Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We will never see a nation or world of shared prosperity. Never. The rich would let everyone else starve before compromising their obsessive desire to get even richer.

Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 6, 2011, 11:13 a.m. EST by ModestCapitalist (2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We were all born with a natural instinct to gather and store for survival. A natural instinct to care for family and community. This is human nature. 

When modern society was formed, we began to sell out our natural instincts. Survival turned into survival with a little more elbow room. Then survival with a little more elbow room and a nice view. Then survival with a little more elbow room, a nice view, and something pretty to hang around our neck.

Fast forward a few thousand years. With the industrial revolution, came mechanized transportation, modern housing, air conditioning, and television.

We had become somewhat spoiled. Somewhat motivated. Still relatively down to Earth. Still modest enough to appreciate one another, care for one another, and work towards a common goal.

Along the way, the potential for increased personal wealth became more and more intoxicating. Now, the vast overwhelming majority want to be rich. They want it so badly, they are willing to sell out basic morality to attain it. They WILL sell out basic morality if given the opportunity.

How can I be so sure? That's easy. Human nature plus years of corrupt influence plus opportunity.

Mother Nature did not plan for modern society. She did not plan for extreme personal wealth. Once attained, we become fully intoxicated. We simply can not process the concept without being corrupted by it. Without compromising our basic morality.

Extreme personal wealth is the single greatest corrupt influence of modern society. With every 'zero' on the paycheck, our basic instincts to care for family and community are compromised.

Those of you who still aren't convinced, consider this: 

If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, and take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, would you do it?

If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, OR take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, which would you choose?

Which would the vast overwhelming majority choose?

Why are the richest men and women in the world so incredibly determined to get even richer?

How did the world's wealth become so incredibly concentrated?

Why is the concept of a partial redistribution for the good of all so incredibly divisive and controversial?

How is it that virtually every developed nation in the world has become riddled with fear, instability, and rising debt?

How have so many world leaders and those affiliated become even richer as their own economies falter?   

The answer is greed. An obsessive desire for extreme personal wealth.  It's become a worldwide epidemic.   

Not only is the greatest concentration of wealth in world history the single greatest underlying cause of economic instability. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is the most intoxicating and corrupt influence in the history of mankind.   There will be no recovery.

38 Comments

38 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by liberybell (49) 13 years ago

Many of those involve in this greedy commerce say: "it is nothing personal, just business" This statement proves two things. First that those individuals are well aware of their wrong doing! And second and perhaps more important,that this immoral way of conducting business is approved by the entire society. And it is that exactly what we need to change! We all innately can distinguish between wrong and right. what we have to do is to ensure that as we educate ourselves and future generations we may clear that immorality can be forgiven at the personal, but that immoralactions at the communal, social, and commercial level cannot be tolarated under any circustance!

[-] 1 points by liberybell (49) 13 years ago

Our business education must ensure that our brethren present and future pledge to what I call the 'Riches Principles or Commandments' :

1.- I Shall judge my wealth and all its sources, by the highest principles of justice, honesty, and fairness.

2.- I Shall immediately disburse and/or restitute any part of my wealth that has been derived through fraud, theft, dishonesty, or unfairness.

3.- I Shall not take profit from any transaction which knowingly I would not accord to pay to a fellow trader in a similar transaction.

4.- I Shall never amass wealth-power by the enslavement or unfair exploitation of my fellow men.

5.-​I Shall never employ my wealth-power to gain unfair advantage over struggling fellow men.

6.- As my wealth enlarges I Shall stern my fairness and honesty as regards its growth as well as my voice in its subsequent distribution.

7.- I Shall ensure to not stoop to the practice of usury when lending my honest wealth.

8.- I Shall not lend for profit any amount of a dishonest wealth.

9.- I Shall not selfishly presume to lay claim to all of the advantages and blessings to be derived from a discovery of Nature’s horded resources.

10.- I Shall remember that the ownership of my wealth is temporary, just like my path through this life. Therefore I Shall make fair provisions for the sharing of my wealth in helpful ways by the largest possible number of my fellow men.

