Dont be too quick to judge the 1%

[dre]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2011/11/16/tsr-bolduan-tax-me.cnn

A bunch of millionairs have shown up and demanded that congress raise taxes on the rich.

People in the "occupy" movement should take notice of this, and in my opinion we need to change the way this is all being framed.

I would drop a lot of the class warfare rhetoric and the "1% vs 99%" stuff. Youre never going to build a populist movement around this concept because EVERYONE wants to get rich. As shown above not all wealthy people want to loot our civilization into the stone ages.

Instead we should frame it this...

"Everyone VS a corrupt and unsustainable financial and monetary system"

This is pretty easy to do, because businesses in the productive economy are some of the biggest victims or our corrupt financial system, and our fraudulent money system. The FED/Wallstreet and their little games, victimized businesses and many wealthy people around the world.

This should expose the fact that even though the people who support the current financial and monetary regime are "PRO BUSINESS" they really arent. Opposition to fixing the system is actually most ANTI BUSINESS adgenda out there today.

The reality is that MOST of the richest 1% got rich simply by supply products and services that we want and need. These people should not be demonized.

So ditch the 1 VS 99, and all the class warfare stuff, and stop attacking the concept of wealth. And focus instead on the fact that every single producer in our economy has a direct interest making sure these structural issues get fixed.

Edited November 17, 2011 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

I would drop a lot of the class warfare rhetoric and the "1% vs 99%" stuff.

I've said that repeatedly - pointing out that the 99% includes millionaires. This "we are the 99%" nonsense, as if "we" all stand in solidarity against the evil 1%, as if "we" are all in the same category/situation in life, has been ridiculous right from the get-go.

[dre]

I've said that repeatedly - pointing out that the 99% includes millionaires. This "we are the 99%" nonsense, as if "we" all stand in solidarity against the evil 1%, as if "we" are all in the same category/situation in life, has been ridiculous right from the get-go.

Yup the enemy has been incorrectly defined. Its not wealthy people its a financial sector jam packed with fraud (much of it legal) and an internation banking system that steals trillions of dollars from taxpayers with the mere stroke of a pen.

The "1%" might actually be our best hope to change the system, and the people best poised to articulate what the real problems are.

[wyly]

Yup the enemy has been incorrectly defined. Its not wealthy people its a financial sector jam packed with fraud (much of it legal) and an internation banking system that steals trillions of dollars from taxpayers with the mere stroke of a pen.

The "1%" might actually be our best hope to change the system, and the people best poised to articulate what the real problems are.

"1%" is less of a mouthful and makes the point quicker than "the financial sector jam packed with fraud (much of it legal) and an internation banking system that steals trillions of dollars from taxpayers with the mere stroke of a pen."...

I get what your saying but I think most people understand what is meant by 1% as well...

[dre]

"1%" is less of a mouthful and makes the point quicker than "the financial sector jam packed with fraud (much of it legal) and an internation banking system that steals trillions of dollars from taxpayers with the mere stroke of a pen."...

I get what your saying but I think most people understand what is meant by 1% as well...

But 1% sets up a class warfare theme, and generalizes people based on wealth. Wealth per say isnt the problem. The problem is the 1% of the 1% who are actually running the show and administering the scam.

But more importantly you cant build a real populist movement if you frame things this way because 99% of the 99% also would like to be wealthy.

If you frame this in the terms I laid out, then suddenly your tent is full of a whole lot of people. Polls suggest faith in our economic system is at an all time low. Only 25% think the system works. And most of the 1% realizes theres pretty major problems as well.

If you build a tent that has room for all these people then youll get somewhere. You can build an articulate populist movement if you frame things in these terms. You CANT build a populist movement around "rich people suck dude!".

The teaparty, occupy, and wealthy people like the ones that appeared before congress are actually after the same thing. They just approach it from different perspectives.

Edited November 17, 2011 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

How about we all pay attention to what our economic system is doing, we vote responsibly, and we hold our leaders to their promises ? Is that really so fantastic ?

[dre]

How about we all pay attention to what our economic system is doing, we vote responsibly, and we hold our leaders to their promises ? Is that really so fantastic ?

The problem with that, is that almost nobody understands how the system works. Its so abstract to most people that even when someone can articulate what the problems are it just goes right over most peoples heads.

A lot of prominent people have been warning us about this scam for a long time. And these arent people who camp in some park...

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon." -- Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

Even people inside the system have been trying to warn us where it would take us. But its a very hard message to get across.

How do you educate the population about such an important subject, and the subject matter is quite frankly as boring as hell? Monetary and economic theory is not a very "sexy" political subject. Even though its by far the most important subject of our time.

