This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Marc Faber On The Four Pillars Of Poverty

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Marc Faber via The Daily Reckoning blog,

I think it is remarkable that, despite the growth the US has enjoyed since the 1960s, the poverty rate has barely changed. Writing for the Wall Street Journal last month under the title “How the War on Poverty Was Lost”, Robert Rector notes that: “Fifty years and $20 trillion later, LBJ’s goal to help the poor become self-supporting has failed.” He writes further:

On Jan. 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson used his State of the Union address to announce an ambitious government undertaking. “This administration today, here and now,” he thundered, “declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”

 

Fifty years later, we’re losing that war. Fifteen percent of Americans still live in poverty, according to the official census poverty report for 2012, unchanged since the mid-1960s. Liberals argue that we aren’t spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that’s not the problem. In reality, we’re losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: “to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities.”

 

...LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an “investment” that would “return its cost manifold to the entire economy.” But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement.

My impression is that there are far more “poor” people today as a percentage of the population than there were in the 1960s, because lower middle-class and middle-class people have moved into the ranks of the poor. (Since 2007, the bottom 50% by wealth percentile lost more than 40% of their net worth and their debts are up 16%.) This may be a factor that explains the still muted consumer confidence at a time when stock investors’ sentiment is at its highest level since 1987.

In my opinion, the increase in poverty rests on four pillars: cultural and social factors, educational issues, excessive debt, and government handouts, which encourage people not to work. Other factors include: international competition, which keeps wages down; and monetary policies, which create bubbles and impoverish the majority.

As an example, social factors and government handouts led to a sharp increase in out-of-wedlock births. In the 1960s in the US, out-of-wedlock births comprised only 5.3% of total births; in 1980, 18.4%; and today, over 40%. Babies born out of wedlock are likely to have fewer educational opportunities than those raised in two-parent families.

This is one reason; educational standards have also slipped – certainly relative to the rest of the world – due to poor policies. Of course, by far the worst cause of rising poverty rates is monetary policies that have encouraged credit growth, enslaving poor people with debts and financing an increase in entitlement programs by the government.

According to Rector, “The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Government spent $916 billion on these programs in 2012 alone, and roughly 100 million Americans received aid from at least one of them, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. (That figure doesn’t include Social Security or Medicare benefits.) Federal and state welfare spending, adjusted for inflation, is 16 times greater than it was in 1964. If converted to cash, current means tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.”

It is no wonder, therefore, that with these generous social programs, largely financed now by the Fed, single women have been encouraged to have babies without the “inconvenience” of having a husband.

The problem, however, as I mentioned above, is that (again according to Rector) the Heritage Foundation has found in a study that “children raised in the growing number of single-parent homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty than children reared by married parents of the same education level. Children who grow up without a father in the home are also more likely to suffer from a broad array of social and behavioral problems. The consequences continue into adulthood: Children raised by single parents are three times more likely to end up in jail and 50% more likely to be poor as adults.”

Now, I realise that it would be unfair to place the entire blame on the Fed for the failure of entitlement programs. However, the Fed and other central banks around the world have been enablers of Big Government and poor economic policies. As John Taylor (a professor of economics at Stanford University, and one of the few economists who appears to be sane) opined in the Wall Street Journal about the various secular stagnation hypotheses:

In the current era, business firms have continued to be reluctant to invest and hire, and the ratio of investment to GDP is still below normal. That is most likely explained by policy uncertainty, increased regulation, including through the Dodd Frank and Affordable Care Act, about which there is plenty of evidence, especially in comparison with the secular stagnation hypothesis.

 

I suppose the emergence of the secular stagnation hypothesis shouldn’t be surprising. As long as there is a demand to pin the failure of bad government policies on the market system or exogenous factors, there will be a supply of theories. The danger is that this leads to more bad government policy

[emphasis added]

Concerning increased regulation it is clear that “Big Business” loves increased regulation. Take, as an example, the increasingly complex tax laws...

 

Large corporations can hire an army of accountants, lawyers, tax consultants, and lobbyists in order to reduce their tax burden. But, what about the small business owner?

He is at the mercy of some tax collector who can waste his time endlessly with repeated audits. The same goes for other regulatory requirements, which lead to less competition and favour large business groups.

Many of my friends who own independent small money management firms are being forced to close down their businesses, merge, or sell to larger financial institutions because of increased regulation. The more regulation there is, the more likely it becomes an inhibiting factor for innovation.

Furthermore, I am certain that the secular stagnation hypothesis is another attempt by the government to justify more interventions with fiscal and monetary policies into the free market.

The question is, of course, who are the governments? Will Durant opined in The Age of Louis XIV that the “men who can manage men manage the men who can only manage things, and the men who can manage money manage all”. In Lessons of History, he wrote:

...the bankers, watching the trends in agriculture, industry, and trade, inviting and directing the flow of capital, putting our money doubly and trebly to work, controlling loans and interest and enterprise, running great risks to make great gains, rise to the top of the economic pyramid.

 

From the Medici of Florence and the Fuggers of Augsburg to the Rothschilds of Paris and London and the Morgans of New York, bankers have sat in councils of governments, financing wars and popes, and occasionally sparking a revolution. Perhaps it is one secret of their power that, having studied the fluctuations of prices, they know that history is inflationary, and that money is the last thing a wise man will hoard.

[emphasis added].

I suppose that one solace for poor people, in view of this rather sobering fact, may be these words of Frank McKinney Hubbard:

“It’s pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed.”

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:16 | Link to Comment ArkansasAngie
ArkansasAngie's picture

War on poverty

war on drugs

war on terrorism.

Bunch of dad gum warmongers.

Wedgies.  Keep people wedged apart so that they cannot form coalitions to throw the friggin bums out.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

War in the name of...  and achieves the opposite.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Shocker
Shocker's picture

In the end the good middle class jobs go away, everyone falls into poverty... Sad

Layoff List: http://www.dailyjobcuts.com

-

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Newsboy
Newsboy's picture

Poverty, it's what's for dinner.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:48 | Link to Comment Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

I just want my personal liberty and privacy back.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:29 | Link to Comment economics9698
economics9698's picture

Cut the crap, the war on poverty was a way to enrich the top 20% at the expense of the bottom 80% and create the utopia police state we have now.  Whatever benefits the tribe fascist is what our government does and fuck everyone else.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:40 | Link to Comment Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

Funny how leftist progressive environmentalists always tell us that feeding wild animals reduces their ability/propensity to hunt/forage for food on their own until they become dependent on humans for their survival.

But they never seem to acknowledge the same phenomenon occurs with the FSA...

 [PS: The War on Poverty is over,...   Poverty won.]

 

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 12:46 | Link to Comment realWhiteNight123129
realWhiteNight123129's picture

How about war on the Government? In a peaceful way but making sure it shrinks, it suffers and eventually is put in a small box so that it does not become a key career target for con artists, psychopath willing to do nothing for a leaving, vomit a lot of "political blah blah" and get paid for it with your money? 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:55 | Link to Comment Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

The Ministry of Plenty never fails.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

Speaking of poverty...a couple of North Korean Fun Facts:

1) Every household in the country is issued a government radio which cannot be turned off. However in fairness, it CAN be turned down to a minimal volume.

2) In 1994, the first time he ever picked up a club, Kim Jung Il shot a 38 under par at North Korea's only golf course.
All 17 of his bodyguards attested to this feat. He then retired from the sport.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:30 | Link to Comment John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

I heard one of his bodyguards denied the feat.  Unfortunately, he subsequently died of lead poisoning so his claim can't be verified.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:58 | Link to Comment Keyser
Keyser's picture

Could have been worse, he could have tripped on a nail gun and shot himself a dozen times. 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 23:44 | Link to Comment Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”

Lyndon B. Johnson

FORWARD COMPASSIONATE STATISTS!

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:28 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Modern day Supply side capitalism explained.

1) Make more crap

2) More and more and more....crap

3) Pay serfs a maintainence+ wage

4) Entice serfs to buy each others Corporate intermediated crap via advertising

5) Jerk that circle

Capacity utilization is secondary to capacity expansion in th emodern capitalist supply siders tunnel vision (a square tunnel at that).

Consumer is debtaddicted.

Corpse(oration)s own debt...

End of story....

..... 

Any ZHers in Bangalore... check thisout...

http://aadivaahan.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/wfw2.jpg

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:45 | Link to Comment FlipFlop
FlipFlop's picture

The problem about taking from the rich is that there is less investment.

Do you think the rich just have all wealth on checking account, ready to be distributed to the poor?

It is like cutting your own branch, money gets eaten and then no-one has it any more.

Socialism creates poverty, that they remedy by creating more poverty.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:33 | Link to Comment ArkansasAngie
ArkansasAngie's picture

That would be true if moral hazard wasn't ground into the dirt by every insolvent 1%'er 

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:49 | Link to Comment cynicalskeptic
cynicalskeptic's picture

The problem is that the rich are NOT 'investing' in anything that creates job.  Look at the millions spent by the Koch Brothers to buy politicians and set policy which allows them to have LESS safety regulation, LESS competition and worse.  Crony Capitalism at its best.    The NFL is a 'non-profit' corporation.   WTF?  Individual teams get local municipalities to pay for stadiums and get tax breaks.  WHY?  These policies are paid for by every taxpayer to benefit already wealthy owners.  No-bid government contracts have a record of producing shoddy inferior goods and services - while making enriching those that hold those contracts.  GOvernment subsidies to agriculture have done little to preserve the 'family farm' while enriching agribusiness and costing consumers.

Corporations are not 'investing' in jobs in the US but sending more of them overseas.

This malappropriation of funds benefits the very rich and nobody else.  Truth is that the very rich are more likely to 'invest' in things that do NOTHING to create jobs.  They are the new rentier class - they own everythign and charge everyone else for the priviledge of living.

We're not talking about 'socialism' in calling for fairness but an end to Crony Capitalism where the wealthy use government to become even richer at the cost of everyone else.

