Distribution of Wealth in US

[Igor82]

If true, this is midblowing. Came across and had to share!



I'm also certain this is true for Europe and globally.

(and yes, i understand the irony of my signature )

 

[weesie]

That is fascinating............. Um....... not gonna say where I am.......

I don't think it goes low enough..... j/k

 

[LaHutti]

Thanks for posting this Igor.

Yes...mindblowingly frightening to think that a "democracy" works like that, isn't it ?
We are always told that democracy means, that the majority sets the rules....this makes it very obvious that it isn't so. Democracy simply means that money sets the rules, not the majority of people.

Why is it, that 99% of people accept to work for nothing, while filling the pockets of the top 1%, in a so called democracy, eh ?
Not only that, but when the shit hits the fan and the money people causes a financial crisis like we see these years, the 99% is paying for it, bending over, taking it from behind, simply because they are the majority, and is told that the majority has to pay.

Truly mind blowing, Wake up peoples

 

[dunover]

It fails to say that ALL of the 54tn was created by free market and capitalism - if this is an argument for socialism or tax reform it's pretty poor. Even Marx's dialectic accepted the need for a free market to create the wealth needed to fund socialism. So, you have an 'unfairly distributed' 54tn. With socialism you'd have a 'fairly distributed' maybe 5tn. I remember in politics back in the late 80's being told that the USA has a population in excess of the whole of the UK's living below what we call here the poverty line. Responsible capitalism. yes. Socialism. no. Socialism doesn't create anything except dependency. The only countries who have had a long-term social-economic policy without going broke are Sweden and Norway, simply due to vast natural resources in relation to their population. For most countries this is a path to failure.

Margaret Thatcher - "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money."

 

[weesie]

 

[LaHutti]

Include Denmark...Please don't forget, you're talking about 3 of the countries with the strongest economies, in the world

It fails to say that ALL of the 54tn was created by free market and capitalism - if this is an argument for socialism or tax reform it's pretty poor. Even Marx's dialectic accepted the need for a free market to create the wealth needed to fund socialism. So, you have an 'unfairly distributed' 54tn. With socialism you'd have a 'fairly distributed' maybe 5tn. I remember in politics back in the late 80's being told that the USA has a population in excess of the whole of the UK's living below what we call here the poverty line. Responsible capitalism. yes. Socialism. no. Socialism doesn't create anything except dependency. The only countries who have had a long-term social-economic policy without going broke are Sweden and Norway, simply due to vast natural resources in relation to their population. For most countries this is a path to failure.

Margaret Thatcher - "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money."

 

[Andy Walker]

If true, this is midblowing. Came across and had to share!



I'm also certain this is true for Europe and globally.

(and yes, i understand the irony of my signature )

70% of polls are just made up, the rest are conjecture

 

[Andy Walker]

It fails to say that ALL of the 54tn was created by free market and capitalism - if this is an argument for socialism or tax reform it's pretty poor. Even Marx's dialectic accepted the need for a free market to create the wealth needed to fund socialism. So, you have an 'unfairly distributed' 54tn. With socialism you'd have a 'fairly distributed' maybe 5tn. I remember in politics back in the late 80's being told that the USA has a population in excess of the whole of the UK's living below what we call here the poverty line. Responsible capitalism. yes. Socialism. no. Socialism doesn't create anything except dependency. The only countries who have had a long-term social-economic policy without going broke are Sweden and Norway, simply due to vast natural resources in relation to their population. For most countries this is a path to failure.

Margaret Thatcher - "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money."

The link between Sweden and Norway maybe because they virtually speak the same language lol, you should not forget Germany that have far better natural resources, maybe?

 

[LaHutti]

I always thought this quote was quite funny (in a kind of sad way):
Margaret Thatcher - "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money."

She, as many others (especially those who are well off), forgot that without the bottom 99% working their asses off, the top 1% would have nothing!

 

[Andy Walker]

I always thought this quote was quite funny (in a kind of sad way):
Margaret Thatcher - "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money."

She, as many others (especially those who are well off), forgot that without the bottom 99% working their asses off, the top 1% would have nothing!

She was a rather funny addition to the UK, the concept of selling off publically owned entities to the private sector without the people that paid taxes towards them getting any return, pretty much paying into a pot you could no longer piss in?

 

[vinylweatherman]

She was a rather funny addition to the UK, the concept of selling off publically owned entities to the private sector without the people that paid taxes towards them getting any return, pretty much paying into a pot you could no longer piss in?

I remember those days. Billed as selling the assets to the ordinary people, it turned out that every time it was the "ordinary people" that had their requests drastically scaled back because the big institutions had already reserved a huge chunk for themselves with the agreement and connivance of the government. I did at least manage to "piss in a few of these pots" before the big institutions took them away, and did quite well. I avoided the BP selloff, and it turned out to be one hell of an expensive flop, so the big institutions did at least once get their just desserts.

The problem with this was that they were all deliberately sold at below the market value, so for the big insitutions, it was virtually a no lose scenario, but they played up the risks so that the government caved in to their demands. Had the ordinary people been given what they had asked for, with institutions only getting what was left over, it would have been of far more benefit to ordinary people, and many would have ended up with decent holdings, making them more likely to have kept them for the longer term. Instead, many ended up with such small holdings that keeping them long term just wasn't viable, and the companies themselves suffered as they still had to treat their million plus small shareholders the same as the big ones, which meant an obligation to send them all the weighty documents such as annual reports, AGM notices, etc. The result was an active campaign designed to persuade small shareholders to sell off their holdings, with the result that soon the whole lot was back in the hands of the big institutions, who then started making the serious money from it.

It's about to happen again, the Royal Mail is being "privatised" soon. As before, the best way for the masses to make money is to subscribe, and then almost immediately sell them on to a big institution. This will work provided that the government again prices them "to go" for political reasons, rather than at close to market value.

 

[shoust]

I always thought this quote was quite funny (in a kind of sad way):
Margaret Thatcher - "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money."

She, as many others (especially those who are well off), forgot that without the bottom 99% working their asses off, the top 1% would have nothing!

Neither would the 99%