You work your butt off, and a rich dude does nothing and gets rich - how?

[Ozziecoin]

Please provide your best explain.  Mine is here: My explain (read before commenting or providing your explanation)



USA

Look at your money supply, USA. Wow! All those extra dollars, making Donald Trump feel justified in telling you how to live your life and to be like him.



Can debt rise faster than wages forever?  Only Keynesian and Monetarist economists think so.  


Europe

Don't laugh at our Americans friends, my European friends. Look at all these extra dollars the European banking system and the ECB has created:



This is why you had such a nice time leading up to the GFC.  Now, your Governments realise it is crazy to let debt expand uncontrollably.  Unfortunately, this is causing a lot of pain and misery for the 99%.  


China

This is not a Western Economic issue.  The big gap between rich and poor also exists in China.  Look at this:



This is a rigged system to my eyes.

[1714026315]

1714026315

[1714026315]

1714026315

[1714026315]

1714026315

[1714026315]

1714026315

[beatljuice]

The basic premises of your argument are good because creating money (fractional reserve) does take value away in general, but it in no way takes the full percentage created.

Fiat currency has value for the same reason Bitcoin has value - because people use it.

No, one bank doesn't create 90% of what it lends. The effect is cumulative as banks borrow on money that was borrowed on money that was borrowed.

So, while the bank may create a lot of money through using a fractional reserve - as that money is used it gains value just like it does for Bitcoin. That's why we won't see explosive inflation on the US dollar anytime soon because the US dollar has a lot of intrinsic value based on the fact that almost everyone on Earth will accept it as payment.

This doesn't mean I don't think the dollar is in serious trouble, just that the "crash" won't be as dramatic as some alarmists would like you to believe.

[Ozziecoin]

The basic premises of your argument are good because creating money (fractional reserve) does take value away in general, but it in no way takes the full percentage created.

Fiat currency has value for the same reason Bitcoin has value - because people use it.

No, one bank doesn't create 90% of what it lends. The effect is cumulative as banks borrow on money that was borrowed on money that was borrowed.

Sorry to burst your bubble here bud:

Lehman held $373 billion of "net assets" and a "net leverage ratio" of 16.1  As in they retained 6.25% in equity in the best case scenario.

The UK banks have a leverage ratio of less than 3% as of last month (April 2014).  As in they retained less than 3% in equity.

The banks DO NOT CARE what are in deposits.  They are lending out MORE than 90% of what they take in as deposits. Moreover, by creating loans they are creating their own deposits:

Lord Adair Turner, formally the UK's chief financial regulator, said "Banks do not, as too many textbooks still suggest, take deposits of existing money from savers and lend it out to borrowers: they create credit and money ex nihilo – extending a loan to the borrower and simultaneously crediting the borrower’s money account".

I think it's important to understand that the money supply is being inflated to high heaven and that asset prices are being pushed up as a consequence.  

We are not talking about hyperinflation, we are talking about theft in day light.

See the M3 growth for your own country here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/

[trashymonkey]

Poor people work for their money, rich people have their money work for them.


And that is the way of the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[the joint]

Taking a devil's advocate position, if we consider your argument to be true then it's implied that one solution for poor people is take out loans.  The incentive for doing so would be to obtain money to purchase property and/or assets that will appreciate in value.  When it comes time to repay the loan, the amount owed will be less valuable than the property/assets you bought. 

This happens all the time.  This is how businesses are created, how college degrees are obtained, etc.

I think you're mistakenly identifying the fractional reserve system as the most significant cause behind the (very general) problem of increasing gross wealth disparity.  Sure, fractional reserve banking inflates the money supply, but competition (whether it's fair or unfair/illegal) and greed are more direct causes of gross wealth disparity than the appreciation in value of 'idle' property/assets (i.e. not a business; perhaps a home or a gold bar).  In the unlikely event that I go to sleep tonight and wake up tomorrow morning to a totally altruistic world, I have a feeling that much of that wealth disparity would disappear rather quickly (e.g. rich people might donate to the poor or work for free, hospitals and medicines from pharmaceutical companies would be at low or no-cost, etc.). 

[Ron~Popeil]

Taking a devil's advocate position, if we consider your argument to be true then it's implied that one solution for poor people is take out loans.  The incentive for doing so would be to obtain money to purchase property and/or assets that will appreciate in value.  When it comes time to repay the loan, the amount owed will be less valuable than the property/assets you bought. 

This happens all the time.  This is how businesses are created, how college degrees are obtained, etc.

