Guest Post: Years Of The Modern

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:06 | 1178560 makeyoumiss
makeyoumiss's picture

Doesn't matter who is elected. We're far beyond that point.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 19:06 | 1178641 flacon
flacon's picture

> "A drop in everyone’s standard of living would be acceptable, as long as the rich shared equally in the burden."

My complaint with the article is the term "the rich". What does "rich" mean? That term "the rich" comes across like the mealy-mouthed envious socialists who always complain about "the rich" or "level the playing field" (make everyone poor so that nobody can get ahead because that would be a sin).

I know what the author is trying to say, but the word "rich" used in this context is like scraping fingernails across the blackboard. Just stick to the real word: "KLEPTOCRACY" (gains by theft). We do NOT want to punish the "rich" (presumably in order to "redistribute wealth"), we want to punsh the THIEVES who stole it on purpose and caused the poverty in the first place! I have no problem with capital punishment for those who stole the wealth - then after their bodies have been paraded about the streets we can talk about "redistributing their 'wealth'". 


On a side note: Robin Hood did not "steal from the rich to give to the poor", he stole from those KLEPTOCRATS who taxed the middle-class into abject poverty and then he returned the wealth to the people. Robin Hood is not a villian, he is a hero. 


Let's just refrain from going after "the rich" - some of us EARNED our money (or even honestly inherited it). Keynes warns about this hatred of "the rich" - partly because the peasant class realized that they had been duped. But stupidity needs to be punished, perhaps by self-imposed death depending on how stupid people are. 


Sun, 04/17/2011 - 19:25 | 1178712 monopoly
monopoly's picture

flacon. Excellent point. When I see the phrase "rich", I do not think of those that have earned wealth by doing good either for society or accompanied by pure genius. I do not abhor the "Gates" family for their billions, or Steve Jobs, or those that have moved medical science into positive streams. What irks me is when Mozillo has hundreds of millions for screwing people, or Blankfien takes a 15 million bonus, does shit for this planet and is worth hundreds of millions. The scabs at Bear Sterns, Reynolds, the banksters, well, you get the point. That is where I puke. When you have stolen from the masses, without caring and have wealth because of fraud, abuse and theft, THAT is the kind of "rich" I despise.

That to me is where the author is coming from. Those that have earned or inherited what they have honestly, they can sleep well at night.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:13 | 1178815 Tater Salad
Tater Salad's picture

monopoly, you say..."The scabs at Bear Sterns, Reynolds, the banksters, well, you get the point"

At the risk of sounding like CNN, you should choose your words carefully.  First off, there are plenty of honest bankers on this planet, as well as plenty that are scrote suckers.  Your generalization however, is very dangerous, you might as well start to generalize minorities because you're in the same parallel.  Crooks are crooks, we have them now, always have and always will.  I too despise people, of no specific origin, that go through life each and every day saying one thing and doing another.  Let's be careful though how much we generalize a populous as it has done very bad things to our country already and I'm sure will do more in years to come. 

And as for the Tyler(s) calling for revolution, he/they too should be more careful.  Remember, our teleprompter in chief is all for the middle estern melt down (on a selective basis) and look at Egypt now.  MUCH worse shape than when Mubarik was running the joint.  If our government ever falls, your beloved zero hedge will be non existent and you will have NO rights, NONE!  Soooo, revolution....potty talk, no more, no less.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 21:59 | 1178976 Thorny Xi
Thorny Xi's picture

Re: Bankers -- I have a good friend who, in order to preserve his anonymity, I'll describe as a "retired, very, very senior position holder" with the Bank of America, before and during the early part of the NationsBank era.  He and I were talking about the bank not long ago, but he grew visibly irritated and cut the discussion short with the terse comments, "These guys today, they are not bankers. They are just not bankers at all. They give banking a bad smell. Really, there's nothing they do that even resembles banking, which was once a fairly decent profession." 

