This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

It's A "0.6%" World: Who Owns What Of The $223 Trillion In Global Wealth

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Back in 2010 we started an annual series looking at the (re)distribution in the wealth of nations and social classes. What we found then (and what the media keeps rediscovering year after year to its great surprise) is that as a result of global central bank policy, the rich got richer, and the poor kept on getting poorer, even though as we predicted the global political powers would, at least superficially, seek to enforce policies that aimed to reverse this wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich (a doomed policy as the world's legislative powers are largely in the lobby pocket of the world's wealthiest who needless to say are less then willing to enact laws that reduce their wealth and leverage). Now that the topic of wealth distribution (or rather concentration) is once again in vogue, below we present the latest such update looking at a global portrait of household wealth. The bottom line: 29 million, or 0.6% of those with any actual assets under their name, own $87.4 trillion, or 39.3% of all global assets.

Here are the key highlights via Credit Suisse:

  • Global household wealth in mid-2012 totaled $223 trillion, equivalent to USD 49,000 per adult in the world.  This is a decline of $12.3 trillion mostly due to a $10.9 trillion decline in European wealth, however it is double the $113 trillion in total wealth at the start of the millennium
    • Losses in Africa, India and the Latin American countries were offset by modest gains in North America (USD 880 billion) and China (USD 560 billion),
  • CS expects total household wealth to rise by almost 50% in the next five years from $223 trillion in 2012 to $330 trillion in 2017. What CS does not say is that the bulk of this increase is courtesy of Federal Reserve-facilitated wealth redistribution from the lower and middle classes to the upper class.
  • The number of millionaires worldwide is expected to increase by about 18 million, reaching 46 million in 2017.
  • China is expected to surpass Japan as the second wealthiest country in the world. However, the USA should remain on top of the wealth league, with $89 trillion by 2017.

Drilling down the distribution of global wealth, in charts:

By the middle of 2011, global wealth had recovered from the 2007 financial crisis; at that time, total wealth matched or exceeded the pre-crisis levels in all regions except Africa.

Global wealth by country: The figure for average global wealth masks the considerable variation across countries and regions (see Figure 3). The richest nations, with wealth per adult over USD 100,000, are found in North America, Western Europe, and among the rich Asia- Pacific and Middle Eastern countries. They are headed by Switzerland, which in 2011 became the first country in which average wealth exceeded USD 500,000. Exchange rate fluctuations have reduced its wealth per adult from USD 540,000 in 2011 to USD 470,000 in 2012; but this still remains considerably higher than the level in Australia (USD 350,000) and Norway (USD 330,000), which retain second and third places despite falls of about 10%. Close behind are a group of nations with average wealth above USD 200,000, many of which have experienced double-digit depreciations against the US dollar, such as France, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark and Italy. Countries in the group which have not been adversely affected have moved up the rankings – most notably Japan to fourth place with wealth of USD 270,000 per adult and the USA to seventh place with USD 260,000 per adult.

Interestingly, the ranking by median wealth is slightly different, favoring countries with lower levels of wealth inequality. As was the case last year, Australia (USD 195,000) tops the table by a considerable margin, with Japan, Italy, Belgium, and the UK in the band from USD 110,000 to 140,000, and Singapore and Switzerland with values around USD 90,000. The USA lags far behind with median wealth of just USD 55,000.

 

Trends in wealth per adult and its components: As Figure 5 shows, average household net worth trended upwards from 2000 until the crisis in 2007, then fell by approximately 10% before recovering in 2011 to slightly above the pre-crisis level. Further setbacks this year have pushed wealth per adult back below the previous peak. However, exchange rate movements account for much of the year-onyear variation. Using constant USD exchange rates yields a smoother time trend and a single significant downturn in 2008, after which point the recovery has continued more or less unabated.

At the start of the millennium, financial assets accounted for well over half of the household portfolio, but the share declined until 2008, at which point the global wealth portfolio was equally split between financial and nonfinancial assets (mostly property). In the period since 2008, the balance has again tipped slightly towards financial assets.

On the liabilities side of the household balance sheet, average debt rose by 80% between 2000 and 2007, and subsequently leveled out. It now amounts to USD 8,600 per adult, about 7% lower than it was the same time a year ago. Expressed as a proportion of household assets, average debt has moved in a narrow range, rising over the period, but never exploding.

The composition of household portfolios varies widely and systematically across countries. The most persistent feature is the rise in the relative importance of both financial assets and liabilities with the level of development. For instance, financial assets account for 43.1% of gross assets in Europe and 67.1% in North America, but just 15.9% of gross assets in India. Household debt as a percentage of gross assets is 16% in Europe and 18.1% in North America, but only 3.7% in India and 8.7% in Africa. There is also variation in portfolios unrelated to the level of development. Some developed countries, like Italy, have unusually low liabilities (10.0% of gross assets), while others have surprisingly high debt, like Denmark (33.7% of gross assets). In addition, the mix of financial assets varies greatly, reflecting national differences in financial structure. The share of equities in total financial assets, for example, ranges from 43.4% in the USA, down to just 20.1% and 6.5% in Germany and Japan respectively.

 

Changes to household wealth from mid-2011 to mid-2012; The adverse global economic climate and the USD appreciation that occurred during the year until mid-2012 meant that household wealth rose by more than USD 100 billion in only four countries: the USA (USD 1.3 trillion), China (USD 560 billion), Japan (USD 370 billion) and Colombia (USD 100 billion). Figure 6 shows that Eurozone members suffered the largest losses, led by France (USD 2.2 trillion), Italy (USD 2.1 trillion), Germany (USD 1.9 trillion) and Spain (USD 870 billion). These losses were exacerbated by the unfavorable euro-dollar exchange rate movement, but even in euro terms, wealth declined by EUR 50 billion in Germany, EUR 148 billion in France, EUR 177 billion in Spain and EUR 286 billion in Italy. Sizeable USD wealth reductions were also recorded in the UK (USD 720 billion), India (USD 700 billion), Australia (USD 600 billion), Brazil (USD 530 billion), Canada (USD 440 billion) and Switzerland (USD 410 billion).

The largest percentage gains and losses generate a slightly different list. A steady USD exchange rate, combined with an 11% improvement in market capitalization, helped Colombia to top the country rankings with a 16% rise in household wealth. Algeria, Hong Kong, Peru and Uruguay also recorded gains of more than 5%. The downside is more evident, especially in Eurozone countries, where double-digit losses were recorded everywhere (see Figure 7). Other sizeable declines were recorded for Russia (–13%), Mexico (–14%), South Africa (–15%) and India (–18%), while Eastern Europe had a very poor year, led by the Czech Republic and Poland (both with –18%), Hungary (–25%) and Romania (–36%).

* * *

But in a globalized world with virtually unlimited capital flows (for now: see Cyprus) physical borders mean little. Which is why next we look at the global wealth pyramid which breaks down wealth as percentage of the world population: i.e., who owns how much without geographic prejudice. It is here that is becomes most obvious how global policies since the Great Financial Crisis have benefitted the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else.

