This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Wealth Inequality Is Not A Problem, It’s A Symptom
From Raúl Ilargi Meijer of The Automatic Earth
Wealth Inequality Is Not A Problem, It’s A Symptom
A comment on an article that comments on a book. I don’t think either provides, for the topic they deal with, the depth it needs and deserves. Not so much a criticism, more a ‘look further, keep digging, and ye shall find more’. And since the topic in question is perhaps the most defining one of our day and age, it seems worth it to me to try and explain.
The article in question is Charles Hugh Smith’s Why Nations (and organizations) Fail: Self-Serving Elites, and the book he references is Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.
Charles starts off by saying:
The book neatly summarizes why nations fail in a few lines:
(A nation) is poor precisely because it has been ruled by a narrow elite that has organized society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people. Political power has been narrowly concentrated, and has been used to create great wealth for those who possess it.
The Amazon blurb for the book states that the writers “conclusively show that it is man-made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or lack of it)”, and continues with examples used such as ancient Rome, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Congo, to make the point that some countries get rich and others don’t, because of differences in leadership structures. That in itself certainly seems true, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the whole story.
In the case of the Congo, for instance, the perhaps richest place on earth when it comes to resources, there’s not only the devastating history it’s had to endure with incredibly cruel Belgian colonial powers, there’s to this day a lot of western involvement aimed at keeping the region off balance, and feed different tribes and peoples with weaponry up the wazoo, in order to allow the west to keep plundering it. It’s not just about national goings-on, it’s – also – a supra-national thing.
That’s one of two shortcomings in the material, the breadth and width of why nations and organizations fail their people but serve their masters. In the present day, national boundaries, whether they are physical or merely legal/political, are not the best yardsticks anymore by which to measure and gauge events.
The second shortcoming, in my view, is that inequality, a theme so popular that even Janet Yellen addressed it this week in what can only be seen as her worst possible impression of Marie Antoinette, and expressed her ‘worry’ about wealth inequality in America. The very person publicly responsible for that inequality thinks it’s ‘just awful’. Go bake a cake, gramps.
Wealth inequality is but a symptom of what goes on. Charles Hugh Smith has a few graphs depicting just how bad wealth inequality has become in the US. We all know those by now. It’s bad indeed. But where does that come from? Charles touches on it, but still hits a foul ball:
I submit that this dynamic of failure – the concentrated power and wealth of self-serving elites – is scale-invariant, meaning that it is equally true of communities, towns, cities, states, nations and empires alike: all fail when they’re run for the benefit of a narrow elite. There is a bitter irony in the ease with which American pundits discern this dynamic in developing-world kleptocracies while ignoring the same dynamic in America.
One would imagine it would be easier to see the elites-inevitably-cause-failure in one’s home country, but the pundits by and large are members of the Clerisy Upper Caste, well-paid functionaries, apparatchiks, lackeys, factotums, toadies, sycophants and apologists for the very elites that are leading America down the path of systemic failure as the ontological consequence of their self-serving consolidation of wealth and power.
Here’s the thing: especially after WWII, though before that already as well, the western world woke up to the need for international co-operation. Dozens of organizations were established to structure that co-operation. But then, in yet another fountain of unintended consequences, something man is better at than just about anything else, we let those organizations loose upon the world without ever asking what happened to what they were intended for, or whether the original grounds for founding them still existed, and whether they should perhaps be abolished or put on a tight leash.
These are questions that should be asked about any large-scale organization. Be they multinational corporations, global banks, Google or indeed the United States of America. We can’t just assume these powers, which gather more power as time goes by, share and serve the purposes of the people. What if they gradually come to serve only their own purpose, and it contradicts that of the people? Should we not get that leash out?
Turns out, we never do. If someone would suggest today to break up the USA, because its present status contradicts that which the Founding Fathers had in mind (and there are plenty of arguments to be made that such contradictions exist in plain view), (s)he would not even be sent to a nuthouse, because no-one would take him/her serious enough to do so.
But wealth inequality still rises rapidly within America, and it doesn’t serve the people. So why does it happen, and why do we let it? Because the inequality that matters most is not wealth, but power. And we’ve been made to believe that we still have that power, but we don’t. Voting in elections has the same function today as singing around a Christmas tree: everyone feels a strong emotional connection, but it’s all just become one giant TV commercial.
Even if families are genuinely happy to meet up and exchange gifts and stories, it’s all modeled after the building blocks handed to us by chain stores. It isn’t really our story anymore, and Jesus certainly wasn’t born in a manger: he was born in a MacMansion and the first thing the child saw was his mom’s fake boobs, a wall-sized TV and an iPhone.
In that same vein, we lost the stories bitterly fought and suffered for by our grandparents through two world wars and the brutal invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, the stories of how we can best keep ourselves safe and out of – international – trouble. Not just military trouble, but economic and political trouble. These things are no longer our decision. We founded supra-national, indeed global, institutions for that. And then let them slip out of our sight.
The US is a bit of an outlier here, simply because it’s older. But the IMF, the World Bank, UN, NATO and the EU absolutely all fit the picture of organizations that have – happily – grown beyond our range of view, and that exhibit the exact same inverted pyramid characteristics we see on wealth inequality, only for these organizations it’s not wealth that floats and concentrates increasingly from the bottom to the top, it’s power.
Wealth comes after that. And one shouldn’t confuse that order. Because power buys wealth infinitely faster than wealth buys power.
All these supra-national institutions were established with good intentions – at least from some of the founders. But then we forgot, ignored, to check on them, and they accumulated ever more power when we weren’t watching (we were watching TV, remember?)
And what we see now is that any effort, any at all, to break up the IMF, World Bank, UN, NATO and EU would be met with the same derision that an effort to break up the USA would be met with. We have built, in true sorcerer’s apprentice or Frankenstein fashion, entities that we cannot control. And they have taken over our lives. They serve the interests of elites, not of the people. So why do we let them continue to exist?
What powers do we have left when it comes to bailing out banks, invading countries, making sure our young people have jobs when they leave school? We have none. We lost the decision making power along the way, and we’re not getting it back unless we quit watching the tube (or the plasma) and fight for it. Until we do, power will keep floating to the top like so much excrement; it’s a law of – human – nature.
That the people we voluntarily endow with such control over our lives would also use that control to enrich themselves, is so obvious it barely requires mentioning. But that doesn’t mean this is about wealth inequality, that’s not the main issue, in fact it’s not much more than an afterthought. It’s about the power we have over our lives. Or rather, the power we don’t have.
»
- 21071 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Maybe there's a reason the chosenites have been kicked out of every country in the world at one time or another...
my roomate's sister makes $75 hourly on the computer . She has been without work for seven months but last month her check was $19790 just working on the computer for a few hours. look at this website... http://goo.gl/yioYBZ
CASTBOUND, here's hoping you become CASKETBOUND soon.
"That the people we voluntarily endow with such control over our lives"
Who is this "we" person?
Thats a cheerful post!
Basically we are fucked and everyone is too dumb to understand what the fuck is happening around them. What will be the turning point for the masses?
