This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
5 Truths (You Cannot Disagree With)
»
- 52216 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
thank you to all the insights above...
ekm1
Great, and very correct summarization.
True, true....
Except the East Germans, its very hard to get ethnic germans to not work.
@ Ekm1:
Make me understand.
You pretended that worked:
"expert in people's lives, while most people just try to understand them" - Psychologist? Gossip?
Was hungry:
"until they ran out of food and communism collapsed due to food shortages"
After that, you have gone through an entire ocean to continue to do nothing?
Any immigrant picks up a shovel and turns concrete, private cleans, does the devil to get money.
You just confirmed your state or bum, working on something decent?
No, not pity.
Or the guy works or that swimming back home.
Immigrants arriving in Brazil to work more than natural.
: - \
Do not be a bastard, here there are no idiots.
: - /
6 Inflation is theft.
Let's quit the foreplay and get it over with already.
Only the first point I can disagree with. Not saying that I do, it's just too vaguely worded. Plenty of bankers should be legislated out of prosperity.
I agree those are highly banal platitudes.
But seriously, I can disagree with whatever the fuck I want.
Faggot.
Hey Rex, looks like some fag down voted you. So I up voted you to cancel the fag's vote
Can't argue with that........
"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
I don't know, that's sort of what running a business and paying workers is.
oh yea...division of labor theory. this is one article that needs to be deleted because it is really brainless.
No.
Workers do a trade. They offer labor in exchange for payment to buy goods and services. That is not dividing wealth, that is fulfillment of a barter transaction of wealth creation.
Worker creates wealth and exchanges it with another form of wealth. There was no division, there was creation and exchange on both sides.
The phrase is intended to mean that the wealth is divided among people who offer nothing in return.
OK, under your definition of dividing capital where absolutely no interactions between those individuals take place, and no cooperation or dependencies exist, then I agree.
An entrepreneur takes the risk so it bears the right to keep part of workers output who simply work 8 hours.
The entrepreneur is in charge of all operations. He doesn't do for free, hence he keeps part of workers output for himself. It's a contract.
But, it works only when EVERYBODY produces something or offers a service.
Ideally:
Every consumer is a producer and every producer is a consumer.
That is capitalist utopia, full libertarian utopia.
OK, last shot: intergenerational wealth.
Real intergenerational wealth is an industry, lots of machineries, energy generation etc.
But somebody still has to extract the energy and use the machinery to produce output
he's good!
6. If a glass and steel skyscraper falls at freefall, into its own footprint, from 4 hours of an office fire you need to make all of your engineers work in that type of building leaning forward.
7. If that don't work, appoint a czar incharge of hemmoragic fever who has not one day of medical science schooling.
stupid bs. i agree with the point being made but this is stupid.
1. the wealthy are getting poorer and only a theird of the copuntry works for a living.
2. when the dollar is tied to gold i may agree but with fiat currency there are no opportunity costs because labor is plentiful and money spits out of machines for free.
3. see #2
4. just plain stupid with a repeat of #2 and #3.
5. when half the country realizes they do not need to work because there are no jobs that pay more than welfare why should they work when they can be supported with free money pumped from printing presses?
besnook
If the US would go back to 2006/2007, the US would need about 4 more million barrels of oil a day.
Could you point us to a nation that has 4 million barrels of oil a day to spare?
It IS stupid BS. These "Five Truths" are predicated on the outmoded idea that wealth is primarily created by "work".
Most wealth in this country is just conjured into existence through various forms of financial manipulation. Then it gets spread around the priviledged classes and final a few bits trickle down to the majority.
Binko
Great, and very correct summarization.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs2942_the-three-stooges-hoi-polloi-epi...
Thanks for that post. I love the Three Stooges. I would rather watch that instead of "Putting Up With The Cardassians' or whatever that show is called. The best part is at 13:55 where we learn where all of the silverware went.
Some of the best they ever did. The dance lesson with the bee had me belly laughing
"Everything is free...until it isn't." That's the only truth I know.
Well its true isn't it?
yes..... yes it is ...... but then there are those that fall into the category of ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA
Here's a fun fact:
When people say "re-distribution of wealth" it implies there was once a "distribution" of wealth. What does that mean?