95% of people could not even give you an accurate description of WHAT MONEY IS.

Edited November 17, 2011 by dre

[wyly]

How about we all pay attention to what our economic system is doing, we vote responsibly, and we hold our leaders to their promises ? Is that really so fantastic ?

yup...when it comes to the average voter i'm not very optimistic on their ability to make an intelligent choice...i'd be very pleased to be proven wrong...

[Michael Hardner]

Wyly & Dre:

I say simplify the system without giving an advantage to any economic group. I say demand that government departments publicize their budgets, activities and performance levels. Demand that government publicize project details, and whether or not they attained their goals.

The system is too complex, and there's an entire subgroup of society that makes a good living explaining it to us, well... explaining it as they see it.

[jacee]

The millionaires want the panel to raise taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, even though most Republicans are committed against the idea.

COOL!

OCCUPY can claim some influence!

This is exactly the kind of outcome that makes sense.

It's a start!

[dre]

The system is too complex, and there's an entire subgroup of society that makes a good living explaining it to us, well... explaining it as they see it.

A good friend of mine has actually made educating people about our economic and monetary system his lifes work.

Heres one of his videos. I highly recommend it. If you have time give it a watch and let me know what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9iXHB7O-Oo

Its an animated movie that meant to make things easy to understand.

I say simplify the system without giving an advantage to any economic group.

We cant do that until people understand what the system is meant to do. What is money, and why do we need it?

Every wonder how its even mathematically possible that all governments, corporations and families can all be in debt at the SAME TIME? How can it be possible that the actual producers of real goods and services in our economy can be so deeply in debt to banks that have empty vaults and no money? Its simple... a tiny group of the worlds most wealthy men lobbied the government for power to charge usury on money that doesnt even exist.

Heres a quote from the guy that created the law in the US that set up this scam, once he realized what he done by privatizing credit/money.

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson

Did you know that 95% of all currency in circulation was not created by the treasury or government but was instead created as bank credit? Given the fact that all of this national debt is actually monetary expansion, not real "borrowing", and given the fact that the government has the right to coin its own money, ever ask yourself how the government can possibly owe all this interest to international bankers?

Edited November 17, 2011 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

The millionaires want the panel to raise taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, even though most Republicans are committed against the idea.

COOL!

OCCUPY can claim some influence!

Guess again.

A group called "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength" wants Congress to raise their taxes.

The coalition of business leaders and entrepreneurs wrote a letter to President Obama and Congress saying "Raise our taxes." The group of about 140 millionaires says the economy has helped them and they want to return the favor.

Patriotic Millionaires

formed about a year ago

in support of ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.

link

OCCUPY had nothing to do with it.

Edited November 17, 2011 by American Woman

[jacee]

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2011/11/16/tsr-bolduan-tax-me.cnn

A bunch of millionairs have shown up and demanded that congress raise taxes on the rich.

People in the "occupy" movement should take notice of this, and in my opinion we need to change the way this is all being framed.

I would drop a lot of the class warfare rhetoric and the "1% vs 99%" stuff. Youre never going to build a populist movement around this concept because EVERYONE wants to get rich. As shown above not all wealthy people want to loot our civilization into the stone ages.

Instead we should frame it this...

"Everyone VS a corrupt and unsustainable financial and monetary system"

This is pretty easy to do, because businesses in the productive economy are some of the biggest victims or our corrupt financial system, and our fraudulent money system. The FED/Wallstreet and their little games, victimized businesses and many wealthy people around the world.

This should expose the fact that even though the people who support the current financial and monetary regime are "PRO BUSINESS" they really arent. Opposition to fixing the system is actually most ANTI BUSINESS adgenda out there today.

The reality is that MOST of the richest 1% got rich simply by supply products and services that we want and need. These people should not be demonized.

So ditch the 1 VS 99, and all the class warfare stuff, and stop attacking the concept of wealth. And focus instead on the fact that every single producer in our economy has a direct interest making sure these structural issues get fixed.

I don't agree. The 1% are not merely business owners earning good money: They are EXTREME wealth, FAR above even the 96-99%'rs, whom I would call the 'ordinarily wealthy'. The 1% hold 40% of the wealth of Canada, make buckets from the stock exchange and other investments including PUBLIC DEBT. They do this by manipulating and corrupting both governments and markets.

Those are the ones we need to de-claw.

The ordinarily wealthy can help out by paying more taxes if they want, but they're not the real culprits.

