Forum Post: There is no such thing as a multi-millionaire humanitarian. It's a sham. Good will has become big business.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 31, 2011, 11:58 p.m. EST by ModestCapitalist
(2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
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.
The Make it Right Foundation has done more for the Lower Ninth Ward than the feds. They have to show a deed because the property is a neighborhood with plots owned by individuals - you must show proof you own the land in order to have a home built on it. That's legality. You should go to the area and talk to the people who were able to move back to their neighborhood thanks to Pitt.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done quite a bit for the poor of the world. With its funding a vaccine for malaria has been created. That's pretty major.
Part two:
Government cites world's richest man for violating antitrust waiting period for stock purchases. May 3, 2004: 2:35 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) - It may just be pocket change for the richest man in the world, but Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has been fined $800,000 by the federal government for violating an antitrust rule.
Will the world's richest man feel an $800,000 fine? The technical incident has nothing to do with the government's massive antitrust battles with Microsoft (MSFT: Research, Estimates).
Gates, whose fortune has been estimated at more than $40 billion, ran afoul of the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division for his purchases of stock in a drug company and a waste-hauling firm.
The Justice Department said Gates has agreed to pay the civil penalty to settle a charge that he violated "premerger reporting requirements."
In a civil suit filed in federal court in Washington Monday, the department said Gates' error stemmed from his acquisition of more than $50 million in voting stock in ICOS (ICOS: Research, Estimates), a drug maker, in May 2002.
The government said Gates did not qualify for an exemption to federal notification requirements because he intended to participate in the business decisions of ICOS through his long-standing membership on that company's board of directors.
The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976 imposes notification and waiting period requirements on individuals and companies over a certain size before they can complete acquisitions of stock or assets valued at more than $50 million, the Justice Department said.
"The case filed today is not related Gates' position in Microsoft Corp. or the department's antitrust litigation with the company," the department said in a statement.
The Federal Trade Commission said it had warned Gates about a similar reporting infraction when his personal investment trust bought shares of Republic Services Corp. (RSG: Research, Estimates) in November 2001. The acquisition brought his stake to more than 10 percent of the outstanding shares of the waste-hauling company.
Antitrust rules require that entities must file with the government when their holdings exceed 10 percent of a company's stock.
The utopian world of noble billionaires you fantacize about does not exist. In the real world there are ulterior motives behind every transaction.
I think you need to read the post again. Then, check the Make it Right website. I stand by every allegation. Every single word. The Make it Right foundation is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the lower ninth ward with fewer poor people. They are excluded by design.
I will respond to your views on Gates in two parts.
Part one: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is primarily an investment firm. The bulk of their assets are used to capitalize Fortune 500 companies. Less than 3 percent of their funding goes to 'charity'.
The PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI), established in 1999, is a vaccine development program established by the global health nonprofit organization PATH. MVI works to accelerate the development of safe, effective, and affordable malaria vaccines and to ensure their availability and accessibility in the developing world, where malaria still kills nearly a million people and severely hampers economic development.
MVI works with partners across government, academia, and industry to identify potentially promising malaria vaccine candidates and move them through the development process from the laboratory to clinical trials in malaria endemic countries. Additionally, MVI also engages in activities to ensure that successful vaccines will be widely available in the countries that need them most. This includes working with malaria-endemic countries and international institutions to align products with country requirements, to secure financing through current and new mechanisms, and to integrate plans for vaccine delivery into existing global and national systems.
In 2001, MVI and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) entered into a public-private partnership to advance the development of GSK’s RTS,S malaria vaccine candidate for pediatric use in sub-Saharan Africa. The partnership has since expanded to include African research centers and world-class African researchers who lead the Phase 3 trials on the ground. To date, RTS,S has demonstrated that it can provide significant protection for young children and infants against the most deadly species of the malaria parasite—Plasmodium falciparum. A Phase 2 study in Ghana, Tanzania, and Gabon, indicated that the vaccine may reduce by half the number of episodes of clinical malaria children suffer over the course of 19 months. RTS,S is currently being evaluated in a pivotal Phase 3 efficacy trial in 11 different research centers across sub-Saharan Africa. If approved for use, RTS,S will be the first malaria vaccine ever developed and will have the potential to protect the health of millions of children.
MVI is also researching vaccines that block the transmission of malaria parasites from humans to mosquitoes. Transmission-blocking vaccines would not directly prevent people from getting malaria, but they could significantly limit the spread of infection.
MVI is part of the global effort to roll back malaria and achieve the targets set forth in the Global Malaria Action Plan. MVI’s work also aligns with the goals of the Malaria Vaccine Technology Roadmap of 2006, which calls for the development of a first-generation malaria vaccine by 2015 and a second-generation malaria vaccine by 2025.