[-] 1 points by liberybell (49) 13 years ago

I totally agree! I started talking about the repercussions of greed driving the worlds markets 13 years ago! Back then people look at me like I was right but at the same time along. Today many of You are speaking on the same terms. That tells me that a change I have praying for is around the corner. People are awakening to the understanding of how unsustainable for our civilization is a commerce running outside our human and moral values.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 13 years ago

None of us are prepared to survive in this completely pussified society we traded survival skills for stupid convenience and materialism. We got suckered, our survival skills have deliberately been dumbed down in this country to make us dependent. It is time to wake up. Ideologies will totally go out the door when you are worried about you and your families next meal, i am telling you.

[-] 1 points by foundersten (23) 13 years ago

MC, you are missing the only link that has provided the conduit of cash: government. As an example: the government encouraged sub prime lending in order to make the availability of mortgages more "fair". Naturally, if banks didn't meet certain quotas to under qualified ("disadvantaged") applicants their federal incentives were threatened to be stripped. You could blame the bankers for acquiescing, but their businesses were at risk. So, they made the loans AND made a profit AND got bailed out when it all went to hell.

Once again, the government failed not business. It's welfare all the way around, but instead of government controlling business like it controls individual people on welfare business is smart (and powerful) and figured out how to leverage the political risks against the government while protecting their financial well being. In other words, government got monumentally stupid through its power grab and lost. Government is the problem. Fix the government, fix the problem. Period.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

Founderstein. Those rumors about the government strong arming the banks just aren't true. They just aren't true. I've read the CRA and all of its changes over the years.

Those rumors just aren't true. There was never a law forcing banks to make irresponsible loans or penalties for any failure to do so. Never.

The banking industry lobbied congress for changes regarding their capital requirements. Some of that capital was loaned out. Some was converted into higher paychecks, multi-million dollar bonuses, golden parachutes and higher dividends. Some was spent aquiring other entities. Profits were made year after year after year until the very end when the market tanked. That's when they were bailed out. The capital requirements never should have been changed. The changes never should have been lobbied for. But it wasn't about 'fairness'. C'mon. Good will on the part of our leaders? It was for profit.

[-] 1 points by foundersten (23) 13 years ago

MC, if you have convinced yourself that significant tax breaks for corporations was not used as leverage by the government you are only fooling yourself. The government constantly threatens states with removal of federal dollars if states don't comply with federal mandates. Please, MC, you are not doing yourself any favors with that last argument.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

Leverage? I don't think so. Not in general anyway. It's more like mutual backscratching. Personal favors in return for payoffs or campaign funds. Remember the disgraced politician who had $60,000 of unreported income stashed in his freezer?

Several companies owned or managed by politicians and their relatives have also received special tax breaks and no bid contracts.

I do agree with your comment about the Feds pressuring some states.

Politics. It's a very sold out, very partisan, very divided, dog eat dog line of work.

[-] 1 points by VERITAS (3) 13 years ago

"Nice try?" Now I know we are in trouble. All you do is repeat the same complaints without thinking. What I laid out is the reality that you and others won't face. You decry corporate welfare, and you are right. But blame dysfunctional government for that. As for the depression, I recommend The Forgotten Man. That period was made worse by government meddling: price and wage controls, trade tariffs, excessive taxes, and a regulatory nightmare. The sick irony is that very policies that worsen economic downturns, i.e. leftist anti-market policies, are championed by the same leftists when they fail. It's happening right now. The Obamunist is spinning his wheels, issuing diktats, and wondering why the economy is not improving. I swear he believes businesses are deliberately not hiring just to spite him. The fact is that hard as it is to recover from asset bubbles, anti-market policies add to the burden.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

I want you to choose one specific claim that you feel I made without thinking. Go ahead. Choose one and I will explain my view in explicit detail with evidence to back it up. Go ahead choose one in particular. I'll be waiting.