[dre]

I don't agree. The 1% are not merely business owners earning good money: They are EXTREME wealth, FAR above even the 96-99%'rs, whom I would call the 'ordinarily wealthy'. The 1% hold 40% of the wealth of Canada, make buckets from the stock exchange and other investments including PUBLIC DEBT. They do this by manipulating and corrupting both governments and markets.

Those are the ones we need to de-claw.

The ordinarily wealthy can help out by paying more taxes if they want, but they're not the real culprits.

The real "culprits" are not the "1%" either. They are a tiny subset of the "1%". The problem is the system itself, and the fundamental rules of the financial monetary system.

[Michael Hardner]

A good friend of mine has actually made educating people about our economic and monetary system his lifes work.

Heres one of his videos. I highly recommend it. If you have time give it a watch and let me know what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9iXHB7O-Oo

Its an animated movie that meant to make things easy to understand.

I have seen that before. It was informative, but the recommendations seemed too drastic to implement.

[wyly]

Wyly & Dre:

I say simplify the system without giving an advantage to any economic group. I say demand that government departments publicize their budgets, activities and performance levels. Demand that government publicize project details, and whether or not they attained their goals.

The system is too complex, and there's an entire subgroup of society that makes a good living explaining it to us, well... explaining it as they see it.

? whose budgets activities and performance levels?

[dre]

I have seen that before. It was informative, but the recommendations seemed too drastic to implement.

Well thats the problem. The system we have isnt broken its working exactly how it was intended. You cant "fix it", because its the fundamental nature of the system itself thats broken.

But really you could have a staged approach. The first step would be simple to take the control of credit/money out of the hands of private banks. This is pretty easy since this responsibility belongs naturally to the government ANYWAYS, they have just surrendered it.

One we take back control of our money/credit, then all we need to do is devise a mechanism for government to put newly created money into the economy. Thats not a very tough thing to do. They could do it through commercial banks like they do now, or they could simply spend it into the economy.

Think about that for a second. Lets say the government wants to put a trillion dollars into the economy to adjust the money supply for economic growth and avoid deflation.

1. Currently the government does most of this activity through the fractional reserve multiplier. They allow private banks to simply lend money that doesnt exist, and wella! They have grown the money supply. Theres two huge problems with this. Commercial banks are allowed to charge interest on this money, so a lot of it goes directly into the pockets of private bankers who have brought NOTHING to the table. Why bother paying this usury if the new money is backed not by the banks deposits but by the government istelf in the first place. Thats nothing more than corporate welfare, and no solution that doesnt address this will work.

2. Since the value of all this new money is backed by the government, and producers in the real economy anyways, why not simply grow the money supply by SPENDING new money into existance on things like ifrastructure. All of those dollars simply end up the economy anyways to get spent and respect over and over again. There is absolutely no difference in terms of the net result.

In option 1 the money gets into the economy but a tiny group of private citizens is given the the right to essentially "tax" every single member of the productive economy by charging usury on something they do not posess.

In option 2... not only does the same money enter the economy, but nobody steals 2-10% of it, and you have a road or a bridge to show for it.

Edited November 17, 2011 by dre

[jacee]

The real "culprits" are not the "1%" either. They are a tiny subset of the "1%". The problem is the system itself, and the fundamental rules of the financial monetary system.

Who 'influenced' the rules to benefit the 1% disproportionately ? Who corrupted politicians and democracy to provide more income and wealth to the 1%?

You haven't convinced me dre.

There are people pulling the strings to make the system do what it does, which is to disproportionately increase the wealth of the 1% astronomically during times when the rest of us are struggling and still losing ground.

The system can't chaange itself, and the politicians can't change it either unless the 1% get softened up and realize that we are very serious about disrupting their influence on our democracy.

[Topaz]

There's one thing about the 1%, SOME of them inherited their money that probably their parents made and those kids, don't know what its like to be poor and if they ever lose their money down the road, they would be probably the ones jumping out windows like they did in the 1930's.

[Michael Hardner]

? whose budgets activities and performance levels?

All of them.

[Michael Hardner]

Well thats the problem. The system we have isnt broken its working exactly how it was intended. You cant "fix it", because its the fundamental nature of the system itself thats broken.

But really you could have a staged approach. The first step would be simple to take the control of credit/money out of the hands of private banks.

This first step would amount to an earthquake to the global financial system.

This is pretty easy since this responsibility belongs naturally to the government ANYWAYS, they have just surrendered it.

One we take back control of our money/credit, then all we need to do is devise a mechanism for government to put newly created money into the economy. Thats not a very tough thing to do. They could do it through commercial banks like they do now, or they could simply spend it into the economy.

Think about that for a second. Lets say the government wants to put a trillion dollars into the economy to adjust the money supply for economic growth and avoid deflation.

