Forum Post: Europe and America both have record high concentration of wealth. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 8:30 a.m. EST by ModestCapitalist
(2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The richest one percent in Europe own over 40 percent of it's wealth. Like America, that record high concentration of wealth causes hardship for the masses, less demand, higher unemployment, more need for financial aid, high DEBT, and growing social and economic instability. Still, the rich in Europe want more. They absolutely will not stop.
MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – Florida is touting the new jobs it created Friday after a positive unemployment report. But based on numbers from all W-2’s filed in the country, the wages simply aren’t keeping up.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.
In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Same deal in America. The rich want more. They absolutely will not stop.
Hi ModestCapitalist, Many good posts. Thank you for your effort. Lets win this thing. Best Regards, Nevada
How do the poor get poorer when their standard of living continues to improve?
It improved in the developed world for a few decades on credit. Now, the credit has run low and the masses are struggling to maintain their standard of living.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own over 40 % of US wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority. The rich have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
Great post!
Second
Thank you.
You're close to understanding the core issue, very close actually. The only problem I see is that you didn't actually answer the question.
Today's poor in America live better than the average person did 300 years ago, live better than Kings did 800 years ago. The thing people are looking at are very short term changes that are mostly relative changes not absolute changes. It's important to define how one makes such measures.
I would ask you one thing though - define "greed". I've seen it used at the protests to mean "someone who doesn't want to have their property stolen from them" when I find it much more accurate to define greed as "someone who wants to steal another's property".
True. We do liver better than we did 100, 200, 300, etc. years ago. However, if I tell a person living in poverty today that he has clean water, electricity, a TV, etc. he will still feel unsatisfied because he is comparing himself to others in today's society. Adam Smith, pointed out that the standard of living of a society is closely related to how we think about what is necessary: “By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but what ever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without.”
Here is a little chart on poverty http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262b.pdf It only measures up to 2006 (poverty % shot up after 2008). The poverty rate in 1968 was 12.8%, while in 2006 it was 12.3%. Also, on page 10 you will see our year 2000 poverty rates compared to 11 other rich countries. Notice that we had the highest at 17% while the UK and Canada were around 12%.
Yes that is human perspective but when perspective differs from reality - which should be the deciding factor?
Humans react based on perspective sure since to them it functions as reality but we are able through aggregation see the reality and the cloud of perception for what it is.
Understand that poverty in the US is defined by law. We could erase poverty by changing the line at which it is drawn - the rates in that report would then suddenly decrease. It would change nothing in reality but only in perception - if perception is to be the basis by which we make policy decisions then it sounds like the perfect situation.
I hope you see the point I am trying to make.
yup. I get it. Realty is how we make it.
The poor in America can't walk the streets in their own neighborhoods without fear of getting mugged. In another few decades, our society will break down into total chaos. That's not progress.
Greed is a relative form of evil. The desire to accumulate excess wealth. Virtually harmless in moderation. Incredibly destructive when it's allowed to run wild.
The rich are too rich. The world's wealth is too concentrated. It's gone too far. Period.
Crime rate has been steadily dropping since the mid 90's.
Who gets to define for another when wealth is "excessive"?
The rich don't believe themselves to be "too rich", so long as they are not getting property through force of fraud what is the argument for limiting their action? In addition who gains moral authority to define when another is "too" anything?
I have lots of moral problems with the inherent premises in your statements and I would like to investigate them.
First of all, we have more people locked up than ever before. Second, crimes aren't reported as often. Third, assault, rape, robbery, and murder are way up in major cities. Especially deindustryalized cities. Not to mention white collar crime. Way up.
We can argue all day over how much is too much. But the greatest concentration of wealth in world history is well documented. Anyone still unaware is either a recluse or an idiot. Anyone unwilling to address the issue is a coward.
You have moral problems with my views? How do you feel about an actor pretending to be a firefighter reaping $10,000,000 FROM THE SAME PIE as a real firefighter who is paid $50,000 to put his or her life on the line? You ok with that?
Of course, you are. The 'free market' is your bottom line. The end all be all of human existence. As if it were created by God.
Pathetic.