Presenting the global wealth pyramid:

Here are the stunning facts:

  • In 2012, 3.2 billion individuals – more than two-thirds of the global adult population – have wealth below USD 10,000, and a further one billion (23% of the adult population) are placed in the USD 10,000–100,000 range.
    • The average wealth holding is modest in the base and middle segments of the pyramid, total wealth amounts to USD 39 trillion, underlining the potential for new consumer trends products and for the development of financial services targeted at this often neglected segment.
  • The remaining 373 million adults (8% of the world) have assets exceeding USD 100,000.
  • And then the top of the pyramid: 29 million US dollar millionaires, a group which contains less than 1% of the world’s adult population, collectively owns nearly 40% of global household wealth.
  • Some 84,500 individuals are worth more than USD 50 million, and 29,000 are worth over USD 100 million.
    • The composition of the wealth pyramid in 2012 is broadly similar to that of the previous year, except for the fact that the overall reduction in total wealth increases the percentage of adults in the base level from 67.6% to 69.3% and reduces the relevant population share higher up the pyramid by a corresponding amount. The respective wealth shares are virtually unchanged.

Breaking it down by class.

Lower Class (base level of pyramid):

The various strata of the wealth pyramid have distinctive characteristics. Although members of the base level are spread widely across all regions, representation in India and Africa is disproportionately high, while Europe and North America are correspondingly underrepresented (see Figure 2). The base tier has the most even distribution across regions and countries, but it is also the most heterogeneous, spanning a wide range of family circumstances. In developed countries, only about 30% of the population fall into this category, and for most of these individuals, membership is a transient or life cycle phenomenon associated with youth, old age, or periods of unemployment. In contrast, more than 90% of the adult population in India and Africa are located within this band. In many low-income African countries, the percentage of the population is close to 100%. Thus, for many residents of low-income countries, lifetime membership of the base tier is the norm rather than the exception. However, lower living costs mean that the upper limit of USD 10,000 is often sufficient to assure a reasonable standard of living.

While bottom-of-the-pyramid countries have limited wealth, it often grows at a fast pace. In India, for example, wealth is skewed towards the bottom of the wealth pyramid, yet it has tripled since 2000. Indonesia has also seen dramatic growth, and aggregate wealth in Latin America is now USD 8.7 trillion, compared to USD 3.4 trillion in 2000. In contrast, while North Americans dominate the top of the wealth pyramid, wealth in the USA has grown more modestly, from USD 39.5 trillion in 2000 to USD 62 trillion today.

 

Middle Class (middle level of pyramid):

The one billion adults located in the USD 10,000–100,000 range are the middle class in the global distribution of wealth. The average wealth holding is close to the global average for all wealth levels, and the total wealth of USD 32 trillion gives this segment considerable economic weight. The regional composition of this tier most closely corresponds to the global pattern, although India and Africa are underrepresented. The comparison of China and India is particularly interesting.  India is host to just 3% of the global middle class, and the share has been relatively stagnant in recent years. In contrast, China’s share has been growing fast and now accounts for over one-third of members, ten times higher than India’s. 

 

Upper Class (upper level of pyramid):

High wealth segment of the pyramid The regional composition changes significantly when it comes to the 373 million adults worldwide who make up the “high” segment of the wealth pyramid – those with a net worth above USD 100,000. North America, Europe and the Asia- Pacific region together account for 89% of the global membership of this group, with Europe alone home to 141 million members (38% of the total).  This compares with about 2.4 million adult members in India (0.6% of the global total) and a similar number in Africa.

The number of people in a given country with wealth above USD 100,000 depends on three factors: population size, the average wealth level, and wealth inequality within the country concerned. In 2012, only 15 countries have more than 1% of the global membership. The USA leads with 21% of the total. In this instance, the three factors reinforce each other: a large population, combined with high mean wealth and an unequal wealth distribution. Japan is a strong second and is currently the only country that challenges the hegemony of the USA in the top wealth-holder rankings. Although its relative position has declined over the past couple of decades due to the lackluster performance of its equity and housing markets, Japan has 18% of individuals with wealth above USD 100,000, a couple of points more than a year ago.

The most populous EU countries – Italy, the UK, Germany, and France – each contribute 6%–8% to the high wealth segment, and each country has experienced a small decline in its membership share during the year. For many years, these countries have occupied positions three to six in the global rankings, but this year China edged France out of sixth place, a dramatic improvement from the situation in 2000, when China’s representation in the top wealth groups was too small to register. Brazil, Korea and Taiwan are other emerging market economies with at least four million residents with a net worth above USD 100,000. Mexico accounted for more than 1% of the group in 2011, but has dropped below this benchmark this year. 

 

The Ultra-High Class (the very Top of the pyramid):

A different pattern of membership is again evident among the world’s millionaires at the top of the pyramid (see Figure 3). Compared to individuals with wealth  above USD 100,000, the proportion of members from the United States almost doubles to 39%, and the shares of most of the other countries move downwards. There are exceptions, however. France moves up to third place in the rankings, and Sweden and Switzerland both join the group of countries with more than 1% of global millionaires. Thank you Federal Reserve. 

 

Welcome to (say goodbye to) the Millionaire's Club:

Changing membership of the “millionaire group”; Changes to wealth levels since mid-2011 have affected the pattern of wealth distribution. The overall decline in average wealth has raised the proportion of adults with wealth below USD 10,000 from 67.6% in mid-2011 to 69.3% in mid-2012 (as the poor get poorer), and reduced the number of millionaires by slightly more than one million (see Table 1). There were 962,000 new millionaires in the United States and 460,000 in Japan, but no significant increase in numbers elsewhere. However, Europe shed almost 1.8 million US dollar millionaires, most notably in Italy (–374,000), France (–322,000),Germany (–290,000), Denmark (–179,000), Sweden (–142,000) and Spain (–87,000). Australia, Canada, Brazil and Taiwan are the other countries in  the group of the top ten losers. The losses were sufficient to drop Brazil, Denmark and Taiwan (along with Belgium) from the list of countries with more than 1% of the total number of millionaires worldwide.

 

High net worth individuals; To estimate the pattern of wealth holdings above USD 1 million requires a high degree of ingenuity because at high wealth levels, the usual sources of wealth data – official statistics and sample surveys – become increasingly incomplete and unreliable. We overcome this deficiency by  exploiting wellknown statistical regularities in the upper parts of the wealth distribution to ensure that the top wealth tail is consistent with the annual Forbes tally of global billionaires and similar “rich list” data published elsewhere. This produces plausible estimates of the global pattern of asset holdings in the high net worth (HNW) category from USD 1 million to USD 50 million, and in the ultra high net worth (UHNW) range from USD 50 million upwards. While the base of the wealth pyramid is occupied by people from all countries of the world at various stages of their life cycles, HNW and UHNW individuals are heavily concentrated in particular regions and countries, and tend to share a similar lifestyle, participating in the same global markets for high coupon consumption items, even when they reside on different continents. The wealth portfolios of individuals are also likely to be similar, dominated by financial assets and, in particular, equity holdings in public  companies traded in international markets. For these reasons, using official exchange rates to value assets is more appropriate than using local price levels.

There are about 28.5 million HNW individuals with wealth between USD 1 million and USD 50 million in mid-2012, of whom the vast majority (25.6 million) fall in the USD 1–5 million range (see Figure 4). One year ago, Europe overtook North America as the region with the greatest number of HNW individuals, but tradition has been  restored this year, with 11.8 million residents (42% of the total) in North America and 9.2 million (32%) in Europe. Asia-Pacific countries excluding China and India have 5.7 million members (20%), and we estimate that there are currently a fraction under one million HNW individuals in China (3.4% of the global total). The remaining 753,000 HNW individuals (2.6% of the total) reside in India, Africa or Latin America.