I think you're mistakenly identifying the fractional reserve system as the most significant cause behind the (very general) problem of increasing gross wealth disparity.  Sure, fractional reserve banking inflates the money supply, but competition (whether it's fair or unfair/illegal) and greed are more direct causes of gross wealth disparity than the appreciation in value of 'idle' property/assets (i.e. not a business; perhaps a home or a gold bar).  In the unlikely event that I go to sleep tonight and wake up tomorrow morning to a totally altruistic world, I have a feeling that much of that wealth disparity would disappear rather quickly (e.g. rich people might donate to the poor or work for free, hospitals and medicines from pharmaceutical companies would be at low or no-cost, etc.). 

It is a combination of fractional reserve and crony capitalism. Competition is never a bad thing. Competition on a government induced tilted playing field is a disaster for 90% of us. 

[Ozziecoin]

Taking a devil's advocate position, if we consider your argument to be true then it's implied that one solution for poor people is take out loans.  The incentive for doing so would be to obtain money to purchase property and/or assets that will appreciate in value.  When it comes time to repay the loan, the amount owed will be less valuable than the property/assets you bought.  

This happens all the time.  This is how businesses are created, how college degrees are obtained, etc.

I think you're mistakenly identifying the fractional reserve system as the most significant cause behind the (very general) problem of increasing gross wealth disparity.  Sure, fractional reserve banking inflates the money supply, but competition (whether it's fair or unfair/illegal) and greed are more direct causes of gross wealth disparity than the appreciation in value of 'idle' property/assets (i.e. not a business; perhaps a home or a gold bar).  In the unlikely event that I go to sleep tonight and wake up tomorrow morning to a totally altruistic world, I have a feeling that much of that wealth disparity would disappear rather quickly (e.g. rich people might donate to the poor or work for free, hospitals and medicines from pharmaceutical companies would be at low or no-cost, etc.).  

Hey Devil's advocate, nice to have you here. Glad we have lawyer types in here to defend Satan.

And here is why I think FRB IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CAUSE BEHIND WEALTH DISPARITY:

1. You are the Queen of England - you do nothing - you don't even sell property.  You become far wealthier than everyone.

2. Above applies to every land owning aristocrat/businessman/realtor.  

3. Some smart guys realise the system is COMPLETELY RIGGED.  What do you do?  You borrow HEAPS OF MONEY, you start XYZ Hedge Fund and you buy any kind of asset for the heck of it.  You look smart doing it and get tons of bonuses and profit.  Everyone thinks you're a hero until M3 collapses. Then everyone thinks you're an idiot.  But hey, you're rich.

4. Some other dumb people with no college degree happen to work in real estate.  Wow, they get rich because they get a cut of every transaction!!!  They look smart but actually they're just average.  

5. Other dumb people work in banking and get cheap loans and have "good careers" in banking.  They become successful and respected in society. Whilst nurses, engineers, firemen, teachers, computer programmers and FAST FOOD WORKERS all struggle to keep up with the cost of living.

6. Smart engineers, physicists and mathematicians are co-opted into the banking system to design financial algorithms that benefit the 1%.

So yeah. I blame FRB.  The finance sector as a percentage of the US economy has increased from less than 3% to over 7%.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/14/389487/financial-sector-gdp-recession/

According to the latest data from the Commerce Department, the financial sector now accounts for 8.4 percent of the United States’ Gross Domestic Product, “eclipsing the peak it hit in 2006.” In the 1950s, the financial sector accounted for less than 3 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, financial firms are once again making more than 30 percent of all corporate profits in the U.S.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/financialization-as-a-cause-of-economic-malaise/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

According to a new article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives by the Harvard Business School professors Robin Greenwood and David Scharfstein, financial services rose as a share of G.D.P. to 8.3 percent in 2006 from 2.8 percent in 1950 and 4.9 percent in 1980. The following table is taken from their article.

[twiifm]

This wacko again?  Someone should lock this dude OzzieCoin in a box and throw away the key

[Ozziecoin]

This wacko again?  Someone should lock this dude OzzieCoin in a box and throw away the key

Adding anything to the explanation mate or just here to say hi?

[Ozziecoin]

Aussies, see our money supply getting blown up:

[superresistant]

If you are smart, you should know that the system is rigged and exploit its flaws.

Cryptocurrency is the chance of our life.

I started with nothing in cryptos and my wealth is now going to the moon at the speed of light.
Cryptoworld is a land with no regulation and no rich people or politics to interfere.

You should stop trying to find excuses to the past and act now to change your destiny.

[boraf]

Poor people work for their money, rich people have their money work for them.


And that is the way of the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That is the main feature of capitalism.

If society organized itself to value labor more, it will be called "laborism".

[BitcoinBobbeh]

Poor people work for their money, rich people have their money work for them.


And that is the way of the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That is the main feature of capitalism.

If society organized itself to value labor more, it will be called "laborism".

Read Rich Dad Poor Dad.

It's kinda gimmicky but if you're young it helps you understand so many basic economic principles.

Create assets.

[Ozziecoin]

If you are smart, you should know that the system is rigged and exploit its flaws.