When one is doing a statistical analysis of something, they take a bunch of measurements. Then they "distribute" those measurements into various ranges, so they can make a histogram, and get a quick visual look at the "distribution" of whatever they were measuring.
Things like height, weight, percent of facial hair that is grey, etc. (then you'll have a "normal" distrubition, etc)
They are NOT distributing that which is measured, ONLY the measurements.
So the term, "re-distribution of wealth" TECHNICALLY means to simply take the measurements, and organize or categorize them in another way. Not to re-distribute the wealth itself.
Of course, in any con, you take what you are doing (stealing, in this case) and making it sound normal. Like mobsters and "protection" money, for example.
There are a lot of people in central planning that do disagree with these five truths.
1) Government is nothing more than a criminal syndicate of theft and violence.
2) Each and every utterance and action by government is for plunder, money, and the furtherance of their power, future money.
3) Government always accomplishes the opposite of the stated goal. Always.
4) Government can only produce poverty, misery, death, and lies. Anything else is illusionary.
5) If government is involved someone is going to pay with their wealth, health or life. Possibly all three.
6) Government law is a legal instrument and justification for plunder.
7) Government is "public service" as service is to a steak on a waiter's serving tray.
An American, not US subject.
"I made a list, and now I'm on their list."
.......ultimately this or any government is merely a representation of the people who empower it and allow it to exist..... in the case of the western govs that would be the money changers, they write the scripts and pick the players and we graze hopelessly in the fields ........ it seems a sad truism that within this matrix TPTB have convinced the wolves to be sheep and though many of us realize this we seem to revert to being good little house niggers when we should cast off our wool and join the fight to bring down this beast that enslaves us.......
......... holy shit ...... burning the sugar really does kick the Absinthe up a notch ......... oh shit here come the dragons again ........fuuuuuuuuukk
These are also correct on a global empire scale. The United States can only lean on the rest of the world to accept the dollar for so long.
Right now that would appear to be "so longer."
sumation:end is in sight. what emerges is a new start. that start could be better or worse, depending on what transpires. i vote iceland...
I disagree.
1. Yeah so what: You can also not legislate the poor in to prosperity by eating yogurt. #1 is a nonsequitor.
2. Only true in terms of things of real value, ie., those things created from labor. Banks currently violate #2 every day by transferring value from workers to non-workers through inflation of the money supply.
3. Not true. Government takes money from the Fed, but the money created by the Fed comes from nothing. So the government takes nothing (something that has no value to the Fed) and gives it to someone else as something that has value to them.
4. True. Wealth can only be multiplied through value adding labor. OK, 1 for 4 so far.
5. Maybe. There is a whole lot of non-value-adding work going on. And, even people who think they are working are not adding value through their labor. The entire government, the banking sector, lawyers, insurance etc. add no value to the economy. At best they churn and parasitically suck off of the value created by others. However, what I can definitively say about the authors ridiculous statement is that it make assumptions well beyond the author's empirical knowledge. He is assuming to try to make his point... just bad logic.
Of the 5 supposed truths, the author scores "1". Too bad they no longer teach critical thinking in schools.
Just let the machines make all the money and then all us humans can kick back and have a good time.
What's the problem here?
When, through various securities swindles, Goldman owns all the machines, why do you think they will let you Goy just kick back and have a good time?
There will be lawns to mow, gourmet food to be prepared, Porsches to hand make, penises to suck and anuses to fuck.
The Goy will always have their work cut out for them. Or they will be "useless eaters" and need to be culled from the flock.
1. You can legislate the wealthy further toward prosperity
by legislating the middle class further into poverty.
It's a good fucking thing you caught me in a relatively agreeable mood.........
Ebola should take care of all this. Ebola is our only hope for salvation.
Studies have shown that roughly 85% of the population is highly susceptible to mind control and the other 15% not-so-much.
So, who do they want to murder and who do they want to keep? Do they want to keep 10% of the 85% as slaves or do they want to keep 2/3 of the 15% because they have potential to grow beyond this world.
The hosts morph into parasites and the system dies.
Those who temporarily rely on government assistance in order to plug a gap between jobs pay back to the public what they took when they generate a taxable income. However, those who perpetually thrive off unearned income (bankers, traders, shareholders) do not repay their unearned profits to workers* who are the only ones in society who actually add value.