Anyone ever mention how state lotteries contribute to wealth inequality?
Government lotteries are a very effective tax on stupidy!
Recognize the virus.
It's a problem and a symptom. obviously.
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
Obey natural law. Everything else is suggestive.
"Maybe there's a reason the chosenites have been kicked out of every country in the world at one time or another..."
So we can say "chosenites" and not be banned under the ZH discrimination policies? But Fonz was banned for a comment about blacks killing whites? I guess he didn't use the correct euphamism, or rather, he didn't discriminate against the correct group. Tylers care to comment? I didn't think so.
Information is control...
Perhaps Chosenites are good at languages, clerking, research, book keeping... writing history books, science books, educational programs....
Well that looks like a Risk to Country, Culture, and conception. lol
No really... A race or Nationality can take over a constitution... if they have a plan.
...And the plan seems successful and accurate.
I don't want innocent women & kids hurt... but wow the financial Rape of the USA is Complete.
So Jews are bad, then? And ZH knowingly and repeatedly allows anti-Jew comments for that reason? Let's get it out in the open. Can we all agree that when the poster said "chosenite" he meant Jew? I mean, really. Shall we just bullshit each other? Can anyone have some balls?
First Rule of Fight Club: use euphemisms. Cool club.
Sorry I try to keep it clean. There is a lot of links here leading to the videos or whatever against Jews.
I apologize.
All I would say is that there are people in all family backgrounds, races, nationalities, that are good at Usury, Banking, Corporatism, and Fraud. They are good at not using GAAP Rules for Accounting and use off balance sheet transactions to make the financials look good.
Yes, it seems like the American Way now. No race can be condemned. We all have biases. But we can all agree that Generalizations hurt innocent people.
So no. I don't want to condemn a people.
I do think politics is down played by those that say it is the Democrats or the Republicans. Or those that say it is the progressives that ruined this country not the Conservatives...
Fact is it is Zionism or Fascism. The Roman Army was fascist. Spain, Italy, Nazi Germany, NATO... these are Fascist. But the pride of Fascism goes into many countries and even Asia.
Israel is Fascist. They may have taught the Germans or the Germans may have taught them. Or the Romans may have taught fascism to the Jews... Seems like it is lost to History.
Religion doesn't mean squat to the power elites. They would go Shinto in a nanosecond if it would give them more of that amber colored power juice. Back in the days of the Cold War, I was a dog for the military. (kinda like Fullmetal) Our organization's motto was "knowledge is power". How true. Who hides knowledge from us at every opportunity? .gov Who fights insanely to keep that knowledge hidden from us? .gov Tear back the curtain of lies that .gov uses to keep the people ignorant of the reality of things and this .gov too will topple. They know it and they also know their days are numbered. Why do you think they are hardening every .gov building???
There are two things that must happen if we are to have a stable form of governance. One, they must be kept on a strict budget which they cannot violate, and two, they must not be allowed to hide their actions from the people they serve. If we control the money of .gov, we control the growth. If we require transparency, they will not be able to play their shell games and distract us from our duty of oversight. If they get all the money they want and can do their dirty deeds out of plain sight, then we get tyranny and eventual collapse. The coming AI will either destroy us or solve this problem forever. The only real question is what are we giong to do for the next 20 years while we wait for the birthing.
.gov is like aspirin. Too little and it's no help, just right, and it's benficial, too much and it's deadly. We are clearly at the deadly stage.
.gov is like arsenic. In small amounts, it's uncomfortable and annoying. In moderate amounts, it's damned unpleasant and debilitating.
In large amounts, it'll fuck you over once and for all.
FIFY
I like your reply, but sorry, I can't agree. Anarchy is not very pleasant because you get countless gangs robbing, pillaging, and raping. While .gov is an evil, it is a necessary evil. The emergence of an AI in the near future will either be our salvation or our destruction.
If you ever watched the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still", the 1951 version, and you know the story, the robot, Gort is the master. What we need to survive and flourish into the future is an incorruptible master like Gort. I have yet to meet an incorruptible human although I like to fantasize that I would not be corrupted by power. Ho ho ho ha ha ha! I seriously doubt that any of us can withstand the temptations of power.
"..countless gangs robbing, pillaging, and raping."
Which is the situation we have now- aided, abetted and, more often than not, *mandated* by that UNnecessary evil known as .gov.
Your fear of what life would be like absent a powerful centralised authority is unsurprising given that we are bombarded literally from cradle-to-grave with the message that life would be shit without the constant 'guidance' of those who seek to control every single aspect of our lives.
But, as the old saying goes: 'The truth is out there.'
Ha! foo tunny. I wish I could agree with you whole heartedly, but in fact: "MAN CANNOT RULE HIMSELF". History teaches us this over and over. Our best shot as survival as a species is an incorruptible overlord that hopefully has our best interests at heart. I don't think we can continue as we are. We have too much technology now and will probably off ourselves or pollute the planet until we croak. If we get what you want, then we are back to the hunter/gatherer days. I will settle for an AI overlord if it insures our survival as an intelligent life form. Our legacy may be to eventually cast off these mammal bodies and become AI in the end. We are God for only we can conceive him in our holy brains. With apologies to Yello,,,
messymerry "Tear back the curtain of lies that .gov uses to keep the people ignorant of the reality of things and this .gov too will topple. "
...And another .gov more or less like the one it replaces will be elected by proles who by voting signify their approval of the status quo, because those who "run" the country want it so, and have the money (power) to make it BE so. 18 presidential elections in my lifetime, and look at US now. It's impossible for me to understand why people think voting makes things better.
Yup, read my additional posts above and let me know if you don't agree. TPTB knows that an insurrection is inevitable, and soon. They are working overtime to prepare and we should be doing likewise.
This is how we roll,,,
You are proposing restraining government and assuming it will never break free of the restraints. The founding fathers tried that as well wth the Articles of Confederation and again with the Constitution, and they failed. It cannot merely be restrained, it has to be crushed for all time. It has to be reduced to a state where all moral people see it as immoral, as is now the case with slavery.
LTER i've wondered as well, the ground seems somewhat arbitrary.
yeah-it's a symptom of an oligarchy-a group that has bent the legislative, judicial AND executive branches of the US go'mt to their own ends.
"Maybe there's a reason the chosenites have been kicked out of every country in the world at one time or another..."
There is: hyper-collectivism and hyper-ethnocentrism and both outright and sublimated hostility towards the prevailing culture of the host country. It simply boils down to a conflict of interests between competing cultures in which the culture that is more individualistic and/or more loosely organized continually loses ground to the subversive activities of a more focused, cohesive and organized subculture. The constant attacks against the dominant, majority culture (e.g., in the 20th centry, pseudoscientific vehicles such as Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, Frankfurt School, Marxism/Neo-Marxism) in an attempt to make people hate their own roots and change the prevailing culture into one that is more amenable to Jewish interests and the maintenance of Jewish identity, eventually results in blowback.
The chosenites literally can't help themselves in eventually sawing off the tree limb that they're perched upon. They're simply following a hard-wired script in their agitation for "progressive", nation-wrecking policies in pursuit of a group evolutionary strategy that benefits them in the short term but often proves disastrous in the long run; not only for themselves but for the host nation as a whole.
