Forum Post: Federal Reserve: The Root Cause of Probelms
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 14, 2011, 1:33 p.m. EST by eyeswideopen
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The root cause of our Problems: The Federal Reserve
must see links on this page:
Federal Reserve: Behind Effort to Ignore Ron Lawl
http://www.infowars.com/sabrin-fed-behind-effort-to-ignore-ron-paul/
Lay off the conspiracy websites.
The root cause of our problems is capitalism which allows a small group of rich and powerful to control the entire economy, consume most of the income, control the political process and leave everyone else broke and powerless.
that's why we need "Glass-Steagall" act back, it restricts banks from merging with financial firms to become powerful, controlling entities.
What has that got to do with it? G-S didn't allow banks to become powerful, the Fed did. It backed their every play since LTCM went bust, giving them a false sense of security to gamble away their money and have you make it good. This mania for G-S is really an infantile desire to control without needing to understand. All you have to do is yell "Bring back Glass-Stegall" and if it happens you feel powerful. You don't have a clue whether it would make the situation better or worse, but you feel better.
What about the millions of other businesses that are not banks that enable people to become rich and powerful?
Everyone has the right to become rich and powerful, why would you want to restrict that? IMO the problem is not rich and powerful people..... its their control over the entire economy! Banks and financial Institutions have the maximum power to manipulate it as they are directly involved with cash flow, investments and returns.
"Everyone has the right to become rich and powerful, why would you want to restrict that?"
In a free, democratic society we shouldn't allow anyone to rule over others and consume most of the wealth.
Just like I don't want a small, powerful group of people having ownership of the government and using the government to enrich themselves at the expense of others, I don't want a small, powerful group of people having ownership of the economy and using the economy to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
If you are ok with an economic system that allows a small group of people to consume most of the wealth and leaves the vast majority with little wealth and little economic power, why not advocate the same for government?
We can have a government system that allows a small group of people to own and control most of government and leave the vast majority with little say and little political power.
Of course, it is absurd to allow that to happen to the government. It is time we recognize that it is even more absurd to allow that to happen to the economy.
The economy has a far greater impact on your life than the government does.
I want a democracy, where power rests with everyone EQUALLY. I don't want an oligarchy in the government. And I don't want an oligarchy in the economy.
We have Corporatism today...
Crony Capitalism ( CORPORATISM) can best be defined as:
“A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.”
A fair explanation of Capitalism states:
“In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated.”
If you eliminate government intervention in the market, capitalism would get worse.
Market forces favor the rich and powerful, not the broke.
The group of rich controlling the economy would get smaller, get more powerful and consume a greater share of the income.
Capitalism r e q u i r e s 1) a sound monetary policy and 2) a sound legal justice system
That...is the role of government. Oversight and Accountability! We have neither today!
In your version of capitalism, you still have a small group of rich and powerful controlling the entire economy, consuming most of the income, controlling the political process and leaving everyone else broke and powerless.
Since your version of capitalism doesn't end wealth inequality, it doesn't solve anything.
How do you know? How do you know we would still have a small group of rich and powerful people controlling the entire economy? Stop claiming, start supporting your claim.
Capitalism is a system that concentrates income in the hands of the few. The more income you have, the easier it is to increase your income.
Capitalism is not an egalitarian system!
I asked how you knew not what you knew. Simply asserting something isn't convincing. So provide some actual evidence. Capitalism isn't egalitarian compared to what? Compared to the present system where the 0.1% get trillion dollar bailouts?
"So provide some actual evidence."
Wealth and income is enormously unequal:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
To claim that we have wealth inequality because of government interference in the market is absurd. Capitalism is a system of inequality. The more money you have, the easier it is to earn more.
Not only can you not show me evidence that capitalism is an egalitarian system, you can't show me a single person who claims that it is. I think it is universally understood that capitalism leads to inequality.
"Capitalism isn't egalitarian compared to what?"
Compared to a system that is egalitarian! Compared to a system that just pays everyone EQUALLY. Compared to a democratic system where differences in income are limited to just what is necessary to get people to do difficult work or give their maximum effort:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/
And why is it that people should be paid equally? I am an engineer, and I earn more than the attendant at the gas station, and less than a surgeon. There are reasons for that, and they're perfectly reasonable.
What is unreasonable is the assertion that working extra hours at a more difficult task that requires more training should be compensated at exactly the same level as an entry-level job that a trained monkey could do.
There is no doubt that there are problems with our system- some of those problems are huge. But they're not the result of your neighbor making $85k a year while you make $24k. They're the result of corrupted government that has ceased to perform it's function as the guardian of the public trust, and has become a vehicle by which sociopaths can control people through the use of legalized force- which, incidentally, you are advocating more of.
Capitalism is not supposed to be egalitarian- the only guarantee is that you have the opportunity to try to achieve your goals. It guarantees neither success nor income. What you make of it is up to you, according to your own ability and drive.