A strong push to make all large companies managed by their workers, and to limit the lifespan of shares of stock to 20 years in order to ensure that shares are strictly a means of raising capital, would go a long way to raising worker wages and improving the dignity of work.
*This includes anyone whose income derives from providing a useful product or service, not from ownership or trading of financial assets.
#2 is not a truth or true. to appreciate the
statement as intended one must assume fictionalization
and financialization of all material human interaction,
meaning and purpose, entirely arguable and stupid.
.
#4 is not a truth, it is a derivative of a
neurotic and psychotic hallucination.
.
#1 is a political and propagandist slogan,
revolting, and not a truth. ahh, but so what
and what the fuck?
.
#3 pure horseshit. today, we call that truth.
.
there is more?
There were five. You missed one.
He is blind man, cut some slack........
Picking on the blind like that is quite a sad thing to be doing in this day and age... should be a law or something...
#5 is the truth, the only one of the five.
but i would change the word "nation" to
"relationship" or "group". the idea is
the same.
.
the notion that there is anything that one cannot disagree
with is entirely disagreeable. is it nature or nuptials?
.
blogging with the crazies, run for their money she said ....
regarding # 1.
you cannot legislate the poor into prosperity
by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
.
really? look up the term "sovereignty" and
consider the history of man.
then tell me you cannot legislate the poor
into prosperity ....
.
really?
.
#1 is a political and propagandist slogan,
revolting, and not a truth. ahh, but so what
and what the fuck?
.
consider the doctrine of manifest destiny, expansion
and the idea of growth relating to monetary
systemic structure and you come upon the analogic
similitude to the bacterial or fungal strategies
dominating and defining the minds of men.
in my economy there are 10 people and 5 jobs, in order to make it work the 5 who have jobs must feel superior to the 5 who do not work, and must never ever realize they were hired because they didn't talk back to the boss, showed up on time, and believed everything they were told.
when the government robs from the poor and gives to the rich, what is that?
government is the people, what happens when the 1% runs the government for their own benefit?
a nation was always a falsehood, a nationalism extended through propaganda to get men to die in war to support the wealthy, by killing their own kind.
i do not disagree with the points i wipe my ass with them
I'm fine with 2-5. But #1 is a quibble, "You can't legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity." Well no, that sounds like you'd need two pieces of legislation, one to grab the money the other to redistribute it. However, in a zero-sum game you can legislate that certain configurations are illegal and you can enforce that. Even in a non-zero-sum game you may find that it is not good to go into certain configurations, it does no good to increase the pot if the distribution gets even worse as you do so (yes there are some configurations where it is OK, but there are some where it is not, that's the point). As others have already said, it is ALSO not good to legislate that all the money goes to the wealthy. Maybe make that #0.
this trivializes the issues we face.
this is childish blame statements, Randian self justification for predators eating everything they can; including using their wealth and power.. even if achieved by innovation, intellect, and sweat.. to buy out policy makers, own government, rig the rules to maintain and grow their ill gotten power.
this isn't empowering or truth you cant deny.. this is largely the justification of the heir class to their born into wealth, desperate to justify their status.
P < P + I
We have not yet begun to trivilialize!
I demand a lawyer before this discussion proceeds any further!
It is all obviously true; of course I assume it is referring off-handedly to corporate welfare queens, banksters and industrialists the goverment has been working for for many decades.
The short experiment historians will call "the American middle class" has been bled dry from both ends, with the upper end sucking out far more on per-capita basis, and those falling out the other end recieving classic bead and circuses.
The international character of recent bankster manipulations is needed to suck wealth from real working stiffs in the rest of the world. China is still buying Treasuries with their worker's production, but for how long, now that they are partnering with Putin? Once State investors quit buying, the Fed will have to go back to the mysterious buyers from the Carribean to fund their crony-Ponzi program.
Ah... the neglect of, and roundabout excuses for, a false and corrupt leadership continues.
What a waste of time, and a waste of thought.
"Most economic fallacies derive from the tendacy to believe that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another"
Milton Friedman
"Most macroeconomic fallacies derive from the tendency to treat economics separately from politics and lawfare."