 

I've worked on Wall Street - walked away while I still had my soul.  Those there will sell their grandmothers for a buck.  I've seen evp's screw clerks making $30,000 a year out of $2000 bonuses (a big part of their earnigns) so they themselves could keep their multi-million dollar bonuses.   A good friend in Securities Law bemoans his position - 'All I do is make rich people richer - they can't spend it as fast as they make it.'   He won't /can't leave with much of his net worth in firm equity, kids on college and a costly ex-wife.  But even he is aghast that 'people have not gone to jail'

When you're rich and getting richer through market manipulation - through screwing others..... well that does nothing to help create jobs.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:47 | Link to Comment sylviasays
sylviasays's picture

Look at the billions spent by George Soros and Warren Buffett to buy Democrat politicians and set policy which allows them to have more government regulation in order to limit competition and worse.  Crony Capitalism at its best.  

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:03 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

set policy which allows them to have more government regulation in order to limit competition and worse

This is such a stupid canard. Was freedom industries 'over-regulated,' were they buying the senate?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-13/meet-freedom-industries-...

There is crony capitalism out there obviously, but there's also regular old shitty businesses - large and small. Not every billionaire is a devil and not every small business a saint. 

Americans have seemingly no clue at all how shit really works because they're locked into their own silly little battles on the peripheral (at best..). 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:20 | Link to Comment X_mloclaM
X_mloclaM's picture

the regulation you love, never got the regulators you think we need more of, to check the tank farm over the courses OF FUCKING DECADES DO WE NEED MORE PAPERS, MORE STACKS OF LAWS NO ONE READS, MORE PPL ON THE JOB SIR?!

Do we need (5) five K-12 educators to aclass, NEIGH, fourteen ?

We NOT NINE regualtors in fin servs. WE NEED 16 !!!!!

Did you ever stop to think the best regulator for citizens and consumers, is private industry? Consider the alternative, zero regulators, rather insurers hire firms who verify compliance (and love their track record), where a polluted river is avoided as no business making money being the best, most pro-active, community-saving, innovative inspectors, ensuring safety will go decades without checking what they say they are.

The spill in this sociopolitical environment, would RUIN the inspectors business, sued by the insurer, and the horrid "regualted inspection services provided" (crony check-collecting liars), are OVER AND DONE WITH. The alternative is competing inspections, innovative testing (think corrosion) techniques offered to insurers (and in turn businesses via premums & passed to end consumers) that more efficiently economize scarce resources (such as chemicals, health bill/lawsuit reserves, or clean rivers) for the community

 

is this 'other world' really so hard for ppl to consider? is it simply a lack of trying to imagine ?

 

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:59 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Did you ever stop to think the best regulator for citizens and consumers, is private industry?

Nope. Because I'm not brain-dead. 

Want to see private industry self-regulation? Please visit India. 

rather insurers hire firms who verify compliance 

Lol, brilliant! Sir, hats off to you, your thesis is a work of genius! How'd no one think of this yet?? Wait'll the financial industry gets wind of it, will be cleaned up in no time!

One of the more amusing mea culpas in history (on this very subject no less!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 00:39 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

"There is crony capitalism out there obviously, but there's also regular old shitty businesses - large and small. Not every billionaire is a devil and not every small business a saint."

Yup. but the government's answer is to shoot everything and hand-cuff the survivors. If they are in business for profit, they must be guilty of some crime some where.  Its too difficult for gov't workers to actually do their job, especially when there is so much porn to surf on the web! They Just use automated systems to send out penalites and retroactive fees. Its like those fake scam invoices  I use to receive to sucker accounts payable depts to pay a bogus invoice. Now the gov't has got in the act by mailing out bogus fees and fines, hoping you just pay it instead of filing the stack of paperwork needed to dispute it.

FWIW: As a small business owner, I am closing down this spring and going Galt, Regulations, bogus audits have worn me out! Uncle Sugar will have to find some else for wealth redistribution.

 

"Americans have seemingly no clue at all how shit really works because they're..."

too busy watching TV and playing Xbox to notice their liberty and money being stolen from them! If you walk or drive by any apartment or home their is one constant: The TV is on, and the occupants are checked out.

 

We need more of this:

Kick ass and Chew bubble gum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1TcnQxV4BE

Instead we got this:

http://www.tvguide.com/top-tv-shows

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:06 | Link to Comment lostintheflood
lostintheflood's picture

silviasays...i down voted you because you mentioned democrat politicians when is it actually ALL OF THEM that have sold us out!

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 11:43 | Link to Comment fedupwhiteguy
fedupwhiteguy's picture

yeah. and i downvoted you cuz, silvia was pointing out that same fact to the previous comment, sucka!

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:59 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

There might be an argument against welfare programs that enable bad behavior, but what about the SAME or MORE money spent on WS Banksters? 

Do this calc 85billion/month * 12 months=1,020 Billion for Banksters and fake equity increases.  That is over a TRILLION dollars a year.

That amount is more than any welfare amounts and spread over a smaller group of SCUMBAGs.

I am way beyond hoping for jail for any of them, I am expecting and looking forward to violence.

Bring it on.

Banksters, its whats for dinner.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:56 | Link to Comment Fiat Envy
Fiat Envy's picture

Could you link the article that is supporting QE, I seem to have missed it?  I tend to think the majority here are opposed to all the handouts.

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 13:42 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

"Could you link the article that is supporting QE, I seem to have missed it?"

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I was responding to a post comment, though I realize it is hard to track replys back to original comments.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:27 | Link to Comment X_mloclaM
X_mloclaM's picture

down arrow over "might"

too stupid to realize incentives are real?

as for hand-outs, bankers, like regualtors, take their cash from the power of the State.

 

What you seem to hate is written as "human nature", yet ignores the natural incentives setting that up.

So you'd keep the bailouts for the few (entitlements), so as to perpetuate the system, rather than cut humanity free, to the open plains of responsibility ?

 

Lemme guess, lock the boarders down, scan IDs and eyes, e-verify, and yes, you are permittd to access centralcare/cronybux/EBTLobsters

Then, after we ship out the extra people to Lincoln's lands, we can do this entitlment thing FUCKIn right !

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 13:36 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

I am tired of dealing with the fucking mental misfits here.

I said if you deal with one type of Handout you need to deal with them all.

Just go fuckyourself until you learn how to use your brain

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:53 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

Everywhere the elites conspire by color of law to steal from the humble laborer to the industrious professionals.

And when threatened by working class and physical investors, they start or involve themselves in a war to tie up the young males and bribe the businesses men.

The names change but the game is the same.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:23 | Link to Comment discopimp
discopimp's picture

Thats why das gubermint loves suburbia America, no concentrated population density.   its to far spreadout for really any oposition to happen, now if it where Paris..1 million people can roll onto the street in hours!  

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:24 | Link to Comment aleph0
aleph0's picture

Translate "The war on" ...  as being  ... "The war for"

War = Force = avoiding an intelligent discussion to solve the problem.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 20:01 | Link to Comment Keyser
Keyser's picture

As always, follow the $$$. Who profits from the war on _______________? Here's a hint. It's not you or I. 

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 20:05 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

There are probably more people on food stamps now than there were full time wage earners when LBJ created the Great Society.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:22 | Link to Comment no life
no life's picture

The ones that were really pernicious were those goddamn Fuggers out of Augsburg... hate those pricks with a passion..

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:37 | Link to Comment linniepar
linniepar's picture

Damn those mother Fuggers!

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Central banking creates poverty because it makes it impossible to accumulate real savings.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:34 | Link to Comment John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

True, but the root problem with any cartel like central banks is the removal of competition from the equation of economics. Without competition and the  creative destruction necessary to eliminate the incompetent (or sometimes just unlucky), there can be no evolution.  Violation of the laws of either thermodynamics or evolution can only occur as a transient effect.  Long term, they can never be ignored.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:27 | Link to Comment buttmint
buttmint's picture

...the darkest moment is always just prior to dawn

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 18:14 | Link to Comment FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Is that true? I would think it would be midpoint between dusk and dawn.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 18:53 | Link to Comment JohnG
JohnG's picture

Nope, it's always darkest right before it turns pitch black.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Dingleberry
Dingleberry's picture

The "war on poverty".

Funny.....both war and poverty will be eternally with us.

The consequences of this "war" is so diabolical that Machiavelli would blush.

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:34 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Given what has been done in his name, I'm sure his enernal soul regrets having incarnated at all...

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:30 | Link to Comment discopimp
discopimp's picture

Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson - Chapter 43 - Beelzebub's Survey of the Process of the Perodic Reciporcal Destruction of Men, or Bellzebub's Opinion of War  (vs 1950)

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:31 | Link to Comment no life
no life's picture

Eat your Peas... or your Alpo, whatever the case may be.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

If people weren't lazy from benefits, they could all take out loans to learn how to be smartphone app developers. They could then sell these apps to one another, ad infinitum. Better phone apps forever, plus everyone goes back to being middle class and buying/selling houses all the time, plus big profits for debt holders.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:47 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Since most economists, and the vast majority of 'Mercans, have no concept of thermodynamics your idea may have high potential for play on most mainstream financial networks. Even though perpetual motion goes everything we scientifically know about nature, it's still a good seller.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:51 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

We Americans must just regain our positive outlook and then we can pull ourselves out of the mire.

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 20:29 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

You may need to append a '_' to your name before people get you're being satirical.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:53 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Haah...great minds etc. Our posts (see mine above) are chiral mirrors.

Mine is of course a tad more con-voluted.

;-)

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:59 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

You're a tad smarter than me.

;-)

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:31 | Link to Comment Colonel Walter ...
Colonel Walter E Kurtz's picture

Also add in that all the increased regulations do to small business is encourage those to by pass the rules and start operating in the black market. Those that operate in this manner drive down the costs and cause the legitimate small businesses to eventually whither and die. Hence all we end up with is large corporations who invade geographical markets, bring in their Wall Street/Big Bank financing and lose money in said market until all competition is crushed (think Walmart, Staples, Best Buy, Amazon who seems to never need to turn a profit, every local eatery that is now increasingly a franchise, etc...). All we will end up with is either working large conglomerates where everyone earns minimum wage or working at under the radar companies also earning low wages so that you can avoid showing up on the IRS radar.

Death of the middle class on the business side.

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Captain Willard
Captain Willard's picture

Well, I call BS on the "poverty" rate.

Thanks to the "hedonic adjustment" of the CPI and GDP deflator, we now get to witness "impoverished" people with air conditioning, dishwashers, mobile phones ,internet access, computers and microwave ovens.

Those of us who grew up in the American South and are old enough to remember shotgun shacks and real poverty find these "official statistics" amusing.

