The Rich aren't just taking more of the pie they're taking it all!

[old steel]

Take a look at this chart, from Bard College economist Pavlina Tcherneva. In an August 2013 paper, she wrote

An examination of average income growth [in the U.S.] during every postwar expansion (from trough to peak) and its distribution between the wealthiest 10% and bottom 90% of households reveals that income growth becomes more inequitably distributed with every subsequent expansion during the entire postwar period.

In other words, the wealthy are capturing more and more of the overall income growth during each expansion period. Notice the sharp drop in the bottom 90 percent's share of growth starting with the 1982-1990 period — thanks, Reaganomics! Not only that, but the bottom 90 percent actually saw their real income drop between 2009 and 2012.

This chart doesn't necessarily tell us anything new — we've known for some time that income inequality has risen steadily during the postwar period. But this chart is a novel way of illustrating that fact.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/09/Screen-Shot-2014-09-25-at-10.30.11-AM.png&w=1484



(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/25/this-depressing-chart-shows-that-the-rich-arent-just-grabbing-a-bigger-slice-of-the-income-pie-theyre-taking-all-of-it/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost)I t's the system of credit/debit based money. They've figure out how to completely capture it, the fed just makes them wealthier and wealthier. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/25/this-depressing-chart-shows-that-the-rich-arent-just-grabbing-a-bigger-slice-of-the-income-pie-theyre-taking-all-of-it/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost)
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/25/this-depressing-chart-shows-that-the-rich-arent-just-grabbing-a-bigger-slice-of-the-income-pie-theyre-taking-all-of-it/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost)

[Neuro]

That is so fucked up!

[old steel]

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

[crimethink]

First they take your money.

Then they take your lives.

[midnight rambler]

First they take your money.

Then they take your lives.

They're not predisposed to killing those who eagerly serve them as gods like they deserve to be served - they have to have some around to service all their needs.

And btw, there is no money in circulation (with the exception of coins issued by the DoT).

[Horn]

The top .01% - are they actually need or wanted in any way?

https://motherjones.com/files/images/ineqbubbles_040512.gif

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

[crimethink]

They're not predisposed to killing those who eagerly serve them as gods like they deserve to be served - they have to have some around to service all their needs.

And btw, there is no money in circulation (with the exception of coins issued by the DoT).

As Shami is often pointing out, automation has made most "human resources" superfluous. They only need some of us: 500,000,000 to be exact. The rest of us can be "deleted."

As for money, that encompasses everything the little people slave for, including "Federal" Reserve Notes. It may not be "legal" money, but it's money de facto.

[crimethink]

The top .01% - are they actually need or wanted in any way?

https://motherjones.com/files/images/ineqbubbles_040512.gif

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

The Capitalists like to claim the (self-appointed) "elite" are "necessary," ala Alisa Rosenbaum's screeds. However, the "elite" are filthy rich and in power not because they are more industrious or more intelligent than the rest. It's because they're more crooked, more willing to sell their souls to the Devil, more willing to throw even their own mothers under the bus.

Society would become more prosperous without them.

[Hatha Sunahara]

The Capitalists like to claim the (self-appointed) "elite" are "necessary," ala Alisa Rosenbaum's screeds. However, the "elite" are filthy rich and in power not because they are more industrious or more intelligent than the rest. It's because they're more crooked, more willing to sell their souls to the Devil, more willing to throw even their own mothers under the bus.

Society would become more prosperous without them.


I will grant you that they are as you describe them, but that is not why they are rich.

They are rich because they have been selected (perhaps because they are as you describe them) by those who control the money supply to do just that--control the money supply. The people who control the money supply don't want to lose control of the money supply. It gives them the power to rule the world. Now, if we could figure out a way to live without having to use money, then the idea of being 'rich' would have an entirely different meaning.


Hatha

[midnight rambler]

As Shami is often pointing out, automation has made most "human resources" superfluous.

The dream of transhumanism is just that - a dream yet to be realized. I submit that the soul/consciousness/hologram/sim is far more complex than those cretins could possibly begin to realize and comprehend and their extremely misguided effort to build a new Tower of Babel will be met with a smiting by The Stark Fist of Removal. It won't be pretty.

http://www.subgenius.com/pics/fist.gif

I also submit that those who think that automation is the do all/end all haven't a clue about the the trades and various crafts - things that require, yea demand a human touch to come into materialization.