"Most microeconomic fallacies derive from the tendency to treat value as a static, objective, and measurable quantity as opposed to an adaptive, subjective, and fundamentally unmeasurable emotional perception."
-- Cthonic
Ebay is living proof that nobody believes that 'value' is any of those things.
Jesus Crackers man, if youre gonna put your name on an axiom, you should at least take the trouble to see that it is remotely true, even in an alternate universe.
off topic: Ebola smoothed new case rate (GN, LR†, SL):
14 Oct 14 - 173/day
11 Oct 14 - 158/day
8 Oct 14 - 146/day
7 Oct 14 - 135/day
5 Oct 14 - 131/day
3 Oct 14 - 132/day
Case Fatality Risk Estimate: 56%
Active Case Growth Rate: 4.0% per day
Health worker deaths/cases: 236/427 as of 12 Oct
Based on following data and estimates through 13/14 Oct:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/136645/1/roadmapupdate17Oct14_e...
http://health.gov.sl/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Ebola-Situation-Report_V...
† There is still substantial under-reporting of Liberian cases.
Rise in the new case rate is almost entirely driven by the outbreak in Sierra Leone. While a number of Guinean districts haven't reported any new cases in over 21 days, the outbreak continues across Forested Guinea, as well as in and around Conakry, Boke, Pita, and Dalaba.
http://qz.com/282643/ebola-is-getting-worse-in-guinea-and-no-ones-paying...
I love it when they call the US the "richest country in the world."
Yeah, with our $18Trillion in Debt!
The US is great at spending Resources that other people produced. The wonder, why these other other countries are giving us all of these resources ... real stuff, not paper fiat.
How much longer can this really last?
Generations.
You are right; this has lasted for generations.
But there is an end point and I think the Internet might be it. When these producing countries see us consuming everything for nothing, there will BE some changes.
The truth is a very powerful thing in the right hands.
They are getting something in return. The most liquid of trade goods available, the US dollar.
They ain't no good for saving so you better spend em quick.
When they become less liquid, as they are, slowly but surely bcoming, they will take the next most liquid currency or asset.
This is the extraordinary benfit of producing the world's reserve currency.
These 5 "truths" are more like opinions.
Not if one understands western logic..... smarten up.
smarten up or smarten down,
aye, that is the question.
Go read the huffington post! Simple thermodynamic laws and you call yourself a doctor.
more like propaganda in a class
war.
all for a stinking vote. the east has us beat in that resect they don't need a vote thus their govts keep more of their taxes for themselves the USA advantage is they trick people to think they'll be able to keep their money
Socialism: It works until you run out of someone elses money!
Lame hackneyed response!
I disagree with #2. The Walton heirs who own 40% of America never fucking worked a day in their lives! So, what is the problem with taking a chunk of their money and helping some poor people?
You're thinking about #2 backwards. Those heirs are on the "not working" side, and they do/did indeed receive from those who worked (the employees of "their" companies).
those heirs are the biggest welfare babies on the planet
those heirs need some nair from the unwashed masses.
The problem with that, is the wealth is theirs, legally gained. To take it from them is theft.
True, but those are exceptions and do not follow the norm. The overall population are not on that level. Those are the .1%. Yes, they are worthless but they (their associated company) do create a lot of jobs for the 99%
I CAN HAZ BAILOUT?
Obama is going tell us, we are on his terrorist list.
Fuck him and his transvestite wife..
A song for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZNNUU_AbXs
Tomorrow will be another day…
Today, you’re the one who calls the shots
That’s it, it’s been spoken
There’s no arguing
My people walk around today
Speaking to the side and looking toward the ground
Got it?
You, who invented this State,
Invented by inventing
All darkness
You who invented sin
Forgot to invent forgiveness
In spite of you
Tomorrow will be another day
I ask you, where will you hide
From the great euphoria?
How will you prohibit
When the rooster insists on crowing?