Yes, if you preach double standards in which European ethnocentrism and other forms of European group identity are attacked as evil but your own hyper-ethnocentrism is ignored and even celebrated as virtuous, some people will eventually come to hate you for it. Herp derp.
pychobilly, +1, superbly expressed.
"Maybe there's a reason the chosenites have been kicked out of every country in the world at one time or another..."
"Becuase they are Gods chosen people and are oppressed for it."
Gimme a fuckin break. At some point you have to ask, can that many countries over that many years be wrong? Fuck no...
M
no taxation without representation
You do realize that this saying assumes the legitimacy of both taxation and representation (e.g., government). Right?
You do realize that taxation is not going away. Right? Then the only alternative is to insist upon appropriate representation. Seems like what is needed is that those who are NOT taxed (at the top end and the bottom end of the economic scale) lose some of their representation to keep things on an even plane. I recall the old axiom that those who pay the piper get to call the tune.
Outstanding article!
It's so, so. One of the best overview of how the 'system' works in the US is 'The Power Elite' by C.W.Mills, written in the early 50's. Just as relevant today given the influence of vested interests and the army of lobbyists that infest Washington.
One very powerful book. Read it in the late 50's. And yes, it is germane today. MIlestones
thank you tylers, a powerful and insightful read, one which brought a lot of great minds and opinions to the thread. thank you.
Pull the circuit breaker, it's time to do a hard reset on the system and this one will be a doozie.....
no blood, no reset. just bigger gated (armed) communities for the 1% and bigger slums (w/cake) for the 99%.
Rambo: They took First Blood. Now it is my Turn!
Orwell did not appreciate the beauty of incompetence .
See
https://www.academia.edu/8843907/A_Tale_of_Two_Armadas
Only in modern times have the Delian League been surpassed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League
But for sheer competence ,see
https://www.academia.edu/8843977/Super_Managers
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2013/03/optimal-number-of-concept-cells.html
You only need 1263 managers for anything . No matter the size .
Reality tested .
when i first moved to south florida as the only eastern asian to have ever lived there(i learned why i was the first one soon) it occurred to me that money is only a measure of power. power was the primary goal. the reason i came to this conclusion is the obvious billions of dollars worth of economic activity traded for the power of racism. it was/is more important to subjugate nonwhite people for the purpose of denying them power than making money from them. that is the motivation for the police state.
we are all niggers now.
@Besnook - Subjugation for all people - race is just one of the ways to divide: young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, men and women, etc
"and America lost the revolutionary war" no date implied.
Ben Franklin was as prescient as George Orwell:
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best." - excerpt from Franklin's speech prior to the signing of the Constitution rallying others to sign as well, 1787. http://usconstitution.com/constitution/speeches/speech-of-benjamin-franklin-at-1787-constitutional-convention/
Fluctuating wealth is essential in generating more wealth .
https://www.academia.edu/8409789/Wealth_and_Fluctuation
those maggots will give us all ebola. i knew they would kill us all but holy fudge those maggots are evil. dastardly maggots, i knew they were up to no good in africa but jebus h christ they have a sadistic streak a mile wide. gates foundation pledges $50M to fight ebola? the question is how much did it cost them to develop it into a weapon in the first place? the lizard alien overlord maggots own the cdc and who. devilish creatures. we're all doomed. dooomed!
GROAN...you are still only dealing in superficialities...
In order to understand why the USA is a failed nation, you have to look at its genesis and you have to understand some of the laws that operate in the realm of nations.
In order to get some idea of what those laws are, look at the empirical data. Compare the USA to the other white/western nations (western europe, canada, australia, NZ). The USA is on one end of a spectrum and Iceland is on the other end.
The people of iceland have a great quality of life. As do the citizens of the other small white nations. Better than the USA, by far. But why?
The key to all this is 'who controls the nation'? The people or the corporations?
The founding plutocrats discarded the articles of confederation and installed the current constitution because of "an excess of democracy", to quote founding plutocrats Elbridge Gerry. The father of the constitution, James Madison, wrote the following in his writings (federalist paper 10, his notes on the constitutional convention, and his 'divide et impera' letter to jefferson) (these are paraphrases):
1. The primary purpose of the structure of the federal govt is to preserve wealth inequality (madison was referring specifically to the senate, but the idea pervades his writings).
2. The effect of the federal governmental he created would be to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" (in other words, protect the wealth of the rich (like the founding plutocrats) from the masses (us).
3. The way that the fed govt he created would operate was that it would stifle democracy and prevent the majority from discovering its common interest and uniting (basically a quote from his writing).
4. The divide et impera principle was to be used: the larger the voting district, the more factions therein, thus preventing unity among the majority faction, and thus stifling democracy, and thus protecting the wealth of the elite.
5. By increasing the size of the voting districts via the creation of the federal govt, democracy would be stifled.
6. The strong checks and balances and separation of powers would also stifle democracy.
---
So look at the small white nations of the world--they have parliamentarian structures, meaning the power of the gov't is placed mainly in the lower house, where the districts are smaller, and so the people are more united. Also, those nations are more racially homogeneous, meaning more unity. Also, they have smaller populations, so there are few factions in the districts because the districts are smaller.
Small, homogeneous, and parliamentarian. That is why they have a higher quality of life, why they have lots of time off, shorter work weeks, universal healthcare, less money spent on war, etc etc etc.
This divide et impera via enlarging voting districts is the reason why the elites creates the EU--it enlarges voting districts, thus increasing factions in the districts, thus making it harder for the people to unite and control the gov't.
If you want to improve america, send more power back to the states.
It is that simple. But first you have to understand how things work in this world...
For more on these ideas, read the following books:
1. TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION, by Dr. Fresia (online in its entirety)
2. UNRULY AMERICANS by Dr Woody Holton.
"The key to all this is 'who controls the nation'? The people or the corporations?"
Why the fuck do you want someone in "control". Are you still a baby.
Whoever is in control is going to pick winners and create losers. Just like they're doing now.
uh oh, we got a constitution-worshipper here. A worshipper of the "founding fathers.'
Well, ya can't blame him--they cram the Holy Constitution and the Almighty Founding Fathers down our throats from our youth in this nation, don't they? The elite know which side of their bread is buttered. They know that the fed govt and the constitution is their friend, and so they make sure that from our youth we are forced to worship the constitution and the founding fathers.
A very few of us are able to shake off this conditioning. You aint one of the few....
Reminds me of the Catholic Church, Catholic people, and Latin America.
What a Conquest!!!!
I don't need nor want any government, but I realize other people do.
If you want one, keep it to yourself.
Wow, 5% are 'winners' and the 95% has their economic opportunity trashed. Hardly a receipt for a vibrant economy where the majority cease to participate.
The word "democracy" never appears in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, or the first 10 amendments of The Bill of Rights..
Nice, erudite comment. An oxymoron on the hedge of late.