[ShortJohnSilver]

I will grant you that they are as you describe them, but that is not why they are rich.

They are rich because they have been selected (perhaps because they are as you describe them) by those who control the money supply to do just that--control the money supply. The people who control the money supply don't want to lose control of the money supply. It gives them the power to rule the world. Now, if we could figure out a way to live without having to use money, then the idea of being 'rich' would have an entirely different meaning.


Hatha

The online PDF e-book "The Sumerian Swindle" claims that ancient Egypt never had money, only barter, and they never had interest-on-a-loan either.... which is probably what is going on in the chart above - the top parts are out of debt, the lower parts are not, and debt is advantageous to the lender not the borrower.

[Horn]

The online PDF e-book "The Sumerian Swindle" claims that ancient Egypt never had money, only barter, and they never had interest-on-a-loan either.... which is probably what is going on in the chart above - the top parts are out of debt, the lower parts are not, and debt is advantageous to the lender not the borrower.

Is possible, removing interest in money creation may just remove the .01%

[crimethink]

I will grant you that they are as you describe them, but that is not why they are rich.

They are rich because they have been selected (perhaps because they are as you describe them) by those who control the money supply to do just that--control the money supply. The people who control the money supply don't want to lose control of the money supply. It gives them the power to rule the world. Now, if we could figure out a way to live without having to use money, then the idea of being 'rich' would have an entirely different meaning.


Hatha

The "top" we see in the liepapers and Talmudvision are not the true top. They are second-tier, and, yes, are "allowed" to be where they are.

[crimethink]

The dream of transhumanism is just that - a dream yet to be realized. I submit that the soul/consciousness/hologram/sim is far more complex than those cretins could possibly begin to realize and comprehend and their extremely misguided effort to build a new Tower of Babel will be met with a smiting by The Stark Fist of Removal. It won't be pretty.

http://www.subgenius.com/pics/fist.gif

I also submit that those who think that automation is the do all/end all haven't a clue about the the trades and various crafts - things that require, yea demand a human touch to come into materialization.

I, personally, am not a transhumanist. "Dumb" automation - as opposed to self-aware AI automation - has made great numbers of humans superfluous. The rulers of this world could be well-served with a mere 10% of the current population of little people.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I read The Sumerian Swindle a while ago, and I've recommended it to people here a number of times. The main message in the book (other than the Jews are responsible) is that money itself is an instrument, an agent of usury. So, if you use money, you are either the beneficiary of, or the victim of usury. The author (Banjo Billy) lays out a list of 21 features of the Sumerian swindle. The one that I find most fascinating is that humans have a 'sense of honor' that they believe they have to repay their debts. This feature of human consciousness is embodied in the laws of all societies. Most humans however are not aware of 'odious debt'. This is debt resulting from being swindled. Our money system is based on this kind of debt.

There won't be any improvement in the state of the world until people understand how they are being swindled by their use of money. And as long as the controllers of that money system get to reap the rewards of this swindle, the people who use their 'money' will be the victims of this swindle. The charts in this thread are good arguments to 'end the Fed'.

Hatha

[General of Darkness]

What's interesting is when Reagan was in office compared to when the separation took off.

In office
January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

Remember trickle down economics? Apparently it happens in reverse, just as planned.

[Horn]

With Reagan came plastic money and even steeper usury rates.

The type and matter of money, matters.

"Conservatives" like him and Nixon apparently rely on orphist theory to make things not happen.

[Hatha Sunahara]

If you look at the years on the chart in the OP, and look up the 'marginal' tax rates, that is, the taxes on the wealthy, you will see that when the taxes on the rich were very high, the 90% got the major benefit of economic expansion. The rich will argue that the size of the expansion was smaller than it would have been if their tax rate was lower. So, if their tax rate was lower, the economy would grow bigger and everybody would benefit. This argument was the root of the 'trickle down' theory, and the basis for the 'Laffer curve'--which said if you lower taxes, the economy would grow bigger. Reagan bought this argument, and lowered taxes on the rich. Then the government had to change the way it accounted for the size of the economy and its growth to cover up the fact that more of the growth was ending up in the pockets of the rich. The accounting got so distorted that now, when there is zero growth, or negative growth, and the rich still pay little or no taxes, the 90% have to sell off their assets (to the rich at pennies on the dollar) to pay their share of the tax burden.