New water flowing,
And our people loving one another, without stopping
When the moment arrives
This suffering of mine
I’m going to charge with interest, I swear
All this love repressed
This scream contained
This samba in the dark
You who invented sadness
Now kindly “disinvent” it
You’re going to pay – and doubled
Every tear that rolled
In this anguish of mine
In spite of you
Tomorrow will be another day
I will still pay to see
The garden bloom
The one you didn’t want to
You’re going to become embittered
Seeing the day break
Without asking your permission
And I’m going to die of laughter
And that day is bound to come
Sooner than you think
In spite of you
In spite of you
Tomorrow will be another day
You will have to see
The morning reborn
And pour out poetry
How will you explain to yourself
Seeing the sky clear, suddenly
With impunity?
How are you going to stifle
Our chorus singing
Right in front of you
In spite of you
In spite of you
Tomorrow is going to be another day
You’re going to to be out of luck
Etcetera and so on
La la-ya, la la-ya, la….
–Interpretation–
After spending approximately a year in Italy in exile from Brazil’s military dictatorship, Chico Buarque returned to Brazil in 1970 and met with a rigid censorship machine — a result of Ato Institucional V, which institutionalized the pre-release censorship process.
In an interview in September 1971, Chico lamented, “Of every three songs I write, two are censored. After being censored so much, something troubling is happening with me: I’m beginning to self-censor, and that is terrible.”
The censors had grown particularly harsh with Chico after their inadvertent release of his thinly veiled protest anthem “Apesar de você.”
Chico wrote and released “Apesar de você” as a single in 1970. The censors initially approved the song and it became a quick hit on the radio. As the song became popular, rumors spread that it was dedicated specifically to general Médici, who served as president from 1969 – 1974.(Chico says the “you” in the song actually referred to the entire system.) To the censors, Chico argued that he had written the song for a rooster that mistakenly believed that the day only broke as a result of his song, until one night when the rooster lost track of time and realized that day broke in spite of him. Unconvinced, the censors banned the song and punished those who had let it through.
After the song was banned, Chico says he received the treatment of a traitor who had attempted to dupe the censors. As a result, he faced even more stringent censorship. “Apesar de você” was re-approved and re-released on the album Chico Buarque (Samambaia) in 1978, as the government began a gradual political liberalization process during Ernesto Geisel’s presidency.
:-)
meh, old stuff...we know this.
what we need...is...pitchforks and torches, 15 mil plus in DC....
But...who will lead us
How about ourselves.
Therearetoomany @ ...:
But things are old things come back, these songs will stun anyone guillotined or hanged, and agree, without music there is a good party!
Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!
Aliás!
Zohan!
Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!
Winning the war of words, for US citizens, starts with **not** calling our representatives "leaders". They are public servants.
6. "Money" is a scam.
So many are defined by it.
....so many are terrified to let it go.
A relatively simple argument in favor of #1:
Let us set aside fiat currencies for a moment.
Let us assume I have some gold.
Let us assume a carpenter has some skills. Skills he could use to turn $10 pieces of lumber into $20 chairs.
But the carpenter does not have any gold, so he cannot buy lumber.
I offer to loan gold to the carpenter so he can buy lumber. He will pay me back my loan of gold + 10%
when he sells the chairs he makes.
I get a 10% return on my gold (aka $1), and the carpenter gets $9. Am I an evil capitalist?
If I loaned the gold to the carpenter for 90% would I be an evil capitalist?
Is it better that the carpenter and I get nothing for our gold and/or skills?
What if the carpenter saves up the gold he gets selling his chairs and then
loans it to a sculptor who needs marble? Has the carpenter become an
evil capitalist?
Where does the evil come from if both parties are entering into the agreement voluntarily?
One might say the carpenter is only willing to take the 90% loan because he would otherwise starve?
Is it better that the government make such a loan illegal and then the carpenter starves?
Just make the cost of your loan $1 instead of 10% and everything is hunky dorey.
I don't know why you got down arrowed, that is the way it should work. A mutually agreed upon deal between two individuals without the interference of government in any way.
6- There's 50 million high paying jobs (low paying jobs? any jobs?) awaiting the 50 million on food stamps
there's equality of opportunity, the American dream is real (not)
how do those rich people get rich? by keeping more than a fair share, and leaving the rest less
when you're in the club, you want to stay there and limit membership to keep privilege
(the moneyed class view the rest as peasants, to be thrown scraps just to placate them)
(the moneyed class corrupt the system to their favour)
(too many high end parasites is the problem)
agree with above: class warfare
Whenever I hear the words "Fair Share", I always get the feeling that I'm hearing from an officer in the 'Free Shit Army.
when I see the words "fair share" I look at the job offer I got 2 days ago at less than half the annual compensation I have earned (with long hours and high stress) the last 15 years and then I look at your comment and see someone who doesn't understand what is going on.