These "statistics" really exist to perpetuate a welfare state that allows government, cronies et al. to continue raking the taxpayer and engendering a dependency mentality among the denizens of the lower socio-economic strata.  

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:56 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Yes - "poverty" and "inequality" are not synonymous. Inequality means that success is being rewarded. The USA is doing better all the time at rewarding success, but we still haven't caught up to China, though.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:09 | Link to Comment wmbz
wmbz's picture

I agree, having been born in the land o cotton in the 50's.

EBT's $200.00 sneakers, cell phones, flat screens, A/C etc... Ain't poverty!

We never had A/C at home or at school, period.

The " free" shit"it's not fair"army marches and whines on.

Generational welfare has worked so well.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:16 | Link to Comment bcecil
bcecil's picture

Apparently the USA may not be the only country in the world.. open your eyes a bit..

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:43 | Link to Comment X_mloclaM
X_mloclaM's picture

Uparrow for this:  "Poverty is created all over the world, and always has been, by despots and pschopaths, who control all things financial, for thier own gain. When people are finally free of this, poverty ends."

But if you believe that, then you better look a whole lot harder at the way these decentralized ledger systems work...

1. decentralized ledgers, the miner/transaction verifiers, are incentivezed to pool resources due to the inappropriate math, elimitating public/zero control over agreed code/moneysupply

2. inapproriate supply means eventually (should adoption and false "choice", say BTC, gain success) deflation is the outcome (that can be ideologically fought against, this time globally) as the supply of money at that point ceases to be produced at the market's pace, revaluation can then be undertaken by the pool with majority (likely the Statists you hate) ensuing, finally, "King of the World" to someone over the value of global labor. Muah,fuckin,ha,fuckin,haaaaa

3. decentralized ledgers record everything, forever, creating a searchable record for persecution, minority report shit, by IP address / physical address / SSN / name

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 22:58 | Link to Comment bcecil
bcecil's picture

there are a number of approaches being developed that address some of your concerns..

1) Ethereum.org is a next-generation distributed cryptographic ledger that is designed to allow users to encode advanced transaction types, smart contracts and decentralized applications into the blockchain. Ethereum will support custom currencies or "colored coins", financial derivatives, and much more, but unlike many previous networks that attempted to accomplish the same thing Ethereum does not attempt to constrain users into using specific "features"; instead, the ledger includes a built-in Turing-complete programming language that can be used to construct any kind of contract that can be mathematically defined.

2) Once BTC is fully deployed in the year 2140...The supply numbers make sense..if you look at fractional bitcoin system the numbers more then make sense... each btc can be broken down to units that equal .00000001 so There are really 2,099,999,997,690,000 (just over 2 quadrillion) maximum possible units in the total maximum bitcoin design. The value of "1 BTC" represents 100,000,000 of these. There is only around an actual 1 trillion in printed usd $ around and currently 60+ trillion in total US debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (not including unfunded liabilities ) So there is, or will be by the year 2140 (end of bitcoin mining), 2000 times more exchangeable bitcoin units then us$ in the world and then there are no more BTC.

3) As far as anonimity goes ...sites such as http://www.bitcoinfog.com/ or even using tor will hide all of the Ip's etc

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:46 | Link to Comment bcecil
bcecil's picture

Poverty is created all over the world, and always has been, by despots and pschopaths, who control all things financial, for thier own gain. When people are finally free of this, poverty ends. One day soon, when a hard working person in Somolia ( or name impovrished country here ), recieves the same pay as as anyone else in the world, doing the exact same job he/she is doing and then can take what he/she made and buy some rice at the same price ( all shiping/handling for entire world is priced in at an exchange ), with that same universal currancy/asset he/she earned there will be no more poverty anywhere. How? 

What many people really don't get yet is Bitcoin/Litecoin are the worlds first, very liquid, average persons, commodity/asset of exchange, that doesn't need any governments or banks to exist and it's impact on the lives of the average person will be way bigger then the internet.

Here (in detail below ) is how you permanently stop all political/government/big bank control with bitcoin/litecoin.. we can also free all of the worlds debt slaves = 99% of population!

..new universal and local exchanges must marry BTC/LTC ( which is really a form of an asset not a currency or money ) with gold/silver/commodities It will lead to a grand new world reserve liquid trading commodity vehicle (not currency ) ... and eliminate ALL potential regulation problems with bitcoin/Litecoin being equated to one, or any fiat government currency!!!!!

This will give bitcoins/Litecoins value and gold/silver/commodities liquidity and bypass all fiat currencies in the world taking away power from the top 85 families on the planet that have the same assets as the bottom 3.5 billion people. ( and 10's of thousands of others ripping people off everywhere)

This also solves the problem of not much liquidity for the easy transfer and payment using actual pieces of gold/ silver / commodities over the internet ..... now their value is transferable to btc/ltc, which is easily exchanged anywhere for everything starting with the most important thing wages for employment.

The way to move the whole thing forward is a worldwide UMX exchange and hundreds of local smaller ones, (2 companies are even developing cheap satellite coms for bitcoin servers ) for gold and silver weights and commodities , not US dollars, CDN dollars, or any other dollars, to be exchanged/traded for btc/ltc/commodities.

You can use small shops everywhere, in small communities, in every country in the world, like a current cash shop, pawn broker, grocer or gold/jewelry dealer that fronts all of the small trading for everyone. So you give them some gold or silver commodities etc and they give you btc/ltc or you give them btc/ltc and they give you gold silver commodities based on current gold/btc exchange rates on the UMX..

All 3 things cant be touched by megalomaniacs and are outside of "world money regulation/phantom creation" BTC and even LTC is the same as precious metals in many ways, it has a finite amount available over time, cannot be "printed" into oblivion, must be mined and is a store of wealth and no one individual or group owns the system, it belongs to everyone. The numbers make sense..if you look at fractional bitcoin system the numbers more then make sense... each btc can be broken down to units that equal .00000001 so There are really 2,099,999,997,690,000 (just over 2 quadrillion) maximum possible units in the total maximum bitcoin design. The value of "1 BTC" represents 100,000,000 of these. There is only around an actual 1 trillion in printed usd $ around and currently 60+ trillion in total US debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (not including unfunded liabilities ) So there is, or will be by the year 2140 (end of bitcoin mining), 2000 times more exchangeable bitcoin units then us$ in the world and then there are no more BTC. Mbtc (1/1000 of a BTC has already shown up on hundreds of sites, including redit where people are tipping others for good ideas, music etc. via phones or comps...

As more gold mined down the road it will just change the exchange value slightly ..but,unlike "make believe" money, (only .52% of the Bank of Canada's money is real, 1.75%in at the Fed and the average is .75% in all the central European banks ) .....both
gold/silver and bitcoins/silver/commodities have physical limits on total in existence and are very real.

It will lead to all the regular people all over the world getting paid at the same world
rate for their labor and buying food etc at also the same world rate, and not an
artificial slave rate, dictated by some country leader who is skimming off the top.

Whats going on right now will amaze you if you are not keeping up...

Bitcoin Is Going Mainstream BIGTIME

Reddit, Virgin Galactic, and Overstock.com now accept Bitcoin. So do dating site OKCupid

and travel site CheapAir.com. Game giant Zynga is now in the testing phase.

Two big Las Vegas hotels accept Bitcoin. Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas) accepts

Bitcoin for 2014 campaign contributions. As does a law firm in Australia and one in New

York City.

Reuters notes:

Already, 21,000 merchants are using Coinbase to accept Bitcoin from customers. Indeed, there are websites listing thousands of businesses world wide http://coinmap.org/ which now accept bitcoin/litecoin. (And you can use Bitcoin at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Crate & Barrel, Target, Sears, CVS, Hyatt  Hotels, Kohl’s, Burger King, Applebees, Victoria’s Secret, Land’s End, Facebook, Groupon,  Banana Republic, the Gap, AMC and Fandango movie theaters, Whole Foods, Wine.com, Wine Enthusiast, Papa John’s, Nike, Adidas, Sephora, Sports Authority, Staples, Zales jewelry, Game Stop, FTD flowers, Zappos and hundreds of other stores if you use Bitcoin to buy gift cards at Gyft.)

Andy Haldane – Executive Director for Financial Stability at the Bank of England –
believes that peer-to-peer internet technology will lead to the break up of the big banks.

Bank of America said “We believe Bitcoin could become a major means of payment for e- commerce and may emerge as a serious competitor to traditional money-transfer providers”

Visa has attacked Bitcoin as being less trustworthy than its well-established payment
system.

So it sounds like Bitcoin is shaking up the status quo … Backed by … the Big Banks?

On the other hand, a lot of major mainstream players are backing Bitcoin and other digital payment systems.

Wells Fargo wants to get into Bitcoin in a big way.

JP Morgan Chase has filed a patent for a Bitcoin-like payment system. And Russia’s largest bank is working on a Bitcoin alternative as well.

François R. Velde, senior economist at the Federal Reserve in Bank of Chicago, labeled it as “an elegant solution to the problem of creating a digital currency.” John Browne theorizes:

In first week Feb 2014 US post office says it wants and could use btc to replace money order system

Several Nordic countries have offically designated btc as an asset not a currency

For further reading from The Economic Times...

Bitcoins may help grow world trade, says expert

Read more at: http://goo.gl/IWvDQU

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:11 | Link to Comment Proofreder
Proofreder's picture

What many people really don't get yet is Bitcoin/Litecoin are the worlds first, very liquid, average persons, commodity/asset of exchange, that doesn't need any governments or banks to exist ...

Bullshit - NOT first

Bitcoin enthusiasts totally forget the real first liquid averageman asset for exchange without the need for any government, etc.  S I L V E R !

Bitcoin has been around only a tiny percentage of the time Silver has been accepted.  An informal and universally known means of facilitating exchange rather than pure barter.

But you are correct to state that few people get it - you included.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 18:44 | Link to Comment bcecil
bcecil's picture

you missed this part " very liquid"  I can send btc anywhere in the world backed by silver in minutes for free once these exchanges open

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 00:50 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

"I can send btc anywhere in the world..."

Except Russia, China, Canada, and the other countries that have already banned it. Its going to get banned everywhere else until it tanks. Gov'ts are going to just surrender their monetary power by letting BTC take over. Thats like expecting a Bully that shakes down all the small kids for their lunch money to suddenly stop and start buying them lunch instead. In the real world BTC is dead.