Cryptocurrency is the chance of our life.

I started with nothing in cryptos and my wealth is now going to the moon at the speed of light.
Cryptoworld is a land with no regulation and no rich people or politics to interfere.

You should stop trying to find excuses to the past and act now to change your destiny.

This people - pay attention!  Please 

[the joint]

Taking a devil's advocate position, if we consider your argument to be true then it's implied that one solution for poor people is take out loans.  The incentive for doing so would be to obtain money to purchase property and/or assets that will appreciate in value.  When it comes time to repay the loan, the amount owed will be less valuable than the property/assets you bought. 

This happens all the time.  This is how businesses are created, how college degrees are obtained, etc.

I think you're mistakenly identifying the fractional reserve system as the most significant cause behind the (very general) problem of increasing gross wealth disparity.  Sure, fractional reserve banking inflates the money supply, but competition (whether it's fair or unfair/illegal) and greed are more direct causes of gross wealth disparity than the appreciation in value of 'idle' property/assets (i.e. not a business; perhaps a home or a gold bar).  In the unlikely event that I go to sleep tonight and wake up tomorrow morning to a totally altruistic world, I have a feeling that much of that wealth disparity would disappear rather quickly (e.g. rich people might donate to the poor or work for free, hospitals and medicines from pharmaceutical companies would be at low or no-cost, etc.). 

It is a combination of fractional reserve and crony capitalism. Competition is never a bad thing. Competition on a government induced tilted playing field is a disaster for 90% of us. 

Regardless of 'good' or 'bad', competition means there will be winners and losers.  So, competition catalyzes wealth disparity, but the degree to which that disparity exists is mediated in part by fractional reserve banking and crony capitalism.

[CoinRocka]

The basic premises of your argument are good because creating money (fractional reserve) does take value away in general, but it in no way takes the full percentage created.

Fiat currency has value for the same reason Bitcoin has value - because people use it.

No, one bank doesn't create 90% of what it lends. The effect is cumulative as banks borrow on money that was borrowed on money that was borrowed.

Sorry to burst your bubble here bud:

Lehman held $373 billion of "net assets" and a "net leverage ratio" of 16.1  As in they retained 6.25% in equity in the best case scenario.

The UK banks have a leverage ratio of less than 3% as of last month (April 2014).  As in they retained less than 3% in equity.

The banks DO NOT CARE what are in deposits.  They are lending out MORE than 90% of what they take in as deposits. Moreover, by creating loans they are creating their own deposits:

Lord Adair Turner, formally the UK's chief financial regulator, said "Banks do not, as too many textbooks still suggest, take deposits of existing money from savers and lend it out to borrowers: they create credit and money ex nihilo – extending a loan to the borrower and simultaneously crediting the borrower’s money account".

I think it's important to understand that the money supply is being inflated to high heaven and that asset prices are being pushed up as a consequence.  

We are not talking about hyperinflation, we are talking about theft in day light.

See the M3 growth for your own country here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/

I find it very interesting that the countries with the highest debt/GDP ratios are the ones heavily involved in bitcoin:

US
Japan
Singapore
Belgium
Ireland

PLAN "BTC"

[gondel]

Sorry,
but dont really understand this chart the OP posted...
The world is like this: there is rich people and there is poor people..there is no middle point. Everyone who think he is in the middle point is actually poor. Thats it!

BR,
Gondel

[practicaldreamer]

The UK (physically) is largely owned by the same people today as it was in the 19th century.

  Its called being born at the right time and in the right place. Or luck  .

[Ozziecoin]

Sorry,
but dont really understand this chart the OP posted...
The world is like this: there is rich people and there is poor people..there is no middle point. Everyone who think he is in the middle point is actually poor. Thats it!

BR,
Gondel

read this please gondel, http://ozziecoin.com/?page_id=1068

[Ozziecoin]

The UK (physically) is largely owned by the same people today as it was in the 19th century.

  Its called being born at the right time and in the right place. Or luck  .

You're right. I call this aristocracy, not meritocracy.

[boraf]

The UK (physically) is largely owned by the same people today as it was in the 19th century.

  Its called being born at the right time and in the right place. Or luck  .

You're right. I call this aristocracy, not meritocracy.

Society has been operating like this since the beginning of time.

[practicaldreamer]

The UK (physically) is largely owned by the same people today as it was in the 19th century.

  Its called being born at the right time and in the right place. Or luck  .

You're right. I call this aristocracy, not meritocracy.

Society has been operating like this since the beginning of time.

Does that make it right ?

Lets at least start calling it for what it is - a rigged market.

Fighting all these wars in the name of freedom and democracy - don't insult my intelligence.

[nickenburg]

Yeh we are just born in to a world, where only the rich have real changes to get more rich.
There are old families that are trying to get there hands on all the money in the world.
They already have monopoly and we can only play there game is how it feels to me.