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 22:32 | 1179026 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

and mitt romney looks and acts way too much like a banker and a slick one to get the nomination, imo.  his track record for solving economic problems (other than his own) seems no more convincing than barack obama's as a professor of constitutional law, or as a community organizer for that matter.  

imo the guy with history at his back is ron paul.  he is the closest to the truth in his criticism of the current business/government control fraud.  and he has a good vantage point to make his critique real as he interviews bernanke, et. al. from the monetary policy subcommittee in the house.

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 08:31 | 1179695 Mesquite
Mesquite's picture


hear hear..

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 19:21 | 1178718 ParaZite
ParaZite's picture

The term Rich, used to be easily defined. A millionaire is arguably rich today, but a good stay in a hospital or a legal battle will quickly plunge him or her to middle class status. So, I propose that only the upper 2 to 5 percent are now, really rich... Those with incomes and networth in the billion dollar range should be somewhat financially solvent. We now have basically two classes in the US... The Rich, and the poor or soon to be poor.  Even millionaires are now one lawsuit, illness or scandal away from financial ruin.

The Rich aka Kleptocrats... and the poor. 

The Poor are now the unemployed / homeless poor. The working poor. The formerly middle class poor. The almost foreclosed but working 3 jobs for a shitty wage poor. The will work for food poor... and the poor keep growing in numbers each day. 

The poor far outnumber the rich, but the laws of our nation, and are supposedly representing representatives only represent of those top 2 or 5% of the nations interest. The laws of this nation will throw the poor into the hell holes of prison for stealing a dollar or a bottle of baby formula, yet will protect Goldman Sachs who stole billions of dollars. 

Yet, the poor suffer in quite desperation, without so much as raising a hand at those who stole their American dreams and left them laying, homeless on the land their forefathers conquered.


Our politicians and our presidents do not protect us from these ravenous wolves, rather participate and even revel in throwing us further to the beasts of private banking. The collapse of 2008 has revealed the truth of Jefferson's warning that if America ever allows itself to be controlled by foreign banks and corporations, we Americans will wake up homeless on the very land our forefathers conquered.


Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:49 | 1178846 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

The economic chaos will likely lead to a Republican landslide in the 2012 election. A Boomer Prophet with a reputation for fixing financial disasters (aka Mitt Romney) would be given a mandate to fix the economic system...

What a complete fucking joke! Is everyone FUCKING NUTS? Is there any sanity left in this country?

Mitt Romney is a cardboard cutout of American elitism, defender of the top 1%.  He's an Ivy League, corporate and political plutocrat who got rich through leveraged buyouts and slashing middle-class American jobs, while reaping millions for himself. Other than Donald Trump or Michael Bloomberg, is it even possible to find someone more detached from 99% of the American population?

Then, to suggest a Republican will be elected to solve the financial chaos....

.....i don't even know where to begin.

The author of this article is either a political whore, or has undergone a full frontal lobotomy, coupled with retrograde amnesia that began January 20, 2009. 

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 21:15 | 1178899 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I see the prediction as fairly likely.  Basically: YES, everyone is fucking nuts.  NO, there is no sanity left.

If the economy continues to collapse for the next year, Obama's out.  The largest chunk of the electorate is not well-informed about what's happening in the world of government spending, international finance, foreign affairs, etc.  Plenty of people will get up and vote because they're unhappy with the events of the past few years, without bothering to try to plot correlations between what they think were the current administration's policies and the mechanics of their misery.

But who cares?  It's not like Obama's done anything GOOD, is it?  I mean, if you're a Democrat and just want "your guy" in office, fine, but look at his policies and decisions.  He hasn't done anything he promised, the economy still sucks, and the population is as bitterly divided (for total bullshit reasons) as ever.

As the Titanic sank, did it matter what the band was playing?

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 01:27 | 1179280 Seer
Seer's picture

Very well stated!

Sadly, I've seen way too much of the "vote the bums" out mentality even here in these forums.  Actions not grounded in the fundamentals are little different than those undertaken with ill intent.

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 02:25 | 1179338 RichardP
RichardP's picture

For those who believed in God, it did.  Do you know what the band was playing as the proles were about to meet their maker?

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 21:58 | 1178901 SRV - ES339
SRV - ES339's picture

A splash of sanity in a sea of Tea Party mythology... thank you MM!