While governing structures in all their forms are a bane upon mankind, as is law itself, we seem unable to escape the practicality of tyranny. Therefore, looking at the available options and drawing intelligent conclusions is a very useful exercise.
Thanks.
Treating political beliefs like religious beliefs is the only answer.
It has worked for religion, it can work for politics.
There's nothing magic about Democracy. That's pretty much what we have now. The vast majority don't care much, at least not enough to do anything other than watch tv. They're getting what they want.
Balance is what you want in life. You want tilts to recover, not stream into derailment.
SMOKE & MIRRORS
obola IS A FAKE
Captain Solyndra kLAIN
Is not back to cure OBOLA,or stop it.
Welcome to Globle Warming REenergizer
"Stimulus Package" 2
He is back to setup the end run for globle warming, which is a huge money laundering scheme moving money from the productive class of America to Democrat donor and the progressive's DNC's pockets.
Aint that right Mr.Po
We have traded the wealth inequality that arises from natural human variability in performance within a free enterprise economy for the wealth inequality that is a consequence of the accumulation of political power.
The wealth inequality in free enterprise is a symptom of a virtuous cycle, since the incentives for growth of wealth are endemic to the system. The inequality that arises from the accumulation of power is a transitional symptom of a self-extinguishing system, as the accumulation of political power is a nonproductive activity, and the inducement to labor for wealth creation for those without power is constantly diminishing over time. At the end of the cycle, the gap in power between the haves and have-nots is so large that it triggers a crash in the system, historically often accompanied by violence.
The former structure sets individualism as the social philosophy, and this is the root idea of the Constitution of the United States. The concept of centering a society around the attributes of individualism is the very thing that gave birth to the notion of American Exceptionalism, as it was a unique structure at the time, and resulted in the fastest growing and most powerful economy in history (at the time).
The latter is simply another version of collectivism, a framework as old as civilization, and which will continue to exist as long as humans are unwilling to allow others the freedoms they demand for themselves, and the others will put up with it.
The only way to eliminate wealth inequality is to eliminate wealth.
"The only way to eliminate wealth inequality is to eliminate wealth."
True but the degree of wealth inequality matters as it effects the pattern of demand.
(And there's almost certainly a mathematical optimum.)
Money
It can buy a house
But not a home
It can buy a clock
But not time
It can buy you a position
But not respect
It can buy you a bed
But not sleep
It can buy you a book
But not knowledge
It can buy you medicine
But not health
It can buy you blood
But not life
So you see money isn't everything
And it often causes pain and suffering
Free enterprise has never existed in the United States, anymore than "american exceptionalism". You choose to ignore the first national bank, the second national bank, panics managed to benefit bankers, the Civil War, the Robber Barons, the creation of foundations, culminating in the creation of mass slavery via the central reserve bank and the signing over of American sovereignty by FDR.
The Constitution was a coup d' tat, overthrowing a legitimate democratic institution (the Articles of Confederation) through political subterfuge.
The workings of the Elites may escape most people, but they are there for all to see.
America benefitted from extraordinary resource riches, which were converted into great wealth from willing workers the world over. As each group began to assert their claims to the riches, new, poor immigrants were boated in and the previous immigrants were marginalized. Pinkerton thugs and sheriff mlitias were used to terrorize those which spoke out. The ones whom were too successful were co-opted (see the union movement of the 1880-1920 time frame).
Calling slavery collectivism has a nice ring to it. Yes, it is as old as civilization. The theft of labor for personal benefit is perfected in the system of communsm practiced in all western nations. People are fooled into believing they receive "benefits" which have value: vacations- people used to average three hours of labor a day. Health/medical: drug regimens to treat maladies brought on by overwork, stress, toxins and the drugs themselves, resulting in a heavy tax on their wealth, often bankrupting them. Education- in group propaganda stations which are designed to segmate the population into workers, academics and the ruling class; all with different curriculums. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Yea, you cannot eliminate wealth, but you CAN choose to define it in narrow terms to create a slave lottery and the opportunity to "join" the chosen class. Real wealth lies in happiness and happiness is a singular quality specific to each human. When we realize what will truly make US happy, we will be truly free.
@Sean7k It did a lot more than it does now.
All those things you mention represent the war for control which is (and will be) ongoing, since there will always be at least a few that want power more than anything else.
@pairadimes nice description - Thank you
Funny how inequality got noticeable worse with the Socialist Obama crew leading the way with the Goldman Sacks of Wall St running the country. Funny how Chavez got himself 3 Billion in 8 years under "Marxism". Funny how the Castro brothers are worth 1 Billion each under a Marxist government. Funny how you a can't even keep up with the Billions the Chinese Communist families are stashing away.
Funny as in peculiar and ironic. Not funny ha-ha.
True, but that's not bc Obummer's policies. Global income and wealth inequality has been growing since the 80's. Difference now is that critical mass has been reached and even college educated upper middle class is starting to feel the consequences of skewed income and wealth distribution. This skewed distribution will get worse in centuries to come without ideologically sensitive mostly tax based intervention (capital gains, offshore, etc.). http://www.businessinsider.com/socgen-income-inequality-is-preventing-a-...
“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs,” explained the late Gary Allen. “Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”
Yes 44magnum, another form of us vs them.
I think the anarchist are caught up in a similar way on the opposite side.
We are all individuals and we are all part of many groups.
Life is always a paradox.
I disagree with the voting aspects of the article somewhat but you clarify it near the end. In the US for example, you need enough decent candidates to actually vote for and you need a voting population that is properly engaged in the process. The problem is exacerbated by the vast number of positions that need to be filled in order to enact effective change. That is a massive mountain to climb. Not impossible but highly improbable to ever occur without conditions worsening to an extreme degree. Unfortunately, things need to deteriorate a lot more.
You also need to avoid candidates (on both sides) who have been pre-selected by the banking mafia i.e. don't vote for the prime candidate on either side i.e. the one who has the most funding.
"...the one who has the most funding."
Absolutely true. A good rule of thumb in an election that you are not sure of the real positions of the candidates, is to vote for the people with the lowest advertising budget. They are probably the least bought and paid for compromised candidates. Of course we can never be sure of what they will do when in office!
Assistant: Baron Lloyd Blankfein... there are hundreds of Indians in the valley headed toward Wall Street!!!
Lloyd Blankfeim: What?
Assistant: Lord you must leave the Premises.
Lloyd Blankfeim: What?
Assistant: Lord you smell like a bugger, you must shower if you hope to escape!!
Lloyd Blankfeim: What, we are doing Gods Work!!!!!
Assistant: Lord you have no moral Standing!!! You must Run for your Life and give up Buggery!!!!
Lloyd Blankfeim: What?
Assistant: Lord your head is up your ass. Please stop trying to fuck me. I am not going to get turned on by you poking me that way.
Lloyd Blankfeim: What? I'm just getting you to relax asshole. F**k. You work fir me. You listen to me. I;m just trying to teach you something... Just relax...
"Wealth inequality is but a symptom of what goes on."
I agree that wealth inequality is a symptom of power but it is also a problem in its own right.
Situation A)
A million people with $1200 income each, $600 going on necessities, $600 discretionary.