The solution to this problem is to raise tax rates for the rich. But, since they own the government it's impossible.


Hatha

[EE_]

If you look at the years on the chart in the OP, and look up the 'marginal' tax rates, that is, the taxes on the wealthy, you will see that when the taxes on the rich were very high, the 90% got the major benefit of economic expansion. The rich will argue that the size of the expansion was smaller than it would have been if their tax rate was lower. So, if their tax rate was lower, the economy would grow bigger and everybody would benefit. This argument was the root of the 'trickle down' theory, and the basis for the 'Laffer curve'--which said if you lower taxes, the economy would grow bigger. Reagan bought this argument, and lowered taxes on the rich. Then the government had to change the way it accounted for the size of the economy and its growth to cover up the fact that more of the growth was ending up in the pockets of the rich. The accounting got so distorted that now, when there is zero growth, or negative growth, and the rich still pay little or no taxes, the 90% have to sell off their assets (to the rich at pennies on the dollar) to pay their share of the tax burden.

The solution to this problem is to raise tax rates for the rich. But, since they own the government it's impossible.


Hatha

Nothing but rope and pitchforks will ever change it.

[old steel]

The dream of transhumanism is just that - a dream yet to be realized. I submit that the soul/consciousness/hologram/sim is far more complex than those cretins could possibly begin to realize and comprehend and their extremely misguided effort to build a new Tower of Babel will be met with a smiting by The Stark Fist of Removal. It won't be pretty.

http://www.subgenius.com/pics/fist.gif

I also submit that those who think that automation is the do all/end all haven't a clue about the the trades and various crafts - things that require, yea demand a human touch to come into materialization.


I also submit to you that a fist in the face is the human touch that TPTB/Elites need to come into materialization.

Then again the One Percent have spent almost 50-years accumulating wealth. But it has cost us dearly, in that working people’s share of income has fallen to fund those at the top.

However with the prospect of another great depression looming ahead they very well could be wiped out.

[midnight rambler]

I, personally, am not a transhumanist. "Dumb" automation - as opposed to self-aware AI automation - has made great numbers of humans superfluous. The rulers of this world could be well-served with a mere 10% of the current population of little people.

I seriously doubt I'll be around to watch the show, but the showdown between the transhumanists and the AI replicators ought to be a real hoot (if it indeed comes to that). I would bet on the AI replicators.

[Horn]

There's no way any elite could get such sadistic joy from lubing up a machine.

[crimethink]

I read The Sumerian Swindle a while ago, and I've recommended it to people here a number of times. The main message in the book (other than the Jews are responsible) is that money itself is an instrument, an agent of usury. So, if you use money, you are either the beneficiary of, or the victim of usury.


I object to the term "Sumerian" applied to Babylonian Banking. The Bible calls it "Mystery Babylon" for a very good reason. Ancient Babylon -> Babylonian Talmud -> Mystery Babylon.

Further, money itself is not an agent of usury. Money is any means of exchange. Money can be readily used without usury. And real money is very resistant to usury since there is a finite quantity of it. Fractional reserve banking is from Babylon, not Sumeria. And fractional reserve is the prime instrument for usury.

I recommend David Astle's The Babylonian Woe and Werner Sombart's The Jews and Modern Capitalism for an accurate secular understanding of where The Problem originated. The Sumerian Swindle, completely apart from the name, appears to be a much inferior work.




The author (Banjo Billy) lays out a list of 21 features of the Sumerian swindle. The one that I find most fascinating is that humans have a 'sense of honor' that they believe they have to repay their debts. This feature of human consciousness is embodied in the laws of all societies. Most humans however are not aware of 'odious debt'. This is debt resulting from being swindled. Our money system is based on this kind of debt.