Ultra high net worth individuals

There is an estimated are 84,500 UHNW individuals in the world, defined here as those with net assets exceeding USD 50 million. Of these, 29,300 are worth at least USD 100 million and 2,700 have assets above USD 500 million. North America dominates the regional rankings, with 40,000 UHNW residents (47%), while Europe has 22,000 individuals (26%), and 12,800 (15%) reside in Asia-Pacific countries, excluding China and India. In terms of individual countries, the USA leads by a huge margin with 37,950 UHNW individuals, equivalent to 45% of the group (see Figure 5). The recent fortunes created in China have propelled it into second place with 4,700 representatives (5.6% of the global total), followed by Germany (4,000), Japan (3,400), the United Kingdom (3,200) and Switzerland (3,050). Numbers in other BRIC countries are also rising fast, with 1,950 members in Russia, 1,550 in India and 1,500 in Brazil, and strong showings are evident in Taiwan (1,200), Hong Kong (1,100) and Turkey (1,000). Although there is very little comparable data on the past, it is almost certain that the number of UHNW individuals is considerably greater than it was a decade ago. The overall growth in asset values accounts for part of the increase, together with the appreciation of currencies against the US dollar over much of the period. However, it also appears that, notwithstanding the credit crisis and the more recent setbacks, the past decade has been especially conducive to the establishment of large fortunes.

 

Hail Bernanke (and Kuroda, and Draghi, and Carney, and Jordan, and so on), the ultra high net worth individuals on the chart below salute you.


 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:11 | Link to Comment SRSrocco
SRSrocco's picture

WARREN BUFFET

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Future Tense
Future Tense's picture

It's incredible to think about what would happen if just a small percentage of this enormous paper wealth were to move into the precious metals market, specifically silver. The following article discusses an updated look at the tiny amount of physical silver that exists above ground and what would happen should some paper currency find it:

http://www.ftense.com/2013/06/the-coming-silver-price-surge-will.html

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:18 | Link to Comment Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

A whole article about (sociopathic) billionaires owning the world without the name: Rothschild.

What gives.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:47 | Link to Comment Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Let me just repeat myself and say, its not about money for the wealthiest 0.6%.  They didn't become wealthiest because they were greedier and harder working, that is a fallacy.  They are powermongers, of the Machiavellian school, and thus their wealth has been acquired by any means necessary.

Debt slavery, usury, fractional reserve banking, the (actual) slave trade, the Opium Wars, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, financing both sides in a conflict,  theft by inflation, insider trading...

Thats how fortunes like these were amassed.  But because of lust of power, not greed.  There is a difference, and the corollaries that are derived therefrom are also different.

The world is badly in need of justice and the rule of law.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:09 | Link to Comment fourchan
fourchan's picture

as measured in joobux, which are worthless. 

 

keep stacking, the reevaluation of values will come sooner rather than later.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:52 | Link to Comment Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

They are very diversified (real estate, banking, Military Industrial, Big Pharma, transport, utilities, basic goods, consumer goods, etc.) and debt free at this point.  But their counterparties (us) are heavily indebted and unlikely to be able to pay.

And their lackeys, the top 2-4%, are the most in debt of all, because that is the road to riches their overlords have promised them.  Leverage + manipulation = fortunes for the underlings 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 17:44 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

Adjust wealth for localized purchasing power, social benefits (you need $200k to send your kid to good college, but not in China), age, and risk assets.

 

50yo American ex-pro athlete with $1M in bank but working as $60k/y security personnel in Manhattan is not as rich as 20yo son of a Chinese communist elite with no money to his name living in a place where you can hire personal security personnel for $6k/year.

 

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:01 | Link to Comment Son of Loki
Son of Loki's picture

A Pew Charitable Trust study, titled "Retirement Security Across Generations," examined the savings behavior of five age groups before the Great Recession hit and found that Gen Xers - the group of Americans following the baby boomers and range in age from 38 to 47 - fared especially poorly during the recent economic down swing. As a result, their retirement years will likely be more tarnished than golden.


Members of Generation X, the so-called slackers weaned on Saturday morning cartoons, divorce and cynicism, are now in their late 30s to late 40s.

 

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/generation-x-fares-poorly-during-re...

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:50 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

GenX has small numbers and will be easily supported by the taxes of the GenY zombies

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:58 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

With what, their food stamp benefits?

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 23:46 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

no.. their whore cam taxes

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 05:24 | Link to Comment StandardDeviant
StandardDeviant's picture

"fourchan", how can you post a very pertinent quote about currency debasement from Ayn Rand in another thread, and then come out with a moronic expression like "joobux" in this one?  Did you just find her quote on another site -- have you not actually read her work for yourself?

Though she was an atheist, and had no time for religions of any sort, she'd have shredded anyone who viewed other people simply as members of a particular ethnic group.  It's primitive, savage tribalism, and is beneath you.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 07:56 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Right, now as an experiment go count how many Jewish/Palestinian inter marriages go without any friction

Stop protecting a race that is one of the most racists there ever was (but of course they get away with it by labeling it 'safety issues')

Didn't the south hang niggers on the same reasoning?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:32 | Link to Comment Meremortal
Meremortal's picture

Thanks, I always wondered how Bill Gates got so rich.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:13 | Link to Comment LooseLee
LooseLee's picture

We all know most of them did not get wealthy through hard work. However, I do not think you can separate greed from power at that level...

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:27 | Link to Comment WarPony
WarPony's picture

Here, here, give it up for the trillionaire Roths, i never see Forbes post that list.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:24 | Link to Comment machineh
machineh's picture

The UHNWs didn't get that way by 'stacking' bars of metal in their basements.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:48 | Link to Comment giggler123
giggler123's picture

That's very true.  They just stacked it in their banks.

 

Ofcourse those pyramids looks nice but they are missing their eye - you know, the eye of thundera...

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 17:45 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

they just stand outside the bank and change account ownership to themselves when the time is right.

 

See Russian oligarchs.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:35 | Link to Comment Whatta
Whatta's picture

UHNW usual keep up to a third of their wealth in PM's. They keep enough free cash to run their lives, then PM's, real estate, and "other" investments round their wealth matrix out

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:34 | Link to Comment SRSrocco
SRSrocco's picture

Warren Buffet is part of that 1%.  It's quite interesting that Warren's father, Howard Buffet was a gold bug, but Warren is not.  There is a reason why Warren doesn't believe in gold or the gold standard.. and it has to do with his views of INFINITE GROWTH forever.  Of course Warren will turn out to be completely wrong in his views on gold.

You can read about this in the post below"

Warren Buffett and the Investment Value of Gold

 

http://srsroccoreport.com/guest-post-warren-buffett-and-the-investment-v...

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:53 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Warren's father was "just a Senator." Obviously Warren is the second richest...and perhaps soon to be THE richest man in both the world and history. listen...the Fed is one thing (and i agree that's too much power in one body) but at the same time you have Wall Street and the modern media complex. these things are no Tower of Babel folks...all "working" so to speak...for the aggregation of wealth "no matter the name." (although there is a point where the name does matter.) France, Sweden, the USA...all had/have one thing in common: the ability to finance empires without resort to gold. (yes, Sweden had an empire. it was a LONG time ago...but it darn near took down the Hapsburgs!) i do agree with the ZH thesis that these things must collapse without resort to gold...money debasement is just that...debasement. eventually "you get the call" and you have to deliver on something you never really had to begin with. but between that phone call and what comes in between is a "whole lotta a weirdness" too. "if enough people believe...

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:11 | Link to Comment fourchan
fourchan's picture

great post.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 17:34 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

Remember that a millionaire in 1900 had 50K ounces of gold, that's like having $70,000,000 today.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:05 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

Buffet's point is that allowing rich to hold gold instead of risk taking is useless for society only for the rich to preserve their wealth ranking ego.