More people being locked up currently does not disprove crime rates dropping. Can you provide some information on the rates of reported crimes dropping? Which cities in particular are you talking about - and isolated incidents of increased rates of crime do not change that the overall national crime rate has been steadily dropping for over a decade. Google returns no studies or reports on the rate of white collar crime - what is your evidence for this statement?
I asked who gets to define what "excessive" is. Since you want action taken against excessive wealth this is a question you should be expected to answer. Calling people names for asking questions or disagreeing with you is both immature and counter-productive. If you want to bring what you wish to fruition you will need support and you do not increase your support by attacking those you disagree with. You increase support by converting people to your way of thinking. Calling names does not enable conversion.
I have moral problems with the inherent premises of your statements. Your views I have questions about. There is a large difference between the two statements.
I would need to know more about the situation you are describing to comment on its morality? The first question I have is: To what pie are you referring?
Please do not continue to assume my answers for me.
The market itself is the result of human action - god has nothing to do with it. I find the market to be the best means of distribution because I've investigated it and the alternatives. You seem to not like it because of...well I can't tell because you aren't actually responding to my questions - just posting emotional screeds.
I've called you zero names - you've insinuated several at me. I am attempting to understand your position yet you aren't replying - you assume my positions and then attack those imagined statements. You talk about things barely tangentially related to the topic at hand and make wild assumptions.
Why can't we have a discussion where there is mutual respect and understanding? Can you talk with me without calling me names? If you can't how do you expect to win anyone to your way of thinking if questions to you are met with insults?
The rate of incarceration is well documented. Way up. So is the level of violence in prison. Way up. That's crime. Not acknowledged in FBI statistics. White collar crimes are being reported more often (No report. No insurance claim.). There may not be official statistics yet, but it's up. No doubt.
There are many cities in which reports of violent crime are down but reports of rape are up. In order to understand this, you have to be in tune not only with officially reported statistics but also our changing culture.
Assaults are not only more common than ever. In the schoolyard, sidewalk, workplace, street, social gathering, ballpark, ect. They are also taken less seriously by victims and not reported as often. This is being acknowledged by law enforcement in many cities. Polls have been taken. Studies done. Not acknowledged in FBI statistics.
Blacks are less likely than ever to report crime because of the 'don't snitch' campaign within their culture. It is well documented that there are more gang members than ever before. It's way up. Their crimes (theft, assault, robbery) often go unreported because of 'don't snitch' and fear on the part of victims. Others go unreported because victims have been losing faith in law enforcement for years. This is more common than ever in deindustryalized cities. Polls have been taken. Studies done. Not acknowledged in FBI statistics.
Criminals themselves are less likely to report crimes perpetrated on them. Not acknowledged in FBI statistics.
You have to be in tune not only with FBI statistics. But also with our changing culture. Crime is up. Especially in deindustryalized cities.
Who should define what is 'excessive'? The people. The majority. That's who. I am here in part to inform as many as possible and give my own opinion. Anything over 10 times the pay of a cop, soldier, teacher, paramedic, or firefighter is just obscene. There. I answered your question in specific terms.
The 'pie' I referred to is that of available wealth and resources at any given time within the economy. We must consider not only it's size but also it's distribution. The free market is not the best means of distribution. Otherwise the richest one percent never would have accumulated over 40 percent of the wealth. The lower 90 percent in America would own much more than 10 percent of it's wealth.
I din't call you a name. I called those who are unaware and unwilling names. I referred to your love of the 'free market' as pathetic. That makes two implications. Not several.
You made one as well. The implication was that some of my views are immoral.
I don't recall the level of violence within prison entering into the conversation prior so why bring it up?
You state that studies have been done and there exist reports - fine I would like to see them. I don't get all of my information from the FBI reporting and I wouldn't expect you to. If you've seen these reports and studies then they must exist - all I am asking for is the chance to review them as well. So could you cite any them please?
That being said a decrease in crime or increase would still be reflected in FBI statistics as the disincentives to report crime you mention are steady and thus would remove the same percentage of crime from being reported.
