Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: haves vs have-nots

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 16, 2011, 4:25 p.m. EST by amyket (0) from Allen, SD
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In a competitive economic or social environment, there are winners and losers. our economic models focus on the winners and how to be one of them.There is very little discussion about what becomes of the losers.When you Have, you have more opportunity to influence an outcome that makes you the winner. a Have-not is at a competitive disadvantage. Have vs Have-not principles work even at a micrcosmic interpersonal level.Someone wins, someone loses, but we currently have far more losers than winners because of the concentration of Have-ness among the 1%.From childhood, we are taught to admire the winners, and we all hope to be one of them, but little thought has been given to how to morally deal with all of the losers that there will inevitably be.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 12 years ago

There are no inevitable losers, for many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:




because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your current Occupation & Generation.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 12 years ago

And unfortunately people don't understand that there always exists more debt in the system than there is money, so there must be losers regardless of how productive everyone is. This is a direct result of money creation with interest attached. Under this archaic system, there will never be full employment and poverty will always exist.