Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is one thing I see over and over in here and it cracks me up, that "the government" or the "the fed" or "the banking cartel" wants to make people poorer.
In the big picture or the long run how do banks benefit with more poor people? How does a government benefit from more poor people? It just doesn't make sense. There isn't someone with a black cape saying "mwuh hah hah" let's engineer the economy to make people poor.
But meanwhile, the rank and file DO get poorer.
I agree to some extent, why would those who already have everything want to take away even more of what the common man has? There is no benefit, unless you are trying to subjugate people and/or slow down their consumption of resources.
If the banks or the fed wanted to make more money, they would enact policies that led to widespread growth. Hell, they could have written us each a fairly large check for the trillions they gave away in the bailouts; that would have lead to a very large increase in economic activity. They have no need to take our money; they can print up as much as they want. Which is why I think something else is at work here. Something bigger, something (gulp)... conspiratorial. Money, credit and the lack thereof are merely tools, a means to an end.
An elected government doesn't benefit itself by purposely making people poorer, happy people are what keeps them in office, see Tuesday. A bank doesn't benefit from poor people who don't spend as much money, they need businesses and people as customers who are financially active. How does Ben Bernanke improve his life if the long term effect of QE is more poor people?
One can certainly question the wisdom of economic policy decisions but to write off anything you/I/we disagree with as some nefarious plot to make people poorer doesn't pass the common sense test.
An elected government doesn't benefit itself by purposely making people poorer, happy people are what keeps them in office, see Tuesday. A bank doesn't benefit from poor people who don't spend as much money, they need businesses and people as customers who are financially active. How does Ben Bernanke improve his life if the long term effect of QE is more poor people?
One can certainly question the wisdom of economic policy decisions but to write off anything you/I/we disagree with as some nefarious plot to make people poorer doesn't pass the common sense test.
"Nothing happens in politics by accident, if it happens, it was planned that way" - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Your hypothesis does not reflect reality. The reality is that government is doing just fine and the banks are making record profits.
Look to any third world country and you will see an upper class living opulently from the efforts of the poor.
Besides wealth is not really the driving factor; the elite are already wealthy beyond comprehension.
The driving factor is power, power to dictate their agenda to the rest of the world.
Nothing has changed since the days of lords and commoners. The wealthy desire to separate themselves from the rest of mankind, to elevate themselves to superior status in every conceivable way. To place themselves above law, and unanswerable to the common people. They are well on their way to making it reality.
The driving factor is power, power to dictate their agenda to the rest of the world.
The government here remains in power if people are happy, so it makes no sense that their agenda is to make people poorer.
Quote:
Nothing has changed since the days of lords and commoners. The wealthy desire to separate themselves from the rest of mankind, to elevate themselves to superior status in every conceivable way. To place themselves above law, and unanswerable to the common people.
Sheesh one can almost see spittle flying out of your mouth here.
"Nothing happens in politics by accident, if it happens, it was planned that way" - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Your hypothesis does not reflect reality. The reality is that government is doing just fine and the banks are making record profits. Look to any third world country and you will see an upper class living opulently from the efforts of the poor. Besides wealth is not really the driving factor; the elite are already wealthy beyond comprehension. The driving factor is power, power to dictate their agenda to the rest of the world. ( emphasis added by CosmicWizard ) Nothing has changed since the days of lords and commoners. The wealthy desire to separate themselves from the rest of mankind, to elevate themselves to superior status in every conceivable way. To place themselves above law, and unanswerable to the common people. They are well on their way to making it reality.
Jim...you nailed it...especially the line that I emphasized.
An elected government doesn't benefit itself by purposely making people poorer, happy people are what keeps them in office, see Tuesday. A bank doesn't benefit from poor people who don't spend as much money, they need businesses and people as customers who are financially active. How does Ben Bernanke improve his life if the long term effect of QE is more poor people?
One can certainly question the wisdom of economic policy decisions but to write off anything you/I/we disagree with as some nefarious plot to make people poorer doesn't pass the common sense test.
But how free is our government if you can only elect virtual clones of previous political leaders from the DC elephant and donkey zoo?
Isn't it in The Republic that Plato claims the ultimate government is a faux facade of democracy that is actually ruled by a small group of elite philosopher-kings? Some people take Plato way too seriously, and they have for centuries. It's way past time to ask questions about the way things are.
But how free is our government if you can only elect virtual clones of previous political leaders from the DC elephant and donkey zoo?
Our freedom goes about as far as having the choice to choose between the lesser of the two evils that have been rubber stamped by the DC elephant and donkey zoo. I love that phrase!
Trust in your government officials; they know what they're doing. How quaint.
You are ignoring the point. Its not about trusting anybody, but rather when people start providing crazy explanations for things, perhaps the real problem is that they don't understand matters?
Anyhow, economics is frustrating, unlike say physics, the average Joe thinks they know about it despite never actually learning about it. Part of the problem is of course the politicization of economics, people "just know" the things that their party assert are true, when in fact those are just the policies that bring about the sorts of changes that the ring-leaders in the political parties desire. Economically, they are almost always gibberish.
Isn't it in The Republic that Plato claims the ultimate government is a faux facade of democracy that is actually ruled by a small group of elite philosopher-kings?
No, just a government with a Philosopher-King as the common people are incapable of making good rational decisions.
Anyhow, this country would be much better off it was ruled by a small group of elite philosopher-kings, instead of people that are able to pay big $$$ to shape public opinion with modern marketing techniques.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