Should the majority have power to decide who gets to have what rights or just the right of property? Surely you've encountered the idea of tyranny of the majority before - such as when southern states majorities used the law to create racist restrictions at lunch counters and buses. Which are fundamentally more important to you - rights or majority rule for they are not the same thing.
So 10 times the highest paid member of each profession (are professors teachers?) or 10 times the highest of the average of all of those professions?
The free market has proven itself to be the best means of distribution - the problem we have is we do not have a free market but a command economy. Interest rates and money supply are both in the hands of banking interests and have been granted this monopoly by the officers of government. If this were undone property and wealth would rebalanced since the money pump to the banks via the inflation process would cease.
You maid several inferences: "Anyone still unaware is either a recluse or an idiot. Anyone unwilling to address the issue is a coward." However that is in the past. I still find your premises to be immoral - I am not calling you immoral however. I fully believe we share the common goals of creating a better world for all people in the future. We may disagree on better and even if we do agree we may disagree on the best ways to obtain that more perfect future.
Thank you for answering some of my questions. I hope we can continue this discourse.
I brought up the rate of incarceration and violence within because it's relevant. When people become desperate, they are more likely to commit a crime. When they grow up desperate, they are more likely to become sociopaths.
Mother nature did not design blacks or hispanics to be any less civil than whites. The underlying cause for their incarceration in such high numbers is economic.
The disincentives to report crime have not been steady. They are more common than ever. The phenomenon of unreported crime hasn't been covered often. It's gotten more attention recently.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/08/22/unreported-crime-presents-incomplete-picture-for-police/
http://www.statecollegecriminaldefenselawyers.com/2011/09/crime-rate-may-not-be-accurate-editorial-claims.shtml
http://mattmangino.blogspot.com/2011/10/minnesota-crime-rates-in-question.html
Aside from these reports, there is the real world. Walk through any deindustryalized city and tell me how safe you feel. Then ask an older resident if they feel more or less safe than 30 years ago.
White collar crime up:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2680_130/ai_82012998/
http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/25/feds-close-the-books-on-a-huge-chip-counterfeiting-scheme/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/28/street-gangs-new-dirty-moneymaker-white-collar-crime/
I realize that none of this evidence is conclusive. But I grew up near a major city. 15 years ago, I felt safe walking the streets day or night. Not anymore.
15 years ago, I could pick just about any item from the shelf. Now, hundreds of them are locked up.
15 years ago, I had no fear of my identity being stolen. Now, I don't take any chances.
There is no doubt in my mind. Assault and theft are up over the last 10 years. Murder down overall but up in some deindustryalized cities. Rape down in some cities. Up in others. Tough call there because it's never been reported anywhere near as often as it takes place.
I never said that the majority were infallible as a group. But they have always been led around like puppies by political leaders and commercial influence.
10 times the average. Anymore is obscene. If you don't want to acknowledge any degree of obscenity, then ask yourself this.
If a brilliant salesman were to operate within the law and convince your grandmother to give her lifesavings (let's say $25,000) in exchange for a damn nice bouquet of flowers, would that be obscene?
I made four inferences. Of the first three, two would have been cancelled out. The last was not. That leaves two implications with regard to you.
You're a good debater and very civil. There is some common ground. But I have work to do. I'll be back later.
Thank you for the links. I'll read them tonight at home.
The majority have always been lead around - most likely because its hardwired in most people to obey an authority figure. Any system of government is going to have to understand this and take measures against a strong man rising.
So long as they are both of sound mind I would find it perplexing, and begin with the presumption that the salesman is a swine and to not do business with him and socially stigmatize him but I wouldn't make the contract illegal because I don't like to use force on other people just because they make decisions I wouldn't make if I were them (like smoking pot). I find such a use of force to be immoral. I would also suspect that fraud was involved (negating the contract) or that the woman was not of sound mind (negating the contract). Or that we were talking about tulips back when tulip bulbs were fetching over a year's salary.
I also have work to do today. Let me email myself the link to this discussion.
The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global. These 'humanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base. Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame.
This is why the rich and famous have all taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product.
Charitywatch.org and Charitynavigator.org are both non-profit charity watchdogs. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money on private jet rides, five star accommodations, and PR crews.