If you are smart, you should know that the system is rigged and exploit its flaws.

Cryptocurrency is the chance of our life.

This is how I feel to, they are already replacing people with machine's
Soon they dont need us but with bitcoin we dont need them either.

[boraf]

Yeh we are just born in to a world, where only the rich have real changes to get more rich.
There are old families that are trying to get there hands on all the money in the world.
They already have monopoly and we can only play there game is how it feels to me.

If you are smart, you should know that the system is rigged and exploit its flaws.

Cryptocurrency is the chance of our life.

This is how I feel to, they are already replacing people with machine's
Soon they dont need us but with bitcoin we dont need them either.

The market operates following certain rules. You can exploit the temporary distortion in the market.

The rigging of the system costs the ruling class a great deal money. The 2008 financial crisis is more like shark eating shark rather than shark eating small fish.

Remember, being poor implies you have nothing for them to steal.

[twiifm]

The market operates following certain rules. You can exploit the temporary distortion in the market.

The rigging of the system costs the ruling class a great deal money. The 2008 financial crisis is more like shark eating shark rather than shark eating small fish.

Remember, being poor implies you have nothing for them to steal.

Mo money. Mo problems -- Notorious B.I.G.

[practicaldreamer]

Remember, being poor implies you have nothing for them to steal.

Agreed - being poor means they've already stolen it from you.

[Satan666]

Remember, being poor implies you have nothing for them to steal.

Agreed - being poor means they've already stolen it from you.

People are poor because there's not enough spending.  No spending, no jobs.

Because of the hard 21 million bitcoin limit and no ability to redistribute bitcoin wealth, the Bitcoin economy is doomed.

[twiifm]

The irony is the OP was lucky to be born in Australia.  If you were born in a Third World Country you have no choice but to be poor.

At least in Australia you can work your way up the economic ladder.

[nickenburg]

The irony is the OP was lucky to be born in Australia.  If you were born in a Third World Country you have no choice but to be poor.

At least in Australia you can work your way up the economic ladder.

Yeh but some people are already starting higher on the ladder.
And most people cant even reach the highest point.
And the thirth world country is only there to make you believe you have it good.
So if we believe we shouldnt whine about our situation, because we live in the good part of the world.
And other country's have it so bad im so happy to live here,
We can easily fix those country's but it doesnt happen, and that's one of the reasons.

[Ozziecoin]

The irony is the OP was lucky to be born in Australia.  If you were born in a Third World Country you have no choice but to be poor.

At least in Australia you can work your way up the economic ladder.

No mate. The system here is also loaded up with debt, causing social breakdowns and wealth inequality. The system in the US, UK, Europe, China and Japan is worse because people don't understand FRB and they haven't been selling iron ore to china.

I'm doing my bit to dispel any notions that FRB is meritocracy.  No, FRB is purely aristocracy.

Those new to this thread, please read the first post.

[Ozziecoin]

This is not purely an Australian and American problem my friends.  See Europe's money supply also:



My explanation is here: My explanation

Please provide yours.

[twiifm]

The irony is the OP was lucky to be born in Australia.  If you were born in a Third World Country you have no choice but to be poor.

At least in Australia you can work your way up the economic ladder.

No mate. The system here is also loaded up with debt, causing social breakdowns and wealth inequality. The system in the US, UK, Europe, China and Japan is worse because people don't understand FRB and they haven't been selling iron ore to china.

I'm doing my bit to dispel any notions that FRB is meritocracy.  No, FRB is purely aristocracy.

Those new to this thread, please read the first post.

No the irony is in Cambodia theres a guy saying the same thing about Aussie tourists.  Your idea of "poor" is a gross distortion of reality from the point of view of someone who is actually poor.

What you don't get is that FRB is doesn't cause poverty.  Its not having access to money that keeps people from getting out of poverty.  While you run around ranting about limiting money.  Some poor schmuck in a Third World Country wishes money would flow more freely.

What you really want is to monopolize money because you think rich people don't deserve to be rich.  You're no Robin Hood, you just want to steal from the rich and give it to yourself.

Don't pretend you care about inequality one bit

[Ozziecoin]

I wish twwifm would provide an EXPLANATION to the QUESTION.  But he/she/it can't. All this person ever says is that FRB is not the problem.  We have EVIDENCE!  You have accusations and you sound like a lunatic. I want people to reclaim their money, in an economic system that does not benefit the 1%.

My Chinese friends, I want to share something about what your money supply looks like.  This is not a Western problem but you already knew that.



This is how the the illusion of wealth was created. And if you haven't read it, this is my explanation why: My explanation

All that money has to go somewhere.

[Ron~Popeil]

The irony is the OP was lucky to be born in Australia.  If you were born in a Third World Country you have no choice but to be poor.