When the government interferes, you get the situation we have now- which reflects what you are describing. Once you reach a certain level of wealth, you can buy the congress and the police, and the rules no longer apply.
What we need is not income equality- that is both foolish and unworkable. What we need is equal enforcement of the rule of law, and a political process that cannot be corrupted by monied interests. That's far easier said than done, but treason charges for our sitting politicians would be a fine start.
I don't think everyone should be paid equally. I think differences in income should be limited to just what is necessary to get people to do difficult work or give their maximum effort. Under that system, engineers would earn $230k, twice as much as everyone else except the top performers.
"they're not the result of your neighbor making $85k a year"
You are correct. People who make $85k is not the reason why we have problems. The reason why is because we have people making 100 times or 1000 times that amount.
"capitalism guarantees neither success nor income"
That is why it performs so poorly. If you work hard, all you get is a chance at the roulette table. So we should replace capitalism with a system where if you work hard, your results are guaranteed. If you want to gamble, go to the casino.
"What you make of it is up to you, according to your own ability and drive."
Your success is based on your bargaining power and luck, not your ability and drive. What ability did Trump display when he was given $50 million from his father? Being born with the ability to play baseball and make $20/year is luck.
"What we need is equal enforcement of the rule of law"
Despite the fact that we have the resources and technology to produce a near unlimited amount of anything, capitalism has left 97% of all workers earning a below average income, 50% of all wage earners making less than $26k, 50 million in poverty, 1 in every 5 kids in poverty, 25% of all blacks in poverty, 16% underemployed, 52 million without health insurance, and 55% of all workers doing pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology.
After you enforce the law, all those problems will still remain.
Capitalism doesn't work. It needs to go. If we allocated income democratically, there would be zero poverty. Everyone would be wealthy.
Ok so you can't find a single piece of evidence that capitalism isn't egalitarian and you had to use evidence from the present system where the 0.1% get trillion dollar bailouts. Great. Compared to a system where everyone gets paid the same no it's not egalitarian, but considering what happened when that was tried not many people are keen.
There is no such thing as 'my' version of capitalism.
Right now, the government is controlling the fact that the rich get off for their crimes committed...like the SEC (Security and Exchange Commission, the G O V E R N M E N T) shredding 9000 documents that would have incriminated Goldman Sachs and Co....( see Matt Taibi in Rolling Stone Magazine).
Government is T H E corrupting factor in the link by allowing to be bought up through the lobbying process and therefor surrendering their original role as referree which is to make Accountability and Oversight happen.
What is so hard to recognize?
If we had "1) a sound monetary policy and 2) a sound legal justice system" we would still have a small group of rich and powerful controlling the entire economy, consuming most of the income, controlling the political process and leaving everyone else broke and powerless.
Since capitalism with "1) a sound monetary policy and 2) a sound legal justice system" still results in enormous wealth inequality, it doesn't solve anything.
It is an intellectual lie to imply that just because people are succesful , they came about it unjustful.
yes..there will always be people that have more than you, or are more beautiful than you. That is called reality.
But just because some may end up more lucky and more rich than you does not mean and translate they had to come about it illegally.
There is nothing wrong with you or anybody being rich.
What is wrong is when you are BUYING UP MY GOVERNMENT! and the Government ALLOWING for it to happen.
There is a HUGE difference!
I never said they got their wealth illegally. It is perfectly legal for wealth to concentrate in the hands of the few.
Getting their wealth legally does not change the fact that you will wind up with a small group of rich and powerful controlling the entire economy, consuming most of the income, controlling the political process and leaving everyone else broke and powerless.
The problem isn't that they are rich, the problem is that since they consume most of the income, it leaves everyone else broke. The problem is 97% of all workers make a below average income. 80% are just the working poor. 50% of all wage earners make less than $26k.
What is the difference between owning and controlling the government and owning and controlling the economy? They both leave you powerless.
Kings "have more than you". People born into the royal family "end up more lucky and rich that you". That is the "reality" for some. Does that make it right? Of course not. Why do you accept that it is right for the economy?
[-]DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom1 points 5 hours ago
"everybody has a right to the fruits of their OWN labor!"
You are trying to have it both ways. You either get to keep the fruits of your labor or you don't.
The companies used the fruits of their own labor to get favorable treatment from government and to get a bailout. You should have used your labor to prevent that. They fairly obtained those bailouts. You should have worked harder at preventing the bailout if that was something you opposed.
One day, when you are trying to pay your bills on the $26k that half of all wage earners make and you find that you can't, you will realize it is just as unfair for someone to use the fruits of their labor to earn 10,000 times more than you for the same amount of work as it is for someone to use the fruits of their labor to get government bailouts.
In a free, democratic society, we should get treated EQUALLY under the law, in government AND in the economy. If you and I both put in the same effort doing a job of similar difficulty, we should get the same pay. You shouldn't use your position of power to take 10,000 times more than me for the same amount of labor.
Al Capone said he loves America because you can get what you can take. It is a thug economy. You get income in proportion to your bargaining power.