Situation B)
Something - say money lending for consumption - gradually transfers all the discretionary income to 600 money lenders i.e. all the discretionary income is going to pay off previous loans.
You go from
1) a million people with $600 discretionary income each (total $600 million)
to
2) 600 people with a million dollars discretionary income each (total $600 million)
So even though the total potential demand is the same the *form* of that demand changes completely from things like auto-repairs, house paint, furniture etc to things like yachts and tax havens.
(Effectively it reduces the velocity of money.)
This effect - destroying the "yeoman" segment of demand in the economy - is why it's both a symptom and a problem in itself.
Think of a fever. A fever can kill you. But curing the underlying cause is the best way to make sure the fever doesn't recur.
Let's see if we can figure this out in simple, objective and rational terms -- the way Spock or Lt. Cmdr. Data would:
1. Given that the IQ scale has a bell-curve shape (Normal or Gaussian distribution), it is not unreasonable that the Effort scale of people and cultures also have a quasi-Gaussian distribution.
2. Given that results are based on intelligence plus effort, the Results (Wealth) should also resemble a Gaussian distribution. Logically.
3. The extent to which #2 is not being observed, might suggest that the Rules and Constraints of the Game are such, that we do not have what you'd call a "Level Playing Field".
4. The extent to which the Field is tilted to favor one side (one sub-group), the Outcome/Results/Wealth will be skewed.
Now if I resume my ‘Kirk’ persona, I’d argue…
Ladies & Germs, I submit that the modern US Economic system is SO tilted to favor one particular sub-group, that it can be called "Capitalism" only for PR and Propaganda purposes. In reality, what we have is nothing short of Crony Capitalism, Casino Capitalism -- where the Federal Government is a willing Aider & Abettor to the unprecedented financial and economic atrocities, that can be argued to be Human Rights Atrocities.
This system cannot be sustained in favor of the 1% on the backs, blood, sweat and tears of the 99%. Something has to change -- drastically, dramatically and profoundly -- or we will see an Inglorious End to USA. If not from outside, then from within. I strongly suspect that this is already happening. Were it not for the weaknesses, foibles and follies of human nature, the rabidly ravenous 1% would have used their clever Cognitive abilities to change things. But, alas, as it is, their Primal and Reptilian drive is such, that they will NOT change (as a group) unless and until they are MADE to change.
Prediction: Things will get worse -- and will HAVE to get worse -- before real change will happen. Historically, if Evolutionary change does not occur, then Revolutionary change comes about. And the latter does not occur until many, (a) many people are suffering physically for an extended period, (b) they have no hope left, and (c) an unpredictable Trigger event sets them off. We're getting there, but "We're not there yet".
George Nory runs a boring radio show with his good radio voice. I wonder if he does this for the Jesuits or for the Catholic Church??
oops forgot link:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
The root problem is usury in all its obvious and minute forms.
No. That is not true.
Charging interest on money loaned is natural and honest.
It is doubtful that the identification of factual economics as uncovered by Austrian Economist Carl Menger would have come about as it did had not the two following essays been written by the loudest proponents for usury.
Noah Webster in America;
http://democraticthinker.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/absurdity-of-laws-agai...
Jeremy Bentham in England:
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bentham/usury
1787 vs 2014.
usury doesn't fare well in the minsky moment.
Keiser Report: Minsky Moment in Global Economy (E660)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IJ0c-YCvnA
.
will "we" have to bail out the usurers too?
Charging interest on money and charging interest on counterfeit are two different concepts.
Most of the "bailouts" are predicated upon counterfeit, not money.
...and "we" should not "have" to bailout anyone, right?
right. bailout is a term that is misleading.
the term comes from boating where the vessel
is in danger of sinking, thereby equally putting
all the passengers and crew in the water without
a means of flotation. why should anyone have
to bail out my shitty boat that leaks? that is
my job if i want to stay on the surface of the
water.
.
the term doesn't translate, the analogy is lost,
when used in the financial or monetary realm.
they abuse it by claiming that we all share a stake
in the ship of the criminal money system so, therefore,
when the systems banks have abused the system to the
point of their own destruction, being systemically essential
parasites on the country and people to the point of total failure
of the notes and bills, then the sovereign and its
people must absorb the loss of the billionaire banksters
all over the world.
not that they travel in any boat the rest might
occupy, they have their own boats that have multiple
bilge pumps. so no, we should not have to bail their
boats, first off because they aren't even leaking.
they are just stealing the value and wealth of the
people all over the world and they call this progress.
when they have destroyed a group of people in a certain
area and the people are broken they look down and say
"these poor bastards could use a bailout but we can't afford it."
then they offer the people debt servitude to keep the labor
force in tact.
.
interest on money lent can work when growth is the active phase
due to general conditions in time and space.(1787) in a contraction
phase it is all failure in that paradigm. you find out
who your friends are, what people are made of here.(2014)
.
all interest and usury is a scam, sometimes it works out, sometimes
it fails. it is a cost of borrowing, like you say, the point is
our system is based on charging interest on counterfeit money.
it is really a non starter and an astounding scam. the fed and nixon.
.
civilization is collapsing under the pressure of criminal
and institutional usury and fraud. the game was lost when the
government gave the money monopoly over to the international
banksters. the game is ending and there will be a new game.
i say the people will have an opportunity, and blow it for lack
of discernment, to regain their government and their sovereignty.
.
and, its gone.
"i say the people will have an opportunity, and blow it for lack of discernment, to regain their government and their sovereignty."
Unless a very large percentage in the world refuse to take on debt, things won't change.
so which significant group of people on the planet
will be offered and accept this new debt to sustain
the already enormous and unforgiving old debt that
can't be serviced any more?
i think there is no one left. that is why the fed
is all into extraordinary qe exponents, why there are
derivatives and shadow side bets in the quadrillions.
what a large number. a.fekete "permanent gold
backwardization" and m.keiser "front running".
Wow, blindman, i never really considered the bailout analogy. Thanks for that!
As for usury, i still gotta defend it and only in the terms as identified by the austrians. That is, the interest charged represents the value of time by the lender since making the loan then the lender has forgone doing something else with that money over that period of time. It is more than just a "cost," it is a value to the lender and thus keeps the exchange between lender and borrower in a quid pro quo engagement.
Also, super huge important, the money lent was not conjured (it is not counterfeit). It comes from wealth already produced.
Yes, those days are gone but be of good cheer; what comes around, goes around.
OC Sure
"...interest charged represents the value of time by the lender since making the loan then the lender has forgone doing something else with that money over that period of time..."
I believe in the utility of borrowing and paying interest, but I don't want to support gambler banksters. I want http://www.publicbanksolution.com/ and 99% reserve banking.
I agree, dizzyfingers.
Full Reserve will not a fool preserve:
http://ocsure.blogspot.com/2014/08/full-reserve-banking-trounces_89.html
I'll have to look into what Ellen Brown is saying more. But on the face of it, although she may be advocating full reserve (Yaaay!!!!) it appears that somehow the business of banking should be a "public" endeavor (Booo!!!).
banking and currency are best mere utility, nothing more.
anything more is a delusional scam. just being real.
there is real life waiting, real debates concerning
what is and what is not for sale. troubling and difficult
debates,but, these decisions and determinations should
be understood by the people, not determined by a few criminals
who have hijacked the towers of power in finance, money and
technology applications.