At least in Australia you can work your way up the economic ladder.

No mate. The system here is also loaded up with debt, causing social breakdowns and wealth inequality. The system in the US, UK, Europe, China and Japan is worse because people don't understand FRB and they haven't been selling iron ore to china.

I'm doing my bit to dispel any notions that FRB is meritocracy.  No, FRB is purely aristocracy.

Those new to this thread, please read the first post.

No the irony is in Cambodia theres a guy saying the same thing about Aussie tourists.  Your idea of "poor" is a gross distortion of reality from the point of view of someone who is actually poor.

What you don't get is that FRB is doesn't cause poverty.  Its not having access to money that keeps people from getting out of poverty.  While you run around ranting about limiting money.  Some poor schmuck in a Third World Country wishes money would flow more freely.

What you really want is to monopolize money because you think rich people don't deserve to be rich.  You're no Robin Hood, you just want to steal from the rich and give it to yourself.

Don't pretend you care about inequality one bit

It is a world wide problem when your currency is worth less each day. Some people are lucky enough that even at reduced value they still have it pretty good compared to poorer countries. That doesn't make any less of a crime. I will not happily take a punch in the face simply because other people have to take a kick to the groin. It is theft and the more vulnerable you all ready are the more it hurts. 

[twiifm]

I wish twwifm would provide an EXPLANATION to the QUESTION.  But he/she/it can't. All this person ever says is that FRB is not the problem.  We have EVIDENCE!  You have accusations and you sound like a lunatic. I want people to reclaim their money, in an economic system that does not benefit the 1%.

My Chinese friends, I want to share something about what your money supply looks like.  This is not a Western problem but you already knew that.



This is how the the illusion of wealth was created. And if you haven't read it, this is my explanation why: My explanation

All that money has to go somewhere.

You don't have evidence that FRB causes inequality you just have charts that show expansion in money supply.  I'm not going to argue that FRB expands money supply because that's what it does.

You want people to reclaim their money?  What does that even mean?  So you think you are entitled somehow?

OK, heres a different thesis for you since you seem to be interested in econ but you don't really understand the economists you keep name dropping.  Fist, you must forget about your fixation on FRB.

Thomas Piketty just released a book about wealth inequality.  His thesis is that when (R) return on capital exceeds (G) growth, the wealth consolidates because the wealthy make earnings on their capital.  He came  to this conclusion by collecting data over a span of about 200 years and graphed it.  In 19th Cent, (G) was minimal (almost zero) and (R) was about 5%.  Then inequality grew until WW1 & WW2.  These events destroyed capital.  In the period post WW2, we had low (R) and high (G).  The effect of these forces compressed inequality and created  more even distribution of wealth ushering in a larger middle class base.  Then after 1970s to current again we have experience a greater divergence and record high levels of wealth inequality.

Here are the some charts of his research:

[twiifm]

The irony is the OP was lucky to be born in Australia.  If you were born in a Third World Country you have no choice but to be poor.

At least in Australia you can work your way up the economic ladder.

No mate. The system here is also loaded up with debt, causing social breakdowns and wealth inequality. The system in the US, UK, Europe, China and Japan is worse because people don't understand FRB and they haven't been selling iron ore to china.

I'm doing my bit to dispel any notions that FRB is meritocracy.  No, FRB is purely aristocracy.

Those new to this thread, please read the first post.

No the irony is in Cambodia theres a guy saying the same thing about Aussie tourists.  Your idea of "poor" is a gross distortion of reality from the point of view of someone who is actually poor.

What you don't get is that FRB is doesn't cause poverty.  Its not having access to money that keeps people from getting out of poverty.  While you run around ranting about limiting money.  Some poor schmuck in a Third World Country wishes money would flow more freely.

What you really want is to monopolize money because you think rich people don't deserve to be rich.  You're no Robin Hood, you just want to steal from the rich and give it to yourself.

Don't pretend you care about inequality one bit

It is a world wide problem when your currency is worth less each day. Some people are lucky enough that even at reduced value they still have it pretty good compared to poorer countries. That doesn't make any less of a crime. I will not happily take a punch in the face simply because other people have to take a kick to the groin. It is theft and the more vulnerable you all ready are the more it hurts. 

Its only a problem if money inflates when nothing else in the economy does.  It is true that current wage inflation aren't in line w currency inflation.  And thats why people feel pinched.  However, the forces that contribute to this are not solely FRB.  But other macro factors

I have contention w the OPs thesis.  He is basically saying financial capital earns more than labor capital.  I don't disagree w this at all.  What I disagree his he uses this fact to frame an erroneous political agenda.  And then he portrays his crypto "ozziecoin" crypto as solution addressing the problem.  What looks altruistic seems like a off handed way to promote and pump his own ozziecoin

[Ozziecoin]

Where is your explanation Twiifm?  I still don't see one.