If you have more power, you get paid more. If you have less power, you get paid less. Your income is not based on how consumers value what you produce or how much work you do.
↥like↧dislikepermalink
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE...............difference.....................difference.............................................BETWEEN.......................
Having EQUAL access under the law!
and todays SYSTEM where the most powerful have BOUGHT up the legal system.
I am appalled at your refusal to grasp concepts!!!!!!!!!!
You want equal access under the law and UNEQUAL access under the economic system so that you earn $33,000 per year income.
You have the same exact agenda as the 1%.
I want equal access under the law and EQUAL access under the economic system so that you earn at least $110,000 per year.
I have the same agenda as the 99%.
You do not understand 1) the U. S Constitution 2)Civil Liberties 3) our judicial system 4) economics.
First...we are a nation of LAWS! NOT men!
Secondly, you have a right to the fruits of your own labor and property under the law.
Thirdly, The Bill of Rights applies to the Government. NOT the other way around! It is in place to RESTRAIN the Government to infringe upon the peoples INDIVIDUAL liberties!
Fourth, you are not entitled under the law to someone elses property. You are advocating the EXACT same corruption you are fighting.
Our existing system is Corporate WELFARE, where only Big Corporations and Big Banks have access to being bailed out by the taxpayer.
If the Constitution and our legal system were properly instituted, these very bankers and corporations would all be OUT of business and their CEO's would be in jail.
You are advocating collectivism for the little guy forcing the exact same measures onto those who are now screwing you!
Say you work two jobs because you want to save money to buy a house.
I work one job and spend the time with my children instead.
Now under YOUR plan, your EXTRA earnings are divided between you and me, because my income is lower and by all means , it is not 'fair' you get to buy a house and I don't. I was spending quality time with my kids. I deserve something too!
I want you to understand, I sympathize with your sentiment and the fact 1% is controlling everything. But it is NOT because they are rich...its because THE GOVERNMENT ( including our judicial system )is to be BRIBED and BOUGHT UP! The GOVERNMENT is the culprit. The Government is at fault for allowing to be bought up. Believe it or not, I didn't get it either......for the longest time. But now I do, after years of politics!
"First...we are a nation of LAWS! NOT men!"
The only moral, humanitarian, legitimate law should be to protect your equal right to freedom, which is defined as:
"Everyone has a birth right to the equal freedom to act - to pursue their happiness however they define it - without political coercion or restraint and without economic coercion or restraint so long as they do not reasonably violate that same right in others."
And to make sure that law is maintained, everyone should have equal power in the institutions that govern society. Every citizen gets an equal freedom to act, speak, and think; equal treatment under the law; equal votes; and equal income for equal work.
.
"you have a right to the fruits of your own labor and property under the law"
I agree.
Since 100% of our production comes from work, 100% of the income should be paid to workers. And you should get paid in exact proportion to the amount of work you do. If you work more hours, you should get more pay. If you do harder work, you should get higher pay. If you are in a performance based job, the top performers should get paid more than the lowest performers.
And the law should protect that income and the property you buy with it.
.
"you are not entitled under the law to someone elses property"
I agree. I don't advocate taking anyone else's property.
.
"You are advocating the EXACT same corruption you are fighting."
I am not fighting corruption. The problem in society is not corruption. The problem in society is that the vast, vast, vast majority of workers have too little income. Lack of income is the root cause of every problem in society. The solution is an economic system that pays workers for the work they do, not for how much bargaining power they have.
.
"these very bankers and corporations would all be OUT of business and their CEO's would be in jail"
Doing that will not fix a single problem in society that people care about.
You still will be left with 97% of all workers earning a below average income, 50% of all wage earners making less than $26k, 50 million in poverty, 1 in every 5 kids in poverty, 25% of all blacks in poverty, 16% underemployed, 52 million without health insurance, and 55% of all workers doing pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology.
Those are the problems that people care about and impact their lives. Sending bankers to jail will not fix any of those problems.
.
"under YOUR plan, your EXTRA earnings are divided between you and me"
Under my plan if you work 2 jobs, you would get twice the pay. And you would get paid a minimum of $115,000 per year. That is likely 4 times more than what you are making now. My plan guarantees that you become wealthy if you work. The current system guarantees you a 97% chance you will NEVER become wealthy for working.
Hat tip: A 100% chance at becoming wealthy is better than a 3% chance. Making $115k is far better than making what you make now. You should be advocating systems that improve YOUR life, not the life of the wealthy who own and control the economy.
.
"1% is controlling everything. But it is NOT because they are rich...its because THE GOVERNMENT"
Are you insane!?!?!
Wealth inequality is the inevitable result of capitalism. It has nothing to do with government.
Bill Gates has $50 billion because he owns Microsoft, not because he bribed the government.