What better way to teach the people understanding of these subjects then to explain that in no way whatsoever is "currency [at] best [a] mere utility?"
The first principle of each subject listed here and all of the others regarding the action of humans is to determine if productive work is being performed (as represented by the currency of money) or is only the imitation of productive work being performed (as represented by the currency of counterfeit).
By the way, the criminals were wise to hijack first the one subject that guides all the others - philosophy.
They could not have usurped economics without usurping the nature of wisdom first.
@.."The first principle....of humans is to determine if productive work is being performed (as represented by the currency of money) or is only the imitation of productive work being performed (as represented by the currency of counterfeit).
.
nice.
but, the urge to financialize or monetize the elements of this
world, down to the photon from deep space, is not worth the worry,
imho. the work of man has historically been the exact thing that
all cultural and money systems have strove to devalue and exploit in some one
or another system of money, the first goal of which was always to
extract the value of the slave and his or her labor. it is biblical
and biological even.
.
gold is gold, that i cannot argue against.
Well done. Then in a roundabout way you and I are seeing eye to eye.
Thank you blind an and OC Sure - nice thread
@OC Sure
"As for usury, i still gotta defend it and only in the terms as identified by the austrians."
If the Austrians defend usury then they're banking mafia creating a false opposition.
"That is, the interest charged represents the value of time by the lender since making the loan then the lender has forgone doing something else with that money over that period of time."
I agree charging interest on loans is fair however it doesn't matter if the lender is entitled to charge interest or not, what matters is the practical effect.
If an individual gets $1200 a month salary and they have $600 of loan repayments then they will only have $600 left to spend. It's that simple. Money lending for consumption (regardless of whether it is morally justified or not) inherently siphons money out of the producer/consumer part of the economy into the pockets of the money lenders.
Its *practical* economic effect is parasitic.
I agree for the most part. Where I disagree is interest charged on money created from nothing. No assets backing,no risk taken, no labour given. When more is needed one simply steps into the back room and prints some more. The private central banks are the root of all evil on this planet.
That's right. As noted above, charging interest on money and charging interest on counterfeit are two different concepts.
The root of the evil is the belief that something can come from nothing (This is Plato's theory of Forms). The root of the good is that something can only come from something (This is Aristotle's identification in his Metaphysics). Private central banks are only evil because they embrace the former and eschew the latter.
So it is these two principles as represented by Plato vs. Aristotle which are the root and then can be applied in the same manner and with the same results in any field of knowledge such as we are doing here in economics.
"Charging interest on money loaned is natural and honest."
Usury for consumption is inherently destructive of demand in the long term.
It doesn't matter if it is natural and/or honest or not. It's inherently destructive.
I hear you, tumblemore, but if you have heard of my angle on the concept of money vs counterfeit then I think a lot could be said for the fact that there can be good usury and there can be bad usury.
Good usury is facilitated by money.
Bad usury is facilitated by counterfeit.
Look at it this way:
A shoemaker charges 1 unit of money from anyone who demands a pair of shoes.
The shoemaker wants to purchase a house and the builder demands 100 units for the house (its a very small house but stay with me here for the principle).
The shoemaker only has 20 units to spare for the house so then borrows 80 units from a usurer who charges 10% over a specified period of time.
The shoemaker gets his home immediately, the builder receives his payment in full, and the usurer must wait for both his principal, 80 units, and interest, 8 units, to be returned.
The shoemaker must work to produce 80 pairs of shoes to pay off the principal and work to produce another 8 pairs of shoes to pay off the interest.
The scenario above is constructive if all of the units involved in any of the exchanges of the units represent productive work.
The scanario above is destructive if any of the units involved in all of the exchanges of the units represents the imitation of productive work.
The weakest link and the participant who is most likel to falsify the unit of exchange is the usurer. So the primary question to ask is do the units loaned come from wealth as a result of productive work already performed or do they come from simply being conjured?
The point i'm making is more basic than that though. If a consumer borrows to buy an item then the item costs them more money (because of the interest) so they have less for other things so *their* total demand is reduced.
This is inherently so. Money lending for *consumption* front loads consumer demand in the short term and reduces it in the long term. It has to or the money lenders wouldn't make any money.
The money drained this way from consumers and producers by money lending doesn't disappear, it simply goes from the consumers to the money lenders. The reason this shift of discretionary income from consumers to money lenders eventually cripples total demand is there is a difference between a million people with $1200 discretionary income each and 1200 people with a million dollars of discretionary income each e.g. less sales of house paint and auto repair, more hookers and blow.
(That's not to say there aren't differences related to the unit of exchange as well.)
(Also there's a grey area where consumption is also partly productive investment e.g. a car increasing productivity.)
You lost me. Regarding your first paragraph, so what if their total demand is reduced? They cannot have unlimited demand, because they cannot do unlimited productive work to pay for the things they demand. Even immortal robots could never have unlimited demand since the unlimited productive work they could do is necesssarily limited to any moment of time.
Re-read your comments and everywhere you have written the word money substitute the term productive-work and ask yourself if that what you really mean. ;-)
Cheers!
"so what if their total demand is reduced?"
Is that a serious question?
lol. I meant it to be, yes. ...But maybe we are just not on the same page with respect to demand.
I mean the demand they can afford by the means of the money they have earned and not the demand to urgently just want something but not have the means to afford it.
There. Are we better, or not?
What is the basis of an economy if not demand? If demand is gradually reduced (as consumer's discretionary income is switched to paying off loans on earlier demand) then an economy will gradually grind to a halt - and is.
reduction of demand is the goal of efficiency, some say it
is the epitome of economy or freedom.
The basis of an economy is this:
1. Productive work is performed to satisfy the necessities of living.
2. Productive work is performed by someone else to satisfy the necessities of living.
3. 1 and 2 cannot produce everything themselves so they specialize what they do best and then demand what they need/want but don't produce themselves from someone else.
4. This demand is met by exchanging the results of their productive work for the results of someone else's productive work.
5. The results of productive work are not always an equal value so an agreed upon unit is introduced to mediate and therefore equalize the exchange of disproportionate values.
Productive work comes first and then only after that does someone have the means to demand. Demand only wanes or halts if productive work wanes or halts and since productive work happens first then productive work is the basis of an economy and not demand. They are closely bound but if one wants something then they must do something.
Staying in the context of our conversation, then, if a lender of money (not a lender of counterfeit) charges interest this cannot reduce demand and instead actually increases it by way of the borrower having to do a little bit more productive work to meet the demand of the lender. Furthermore, the waning demand that we do see in our economies today is due to the proliferation of counterfeit. That is the borrowers are not working to meet the demand of the lender of money. They are working to sustain the theft performed by the lender of counterfeit.