 

 

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 14:20 | Link to Comment bcecil
bcecil's picture

you got some catch'n up to do buddy. Don't just follow the headlines...Let me help you..

1) I live in Canada and am freely trading bitcoins all over the country and have been since 2010. Vancouver, pop 2 million, across from where I live on Vancouver Island, had the worlds first btc atm last year. Vancouver also has 72 sites on coinmap.org accepting BTC and several accepting litecoin. The only 2 cities in North America that have more at 115 and 131 are LA and NY.

2) China's BTC trading volume is currently  10 times that of the USA other then 6 weeks ago when the government stopped 3rd party payers (the kind like our paypal ) from doing transfers. That only lasted 7 days when the volume went to 0. However since then the chinese have ignored/ found away around the restrictions of thier government and volume is back to better then before the ban. A close friend of mine, for 25 years, is a professor of Philosophy at Bejing University, and he tells me the chinese stundents are fanatical about BTC.. Watch real time trades all over the world here to keep up..http://fiatleak.com/ set the warning to 500 btc per minute and when it goes off watch the steady stream of coins flying into china... quite a site

3) look on the same coinmap and you will see has russia has 8 btc sites open. Lots of russians trade on the bulgarian exchange btc-e.com where they can get thier own currency in the trades. The troll box is full of them loving the crpto...go talk to them for more details

What many people really don't get yet, is Bitcoin/Litecoin are the worlds first, very liquid, average persons, commodity/asset of exchange, that doesn't need any governments or banks to exist and it's impact on the lives of the average person will be way bigger then the internet.

Hope that helps

 

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:18 | Link to Comment Bear
Bear's picture

There is always Utopia at the end of the retributionalist's rainbow ... make it so every one has same opportunity ... level the playing field ... but in nine months after Utopia is in place 10% of the people will control 80% of everything.

People are self-centered and natural differences will guarantee differences in outcome.

The above bit about Bitcoin is true if all have equal access ... but this can never be achieved as technology becomes the gatekeeper, those who know and manipulate technology will become the rulers

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 18:27 | Link to Comment ebear
ebear's picture

"People are self-centered and natural differences will guarantee differences in outcome."

Exactly, which is why all attempts to create a New Soviet Man, or to raise the poor up from their squalor are doomed to fail for the simple reason that those tasked with that noble endeavor will always build in an advantage for themselves, thus guaranteeing that they, not those whom they purport to serve, will be the prime beneficiaries.

It's just another form of the prisoner's dillema really.  Short term personal interest overrides long term collective benefit in all human planning.   Solutions of the form "they oughta do this, or they oughta do that" fail to take account that "they" will always do what best suits them, all the while making it appear they've answered your prayers.

Frankly, I don't see a solution, at least not at this stage of human development.  There sinply aren't enough people that understand the nature of the problem to make any real headway.


Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:01 | Link to Comment bcecil
bcecil's picture

you are certainly right that change on a global level for anything is extremly difficult  "at this stage of human development"

but a few thing to consider here..if you look a bit closer.. the entire worldwide music business changed dramatically in a very short period of time with a similar p2p approach, that was very simple and easy to use.

Once exchanges open, and they will for sure, trading liquid altcoin assets for real gold/ silver/commodities assets with in a simple framework of complete trust (a solid impenatrable trust exchange being the main reason behind the development of BTC initially )

The mistake in launching it originally, from my perspective, was using fiat first for exchange, which opens it up to regulation and control. That will change.

http://coinmap.org/ listing 3000 live btc/ltc business will grow quickly, how quickly I don't really know, but after being involved in computers for over 35 years my sense is that it can move as quickly as the music business did.

on one hand it seems an onerous task, on the other hand, from a technical point of view ,  you open a street named bit street right beside wall street, you take all the same exchanges, which covers every commoditiy in the world, and you change the $ field to a BTC/LTC field and the problem is solved.

except for the 85 families in the world who have as many assets as the bottom half of the world..etc etc

 

 

 


Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:50 | Link to Comment ebear
ebear's picture

The type of change you refer to is what I call the substrate, or hidden ground of progress.  For example, air travel and the US interstate system knocked the railways off their perch, but at the same time created new monopolies or cartels that sought to corral their advantage through political influence, just as the railways before them did.  Likewise, mechanization eliminated slavery and forced people off the farms and into the new industrial cities.  Having lost their oiriginal means of subsistence, the new labor class then organized to secure its' position.  Every new order of substrate progress sets up this dichotomy, which again is basic to human nature.  Crypto-currencies, peer to peer, open source, etc. all contain the potential to overturn existing monopolies, however, once established, you can be assured that new cartels bent on securing their newly acquired advantage will arise and the cycle will begin again.

The basic point here is that while genuine progress comes about through advances in science and technology, those changes will always be subject to the same impulse for control that permeates all human action. The best example today is the NSA spying on everyone via the same technology that was supposed to free us all from oppression.  Anyone remember how altruistic and "we'll never sell out" Goggle was at the outset?

This is a dynamic process - by definition, you will not find a solution to existing problems without laying the ground for the next set of problems to arise.  Best you can do is anticipate these effects and try to position yourself accordingly.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 23:04 | Link to Comment bcecil
bcecil's picture

Let me say, sincerely,  thank you very much for your insight , the points you make ARE very important and they certainly help me better formulate my thoughts and approach to laying a base to solving these things.

I was 23 when i first started building micro computers in 1974, have owned various computer companies and, was one of the first ISP's in Canada, a non-profit co-op in Toronto.. when the visual Internet arrived in '95. I also personally stopped Bell Canada from monopolizing the net back then by contacting all 285 Memebers of Parliment to explain what the internet would mean to the world.

As I look around at the world I grew up within... I see new, genuine, massive, VERY positive group think and amazing large group behaviours, all facillitated by the interenet. A few champions get an idea and everyone jumps onboard... All of this to me seems very different from anything in mankinds past.  As I look back at the development of say... linux or open source software over the last 40 years, by hundreds of thousands of VERY brilliant programmers, for the common good of mankind, it is all still around for free for everyone, not monopolized or owned where you are forced to buy...

One of my watercooled computers is doing aids reseach on weekends with 200,000 other people who donate cycles of time to do protien fit computations..

So as you say

"The basic point here is that while genuine progress comes about through advances in science and technology"

However, as true as this part of what you said, since the begining of mankind....

" those changes will always be subject to the same impulse for control that permeates all human action."

my hope, and personal experience, is leading me to believe all of this massive, collective thought, effort and work will overcome the ability of any individual power hungry psychotic charismic leader(s) to control everything as we move forward.

Thanks again

 

 

 

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:11 | Link to Comment bcecil
bcecil's picture

you are right of course, that is how things have always been...but this time I think it is a "bit" different , because the technology is cheap and can be used universally, collectively and by small communities and tribes. The more you understand about BTC you will see that it is owned by no one and is a complete trust system, which was the purpose of its development. I guess you could also look at the development of say linux or open source software over the last 30 years by hundreds of thousands of VERY brilliant programmers for the common good of mankind. Still around for free , not monopolized or owned.. same thing ...

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 20:14 | Link to Comment ebear
ebear's picture

I understand what you're saying and I agree - there is always some slack in the system - some window of opportunity to bring about change via means that can neither be anticpated or controlled by the PTB.  If this were not so, then progress could not occur, since vested interests will always seek to lock down any and all challenges to their rule.

That said, I think it's imperative to not attach ourselves to any one particular solution as an end all/be all.  That was the failure of communism - the notion that people, given the opportunity, would rise above self-interest and see the advantage of working together for the common good.  It was a powerful idea and probably would have worked if not for that pesky little fact we call Human Nature.

Going back to my example of the railways, the point today is not to figure out how the internet can save us - that's like putting all your money in New York Central just as air travel starts to get popular.   From the standpoint of effecting change, the internet is already obsolete.  The question we need to ask then is "what comes next?"  

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 13:50 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

Hell no we won't go. Why work when you can live in poverty for free.

Up my FAFSA Yellen Motha Fuckka.

Long live the revolution.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:24 | Link to Comment clagr
clagr's picture

ditto

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:22 | Link to Comment clagr
clagr's picture

Even the White House spokesman noted that Obamacare now gives people the 'freedom' to chose to not work and still have health care.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:42 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Banksters seem to agree. Bailouts are enticing

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:07 | Link to Comment Your Creator
Your Creator's picture

My dad got an orange and an apple for christmas  back in the 1940's.  Now that's poor. The poor today are richer  than yesteryears poor.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:17 | Link to Comment Proofreder
Proofreder's picture

The average 'merican is far wealthier and privileged than a very large percentage of the world's population.  And still bitches constantly about how hard it is. How unfair and how wrong.

Much, much richer in stuff, but morally destitute.

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:05 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Too bad, the animals that refused to work but tried to get the Little Red Hen to share the bread that she produced all by herself have now changed the moral of the original story -- which was that those who produce should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

New arrivals who flee Third World Socialism only to arrive in America to demand socialism instead of the Founders' free enterprise system, are contributing to the destruction of their final hope.

The moral of the original story of The Little Red Hen was that those who show no will to contribute to an end product do not deserve to enjoy the end product.

(In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat, and asks for help from the other farmyard animals [most adaptations feature a pig and a duck] to plant it, harvest it, thresh it, mill the wheat into flour, and bake the flour into bread, but none of them volunteer.

(Finally, the hen has completed her task, and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer. I will, said the pig. I will, said the duck.. I will... No, you won't, said the little red hen, stating that no one would help her in the making of the bread. I will eat it, all by myself. And she did.)*

It is ironic that the decendants of the Americans who built America now share less than any other group in the bounty that their predecessors produced.

In the socialist revision of The Little Red Hen that now circulates our public libraries, all the barnyard animals that refused to help the little red hen bake her bread get to equally share in the happy eating of the bread, including the dog.

Apparently, you support the revision.

The truth is, Marxism/socialism fails, in most part, because the State has to use overt force at the point of a gun to induce people to produce. Everybody becomes, if possible, a free-rider.  

Communism does not work, except temporarily at the point of a gun, because there is no reward, no ownership of property which motivates a man to burn the midnight oil to patent an invention. In the unjust world of totalitarianism, the individual who strives to advance, no matter how industrious, is just a cog in a socialist machine run on somebody’s political ambitions of  "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

And to add insult to injury, under most socialist theory, the bulk of the wealth and accompanying power is transferred to a tiny minority of the ruling elite – as is now happening in America. 