DemandTheGoodLifeDotC
I have a degree in economics, worked for the Fed, worked as an investment banker and owned several businesses. I understand economics. You keep missing my point. Whether we have "capitalism" or "corporatism" does not matter. If you have a system where there is no limit on how much income you can have and a system that allows you to use your existing income to earn even more income, you will wind up with an economy where the wealthier you get, the easier it is to get even more wealthier.
Who has a greater ability to earn $1 million? Someone who has $25 million in savings or someone earning the $33k median income?
The person with $25 million has a close to 100% chance at earning $1 million. The person earning $33k has a close to 0% chance at earning $1 million. The more income you have, the easier it is to increase your income. So that system will always lead to income concentrating in the hands of the few. The economy will work great for the few at the top. Everyone else, the majority, struggle.
If you have an economic system where the majority struggle, you have a bad economic system that needs to be changed.
↥like↧dislikepermalink
PERMALINK OR NOT...You are not going to escape the reality of what is failing us today! And it ain't libertarianism but it IS the Fed!
Remember Bernie Sanders who DILUTED the BI PARTISAN Audit the Fed bill by Alan Grayson (D) and Ron Lawl (R)
July 21, 2011
The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."
Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.
Nuff said
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
"am not fighting corruption. The problem in society is not corruption. "The problem in society is that the vast, vast, vast majority of workers have too little income. Lack of income is the root cause of every problem in society. The solution is an economic system that pays workers for the work they do, not for how much bargaining power they have."
Please...promise me one thing...Read Glenn Greenwalds book "With Liberty and Justice for some' on the Two Tier justice system and the corruption by high govt officials and Corporate CEO's and bankers.
What you are advocating is communism.....and it has already been proven not to work. A set dollar amount does not translate into wealth....or the value of what you can buy for $115K a year in today's market. I
You do not understand economics.....
Last but not least......................................
I said "1% is controlling everything. But it is NOT because they are rich...its because THE GOVERNMENT"
You said """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Are you insane!?!?! Wealth inequality is the inevitable result of capitalism. It has nothing to do with government. Bill Gates has $50 billion because he owns Microsoft, not because he bribed the government."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
We do NOT have Capitalism. We have Corporatims. the merger of Big Banks and Corporations with Government.
If the Government had played its role of REFEREE by enforcing the judicial system and treat everybody equally, and if the govt had enforced sound monetary policies....the Corporations and Banks could NOT have gotten away with murder.
"Read Glenn Greenwalds book"
Holding the elite accountable to the same legal standards as everyone else is not going to end economic inequality, poverty and the continued below-average pay for 97% of all workers.
It will not prevent wealth and income concentrating in the hands of a small minority who legally dominate the economy and your life.
After all the elite are in jail, you will still be broke and making far less than you should.
Your life will not be improved at all by putting bankers in jail. But it will if we had an economic system that paid you at least $115k. Your standard of living would be improved significantly.
.
"What you are advocating is communism"
Communism is a hypothetical stage society will reach once it develops the technology to eliminate scarcity. Once you eliminate scarcity, you don't need money or property or government. Technology enables you to reach such an abundance that you no longer need goods and services to be rationed with money, people can take all they want. And automation is so advanced, all the jobs nobody wants to do are done by machines, so you don't need to pay people to work.
No society has ever achieved communism. We do not have the technology to achieve it. I advocate the use of money, prices, markets for goods and services and working for an income. So I do not advocate communism.
.
"A set dollar amount does not translate into wealth....or the value of what you can buy for $115K a year in today's market."
I do not advocate that we just make up random, arbitrary income amounts.
What I advocate is redistributing our existing $15 trillion in income democratically so that differences in income are limited to whatever is necessary to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.
Based on the amount of income we produced in 2010 and the amount of people who worked in 2010, we have enough income to pay the top 2.5% of workers who give the highest performance or do the most difficult work $460k, to pay the 12.3 million workers who do physically or mentally difficult work $230k (science, computers, engineering, medicine, construction, mining, and farming), and to pay everyone else $115k.
You can read more about that idea here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/
Redistributing existing income does not cause inflation. The increase in the minimum worker pay to $115k is fully offset by the decrease in the top earning worker pay to $460k. Read this comment for more information and to see the calculations:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/#comment-335497
.
"You do not understand economics"
I have a degree in economics, worked for the Fed, worked as an investment banker and owned several businesses. I understand economics.
.
"We do NOT have Capitalism. We have Corporatims"
You keep missing my point. Whether we have "capitalism" or "corporatism" does not matter.
If you have a system where there is no limit on how much income you can have and a system that allows you to use your existing income to earn even more income, you will wind up with an economy where the wealthier you get, the easier it is to get even more wealthier.
Who has a greater ability to earn $1 million? Someone who has $25 million in savings or someone earning the $33k median income?
The person with $25 million has a close to 100% chance at earning $1 million. The person earning $33k has a close to 0% chance at earning $1 million.
The more income you have, the easier it is to increase your income.
So that system will always lead to income concentrating in the hands of the few. The economy will work great for the few at the top. Everyone else, the majority, struggle.
