http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...iss-researchersI'm not one for conspiricy theories and it even says in this article that there's no evidence that all these entities actually work together to run the whole world.
You can tell this is a few years old because Lehman Brothers is on the list and they went under in 2008 but it's interesting none the less.
I know it's not music related but I thought I would throw it out there anyway since it's been kinda quiet around here lately. If we can keep comments away from political mud slinging maybe the mods will be ok with it.
Bob
Interesting topic; I'll take a crack at it. And won't get into politics:
Your example of the world's banks is in fact well known - why else would US and Canadian banks be worried about the welfare of European banks? This isn't a hypothesis - it's reality.
There are more possibilities:
Virtually every country that has a semblance of democracy, has realized that monopolies don't serve the country or the people well. Consequently, they have enacted anti-monopoly laws (anti-trust in the US).
The financial interests of companies/corporations are best served if they have a monopoly. By the same token, this isn't in the interests of the general population of the country as it limits competition which we pretty all believe is a good thing for society.
If companies weren't involved in creating monopolies (or groups of monopolies) the legislation wouldn't have been required. My naivety level is low enough that I know they are still attempting to create monopolies one way or another.
Background - interesting reading - I had no idea the concept has been around this long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_lawGlenn
Quote:
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
Yikes.
I think the comment "socialism for the rich" would be more accurate if it read, "stealing from the poor to give to the rich."
I've been following the federal debt situation in the US, and I wonder, does this amount ADD to the debt of about 14 trillion that's been public for a few years? Please tell me I've got it wrong.
I'm starting to shake.
Glenn
The quote, "no agency of the federal government...etc" just shows the ignorance of our elected representatives. The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It never was/never will be. It is a PRIVATELY owned bank. Many of the owners are not even American citizens.
Quote:
I think the comment "socialism for the rich" would be more accurate if it read, "stealing from the poor to give to the rich."
This sounds good Glenn and most of the Wall Street protesters would agree but the facts are that the bottom 40-50% of wage earners in the US pay no federal income tax at all and the ones truly poor at the poverty level qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. That's a form of federal welfare that pays them several grand a year depending on how many children they have. That's not to say they don't pay local sales and other taxes but on the federal level, they're paying zero income tax. The wealthiest 1% pay over 50% of income taxes while the top 10% pay over 70% of federal income taxes. These numbers are available on the IRS website.
This means the merely rich are paying the super rich so it's inaccurate to say the poor are paying anything, they're not. It still stinks, the whole international monetary system is beyond the pale and I think Sanders makes some good points.
Bob
Quote:
The quote, "no agency of the federal government...etc" just shows the ignorance of our elected representatives. The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It never was/never will be. It is a PRIVATELY owned bank. Many of the owners are not even American citizens.
This is true, but MOST people don't realize it. If the general populous knew this one fact, I think they'd be pissed off.
If you care to research farther, you'll find surprising things. The list of participants is much like the original list posted, which is why I thought it fit. They are all intertwined.
And it doesn't add to our debt because this isn't money we borrowed; it's money we loaned.. so they now owe us technically.
And the above comments are correct, the Fed Reserve is a private institution, not part of federal government. They just control things like interest rates, the value of our dollar, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
I think the comment "socialism for the rich" would be more accurate if it read, "stealing from the poor to give to the rich."
This sounds good Glenn and most of the Wall Street protesters would agree but the facts are that the bottom 40-50% of wage earners in the US pay no federal income tax at all and the ones truly poor at the poverty level qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. That's a form of federal welfare that pays them several grand a year depending on how many children they have. That's not to say they don't pay local sales and other taxes but on the federal level, they're paying zero income tax. The wealthiest 1% pay over 50% of income taxes while the top 10% pay over 70% of federal income taxes. These numbers are available on the IRS website.
This means the merely rich are paying the super rich so it's inaccurate to say the poor are paying anything, they're not. It still stinks, the whole international monetary system is beyond the pale and I think Sanders makes some good points.
Bob
(Emphasis mine.)
This was all debunked a year and a half ago.
.
Notice that on thepanel on the right, you can access back issues of Popular Science. Very cool stuff. The day when we all get personal hovercraft is just around the corner!
If you watch 5 minutes of this & stop, I'd be surprised.