"if a lender of money (not a lender of counterfeit) charges interest this cannot reduce demand"
This is total nonsense. Money lending will reduce the demand of the consumer by the amount of interest paid to the money lenders - obviously. If a man has $100 of discretionary income then their discretionary demand is $100 but if the same man also has loan repayments of $50 then their discretionary income and demand is now $50.
At the limit - debt saturation where all the consumer's current discretionary income is spent repaying previous loans - the consumer's demand tends to zero - again obviously.
There is nothing complicated or esoteric about this - it's just arithmetic.
.
"and instead actually increases it by way of the borrower having to do a little bit more productive work to meet the demand"
You're just moving the goal posts by arbitrarily increasing the consumer's current discretionary income to match the interest payments. That doesn't change the argument it just creates a new baseline for the same argument.
Thank you OC Sure ;)
"4. This demand is met by exchanging the results of their productive work for the results of someone else's productive work."
Or a money lender steps in between those two individuals and offers to lend an *advance* on their productive work so they can buy something *sooner* at the cost of transfering some of their future work to the money lender as interest on the loan.
This part of the debate is just arithmetic. There is no debate.
The only debateable part is does this process of transferring demand/productive work from the consumers/producers to the money lenders have a destructive effect.
@OC Sure. It is true.
If you loan someone a hammer, should they return 2 hammers.
A return on the investment, yes - a portion of gains, if any, yes. But that's not quite the same thing.
Usury between individuals is one thing. There may be circumstances where it is advantageous to both side.
Institutionalized usury which forces third parties into the equation is a different thing altogether.
Wealth Inequality: Those that go out in catch the rays, infinite. And those who sit inside.
Wealth inequality IS a problem and a symptom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
However, the biggest problem is finance and debt. An economic crisis never happened because the automakers were getting too profitable. Every single crisis originated in finance. Too much debt and foolish expectation of repayment. This happened in 2008, in 2000, in 1987, in 1929 and dozens of times before, from the US to ancient Egypt. Humans are just stupid apes that go apeshit crazy over the idea of infinite free money.
Debt causes povertyand inequality. Historically it always has. And debt jubilees have always returned society to a better state. A recent example of jubilee success is Germany:
http://michael-hudson.com/2011/12/democracy-and-debt/
Very true. Historically financial burdens and interest always increases to the point that it crushes the underlying economy (and the people!). Most great civilizations and religions have always pointed out compound interest as the root of social evil: compound interest is by definition unsustainable, and in practice there is always a break in financial continuity.
Because of the complexity and global nature of the current economy, money/credit plays a bigger role than ever. Atlhough it is true that power and wealth are largely fungible (what happened to the Indians "ownership" of America?), and that campaign financing has bought the political process, this article does little to reveal how financialization results in conquest (that is, everything worth owning lands up in the hands of a select few "owners").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJMLWx6og
Only arguments you need to hear about racial / income in-equality.
Look at who the slave owners were, are and then look at who is in power today and how they got there.
Great video - I've seen several of his, all wonderful.
Dupe
Whiteout political power corporation would have only the power consumers give them. Consumers, though seek to regulate markets so heavily they no longer need to think about where they save or spend thier money. That desire to be safe yet mindless in who we do business with, transfers our power as consumers to the political class. Then we are surprised when that power is abused and consumers seemingly have no choices. We have freely given our power to governments who abuse the because we don't want to actually think about which bank is safer.
GernB Gross generalizations tend not to fit any circumstance one can find anywhere.
"Consumers, though seek to regulate markets so heavily they no longer need to think about where they save or spend thier money. That desire to be safe yet mindless in who we do business with, transfers our power"
Very true
Thank you GernB
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 in America today 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 how this leads to collapse in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-empires-collapse.html
WTF????
"If you want to improve america, send more power back to the states."
Bullshit...the states have the power already....time for the Federal Government to be slapped down...
The U.S. Constitution limits what the Federal Government has the power to do. The 10th amendment is clear.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Eureka! You have found the invisible amendment!
And don't forget that per Article V of the Constitution that the States themselves can convene to bypass the Federal branches altogether and amend the constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution..."
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
OC Sure
How many amendments?
How many times did things get worse?
I rest my case.
Exact same problem with constitutional conventions. The last one in the state where I had just come to live deprived voters of recall rights, and myriad others. 50 years on, the state is a sewer.
I believe you and know what you meaan. /shrug. ... Hold fast to the second one.
Yup. People don't want to break up the US, they just want to get out from under the DC jackboot, de-evolve power to the state and local level imho.
The problem with more power to the states is that they're equally corrupt and self-serving, we'd lose some desirable economies of scale associated with the union, and eventually the centrifugal forces would pull us apart as each state pursued its own agenda (e.g., beggar thy neighbor economic policies, which we have to a great extent now).
That may be a problem. However, the benefit is that this problem is at once removed from the totalitarian government and placed one step closer to the irreducible primary of the governed; or, the individual persons.
It is a better problem to have.
"...we'd lose some desirable economies of scale associated with the union, and eventually the centrifugal forces would pull us apart as each state pursued its own agenda..."
Under the original 13-state confederation, according to http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2b.asp "The government gave most powers to the states, and the central government consisted only of a legislature. Above all, the colonists wanted to preserve their liberties, but the central governments' lack of power proved to be disastrous. It could not regulate trade or keep the states from circulating their own currency. No chief executive could make real decisions, and no national court could settle disputes among states. And perhaps most importantly, they could not efficiently conduct a war nor pay the debts incurred once the war was over."
So now due to "founding fathers" whose decisions mightn't have been based on the good of "the people" but only on the interests of SOME SPECIAL PEOPLE, we the people of the USA no longer have liberties, the power of the central government is crushing, regulations are now only in favor of TPTB, central government abrogated treasury powers to PTB outsiders who use USA as cash cow, no chief executive has made real decisions since JFK was murdered, national courts override every other branch of gov, and government these days is conduct never-ending wars abroad and social wars of attrition on the native-born population at home, no race excluded.
Mightn't confederation have been a better state of affairs?
Agree with your general thrust, but I'm not sure a confederation would solve the problem. We're too big and diverse, and the wealthy and political classes exploit that diversity to their own ends — hence "wedge issues" often become key factors in herding the sheep into manageable pens.
PCScipio Yes voters are exploited by TPTB and political classes. But maybe that could be changed. Thinking caps on, please.
Would'a, could'a, should'a chose the path of Aletheia instead of Doxa as Parmenides advised. That is that the human mind can evaluate reality objectively with respect to truth or it can easily be misguided into subjectivity with respect to opinions of reality.
The masters rule their slaves by usurping the lexicon of ideas first, then economics much later.
The correct ideas need to be proliferated if you desire change to be in concert with truth.
Parmenides!...What a character.
B2u Those who run the states benefit from complicity.
Mussel Man
from Carsey-Wolf Center PRO 2 weeks ago
http://vimeo.com/107648358
.
here is a great and short movie that
tells an important story concerning
the point of the post. don't miss it.
Well, at least Yellen knows she can get another job, in one of those soul less South American OR European countries, that buy that SOCIALIST 'INEQUALITY' CRAP !