If you have an economic system where the majority struggle, you have a bad economic system that needs to be changed.
You miss the point entirely..
The core issue is GOVERNMENT being bought up!
Without lobbyists , our legislation would not be bought up and the justice system would work!
Our Government CONTROLS the economy! We do NOT have free market Capitalism as you have been made to believe. In free market capitalism the Government acts as a referree enforcing SOUND monetary policies and a just Legal system.
maybe time to read Constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwalds book
'With liberty and justice for some' on HOW GOVERNMENT has a TWO tier justice system!
No, you missed the point entirely. The post claims that the fed is the root cause of all our problems.
I said it is not the fed, it is the inequality in income and the resulting inequality in power.
You think it is fine to be ruled by a small group of wealthy individuals who consume most of the income and leave most broke so long as we have "1) a sound monetary policy and 2) a sound legal justice system". I do not.
Well the FEd is not the only root cause but I can tell...you never picked up a book on the Fed like I have.
Did you know...your income tax SOLELY goes to pay interest to the private and independent Federal Reserve ( which goes under disguise of being Federal) for money they never had in the first place and merely said they would guarantee it and ordered the Treasury dept to print of their press?
Your property taxes goes to public schools. Your gasoline taxes goes to infrastructure, Your SS and Medicaid is paid for through payroll dectuctions...
time to get a clue maybe?
And really.......just because some people are successful, why do you want to deny them the fruit of their labor? Now if they get help from the govt to ensure an advantage ( as is the case today) we are speaking of two different concepts.
1) people working honestly to pick the fruits of their labor.
versus
2) government allowing successful people to be above the law!
"you never picked up a book on the Fed like I have"
No I have not read the books on the Fed that you have. You might want to put down those books and pick up a textbook instead so that you can get actual facts.
"why do you want to deny...people working honestly to pick the fruits of their labor"
I don't. I want them to stop taking unearned income that had nothing to do with the amount of work they did so that everyone can be paid the full fruit of their labor.
It was once "honest" to kill your wife if she cheated on you. It was once "honest" to enslave black people. It may be "honest" to earn billions in income and leave the rest of the workers with little income, but that does not make it right.
There is nothing right about a system where you can "honestly" make 10,000 times more than others, who work just as hard, which then as a result leaves 97% of all workers earning a below average income, 50% of all wage earners making less than $26k, 46 million in poverty, 1 in every 5 kids in poverty, 25% of all blacks in poverty, 16% underemployed, 52 million without health insurance, and 55% of all workers doing pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology.
There is nothing "honest" about someone gaining private control over the government to personally enrich themselves, even if they did so with the fruits of their labor. And there is nothing "honest" about someone gaining private control over the economy to personally enrich themselves, even if they did so with the fruits of their labor.
Capitalism, a system where a small group of wealthy people rule over the economy, doesn't work for you. It works for the very few at the top. You are just being one of their useful idiots by advocating for their continued rule over the economy and their continued rule over your life.
[-]DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom1 points 3 hours ago
You represent the interests of the 1%, making sure the rich and powerful maintain their control over the economy and perpetuating the inequality in society. I represent the interests of the 99% which is attempting to put an end to that.
↥like↧dislikepermalink
I cannot help you/
Last time.
There is a HUGE difference between a system that allows for government to aide the small group of rich by having the legal system work in their advantage solely ( which is what we have today) and having the taxpayer pick up the tab for their welfare....corporate welfare that is.
and a system where everybody is treated EQUALLY under the law and has a right to the fruits of their OWN labor!
If you cannot grasp the difference, I am waisting my time!
"everybody has a right to the fruits of their OWN labor!"
You are trying to have it both ways. You either get to keep the fruits of your labor or you don't.
The companies used the fruits of their own labor to get favorable treatment from government and to get a bailout. You should have used your labor to prevent that. They fairly obtained those bailouts. You should have worked harder at preventing the bailout if that was something you opposed.
One day, when you are trying to pay your bills on the $26k that half of all wage earners make and you find that you can't, you will realize it is just as unfair for someone to use the fruits of their labor to earn 10,000 times more than you for the same amount of work as it is for someone to use the fruits of their labor to get government bailouts.
In a free, democratic society, we should get treated EQUALLY under the law, in government AND in the economy. If you and I both put in the same effort doing a job of similar difficulty, we should get the same pay. You shouldn't use your position of power to take 10,000 times more than me for the same amount of labor.
Al Capone said he loves America because you can get what you can take. It is a thug economy. You get income in proportion to your bargaining power.
If you have more power, you get paid more. If you have less power, you get paid less. Your income is not based on how consumers value what you produce or how much work you do.
[-]DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom1 points 52 minutes ago
I understand there is a difference.
But I don't want anyone privately owning the government for their personal enrichment. AND I don't want anyone privately owning the economy for their personal enrichment.
I want a completely free society, not one ruled by a small group of "successful" and "rich" people.