Here is a history of the central bank. (worldwide)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs&feature=player_embedded#!I downloaded the entire video to my desktop & watched in in several sessions. It's mind blowing to say the least.
Quote:
This was all debunked a year and a half ago.
I knew someone would point this out Tom, that's why I left it out of that post. Excellent article btw. Note where it says a lot of people say payroll taxes should be left out of the discussion about the 47% because that pays for benefits and they're not an income tax because everybody pays the same rate. That's true and I agree. Fwiw I'm an Enrolled Agent, a tax pro. I'm licensed by the IRS to represent you as a taxpayer before the IRS if you have a tax problem.
Two points here, first there's a lot of talk about having a means test to help solve the Social Security and Medicare problem. That means if you make above a certain level you would not receive the benefits. Fine but if you've paid into the system your whole life and it's for a guaranteed benefit, not simply an income tax and then when you retire you happen to be lucky enough to have retirement income above that level you get nothing? I'm not one of those people but that's certainly not fair at all. If they're going to do that then the person should at least get their SS and Medicare tax money back don't you think? Otherwise it's just another political lie, the SS and Medicare money is in fact just more income tax.
Second is the Warren Buffet argument about the rich should at least pay the same tax rate as his secretary. That's totally and completely bogus. The rich get a lot if not most of their income from investments. Investments are bought with after tax money. This is why a good argument can be made that investment income should not be taxed at all. Warren Buffet or anybody else still has some earned income and that income is taxed at the highest rate, much higher than his secretary unless she's making over 300K or so. His after tax investment income is taxed at the much lower cap gains or qualified dividend rates because he's already paid taxes on that money so investment income is really double taxed and that's what most people don't understand.
In my opinion the real problem is government overspending and waste, fraud and abuse.
Bob
Quote:
If they're going to do that then the person should at least get their SS and Medicare tax money back don't you think? Otherwise it's just another political lie, the SS and Medicare money is in fact just more income tax.
No more so than paying health insurance and never needing a major procedure.. the money goes into the pool for those who need it. It was not meant to be a retirement savings plan, it was a social safety net, therefore more like insurance than tax.
just another point of view
I do agree though, without the waste and abuse there should be plenty of money in there.
A subject I have had great interest. I haven't listened to it as yet but I would like to offer some of my own understanding on this issues in point form. In the 1700's there was a European family called the Rothchilds. A father Baron von Rothchild who had 5 sons who were bankers. They were goldsmiths/moneylenders/moneychangers. They understood that monies (gold) they held, supposedly in trust, was never demanded a 100% back at the same time. This brought about the term fractional reserve banking. In his wisdom he sent a son to England, Italy, Spain, Austria, and Germany. Very wisely they named their banks, for example the Bank of England to give the people a false sense. By 1865 the country of England was in debt to the Bank of England or the Rothchilds. I believe the Rothchild's are probably owners of the Federal Reserve. JFK was trying to change the 1913 law when he was assassinated. Case in point if you think Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, google Sir Evelyn Rothchild IF YOU CAN STILL FIND IT, you will find he was worth $100Trillion in 2001! I believe there is something wrong in our system, and usually with any problem follow the money. Just my 2 cents worth. Dennis
I watched a Charlie Rose (PBS) interview of a guy who runs a company that handles Teachers Pensions etc in the US. His company was named Water-something or other. He has made billions for his share holders while the other banks were getting TARPED out.
He didn't have any encouraging optimism about our money "machine," as he called it. The politics side of the equation hasn't even discussed what the "machine" is and how it functions, let alone a solution to solve the leveraging that is frozen.
He basically said that if they don't know how the machine works in the first place, how are they going to solve the problem? Scary coming from a guy who knows the beesknees.
Trax
Also: he said that we are heading toward a time when the jobs will not be done with laborers. He was afraid of the social impact of that. What will people do when they don't have to actually labor at their job anymore? He thinks there will be unrest here in the good ol US of A. That was an attention grabber of a statement.
Quote:
No more so than paying health insurance and never needing a major procedure.. the money goes into the pool for those who need it. It was not meant to be a retirement savings plan, it was a social safety net, therefore more like insurance than tax.