Who do you think lobbies for corporate welfare? Who do you think hires the lobbyists? Why do you think they are paid six figures? Why the hell do you think Abramoff went to jail for a year and a half? C'mon already. Get real and stop making excuses for business. There is plenty of fault to go around.

If those higher taxes and regulations made the Great Depression worse, then how do you explain the 30 year recovery? How do you explain lower unemployment, higher GDP, stronger middle class, and more stability? How do you explain the moon landing, the space shuttle, the microwave, the VCR, and the laser disc player?

All of the above took place under higher taxes and regulation. Much higher.

Of course, the recovery was slow at first. The existing wealth and income was heavily concentrated. Otherwise, there would have been no depression to begin with.

There is only one place in the universe where a 'quick' recovery from a severe economic depression is possible. That place is Fantasy Land.

Asset bubbles my ass. The rich have bags of money. They have plenty to invest. Plenty to pay out. The same goes for most Fortune 500 companies. They have been investing. The rich invest in stocks, bonds, gold, real-estate, ect. The most profitable industries have been investing primarily in equipment. Fuck the people. Fuck jobs. The rich want MAXIMUM PROFIT. Asset bubbles my ass.

[-] 1 points by VERITAS (3) 13 years ago

To understand the issues with any redistribution you must first understand this nation's basic principles of personal, economic, and religious freedom, as well as humanity's need for self-reliance. To assign "greed" is to oversimplify and avoid truthful analysis. The relevance of freedom is this: we believe in individuals' RIGHT to do as they choose in their pursuit of happiness. Not "unless you get too rich," or "unless I don't like how you live," or "unless your values aren't the same as mine." So when someone looks at wealthy people (and "wealthy" is subjective anyway - is it Obamunist's definition of over $250K per year in income; is it $1MM in assets? Net worth? $5MM? $10MM? $100MM? $1B?) and makes all kinds of assumptions of their ability to love family or to be kind or to care for friends or give to charity, calls them "greedy," "selfish," "lazy," etc., it shows a misunderstanding of or, worse, a contempt for, the freedom to pursue happiness that is in this nation's DNA. Combine that with no understanding of economics, a left-leaning political philosophy, and a tendency toward visceral rather than rational behavior, and you arrive at these calls for the abolition of capitalism. It's part of a convoluted antipathy toward America. Those who dislike unequal results, which exist in every nation, might try to live in an actual communist country. Of course there are very few, and why? Because most rational nations recognize the power of the MARKET to raise living standards. It is what it is. Any giving of one's own wealth MUST BE VOLUNTARY, as is consistent with personal freedom. This is the issue with redistribution, no matter how "small" some may call it. Again, the size of it is relative. Some want 100%, some want half, some say only 10% shouldn't hurt. The bottom line is IT IS NOT UP TO YOU in a truly free society how much others should make/have. As it is, we already have a "progressive" tax system, a Marxist construct. By virtue of percentages alone, upper income people would pay more dollars in taxes than lower income. But we don't have that system; we say the more you make the higher THE PERCENTAGE WE TAKE. Absurd. You want to help the disadvantaged by handing them what they didn't earn? Then form a foundation and redistribute your own money. That takes true courage. There is no courage in indulging in the luxury of taking bitter aim at select wealthy "elites" and volunteering an amount of THEIR money to give away. The second part of my first statement relates to the need for self-reliance. The reality is the more unearned money we give people, the less they rely on themselves. Indeed, the drugged-out, hallucinagenic policies of the 60s did what centuries of slavery and discrimination never did: destroy the black family. There is simply too much excuse-making and blame going on to allow certain groups to advance without the destructive, addictive nipple of public support. SO when you advocate any level of redistribution, you are (1) violating this country's core value of freedom and (2) disabling the beneficiaries of this redistribution, which is nothing more than unenlightened thievery.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

Nice try. Now what about the record high concentration of wealth or it's relationship to economic and social instability? What about this? The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN. 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. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. 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 over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own just over 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. Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority 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.