You are just being one of their useful idiots by advocating for their continued rule over the economy and their continued rule over your life.
↥like↧dislikepermalink
You obviously don't get at all what I am talking about.
I am against our government corrupting our society.
You are against people being rich.
There is a difference you know.
But you don't want to hear it and thats why you permalink your posts.
Keep those ears plugged and those eyes wide shut
I am NOT against people being rich!!! I am against ONLY A SMALL HANDFUL of people being rich.
I want a society where EVERYONE is rich:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/
You can only have a society where everyone is rich if you put an end to the system that allows a small handful of people to privately own the economy for their own personal benefit and to the exclusion of everyone else.
And I don't "permalink" my posts!! Permalink is a way to directly link to comments. Every comment has a permalink.
The reason why you cannot reply is because this forum software limits the amount of replies that can nest.
You appear not capable of distinguishing
1) People working for an honest living and being succesful maybe becoming rich!
and
2) the Government aiding solely those who are succesful in becoming rich!
Here is a quote for you and this time...LET IT SINK IN!
" I don't mind you being rich. I mind you BUYING my government'!!!!!!!!!!!!
With the GOVERNMENT being THE corrupting link!!!!!!!
YOUR g o v e r n m e n t! is enabling the corruption!!!!!
And it is NOT called Capitalism!!! Its called CORPORATISM!!!!!!!!!
I understand there is a difference.
But I don't want anyone privately owning the government for their personal enrichment. AND I don't want anyone privately owning the economy for their personal enrichment.
I want a completely free society, not one ruled by a small group of "successful" and "rich" people.
You are just being one of their useful idiots by advocating for their continued rule over the economy and their continued rule over your life.
[-]DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom1 points 4 hours ago
I am NOT against people being rich!!! I am against ONLY A SMALL HANDFUL of people being rich.
I want a society where EVERYONE is rich:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/
You can only have a society where everyone is rich if you put an end to the system that allows a small handful of people to privately own the economy for their own personal benefit and to the exclusion of everyone else.
And I don't "permalink" my posts!! Permalink is a way to directly link to comments. Every comment has a permalink.
The reason why you cannot reply is because this forum software limits the amount of replies that can nest.
↥like↧dislikepermalink
Keep on dreaming and hopefully you don't wake up from the American Dream.
The Bill of Rights is non existent and this empire keeps putting up bread and circusses.
You want communism/solicalim which will ALWAYS lead to tyranny~
There is no such thing as equality in reality.
But there CAN be a thing like JUSTICE
We are NOT a nation of men!!!!!!!!
We are SUPPOSED to be a nation of LAWS!!!!!!!!!
where EVERYBODY is treated EQUALLY under the law!!!!!!!!!
and THAT is what is lacking with the help of our Congress!
It's the (R)epelican't judges who create the inequality of law.
From SCOTUS on down, we are treated differently.
No love for congress, but it's the guardians who have let us down.
Wow, I'm soaking in all these Ideas. Very engrossing, very convincing, very provocative.
"solicalim which will ALWAYS lead to tyranny"
Yes, NASA, post office, National Science Foundation, school, universities, they have turned America into a tyrannical nightmare.
Capitalism, and what you promote, is tyranny of the minority, tyranny of the owners of capital, tyranny of the super wealthy, tyranny of the 1%.
Your tyranny is coming to end just like it did for monarchies, dictatorships, slavery, inequality under the law and inequality in government. Inequality in the economy is coming to an end. Your days are numbered.
You represent the interests of the 1%, making sure the rich and powerful maintain their control over the economy and perpetuating the inequality in society. I represent the interests of the 99% which is attempting to put an end to that.
It was government intervention that gave us the current crisis, what would be worse without it? If the banks didn't know the government would bail them out would they have been as reckless with your money? Lehman Brothers had leverage of over 30-1 would that have happened on a free market?
Your claim that "market forces favor the rich" is nonsense. They favor those who have something people want. Government is known to favor the rich and powerful, yet someone leftists never get this. They never get that government is behind most of the wealth and power of the 1%. Yet here we are commenting on a movement that came from the results of that backing of the 1%.
"Your claim that "market forces favor the rich" is nonsense."
Who has a greater ability to earn $1 million. Someone who has $25 million in savings or someone earning the $33k median income?
The more income you have, the easier it is to increase your income. Capitalism is a system that concentrates income in the hands of the few.
"government is behind most of the wealth and power of the 1%"
So the reason why we have people who make tens of millions and billions is because of government!?!?! That is ridiculous.
If there was no government, we wouldn't have an egalitarian society. We would have an even more barbaric version of capitalism and an even greater disparity of wealth just like in the early days of industrialism before trust busting and before regulations and before social safety nets when government intervention was minimal.
Capitalism doesn't work for you. It works for the very few at the top. You are just being one of their useful idiots by advocating their continued rule over the economy.