SS has been a defined benefit retirement plan for over 30 years now, nothing to do with insurance. True it wasn't originally designed that way but that is ancient history. Defined benefit is what all the protesting was about in Wisconsin earlier this year by all the public employee unions. That means they promise you by law that you will receive a set amount each month once you retire according to a simple formula. Anyone over 50 gets those SS benefit statements every year and while they're not accurate to the last dollar, they are pretty close projections as to what you will receive. Contrast that to what most people have now, a defined contribution 401K plan. That means your employer guarantees they will match either 100% or a percentage of what you decide to put into their retirement plan each year. No guarantees as to what the eventual monthly payout will be, that is decided by the market the funds are invested in. Defined benefit plans are a recipe for disaster as we're seeing now because when people retire at a time when the plans have lost 20-30% or more due to the economy there's not enough cash in the system to pay all the current retirees.
For the most part the only defined benefit retirement plans left are for government employees, including Congress and Social Security. I hate to say it because it's really gonna suck eventually but we just can't afford those types of plans any more which is why very few large private employers still have them.
Bob
there's an old hypothetical question that tends to show up in college level "ethics" classes:
Imagine you are at the switch of a railroad track, able to divert an oncoming train in one of two directions. The train is out of control and can't be stopped. Both sections of track run through congested areas with pedestrians on the track. No matter which direction you divert the train, people will die. However, the number of deaths is smaller in one direction than the other. What do you do? Most people opt to accept the smaller disaster in order to avoid the large one.
Social security is a train running out of control, and people are definitely going to get hurt. In my opinion the Terry Schiavo case set the stage for solving the social security mess. The court ruled that institutions get to decide when quality of life is diminished sufficiently to terminate life.
The next step will be a cleverly named "Compassionate Conclusions" or "Death with Dignity" law that makes assisted suicide and mercy killing not only legal but socially encouraged as being "the right thing to do"
That way the people who are left will be spared the oncoming train, and the huge wave of boomers who are about to suck up all the money in retirement benefits can be quietly disposed of. And the people doing it will feel GOOD about it!
Problem solved.
My FaceBook post...
Quote:
A little over a hundred years ago, politicians decided that the Constitution was too confining for them. They knew better than the founding fathers what was best for us. They created a government that used the Constitution, when convenient, and ignored it when they thought they knew better. Today, we are witnessing the fruits of their labors. How's that workin' out America?
Part of what they "knew better" was the giving of our country to the Federal Reserve"
Quote:
"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." --President Woodrow Wilson (The president whose administration passed the Federal Reserve Act)
Interesting stuff. I understand the purpose of SS got changed along the way, but if we can't afford it, as Pat mentioned, hard choices will follow.I know people who truly need their SS check each month, and others using it to buy a new 'vette (since it is just extra money coming in). If it is coming down to running out of SS money, maybe it needs to be changed again. That's all I was getting at. Those who will scream if we change it now will only be replaced by those who scream when it's forced later and I think a better need would be met if it was 'adjusted' a bit based on need, assuming it will run out. Believe me, I understand they paid in and feel entitled to get it back, as I hopefully will some day too (I get those 'estimated statements' you mentioned).. but if it needs to change in order to sustain it, let's not wait until it's too late. I have never looked at the numbers myself to see IF it is sustainable currently.
I've seen a documentary, (forget by who) that shows a warehouse probably twice the size of a football field, filled with rows & rows of filing cabinets. The ONLY thing in these cabinets are IOU's from congress to the SS fund. They have spent every dime of the fund on their pet projects.
Everything I've read says there's no problem in the near future (say 15 years or so) and anybody over 50 has nothing to worry about, their benefits or current benefits going out now will not change. Longer term than that however and it's a problem. The bigger problem is how to get the average person to realize their long term retirement is up to them. The thing with so many people is they simply don't make enough money to start a long term savings plan in their 20'a or early 30's. That's when money is tightest, they just got married, they start having kids and most of us know how much that all costs. If a young person is smart enough to get a useful professional degree great but most don't have that or if they do have some kind of degree is a useless one like lib arts, psych, music (I know, I hate to say that but it's true). Or, they have no higher ed at all so where are they supposed to get any money to start saving? It's nice to lecture young people and all that but everybody knows that doesn't work. If some money isn't taken out right at the source forget it, it will just get spent and that's it. That's why even though I'm pretty conservative and I know the Republicans fought the whole idea of Social Security tooth and nail back in the day, it's completely necessary. Without it a whole lot of people will be screwed 30 years from now.