 

America at 1900 had life expectancy of 46, barely any electricity and appliance like light bulbs, half of your babies end up dying for lacking $10 pill available today, smart people were toiling in farms all their life instead of contributing to society, etc.

 

Wealthy have responsibility to take risk, invest and progress humanity. Otherwise why do we allow them?

 

It is one thing to question misallocation of capital, but to not allocate capital at all except into wealth preservation, you are looking at no progress for humanity.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:25 | Link to Comment Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

So did you buy the Facebook IPO?  Or buy P&G lately?

In a crooked economy, if the choice is between not investing (i.e. saving your wealth in precious metals, lead, farm land, etc)or investing in broken financial markets, which one would you choose?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:14 | Link to Comment aint no fortuna...
aint no fortunate son's picture

Jamie fucking Dimon has a lot more of it than you - He's fucking RICH, and he's a fucking douchebag too

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:07 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

and he got there through nepotism.

 

Look up who his father was. 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:19 | Link to Comment LooseLee
LooseLee's picture

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a "rich" man to enter the Kingdom of God. Dimon and his cronies do not realize what they have awaiting them...

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:13 | Link to Comment robochess
robochess's picture

yea, so what's your point?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:26 | Link to Comment Kayman
Kayman's picture

Here's the point. It is a lesson in Geography. The closer you are to a Central Banker, the more likely you will be awash in paper assets; the more likely you will belong to the club.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:20 | Link to Comment ar01
ar01's picture

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free*"

*So that we can make a healthy profit from them

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:20 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

so that we can continue the population ponzi scheme and so that we can cram more illegal alien families in houses in the ghetto.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 10:43 | Link to Comment Mandel Bot
Mandel Bot's picture

The DHS has more than enough bullets to shoot the whole 29 million.

Pity their guns are pointed in the wrong direction.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:22 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

     Here's an interesting read from the MSM, for the muppets. Nothing Most ZHers didn't already know.

   Wealth of most Americans down 55% since recession - CBS News

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:32 | Link to Comment Nue
Nue's picture

Those figures only hold true if you believe have a 350k debt on a house somehow makes you 350k dollars richer.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 17:37 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

The bottom line: 29 million, or 0.6% of those with any actual assets under their name, own $87.4 trillion, or 39.3% of all global assets.

From the end of the first paragraph above.  The discussion is about who owns/constrols the assets.  Control of assets may loosely correspond to control of power.  Without subtracting liabilities, assets do not correspond to wealth at all.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I knew a guy from Jersey who actually believed that. 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 14:23 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Who? Whom?

As Lenin asked.

Marxism has been tried. It doesn't work.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:03 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

If you're wanting to conflate Leninism - Stalinism with Marxism, then we get to play too:

Capitalism has been tried. It doesn't work.

See the trick? The 20th Century was the battle of the "isms" (ideological war for total dominance - largely perversions of each; Fascism, Communism, Capitalism), but guess what? Capitalism won. But... It ain't the 20th Century no more.

 

 

p.s. Each was perverted by design. You can blame the usual bugbears, but let's just say: not who you're thinking of. LOOK! <SQUIRRELS!>

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:20 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Where, in that simple statement, did I conflate Marxism with communism?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:43 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Communism =! Marxism, this is obvious by any close reading of his work. For one, he thought it was a process that would arise as an emergent property of Capitalism, not through revolution, which is a central tennet of Leninism - Stalinism.

Unlike many here, I've actually read Marx, and understood it. He simply doesn't assume that a "vanguard" leadership is required to bring the proletariat to power.

 

 

p.s. I'm not a Marxist nor am I a Communist. I just happen to engage with the reality of their works, not the strawmen you love, and are attempting to use to steer the debate. (O.O.Y.P.L. now shoo!)

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 17:50 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

My point is simply that marxism is professional revolutionary-ism; it says nothing of substance about what's to fill the void after the overthrow of the classical liberal (what marx and the germans calls capitalist) order.

Lenin-ism would simply be applied marxism; communism - in the marxist sense of it - would the naturally resulting dicatatorship.

Of course, in the West we generally use the word "communist" to describe anyone who attacks Western civilization through the three marxist attack vectors:

1. Attacking private property
2. Attacking the family
3. Attacking Christianity

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:03 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

nope; the enlightenment attacked christianity and aristocracy the two pillars of feudal order : hang the last king with the entrails of the last cleric (diderot). 

Private property yes.

Family not so much but capital/land inheritence yes. 

Communism was about social order, aka top-down structural friction, not social links within same class. 

Marx never attacked the family structure but recognised that "religion" was a tool as it was second estate, selling God to ensure rule of king and its successors; capitalism. 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:16 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Abolition of the family is one of the core tenets of the marxist religion.

As Shafarevich noted in "Socialism in Our Past and Future": The Communist Manifesto devotes extensive space to the destruction of the family, to the rearing of children away from their parents in state schools, and to wife-sharing.

Regarding the scientific method, it was practically invented in a quadrilateral of Christendom with vertices at Berlin, London, Vienna, and Paris.  Newton, for example, was also a Christian theologian.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:18 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Newton also believed in alchemy. And not in the Christian sense.

 

You're a fucking wizard, Harry. Do you believe the shit you spout, or do you get paid?

 

I'm really hoping it's the latter.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:19 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Certainly, alchemy was the precursor to chemistry.  There's no question about that.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:22 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

But alchemy lacks virtue and is therefore the playground of Satan.

Following the logic, Isaac Newton lacked virtue and was therefore also a Satanist.

QED

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:34 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

How so?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:45 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I really didn't think he would take the bait on that one.

Will you?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:02 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Your question does not advance traditional family values and therefore lacks virtue.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Kind of true, actually.

Without virtue, people degrade into wild beasts.  We see it in today's liberals every single day.  Wild beasts they be.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 23:24 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Kind of true, actually.

Very telling this guy now admittants in employ of Luscefer.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:24 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

capitalism won when marxists in Russia saw even the poorest of the poor in America still had cars on films making fun of the poor.

 

marxism won when capitalists turned to the state for bailout money proving that capitalism alone is impossible.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:31 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Socialism is more of a psychological phenomenon wrapped in a pseudo-intellectual shell.

If you look at today's liberalism, in the states at least, it clearly arises from the same primitive counter-civilization urges that impelled its marxist, socialist, and communist ancestors.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:13 | Link to Comment Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Lincoln summed it up nicely, "that old serpent, you work I'll eat."

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:48 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Actually, the CCCP lost when Chernobyl polluted most of Europe; it was then that it was decided that the CCCP needed to go. Five years later, *poof*. No-one gave a shit about the people inside the prison until then (and indeed it was very useful 1968 Mr Man, 1968 - seriously, look at that clip, and if you think Alex Jones is peddling something new, that was 1968. Blueprint. For. World. Order. 1968. TROLOLOL)

 

You people really have no idea who runs Barter Town, do you?

 

 

p.s. That episode went live in 1968, I think. First man on the Moon? '69. Nudge Nudge. Wink. Wink.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:38 | Link to Comment Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

Thank you, that video is awesome

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:26 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

You're welcome: This channel has most of them.

 

Rules of the Game: only anything that is in the public domain, released by someone else is allowed[1]. You'll have to realize that they were made in 1967/8 and so are lacking 50 years of research, control and other goodies, but hey. It's a decent primer into getting free. Watch them, they teach you the (old basic) traps, then start pulling data and learning the new ones.

Be Seeing You.