The Bible tells us that God established an every-seven-year debt release; automatic bankruptcy discharge for all debtors. Deuteronomy 15:1-2

"One must pay their debt" is a foundational ideal in all cultures for good reason. However, that is meant for debts owed for real money or goods to human beings. Not machines, which is what banks are. And especially not machines that have "loaned" you nothing other than fantasy "money" created by Babylonian sorcery.




There won't be any improvement in the state of the world until people understand how they are being swindled by their use of money. And as long as the controllers of that money system get to reap the rewards of this swindle, the people who use their 'money' will be the victims of this swindle. The charts in this thread are good arguments to 'end the Fed'.

The elimination of usury (anything more than 10% simple interest) and fractional reserve banking would set so many things right on our planet.

[Spectrism]

Raising taxes on the rich is a silly idea. It is the mantra fed to the slaves. Have all pay a fixed rate so all have the same cost and responsibility to society. An "income tax" does not touch someone who owns a $10billion estate, or runs a tax-free foundation. All the super rich have their money protected in schemes like foundations.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I object to the term "Sumerian" applied to Babylonian Banking. The Bible calls it "Mystery Babylon" for a very good reason. Ancient Babylon -> Babylonian Talmud -> Mystery Babylon.

Further, money itself is not an agent of usury. Money is any means of exchange. Money can be readily used without usury. And real money is very resistant to usury since there is a finite quantity of it. Fractional reserve banking is from Babylon, not Sumeria. And fractional reserve is the prime instrument for usury.

I recommend David Astle's The Babylonian Woe and Werner Sombart's The Jews and Modern Capitalism for an accurate secular understanding of where The Problem originated. The Sumerian Swindle, completely apart from the name, appears to be a much inferior work.

Just wondering if you've read the Sumerian Swindle? I read Astle's Babylonian Woe and found it a chore with little reward. Haven't read Sombart's work. But I am familiar with Aristotle's view of usurers, whivh you can get here: http://666ismoney.com/Aristotle.html.

As for the distinction between Babylonia and Sumeria--they both existed in mesopotamia, although at different times. Sumerian civilization preceded Babylonian civilization by 2000 years. Banjo Billy starts his narrative at the dawn of civilization and gives a good account of the risks and rewards faced by people who lived with primitive institutions, and the beginnings of a predator class of people--the 'lenders' be it of seeds, silver or gold, and their relationship with the kings and priests. Life was not much different in Sumeria as it is today in regards to money.

And you will come to understand that money itself is the only agent of usury. That comes from the definition of usury. Read the Aristotle quote about usury. That will give some meaning to the saying: "Interest on a loan grows without rain."





The Bible tells us that God established an every-seven-year debt release; automatic bankruptcy discharge for all debtors. Deuteronomy 15:1-2

"One must pay their debt" is a foundational ideal in all cultures for good reason. However, that is meant for debts owed for real money or goods to human beings. Not machines, which is what banks are. And especially not machines that have "loaned" you nothing other than fantasy "money" created by Babylonian sorcery.


Again, read the Sumerian Swindle--particularly the list of 21 elements of the swindle. One of them is that the lenders require 'collateral' for a loan which is forfeited in the event of a failure to repay on schedule. The lenders do not share in the risks facing the borrowers. If the crops didn't grow because of floods or drought, and the borrowers couldn't repay their loans with interest, the lenders took title to the land. Eventually the lenders owned most, if not all the land. This is one reason the bible talks about Jubilee--which is a process to restore social order--so that the usurers don't really own everything. I think however we are on the same page here. I agree that banks (institutional lenders) are a machine, and that the money they lend is a product of sorcery.


The elimination of usury (anything more than 10% simple interest) and fractional reserve banking would set so many things right on our planet.

I agree completely, and would go a few steps further. The value of collateral cannot be greater than the value of the loan. Banks should not be in the business of safeguarding money. That should be a job for security/storage/vault type businesses. And there should be no institutional lenders. Rather the lending function of banks should be done by 'loan brokers' who charge a fee for bringing borrowers and lenders together, sort of like a dating service. This would result in eliminating a whole class of people who avoid doing work because they can live from the proceeds of money transactions alone. Jesus Christ understood this evil when he turned over the tables of the money changers at the temple. You might want to retreat from setting an interest rate limit on loans. Usury is not excessive interest. It is any interest at all. It's possible to lend money without charging interest. A lender could charge a fee (expressed as a percentage of the loan, which does not compound) to compensate him for deferring the enjoyment of his money. If the loan is not paid on schedule, collateral which does not exceed the value of the loan would change hands. All lending should have savings as it's origin, and all money should have intrinsic value--no fiat--gold and silver would do nicely.