Global efforts over the last decade have contributed to dramatic declines in malaria-related illness and death. MVI is focusing on developing vaccines to help eventually eradicate this deadly disease and achieve a world free from malaria.
Is this the vaccine you refer to? If so, read closely. It's nowhere near as noble as you imply. There are giant profits to be made.
I live 20 blocks from the Lower 9. I know several elderly black people who have been given homes.
I have been to Africa and seen the devastating effects of starvation and malaria.
I don't need a blog to tell me what is right. And I certainly do not find fault with people who have the means and pull to do more than I.
Given homes by Make it Right? Bullshit. There are strict financial terms which must be met. Make it Right homes are not given away. They are sold for well over $200,000 each.
What about the growing concentration of wealth? Do you even see the profound hypocrisy? It's sort of like taking half a pie for yourself and then 'giving back' one slice.
I will make no excuses for those who deliberately concentrate the world's wealth. It's gone way too far already.
"Returning residents pay Make It Right what they're able -- usually about $75,000 --and Make It Right loans them the rest (the cost of a single is in the $150,000 range; a double about $200,000). The payback policy varies. For some, the loan is free, if the recipient agrees to live in the house for five to 20 years."
This is from our newspaper several years ago. It wasn't a secret. Many people were given money from FEMA and/or insurance to help pay so many did get homes for free. I don't know what your issue is.
Here's the deal. I agree that it would be great for the wealthy to put the money back into the world. But I don't see that attacking people who are trying to do the right thing is productive when many wealthy people do absolutely nothing.
The average downpayment to date has been $150,000. Not $75,000.
I can't comment on insurance payouts in the area. But I do know that Make it Right has not given away any homes. They are sold for over $200,000 each.
You're still missing the point. Brad Pitt is not trying to do the right thing. Otherwise, he would stop concentrating so much wealth. He would also endorse Habitat for Humanity. A much more efficient and effective home building operation. Instead, he competes with Habitat for Humanity for funding and publicity. He is part of an operation to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward with fewer poor people. His goal is not to help lower income families move back home. His goal is to exclude them. Meanwhile, he misleads his own ignorant fans. Right thing my ass.
From personal experience and conversations, the people in NOLA are extremely grateful for Pitt's help. At the very least, no matter what your feelings are about his motives, he kept attention focused on people who were left homeless. Why would his GOAL be to exclude people from returning? Because he wants to get his hands on that prime piece of real estate?
Now, as far as the malaria vaccine. Again, I speak from my own personal experience of having people beg me for my mosquito spray, etc. and witnessing people living in such deplorable conditions. I don't think they care about motives - they don't have that luxury.
You don't understand how celebrities get so rich to begin with. It's not as simple as making movies and selling tickets anymore. Major studios are now owned by giant corporations which also own sectors within other industries. For example, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have had a special relationship with NBC for years. Countrywide and other banking entities have been sponsors. Not to mention Lowes, Home Depot, and Electrolux. But it's not as simple as selling ad space anymore. NBC is owned by GE. GE also owns at least one major production studeo and entities within the banking industry. Giant corporations have been working together for years with major media outlets to increase profits. Part of their strategy has been to cross-market their products and services. Also to affiliate with celebrities and create the illusion of 'good will'. When in fact, the idea is to increase awareness and demand for every product and service provided within the umbrella of parent companies and corporate sponsors.
New Orleans is known worldwide for it's unique culture. Tourism has been big business in the area for decades. Make it Right is now affiliated with Hyatt Regency. A high end hotel right next to the New Orleans Stadium. There is already a giant dual promotion planned for next spring. Ellen Degeneres (NBC juggernaut) is going to play a major role in this dual promotion. Housing, the related financing and home improvements have also been big business for decades.
If the Lower Ninth Ward is redeveloped with fewer poor people, property values will be increased along with profits made by all those affiliated with Make it Right. The web of affiliation with Pitt, NBC, GE, Hyatt, Lowes, Home Depot, and the banking industry is sprawling to say the least. The operation has also been used to promote at least one 'home improvement' TV show that I know of. Holmes on Homes. I don't recall the network but the show is designed to sell more high end home improvements. It's all very calculated.
I'm telling you that good will has become big business.
Philanthropists: Andrew Carnegie, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Li Ka-shing, Howard Hughes...
/thread
Buffet and Gates are disgusting hypocrite fake humanitarian slobs. Not only for their obscene concentration of wealth but also for their marketing tricks and publicity stunts.
Of course, Hughes was an obscene wealth concentrating pig. The other two, I'm not familiar with at all. I'll have to read up.
So all those billions towards poverty reduction, education, AIDS prevention, medicine, etc. mean nothing because they kept money for themselves and didn't tithe 110% of their earnings...