Your own charts show that the rich have stayed rich.  

This is what you say yourself:

I'm not going to argue that FRB expands money supply because that's what it does.

It is true that current wage inflation aren't in line w currency inflation.  And thats why people feel pinched.

That's because the money supply is being inflated to high heaven.  And it is showing up in inflation AND rising asset prices.  See London, New York and Beijing!  Are you blind? or just working for the 1%?  This is NOT rocket science.

So, where is all that money going?  Asset prices, that's where!  What about the people who have no assets?  And the middle income earners with debts?  Why should rich people benefit at the expense of the rest of us?!?

This is truly shocking!  Your position is untenable!

[twiifm]

Where is your explanation Twiifm?  I still don't see one.

Your own charts show that the rich have stayed rich.  

This is what you say yourself:

I'm not going to argue that FRB expands money supply because that's what it does.

It is true that current wage inflation aren't in line w currency inflation.  And thats why people feel pinched.

That's because the money supply is being inflated to high heaven.  And it is showing up in inflation AND rising asset prices.  See London, New York and Beijing!  Are you blind? or just working for the 1%?  This is NOT rocket science.

So, where is all that money going?  Asset prices, that's where!  What about the people who have no assets?  And the middle income earners with debts?  Why should rich people benefit at the expense of the rest of us?!?

I explained wealth inequality as a relation between (R) return on capital and (G) economic growth.  I'm a little drunk to explain.  But you are too obsess w FRB when you should compared historical data of wealth inequality and historical data of FRB.  See if you can spot any trends or correlations

[Ozziecoin]

I explained wealth inequality as a relation between return on capital and economic growth.

No one cares about that.  We all know, the money supply is being tampered with.  FRB is creating copious amounts of M3, advantaging the wealthy to the disadvantage of the poor who have no assets.

Are you representing the interests of those that have assets and are wealthy?  How can you justify this?!?  Are you saying screw the poor?

THESE ARE GENUINE QUESTIONS!  

[twiifm]

I explained wealth inequality as a relation between return on capital and economic growth.

No one cares about that.  We all know, the money supply is being tampered with.  The FRB is creating copious amounts of M3, advantaging the wealthy to the disadvantage of the poor who have no assets.

Are you representing the interests of those that have assets and are wealthy?  How can you justify this?!?  Are you saying screw the poor?

THESE ARE GENUINE QUESTIONS!  

I'm not representing anybody.  I just think your thesis is barking up the wrong tree.  To give rise to middle class you need to destroy capital and at the same time have growth.  Growth could be birth growth.  

I never say screw the poor.  But your idea of poor and mine are totally different.  I don't want to limit money supply.  I want the poor to have access to money supply.  In order for someone w no assets to have assets they need access to loans & credit.  That requires FRB.

[Ozziecoin]

But your idea of poor and mine are totally different.

Yes, clearly we are at odds.  Any person can see that the money supply has inflated asset prices to kingdom come. It is not difficult to realise this has ADVANTAGED asset holders aka the wealthy.  

I want the poor to have access to money supply.

The money supply you allude to is not money, it is debt, which must be repaid.  You are not helping the poor - you are hurting them.  Why? Because the financialisation of the economy is ADVANTAGING the wealthy, who own assets, to the detriment of the poor, who do not own assets.

Your own charts show the widening wealth gap over the last twenty, nay thirty, years.



The last time we witnessed such WEALTH DISPARITY was just before the Great Depression.  Your position is completely unsupportable.

And for those that have not read it: My explanation is here: My explain

Please provide yours.

[Kprawn]

Go read this :

Robert Kiyosaki -
Unfair Advantage
The Power of Financial Education

Author: Robert Kiyosaki

Why do the rich get richer even in a financial crisis? In his new book the bestselling author of "Rich Dad Poor Dad" confirms his message and challenges readers to change their context and act in a new way. In this timely new book, Robert Kiyosaki takes a new and hard-hitting look at the factors that impact people from all walks of life as they struggle to cope with change and challenges that impact their financial world. In "An Unfair Advantage: The Power of Financial Education", Robert underscores his messages and challenges readers to change their context and act in a new way. Readers are advised to stop blindly accepting that they are "disadvantaged" people with limited options and challenge the preconception that they will struggle financially all of their lives. Robert's fresh approach to his time-tested messages includes clear, actionable steps that any individual or family can take, starting with education. Education becomes applied knowledge, a powerful tactic with measurable results. In true "Rich Dad" style, readers will be challenged to understand two points of view, and experience how financial knowledge is their unfair advantage.

Available here in eBook --> http://www.richdad.com/ebooks.aspx

I enjoy his books, and he explains a lot, in lame men's terms.