(and no junks yet... maybe they're off mourning Glenn's

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 22:10 | 1178998 fiddler_on_the_roof
fiddler_on_the_roof's picture

100% right.
Romney is the elite of the elites.
Go Huckabee - the only candidate who represents poor people.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 22:28 | 1179021 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Huckabee? That religious nut? No thank you very much. Not to mention he's a big zionist stooge.

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 08:32 | 1179693 HellFish
HellFish's picture

Huckabee is the reason we have bambi in the White House.  Had he left the primary when it was obvious he had no chance he would have allowed Romney to beat McCain.  Now I'm no Romney fan but he had a much better chance at beating bambi then McCain did.  Thanks Huck - ya fat jackass.

Tue, 04/19/2011 - 00:49 | 1182955 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I had the dubious honor of being an Arkansas resident under the reign of Huckabee's governorship.   You DO NOT want this dweeb any where near a chair of power.  He is one of the cretins who raised his hand at the Republican "debates" as one who did not belive in evolution.  He's a creationist and a dangerous one who will teach it to your children under duress.  He needs to be lost in a desert someplace, left to wander aimlessly forever.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 22:36 | 1179029 Michael
Michael's picture

I just thank God the complete and total economic collapse of the USA and the world will spare no one. If a nuclear war is what the kleptocrats want, a nuclear war is what we will give them. I say bring it on. We will go down the same road as every other great civilization that preceded ours. The Bush/Obama Nazi police state is firmly in place for the end game, a clear sign of falls that always proceed like this one in the last days.

I love witnessing the end of civilizations and I would not have changed a thing on how we got here. It was my not so clear intention to push economic systems to the extreme of their breaking point for maximum effect, while on the surface advocating for a sound monetary system. I understand how a sound monetary system should operate, but challenging the controllers to the extreme, well, made them do exactly as I had intended.  Doing It was like the TV airheads, saying one thing while thinking another pushing for global government. It's a mind trick they play on us, I just did it back to them in reverse.  Our system cannot be fixed without inflicting maximum pain for everyone involved, and I helped make sure of that so everybody will get exactly what they deserve, that means all of us. No one here gets out alive, and that means no one! Thinking about political systems at this point is a futile exercise. Perhaps a few years ago when we had a chance to elect Dr Ron Paul, but now it's too late.  All you proles got to learn to live with what's coming to you.

The only way to avoid complete and total destruction is to put a bullet in every Kleptocrats and controllers heads, and do it soon if you want to save any shred of what you have as a civilization.

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 01:37 | 1179289 Seer
Seer's picture

Only quibble I have is with the notion that there can be ANY "sound monetary system" when the environment under which ANY such system were to operate is, itself, a huge fucking Ponzi: radically changing the appearance of runaway train doesn't solve the fundamental problem that it's a runaway train- yeah, here it comes... as long as the fundamental is that of perpetual growth (on this here finite planet) EVERYTING is certain to fail; having a nifty paint job on the train is nifty, but it's plastered on a train that's heading into the abyss.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 23:01 | 1179063 malek
malek's picture

Ahem. To be in the upper 5% income class, you have to make about $180,000 a year.
That may make you well off, but not rich, especially as the best paid jobs are mostly in high living cost areas. Actually a fair number of those earners managed to save close to nothing despite of years making that money, and even very frugal types would need 20 years to save a million (and in those 2 decades the dollar will have lost 75% of its worth, so hopefully they don't keep their savings in cash.)

So maybe you want to review that "2 to 5 percent" number once more.

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 00:45 | 1179216 bmwm395
bmwm395's picture

180,000  in income may put you in the top 5% for "income". But unless you made some incredible investments over the years you are not close to top 5% in terms of "wealth".

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 01:46 | 1179299 malek
malek's picture

Looked at it that way, most of the "rich" must be within the retirees group...

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 01:38 | 1179292 Seer
Seer's picture

Yeah, I get it that it's all relative, but... 2/3 of the world's population lives off of $3/day or less.  Kind of changes the perspective...

