Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: So, where is all of the money going?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 15, 2011, 2:48 p.m. EST by brightonsage (4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Economists from Northeastern University have released a study“Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. …The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.”

The New York Times adds, “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average real hourly earnings for all employees actually declined by 1.1 percent from June 2009, when the recovery began, to May 2011, the month for which the most recent earnings numbers are available.”

"What is fair" is sometimes hard to determine. What is unfair, may be easier. But you have to start someplace. Maybe this is it?

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Historically unprecedented. Yeah, that's a good place to start on determining just how freaking bad we're getting screwed.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It really helps your sanity to get facts to validate the conclusion that you are abstracting from all of the anecdotal stuff you have been experiencing. You know it, but you can't really prove it with numbers.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

That is so true. Now, please excuse me; I'm packing a loaded mouth primed with historical ammo, and there are trolls afoot.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Happy hunting.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The guy at the top has a Scrooge McDuck style gold coin swimming pool. That's where all the money went.

http://altdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/scrooge-mcduck.jpg

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Cool. I got the picture.

[-] 1 points by TheTurtle (12) 2 years ago

Here's a lawsuit that is going to show where all the money went. http://divinecosmos.com/media/Keenan_complaint_11-23-2011_SDNY.pdf Additional info here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/business/global/26fake.html

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

OK, I read it. Now I can't wait for the movie. I was on the short end of a scam that sounds a lot like this once upon a time. I'll bet some guys are busy with the old Google machine working on breaking the rest of the story.

[-] 1 points by TheTurtle (12) 2 years ago

Thanks for reading the lawsuit Brightonsage. We'll see if this is a scam or not once this goes to trial. What is your opinion on The Office of International Treasury Control? Does it exist or is it just a scam?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I bow to the exceptional wisdom of the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_International_Treasury_Control

The Office of International Treasury Control (OITC) is a seemingly elaborate fraudulent organization which claims to be associated with the United Nations and the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States. It has attempted to deceive people and organizations in Ecuador, Fiji and the United Kingdom. The UN and Federal Reserve have denied any knowledge of or connection with OITC.[1][2] The purpose of the hoax is unknown.

Curiously, the OITC purports to be a highly secret organization whose existence cannot be proven or disproven by internet research, and yet it maintains its own very public website. The OITC website does not explain why a highly secretive organization would want, or need, to maintain such a website; nor does the website explain why such an apparently wealthy organization would have such a badly designed website with many typographical errors.

As I said I was the intended victim of such a scam (much smaller numbers). It was international, involved valuable art and money and I be came suspicious very early. We strung it along, the FBI was involved and it finally went away. The scam was never completely triggered. I think they realized that we weren't fooled and so they just sort of faded to black. No one was prosecuted.

The "case" is ridiculous on its face. No one would ever put such a clap trap of details in a serious court filing.

This one is for very high stakes and appears to have been going on for a long time. Sometimes these things take on a life of their own and attract new participants that think they can find an angle for themselves.This seems to have happened in this case.

As I say, I can't wait for the movie. Most of the script is in the filing. Here is another piece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_Melchizedek

[-] 1 points by TheTurtle (12) 2 years ago

Yes, your research into scams goes deep. I will await the trial and see if the $130 Billion or so in bonds is conterfeit or real. Perhaps the National Security State will then show up and whisper in the Judge's ear to end the trial because it's a threat to national security...

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There have been other incidents. One in January, also in Italy ($180 billion).

Too many people having too much fun. How's a guy from Nigeria gonna make a dishonest dollar?

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4784) 2 years ago

Hi brightonsage, Good post. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Math, it's not just for bankers anymore.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

That is how they figured out what their fair share was.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

That is how they figured out what their unfair share was.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You are correct. I intended to use quotes, "fair".