Mick, I doubt there's any warehouse like that but you're right about one thing, there never was any kind of "trust fund". That was simply a term the politicians used to sell the idea just like during the Bush/Gore campaign when Gore was talking about the SS lockbox. No lockbox, never was.
Bob
will somebody who isn't involved in this discussion write down the names of those who are so you can look back a year from now and see if we've all had mysterious accidents?
You're being silly Pat Ma .. .. ...*dropped signal*
Quote:
Interesting topic; I'll take a crack at it. And won't get into politics:
Your example of the world's banks is in fact well known - why else would US and Canadian banks be worried about the welfare of European banks? This isn't a hypothesis - it's reality.
There are more possibilities:
Virtually every country that has a semblance of democracy, has realized that monopolies don't serve the country or the people well. Consequently, they have enacted anti-monopoly laws (anti-trust in the US).
The financial interests of companies/corporations are best served if they have a monopoly. By the same token, this isn't in the interests of the general population of the country as it limits competition which we pretty all believe is a good thing for society.
If companies weren't involved in creating monopolies (or groups of monopolies) the legislation wouldn't have been required. My naivety level is low enough that I know they are still attempting to create monopolies one way or another.
Background - interesting reading - I had no idea the concept has been around this long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
Glenn
Indeed. Democracy is in direction opposition to capitalism.
Unfortunately what we have is neither democracy nor capitalism, it's an oligarchy run by 1% of the population, the 1% that owns 25% of the money and would like to steal even more from you and I.
Quote:
Unfortunately what we have is neither democracy nor capitalism, it's an oligarchy run by 1% of the population, the 1% that owns 25% of the money and would like to steal even more from you and I.
I read 35% but not to quibble. You are exactly right. In 1975 the top 1% only controlled 9% of the wealth. It's not our imaginations. Things ARE getting worse.
There will always be a top 1% (duh) but the troubling thing is the ever widening gap.
Quote:
Unfortunately what we have is neither democracy nor capitalism, it's an oligarchy run by 1% of the population, the 1% that owns 25% of the money and would like to steal even more from you and I.
Thank you Notes, this post is the reason I started this thread but I didn't want to raise this point myself. True enough, the top 1% of either individuals or organizations do have a growing disproprotionate percentage of wealth in the world but what I want to know is exactly how does that effect you and your business Notes? Exactly what mechanism is being used to steal from you personally and how much do you think was stolen from you last year?
I'm posing this question to Rubberball, Mick and Glenn too. Not starting a flame war or anything like that it's just you guys seem to agree with the "Occupy Wall Street" movement and I'm trying to understand what they and you really want and what you're really protesting against.
Capitalism is what allows you to make a living Notes. It's what provides all us regular folks with jobs. Sure there's plenty of capilist crooks around but still, what exactly do you guys want to happen or think should happen?
Bob
We all gotta have something to gripe about (or was that "something to believe in"?).
All I know is that I would far rather trust in Capitalists, who rather benefit from having me a healthy, paying customer, than in Government, where I'm just another mouth to feed, car on the road, etc.
Capitalists may be leeches, but they aren't snakes. I'll take my chances with the leeches...and don't sit too close or I just might latch on to you, LOL!
Capitalism doesn’t allow Notes to make a living, Notes is able to make a living because he supplies a service that is appreciated by enough people. Supply and demand, which has nothing to do with Capitalism. Capitalism means something different to everybody, so it is not easy to discuss it without a proper definition. When most people talk about Capitalism today they mean global finance, with all its shortcomings. The only common denominator between Capitalism and honest work is money. Unfortunately Capitalism, like Socialism and Communism has got out of hand. They were all good ideas at the start, but somehow got derailed by greedy power grabbing people. We are heading for a situation where the financial institutions are so powerful as to be able to dictate money policy and therefore control the markets to their own ends, which will definitely be to most people’s disadvantage. The day money became a comodity in its own right and no longer just a means of payment, was the start of a general shift of power from the elected bodies to the private sector. They have the dollar and the pound stitched up and now they are going for the euro. There are no longer any checks and balances on the global financial system. You can see how all the European governments are helpless in the face of the attack on the euro. I think that people are starting to realise that it is now or never to get some form of control back from the private to the elected systems. If that doesn’t happen then our children’s children can look forward to a life of slavery. I think that cressjl is confusing hard working business people, who maybe make a lot of money but supply a value in return, with Capitalists. There is nothing wrong with money, the problem starts when the system that controls it is greedy and is out for world dominance.