The fans have been terribly misled. For example:
Virtually every penny 'donated' by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to date has come from repeated sales of baby photos. With each sale, the baby money goes to the 'Jolie-Pitt' foundation. A foundation which has never done anything but shelter funds. The 'donation' is immediately publicized worldwide.
When Jolie or Pitt have a new movie to promote, a portion is then donated from their own 'foundation' to a legitimate charity. This leaves their ignorant fans under the impression that 'another' donation has been made. When in fact, its the same baby money being transferred again and again. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, super-exclusive accommodations, photo ops, and PR crap. This saves Jolie and Pitt millions in travel/stay expenses and their respective studios tens of millions in advertising. It's all very calculated.
Of course, Jolie and Pitt could simply endorse any of the 1500 most efficient and effective charities. Of course, the baby money would go much further and do far more good if it were donated to such charities to begin with.
But that would be too boring.
The 'Make it Right' Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor, planner, or designer. He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more. Still, he has been showered with glorious praise by fellow celebrities and media outlets around the world. Again, the fans have been terribly misled.
In order to move into a 'green' home, the innocent victims of Katrina are required to provide a property deed, meet a number of financial requirements, and pay an average of $150,000 UP FRONT. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion (according to the website) forgiven. To date, only a few dozen former home owners have qualified.
The 'Make it Right' foundation was never intended to help the lower income residents of New Orleans reclaim anything lost in Katrina. In fact, 'Make it Right' is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward without them. Part of a calculated effort to raise property values in the area by displacing the poor. They are by design, excluded. Unable to qualify. Of course, Brad Pitt could have simply endorsed 'Habitat For Humanity'. A well known, proven, and efficient home building operation. Of course, the tens of millions in funding would have gone MUCH further.
But that would be too boring. Big name celebrities have no desire to make the world a better place.
Their primary goal is to appear as if they do.
It's a sham. Good will has become big business.
Still not convinced? Here is a short list of well known public figures and executives who's respective 'good deeds' and 'humanitarian efforts' were documented and publicized at critical moments in time. Their true colors were eventually shown: Bernie Ebbers (Worldcom fraud). Kenneth Lay and Jeffery Skilling (Enron fraud). Martha Stewart (Insider trading). Bill Gates (Anti-trust). Michael Vicks (Dog fighting). Wesley Snipes (Tax fraud). Mike Tyson (Rape). Lil Kim (Perjury). Chris Langham (Child porn). Jim Baker (Ministry fraud). Michael Richards (Racist). Mel Gibson (Anti-semite). Michael Jackson (Pedophile). Al Capone (Crime boss). So what else do they all have in common besides their incredible greed, over-pay, and rotten moral character? Thats right. A MASSIVE CAMPAIGN OF 'GOOD WILL' 'HUMANITARIAN' PR MARKETING CRAP. Look it up. All of the above took part in 'good will' 'humanitarian' efforts. All were publicized. They also got caught in rotten immoral contradictory behaviour. Most were convicted on felony charges. Mark my words: There will be many more. More true colors will be shown. We are living in the most profound era of greed, fraud, and hypocrisy ever. Its nothing short of an epidemic. Not a single well known living public figure is anywhere near as noble as they are made out to be. Not a single one of them took up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' until AFTER they became well known public figures. Not Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, Bill, Melinda, Richard, Warren, Donald, Michael, or any other well known celebrity or executive. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Thats right. Before their fame and fortune, there was no time in the service. No time in the Peace Corps. No work at a soup kitchen. No work at a homeless shelter. No work at an animal shelter. No neighborhood clean-up. No anti-war protest. No anti-fur protest. No environmental work. No help-line. No foster parenting. No 'Big brother' or 'Big sister' work. No adoption of children. No sponsorship of children. No fund raising for charity. No scrubbing out of garbage cans at the local church. Before their fame and fortune, there was no philanthropy, charitable contribution, humanitarian effort, or volunteer work on their part. No attempt to make the world a better place. No documentation to prove it. Not even in public record. Why not? BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL TOO BUSY TRYING TO GET RICH AND FAMOUS. If you don't believe it, then pick any well known celebrity or executive and do the research. Find out how they spent their time and money just before they became rich and famous. You will