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 2 years ago

To the banking executives of course. They grab it and hide it. Crooks!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Oh, no, no. no, they immediately created jobs with it. How many, you ask? Probably a whole bunch. Probably exactly a whole bunch, to at least 3 decimal places.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Create your own job ass hole loser. Why the hell you should someone give you a job? Make your own way and quit expecting someone to give you a downhill pull.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I have created lots of jobs, but I am retired. Loser? Not so much. But the guys they are calling job creators (thanks to Frank Luntz), don't create any jobs.

You might have read, they interviewed some of them and asked them. They laughed and said, "I invest, I don't create jobs."

Wipe your nose, kid. You're embarrassing yourself.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Your so full of shit your eyes are brown. You haven't created shit, and if you did, you ate it.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

This huge corporate gain coincides with stimulus package.

I keep telling everyone , we need to CAP profits , to keep the money in circulation and not let it pile up at the top in profits .. but no one is listening to me ..argh !

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I don't like a a hard cap cap as much as a gini coeficient.

A company of some size can calculate the gini coefficient of its salaries (or complete compensation). Most of them will have a linear slope from the lowest to the mid range then it starts going up steeper and steeper, as the salaries go up.

The boards of directors should approve a gini coefficient of .32 or .35. or some slope like that. Then the slope would stay the same for the top management jobs as all of the rest. Then, if they want to raise the top guys, the others move up proportionately.

Of course, bringing the top guys back to the line frees up money to raise the rest immediately.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

It wouldn't be a hard cap. It would be percentage cap, reflecting federal interest rates.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I like my way better because it affects all positions proportionately to the degree of the variance from the standard.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I notice you do not include fairness in your description. Funny how math equations never do.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Guess that is the difference between "quantitative" and "qualitative."

However, they are both equally real and important Why is that?

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Make your own way you little prick. If you can't make your own way than piss off!

[-] -2 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

We are waiting on an OWS smart mouth to start a company and run it like all the OWS followers want. Tell that person exactly how much he can make, no matter what. So he makes X number of widgets. People really like his widgets. He cant make more. The price of the existing widgets go sky high so no OWS person can afford them. Great idea.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Of course, you are deliberately misstating the case. If you found one person that advocated what you describe, I would be surprised. I assume he would be named, "straw man". The idea, seems to be yours.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

The majority of posts want to restrict the profits a company can make. You can only restrict by limiting the number you manufacture. In return, when you limit manufacturing you create a product called, "Limitted Addition" and I would ASSUME even YOU would know what that means. The price goes sky high and guess what? Yep, the manufacturer makes a huge profit. My point is,,,,,, you cant and should never limit profits.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There are other ways to limit profits. You can increase costs by improving the quality of the product, You can increase the operating cost by paying higher wages. And you can lower the price which delivers more value to your customers. That also discourages competitors from challenging you. All of these secure your position in the market. I have used all of these with good results.

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

Are you a saint? There are few saints. The reason I ask that, I posted on here a week or so about setting "examples." Rather than take, rather than demand, rather than revolt, people can be directed if they see good examples. You can start any company and in your state you file for incorporation,,,,,,, "corporation." One person can have a corporation. That one person can set an example on best practices. If it works people will beat down your door. Your comment addressed limiting profits. You said you had good results using some of your suggestions. So, I thought you should set examples. No need to revolt, protest against corporations if they all were lead by your example. Are you a saint and can you shine the light?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Nope, not a saint. Are you my leg? If you are old enough and been involved with enough companies as a marketing guy or CEO, you can try these ideas out. I have incorporated several and have been involved with a number of start-up and early stage companies. Some succeeded, some failed. More couldn't get funded. Getting customer funding is the best way. Then you can do as I suggested.

I am retired now. Have mentored some more start ups, since. Venture Capitalists and institutional shareholders never want to leave anything on the table. Squeeze everybody for every nickle possible. When you try delivering more value, they want to find a new Marketing VP or CEO, quick. The Brown Shoe Company kept their prices of shoe making machines very low. They had a virtual monopoly for years, until cheap labor in Asia almost put them out of business. Then they changed their business model,

People rarely beat down your door. If you build the better mousetrap, maybe the mice will? If you start one without VC funding, I will mentor you for free.