You call people wealth concentrating pigs, but be honest, if you worked hard enough that you earned the kind of money that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet makes, would you see YOURSELF as a pig? Or would you enjoy your wealth and give a percentage to philanthropy?
Would you willingly live as a middle class citizen if I were to offer you all the wealth of the world for free with no strings attached?
And what marketing tricks and publicity stunts are you talking about? You engage in this hyperbolic character assassination yet give no specifics. As of now, this is all simply your opinion and how you see the world's top philanthropists.
I've responded to that Bill Gates crap so many times already it makes me sick. Still, it amazes me how incredibly naive you people are.
First of all, 'antitrust' 'Microsoft'. Look it up.
Second, Gates has personally concentrated $50,000,000,000 of the world's wealth in his own pocket. Thereby CAUSING more poverty worldwide. He has the means to throw down his pocket change in the name of 'humanity' and divert the attention of people like you.
Third, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has never been what it's made out to be. They only contribute 2 or 3 percent of their funding to charity. Another chunk is spent on super high end BMGF infrastructure like a multi-hundred-million dollar headquarters. But the lion's share of their funding has always been 'invested' in Fortune 500 companies. The same Fortune 500 companies that rape the natural environment all over the world, buy out world leaders, drive up the cost of living worldwide, and screw ordinary people.
The Utopian world of generous and noble billionaires you people fantasize about does not exist.
So because Bill Gates was a visionary computer engineer that started out with just about 7 of his geeky friends and happened to make it big by cashing in on his genius, that means he now has to fork over his earnings? He has no right to profit from his genius? And if you say that, to some extent he does, what limit do you suggest be placed on a single person's annual income and who determines that? You? Who are you, or for that matter, who is ANYONE to decide that?
You accuse the BMGF of donating only a fractional percentage of funding to charity while either pocketing the rest or placing it in dubious investments, yet you give no solid statistics, not even numbers just the word "chunk" and "lion's share", to describe the apportionment of the foundations' capital income.
And big business doesn't buy out the government, the government BAILS THEM out when they should be allowed to fail as per true capitalist ideology. That's what screws ordinary people. When tax money taken from honest citizens goes towards bailing out mega-corporations that deserve no such free ride out of the danger zone.
Feast your eyes on this:
http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique
In the meantime, an appetizer:
The Gates Foundation was described as a shell for tax avoidance by philanthropist and accounting expert, Sheldon Drobny. Techrights has collected evidence that shows the same and will organize it here. Through the foundation, Bill, Melinda and Microsoft maintain pharmaceutical patent investments, tobacco investments, investments in alcoholic beverages, petroleum investments, investments in experimental and controversial crops, and even investments in news/media. Gates need not even pay tax, though he keeps control of the assets and uses that control to influence private and public policy. Money talks and politicians can in turn be persuaded to buy from Microsoft. This dependence/lock-in cascades down to businesses and homes, creating a revenue stream that would not exist in a free market. Gates is also able to bring public money to himself through energy and public health policy. As Gates has diversified, his corrupting influence has spread to other portions of the economy. We have provided extensive evidence for the above claims in many past summaries which include the following (sorted in chronological order although we took a much closer look in later years). As Techrights will report fraud in other areas as it is discovered.
Fuck concentration !!
Curse you Bill Gates for helping to eradicate Malaria! I hope lose all your money.
what...you are giving it away? That is nice, so you are committed to joining the lower 99% but before doing so will make a global change for good. Sweet. I guess they are right, there are no humanitarian millionaires, only billionaires.
No. Curse you Bill Gates for concentrating $50,000,000,000 of the worlds wealth and trying to divert our attention by throwing a few crumbs down in the name of 'good will'.
Every public figure gives to charity. Every single one. It means nothing.
Curse you Bill Gates for putting a PC in every office and home and making affordable software solutions that help increase worker productivity, further medical advancements, power flight technology, access the internet, get through college easier, video chat with my family thousands of miles away, and let OWS people live blog and reply to my comments.
Because even though you, Bill Gates, you horrible excuse of a human flesh bag have pocketed 50 billion for yourself we know that is but a tiny fraction of the overall wealth that you have allowed others to create for themselves based on your technology. Die in hell you capitalist pig. But not before you keep your pledge of giving 99% of your wealth away.
Some little Gates fan seems to be forgetting about all the anti-trust violations. Putting a PC in every living room while breaking the law and deliberately crushing your competitors ability to share the market.
Actually, it's was the operating system on the PC. Not the PC itself. But it's still anti-trust. One violation after another.
Then, there is the downside. Widespread child porn, identity theft, wire fraud, ect. Progress isn't always all it's cracked up to be.
Then you have the reliability issues. Every version of Windows after '95' has been horribly overpriced and riddled with bugs and security issues.