1. Currently the government does most of this activity through the fractional reserve multiplier. They allow private banks to simply lend money that doesnt exist, and wella! They have grown the money supply. Theres two huge problems with this. Commercial banks are allowed to charge interest on this money, so a lot of it goes directly into the pockets of private bankers who have brought NOTHING to the table. Why bother paying this usury if the new money is backed not by the banks deposits but by the government istelf in the first place. Thats nothing more than corporate welfare, and no solution that doesnt address this will work.

2. Since the value of all this new money is backed by the government, and producers in the real economy anyways, why not simply grow the money supply by SPENDING new money into existance on things like ifrastructure. All of those dollars simply end up the economy anyways to get spent and respect over and over again. There is absolutely no difference in terms of the net result.

In option 1 the money gets into the economy but a tiny group of private citizens is given the the right to essentially "tax" every single member of the productive economy by charging usury on something they do not posess.

In option 2... not only does the same money enter the economy, but nobody steals 2-10% of it, and you have a road or a bridge to show for it.

Well, ok, but... the first step... would cause a shock that we couldn't even plan for.

How about a bottom-up approach ? I have one !

[dre]

All of them.

Dude there is absolute mountain of hard data out there that illustrates the problems in our macro economic system. The system publishes this data themselves in yearly reports, and lots of people inside the system have tried to expose the harmfull results that the system produces.

This isnt about budgets or spending. Budgets and spending are naturally restrained by any economic system based on sound money. We need to focus on the structural problems with our economic framework that produce harmfull results, and make it so easy for abuse to happen.

Nothing we do downstream of this will really fix anything, and we need to educate people about how the system works. In K-12 education we spend hundreds of hours talking about history, geography, etc. Not even 10 minutes is spent talking about the fundamental underpinnings of our economic and monetary system. Basic macro economic theory is the VERY MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE THING a citizen could ever learn in order to play a constructive role in driving government policy. Until we have perpetual money ALL of these problems will continue to get worse. Every... single... year.

"We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon." -- Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

That guy isnt some pinko. Hes the credit manager of a major federal reserve bank! Whats it going to take for people to wake up? Complete and total collapse, misery, and devastation?

[dre]

This first step would amount to an earthquake to the global financial system.

Well, ok, but... the first step... would cause a shock that we couldn't even plan for.

How about a bottom-up approach ? I have one !

I dont know if it would necessarily be such an earthquake. I didnt see any kind of massive collapse 39 years ago when this system was put in place. And those commercial banks bring nothing to the table... Its STILL the government (people in the economy) that back the money. WE ISSUE OUR OWN CREDIT. NOW. TODAY. The only reason that the money you borrow from a bank has any value at all is because you have a reputation as a producer of goods and services. THats it! Its value is entirely derived from your promise to pay, and the money does not even exist until AFTER you have signed your mortgage contract.

But im all for any other ideas you have, so lets talk about your bottom-up approach.

[TimG]

Its an animated movie that meant to make things easy to understand.

It is an animated movie that seriously misrepresents several aspects of the system.

First: bankers do NOT make money from nothing in a competitive banking environment. If Bank A creates a loan to Person B and Person B deposits that money in Bank C then Bank C will immediately demand interest from Bank A for the money created. This puts a market based limit on how much Bank A can loan. This also means that banks only make money off the DIFFERENTIAL between interest they pay depositors.

Second: the film touched on it several times but failed to emphasize that fractional reserve banking is what fuelled the industrial revolution and is what has created the relatively egalitarian society we have today. Prior to its creation people who were born poor stayed poor because they had no access credit that would allow them to do something as simple as buying a property or expanding a small business. If you are someone that cares about income disparities then you should love fractional reserve banking because it is one of the greatest forces for equalization that we have. The idea that the system will inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth is complete BS.

Third: the money being paid in interest does not go into some black hole: the vast majority goes to people who save money (i.e. your grandma's GICs). When governments like greece threaten go bust it is the pensioners that will pay the price because they are the ones holding the now worthless asset. The only benefit the bankers get are as brokers between the governments and the pensioners that collect the interest.

Last: The blow up in 2008 was caused by DERIVATIVES - not fractional reserve banking. i.e. banks would pay an insurance company to guarantee their bad debt. The insurance companies basically gambled that not all debts would go bad at once and issued many more insurance policies than it could afford. When the house of cards collapsed the insurance companies could not pay and then the banks which had previously claimed the debt was secure were forced to swallow the losses. The problems in europe are similar because banks were allowed to assume that government debt was secure so if a government defaults many banks will fail. If banks were told to treat government debt as any other debt then they would not be in such a vulnerable position.