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

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 18:48 | Link to Comment ebear
ebear's picture

"It is ironic that the decendants of the Americans who built America now share less than any other group in the bounty that their predecessors produced."

It's only ironic if you fail to recognize the underlying motivation of the producers, which is and always has been, to secure their advantage from all competition.   Far from being ironic, it's a natural outcome that as their wealth increases, so does their propensity to secure that wealth by any means, including undermining the founding principles on which their wealth was originally based.

There are, at this point, no "isms" that can overcome basic human nature.  Before you can even start down that road you have to recognize that the same motives that cause you to be hard working and independant are what drives the accumulation of weath and power at the top.  You're no different (none of us are) than any of THEM.  Only circumstance and blind luck separates the two.  


Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:23 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Secure is the operative word, because these producers came to America to form a government that would protect their rights to practice the religion they wanted, to establish estates through hard work that they could pass on to their progeny and to establish a system of fairness and justice open to others who shared their dream. It was, as Madison wrote, ‘to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity'…

This, my friend, is called culture and it was a successful culture because it was not based on greed and it was not based on selfishness. Rather, it was based on the Christian principle that every life is sacred and should be provided an equal opportunity, quite the opposite from your description of how America grew. It was the establishment of a place where a man could be an individual and be free. That was our culture.

Americans who now are being displaced in their own land were and are the producers of the American Dream, the descendants of the producers – those pioneers in liberty - who built America. The financiers and international bankers who are stripping the American people of their assets are not producers, they are tyrants, despots, bent on destroying freedom, usurping that which was produced by the free enterprise of others to establish an all-powerful, socialist world government run by international bankers.

The 1965 Immigration policy of the Jews, expressed by New York Senator Jacob Javits (1951) in an article entitled “Let’s open the gates” -- that proposed an immigration level of 500,000 per year for 20 years from the Third World at a time when America’s population was 150,697,361 (1950) with no restrictions on national origin -- ultimately won the victory over US immigration policy. And, today, both political parties are calling for more amnesty for additional millions of illegal immigrants to continue displacing American workers.

I repeat, the Americans they are displacing are the descendants of those who built America; they are the producers, not the financiers and bankers who are stripping them of their assets and their heritage.

Sadly, the consequences are in. It was the people who built America’s homes rather than those who are building a supranational empire who lost; it is the latter seeking only money and power and special privilege who won. And for the latter to win, for the few to grow to become 21st century multibillionaires, the many must remain small or have nothing, robbed of their homes, their equity, their savings, their jobs, and their culture.

Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb (1995) noted that it is the descendants of those WASPs who settled the West and South who ‘by and large did the most to lay out the infrastructure of this country, quite often suffering educational and professional regression as they tamed the wilderness, built the towns, roads and schools, and initiated a democratic way of life that later white cultures were able to take advantage of without paying the price of pioneering. Today they have the least, socioeconomically, to show for these contributions. And if one would care to check a map, they are from the areas now evincing the greatest resistance to government practices.’

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 23:02 | Link to Comment ebear
ebear's picture

Not much of a culture if it could be overthrown so easily.  Of course none of the descendants of those original settlers had a hand in the betrayal.  None of them succumbed to temptation, it was all those nasty foreigners who came along later, right?

Here's some insight into what really happened. Note the comments of Governor Bradford who ought to know, since he was there.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1285981/posts 

Of course I could mention the Indians, whose land they were on, and wonder whether their right to be secure in their persons and properties mattered at all, but let's leave that for another day.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:56 | Link to Comment ZH11
ZH11's picture

Do you have any more childrens stories to load another load of spurious junk upon socialism, Marxism or Communism?

Anything from Dr Seuss on late capitalism for us all to digest?

Thanks in advance.

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 23:09 | Link to Comment ebear
ebear's picture

I do not like RED eggs and ham,

Uncle Sam, I am!

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:18 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

The miracles of Keynes…

“Eleven states now have more residents dependent on the government than they have people with jobs in the private sector. These are:

Ohio, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Maine, Alabama, California, Mississippi and New Mexico.

“Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reported that in 2011, between food stamps, housing, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168 a day in government support. To put this into perspective, the median household income in America is $50,054,, which averages out to $137.13 a day.

“Welfare now pays the equivalent of $30 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $25 an hour.”

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/07/poor_households_getting_168_in_welfare_per_day_from_taxpayers

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:10 | Link to Comment G.O.O.D
G.O.O.D's picture

This article of yours is full of shiot. As in Bullfvkinshiot the poor people do not make 168 a day.

The ONES THAT control the money TOO the poor people do a hellova lot better than that.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 22:27 | Link to Comment acetinker
acetinker's picture

Maybe you should actually read the article.  Doesn't matter, anyway.  When you have both ends of the economic spectrum feeding off a shrinking middle-  let's just say shit gets real.

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 01:34 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

"This article of yours is full of shiot. As in Bullfvkinshiot the poor people do not make 168 a day."

Prisoners cost about $40K to house and feed. They don't get paid, but they still cost the taxpayers $40K a year. The point is that for every Wealthfare recipient, it takes more than 100% of the median wage to pay for it with the adminstration costs. Imagine if you had a job that pays $10/hr and and you make about $19.5K. You be a fool to go to work when you can make the same amount by abusing the Wealthfare programs.  Its probably around $12/hr that you have a greater income then Wealthfare. Yet with Wealthfare, you don't have to get up early, don't have to deal with rush hour getting to work. Don't have to deal with all of the associated expenses of maintaining a job (uniform or work clothes, taxes, communting expenses, etc). FWIW: I am dropping out of the workforce this spring, going galt, so there will be one less sucker supporting the system. The burden will shift to you and the rest of the workforce that continue to prop up the system. I use to pay about $100K in Fed Taxes and another $35K in state taxes every year. They can kiss my ass, I am done! The Beauty of going Galt, is that there is not a damn thing they can do about it!

Just think about that 20% or more of your pay check goes to support these people. You have to work at least a whole day every week, just to pay for thier entitements! While they stay home watch TV and play xbox all week long you put in a full week work. Please be sure to be a good fellow and continue to put your 40 to 60 hours every week in, so these poor people can maintain their livestyle. Whatever you do, don't drop out, as they are counting on you to pull your fair share!

 

"The ONES THAT control the money TOO the poor people do a hellova lot better than that."

Thats for sure, but as more people drop out, those that recieve entitlements will have increasing ability to steal your weath through gov't redistubution. Wealthfare recipients will vote for the candidates that offer them moar free stuff. Libertarian and fiscal conservatives are going extinct, being replaced with the Free stuff political party! Its a party for them at your expense! Welcome the United Socialist States of America! 

Whats the real US labor participation these days excluding gov't workers? about 30%? Sooner or later the majority remaining will realize they are suckers and stop working hard so that the entire system just collapses.

 

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 01:40 | Link to Comment FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Working on my taxes today and thinking similar thoughts. I am late 40's and have some loot socked away and could pull it off, but it would mean a lifstyle that the wife would not have expected. Any suggestions?

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 05:14 | Link to Comment AGuy
AGuy's picture

"I am late 40's and have some loot socked away and could pull it off, but it would mean a lifstyle that the wife would not have expected. Any suggestions?"

Dump Wilma and run away with Betty? /sarc  Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Since I don't know your wife or your financial position I don't think I can really offer you any worth while advice. Perhaps work out a plan with your wife with a two year window. ie save like crazy for the next two years or whatever you and your wife think is workable. Perhaps this would break it to her softly and give you a chance to win over her support to implement your plan. Maybe if you can offer a plan that takes a year or more to implement she will feel more comfortable to accept it? My guess if you told her tomorrow that you wanted to drop out next month that may be too much for her to accept. A longer period may be easier.

Fortunately I am unattached, and I have significant savings to draw on. I poured on the hours during the Bush tax cut years and saved about 90% of my income (after taxes) since I knew eventually they were going to jack up taxes. I also deferred some of my income in 2013 for 2014 (by invoicing late)  so that I would be in a lower tax bracket. Since I know I am not going to work the entire year for 2014, i can avoid the higher marginal rates for both 2013 and 2014. If you drop out next year or the year after, perhaps you can use the same method.

I also ditched any unnecesary expenses (dumped Cable TV, there was nothing good on anyway). Stopped renewing newspaper, print magazines, but did subscribe to some freebie print mags. When I bought a new car, I downsized from a luxury car to a Hyundai (but had installed leather seat covers for about $900). I now use fans instead of AC  in the summer (which was how it was in the 1970s and 1980s) ,and I use a programable theromstat and just sleep with extra blankets. I now hang out at ZH instead of going out to bars and wasting money\time talking to Miss lefty and telling me how the Obama/Pelosi/Billary are great for our future :) I don't take any sigificant vacation time (hard to do when you run a business) and opt for infrequent three day vacation trips by car (I can't stand flying anymore anyway)  Perhaps by cutting costs it could be the start of your plan, figure out what you can cut out  that doesn't affect your lifestyle by much and go from there.

I am also relocating from an expensive suburbia in a blue state to a rural area in red state with no schools (cheap local prop taxes).  I am currently renting since I didn't want to be stuck with having to sell a home. Perhaps if you own a home and wish to choose to relocated someplace cheaper (maybe with better weather too) that could be added to you plan, to fix it up and put it on the market.

 

 

 

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:47 | Link to Comment John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Hi JR.  Just wanted to complement you on your always astute comments.  Always enjoy reading them.  Common sense can really be very helpful in life.  People response to inventives, both positive and negative.  So clear that even a Fabian Socialist should get it.

I will admit to confirmation bias, however.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:07 | Link to Comment Wilcox1
Wilcox1's picture

Along with that uneasy feeling that the recovery just isn't right is another similar feeling that our policy makers have never heard of some of these guys like Marc Faber, Charles Hugh-Smith and many others in similar vein.  Is this possible?  

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:08 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

In Faber’s opinion, the increase in poverty rests on four pillars: cultural and social factors, educational issues, excessive debt, and government handouts, which encourage people not to work. -- ZH

Three of the four Faber pillars involving the increase poverty in America deal with a subject that apparently no one, including Faber, can bring themselves to speak in public.

That subject is illegal Mexican immigration, clearly, the primary reason for these three pillars: culural and social, educational, and government handouts.