 

 

[1] I might be breaking the rules a little by morphing tri and tetra levels of depth to forge new outputs, but hey: if no-one else is abiding by the Spirit of the Law, why should I? Bleh, so much hypocrisy.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:03 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Be Seeing You.

I'm not a number, I'm a ....... oh, wait, nevermind.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 05:48 | Link to Comment trader1
trader1's picture

you indicated an interest in fresh, new material...

"be seeing you" line has been re-purposed in the dexter series script. it struck me as i was re-viewing Season 4 in prep for the Season 8 finale, starting 30 june..

Lundy (Keith Carradine) closes a brief dialogue with "be seeing you" after talking w/ Debra Morgan (Jennifer Carpenter) for the first time in 2 years (since Season 2).  i wish i could post the scene, but unfortunately it hasn't made it onto youtube/vimeo...the "legal" full episode will have to suffice.  

if you haven't gotten into dexter, it's not too late.  i see that you like sci-fi; but if you have even a remote interest in crime / serial killer dramas, then you'll thank me later

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:42 | Link to Comment Meremortal
Meremortal's picture

A group of European students recently visited New York City to research poverty in America. They were taken to the "projects" and shown how the people lived. 

When they saw the size of the apartments, the color TVs and cell phones, the closets full of clothes and the refrigerators fulll of food, they went ballistic.

This is fakery they cried. These people aren't poor! Where are the real poor people? 

They shouldn't worry. We are producing more every day through our welfare state. They are considered poor in America, but would be rated relatively wealthy most anywhere else.

There is a reason millions of people wake up every day across the planet and say, "If I could only get to America."

My Dad did, he came to America in 1937 at the age of 12, with nothing but some clothes. Then over the next 50 years the Rothchild's made him worth $10 million somehow.

Idiots. 

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:00 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Aurora Ex Machina asked of F. Bastiat:

You're a fucking wizard, Harry. Do you believe the shit you spout, or do you get paid?

Based on his skill in diverting discussion away from the topic of a given article, my guess is that he's a paid interloper. A recent example is this ZH article where he managed to generate hundreds of comments by ranting about "the virtues of sodomy and atheism", which had nothing to do with the article itself.

By examining the pattern of articles he disrupts, it may be possible to draw some conclusions about his employer. His disruptive skill indicates that he's not some run-of-the-mill 50 Cent Party babbler like AnAnonymous. It will be interesting to keep an eye on this one.

I'm really hoping it's the latter.

If he's not being paid, then he's a mission poster with the kind of motivation that only psychosis provides.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:46 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Your US 'american' troll sleuthing is very much the mattering thing, very crusty indeed.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Your US 'american' troll sleuthing is very much the mattering thing, very crusty indeed.

Alas, alas, endless descent into a Mandelbrot Set of thought-restricting isms alas, the troll stencher crustiness this guy sells is indeed, beyond all w?ng píng yuán, the mattering thing, the very mettle of his offuscillations.

Paid shill definitively. Only other possible beside insanitation (a property of non-exclusivitariousness) is guy rolling himself down shill roadside 7 of 7, 365 of 365, 24 of 24, in bivalvular technique. Which reads strong sign of insanitation...

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:51 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

You sir, are a very bright lad.

At least when it comes to drawing half of your conclusions.

As a student of history, albeit an amateur one, I see no reason to retreat from civilization or civilized behaviour.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 02:38 | Link to Comment Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Wise observations, Stooge. I think he's worse than analmouse. At least analmouse makes me laugh and is occasionally correct about America's belief in exceptionalism. This guy is really, really irritating.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:44 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

I would advise you to read a book that has come out on MArx written by an english author that contextualises the true history of Marx relative to his own period. 

You would be surprised about all your own certitudes. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-book-on-karl-marx-reveals-the-man-2013-6

Remember Galileo? So much  for your scientific quadrilateral. As for logic as Descartes said about his own age : I think so I exist. What he implied was : I think DIFFERENTLY (to the stifling absolutist meme), thus I exist.

Galileo said te same thing when he renounced his theories about the earth moving around the sun and not being static, to save his skin in front of the Catholic Inquisition (great christian LOVERS of science BTW). As he left he added : and yet IT continues to revolve...like  Descartes he continued to think OUT of the box! 

So much for christian science hocus pocus and Marx hating family. He LOVED his own family as this article proves.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:53 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Marx's rather unoriginal calls for the destruction of the family are in the Communist Manifesto.

Read it for yourself.

 

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:04 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

The Communist Manifesto does not promote virtue, therefore it is the work of the Devil.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:34 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I don't think there's much question about that.  It's not like marxists murdered 100 million souls in the 21st century or anything.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 23:18 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

F. Bastiat driveled:

It's not like marxists murdered 100 million souls in the 21st century or anything.

Ah, ah, first time this guy comments of value beyond rice bucket lacking punctual suitability.

Marxismists and Commonists will needing play catch up strongy to compare in way with US government on that 21th century department.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:16 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Yes, Marxism does, it really does.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Marx - Communist Manifesto

He was horribly naive, and the Anarchists of the time told him so. It caused a bit of a divide. You might want to note that Bakunin was important here:

The 1872 Hague Congress was dominated by a struggle between Marx and his followers, who argued for the use of the state to bring about socialism, and the Bakunin/anarchist faction, which argued instead for the replacement of the state by federations of self-governing workplaces and communities. Bakunin could not attend the congress, as he could not reach the Netherlands. Bakunin's faction present lost at the conference, and Bakunin was (in Marx's view) expelled for supposedly maintaining a secret organisation within the international.

 

p.s. It's fucking hilarious you're discussing the 21st Century with reference to 19th Century thinkers, and you've not even read them. I AM 12 AND WHAT IS THIS?

 

Master shill at work.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:18 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

That's Kafka-esque nonsense that offers not a single point of substance.

Lenin made the same observation.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:23 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

...and you've not read the notes of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd Internationals, have you?

The manifesto is a pamphlet, for fucks sake, not a book.

I was taking the piss out of your pathetic knowledge base, if you need a reference. If you really want me to dig out the big guns, you're gonna have to prove you're a more worthy opponent.

Hint: Burden of proof is on you. I've stated I'm not a Marxist, but all you've been spouting is bollocks so far. Step up. Oh, and O.O.Y.P.G stands for: Out Of Your Pay Grade, which you're proving quite comprehensively so far.

 

 

But please, bore me more about your lack of knowledge, it's fucking fascinating.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:24 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I certainly give you some credit for your dogmatic defense of the marxist religion.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:28 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Yeah, that was weak.

"I'm not a Marxist" <> "You defend the Marxist religion".

 

Yeah, that's called giving up.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:36 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

That doesn't change the fact that Lenin pointed out that Marxism was completely devoid of any post-revolutionary substance.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:45 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

...said the man who just purged the Anarchists from the revolution. (You think he might have had a hidden plan? Something *other* than Marxism? Naaaah. That'd be silly, it's not like his successor would kill thirty million people or so, is it? That'd be insane.)

Wow. It's been years since I spoke to an old school Leninist. Fuck me, you must be like 66 to have survived in America from the old Soviet inflitration plans so long. It's like discovering one of those Japanese WWII veterans stuck on their island, fighting the war until December 1974.

 

Respect my old man. But, I have some sad news about the CCCP, you might want to sit down for a moment...

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:47 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Just pointing out the facts; what grudge do you harbour against them?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:53 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Grudge against the Leninists - Stalinists? Yeah, now we know you're trolling. Killing people, and quashing freedoms and actual freedom based ideology, mostly.