find nothing but business school, business related work, study, investing, career building, beauty pageants, modeling, singing, dancing, auditioning, rehearsal, sports, exhibitionism, materialism, and the same old self-centered CRAP. Not that I have anything against entertainment, sports, education, business, or personal goals in general. I don't. But true heroes and humanitarians are not born from RICHES. They are not born from CELEBRITY STATUS. They are not attention grabbers. They get involved on their own without the slightest regard for fame, fortune, image, credit, or profit. Millions around the world do so at this very moment. Often putting their own modest livelyhoods or lives in jeapordy. Some even die for it. Still, they don't get even a tiny little fraction of the credit and support they truly deserve. Why not? BECAUSE TOO MANY HOLLYWOOD, PRO SPORTS, AND BIG BUSINESS 'HEROES' AND 'HUMANITARIANS' DELIBERATELY GARNER AS MUCH ATTENTION AS POSSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES. THESE PEOPLE ARE FAKE. THEY ARE CALCULATED. THEY ARE GREEDY HYPOCRITE PIGS. THEY DELIBERATELY CONCENTRATE THE WORLD'S WEALTH AND RESOURCES. THEY DELIBERATELY EXPAND THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND POOR. THEY ARE CAUSING THE VERY SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. ITS A SHAM. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN.
Two examples of rotten disgusting immoral behavior involving five very well known filthy disgusting rich multi-hundred-millionaire fake humanitarian celebrity pigs.
The ugly truth about the housing market, Countrywide, predatory lending, and the endorsements of Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. Ch'Ching!
The first subprime loans were issued in 1994. It was a gimmick to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, sell more homes at higher profits, foreclose on those who could not pay when the ARM rates readjusted, take their homes leaving them with nothing to show for their payments, resell the homes at a higher profit and so on. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes and artificially inflate the market. Those loans were incredibly profitable for well over a decade before the house of cards finally collapsed. In the meantime, bankers got richer along with the richest one percent who made off with higher dividends. It was a sham.
The biggest player in the game was Countrywide. Endorsed by Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. If you have their shows from '04' to '06' on tape, watch them again. All three were paid millions specifically to endorse Countrywide by name. The biggest subprime player in the game. They issued more ARM loans than anyone else. Foreclosing on those who could not make their monthy payments when the rates suddenly went through the roof. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, foreclose, and resell for a higher profit. The sham worked like a charm for 12 years before the house of cards finally fell in.
At this approximate time, the worthless paper was sold to unsuspecting investors.
Oprah, Ellen, and Dr Phil were paid millions for their endorsements. Ch'Ching!
They have always had their ignorant love-sick fans eating right out of their hands. This alone is irresponsible. But to stand there and tell their ignorant love-sick fans to run out and get a loan from the biggest rat in the industry. That's just sick.
These three pigs are not naive little uninformed twits like Paris Hilton. They are educated, informed, and extremely savvy mass media juggernauts. They knew damn well about predatory lending. It was a common phrase by then. Still, they stood there and endorsed the biggest subprime rat in the industry. They did so with a big fat FAKE smile on their face. Unfortunately, public figures are not legally required to be straight with their ignorant fans.
But they God damn well should be.
Bono is no humanitarian. In fact, he made millions from a shady deal with Live Nation in which other investors were made to subsidize his multi-million dollar stock options regardless of market value. The stock tanked, Bono unloaded, and those 'other' investors did in fact take giant losses in part, so the filthy disgusting rich multi-hundred-millionaire 'humanitarian' Bono would not have to.
Ch'Ching!
Just another rotten immoral disgusting trick perpetrated in the name of greed.
Madonna secured a similar deal with Live Nation.
I've said it many times and I will say it many more.
There is no such thing as a multi-millionaire humanitarian.
The rich won't stop until you Eat them
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 40% of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed. Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest one percent held less than 20%. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth. Absolutely necessary in order to strengthen the middle class.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
No redistribution. No recovery.
Its a cycle. People forget and bought politicians deregulate and cut worker protections, etc. Then the 1% over reach and then the system experiences a massive change. Remember there were quite a few years between 1929 and then time FDR started making some serious changes.