It takes no courage to concentrate billions in wealth (thereby causing more poverty), throw back a relatively small percentage, and give the bulk away when you die. That takes no courage at all.
Mother Teresa was a humanitarian. She gave everything and kept nothing. Bill Gates is the polar opposite. A filthy disgusting rich pig who has the means to divert our attention by throwing down his pocket change in the name of 'humanity'.
Meanwhile, the world's wealth becomes even more concentrated. Gates and Buffet are personally sitting on over $100,000,000,000. Pledging to give the bulk away when they die. Good will my ass.
The utopian world of generous billionaires you fantasize about does not exist. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Get a grip and look at both sides of the equation.
Go live in a tree. Do you look at fat people and think that the only way they can get fat is to take food from skinny people? Billionaires don't cause poverty, having that much money just shows that society values their services.
Bill Gates does more with his fraction of giving than mother Teresa could ever do because you can't give what you don't have.
But just to show a sense of humor. http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/newsfeed/000/184/905/DjqMN.jpg?1318992465&fb_source=message
You're still missing the point. If the world's wealth weren't so horribly concentrated, there would be far less need for aid. Gates and the others are causing more poverty by concentrating so much wealth to begin with. I don't blame them for the reckless and irresponsible population growth in the third world. But I will not make any excuses for their earth shattering greed.
Mother Teresa never concentrated the world's wealth to begin with. She gave everything and kept nothing.
Gates is the polar opposite.
Hahahah. You are too funny!
Research Goodwill Industries, go to their huge processing headquarters in the region nearest to you. Search the history of their golden parachute executives caving under public pressure to agree to vulgar salaries be cut in half.
Their mission is to make jobs for disabled people.... right.... it doesn't take non for profit executives making millions a year to do that.
I will check it out. Thanks for the info.
it's really hard to get the full vulgar display of how many overpaid stuffed shirts and how poorly their near limitless supply of donations are mismanaged until you go retrieve a large item, perhaps purchased from them online, from one of their huge high security processing centers.
Last time I went, I witnessed a 80,000+ square foot warehouse with over 200 tons of AC, working double time to cool the place with the doors wide open.
Then because I was paying in part cash and part plastic, I got to go see all the office help in their world. Amazing.
Then I got to go hook up to the trailer which held my new purchase and see an even larger expanse of their empire.
I saw very few disabled people working there....... pierce their 501 charter and see their financial statements and salary breakdowns.
It may have already been made wide open, I can tell you the cats in Orange County California are making bank off what the public donates under the impression they are helping both handicap and needy people.
And if you buy from them online, many of the stores will flat out do you wrong and there is no recourse unless you pay with VISA.
Now, I'm intrigued. I will definitely read up when I get the chance.
If good will has become a business, we must not confuse it with ignorance, is it good will to commit such acts by these organizations, or is it that the people have become ignorant of these organizations, we must not fall over to that side. This organization is based on real and important ideologies, and one must not forget the core values that arose this movement in the first place. Therefore we as citizens must make careful decisions when placing donations, and follow your heart, and soul based on the understanding that your actions lead to various consequences that affect others. And possibly understanding this must be an urgent thought in every one's mind, because the artists and moneymakers, are also ignorant, caused by their own greed, and one must not accuse but convince and attempt to influence them just as they influenced you, to understand the important concept, that the world is bigger than the virtual reality they placed forth in front of themselves and us. An example could be madoff’s comment that he is happier in prison than free, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45064131#.TrAIunHaykE: Shows that Madoff had to undergo an individual change from within for him to later admit that he had remorse. However, this is also something that many criminals accused also admit, true or not, that thought must have crossed his mind as he realized that he will no longer see private jets, travel the world, and experience his former freedom. He owes his life to all those that he ruined, and many of them do wish his death, so is it better if he commits suicide? I think no, it might ease the minds of many individuals to know that he is dead, although he will never fully understand what he did. After a short time in jail he claims to have remorse, but what he should feel is extreme shame, and disgrace. So that others committing similar acts would think twice. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45064131#.TrAIunHaykE
The richest one percent in America own well over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own well under 10 percent. If this profound injustice had not been growing for 35 years, I might have been willing to ask the rich 'nicely' to show some restraint. If there were one shred of evidence to suggest that this profound injustice were going to reverse anytime soon, I would be willing to consider a more civil approach.
But it's not getting better. It's getting worse. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. God damn the rich. God damn every one of them. I don't care how much they 'give back'. I care how much they keep. It's gone way too far already. God damn every single one of them.