Being a bit shit-faced tonight I feel it is my job to reiterate that we should hang the bastards.
Também vou dormir, amanhã começa o maldito horário de verão no Brasil.
Que merda!
Bração aí.
:-)
If Civil War 2 doesn't get in the way of things, it may just come to that.
Here is how: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqCUOzFWaRs
Join 911 truth movement.
The richest person in the UK is the Duke of Westminster.
He never worked for his money and just popped out between the right set of legs.
Vast swathes of land in the UK are owned by the old aristocracy who again did nothing and do nothing.
David Cameron's father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, lives on an estate that has been in the family for the 16th Century.
When money accumulates in large amounts in certain families there is little incentive for future generations to do anything at all, the UK Aristocracy demonstrates this admirably.
The UK Aristocracy presents the case for punative, high end inheritence taxes.
The UK Aristocracy also presents the case for high land taxes, no one creates any more land and once the rich have got land, they never give it up.
Actually, they worked pretty hard for that wealth and privilege.
Back in Hastings in 1066.
Harald was no pushover. Had it gone the other way, all they could expect was to become crow food and forgotten.
So, back in the day, the job benefits were great but the working conditions were pretty rough.
#1 is an opinion for sure.
It's an observation. A fair one at that considering no one ever got rich being on the dole.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Those who look closely understand that it is not the 1% at the top stealing the icing off the cake, but the much smaller .1% or .01% that are skewing the numbers and overreaching.
I contend the biggest problem is the massive growth in crony capitalism and corruption in Washington. Much of this can be attributed to the ability of those in control "changing the rules" and positioning themselves to benefit at every corner. In our busy and complex world we have found it impossible to watch all the moving parts. More on this subject in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-empires-collapse.html
It's all O's fault.
Was listning to one of Wall Street's finest talking about the drop in oil prices and the resultant price drop at the pump. He was multiplying the money at 10 cents or so a gallon that americans will save from the price decrease and was actually calling it a stimulus for the middle class and came VERY close to saying that it was more than what they deserved, while rationalizing that the price should be higher. If you don't think those prices are managed through puts and calls you're an idiot.
Clever but:
Most wealth redistribution is done by taxation and grants. Most wealth redistribution that I have seen is taxes on working people to fund grants given to small groups of well-connected businessmen - many of whom are carpetbaggers. For example, we have sales taxes to build professional sports team stadiums for billionaires many of whom seem to come from or near Wall Street. We have oil companies made rich by government construction of railroads and highways, and further subsidized by government "protection", via endless wars, of oil fields in other people's countries all over the world. We have computer companies bottle fed by the Defense Department. Power companies allowed to charge their customers for future construction. At the local level, all manner of Chamber of Commerce businesses are subsidized by local road construction, over-regulation of small competitors, and grants, grants, grants.
On the other hand, we have many programs paying poor people to have children, so that those children can become consumers of services that local and international businesses want to sell, and cheap labor for those same businesses, by ensuring that there will be more children than jobs. Even the money from food stamps ultimately ends up in the pockets of managers and stockholders of international food conglomerates.
And don't forget the biggest taxation and grant of all: the Federal Reserve. This private company taxes every saving worker, by slowly stealing the value of the dollars he saves in, and gives all the money to a small group of bankers whose names are never revealed to the citizens.
One way or another, it always comes back to the people who pull the strings, and those people are rich, not poor. As Machiavelli said, "in every city there are two groups of people: the nobles, who are constantly thinking up new ways to steal from the working people, and the working people, who are constantly thinking up ways to avoid the new thefts.
Excellent writing and thinking! Professor Boodles, here, gives you an "A" for content and style.
"Truth" is relevant. While your absolutes are lovely, they are not fitting for the present context.
First, take back all the money the rich has stolen and give it back to the "poor". Second, decide what kind of society you want to live in. Then come back and re-examine your "truths".