 

Oh, and "just pointing out the facts". Seriously, we're just responding at the moment to see the next bit of your puppet show, it's like watching a car crash, but with puppets.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:54 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

No, the fact that marxism is vapid nonsense.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:05 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Nah, we're done.

You had a chance, you're just a Bot to me at this point. Every post has no content, little logic and is just designed to spike a response with pathetic hooks. Aka, time waster, mirror poster. If you want to know the really sad thing about what you're doing? A Bot does it better - I was running a Turing test on you because I thought you were actually a Bot, and was intrigued. The bot I'd set up with links to Wikipedia and <list of Marxist rebuttals / names / etc> as a comparison was much more fun than you, and made me think more.

Yep: you performed worse than a bot.

 

Turns out you're just a plush toy. Probably out of that place that visits Reddit so much. You know, Operation Ernest Voice.

 

ZZZZzzzz.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:18 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

It's still not clear what your point is.  That you don't know the difference between != and =! perhaps?

I simply pointed out that revolutionary Marxism was practically different from post-revolutionary communism and that Lenin was the first, AFAIK, to observe that simple fact.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:17 | Link to Comment spooz
spooz's picture

Hey, if its enuf to convince a few ignorant sheeple, thats all that matters.  Y'know, glazed over eyes, ready to follow the leader without having to think much...

MARXISM = BAD

CAPITALISM = GOOD

Then if you can label one of the duopoly parties as Marxist, it makes the game of good cop/bad cop so much easier, lesser of two evils and all

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:06 | Link to Comment BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

What are you guys? Fucking Arts Majors?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:18 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Never heard of using a ball of string?

If you need a translation, who would possibly profit from de-railing a thread about the current wealthy onto Marxism / CCCP?

 

Hint: There are no real Marxists left. If you think they exist, you're a tool. I was bored and probing a minion, nothing more; he's someone's poodle, who barely functions beyond yapping.

 

His master will probably neuter him for this little debacle.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:19 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

The intellectual vanguard of today's democrat faction is pure marxist.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:21 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

ZZzzz.

 

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:35 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Clearly, no reasonable person would dispute the fact that Hussein Obama, for example, is a delusional marxist.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:20 | Link to Comment Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

Clearly, that is pure concentrated FoxNews-level propaganda bullshit. He's a statist-corporatist, demonstrated by his enforcement of dictatorial police powers and his placement of corporate agents at the head of regulatory institutions, which makes him a proto-fascist.

Do you have any idea of what a marxist is, beyond the '50s boogeyman you've been taught to fear?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:27 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

You're misinterpreting the guy by not looking at his primary influences:

- Nudge
- The Communist Manifesto
- Rules for Radicals

Those three books are pure marxist nonsense.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:35 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

 

And that's why, kids, the Nazis rose to power beating the shit out of the Communists on the streets of Berlin!


Seriously: I know what you're doing, and it's cute and all, but this is like engaging with pre-schoolers from the 1890's who don't know what electricity is.

You have a powerful tool in front of you. The Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia await you!

No wait. Too good.

TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

 

These 1.0s are so fucking cute. If they weren't white power fascists, it'd be worth saving them!

 

 

No. Seriously. Stop feeding the troll. He gets paid by the response.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:44 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Who doesn't love beating communists?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 23:41 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

F. Bastiat, in a moment of revealing hypocriticality, said:

Who doesn't love beating communists?

Jesus, that's who.

Funny how Christianist guys like this support "Christianity" while opposing the teachings of Christ. Well, OK, not funny, just nauseating.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 07:41 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Communism is the very essence of a counter-Christian religion.

If you choose to be a slave, that's your business.

Refer to St. Thomas Aquinas.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 09:52 | Link to Comment trader1
trader1's picture

the very essence of counter-christian religion?

tell that to the hutterites

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:28 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Why don't you point to one "true Marxist" for an evaluation?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:33 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Apparently Lenin was a good guy, and killing off Anarchists is a good thing.

Apparently.

His entire posting history is just dribble, I'd not even go there. He's spinning responses to divert attention from the point of OPs piece, and he's getting paid.

 

QED > I deal with the shittier ZH shills, you can do more productive things.

 

And yes, I drink heavily to do so.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:42 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

It was directed at Carmangole (whateverthefuck).

But I'll take any model of a "true Marxist" at this point...cuz there ain't any...never was.

Marx himself was a fucking parasite, depending on another (Engels) for financial support for himself & his family.

A failed artist, could be another interpretation.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:51 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

You miss the point.

Look up: FORUM SLIDING.

These modern parasites are used to Reddit / 4Chan, where you can slide a forum easily via either botting upvotes or mass posting on non-registered sockpuppets. ZH works on an older basis (and non-PHP which means they can't just hack it and nuke threads) so he's resorting to old skool tactics, but he's not very good at it. Thus my links.

 

 

He's a Spook / Military / Contracted Bod.

 

I've told you that several times, but I'll repeat it:  

He's a Spook / Military / Contracted Bod.

(I did the testing / outing much earlier in this thread, which is why I was referencing Bots / Turing test. He scored extremely low on the indexes we use to monitor "real" posters, which meant he was a bot or had a script. Even pure trolls from /b/ will react to certain stimuli and HE DID NOT - script or bot, and the bot said "no").

 

Put another way - we've argued in the past, and fought, and growled. But we did it like humans, didn't we?

He's not responding like a human does.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:54 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Who is the "we" you keep referring, that you are one of?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:01 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Humanity, I hope.

 

You don't have to join ze gang, you just have to think & be free. We cool with that? You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it on your own & all ;)

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:09 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I have always come & gone as I please and when I have alliances I make it known on which side of the tracks I stand.

Its not proper to slander/accuse someone without proof.

So, I guess now we're cool.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:13 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

The proof is in the pudding.

I made no wild accusations until it was obvious. Note: no denial was made (which is the first response a human makes; as we both know, then kissed n made up) and "he" ignores it all for a bit more talking points.

 

This thread was just to let you know to stop wasting your time: "he" has already scuttled.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:22 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

It really wasn't so much about him as it was you ;-)

And I'm still waiting on the "Marxists" he was confronting to give me the perfect real world model...outside of the American Indian...lol.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:47 | Link to Comment Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

Hey, don't mistake me for the other dude, I'm not a bot I was taking the time to read the rest of the thread

And yes, American Indians were probably close to a marxist ideal of society, nevermind the tribal wars. And failed artists are probably marxists-at-heart, at least as long as they don't become succesful or find a job, but I don't think I can find an authentic pure-breed long term "marxist" alive today

This doesn't cancel the qualities of Marx's theoretical work

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:56 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Nevermind the tribal wars?  War is the very essence of tribalism.

Good grief.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:02 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Marx's theoretical work"

Theoretical, being the operative word. It all sounds fluffy and nice in the lab (or the tax paid for classroom) until the guy digging the ditch in the hot sun glances over and see's the one sitting under the tree...thinking...pondering...relaxing...scratching his chin...eating an apple.

Instead of down in the ditch with him.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:08 | Link to Comment Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

As far as I can tell from within this chaotic thread, we are quite in agreement

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:12 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Carmagnole,

 

I had to respond to you here just to see what happens to this thread --- I have never seen one break through to the other side like this.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:29 | Link to Comment Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

Uh, hm. I've always been on my side, however ill-defined my position may be to others and myself.

What exactly is the break through I'm supposed to have accomplished, from which side to which other, and whose side are you on yourself?