I see the emotional disturbance that these issues have caused you, however in those times is when we must be stronger mentally so that decisions that are made by you and others are made rationally. We must think of an alternative method, to this increasing chaos. Martin Luther King, did not promote acts of violence, although violence is a very good way to spread a cause, it however does not solve the root of the problem which is the lack of making conscience decisions that many of the wealth have lost. We cant generalize that every wealthy individual is causing these current problems, because its only a few that have convinced the rest to follow them, and we must convince those few to understand your plea as well as our plea. Things will never change if we create something out of hate, anger, and violence. Because all of those induce collateral damage, in which its the youth that is affected, bringing forth an endless cycle of the same occurring problems over and over again.
I am not promoting violence. But I will make no excuses for the rich. Greed is pure evil. It's relative but still evil. No more excuses.
If you had given your speech to the Jews held in concentration camps during WWII, would it have done them any good?
My point is this. The rich absolutely will not stop concentrating wealth. Therefore, I absolutely will not stop persecuting them for it.
My goal is to make as many people as possible understand. Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
Yes and you have made that exceptionally clear, I know that greed only leads to self-destruction of yourself, as well as it does a significant amount of collateral damage. However, I believe that the analogy of the jews in concentration camps is a very harsh analogy concerning that only an obvious selected group was chosen to oppress. We can't handle situations that are presently occurring like we handled them in the past. That said we must not see this as a WWII similar event but at whole new event occurring in our time, and measures have to be take which are different from ones taken in the past. Greed is evil and that is something I definitely agree with you, I feel that in the form you present your claims is ineffective in what it seems that you do not separate yourself from a Doomsayer. Although doomsayers are people we ought to listen to because those people have some truth behind their "craziness", the message is easily lost on people who can not decipher the difference between truth and fiction. I am by all means not comparing you to a doomsayer, but the your emotional irrationality must be eased, since it is reflected through the words that you place
I've had a truck load of compliments already. Some posted in response. Others sent by private message.
I am a doomsayer. You have no idea what I see in our future. The Roman Empire collapsed under a heavy concentration of wealth. Modern society will do the same. Its only a matter of time. Nothing would ever save us but some reasonable level of shared prosperity. Unfortunately, that would take an act of God.
There will be no resolution. No recovery for the masses. No redistribution of wealth. Not this time. I can't prevent the eventual fall of modern society. But I damn well do everything within my power and within the law to explain the underlying cause. Greed. God damn spoiled rotten black hearted greed. It will be our downfall.
there are definitely multimillionaires with a social conscious.
Anytime they stop concentrating wealth, I'll cut them some slack. Otherwise, no deal. No more excuses. It's gone way too far already.
i agree that larges amounts of wealth have the tendency to corrupt, but to guess at the motives of all due to the actions of some (or even most) seems unfair to me. you discount even the possibility that a multimillionaire can be altruistic for altruism's sake, which is probably an incorrect assumption.
there are lots of instances where huge amounts of money are given to a charitable cause by an anonymous donor. its not all ulterior motive. i think your point would be seen as more reasonable if you just started with something like "although there may be infrequent exceptions to this rule" or something like that
it really does come down to the impossibility to knowing people's true motives unless they flat out tell you. even then, true motives are often way more complex than anything that can be put into words.
There have been a few incidents of anonymous donations reported by the mainstream media over the last several years. In a couple cases, hints were dropped. Like one recently where someone "in TV" put up reward money for a missing child (I'll give you one guess who that 'anonymous' donor will turn out to be. Think deliberately staged wardrobe malfunction on a popular dancing show.). In another case, the identity of a donor was reported a few weeks or months later.
I don't buy it. Just more PR crap. There is no such thing as a multi-millionaire humanitarian. I will make a possible exception for Pat Tillman. A former NFL player who gave up his golden goose to serve in the military. He was killed in action. From what I've read, he was an oddball liberal peace lover who felt the war in Afghanistan was illegal. He may have felt (like I do) that in some cases military action is absolutely necessary and therefore, just. I didn't know him personally. But for whatever reason, he GAVE UP his golden goose.
I'll make a possible exception for Pat Tilman. He didn't just make a donation. He gave up his golden goose.
No man or woman who deliberately concentrates wealth is a humanitarian. The richest one percent already own more than 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own less than 10 percent. No man or woman who deliberately enters that top percentile is a humanitarian in my book. Greed and generosity are polar opposites. The human brain was not designed to process the concept of extreme personal wealth. It corrupts absolutely.
If you can name another freak of nature like Pat Tilman, then do so. But unless your best example voluntarily gave up their place in the top percentile, no deal.
We live in a world of profound economic injustice. There are two colossal factors involved.
The relentless concentration of wealth and resources.
Wreckless and irresponsible population growth.
I don't blame the rich for that second colossal factor but I blame them almost entirely for the first.