Hatha

[crimethink]

Just wondering if you've read the Sumerian Swindle?


I've read enough of it. The author is named as "G_d" on the cover. That itself is a major strike against it. It appears to be the juvenile pseudonym of James Gregory Delaney. It's no attempt at anything scholarly. It reads more like something from a third-rate KKK member.




I read Astle's Babylonian Woe and found it a chore with little reward.


Anything scholarly on economics is a chore. :)




Haven't read Sombart's work.


It's essential. It isn't "fun," though, either.

https://archive.org/details/jewsandmodernca00sombgoog

One of the best quotes: "In the face of this fact, is there not some justification for the opinion that the United States owe their very existence to the Jews? And if this be so, how much more can it be asserted that Jewish influence made the United States just what they are—that is, American? For what we call Americanism is nothing else, if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit distilled. "




But I am familiar with Aristotle's view of usurers, whivh you can get here: http://666ismoney.com/Aristotle.html.


Are you assuming you must convince me of the evil of usury? You do not. I'm definitely in sync with you!




As for the distinction between Babylonia and Sumeria--they both existed in mesopotamia, although at different times. Sumerian civilization preceded Babylonian civilization by 2000 years. Banjo Billy starts his narrative at the dawn of civilization and gives a good account of the risks and rewards faced by people who lived with primitive institutions, and the beginnings of a predator class of people--the 'lenders' be it of seeds, silver or gold, and their relationship with the kings and priests. Life was not much different in Sumeria as it is today in regards to money.


I'm well-aware of the origin and nature of Sumeria and Babylon. I also understand their distinction. What we think of as "banking" is Babylonian in origin.




And you will come to understand that money itself is the only agent of usury. That comes from the definition of usury. Read the Aristotle quote about usury. That will give some meaning to the saying: "Interest on a loan grows without rain."


I still contend that money and usury are separate, and only come together when crooks make them so.





Again, read the Sumerian Swindle--particularly the list of 21 elements of the swindle. One of them is that the lenders require 'collateral' for a loan which is forfeited in the event of a failure to repay on schedule. The lenders do not share in the risks facing the borrowers. If the crops didn't grow because of floods or drought, and the borrowers couldn't repay their loans with interest, the lenders took title to the land. Eventually the lenders owned most, if not all the land. This is one reason the bible talks about Jubilee--which is a process to restore social order--so that the usurers don't really own everything. I think however we are on the same page here. I agree that banks (institutional lenders) are a machine, and that the money they lend is a product of sorcery.


No offense, but are you promoting the book, or, are you trying to educate people? There are better sources to educate people than this poorly-written book. I'm very much aware of the nature of modern (or Babylonian) banking, and usurious loans. Very few people are going to tolerate "the Jews are pricks" on every page when the topic is banking.



Usury is not excessive interest. It is any interest at all.


That's not correct. That is why there are two different concepts, usury and interest.




It's possible to lend money without charging interest. A lender could charge a fee (expressed as a percentage of the loan, which does not compound) to compensate him for deferring the enjoyment of his money.


I mentioned simple interest previously. This is identical to what you propose. I believe anything over 10% simple (i.e., non-compounding) interest is usury.




all money should have intrinsic value--no fiat--gold and silver would do nicely.

In an ideal world, yes. But when the "elite" own most of the gold & silver, there would need to be a transition period with non-interest-bearing fiat, as Germany did in the 1930s.

[mick silver]

fixed rate would be fair to all but its never going to happen . if it did I think they would start a world war 3 if its not started already

[crimethink]

fixed rate would be fair to all but its never going to happen . if it did I think they would start a world war 3 if its not started already

No doubt that the rulers of this world would level the planet if "Hitlerism" (that is, human-oriented finance) were to become widely popular. Hitler's economic policies, not real and alleged "anti-Semitism," was the cause of World War II.