My "side" is the probably unorthodox position of a pennyless european anarcho-leftist idealist hoping to see realised in an unknowable future an ideal of peace and liberty for all, while knowing full well that even if this goal is unreachable, it is worth moving toward. And I'm deeply interested by any bit of culture that may help me get a better understanding of the world, which may explain my eagerness to question those who seem to be more educated than me.

 

Are you sure you're not mixing some of my posts with those of the Bastiat neo-con bot guy  ?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:19 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...they're always good ones.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:56 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

What's patently obvious is that you know very little of what you so boldly proclaim.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:39 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Nonsense.

Saying it with authority doesn't make it so.  Just ask Hussein Obama.

In fact your substitution of =! for != is a dead giveaway that you haven't a clue.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:47 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Clearly, no reasonable person would dispute the fact that you are easily replaced by a perl script.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:14 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Alas, alas, three hundred hijacked threads alas, just have to bear with the lack of virtue.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:34 | Link to Comment Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

One of the last I can think of was maybe Jean-Paul Sartre. He stayed obstinately communist at a time when most other thinkers had become wary of Stalin's crimes in the name of a perversion of theoretical communism. Since then I don't think one can find a "true marxist". They all became "socialists", "social-democrats", or tiny and insignificant fractions of the malcontent youth who claimed themselves "trotskyists", "maoists" or "anarcho-something" in Europe. while the American ones became "liberals" or "neo-liberals" for the corrupt and "neo-conservative" for the sociopaths.

Even when this mythical beast was hunted by McCarthy, I doubt it could have been found anywhere.

What's surprising today is that the commie monster is resurrected as the inner ennemy du jour by the right-side propaganda, as if the threat of "terrorists" wasn't scary or believable enough anymore to frighten the herd toward useful pathways. One thing is certain however, it's that Obama isn't a "marxist" in any concievable meaning of the word

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:50 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"One thing is certain however, it's that Obamabee isn't a "marxist" in any concievable meaning of the word"

Re-distribution of legally earned wealth isn't a communist goal?

Now we can all go back & forth on what he was upon entering office, but its obvious to anyone not drinking the unicorn koolaid he (and she) would prefer to be the proverbial tyranical king & queen.

There is no other way to explain the edicts and lavish lifestyle coming from the executive branch.

So, one could reasonably argue, marxism leads to monarchy and serfdom for the worker bee. 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:02 | Link to Comment Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

No, re-distribution of legally earned wealth is theft. Communism is supposed to be (equal) redistribution of wealth that was inequally (hence immorally, leading to illegally) in the self-perpetuating posession of the aristocracy.

If he had redistributed to the 99% at least a small part of the wealth of the elite caste, it could have been communism. But offering foodstamps to the poors, and having them paid by state debt that will be discharged on their children while at the same time letting the 0.6%ers get fatter, less taxed, and bailouted to the max is very not communism.

And monarchy and serfdom are what exists today, or something very much like it

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:14 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"No, re-distribution of legally earned wealth is theft."

Agreed.

"Communism is supposed to be (equal) redistribution of wealth that was inequally (hence immorally, leading to illegally) in the self-perpetuating posession of the aristocracy."

I have no idea what that winds up meaning. Law is supposed to be the equivalent to morality & ethics.

But in any event, the re-distribution of wealth requires a benevolent, impartial state apparatus that implies no self imterest of itself..the state.

Thus...no public sector unions who have a self interest.

I'm ready to do some bargaining now ;-)

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:44 | Link to Comment Carmagnole
Carmagnole's picture

"Law is supposed to be the equivalent to morality & ethics."

It is clearly not, as demonstrated here http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-30/liberty-reserve-and-why-some-mo...

As far as I understand it, law is a human construction, concieved initially to serve and conform to ethics and morality, but law can be constructed badly and betray these ideals

Unions should have no other interests than humanity as a whole. So far, it hasn't happened, probably because it would require a communist one

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:32 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Since we're all different, the only way to make us all equal would be to treat us all unequally.

Who, whom? As Lenin asked. Who decides for whom?

The answer to Lenin's question:  Force

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:01 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Marxism, in all its essentials, is a primitive counter-Christian religion.  In fact, it originated in Germany as a reaction to Christianity.

That is the main reason why it has never worked and will never work.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:06 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

 

 

I find your analysis lacking in virtue.

Why are you an advocate of sodomy and atheism?

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 22:31 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

+1 for keeping such important questions at the fore. Perhaps someone may be able to answer them some day.  Perhaps not.

Anywho - strongly advise folks interested in the topic of marxism to review Kolakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism".

Volume I - The Founders - touches on the counter-Christian influence that beget the noxious weed in the garden of liberty that is marxism.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 02:39 | Link to Comment Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Lee Harvey Oswald babbled on TV for a while about the differences between Marxism and Communism. I guess that means you're in good company, troll.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:22 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

You are absolutely 100% right; both capitalism and communism have been tried. However, you are missing one tiny little fact, and that is: the one that worked was capitalism and the one that didn’t work was Leninism (Lenin’s version of Marxist Communism).

You are only confused about which one won and which one lost. Capitalism is in trouble now because it has been seized by the international bankers operating for world control using Keynesian socialism, i.e., soft communism, which does not work.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 15:35 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Ah, again, you're 100% right, but you're about 30 years out of date. (And please - I respect a reply, I don't pay attention to junks, they no longer mean much). It seems the junkers missed my point: EACH WAS PERVERTED. That includes Capitalism.

What's being done is not Communism, or Leninism or Marxism or Socialism. Everyone learnt their lessons over the horrors / gigadeath of ~isms.

 

Might want to learn where Talib got his Swans analogy from.

 

You're all discussing Ancient Rome in terms of modern Power theory for the actual reality of what's going on. Quite deliberately, I might add. Been a while since the TV or Media in general was honest.

 

+1 Green for a reply in any case.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 16:01 | Link to Comment spooz
spooz's picture

The junkers have been indoctrinated and/or are determined to spread the propaganda of the duopoly shuffle.

Trust that there are those who appreciate an intelligent voice.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 16:16 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

 

 

Yes yes, it's all the ism one chooses.

Capitalism works because human nature is inherently rational and a system which puts total faith in the efficient market hypothesis has proven it's effectiveness at developing incredibly efficient systems generating the best products for the best prices, free of waste, degradation and externalities.

Fascism is capitalism plus murder.

 

-Upton Sinclair 

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 16:33 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

You're so close, I can almost taste it. When was the last time a new "ism" arose that had a proper Economic theory to it? (really new, not some modification / hybrid like NeoConversativsm / NeoLiberalism). [Hint: a couple exist - you never get to hear about them though]

 

"Those beautifully rounded pebbles which you gather on the sand and which you hold in your hand and marvel at their exceeding smoothness, were chiseled into their varies and graceful forms by the ceaseless action of countless waves. Nature is herself a great worker and never tolerates, without certain rebuke, any contradiction to her wise example. Inaction is followed by stagnation. Stagnation is followed by pestilence and pestilence is followed by death.” Frederick Douglas, a great American.

At the 1888 Republican National Convention, Douglass became the first African American to receive a vote for President of the United States in a major party's roll call vote.[wiki]

 

If you can look back to 1888 without feeling that something noble has been lost, and compare it to modern "Statesmen" of all colors, creeds or genders, then you should be ashamed.

 

Evolve or Die. (In tribute - I was going to use a quotation about stagnation from "The Sign of the Four", but decided to go with history since the Chinese numerology slant had no referent here, or would be a bit too depressing. Please do note the dates if you're feeling frisky, we like to show a bit of flair sometimes).