Greed kills. There is no such thing as a multi-millionaire humanitarian.
oh jeez its hopeless to try to convince you of your error. fine. multimillionaires are fundamentally evil. i'll concede that if you just shut up
by the way i tend to be pretty sympathetic to ows. but i tend to be a staunch opponent of blatant idiocy. i cant help it; its in my nature
for the record, your efforts to support ows end up having the opposite effect. i think your heart is in it, but if i were you i'd run my ideas through a disinterested 3rd party before publishing...
If I'm such an idiot, then how did I predict this socio-economic crisis in writing 6 years ago and prove the 'experts' dead wrong? (I can prove it)
The answer is 'no'. I won't shut up. In a few years, every major economy in the world will be in recession. I want as many people as possible to understand the underlying cause.
Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
likesay theres no talking to you. we are at an impasse. to continue this discussion is counterproductive.
its just getting you upset.
You'll be upset too in a few years. Unless of course, you're near the top. In which case, you'll spin yourself dizzy trying to justify the highest concentration of wealth in world history.
i respectfully refuse to speak with you anymore
i think this probably tilts more critical of the efforts than are warranted... railing on brad pitt and angilina jolie for what exactly... not being efficient enough in their allocation of donated assets? I care to believe these ppl are doing good and are doing PR at the same time and thats fine.
I've seen some of the houses pitt had a hand in in new orleans... nice diggs.
Every big name celebrity on the planet has become a 'humanitarian'. Every one without exception. The same goes for every Fortune 500 company and their executives. With all of this "doing good" you refer to, why isn't it working? Why does the wealth keep concentrating? Why can't the average victim of Katrina hope to qualify for the "diggs" you refer to?
no free rides
Free rides? Is that what you would call an operation like Habitat for Humanity? What if the victim of natural disaster just happens to be a US soldier? What if that US soldier lost everything to a natural disaster while defending your legal right to reap 500 times their pay by playing a guitar and staging fake heroics on your own stage? Thats right. A US soldier. Would you consider any gift to be a "free ride"?
By the way, I seriously doubt that you're the Tim McGraw I refer to. But if you are, don't think for one second that I'm star struck or intimidated. I'm not. In case you haven't noticed, I don't like celebrities or those who idolize them.
Now answer the question. Would a gift for that soldier be a "free ride"?
oh i thought you were talking about what the other people in the movement were talking about, bailing them out of their student loans, higher minimum wage, etc. i can't tell who's movement this is and or what they want cause there's no consistent demands.
and so you blame those (that happen to have some money and) trying to do some good... maybe the reasons to the "why" questions you ask isn't their doing
If they are trying to do some good, then why not just endorse the most effective, efficient, and proven charities? Why do they insist on having their own 'foundations'? Why do they schedule their 'humanitarian' efforts to coincide so often with the promotions of their own 'for profit' projects?
Because their advisors brainwashed them.
And the multi-million dollar endorsement deals? More brainwashing?
You don't understand how celebrities get so rich to begin with. It's not as simple as making movies and selling tickets anymore. Major studios are now owned by giant corporations which also own sectors within other industries. For example, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have had a special relationship with NBC for years. Countrywide and other banking entities have been sponsors. Not to mention Lowes, Home Depot, and Electrolux. But it's not as simple as selling ad space anymore. NBC is owned by GE. GE also owns at least one major production studeo and entities within the banking industry.
Giant corporations have been working together for years with major media outlets to increase profits. Part of their strategy has been to cross-market their products and services. Also to affiliate with celebrities and create the illusion of 'good will'. When in fact, the idea is to increase awareness and demand for every product and service provided within the umbrella of parent companies and corporate sponsors. New Orleans is known worldwide for it's unique culture. Tourism has been big business in the area for decades. Make it Right is now affiliated with Hyatt Regency. A high end hotel right next to the New Orleans Stadium. There is already a giant dual promotion planned for next spring. Ellen Degeneres (NBC juggernaut) is going to play a major role in this dual promotion. Housing, the related financing and home improvements have also been big business for decades.
If the Lower Ninth Ward is redeveloped with fewer poor people, property values will be increased along with profits made by all those affiliated with Make it Right. The web of affiliation with Pitt, NBC, GE, Hyatt, Lowes, Home Depot, and the banking industry is sprawling to say the least. The operation has also been used to promote at least one 'home improvement' TV show that I know of. Holmes on Homes. I don't recall the network but the show is designed to sell more high end home improvements. It's all very calculated.
I'm telling you that good will has become big business.
You're barking up the wrong tree imho. These folks intend to do good and do actual good. It may not be optimized, but to vilify them for doing something positive is entirely unjust.
Consider if you had multi-millions (tens or hundreds of millions even) and tried to do something positive... and then somebody comes along and questions your actions saying they're all in your self interest and not genuine and designed for the sole purpose of making you more money... well that's what you're doing imho... suppose for a second they are genuine...