Until people with courage begin to identify the real problem in the U.S. for unemployment, poverty, an explosion in the welfare state, and an impregnable support for a socialist government with the displacement of middle class white workers, then polling and the studies and the fervent “truth telling” resting on Faber’s pillars are just so many leaves of grass blowing in the wind.

Here is the story in statistics; the story and statistics in The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray was socially censored and blacklisted:

Percent of Hispanic population, U.S., 1960 to 2012

1960— 3.6%

1970—4.8%

1980—6.9%

1990—9.7%

2000—13.2%

2012-- 17%

http://www.washington.edu/diversity/files/2013/05/HouseDemsSlidesFinalD_2.14.07.pdf

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/hhmcensus1.html

Population
53 million
The Hispanic population of the United States as of July 1, 2012, makes people of Hispanic origin the nation's largest ethnic or racial minority. Hispanics constituted 17 percent of the nation's total population.
Source: 2012 Population Estimates
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk>

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:00 | Link to Comment cynicalskeptic
cynicalskeptic's picture

A nation can afford - indeed BENEFITS from immigration when its economy is GROWING.

However the US economy has been CONTRACTING for well over a decade or more on a real basis.

An endless pursuit of the lowest possible labor costs is the cause of most of our current problems.  The US shipped whole factories (and the jobs that went with them) overseas starting in the 1970's.  We then shipped Data Processing jobsa and call centere service jobs overseas.  We are now shipping accounting jobs overseas.   The jobs we cannot ship overseas we fillwith immigrant labor to drive costs down - H1B visas for high end jobs like tech, illegal immigrants for low end jobs like meatapacking and restaurant help.

Hispanics are simply the latest immigrant group of notable size.   Can't blame them as a group for doing what so many other did.   The US had the Irish in the 1840's and 1850's - but they worked to build canals and railroads, Chinese in the West in the 1860's and 70' again building railroads and working farms, Scandinavians and Slavs in the 1880's and 1890's working farms and factories and mines.......Italians, Jews... the list goes on.  BUT THE US HAD A GROWING ECONOMY AND JOBS TO BE FILLED  

The robber barons got rich by creating companies and jobs.  

Too many of today's rich got there by DESTROYING jobs and companies

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:00 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

The wave of illegal Mexicans coming across the border is not immigration; under U.S. law immigration is confined to legal entry with specific requirements. Only the political bending of this definition through the years has involved anchor families, drug cartels, Dream Act recipients, Obama posters in all U.S. consulate offices in Mexico advertising free food stamps for border crossers, and colossal green card corruption.

This wave of wholesale invasion is the takeover of a sovereign country, abetted and encouraged and facilitated by the enemies of a free enterprise legal contract society.

The goal of the Jewish activists who took the leadership role in passage of America’s demographic-changing 1965 Immigration Act, according to Jewish activist Earl Raab in the Jewish Bulletin (1993), was “to alter the ethnic composition of the United States.”

The goal, he said, “by increasing ethnic heterogeneity” in America, was to make “it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” that might be a threat to the Jews.

As a result, by restricting US immigration almost exclusively to the Third World for nearly 50 years, the Jews have been influential in the decline of homogeneous Protestant Christian culture in America (D. A. Hollinger, Science, Jews, and secular culture: Studies in mid-twentieth century American intellectual history).

Even in 1952, Senator Pat McCarran of the McCarran-Walter act of 1952 in a hard won battle to retain the national origins provisions of America’s immigration system was well aware of the high stakes at risk in U.S. immigration policy and the forces he was fighting:

"I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation." (Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953, p. 1518.)

All of McCarran’s efforts were overturned by the 1965 Immigration Act, the ultimate triumph of Jewish policy over immigration in the United States of America.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 22:37 | Link to Comment acetinker
acetinker's picture

In my limited understanding, it is not the Jew, the Gentile or the Muslim who perpetuates our discontent.  Rather, it is, and has forever been the Zionist and the Jesuit.  They oppose each other but, you and I are just collateral.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:19 | Link to Comment clagr
clagr's picture

and what percent of the 'poor' do these 'immigrants' constitute--a huge %

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 22:01 | Link to Comment ZH11
ZH11's picture

Interesting you've only started counting from 1960.

Did any Hispanic people exist in the US prior to that?

I know when Columbus originally arrived he quenched his 'explorer's thirst' in the first Starbucks he could find. When exactly after that did the place start to get over run by these foreigners?

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 23:21 | Link to Comment ebear
ebear's picture

Waste of time.  

Christian Supremacists have more myths about themselves than even the Jews they so despise.  Good luck introducing them to a new idea, much less a true account of their own history.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 23:28 | Link to Comment FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

I thought "Christian Supremacists" loved Jews as they are the chosen people of the Christian Bible. They are pro-Israel.

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 16:00 | Link to Comment Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

If we do not fight for what is ours, it will not long be ours.

 

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:18 | Link to Comment teslaberry
teslaberry's picture

How can you expect to be taken seriously when the very first sentence of your article is wrong. the poverty rate has increased dramatically since the 60's by most conventional measures. 

 

the ability of the average couple to afford raising a family of 2 or 3 children has lowered. 

the amount of debt of the average person has risen dramatically. private debt and per capita national debt. 

the amount of free and clear REAL property (land with improvements) owned per person has decreseased.

meanwhile social society wide wealth in the form of technological progress has risen dramatically. we are , as a society more powerful than ever. obesity is a testament to excess cheap production of calories. drone armies. the internet. the internet. the internet. the beginning of the solar and wind power revolution. the hits just keep on coming folks!

marc faber is just a boring broken record.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Proofreder
Proofreder's picture

But, but, but ...  Isn't Debt good ?

It's the basis of our Money.  Cannot be a problem, can it?

/sarc

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:24 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

It’s the non-EBT card community which is having a hard time. America's middle class is rapidly moving into the poverty category because it is being forced to support not only itself but the EBT community.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:26 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

"Government spent $916 billion on these programs in 2012 "

So the money spent on the poor is not working?

Why does the government think that the SAME AMOUNT would be a good idea to bailoutout the Banksters?

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 18:01 | Link to Comment notadouche
notadouche's picture

Well how can we have problems?  The government enacted a "War on Poverty" "War on Drugs", the Dept of Energy, The Dept of Human Services, The Dept of Education etc decades ago and the US taxpayer has "given" trillions upon trillions upon trillions" over that span to stamp out all of the ills that we perceive to have.  

Are you telling me that we are still dependent on foreign oil?  We still have poor people?  Do you mean to say we still have a drug problem?  Our education system still sucks after all this?  Really?

Who/what is responsible for these failures?  All that wasted money?  How about a money back guarantee or clawback as the politicians loved to use now?  

Has anyone ever heard of something about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result being defined as insanity?  Perhaps, ending these "Wars" and doing away with these Departments while letting the citizen save more of their money might be the answer.  I know, it's all related to these various undertakings being underfunded year after year, even after decades of existence continues to be the problem and the answer is always "more funding".  Only more funding has proven to be a canard.  

How is it that we cannot get that price right after all this time and cure these ills?  Could it be that there is no profit in cures?  More profitable for the "problems" to never be "solved" while actively engaging in the blame game and pointing fingers playing on the emotions of and distracting the masses knowing that the taxpayer today doesn't remember that these "problems" are not new and have been dragged out of the closet, repackaged and resold to each new generation of taxpayer as if they are uniquely solveable if "we just had more money and more government manpower?  Hmmmm.....  

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:42 | Link to Comment Bear
Bear's picture

Wars always costs ... the War on Poverty probably the most costly and like most wars, it cannot be won unless the enemy is totally eliminated. Sloth is the enemy and the only successful tactic is hunger ... why work hard when everything one 'needs' is free. 

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 16:01 | Link to Comment Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

I, sadly, worked in welfare for a few years. I can tell you the ONLY thing that motivates the welfare scum is NOT hunger...it is cold. These people were never in a hurry to get my paperwork for their foodstamps, but once the heat was off, they all but RAN to get the stuff.

 

Weird but true. It happened repeatedly.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:52 | Link to Comment MagicMoney
MagicMoney's picture

Welfare is just funding unproductive behavior. No different if it's welfare for corporations, or poor people. I mean what could be more incentive to work, & climb up the economic ladder than moving away from the natural state of poverty? You don't need government for that. That is just silly. The War On Poverty is just another government program by Guns and Butter LBJ to get more popular support. Such programs including other programs of LBJ cost the US huge at least for the American people. Politicians like to sell ideas they will make life better, without it costing a dime. For the american family, it's inflation, and devalued wages, loss of savings, and purchasing power of those savings.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:13 | Link to Comment cynicalskeptic
cynicalskeptic's picture

Welfare is just funding unproductive behavior. No different if it's welfare for corporations, or poor people.  +1000000000

 

BUT a society DOES need a safety net for the truly needy and destitute.  The problem is that we have expanded that safety net to reward destructive behavior.  The original 'insurance' companies were mutual aid societies founded by and serving a specific group.  As a foundry worker you'd kick in a few dollars every pay check and they'd help you if you were injured BUT they would NOT help you if injuries were cause by drunkenness or other bad behavior on your part.  Unfortunately our current 'safety net' too often rewards bad choices.

At the same time far MORE is spent on corporate welfare - subsidies, tax breaks, no-bid contracts - Crony Capitalism run amok where producing better goods at a lower cost does not get you ahead.  Instead innovation is likely to be squashed by larger competitors using government rules and regulations.  This is widespread in the medical supplies field.  Despite Hepatitus and HIV we STILL do not have a good widely available 'no prick' syringe because the largest maker of syringes has kept better designs (owned by others) off the market with government help in regulations specifying their products.  Boston Beer wasted millions fighting labeling lawsuits brought by government (but pushed by competitors that did not want a new growing competitor).  Then you have government bail outs of banks and Wall Street, GM and Chrysler, Government gettgin stuch with pension plans underfunded by corporations and FAR more.....  Crop subsidies, no-bid defense contracts, billions spent on things unwanted and unneeded.......

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 16:05 | Link to Comment Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

WRONG.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:53 | Link to Comment Music101
Music101's picture

Yup, it's a WORLD OF DEBT!!! See the Music video "WORLD OF DEBT" --Funny Too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99xsqxzJnXs

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 18:21 | Link to Comment mt paul
mt paul's picture

world of debt craft...