[-] 1 points by VERITAS (3) 13 years ago

To understand the issues with any redistribution you must first understand this nation's basic principles of personal, economic, and religious freedom, as well as humanity's need for self-reliance. To assign "greed" is to oversimplify and avoid truthful analysis. The relevance of freedom is this: we believe in individuals' RIGHT to do as they choose in their pursuit of happiness. Not "unless you get too rich," or "unless I don't like how you live," or "unless your values aren't the same as mine." So when someone looks at wealthy people (and "wealthy" is subjective anyway - is it Obamunist's definition of over $250K per year in income; is it $1MM in assets? Net worth? $5MM? $10MM? $100MM? $1B?) and makes all kinds of assumptions of their ability to love family or to be kind or to care for friends or give to charity, calls them "greedy," "selfish," "lazy," etc., it shows a misunderstanding of or, worse, a contempt for, the freedom to pursue happiness that is in this nation's DNA. Combine that with no understanding of economics, a left-leaning political philosophy, and a tendency toward visceral rather than rational behavior, and you arrive at these calls for the abolition of capitalism. It's part of a convoluted antipathy toward America. Those who dislike unequal results, which exist in every nation, might try to live in an actual communist country. Of course there are very few, and why? Because most rational nations recognize the power of the MARKET to raise living standards. It is what it is. Any giving of one's own wealth MUST BE VOLUNTARY, as is consistent with personal freedom. This is the issue with redistribution, no matter how "small" some may call it. Again, the size of it is relative. Some want 100%, some want half, some say only 10% shouldn't hurt. The bottom line is IT IS NOT UP TO YOU in a truly free society how much others should make/have. As it is, we already have a "progressive" tax system, a Marxist construct. By virtue of percentages alone, upper income people would pay more dollars in taxes than lower income. But we don't have that system; we say the more you make the higher THE PERCENTAGE WE TAKE. Absurd. You want to help the disadvantaged by handing them what they didn't earn? Then form a foundation and redistribute your own money. That takes true courage. There is no courage in indulging in the luxury of taking bitter aim at select wealthy "elites" and volunteering an amount of THEIR money to give away. The second part of my first statement relates to the need for self-reliance. The reality is the more unearned money we give people, the less they rely on themselves. Indeed, the drugged-out, hallucinagenic policies of the 60s did what centuries of slavery and discrimination never did: destroy the black family. There is simply too much excuse-making and blame going on to allow certain groups to advance without the destructive, addictive nipple of public support. SO when you advocate any level of redistribution, you are (1) violating this country's core value of freedom and (2) disabling the beneficiaries of this redistribution, which is nothing more than unenlightened thievery.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 13 years ago

Bingo.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

Nice try. Now what about the record high concentration of wealth or it's relationship to economic and social instability?

What about this?

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

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. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. 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 over 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 90 percent own just over 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.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority 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.

[-] 2 points by NotYour99 (226) 13 years ago

You left out the part where the 1% pay nearly 40% of all the taxes too. Numbers tell a wonderful story, but you can make them say anything you want by using them selectively.

As for supporting the little guy, even the 99% will have issues here because their prices will be higher.

The focus on wealth and redistribution is misplaced. The focus needs to be on changing what's wrong within the government to help lessen corporate sway in congress.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

You left out the part where their golden goose is subsidized.

Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

And the part where they refuse to pass on the government subsidized benefit.

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.

I'll let you know what else you left out later and post more statistics to prove it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 13 years ago

Yes Greed. A testament for today's collapsing economy. Greed is a mental illness.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by derek (302) 13 years ago

"Financial Obesity" is a term James P. Hogan has used in "Paths to Otherwhere".

Here is why even millionaires would be better off with a "basic income": http://www.livableincome.org/amillionairegli.htm

By the way, on being careful what we wish for: :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lathe_of_Heaven "George attempts to dream into existence "peace on Earth" – resulting in an alien invasion of the Moon which unites all the nations of Earth against the threat."