So these celebrities I rip on aren't evil. They are just incredibly stupid.
I wouldn't have tens of millions. Never. I am morally opposed to concentrating wealth.
No, they aren't stupid either. And chances are you'll never be confronted with the moral dilemma youself. G'night.
"He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more."
That's all celebrities can do. You are talking about an actor, what the hell does he know about running a charity. All he can do is endorse it and bring it publicity, but in today's world that's enormous.
Celebrities are selling their own merchadize and clothing etc They do nothing more than provide the brand and the exposure but these companies are huge. That's the power clebrities have and you can't blame them for it, it's the public you need to blame.
Personally I do think they generally want to give back but I also think their PR firms exploit it as much as they can. If you ask me it's generally a win-win so why not?
They are competing with legitimate and efficient charities for funding and publicity. Dumbing down their own fans in the process. Taking more of their money, concentrating more wealth, and thereby causing more poverty.
We don't need anymore millionaire humanitarians. We need fewer millionaires.
No we need more millionaires.
There's a lot of corruption in "legitimate" charities. Managers paying themselves fat pay checks etc.
The could prefer to do it through their foundation for yes publicity but also to keep control themselves (after all it's their money and time and they don't want it wasted or worse).
That said I totally agree with what you replied to barb about i.e. modern celebrity and from the outside looking in the media industry can look pretty rotten. But then again what industry isn't.
If you involve money and people that will happen, the only way to stay pure is to stay poor.
We have more millionaires. Many more than we had just 5 years ago. Meanwhile, the poor keep getting poorer. Check this out:
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.
Greed kills.
You are basically saying economics is a zero sum game. For me to have more you need to have less.
That's not true.
There's Plenty of reasons why what you've stated is true. More millionaires isn't one. Globalization and moving factory jobsout of the country coupled with a corrupt finacial and political system that gives tax cuts to the rich.
By basically saying that people shouldn't aim to be successful and make money you are going against the American dream which made America great. The republicans need to get back to their fiscal policies of the 50s.
I never even implied that economics is a zero sum game. I said that 'wealth creation' isn't anywhere near as simple or common as we have been led to believe. Also that regardless of growth, there must be some reasonable distribution. Not relentless concentration.
Yes. For the last 35 years, the rich have gotten richer (too rich) causing the lower majority to lose net worth and relative buying power.
I guess we'll never agree on that but it's the ugly truth.
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 nearly 1/2 of all US wealth. An all-time high. More than double their share before Reagan took office. The lower 90 percent of Americans own less than 10 percent of all US wealth. An all-time low. Still, the rich 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. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who 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.
Why do you keep saying that I'm saying that that the gap hasn't got larger. It has and its because of universal tax cuts that are regressive coupled with allowing bankers to gamble with our pension funds.
Stop misrepresenting me.
Any moron can see that. But you are then taking that to give justification to a whole load of other issues.
When I said we'll never agree, I was referring to the first paragraph (I think. I've had a lot of debates lately.). Anyway, point taken. I don't like being misrepresented and I don't want to misrepresent you or anyone else.
that guy isn't for or against anything http://ows.superunion.org/results/?q=ModestCapitalist he just rants to tire you. when people don't make sense, just post the following
There Is a War Going On For Your Mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP5yA3RwzOk
Yea I suspected that.
Although what I also think is going on is that he's trying to "win" the argument by sounding knowledgable to those that don't know and therefore discrediting what I'm saying.
Communists and socialists they have no problem arguing against. I'm a capatilist that's simply telling it how it is. Corruption on both sides looking after no one but the finacial elite. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
I suspected that. I think it's happening a lot on this forum. Goldman must have hired a PR firm.
He was throwing around nonsense that could seem like sense to those that don't know better.
Communists and socialists they can argue with. However I'm a capatilist who is simply telling it how it is. Corruption.
actually these are part of the 99 that have been lied to and have stockholm syndrome. http://www.teaparty.org/
Gates. You've been trying to discredit this cause, specifically the concept of wealth redistribution for weeks now. You obviously don't agree with me on much of anything. But those who feel anything like I do will relate regardless of what you say about me. Waste your time and effort if you like, but it will not have it's desired effect on me or those who feel anything like I do.
There Is a War Going On For Your Mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP5yA3RwzOk
dude, you just assume everyone here but you is a socialist. get over yourself.
Another lame trick. You know damn well I haven't even implied that anyone here is a socialist.
Tell you what fellow readers. Gates has been trying very hard to discredit this cause. Don't fall for any of his psychological tricks. As far as my entries go, just read them for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
You can start with this:
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.
disliking the OWS brand doesn't equivocate to disliking the movement. i have said it before and i'll say it again. OWS was started out of this country and is no different than foreign influence in elections. unless you're paid by adbusters to discredit me so your brand can hang on just a little longer?