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 19:22 | 1178719 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture
Anarchy erupts in Greece as austerity bites


These people have a clue. The comments also are informative and telling.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 21:59 | 1178981 Malachi Constant
Malachi Constant's picture

Anarchy cannot erupt, because "anarchy" means one's own ultimate authority on every issue and 100% responsibility for one's decisions. Labeling "aimless bursts of violence" as "anarchy" makes the latter look negative. This, in turn, keeps us all in a system where we are encouraged to vote for and pay to false messiahs to decide for us.

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 01:49 | 1179306 Seer
Seer's picture

Amen!  Unfortunately, most libertarians eschew anarchism because it means that there won't be laws to protect their wealth/property; ironic it is (well, to me anyway) that one can on one hand identify that govts are corrupting forces and then on the other desire them to come to their aid to ensure that their "wealth" is protected.  The heart/desire is in the right place, but the logic fails...

Tue, 04/19/2011 - 00:58 | 1182964 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

One can understand the Greek situation by reading the book Z by Vassilis Vassilikos.  It was made into a movie which was very good.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 19:36 | 1178747 Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

That's a good point, rich is also a relative term. 

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:18 | 1178820 Tater Salad
Tater Salad's picture

+10 Global

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:02 | 1178797 Newsboy
Newsboy's picture

"Rich" is having enough resources that you don't worry about basic needs of food, water and shelter.

"Rich" is a wide net, indeed, and all of us here fall into it. All of us here will have to show and feel humility in these times, and stop justifying our wealth to those who are desperate in the absence of it.

The proper response is to give it to them freely, which goes against the grain, but is the solution to the disaster. We may practice this even now by various acts of "charity". Good training.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:10 | 1178811 Kickaha
Kickaha's picture

Sorry, but nobody earns a fortune by way of his own intelligence and industry.

If you went to a public school or public university; if your business utilizes the interstate or the postal service for deliveries; it you and your business grew in prosperity due to a strong police presence; if you ever filed any sort of insurance claim...your success to some considerable degree was achieved only because of the contributions of your fellow citizens.  The examples could go on and on.  Your hubris is astounding. 

The society within which you live so comfortably believes that free enterprise is a wonderful system to encourage private industry.  You have been encouraged to produce wealth, and allowed to keep most of it, but don't delude yourself into thinking this has happened because of some inherent natural right that cannot be assailed.  It is the result, instead, of a system of laws, and laws can and should be changed in times of need.

My own observations of a lifetime are that the very rich, even if they once worked very hard, generally have learned to relax a bit once they figure out a way to make their money work for them.  Syphoning off some excess funds when necessary via increased taxation will either have no effort, or cause them to become marginally more industrious once again.

Taxes are the price you pay to live within a civilized society.  "Fairness" is strictly a value judgment, a matter of opinion.  If it comes to life and death, those in the minority have the most to fear.


Mon, 04/18/2011 - 18:48 | 1182082 Paul E. Math
Paul E. Math's picture

This economy is a giant game of asshole.  If you win the first hand then the loser has to give you his 2 best cards and you give him your 2 worst.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:29 | 1178836 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

"Rich" means your standard of living can't be affected by whether you work or not.

There aren't many rich folks, but those who are have a good bit of money.

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 03:17 | 1179378 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Rich. What is rich?

My wife and I both make 2.5 X the average in salaries.

We also have a nice nest egg which we saved after a decade of hard working.

Is that rich? I don't think so. But we do have more than the average person.

Somebody who has nothing might say: he's rich and in that point of view it's true.

What I mean is: Everybody who has something is rich compaired to somebody who has nothing.

Do we need to be taxes more so they can give to those who have nothing?

Should I feel guilty about the fact that we saved money and invested it wisely?

Should I feel guilty about the fact that we didn't spend it all?

In my point of view, somebody who has 5 million dollars sitting idle, has enough real estate to house a 50 people and has a side income of +500.000 a year is "rich".

But who am I to call him rich?












Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:30 | 1178837 glenlloyd
glenlloyd's picture

Couldn't agree more. Not only does it not make any difference which candidate you vote for, after the election it becomes blatantly clear that they're no different from the one they replaced.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:11 | 1178563 AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

I'm not suggesting that Mr. Quinn is a plagiarist but I think someone wrote a similar article a few years back and called it The Book of Revelation

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:32 | 1178595 Thomas
Thomas's picture

Maybe Jim should try decaf. OTOH, maybe I should check the stash in my bunker. I had this odd thought: Our Thomas Paine and John Adams might be Mish and Denninger! Throw in some Max Keiser and Paul Farrell.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 23:23 | 1178725 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture


Reminds me. I was thinking of investing in some pre-radiation wines from the napa sonoma wine area. That way if the appreciation in the value isn't trade-able, it's drinkable and medicinal as well.

Pre-radiation stash...might be a better market there as well...

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:32 | 1178838 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I'm suggesting it: he plagiarized the piece he wrote a few months ago.  Which, come to think of it, was plagiarization of the essay he'd written a few months before THAT.

Come to think of it, a significant chunk of his stuff that finds its way here is the same ode to that book he read once.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 21:48 | 1178957 DavidPierre
DavidPierre's picture


SmokeyQuinn = plagiarising whack-a-mole. 

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:13 | 1178568 Twindrives
Twindrives's picture

Bozo the Clown would be preferable to Obama the Ass Clown.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:31 | 1178605 yabyum
yabyum's picture

After that screed, I'll take Obama +8. I'll also take silver +40. As long as the foxwads push Trump, Bachman&Palin, the repubs will get murderded.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 21:10 | 1178894 Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

Moronic tea partiers for Trump on deck - please find another website to lurk in. 

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:13 | 1178569 lynnybee
lynnybee's picture

help our elderly, the innocent who do not deserve any of this bullshit. ( Z.I.R.P. ).   please have empathy & do your best to help those who have been abandoned by their government.    the elderly will not make it without the love & support of their family, those lucky enough to have family.   

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:31 | 1178604 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Grandma we will go back to the old days where we watch the children and cook and clean for the family.  While they go out and do the laborus chores like chopping wood and tending the fields.

I actually think this will be good for the Country and will take us back to our roots. 

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:44 | 1178623 flacon
flacon's picture

It will be good for those who have stolen wealth their whole lives (having mortgages (pull-forward demand), investing in bonds (bonds of taxation-slavery), assuming that social security payments of their children's children will pay for their "golden years"). However for those who are smart, we will not regress in the coming years. 


There must be a penalty for stupidity, and that penalty is just about here.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 19:11 | 1178697 Creed
Creed's picture

having a mortgage that you pay for monthly for 30 years is stolen wealth?


buying bonds & receiving back principle + 5% is stealing?


 expecting to receive social security is stealing from the children? the same SS that we pay for via deductions on our paychecks? my wife and I have a combined 64 years of SS taxes paid into this thing, at 5% that's a sizeable sum we've paid into this system


you're an idiot




by flacon
on Sun, 04/17/2011 - 18:44


It will be good for those who have stolen wealth their whole lives (having mortgages (pull-forward demand), investing in bonds (bonds of taxation-slavery), assuming that social security payments of their children's children will pay for their "golden years"). However for those who are smart, we will not regress in the coming years. 


There must be a penalty for stupidity, and that penalty is just about here.

Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:01 | 1178789 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Yes, you are an idiot.

It's called work, and seizure of assets by a satanic system.

Always a Marxist wanting to steal from those who have paid their dues.


Mon, 04/18/2011 - 02:45 | 1179355 RichardP
RichardP's picture

DosZap - get real.  Has there ever been a civilization that did not seize assets to pay the expenses of the King?  This behavior predates Marx by thousands of years.  You have a thin grasp of human nature throughout history if you think anyone, anywhere, at any time in the past was able to go off and pay their dues and keep everything they collected.  The reality has always been that stronger bandits will plunder what they can, when they can, and take the fruits of your labor.  Protection from that reality is the fundamental reason why kings were needed throughout history.

You guys talk as though there has ever been a time when the general population got to keep 100% of the fruits of their effort.  Such a time has never existed, and will never exist.

Tue, 04/19/2011 - 01:00 | 1182971 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

That doesn't make it OK.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!