There was also a Book titled : Why We want you to be Rich {Exellent reading}

Enjoy

[Lethn]

lol OP, you're pretty late in realising what's going on Technically the rich aren't getting richer, all that's increasing is the amount of paper they hold unless they happen to be buying up lots of investments and goods that will hold their value, but even then, it's not really becoming 'worth' more, it's just getting more expensive.

Bitcoin is a classic example, I don't believe it's actually worth anything more than it was a couple of years ago, I just think that our currencies have been devalued so much it's made it much easier/cheaper to buy stuff with Bitcoin rather than paper money, this is also part of the real reason that Bitcoin has received so much hate, it's because it's making the bankers look really bad.

[Cred]

I kind of agree with the OP but see it differently.

Modern economic policy seems to be based on two irrational biases of people, the wealth effect and inflation apathy. When home owners see the price of their house go up, they spend more even though they still just own the same house. Meanwhile workers don't complain about their wages being worth less each year but if you asked them to take a 2% cut nominal terms they'd go on strike.

Politicians and bankers have known this since last century which is why they target 2% inflation to keep people working just in order to keep up and create full employment and avoid revolt.

The FRB now comes in because in order to keep doing this there has to be an increase in debt to pay the debts of those earlier in the ponzi scheme. Easy solution, pump house prices every time there's a recession so late comers have to borrow more to buy the same house. To do this you lower interest rates and the discount rate and assets go up. Those voters who bought houses before the dot com crash are sorted while anyone who didn't is screwed.

Even this is unsustainable and the GFC should have been the end but they kept it going a bit longer with QE, taking more money from the property poor and giving it to the asset rich. What happens next time people can't make their payments even at 2%? They can't lower rates any more so then we could get the depression that we think we've avoided?

[NotLambchop]

The UK (physically) is largely owned by the same people today as it was in the 19th century.

  Its called being born at the right time and in the right place. Or luck  .

You're right. I call this aristocracy, not meritocracy.

Aristocracy = inheriting the merits of your ancestors.  Inheriting class is no different from inheriting money.  Ur just jelly.

[Jcw188]

Once you have a lot of money you just get more and more through interest. Plus getting inheritance. It's a big problem the rich get richer... And the poor have no capital to get going.

[Ozziecoin]

Once you have a lot of money you just get more and more through interest. Plus getting inheritance. It's a big problem the rich get richer... And the poor have no capital to get going.

This is right.  My question is this: why should the rich get an extra advantage when they are already wealthy?  This goes against every fibre in my being. I believe in even playing fields, where people who work hard are justly rewarded.  FRB makes this impossible.  The landed wealthy will always stay wealthy, provided they don't gamble it away. 

[7queue]

If you are smart, you should know that the system is rigged and exploit its flaws.

Cryptocurrency is the chance of our life.

I started with nothing in cryptos and my wealth is now going to the moon at the speed of light.
Cryptoworld is a land with no regulation and no rich people or politics to interfere.

You should stop trying to find excuses to the past and act now to change your destiny.

What Is Cognitive Dissonance for 1000 ...

8 )

[Bru]

Once you have a lot of money you just get more and more through interest. Plus getting inheritance. It's a big problem the rich get richer... And the poor have no capital to get going.

This is right.  My question is this: why should the rich get an extra advantage when they are already wealthy?  This goes against every fibre in my being. I believe in even playing fields, where people who work hard are justly rewarded.  FRB makes this impossible.  The landed wealthy will always stay wealthy, provided they don't gamble it away. 

Don't we all (almost) have the opportunity to work hard and get rich ? Don't we all play by the same rules ? I had friends in my elementary school who were dirt poor, one in particular didn't even own a tv, he wasn't even that smart - but he would learn everything the teachers gave him to learn, he wouldn't do anything else, he had very good grades, even tho he was made fun of for being so poor. Well, he continued to learn , to work hard on his studies, and today he is a big-ass wealthy manager and I know, personally other people like that.
I myself have a sub-avg. paying job, and without a loan, couldn't afford a place for myself (ty FRB). And because today's real estate is cheap, it can grow, it can even double,   so i'm enjoying the fruits of a value-increasing asset.
About inheritance, if you worked hard all your life shouldn't you be able to give your off-springs more than your neighbor who was lazy all his life and is therefor - poor ?
 So my answer would be: cause maybe they deserve it. But I do know we live in an unfair world, and a lot of people get rich by chance and not by work and effort.

[BombaUcigasa]

Once you have a lot of money you just get more and more through interest. Plus getting inheritance. It's a big problem the rich get richer... And the poor have no capital to get going.

This is right.  My question is this: why should the rich get an extra advantage when they are already wealthy?  This goes against every fibre in my being. I believe in even playing fields, where people who work hard are justly rewarded.  FRB makes this impossible.  The landed wealthy will always stay wealthy, provided they don't gamble it away. 