But joking aside, please don't let cynicism and pessimism sideline you. Consider "The Optimism of Uncertainty": http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1108-21.htm "In this awful world where the efforts of caring people often pale in comparison to what is done by those who have power, how do I manage to stay involved and seemingly happy? I am totally confident not that the world will get better, but that we should not give up the game before all the cards have been played. The metaphor is deliberate; life is a gamble. Not to play is to foreclose any chance of winning. To play, to act, is to create at least a possibility of changing the world. There is a tendency to think that what we see in the present moment will continue. We forget how often we have been astonished by the sudden crumbling of institutions, by extraordinary changes in people's thoughts, by unexpected eruptions of rebellion against tyrannies, by the quick collapse of systems of power that seemed invincible. What leaps out from the history of the past hundred years is its utter unpredictability. This confounds us, because we are talking about exactly the period when human beings became so ingenious technologically that they could plan and predict the exact time of someone landing on the moon, or walk down the street talking to someone halfway around the earth. ..."

We may finally be moving past this problem: "The Threat of a Good Example" http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Example.html

Ideas for moving forward, again by James P. Hogan: http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary "The book has an interesting corollary. Around about the mid eighties, I received a letter notifying me that the story had been serialized in an underground Polish s.f. magazine. They hadn't exactly "stolen" it, the publishers explained, but had credited zlotys to an account in my name there, so if I ever decided to take a holiday in Poland the expenses would be covered (there was no exchange mechanism with Western currencies at that time). Then the story started surfacing in other countries of Eastern Europe, by all accounts to an enthusiastic reception. What they liked there, apparently, was the updated "Ghandiesque" formula on how bring down an oppressive regime when it's got all the guns. And a couple of years later, they were all doing it!"

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

Still not convinced? Here is a short list of well known public figures and executives who's respective 'good deeds' and 'humanitarian efforts' were documented and publicized at critical moments in time. Their true colors were eventually shown: Bernie Ebbers (Worldcom fraud). Kenneth Lay and Jeffery Skilling (Enron fraud). Martha Stewart (Insider trading). Bill Gates (Anti-trust). Michael Vicks (Dog fighting). Wesley Snipes (Tax fraud). Mike Tyson (Rape). Lil Kim (Perjury). Chris Langham (Child porn). Jim Baker (Ministry fraud). Michael Richards (Racist). Mel Gibson (Anti-semite). Michael Jackson (Pedophile). Al Capone (Crime boss). So what else do they all have in common besides their incredible greed, over-pay, and rotten moral character? Thats right. A MASSIVE CAMPAIGN OF 'GOOD WILL' 'HUMANITARIAN' PR MARKETING CRAP. Look it up. All of the above took part in 'good will' 'humanitarian' efforts. All were publicized. They also got caught in rotten immoral contradictory behaviour. Most were convicted on felony charges. Mark my words: There will be many more. More true colors will be shown. We are living in the most profound era of greed, fraud, and hypocrisy ever. Its nothing short of an epidemic. Not a single well known living public figure is anywhere near as noble as they are made out to be. Not a single one of them took up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' until AFTER they became well known public figures. Not Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, Bill, Melinda, Richard, Warren, Donald, Michael, or any other well known celebrity or executive. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Thats right. Before their fame and fortune, there was no time in the service. No time in the Peace Corps. No work at a soup kitchen. No work at a homeless shelter. No work at an animal shelter. No neighborhood clean-up. No anti-war protest. No anti-fur protest. No environmental work. No help-line. No foster parenting. No 'Big brother' or 'Big sister' work. No adoption of children. No sponsorship of children. No fund raising for charity. No scrubbing out of garbage cans at the local church. Before their fame and fortune, there was no philanthropy, charitable contribution, humanitarian effort, or volunteer work on their part. No attempt to make the world a better place. No documentation to prove it. Not even in public record. Why not? BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL TOO BUSY TRYING TO GET RICH AND FAMOUS. If you don't believe it, then pick any well known celebrity or executive and do the research. Find out how they spent their time and money just before they became rich and famous. You will find nothing but business school, business related work, study, investing, career building, beauty pageants, modeling, singing, dancing, auditioning, rehearsal, sports, exhibitionism, materialism, and the same old self-centered CRAP. Not that I have anything against entertainment, sports, education, business, or personal goals in general. I don't. But true heroes and humanitarians are not born from RICHES. They are not born from CELEBRITY STATUS. They are not attention grabbers. They get involved on their own without the slightest regard for fame, fortune, image, credit, or profit. Millions around the world do so at this very moment. Often putting their own modest livelyhoods or lives in jeapordy. Some even die for it. Still, they don't get even a tiny little fraction of the credit and support they truly deserve. Why not? BECAUSE TOO MANY HOLLYWOOD, PRO SPORTS, AND BIG BUSINESS 'HEROES' AND 'HUMANITARIANS' DELIBERATELY GARNER AS MUCH ATTENTION AS POSSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES. THESE PEOPLE ARE FAKE. THEY ARE CALCULATED. THEY ARE GREEDY HYPOCRITE PIGS. THEY DELIBERATELY CONCENTRATE THE WORLD'S WEALTH AND RESOURCES. THEY DELIBERATELY EXPAND THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND POOR. THEY ARE CAUSING THE VERY SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. ITS A SHAM. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 13 years ago