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortunately what we have is neither democracy nor capitalism, it's an oligarchy run by 1% of the population, the 1% that owns 25% of the money and would like to steal even more from you and I.
Thank you Notes, this post is the reason I started this thread but I didn't want to raise this point myself. True enough, the top 1% of either individuals or organizations do have a growing disproprotionate percentage of wealth in the world but what I want to know is exactly how does that effect you and your business Notes? Exactly what mechanism is being used to steal from you personally and how much do you think was stolen from you last year?
I'm posing this question to Rubberball, Mick and Glenn too. Not starting a flame war or anything like that it's just you guys seem to agree with the "Occupy Wall Street" movement and I'm trying to understand what they and you really want and what you're really protesting against.
Capitalism is what allows you to make a living Notes. It's what provides all us regular folks with jobs. Sure there's plenty of capilist crooks around but still, what exactly do you guys want to happen or think should happen?
Bob
Good question
Quote:
I'm posing this question to Rubberball, Mick and Glenn too. Not starting a flame war or anything like that it's just you guys seem to agree with the "Occupy Wall Street" movement and I'm trying to understand what they and you really want and what you're really protesting against.
Nothing could be further from the truth concerning me. I believe in the free market. The "free" market. The one that the government stays the hell out of.
As far as who has what wealth??? I couldn't care less. I create my own wealth. Always have - always will. The "man" doesn't have his foot on my neck. I am NOT a victim.
As a side note...
There is this notion, among many, that there is this "one pie" & a small group of people have most of it.
The only way they could have gotten so much of it is by screwing every one they come in contact with.
There is not one pie. There are as many pies as there are people. We create our own.
Every time we do or create something of value, we create wealth that didn't exist before.
Good answer Mick and I guess I misunderstood you earlier.
Bob
Money=power. Always has. The more money you can make off other people's work the more power you have. The more power, the more you can make off them. AND, if you can get 99% of the people who make you rich think that's good, you have really got them beat.
Quote:
The more money you can make off other people's work the more power you have. The more power, the more you can make off them. AND, if you can get 99% of the people who make you rich think that's good, you have really got them beat.
If all those greedy bastards stopped accepting jobs, this tyranny would end. ROTFL!!!
Excellent point Mick.
No greedy bastards = NO JOBS!
More greedy bastards = MORE JOBS!
I vote for more greedy bastards so the other 99% of us will have jobs.
It's so simple you'd think even a first grader would understand it, but it still appears to be lost on a large percentage of people.
Quote:
I vote for more greedy bastards so the other 99% of us will have jobs.
Either ways it works, but what I was actually referring to were the greedy workers who only take jobs to line their own pockets! They're only out for themselves.... Making a living at the expense of the poor unemployed.
Quote:
Quote:
I vote for more greedy bastards so the other 99% of us will have jobs.
Either ways it works, but what I was actually referring to were the greedy workers who only take jobs to line their own pockets! They're only out for themselves.... Making a living at the expense of the poor unemployed.
Good one Mick . . . now you got me on the floor!
Later,
Quote:
More greedy bastards = MORE JOBS!
More greedy bastards = MORE JOBS!-- LESS PAY!!
Quote:
Quote:
More greedy bastards = MORE JOBS!
More greedy bastards = MORE JOBS!-- LESS PAY!!
Does not the free market dictate pay levels in relationship to one's individual skills/education/training/experience and market demand?
Either way what's the alternartive . . . Less greedy bastards = NO JOBS!-- NO PAY!!
Later,
Quote:
will somebody who isn't involved in this discussion write down the names of those who are so you can look back a year from now and see if we've all had mysterious accidents?
amen!!
i've been thinking the same thing and not sure even that's safe
discussions like this tend to be polarizing because each possibility is flawed. There are problems with capitalism, and there are also problems with socialism.
Rational decision making starts with the acknowledgement that there is no perfect solution, and then proceeds to weigh the pros and cons of each so the least cost, max benefit approach can be pursued.
Historically, capitalistic societies tend to produce the highest standard of living for the most people. Compare the standard of living between North and South Korea, and it becomes apparent pretty quickly that the South Koreans are living better than the north koreans.