Who has a greater ability to earn $1M, someone with $25M in capital and connections to government or someone with $30M and no connections? Look I'm sorry you haven't done even basic research on government subsidies and how they benefit the richest. I mean seriously do you think the military-industrial-complex isn't pretty much owned by the 1%?
Simply claiming things without evidence is unconvincing. Big business is far more subsidiesed that small business. Trust busting wasn't egalitarian, it was a method for politically connected firms to cripple the competitors who gave good deals to consumers.
You avoided the question.
Once you eliminate all government interference, and are left with just the workings of capitalism and the market process, who has a greater ability to earn $1 million? Someone who has $25 million in savings or someone earning the $33k median income?
The person with $25 million has a close to 100% chance at earning $1 million. The person earning $33k has a close to 0% chance at earning $1 million.
The more income you have, the easier it is to increase your income. Capitalism is a system that concentrates income in the hands of the few.
You avoided my question just as much as I did yours and yours was irreleavnt. You're trying to claim that capitalism favors the wealthy, but all you've shown is... well nothing really. The person with $25M might or might not earn another $1M. I lot haven't lately, in fact the 1% went mostly backwards recently. Whether the person earning $33K had earn a million really depends on if he is entrepeneurial and willing to quit his job. You haven't shown that it's easier to increase your income the more you have, you've just asserted it.
By lower interests rates as low as they can possibly go , the Federal Reserve actually was trying to help the economy .. no root problem causer there.. the problem came later when the merchants raised there prices sky .. with all the new borrowers and money supply pouring into the economy .. had they been CAPPED things would have worked out pretty good .. so don't blame the FED , their intentions were honorable .. instead blame the free market and its unfetterd sales profits.. like gluttony , the money went right through the system and piled up in their bellies
Yeah the massive speculative bubble had nothing to do with artificially low interest rates. I mean the fact that there hasn't been a speculative bubble since the tulips that wasn't caused by government monetary manipulation goes right past you. Are you saying that the problem is that there wasn't price controls? So the fact that the Fed inflated the monetary supply which causes inflation isn't their fault because they had "good intentions". But because people actually responded to the extra money and tried to keep their real earnings the same it's their fault. God how do you live with yourself?
keep their real earnings? during the boom record breaking profits were recorded ..
Yeah distortions do that. So what? You are a Fed shill and nothing more. Why should people make less money just so inflationary policy can work for a few months more?
so what? so those profits are now sitting piled up in the back rooms of large corporations when it should be out circulating in the economy... so thats what.
The profits largely vanished in a puff of smoke. And the idea that having more money circulating out chasing bad investments would be good has just been shown to be fundamentally wrong. That's the whole point of the current crisis.
The even bigger problem was variable interest rates.
Buyers would get a low teaser rate. But then the rate would adjust higher than they expected which could double or triple your mortgage payment which no longer made the home affordable.
If the FED made interest rates for mortgages fixed, there would have been no financial crisis.
No the big problem was low interest rates. That some people were stupid enough for the cheap at the beggining trick merely means that doubling real education funding hasn't worked in the USA. Without cheap money mortgages wouldn't have been aggressively sold, house prices wouldn't have gone stratospheric and money wouldn't have poured into the pockets of people who couldn't pay it back.
If interest rates weren't raised, they would be able to afford the home.
The solution is to keep rates low, not raise them! The idea is to get more people into homes, not less.
Using your logic, we should just raise the price of homes 10-fold, then you will have zero defaults because you will have zero buyers.
Yeah the housing bubble really made housing affordable. God do some basic research, the bubble DID raise some housing prices 10-fold. Then when people finally figured out that prices wouldn't go up forever the buyers were left with massive debt with payments they couldn't afford. Strawmanning me won't change the facts. Trying to excuse the Fed in the face of all evidence basically makes you a stooge.
You are misinformed.
People couldn't afford their homes BECAUSE THEIR INTEREST RATES WENT UP, not because the market price of their home went up!!!
When your interest rates go up, YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENT GOES UP.
But if the market price of your home goes up 10-fold, that doesn't change your mortgage payment 1 cent. It doesn't make your house unaffordable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
You heard it here first folks, the price of the house had nothing to do with whether or not you can afford a house. You are a loathsome unpaid shill for the Fed.
fixed interest rates are included .. in the CAP I propose . banks are middlemen.. our paths cross once again !
[Removed]
Their ownership of capital and business is their tool to control all the wealth and consume most of the income, not the Fed.
Yup! End the Fed.
who ever has been buying all the gold would be the new ! percent
hate to break it to you but when the dollar collapses that is going to be the case. Fiat currencies always fail and our dollar is no exception.
yeah, only when you have dummies running the banks and congress. If congress taxed properly, we could save our dollar and our dignity.
It is by design this is not a mistake, your income tax only goes to pay off the debt created by the Federal Reserve loaning america its currency at interest
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
yes, if congress continues to keep the taxes at their current configuration, then the fed is going to flood the market with money causing a depression, but if we can convince congress to change the tax code so we can grow our middle class, which will generate economic activity. destroy the too big to fail paradigm and capitalism is restored.