I truly appreciate your efforts, I'll bet you're bang on 99% of the time. I have a brother like that. Call me naive but i will not accept your nihilist outlook. My kids need to know there is a lot of work to do, not that nothing can be done.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

I am not a Nihilist. I'm just sick of the incredible BS and PR crap shoveled in our faces every time we turn on the TV.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 13 years ago

ok so the anarchists keep consenting to syntaxing then revoking consent then consenting then ... what's up various radicals?? not that it matters

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 13 years ago

Me too. We stopped watching that shit-show years ago. Want a good laugh? Check out Rap News with Robert Foster on thejuicemedia you tube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/thejuicemedia#p/u/16/yDSAu204NLA

What do you think about the 99% Declaration. Is it the way to move forward for OWS? The only other path that i've heard of is a Fifth Amendment approach. I'm no expert on this stuff, the Declaration makes sense and it's legal! Problem seems to be there are no strong voices in NYC. Looks to me like OWS is going to be occupying the floor of the canyon if they don't get their shit together, declare an end to the occupation and take it to the next level. https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ http://thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com/

I can't figure out why these posts remove my paragraphing. Guess i'm not radical enough lol

[-] 1 points by daddyo14171 (48) 13 years ago

I'm not criticizing you here but the massive walls of text are difficult to read without paragraphs and the majority of people aren't going to filter through it. If you're point is to be heard try using a concise/condensed version and make it easy to read by inserting break points.

[-] 0 points by utopia (17) 13 years ago

I do not want a redistribution of wealth I want all criminals prosecuted with new laws I want other criminals to be charged with crimes against humanity I want all bullshit laws to be outlawed, made illegal or designated not good for the benefit of humanity I want banking transparency when it comes to were my money is invested or spent. I want bankers to sign a legal document stating they will not steal or they will be prosecuted to the extent of the law I want no secret political gifts, all must be posted for all to see Get rid of the FED set a maximun that any corporate CEO can make. Get riid of tax loopholes Aworking week of monday through friday 8 hour days double time for overtime or extra shifts Profit sharing Mandatory holidays and separate sick days No buissnes open on sundays except essentials Women to get equal pay Women to choose to raise a family legal law All closed government seesions to be televised or streamed including g10, g20, Bilderberg ect....... Or made illegal by law No mandatory overtime Workers rights in at will states No medicare cuts ever No social security cuts ever Free education for all at public universities healthcare for all with no loss of healthcare between jobs independent states laws and no interstate commerce laws repeal the patriot act and let the public decide No hate crime speech laws all religious icons legal as per individual right to display. A adl and Aipac for the american public rights and defense All religious holidays respected and time off on those days A public debate as scheluled to discuss or change law per the majority of public opinion Any white colar crimes have increased penalties the worst white collar criminals go to work camp for re-education Illegal to abuse animals a crime public debate on media information being directed at our children and adults and the public majority is allowed to direct content A free internet Anything detrimental to the public health or interest will be crime A choice of retirement options very safe to risky with criminal charges for abuses Alternate energy forms legal and promoted Criminalcharges if the media lies or promotes propaganda end the support of israel by the government and support only by private individual choice. The public must decide if we go to any war and no draft with a public opproval All energy is publicly owned and profits shared with the state where the energy is produced Taxes must be approved by the majority of the public Corporations cannot influence law unless approved by the public majority All present laws to be reveiwed according to priority and the public can chhose which laws are legal or illegal No gun control laws, Illegal guns with harsh sentances All drugs are legal as per public decision Decriminalization of personal drug use