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:26 | Link to Comment Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The only thing more annoying and useless than a Marxist is a scholar of Marx.

Do yourself a favor and get a fucking life.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:15 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Reading Marx makes me a scholar of him? Fuck me, I have a PHD in Playboy and I didn't even realize it. The difference is I read Marx to learn about the opposition; I read Playboy for the articles, especially by H.S. Thompson. Thompson (get it yet? Thomp-Son) would grill your liver for breakfast, boy.

 

*ahem*

 

 

Seriously: you're a joke. Grow the fuck up. The saddest moment in your progression is when your back-water shit-hole stopped using newspaper to wipe their asses, and WalMart came along, because that at least meant you had a chance to absorb some reading.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 02:42 | Link to Comment Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Web search Thompson's name alongside Rusty Nelson, Paul Bonacci, or Johnny Gosch. Learn what the man did.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:28 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Please do note the dates if you're feeling frisky, we like to show a bit of flair sometimes).

Ah, ah, 1888 give much the pouring triple lucky prosperity and driving away chrysanthemum silkworms aplombously.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:53 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

It's ok if you don't get it. Unlike the real world, where Power is based on "the silent nod", the "proper handshake" or the "proper color co-ordination of clothing", I make it explicit, and you can either dig deeper to grokk it, or ignore it.

For the reference, so it's clear: "The Sign of the Four" was published in 1890, but set in 1888, which is when one of your greatest Statesmen post-revolutionary struggle was voted for by the Republican party. Do. You. Get. It. Yet? Hint: it's a critique of your pathetic racism from 1900 - 2013 when your greatest allies were ex-slaves!

 

Mocking not getting it is kinda like playing Russian roulette with 6 bullets in the gun though.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 00:19 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Confusionous say: Digging deeper not prosperous when digging in wrong place.

decided to go with history since the Chinese numerology slant had no referent here, or would be a bit too depressing

1888 referent to triple fortune prosperings with assuredness. Makes Sign of the Four being set in 1888 a contradictature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology#Chinese_numerology

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 03:06 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

FourthStooge-ing, methinks you may be overdosing on the crustiness of the parangong of offuscationalizing of the US 'american' citizenism middle-class-as-king-class farming the weak, extorting the poor mattering things.

Remedyizing can be obtained firmly by avoiding East Asian roadsides, Kitten McNuggets, and all forms of blobbing-up insanitation.

Mon, 06/03/2013 - 09:18 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Ah, ah, easier said when done.

But hey, if mattering things begin approach toward crustical mass, remedy easy as backyard garden work pulling weeds and harvest a few early poor.

Being 'US' american middle class aka we the people king class, will have to extort some neighbor kids to fish river pigs out of castle moat.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 17:39 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

With a statement like that, Upton Sinclair proved that he knew very little about the phenomenon of German national socialism.

Kolnai's "The War Against the West" has the single best explanation of the "socialism" of the national socialist german workers' party.

A sample is here:

http://www.savageleft.com/poli/watw-seven.html

Almost all of the German national socialist intellectuals began as marxist socialists.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 18:39 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Almost all of the German national socialist intellectuals began as marxist socialists.

Nope.

 

In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[169] In 1942, Hitler privately said: "I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative".

 

During the 1920s, Hitler urged disparate Nazi factions to unite in opposition to "Jewish Marxism."[167] Hitler asserted that the "three vices" of "Jewish Marxism" were democracy, pacifism and internationalism.[168]

Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in post-World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small businessmen, and its atheism

Hitler took a pragmatic position between the conservative and radical factions of the Nazi Party, in that he accepted private property and allowed capitalist private enterprises to exist as long as they adhered to the goals of the Nazi state. However, if a capitalist private enterprise resisted Nazi goals, he sought to destroy it.

From your guy Kolnai:

Thus Feder, Hitler's oldest comrade and the Party's official programme-builder, instructs us that National Socialism means the "powerful synthesis and fervent wish to achieve a radical solution of the social problem"; in the same breath he condemns" Marxist tendencies" such as a contribution of the great estates, denies the necessity for part-ownership of factories by the workers, and dismisses nationalization as mere modification of the outward structure of production.

Learn the basics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:06 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

You can use Wikipedia all you want.

The seminal reference on the subject is Aurel Kolnai's "The War Against the West". From Chapter 7:

But Werner Sombart adds "essentially regulated planned economy" as a closer definition for Socialism, and proceeds to enumerate its abundant varieties. His own he calls" German Socialism ", of which more later. At any rate he would have it known as" thoroughgoing anti-Capitalism", meaning, of course, anti-[classical] liberalism.

 

 

http://www.savageleft.com/poli/watw-seven.html

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:22 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Well now we know for certain you don't understand what 'seminal' means. 

As far as wikipedia goes, if grabbing well documented quotes from Hitler's own speech (public and private) in direct contradiction to your stupid ignorance is an issue, well maybe you need to do a little more research. 

Anyway, nice selective quoting from your own reference! Here is your quote, followed in bold by what is actually written immediately after rofl

But Sombart adds "essentially regulated planned economy" as a closer definition for Socialism, and proceeds to enumerate its abundant varieties. His own he calls" German Socialism ", of which more later. At any rate he would have it known as" thoroughgoing anti-Capitalism", meaning, of course, anti-[classical] liberalism.

Time and again, an apparently" radical " note flashes up in national socialist literature; but it soon becomes apparent that its substance is slight: sympathy with workers of German blood as opposed to Jewish money-lenders, aversion to bourgeois because they are civilian, or a hankering for "final solutions".

Thus Feder, Hitler's oldest comrade and the Party's official programme-builder, instructs us that National Socialism means the "powerful synthesis and fervent wish to achieve a radical solution of the social problem"; in the same breath he condemns" Marxist tendencies" such as a contribution of the great estates, denies the necessity for part-ownership of factories by the workers, and dismisses nationalization as mere modification of the outward structure of production.

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:25 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

You left out Fried:

Fried's "anti-capitalism" is slightly more serious than is the case with the average national socialist thinker. In "The end of Capitalism" (1931) he argues that the evolution of free markets has distorted the people into a " propertied " and "propertyless" class, provoking an anti-Capitalist reaction furthered by the democratic process of identification between People and State.

"The mass of the disinherited people is growing into the State" and the State is becoming the battering-ram of a "popular social counter-movement against Capitalism" National socialism is producing new types of leaders in antagonism to the sphere of competitive economy: The "capitalistic world" in which the value of a man is gauged by his income, in which the exchangeable monetary tender, devoid of "quality", forms the common denominator of values, is heading for destruction.

The consequences drawn by Fried are not in favour of a socialistic self-government of the masses engaged in industrial production, but in the sense of replacing "dynamics" by "statics" (quite after the heart of Sombart and the votaries of "Corporativism"), of discarding democracy, of an economy planned by the government on a strictly Nationalist basis.

 

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 19:30 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Are you even reading any of the stuff you're posting here?

The consequences drawn by Fried are not in favour of a socialistic self-government of the masses engaged in industrial production, but in the sense of replacing "dynamics" by "statics" (quite after the heart of Sombart and the votaries of "Corporativism"), of discarding democracy, of an economy planned by the government on a strictly Nationalist basis.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 20:03 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

I've already read it.

It's for the audience to read and process.

Sun, 06/02/2013 - 21:16 | Link to Comment Aurora Ex Machina
Aurora Ex Machina's picture

No, he took my "Bot uses Wiki" jab and attempted to utilize it.

 

It wasn't very pretty, 'cause he's not very good.

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