The fed is not responsible to congress or anyone in our government and they will flood the market further and artificially suppress the interest rates. We do need to change the tax system, we should not be taxed on our earnings it is not constitutional.
well, if we don't suppress the interest rate, our debt to gdp ratio will continue to rise. the government's debt is a variable rate. also higher interest rates help the banks to continue to extort us through the credit card. if money looses value those that have loans will make out in the long run. also you seen how hard it was to get the debt ceiling raised last time: what social programs are you willing to give up next time the congressional fight commences for that bill.
its actually the other way around, interests rates are low to help the banks. They are getting easy credit but loans are hard to come by for common people. Its your fault if you need to use credit cards and have to pay interest. You have to look at why this debt is here, the manipulation of interest rates and money supply from the oligarchs at the federal reserve.
i suppose, but i bet if you look a little deeper you will see i'm right. most of the banks hold american debt if the purchasing power of the loan's value is decreasing during that life span of the loan, the banks will have incentives to borrow so as to generate economic activity, which will allow people to pay their loans quicker. the activity will also generate tax revenue, so we can pay our nations debt. doesn't that sound better than screaming the sky is falling the sky is falling?
they are not lending to the people, they are using the money to invest in wall street, why loan someone money at 0% interest? Their is no reason to do so. What you are talking about is creating another bubble, and that is the road we are currently on. The dollar will not hold out much longer, we are at the end of the line here our debt is officially greater than our one year GDP. So yea we should understand the sky is falling and why it is at this point if we want to fix this problem.
because they are beting that the people are dumb enough to neuter the federal government or the fed and that will allow them to keep their loot.
yes, if congress continues to keep the taxes at their current configuration, then the fed is going to flood the market with money causing a depression, but if we can convince congress to change the tax code so we can grow our middle class, which will generate economic activity. destroy the too big to fail paradigm and capitalism is restored.
The media allows Ron L. Paul talk about the Fed, because even if he becomes the president, which is not going to happen, Congress would never vote the Fed out. Ron L. Paul knows that too. No one can stop this billionaire mafia.
We can. It's not going to be easy, it's not going to be fast, and a lot of people are going to get hurt.
Not so much you just have to end the law stating you can not use competing currencies.
In case you haven't noticed, the existing power structure is and has the rule of law.
Aside from that, "use competing currencies" is nonsense.
What about legal use of gold silver or other competing currencies is "nonsense" ?
It doesn't matter what the currency is, it is the abuse of financial power that is the problem. A gold standard did not prevent the Great Depression.
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
No the issuance of credit through the manipulation of interests rates, and the money supply. The Federal Reserve caused the crash of 1929, then turned around and blamed gold, robbing the people of any wealth they had with Executive Order number 6102
Gold certificates are the issuance of credit based on gold. EO 6102 was issued to deal with hoarding after the crash.
Personally, I would prefer a currency system composed of U-235 as over-accumulation would be self-correcting.
want a cookie. It was issued to rob the people of any actual wealth in exchange for fiat currency, that is the point of the federal reserve to create depressions and buy up the economy at pennies on the dollar, vertical consolidation. Sorry you don't understand the concept of saving
Under capitalism there are many, many techniques to rob the people of actual wealth.
that is corporatism, any technique used to rob people of wealth in true capitalism is done so voluntarily by the individual.
capitalism noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations
The purpose and ultimate goal of capitalism is to generate profit. Competition reduces profit, and as such one of the primary tactics of capitalism is the elimination of competition.
"Voluntary" has nothing to do with anything. When products and services are monopolized the consumer is enslaved, eliminating choice.
You voluntarily support a product or corporation.
I have clearly stated an intelligible idea, ending a monopoly with competition. By definition your response to it is "nonsense" Definition of NONSENSE. 1. a : words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible idea.
You could use seashells or acorns or dung, any system of currency is subject to abuse. Abuses can be controlled systems that do not reward accumulation.
those are easily obtainable and have a very low market value, having money that has a market value attached is much harder to abuse. Fiat currency that has little or no market value is easily abused.
Fiat currency is easily obtainable by some but not by others. Seashells could be (and have been) abused on the same manner. Neither has any intrinsic value, it is only by agreement that any currency does. Your argument is self-defeating.
gold and silver have had a steady market value for thousands of years, seashells have not, paper has not. Their is no agreement that gives gold and silver value it is its scarcity and demand that gives it value. Econ 101 Your argument is apples and oranges
[Removed]
The fed uses one law to remain in power. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 25 > § 486 Prev | Next § 486. UTTERING COINS OF GOLD, SILVER OR OTHER METAL Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Competition is what will kill a monopoly.
End the Fed.
Ron PauI 2012 It only took Ron PauI 89 seconds to win the CBS debate, take that oligarchs
[Removed]
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." — James A. Garfield, President of the United States
Yup! End the Fed!
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies"
Amen to that!