There Is a War Going On For Your Mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP5yA3RwzOk
Every hospital, zoo, library or similar public facility I've ever seen has been created by wealthy individuals and/or corporations.
Hippies don't create these things. Wealthy people do. But then, it's easier for you kids to complain than become successful, eh?
What is this, the 1960s?
Hippies?
Do they even still exist?
Get some new lines, I suppose everyone is there to hook up and take drugs. Moron.
Since when are brick layers, carpenters, plumbers, landscapers, electricians, and roofers wealthy? You might want to check your stats next time.
Please define 'hippies' for the purpose of this discussion. Your ignorance is fascinating.
I think OWS has defined 'hippies' pretty well for at least the next two generations...much better than I could!
Nice dodge.
Your asking me to define your hippies for you? For God's sake man look outside your tent. They're not Pennsylvania Amish.
I want you to grow a spine and define the characteristics of a 'hippy'. Do it for the purpose of this discussion. Your best answer so far would get you laughed out of 8th grade philosophy.
What exactly are the characteristics of a 'hippy'?
I answered that already. As you look outside your tent, you see a group of people who want to please themselves and have a good time by posturing that they are there for a noble cause. Nobody else believes it - because we would all do the same thing for the same weak-ass reasons if we did not have responsibilities that, though unpleasant, are required to support ourselves.
And no, a Masters in Lesbian Basket Weaving doesn't give any of you any points.
So you think a 'hippy' is someone who wants to please him or herself and have a good time by posturing that they are there for a noble cause. I'll be damned if you gave that answer already as you claim. Care to direct my attention? In the meantime, I'll post the actual definitions for both spellings:
Hippy: Having large hips.
Hippie: Someone who rejects the established culture, dresses casually, and advocates extreme liberalism in politics and lifestyle. Used especially of those in the late 1960's, mostly in their late teens and early twenties, who conspicuously rejected traditional culture by dressing casually, if male wore their hair long, and wore folksy or used clothing adorned with beads, headbands, and often flowers; they emphasized the importance of love and direct personal relations rather than success-oriented businesslike behavior, strove for spontaneity, sometimes lived communally, and in some cases tried to expand their consciousness by various psychological techniques such as meditation, or through the use of consciousness-altering drugs such as marijuana or LSD. By the end of the Vietnam war in the 1970's, the numbers of people living a visibly hippie lifestyle had dramatically decreased, though some people continue to develop similar views and live with the same outlook.
You would have been better off posting the actual definition. For the record, I'm no hippie. I'm a free thinker. I'll prove it if you have the guts to debate me on the issues.
For starters, is there a link between the distribution of wealth and economic stability?
Who created what fills the libraries? Creative people, not mindless drones like you. What do you do for a living, watch numbers on a screen?
Ah, the ad hominem insult. The liberal white flag of surrender.
All you can do is lump people into groups like "hippies" and "liberals" because you cannot comprehend what it means to be an individual, all you do is join clubs and run with the pack and you can't imagine that some of us don't. Again, what do you do for a living?
Power to the free thinking individual! We need alot of them today.
Way to debate the issue there bud. Apparently you win because I "cannot comprehend what it means to be an individual, all you do is join clubs and run with the pack".
So brownie points on your debate skills on the topic.
What do you do for a living?
I work to support my family of 4. And strangely, I never get a bill from Wall Street. I just get an enormous one every year that wipes out almost half my earnings. It doesn't go to my local schools or public safety. It keeps me from being able to contribute to charitable causes. It just goes to Washington to buy votes.
Yet you're all protesting Wall Street. Um... OK.
Why are you ashamed to reveal what you do? I'm sure you work hard to earn your pay. What do you do?
That's not what I'm here to discuss, and isn't really related to the topic is it?
Yes it is, because it will reveal that you are a full of shit fuck driven solely by your own self-interest.
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.
Oprah, Ellen, and Dr Phil were paid millions for their endorsements. Ch'Ching!
There;s another reason it was done. Banks make money of the interest payments.
If a house is 500K instead of 200K then those interest payments are also going to be higher promortionally.
Agreed.
Fuck Big Business
Fuck Good Will!
Legitimate good will is fine in my book. I just don't buy this Hollywood humanitarian crap.
Fuck the fake good will dude!
Even in their intentions are good, they are yet selective and prejudicial.
Michael Moore is a fucking hipocrite tool that is lying to everyone to make more money. This guy is the epitome of evil asshole that will pretend like he is one for the people, but he is the first jerk off to take off when things get rough.
How do you know this?
Agreed. Moore is a colossal hypocrite.
Why?
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.
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 class held around 30%. The 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, the lions share of United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the middle class. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A massive redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own less than 10 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.
That's why.