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 14:59 | Link to Comment FLHRS
FLHRS's picture

If society would have put as much emphasis on values and morality (and I don't mean organized religion) as we did on poverty during the "war", then we would have had success.  But values and morality conflict with the big government machine, and political correctness that we created.  Most of our current problems are because of the lack of, or even war against, values and morality.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:04 | Link to Comment adjudged
adjudged's picture

Other, unstated, reasons the lower-middle and middle-income families are disappearing is that they are having to pay for these progreams out of their incresingiy meager incomes ($916 billion in 2012 for those programs alone), not to mention having their income tapped for all manner of foreign (Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Israel) aid, wars on two fronts, regulations that distrupt a family's ability to start its own business, and increasing payments for Medicare and Social Security for an increasingly elderly society. 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 17:05 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Exactly. It runs deep. It's sleight of hand tricks.

Case in point: the Fed bankers and Congress use the minimum wage to not only increase your future payments into SS but to wipe out the purchasing power of your future receipts from SS – just when you’re ready to collect. It’s called inflation.

Every time inflation pushes up the minimum wage and/or the minimum wage pushes up inflation, this government-contrived inflation seesaw pushes down the future purchasing power of your paid-in Social Security.

The winners, of course, are the international bankers and the politicians who not only hold your money but can renege on their financial promises, contracts and obligations.

Thus:

The SS average expected benefit for a retiree in January 2012 was a meager $1,229. That worked out to $14,748 a year, or a bit more than $7.37 an hour for a typical 2,000-hour-a-year job.
That's was barely above the federal $7.25 hourly minimum wage; and many states have higher minimum wages.

And now Obama is raising the minimum wage for workers under federal contracts to $10.10 per hour. That’s $20,000 a year for a typical 2,000-hour-a-year-job. Already California has passed a law to raise the minimum wage to $9 and then $10 next year -- co-authors: Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles).

Good luck, then, on the future purchasing power of your social “security.”

It’s an inflation scam.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:23 | Link to Comment kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

History informs that government, being a criminal syndicate, always accomplishes the opposite of the stated goal. The stated goal always being lies and cover for their malfeasance. And government can only produce poverty, misery and death.

Therefore, giving government command of education, perpetrates ignorance.

Giving government command of security, breeds insecurity.

Giving government command of money, destroys wealth.

Giving government command of poverty, multiplies poverty.

Giving government command of you. means less of you.

Government is the problem, never the solution.

 

"The solution to government is the guillotine."

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 16:08 | Link to Comment Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

I say we mount a guillotine on the floors of the Senate and the House.

 

Just a short walk, nothing but a short walk.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:23 | Link to Comment TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

The actual goal of the war on poverty was to make more people dependent on govt. not less.  When a politician speaks you should know they are lying.  So far the program is working well.  When the govt. steals from one to give to another it is working out good for someone, 'the govt.'  The recipient loses self esteem and independence.  The others lose their wealth and both lose freedom.  The govt. gains power and the connected few skim off some of the proceeds.  This only works temporarily.  In the end we all lose.

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:30 | Link to Comment gwar5
gwar5's picture

"Poverty" is much misunderstood by the policy makers anyway. They think it means there is a permanent free shit army underclass of about 10-15% of the population that stays poor forever -- and therefore they need help to change. Not true!!

 

 

It doesn't work that way at all, so it's all misguided and massive misallocation. 

The group defined as the 10-15% poor is an ever changing and dynamic group, constantly in flux, with the constituents moving in and out of the poverty category throughout the course of their lives in a predictable cycle.  This is also true for minorities, even though they do have higher poverty rates. 

The economic lifeclycle of individuals:

1. You are poor when you are young and just getting started.

2. You become no longer poor when you get a real job and hit peak earning years.

3. When you are old you are poor again, by the policymaker definition, because your earning days are over -- even if you have $500K in your 401K.

 

Only about 5% of the population is part of the permanent underclass. This is usually due to disability, drugs, crime, and single mothers with lots of babies that don't climb up (but their children can).  

Because of the dynamic nature of the earnings cycle in the course in the lives of individuals it has been estimated that even developed countries have a limit of about a 10% poverty level --- in the same way unemployment is thought to have a limit of about 5%; due to sickness, turnover and training.  

A country like 5 million Norwegians doesn't compare because they sell their North Sea oil to subsidize individuals who don't work. This, while they try to shut down US oil and coal energy production.  The natural resources are still considered the peoples, and is wealth, so they cannot be impoverished.

 

 

 

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:51 | Link to Comment Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

the word that best describes the reasons for poverty and inequality is - MONOPOLY

 

The guys in the club own the rules - monopoly of law.  If anyone could raise a legal court for any reason, and it was based on the simple principles of common or natural law, then most of this crap could not happen.

 

Through monopoly of law they create more regulation, killing small business concentrating power into corporations who have less competition and can then lower wages.

 

Of course there are a thousand other types of monopoly - but all reinforced by law, and also a failure to understand that real estate, minerals and other natural wealth is common property.  Labor and products of labor are private property - but the planet belongs equally to everyone, and if they are pumping crap into your water, or air - or preventing you from making use of the land - then they owe you compensation.

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 16:10 | Link to Comment Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

Don't leave out monopoly of lethal force by da gubbamints.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:54 | Link to Comment icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

“It’s pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed.”

 

try weed, music, good food, and blowjobs

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 15:59 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

If you ever need proof that rich people aren't smarter than everyone else just reread the above.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:17 | Link to Comment yogibear
yogibear's picture

Forcing unemployed onto SS disability, food stamps and welfare.  Future Hillary voters.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:20 | Link to Comment css1971
css1971's picture

Oh good god.

Poverty is required by supply and demand. What happens if supply completely satisfies demand? Think about it. We've just been through an example.

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:25 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

In all my travels and all the worlds, I’ve found a common theme to all life forms:

1.  The Operating System of all Life Forms is based on Self-Interest.  Even cooperation is based on selective self-interest.

2.  Those with ‘Means’ (Wealth, Power, Influence) are in a better position to look after their Interests.

3.  When people with Means work together, they get far superior results than those w/o means working together. 

4.  When you have the Means, you can get the Laws changed to further favor those with Means.  This creates an uneven playing field with a rigged game that favors those with Means.

5.  The System can only be as healthy as its social, political and religious sub-systems

6.  In a healthy and balanced System, you should get a Gaussian (Normal) wealth distribution.  To the extent that it is not Normal, it is symptomatic of the System’s immaturity or malaise.  The result is a skewed and systematic distribution of wealth.

7.  An immature or compromised System has the following: (1) An even playing field, (2) A rigged game, and (3) The absence or decay of Checks & Balances to counteract all these.

8.  All wars are at their heart Ideological wars.  They start, and are won or lost from the outset.  At their outset they are determined at the most fundamental level of Values, Vision and Policies.  Values, Vision and Policies that are built on the immutable laws of Nature, rather than the feeble, flawed and capricious laws and primitive superstitions of its sentient beings.

9.  The extent to which fundamental Ideology is not built on Nature’s Laws, they are temporary and transient.  This holds true for individual, groups, nations, civilizations and religions. 

10.  ALL bow before Nature.  Even ‘gods’ -- and those gods who claim to be above Nature.  Show me a ‘god’ who has withstood a Supernova explosion or come out of a Black Hole, and I will show you a fraudster of cosmic proportions.  I will show you a Fraudster who can peddle their wares with effect only to primitive people and tribes, or to megalomaniacs who are happy to align their vanity and power to that of an impressive Space Alien.

-Kirk out

 

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 07:43 | Link to Comment Bazza McKenzie
Bazza McKenzie's picture

Re 1, as a former Australian PM Paul Keating remarked, "put your money on self-interest, at least you know the jockey is trying".

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:41 | Link to Comment Randoom Thought
Randoom Thought's picture

What is poverty? Insufficient resources to get what is required to live a non-poverty lifestyle. (yes, I used the term poverty in the definition, but the poverty lifestyle is subjective).

Given the above, there are both inputs and output. If we have sufficient inputs for the required outputs to live a non-poverty lifestyle then we are not in poverty.

The required outputs have continually increased through inflation, greater taxation, greater debt and higher expectations. Pretty much all of the increase in rquired outputs to live a non-poverty lifestyle are caused by the banks and governments. They are mostly out of our control. Only expectations (and even these are shaped by media) are within our control.

On the other hand, with the exception of those on welfare, pretty much everyone is on their own on the input side. While the banks and government have great power to increase the amount of outputs they demand from us we, the generally powerless. cannot force the inputs to increase commensurate with the demanded outputs.

It is pretty clear that the greatest contributors and architects of imabalance and destruction of the misslde class are the banks and government. They are powerful and cretae demands for greater outputs and we are weak and have little direct power to increase our inputs. People are right to blame the banks and government ... and the parasites that run them.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 17:03 | Link to Comment John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

I think I can summarize this article with a quote from the greatest president of the 20th century (and you all know who I talking about):

"the scariest phrase in the english language is, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"

And, let's not forget this gem from another press conference,

"you can line up all the senators end to end and they still couldn't reach a conclusion"

Humor, an essential part of intelligence and survival.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 17:19 | Link to Comment green888
green888's picture

whenever a government mentions "poverty" you should believe nothing much is going to happen. Should a government mention "missapportionment" then that is serious matter

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 17:37 | Link to Comment WhyWait
WhyWait's picture

Does welfare hurt the poor?  Would they be better off without it?  

And who has an interest in keeping it alive?

Why, over 4 decades while the productivity of the US economy has nearly doubled, with all the programs, agencies and laws aimed at ending poverty, has it never been eliminated, and why is it exploding again?  

Why, when we could have eliminated povderty and hunger altogether with amounts of money that would have been lost in the noise, less than the normal fluctuations in income growth, why haven't we done it?

And why are there so many arguing for poverty as being somehow good for our country and good for the poor?

One place to look is all the programs, agencies and armies of social service workers - public, non-profit and private - that feed off taking care of the poor, who, well meaning or not, must impose the rules that are keeping them trapped. Certainly, they are aiders and abettors of this ugly reality. But I doubt this answer goes deep enough - because the disgrace of brutal poverty in a land of plenty predates the welfare system.

The American economy - or those who rule over it - seem to NEED poverty and hunger.  We are a good-hearted, generous and generally fairp\-minded people.  If there was not something driving this perpetuation of poverty we would have gotten rid of it long ago.