(Call me a commie if you like, but I am, in fact, a commodities trader and frankly know what "truth" and "justice" mean with regards to weatlh distribution.)
Well using the fact that the rich have stolen (some of) their wealth as justification for wealth confiscation and redistribution to "the poor" is fractured logic, in my view. First of all, for the most part, the money the rich stole was stolen from the middle class, not the poor. And the kind of society we should all want to live in is a sustainable one - and that involves less government (and less centrally planned wealth redistribution), not more (as your post implies).
Robin Hood robbed from the rich bc the poor ain't got no money
Has the patient been checked for a heart of tungstun? You know wealth distribution.
Yeah, that's why the poor are multiplying like jackrabbits and also pouring over the borders. To be stolen from.
Commie.
"First, take back all the money the rich has stolen and give it back to the "poor"
Bullshit! The rich are not the enemy. Define rich? Those who have accumulated wealth through innovation, labour and risk? You want to rob those people and spread the loot among the free shit army? Give your head a shake!
End the money changers, the rentiers and those who labour not but skim from those who do.
End the private fucking federal reserve and this world may yet have hope.
The rich can't steal from anyone unless they get some help from the Govt.
When was anyone mugged by a guy who used a Silver Cloud as a getaway vehicle?
Those are really just 2 truths restatedin different way. Or 1 meta-truth. We are what we produce.
Armed citizens with nothing left to lose or facing a bleak future? Let's get radicalized and eat the rich as that makes sense if you are fucked in the first place. Paraphrasing the words of the founding fathers...
They took action as they had freedom to gain.
Sleep sheep.
The Founding Fathers hijacked the original conception of the American colonies, from a place where people could become decently well-off through hard and honest work to a neo-feudal system in which 0.1% of the population control the means of production almost totally. Most of them owned a number of slaves, speculated in or derived unearned income from financial assets or property, and had money lent out at fixed and high interest (the root cause of the decay of our economy). Furthermore, they and others of their echelon led the drive to exterminate American Indians by using their wealth to drive up land prices and force tenant farmers west.
The pitchforks and guillotines should be brought out soon, I agree. But when the time comes it should not be couched in founder-worship.
White, consersvative "The gov't can do NOTHING RIGHT" BS passed off as the "truth". Nice.
Let me take a moment to shoot down #3:
When the government gave women the right to vote, no one lost their right the vote.
If I had a few more mintutes I blow up a few more.
"When the government gave women the right to vote, no one lost their right the vote."
Sorry, your example is not a good one. Expanding the franchise to include women caused a dilution of the existing status quo, which some men might argue was detrimental to them.
Yeah, that is about the time the country started going down hill. Women vote for the security of the state.
Not this one.
Good for you, Dagney :)
Women want to make the world a safe place for their children, so they vote for gun control.
Men understand that the world is a dangerous place, so they teach their children how to use guns.
Their votes cancel each other out, and the reptilian control freaks win.
An example of when women control the situation: Public education in the US. Men in control isn't any better, but these are just observations. I have no answers.
"Women want to make the world a safe place for their children, so they vote for gun control."
Quite true. And yet they will watch militarised police and assorted state controlled thugs on TV news shooting or beating unarmed demonstrators without admitting that these incidents happen because the victims are unarmed. Virtually all public attempts by people to hold their governments to account are put down by state brute force.
"Rights" are not given, they are affirmed... Money is given... And please, no semantical arguments about what is money... That is not my point...
Please try blowing up another point...
The Govt. gave nothing.
They merely lifted a restriction on a condition that was denied to a certain group of citizens that they should have been able to exercise simply by virtue of being citizens.
A denied right being granted is no gift.
It is Justice.
Mens votes were diluted by approx. 50%. Try again.
#6. OBAMA IS OUR BENEDICT ARNOLD.......
I disagree with all of them - what am I, an anomaly?
No, you are sarcastic
Nope, I'm with you. It's a very black and white list, and we don't live in that kind of world.
Same here. I don't see the wealth truth quote that firing American workers, give the jobs to poverty stricken peoples around the world with even more corrupt governments and sell the product back into the markets where there is still money at the same price creates balanced prosperity and wealth.
So why do BOTH sides of the American political spectrum support this process, offshoring of American jobs?
3 is the only truth. The rest are drivel.