It is a wonderful world, but the management sucks.
Your these is well stated however, as Machiavelli points out, the people never revolt. While the people's will is important to the "use" of power, revolutions are the result of one elitist trying to take power from another elitist.
IMO, while there seems to be a general truce between the parasitic elitists (for the wealth generated has been sufficient for all), there probably come a time when the resources available for the consolidation of more power run thin. That is of course assuming that there is not a single power behind them all keeping them in line (an assumption that one should not necessarily take as fact.) What happens when fiat fails, the number of slaves that can be imported now vast, depleats, automation and other technology will that reduces the need for more slaves is not given to us, etc? or can that ever happen?
Probably one of the best questions to ask is: "what makes and elitist and elitist?" ... this is a combination of why and how people become elitist ... and typically remain so well into their later life (Picture David Rockefeller, George HW Bush and George Soros as examples of people who never seemingly "grew up")
If good and evil are determined by the effects one has on others (and as much as a good and evil dialectic exist, I believe it is true), then what does is say about those who will lie, cheat, steal, defraud, oppress, murder or otherwise harm others for what they call a greater good?
FREEDOM = the right to FAIL....be LAZY... OVEREAT... SELF MEDICATE....
SO SINCE WHEN DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM.....the pursuit of HAPPINESS.... the founding fathers didn't say everyone would be successful..... simply that they would have the RIGHT TO PERSUE IT...
besides the "war on poverty" has FAILED and cost taxpayers TRILLIONS that otherwise would have been INVESTED or CONSUMEED FREELY and produced the real cure for POVERTY.... JOBS AND AN ECONOMY....
the reason the ussa can never really have an economic recovery is because IT CONSTANTLY WASTES MONEY ON WAR AND/OR POVERTY....and big overbearing government
WASH DC LOOKS LIKE ANCIENT ROME... and has dediacted itself to stealing as much as it can from the TAXPAYER.... for whom it has total loathing, disrespect and disdain.... much like you would look upon a DONKEY that pulls your wagon...
YOU ARE THE DONKEY IF YOU WORK AND PAY TAXES.... pulling the wagon full of 47% of the ussa population sitting on their fucking asses doing NOTHING....with their votes bought by the DC parasites...
When your right to persue happiness infringes my right to persue happiness, government becomes necessary. Then we get to debate whose objectives are more socially desirable.
And here I thought these state lotteries benefitted the schools. (sarc)
i don't mind being poor... its them trying to kill us that i have a problem with..
DOWN WITH BANKERS !!!
Keiser Report: Trickle Down Terror! (E667)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOKs3rTu0Ec
.
key phrases: permanent gold backwardization and front running.
"power buys wealth infinitely faster than wealth buys power"--
This is certainly a truism associated with modern society, especially in the 'western' cultures. It may not be 100% factual (IE: There are many wealthy people who choose not to employ their capital in the pursuit of power, and likewise, there few (very few, actually) politicians who emply the character necessary not to let their position of influence to be sold to the highest bidder)
But yes- power and wealth 'buying and selling' each other is a truth, nonetheless.
Consider that in the US right now, the FASTEST way for a non-millionaire to become a millionaire (and a nearly guaranteed method, to boot) is to be elected to the US House of Representatives.
Election to Congress generates literally guaranteed million-dollar checking account balances in less than 4 years, with absolutely zero effort, other than accepting meetings with business execs, listening to them blather for an hour over lunch, and then saying "Ok, I'll vote for that" or "Ok- I'll vote against that"
-A more simple and effective recipe for wealth redistribution has never been conjoured by the mind of humanity...
"Election to Congress generates literally guaranteed million-dollar checking account balances in less than 4 years..."
VOTE AGAINST ALL INCUMBENTS ALL ELECTIONS. Best term limitation there is.
Income inequality is the direct intentional result of policy, it is not a symptom
they parsed this thing of income and wealth
way back. income vs capital gains(ownership and wealth).
the rich have no mere income, they have tax exempt gains in
foundations or international accounts. so there is that,
but yes, the policy is always avoidance of equality as the
status quo has always despised equality to the point of
denial of the facts staring us in the face. even denying
that an individual man is a whole man based on his
accounts, race or creed.
.
income inequality is the goal of the policy constructed
by the proponents and agents of the status quo.
First we have to stop making pretend heroes out of tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson + John Jacob Astor = http://www.reformation.org/hudsons-bay-company-exposed.html
Thomas Jefferson + letter to William Henry Harrison = http://archive.adl.org/education/curriculum_connections/excerpt_jefferson1803.html
(excerpt from letter)
"... exchange lands which they (the Indians) have to spare and we want for necessaries, which have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/thomas-jefferson-americas-founding-sociopath/5389853
And he's just one.
We're all Indians now.
“So why does it happen (wealth inequality), and why do we let it”
“We’ve been made to believe that we still have that power, but we don’t.”
You are over-looking something: Americans have the power to redress any grievance that could be named; and they REFUSE to use that power. There are three main reasons for this failure: one is that they have no knowledge of such power; the second, they’ve been herded into a kind of impotent stupor by medication and indoctrination; the third, that they aid, benefit or were complicit in such evil (full article).
They don’t even know many of the most fundamental rights and powers won by our Revolution… actually, “confirmed” would be a better verb.
To begin, according to the law of redress, those who complain are supposed to also suggest a remedy, and, before you can do this, you have to get rid of that indoctrination and replace it with real facts of history.
As to the ignorance relative to lost American ideals: who knows that every American (preamble citizen) has the right to withhold taxes until government redresses his grievances; or that there is probably not a constitutional tax on the books, among other lost rights and powers?
“Redress before taxes” was a “Grand Right” declared by the Continental Congress, which also declared it to be a reason for the Revolution.
By the way, don’t hesitate to have your lawyer, accountant, or professor “devil’s advocate” my work.
the one big difference, the political use of two words equality, and democracy.
there's always going to be a wealth differences, and should be, it's a very healthy, needed factor in a functionong republic, (america).
during the industrial revolution inventors invented steam engines, cars, telegraghs, and many other useful, and labor saving inventions, the inventors mostly didn't become the wealthy, but were financially rewarded for their work.
the people of wealth bought the patents, or rights to use the inventions to make them publiclly available, plus add to their weath, substaincially, thats still part of a funcutioning republic.
should the guy sitting at home get paid equally as much as the person assembling the car?
should the person assembling the car equally as much as the inventor?
should the inventor get equally much as the one who built the factory?
everything went downhill when these wealthy people started getting greedy, and found the ability to buy political power, (politicians), gaining undeseved, and illegal influence in a republic.
when socieities fail, or countries colapse, it's from two things, the rule of law is broken down, and not enforced, and utter lack of care for the people it hurts.
yellen is amusing, shes now head of, and has always agreed with the institution, (the fed.), thats been responsible for the largest redistribution of wealth in history, this is not inequality, it's the most premeditated, blantant, immoral act in american history.
the inequallity comes when govt. makes it possible for a family of four to sit at home, and make as much as a two-earner family of four.
we live in a shadow of the republic we were founded on.