Middle class people driven by circumstances beyond their control into life-threatening situations, forced to turn for help to a cruel social welfare system, are outraged, and are raising issues that the poor and working poor have long since given up fighting. 

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 16:16 | Link to Comment Polymarkos
Polymarkos's picture

I worked welfare for a few years. You are RIGHT ON about the system being aiders and abettors to the welfare scum. The systems of the state eat up 90% of the money given them for 'the poor.' And the welfare techs aren't seeing any of that money, I assure you. Management sure lives well though...

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 18:05 | Link to Comment FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

"The poor you will always have with you"... JC

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 19:53 | Link to Comment mumbo_jumbo
mumbo_jumbo's picture

"government handouts, which encourage people not to work"

 

well duh!!! that pays better

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 00:03 | Link to Comment Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Common sense can be astonishingly WRONG, as in that common sense says that the Earth is flat, and at the center of Universe, while everything else circles around the Earth. That applies to "socialism," and so on and so forth, for all the other over-simplistic ideologies, based on false fundamental dichotomies, and related impossible ideals, which always cause the opposite to happen in the real world. THE SAME THING APPLIES TO ANY ALTERNATIVE IDEOLOGY, WHICH PRESENTS ANY OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW TOO. E.g., "Little Red Hen" kinds of stories are nice enough, within their limited context, providing moralities for those limited to operate within some similar context.

Obviously, there were people living in North America for more than 10,000 years before the European invasion began about 500 years ago. That European invasion brought the Neolithic style of civilization, with its kinds of social organization and technology, to North America, which were able to genocidally wipe out the people who were living in North America before the Europeans invaded, while those who survived that we forced to become assimilated. Everyone who owns anything in North America does so now only because of that history!

The REAL source of wealth is being able to stake claims, and back those up with violence. Thus, the benefit from all production depends upon destruction. I.e., being able to produce destruction. THE PARADOX OF BENEFITING FROM BEING ABLE TO PRODUCE DESTRUCTION IS AT THE HEART OF ALL THE REST OF THE ECONOMIC PARADOXES.

I liked this quote in the article above best:

Will Durant opined in The Age of Louis XIV that the “men who can manage men manage the men who can only manage things, and the men who can manage money manage all”.

In Lessons of History, he wrote:

... the bankers, watching the trends in agriculture, industry, and trade, inviting and directing the flow of capital, putting our money doubly and trebly to work, controlling loans and interest and enterprise, running great risks to make great gains, rise to the top of the economic pyramid ...

The bankers owe their success to being the best organized gang of criminals, that were able to apply the methods of organized crime in order to take control of the powers of governments, which were the biggest form of organized crime. There is nothing else but different systems of organized lies, operating organized robberies, in which the most important productive capacity is to be able to produce destruction, i.e., apply the methods of organized crime to wipe out competing systems of organized crime.

The systems work better, longer, when it is possible to maintain better dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies, operating organized robberies. However, it always happens that there are the rise and fall of those systems which become the best at doing that, which then wipes out their competition, which replaces that competition with a relative monopoly, which inherently drives its own degeneration and madness towards self-destruction. Over and over again, there is the paradox of final failure from too much success.

Since our society becomes too totally dominated by the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories, which get to teach everyone to think in terms of false fundamental dichotomies, and their related impossible ideals, we continue to deliberately ignore the nature of evolutionary ecologies, and fail to maintain better checks and balances between the different systems of organized lies and robberies. One group, the biggest bullies, have their bullshit become too triumphant, (whatever the bullshit "ism" label by which that is referred to).

The main pillar of poverty is failure to operate better overall death controls. The paradox is that everything is necessarily controlled by the production of destruction. However, since that is selected to actually get done through the maximum possible deceits and frauds, those who are the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites always end up running their own systems into the ground, under whatever "ism" label they pretend to be operating. Faber's "four pillars of poverty" all branch from the same root, which is the success of the biggest bullies' bullshit operating the real death controls through the maximum possible deceits and frauds, which become too successful in brainwashing the vast majority of other people to agree with that bullshit, so that there is a failure to maintain better systems of death controls, which drives the depravity of the debt controls to cause runaway social polarization and destruction of the natural world. In that context, I thought that this was a good article by Marc Faber, although, of course, still way too superficial.

The runaway success of those who are the best at applying the covert methods of organized crime then enables them to dominate society, so that its entire bookkeeping system becomes fundamentally fraudulent. The short-term success of that triumphant fraud then eventually destroys the whole system, due to the paradox of final failure from too much success.

While there will always be relative human inequalities, and relative human poverty, for as long as human civilization survives, and is dominant enough to direct its own destiny, there does not need to be any arbitrary absolute level of poverty. Paradoxically, the real way to have had the War on Poverty work was that it would have to be a real war, whereby the poor were more effectively at war with themselves, by managing their own death controls (which includes "birth controls" as actually forms of death controls.) However, for that to work in the longer term, there would have to be a greater overall collective recognition of the background realities of human ecology.

The deeper problems that we face all track back to the same sources, with the same results, namely this history of warfare being based on successful deceits, which enabled the development of political economy based on successful frauds. Thereby, the biggest bullies bullshit social stories dominated everything, including their controlled opposition. Therefore, the war on poverty became perverted into operating with militarism, the same as everything else always operates within militarism, because that is the supreme ideology, which is the paradoxical ideology of success through deceits about itself. (Obviously, every such "war" appears to backfire, because each was embedded inside the layers of militarism, operating through the maximum possible deceits about itself.)

Any better monetary system has to cope with the inherent paradoxes necessarily present in the supreme ideology of militarism. However, so far, no society has come remotely close to doing that in more scientific ways. Instead, there has developed a runaway paradox that progress in science and technology has primarily been channeled through militarism, in order to become better at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence. All political economy, which of course includes relative rates of poverty amongst different groups within that political economy, necessarily exists inside of real human ecology, within a real natural environment. However, since the real human ecology ends up being directed by its death controls, through which the military murder systems, based on successful deceits become predominant, therefore, we have developed a political economy which depends upon triumphant frauds, wherein the best at operating those frauds become the most wealthy and powerful people, while those who are less able to organize that, end up poorer and more marginalized.

HOWEVER, AS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BECAME TRILLIONS OF TIMES MORE POWERFUL AND CAPABLE, AND ARE HEADED TOWARDS BECOMING QUADRILLIONS OF TIMES MORE SO, IF CIVILIZATION SURVIVES, IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT SOCIAL SYSTEMS TO SURVIVE BEING MAGNIFIED BY THOSE MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, BUT RATHER, THEY MUST BE DRIVEN THROUGH DRASTIC CHANGES OF STATE, INTO NEW SYSTEMS OF DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIA, IF ENOUGH SURVIVES THROUGH THOSE TRANSFORMATIONS ???

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 20:43 | Link to Comment MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

I always wondered if Faber truly believes even half of the BS that comes out of his mouth.

- Happiness has been studied for a long time in psychology and over the past 30 years or so we have had long-running longitudinal studies on measuring happiness in very psychometrically sound measures over time for a large enough statistical sample.  We have very good ideas of how 'happiness' varies with income, age, etc.

- Reason divorce rates spiked in the 60s wasn't counter-culture or 'gov't weflare' but the advent of birth-control which allowed women to control when they got pregnant for the 1st time in history and enjoy reactional sex without the fear of getting pregnant and no-fault divorce laws which made getting a divorce relatively straight-forward for the 1st time legally in US history.  Children are no-doubt better off in 2-parent households but are conservatives willing to get rid of no-fault divorce laws and outlaw birth control?

- Age group with the highest rate of poverty in '65 was the elderly; low rate of poverty last year was the elderly.  Here is the reason why:

    a. Estimated per capita amount the federal government spends on programs for children in FY2012 : $3,822

    b. Estimated per capita amount the federal government spends n programs for the elderly in FY2012 : $25,455

This is economic madness but does Faber bring up the point that spending our greatest amount of resources on the elderly is a recipe for disaster? Of course not. 

So we do know have very reliable measures of happiness and how they change over time, the reasons why divorce rates spiked starting in the 50s and picking up through the 60s/70s, and have completely changed the levels of poverty among the elderly while greatly expanding lifespan primarily though Medicare spending.

This post is a complete intellectual embarrassment and instead reads like some cr@p that would appear on Fox News.  There aren't easy answers/solutions to these issues but the conservatives aren't even talking about the reasons why the US is growing broke (defense spending, transfer payments to the elderly).

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 01:34 | Link to Comment X_mloclaM
X_mloclaM's picture

so we do"

 

what are the units you are measuring in, please

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 01:37 | Link to Comment X_mloclaM
X_mloclaM's picture

marriages.

so just mandate every1 get murried then. count that as "full happiness"

 

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:13 | Link to Comment The Shodge
The Shodge's picture

Time to grease the guillotine

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:33 | Link to Comment proLiberty
proLiberty's picture

Happiness is consequence of attitude and spiritual conditions. Giving can bring much greater and longer lasting happiness than getting.

Sat, 02/08/2014 - 21:46 | Link to Comment ZH11
ZH11's picture

1. "All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real life conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

 

2. "No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeooisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class - the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and the retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants - all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."

3. "But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks ofthe proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes."

 

4. "The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeiosie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure and existence to its slave within slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 04:43 | Link to Comment the tower
the tower's picture

I think by mentioning the Heritage Foundation Faber has shown his true colors... Never believe a word that comes from his mouth...

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 05:48 | Link to Comment kurt
kurt's picture

Faber should stick to gloom and doom. His corporate lap dog is showing through.

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 06:16 | Link to Comment Debugas
Debugas's picture

to put it in simple terms:

1) the rich rent to the poor

2) the government taxes labour and not capital

3) cheapest credit goes to the rich first

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 06:25 | Link to Comment Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

good stuff.  I'd add: 'the rich get richer because they have more capital in the first place.'

Sun, 02/09/2014 - 12:36 | Link to Comment moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Many of my friends who own independent small money management firms are being forced to close down their businesses, merge, or sell to larger financial institutions because of increased regulation."

 

Sam Zell said to work harder if you want to get into the 1%.  The gist of this story is that the 1% are using the government to make it near impossible for the hard worker to make it into the 1%, as they are viewed by the 1% as competition.

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