You can take an hour's earnings off Jamie Dimon or 'Mini-me' Blankfein-berg-stein, and give an hour's earnings to 500 median-income schlubs.Dimon (or Mini-Me) do not have to give up 500 hours of labour to enable the transfer of 500 median-labour-hours worth of income.
So (2) dies in the arse in person-hour terms (not in dollar terms - but in marginal-utility terms, it gets fucked in the arse by a procession so long as to be considered a 'train of abuses').
(Note: I do not advocate that - I advocate removing the .gov-legislated oligopoly power that results in the Dimons, Fulds, and Blankfein-stein-bergs of the world being able to clip everyone's ticket).
The number 1 truth[s] - not on the list - is that
(1a) the "political means" (in Oppenheimer's taxonomy) attracts high-functioning parasitic sociopathic megalomaniacs; and
(1b) democracy enables the sociopaths; because
(1c) an IQ of 100 does not equip a human being to deal with the vicissitudes of life in a modern industrial economy (OECD's PIAAC survey proves that beyond reasonable doubt), particularly in the face of lying sociopathic professional parasites who live in palaces at everyone else's expense.
1c) An IQ of 85 and a gun can produce a reasonable facsimile.
Seeing as we print and party while the rest of the world works and weeps, these truism you speak of come off a tad disingenuous.
Lose the tired old dog eat dog mantra..............might be time for enlightened capitalism.
We're not animals, we have free will.....................time to shake things up again, a la founding fathers.
I love ZeroHedge. But after coming here for 4 years , I have come to realize, it's all manufactured, just like The Truman Show.
Almost every Saturday, no news.....Last post 14 hours ago...so no important news, anywhere in the world ???.......and always on Saturday morning ??????
How is that.....and why on Monday morning is there news , good or bad , that will change the world forever ????.....
Because a Saturday morning fuckathon should be missed for your benefit?
Nope. I'm not blaming ZH. I'm saying the news cycle is turned on and off , like a light switch. Now fuck away. Your 2 minutes is almost up.
ZeroHedge needs more cow bell!
I think I figured it out as I mostly zero in on the comment section.
A lot aren't worth reading, but there are some here who have something to say based on their experience or questioning why something is.
They make it worth the effort :)
then, the half who are working shrug
Yes, of course, this is exactly what the powers that be would have you think. By the juxtaposition of up versus down arrows, it seems that they have succeeded in convincing most people to believe exactly what they want you to believe. Simply because it has very little bearing on reality, doesn't mean it isn't true, especially if your the one that controls that reality.
Simple soundbites about wealth are easier to swallow for chicks who haven't left the cozy warmth of the nest and haven't seen much outside of that nice little nest, much less encountered or known the very real birds of prey of the world.
In fact you can disagree quite easily with these ideological shibboleths.
The govt cannot give without taking away: Is that true of harbour facilities, interstate highways, hydro-electic dams (impossible to build without claim to the land), a police force, or courts of law? Obviously not, these can be public investments which benefit everybody and lower the risks and costs to doing business. (That is not to say that all public works are good investments.)
Where one persons receives without work another must work without receiving: This is basic Marxist theory. All societies with slaves are based on this principle. Slaves and serfs have always received far less than the value they produced -- that is what exploitation means. Have you ever heard of the idle rich? What is the point of being rich other than to get other people to do stuff you don't want to? Are hedge fund managers taking home 1$B really producing 1$B of goods? Do landlords produce land? Does the real-estate industry produce location? In the US only 50% of declared income come from current employment, and the rest is not all transfers! Not to speak of the accounting freedoms for asset income.
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity: Actually you can. We know that in bronze age societies that practised debt jubilees the economy prospered and grew afterwards. In countries where all the land is in the hands of a few plantation owners, land reform gives a tremendous boost to the income of the people working the land. A truer axiom would be: Countries with equitable distributions of assets are more prosperous than ones where all asset income accrues to a tiny group hoarding all assets and political privileges. Here's a thought: In most developed countries, total assets are worth enough to be able to make everybody a millionaire by selling it off and splitting the proceeds. At 6% interest per annum, everybody would have a $60.000 income in perpetuity.
And it is precisely legislation that determines to how the playing field tilts and buckles.