Where the system needs to be fixed is in the use of derivatives which clearly have the same problems that were originally found with fractional reserve banking. Personally, I would ban the use of insurance for financial instruments because the risks outweigh the potential benefits. The current problems are NOT an indictement of the fractional reserve system itself.

Edited November 18, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

First: bankers do NOT make money from nothing in a competitive banking environment. If Bank A creates a loan to Person B and Person B deposits that money in Bank C then Bank C will immediately demand interest from Bank A for the money created. This puts a market based limit on how much Bank A can loan. This also means that banks only make money off the DIFFERENTIAL between interest they pay depositors.

No thats simply not how it works. In reality Bank C just takes the money deposited by Person B, puts a tiny percentage of it into its account with the Federal reserve and then loans the rest out as interest. They do not collect interest from Bank A in any shape or form. Bank c takes the exact same dollars and loans them out again, and this cycle can repeat until the money supply has been expande by thousands of dollars from a single 100 dollar deposit.

And there only market based constaint on how much money they can create is the supply of new borrowers. Every single time a person borrows money the money supply grows. If people stop borrowing the money supply will rapidly contract... which is why they have been pushing so much easy credit on people, and practically begging people to keep borrowing. I have over a dozen letters from banks begging me to borrow money just this year. And now they have started phoning me too, trying to give me pre-approved lines of credit etc.

Second: the film touched on it several times but failed to emphasize that fractional reserve banking is what fuelled the industrial revolution and is what has created the relatively egalitarian society we have today. Prior to its creation people who were born poor stayed poor because they had no access credit that would allow them to do something as simple as buying a property or expanding a small business. If you are someone that cares about income disparities then you should love fractional reserve banking because it is one of the greatest forces for equalization that we have. The idea that the system will inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth is complete BS.

This is absolutely false as well. The system we have today is NOT the system that fueled the industrial revolution. Its a brand new system that isnt even 40 years old. Up until 1971 dollars were backed by real gold deposits and the value of the dollar was pinned to gold within 5% in either direction. That meant only so much DEBT could possibly exist because there was a finite supply of money. Any holder of dollars could show up at the bank and demand to trade them in for gold. Now all they can do is trade them in for more dollars.

http://www.dancingsamurai.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/history.gif

Immediately almost every industrialized country in the system began to bleed red ink.

And the reason for that is pretty simple. WHen banks expand the monetary base by issuing bank credit (creating new money), the principle ends up in the money supply, but not necessarily the interest. So every time a bank loans out money they guarentee more future debt.

If you follow this scenario through until the end, you will see that after a few lending cycles theres more debt outstanding to banks, than there is money in the money supply. Unless theres a steady stream of new borrows its a mathematic impossibility for all the borrowers to pay back their debt.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy/how-banks-make-money

Its very similar to a ponzi scheme except ponzi schemes only the people that enter the same late get ripped off. In this system everyone gets ripped off equally.

Last: The blow up in 2008 was caused by DERIVATIVES - not fractional reserve banking. i.e. banks would pay an insurance company to guarantee their bad debt. The insurance companies basically gambled that not all debts would go bad at once and issued many more insurance policies than it could afford. When the house of cards collapsed the insurance companies could not pay and then the banks which had previously claimed the debt was secure were forced to swallow the losses. The problems in europe are similar because banks were allowed to assume that government debt was secure so if a government defaults many banks will fail. If banks were told to treat government debt as any other debt then they would not be in such a vulnerable position.

I agree derivatives are a problem and I have spent a great deal of time trying to hammer that home to people on here. But this problem is fueled by the debt/money system. Ever wonder how we ended up with 50 trillion dollars worth of CDS's? The trillions of dollars that powered this whole scam came almost entirely from bank credit (well 95% of it).

Where the system needs to be fixed is in the use of derivatives which clearly have the same problems that were originally found with fractional reserve banking. Personally, I would ban the use of insurance for financial instruments because the risks outweigh the potential benefits. The current problems are NOT an indictement of the fractional reserve system itself.

Again if you dont have sound money you wont have a sound economy for long, and debt will grow exponentially. When people can create money out of thin air they do risky things with it and cook up all kinds of schemes.

The idea that the system will inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth is complete BS

Not it isnt. The way the system functions guarantees that wealth will concentrate. 95% of the ENTIRE MONEY SUPPLY was created with bank credit. Bankers are collecting interest on literally every dollar in the system. We are talking 10's or 100's of trillions of dollars they have taxed the entire productive economy by collecting interest on money they quite simply never had to loan in the first place.

Edited November 18, 2011 by dre