Enough for now

Let the shit hit the fan!!!

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

Utopia. Although, I disagree with you on partial redistribution, the Fed (Are you referring to the Federal Reserve), gun control, and drugs, I think the rest of your ideas range from good to brilliant.

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 13 years ago

I am apparently not part of your "we."

I have a moral compass.

I also have a strong work ethic and a strong sense of fairness and justice.

Greed does not fit into that, but neither does redistribution of wealth. Posts like this only aid in limiting the 99, not strengthening it. This is exactly what opponents want to see so they can point and yell "SOCIALISTS!"

[-] 1 points by liberybell (49) 13 years ago

Socialism, capitalism, money, tecnology are tools. Is the human behind the rains the one that can do right or wrong w either of those tools… If I kill a person w a knife, do we persecute the knife or me? This is something our brothers have not yet evolve into undersanding, but their enlightment is around the corner…

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

If you're against redistribution then you should also be against relentless concentration. God did not create this world only so that man could divvy up it's resources with corrupt economic systems.

Those of us with a moral compass don't think only in terms of man's law or market value. We think in terms of humanity, community, and actual prosperity.

I'm not suggesting that we live in caves or make the concept of private property illegal. I'm suggesting that we get reasonable and work towards a common goal. Some reasonable level of shared prosperity.

Greed will hard wire your brain if you don't keep it in check. Prevent you from acknowledging the incredible concentration of wealth or it's relationship to social and economic instability.

There is no private property under socialism.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 13 years ago

Frankly your words don't match your moniker. You should rename ModestSocialist.

At no point did I say my moral compass worked off of cash or value. I do care about my fellow man. A large part of my life has been to service the needs of underprivileged children and young adults. To get to the point I could do that I had to borrow tens of thousands of dollars. I had to work hard and 14 years later I still have tens of thousands of dollars to repay.

But I am proud and happy where I am because I did it myself through hard work. I financially help others on too of my life of service. Still, redistributing my wealth to others that won't do for themselves will not happen while I have breath. I am prepared, and there are way more of "us" than there are of you. Keep pushing your brand of socialism. It will continue to weaken OWS, and will get your other, perhaps worthy, arguments ignored.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

You need to work on your ability to read between the lines. I have never even once suggested aid for those who will not help themselves. Only for those with legitimate need.

You also need to hit the books. There are very specific fundamentals which define socialism, communism, Marxism, and capitalism. You will not learn these fundamentals by watching CNN, FOX or MSNBC.

If you understood these fundamentals, you would have known better than to imply that I'm a socialist.

Hit the books.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

In the meantime, read this.

We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own over 40 percent of it's total wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. 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. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority. The rich have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 13 years ago

There wasn't much to read between when you said "for the good of all"

Your other comments will go mostly ignored since you've fallen back to typical blog rebuttals when someone doesn't agree with you.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 13 years ago

That's just not good enough. It was a wild assumption to make.

If you don't want a rebuttal, then don't make wild assumptions or throw around words like 'socialism' where they don't belong.