CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
Marinejuana wrote:
As long as you have an economic system with such a low level of legitimacy, you can never expect the lower classes to rise from poverty, whether they are black, white, mexican or whatever, anybody that does is just the lucky minority.
so what do you actually propose as an alternative economic system that would fix said ills you quote?
transparent, publicly-owned or debtless currency--as opposed to a network of privately owned central banks that control the world's credit.
cptspaulding wrote:
by the way, it seems that you have animosity towards corporations and perhaps CEOs. i wonder how you feel about movie stars, popular musicians, and sports stars in that they often make incredible amounts of money - so much so in fact that they are way up there in the upper-class economically, yet produce actually nothing of value. One may argue that a CEO can make decisions that affect whether the company makes/breaks a profit. in case making a 100 million dollar profit, why not award him some sort of beneift seeing as how the company (and its shareholders benefit from this). perhaps you are against even the concept of shareholders to begin with.
where do you think the money comes from for our mass media? advertisements from other big spenders, where else? if you look for the answer to this question you will eventually discover that all money is created in the form of loans with no initial principal issued by the federal reserve. the fed is a corporation and it has private stockholders. when it issues a loan, the principal is taken out of thin air, but the shareholders, whose names are not public, keep the interest. since they began this scheme, they have generated about 50% of the worlds wealth in the form of interest since 1913. they dump money on any industry they choose, including entertainment, the authentic opiate of our masses. most of the people we recognize as "rich" are not actually very powerful because any of their monetary assets could be cut 100 fold as a consequence of banking decisions made at the highest levels of power (simply spending piled up fortunes, doubling the liquid money supply, and fractionally reducing the buying power of anyone (most people) on a fixed or almost fixed income). if u are the shareholder for the CIS (I'm sure nobody here is) and, with maybe 100 others, have access to 80% of the worlds gold, then you become a threat because your personal decisions can result in the restructing of billions of peoples lives. there is no reason why we should submit to living under the barrel of a veritable monetary gun. but we do, because none of you even know that there is a problem.
i have no problem with shareholders, in fact, i think the primary solution to a lot of the world's problems is to guarantee all workers in a corporation a "fair" share. its correct that some people deserve to earn more than others, and competition, barring the complete destruction of the majority of players, is generally a good thing. but our corporations will literally outsource and pay the workers one millionth of the chief officers. as long as this kind of blatant robbery and dehumanization is possible, you will never have low crime or an educated populace. you instead will have poverty, desperation, terrorism, unemployment, etc. and today most americans are scared of QoL improving in other countries, because we think that it will inevitably mean less for "us". In fact, you could take from only 0.1% of the world and improve life for everyone else, including many of "us," or the US middle-upper class (to generalize about this forum).
and you can name success stories all you want. there were rich, famous black people even during slavery. it doesnt change the fact that despite all the "progress" our culture claims, the gap between rich and poor constantly widens. if you live at the top in our culture, then even today, you have slaves. they dont live in a shack on YOUR property, just all over the third world. we dont pay them any more now than we did when payment meant a shed and bowls of slop. if there was some kind of addition to our constitution that set forth a kind of, inevitably subjective, line, in terms of disparity of income, the world could literally be happier for 90+% of the people. This would simply be a minimum wage that automatically corrects for market growth based on the range of disparity. If people were guaranteed they couldn't make less than 1% of the richest people, then poverty would be rare relegated only to those that cant or wont find charity. capital would be dispersed, so new businesses could start, rather than the constant slide of businesses giving way to corporations. maybe we wouldnt have a handful of corporations raising our teens with gangsta rap and shit reality shows if our communities accumulated natural wealth and we could afford to spend the time with them, exposing them to
real culture like we always have for up to millions of years depending on where u want to draw the phylogenetic line.
ctpspaulding wrote:
i disagree with your assertion that the top is an 'evil entity' that keeps people down. my contention is that a great many of them fall into two categories. old money and new money. The old money people inherited their wealth (Hiltons, Rockerfellers, Vanderbilts, Astors, etc) and the new money people (Gates, Mark Cuban, Yahoo founders, etc) made their money in the internet boom. How is it that these people have kept you personally down? how do they keep inner city youth down and prevent these people from attaining their own wealth?
yes, new money and old money, and both comprised of different families making different decisions. some are pirates, some could be heroes. most of the new money is relatively powerless, they live very well, but they dont own the bank and its mathematically impossible for them to get there. i have no problem with people that are elite and I don't feel they should be held back. all im saying is that the people at the top shouldnt be allowed to rob the people at the bottom. if you want a "free" market, then the only way this freedom can "trickle down" to the socio-economic lower class is to ensure that there is no monopoly great enough for the gross manipulation in value (by supply and demand) of small fortunes. u dont have to commit any current crime to make a town starve. just use a massive scale monopoly like walmart to undercut all the prices in town for a decade or two, this coinciding with the bankers issuing a big chuck of loans out of nothing to maybe the same corporations, and then as prices to consumers inflate (with the typical "business cycle" caused by central bankers moving money), consumers in the town have no choice but to starve or buy at walmart. then as all the other businesses shut down, the people will have already lost their several sources of trade, and the average folks living check to check will instantly starve if the people controlling walmart decide it wont be cost effective to send the trucks to their bumfuck town for a period. our dependence on the monolithic owners of world/long distance trade ensure our fundamental lack of freedom. for many people in our country, either water comes out when you turn the tap, or they take your money and give you food at the grocery, or u drive 200 miles on your tank of gas and either find food or starve.
and youre assertion that i have been held down is incorrect. i come from mercer island, washington. the world is my oyster. i get paid just fine, maybe just enough that i have the luxury of earnest thought. theres no chip on my shoulder, just a sense of justice. and we are all about equally at risk given the present monetary system. even if you consider yourself pretty rich, these matters should concern you.
cptspaulding wrote:
i find it hard to believe your beliefs that the 'system' is designed to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. i just do not see real life examples that back up this claim. i'm all ears if you have links from unbiased sources that back up your claims.
just go look up "worldwide disparity of wealth" and ask yourself how it came to be that some people own nearly all of the worlds currency and wealth before the products are even made, and have collected interest on literally all US economic growth since 1913 (federal reserve act)? did those people just work a billion times harder? its really quite simple, they own the money before it ever enters the money supply. and that means they own the working mans labor and future way of life before he even gets to work in the morning.
because the media, including the publishers of your high school textbooks, are owned by the same interests, its really no wonder that you haven't heard anything about it. instead you've been taught that the world today is a product of free market forces where the poor are simply not able to make themselves useful enough with all the rapid advances in human resource production.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe
soon you will all be converted to devout environmentalism and will consent to living under otherwise-typical soviet-style communism as your service to the planet. all along you will believe there was no alternative and that is why its going to work. u already own none of the land that feeds you, and many of you probably dont actually own the home you are living in. you are just waiting for the bankers to call in the loans on our lifestyle, inherent in our dollars. just dont look back a decade from now, or what-have-you and say "we had no warning." you did. but you chose to rationalize your way out of an uncomfortable thought like most people do.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-06-25 22:27:33)
