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.
Even though the 99% also saw gains, the very rich pulled further ahead, increasing inequality and by definition, decreasing democracy. Because we have to choose; either massive income and wealth inequality where the donor class buy elections; or democracy. This inequality is DESIGNED by the donor class and we get what we deserve when we continue to vote for their puppets in both parties. Only Bernie Sanders was beholden to no one but the people in this election and fought for the 99%.
Bernie Sanders in no way has ever mentioned:
Abolishing fiat currency
Abolishing usury
Abolishing partial reserve "banking"
So, his brand of "collectivism" within a system designed to plunder at will as much wealth from the people by a few chosen families and their friends unabated, will have no, ZERO, impact upon the wealth of the "people", actually slaves to the Bankers.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid of puppet "representatives" of a puppet "government" but you will always be a slave to the omnipotent financier class until the "money" system is revolutionized...
Not even you believe that. We should have raised interest rates a long time ago.
No, we shouldn't.
It's reasonable to say we never should've lowered them so far in the early 2000's, but now that we've done it, it would be foolish to raise them.
Quote:
No one believes that either. Look around, the scare tactics no longer work. No one believes them. An audit only has the possibility of harming those being audited.
Oh my god. There are people everywhere that are capable of understanding the results. It's so disgusting to believe that only those at the Fed can understand what they do.
The idea that we can continue to go further and further in debt with no negative repercussions in the future is even more dangerous.
In the first case we can no longer afford to try and rule the world. To buy votes. In the latter the rest of the world
tosses the dollar aside and we become Greece.
You make my point exactly, by pointing to Greece. Your response is a prime example of someone attempting to understand what is going on, and completely failing.
You're certainly not alone in your views, in fact you're in the majority. Most voters and legislators are like you, and interpret U.S. monetary policy as if it was a non-autonomous entity. They don't even have the most basic framework with which they would interpret the results of a Fed audit. Asking for one is nothing more than posturing.
The central bank is one of the few entities that can be honest about how central banking works, because almost nobody reads whitepapers published by the central bank, because they are boring. If a major politician stood up and explained the reality of banking in basic terms, how it has actually operated for the past 30 years, voters would flip out and vote him out of office.
They weren't. They lost their asses. The government harmed the lower classes to make sure they were made whole and in the process thrive at the expense of others.
So, you're claiming that PCLAMike is wrong and the rich did not move ahead than other classes economically?
Even though the 99% also saw gains, the very rich pulled further ahead, increasing inequality and by definition, decreasing democracy. Because we have to choose; either massive income and wealth inequality where the donor class buy elections; or democracy. This inequality is DESIGNED by the donor class and we get what we deserve when we continue to vote for their puppets in both parties. Only Bernie Sanders was beholden to no one but the people in this election and fought for the 99%.
Maybe you will understand if I type slowly........
Wealth is not finite.
You don't make less money because someone else makes more.
If I become a millionaire, that in no way prevents you from becoming a millionaire also.
Exactly what part of this is so difficult to comprehend?
While "wealth" can be created, in an abstract sense is true (though it is really just added value to something else through effort or "marketing" )...
However, that there is a very select few that can confiscate as much wealth as they desire from everyone else unabated is very real and is at the heart of the disparity of the omnipotent financier class and the remainder of humanity. The Central Banking Families do not participate in any market, they ARE the market as they control all of the "money" used in the market. No person, business, or government is free from being their slaves.
It is through their usury and fiat currency manipulations, that make all "markets" in the world just smoke and mirrors on the global Plantation. Yes the slaves fight amongst themselves about who is "rich' and "poor" on the Plantation, but those who Chosen Families and friends are the one who have virtually everything and will continue to keep taking everything that will every be produced. The "rich" and "poor" are just fighting over the scraps left on the ground...
This is a natural result of the laws of nature. It shouldn't be that surprising. Everything has a vibration, everything goes in cycles, and the strongest and most powerful get the most resources.
It's why women flock towards men who are social-proofed, witty, and confident, and will fight over the same man, while a large pool of men will have to work hard to get any at all... same thing... a small pool of men, say 10-20%, ends up going to bed with 50-75% of the female population, while a good 50% of men end up sleeping with just a couple of women their whole lives.... those without wit, looks, etc. have to fight for every scrap because although women say they want honest and responsible men, it's not what turns them on and it's not what they are initially attracted too.
Likewise, the wealthy can use their wealth to gain wealth faster, and the wealthier they are the faster they can gain it...
It's reasonable to say we never should've lowered them so far in the early 2000's, but now that we've done it, it would be foolish to raise them.
If something happens now there is nothing we could do but print, print, print which would make the problem noted here even worse.
Raise the rates.
Quote:
You make my point exactly, by pointing to Greece. Your response is a prime example of someone attempting to understand what is going on, and completely failing.
You're certainly not alone in your views, in fact you're in the majority. Most voters and legislators are like you, and interpret U.S. monetary policy as if it was a non-autonomous entity. They don't even have the most basic framework with which they would interpret the results of a Fed audit. Asking for one is nothing more than posturing.
Since you really didn't say anything we will go with its a good idea.
Quote:
The central bank is one of the few entities that can be honest about how central banking works, because almost nobody reads whitepapers published by the central bank, because they are boring. If a major politician stood up and explained the reality of banking in basic terms, how it has actually operated for the past 30 years, voters would flip out and vote him out of office.
If you don't actually have a point to make, why bother?
So, you're claiming that PCLAMike is wrong and the rich did not move ahead than other classes economically?
I have no idea how you take that from what I said.
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.
)...
