get you through life intact. And by the way, you sound like the spoiled little child from a movie. "I have my own opinions." "I rejected God." "I don't like Alan Greenspan, even though I agree with him." (this doesn't make sense, by the way). "I man should be able to blow up his own building, if he wants to." You go rebel yell all you want, but ask a doctor if there might be something amiss before you share your thoughts of terrorism before you do.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I don't have to like anyone to agree with their ideas. Its the same way I don't like Hitler but recognize his leadership capabilities. Yes I did all of those. Thanks for the summary. Yes I guess you could call me that. I prefer contrarian myself. You all go in one direction I go the other. Not in this instance by the way but in general.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

The only true wealth you own is the cash in your pocket and how much gold/silver you own. To answer your question the wealthy do know their money is digital. Most of them are well educated on such matters. But I have to ask why does that matter?

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Because, although the transfer was caught, Anonymous transferred money to charities and this is something that could happen on a larger scale as more and more people get fed up with the greed that is tearing this country apart. Imagine saying that what ANONYMOUS did recently could happen in 2009. Most would concede that anything is possible, but they would also most likely have agreed that it was improbable. Those who let their money speak for them, as was granted by Citizens United, might find that power taken away from them some day, whether it is due to digital piracy or due to a stubborn nature. I'm certain Dick Fuld would have never expected to have 1 billion of his own dollars would be reduced to $56 K, but it happened, so anything is possible. And the cash in your pocket is only worth what the issuing agency says it's worth, so that isn't a true measure of wealth. Same goes for Gold/Silver or anything that you can't personally back or guarantee. If I have a fishing rod and you have a vault of gold, which is worth more to a starving man?

[Removed]