So you're a communist?

See how well that worked for some countries?

[Ozziecoin]

Once you have a lot of money you just get more and more through interest. Plus getting inheritance. It's a big problem the rich get richer... And the poor have no capital to get going.

This is right.  My question is this: why should the rich get an extra advantage when they are already wealthy?  This goes against every fibre in my being. I believe in even playing fields, where people who work hard are justly rewarded.  FRB makes this impossible.  The landed wealthy will always stay wealthy, provided they don't gamble it away.  

So you're a communist?

See how well that worked for some countries?

Please answer the question!

Even playing fields are the bedrock of capitalism. You don't have capitalism in America or anywhere in the world, you have Creditism. The entire economy is run on credit money. Only sound currencies based on the blockchain can be trusted.  

We are talking about not advantaging the rich. This has nothing to do with communism, socialism or capitalism. This has everything to do with EVEN PLAYING FIELDS.

[twiifm]

Capitalism is not about fairness or equal playing field.   Never have been.  Capitalism is about competition

We have crony capitalism in USA.  One idea is to increase inheritance tax.  Let people become as rich as their abilities allow.  But limit how much they can leave as inheritance

[Ozziecoin]

Capitalism is not about fairness or equal playing field.   Never have been.  Capitalism is about competition

We have crony capitalism in USA

Unfortunately, this is true.  But you must also see that the financial system in America today is naturally advantaging those that hold assets against those that don't have any assets, and also those that don't have assets on a net basis. Meaning, asset minus liability = zero assets.  

The wealthy holding the assets are getting wealthier by virtue of the fact that they own assets.  This should not be accepted in America which is supposed to represent the land of opportunity where dreams can be realised.

[NotLambchop]

...  This should not be accepted in America which is supposed to represent the land of opportunity where dreams can be realised.

Oh Jesus, don't tell me it ain't true!  They've been lying to me all along?  MY America?!!
Now I'm almost afraid to ask, but are the streets paved with gold like they say, or is that just a bunch of phooey too?!

Is there anything left to live for, Ozziecoin?!

[Ozziecoin]

Answer the question notlambchop.

[neofelis]

People are poor because there's not enough spending.  No spending, no jobs.


Wow, that is scary statement. I hope you are not referring to government spending.  Reminds me of a few years ago when I heard a Congressman say "We have to spend our way out of this recession."


If the masses spend their money, the economy improves.  When the government spends the peoples money, the economy declines.

[Ozziecoin]

More evidence:

This is from oxfam and covers period from 1980 to 2012.

A new report from Oxfam has been published in time for the World Economic Forum in Davos this week.
It shows the world's ultra-wealthy have not only recovered from the global financial crisis, they have positively blossomed.

The report shows the wealth of the 1 per cent richest people in the world is worth about $US110 trillion, 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world's population.
It also shows the world's richest 85 people control about $US1.7 trillion in wealth, equivalent to the bottom half of the world's population.
And far from hindering the wealthy, the political response to the global financial crisis - including the actions of central banks and the austerity measures introduced by national governments - has made the rich fabulously richer.

In the US, the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population grabbed 95 per cent of post-financial crisis growth between 2009 and 2012, while the bottom 90 per cent became poorer.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/richest-85-boast-same-wealth-as-half-the-world-20140120-314vk.html#ixzz32mzA4qpL

[twiifm]

Capitalism is not about fairness or equal playing field.   Never have been.  Capitalism is about competition

We have crony capitalism in USA

Unfortunately, this is true.  But you must also see that the financial system in America today is naturally advantaging those that hold assets against those that don't have any assets, and also those that don't have assets on a net basis. Meaning, asset minus liability = zero assets.  

The wealthy holding the assets are getting wealthier by virtue of the fact that they own assets.  This should not be accepted in America which is supposed to represent the land of opportunity where dreams can be realised.

Dude. We all know it takes money to make money.  Life is unfair.  Rich get richer.  Etc.

Its been this since civilization existed.  With or without FRB.  Its like that in rich countries, poor countries, socialist, communist, capitalist, monarchist.  Everywhere it is like that.  

At least in USA there is the possibility for social mobility.  How do you explain Snoop Dogg,  or Mark Zuckerberg.  Or even Satoshi whoever he is.  Or just some immigrant whose kids go to college and become professional

Stop making it sound you are oppressed when you living in AUSTRALIA!  Try living in the shithole 3rd world countries where 90% of people have no choice but to be poor their entire life

Stop ranting about banking when its banking that financed practically every entrepreneurial endeavor we know today

What about bitcoin early adopters who bought at $1 and now have 500X return on investment.  You think that's unfair too?

[Ozziecoin]

Dude. We all know it takes money to make money.  Life is unfair.  Rich get richer.  Etc.

Its been this since civilization existed.  With or without FRB.  Its like that in rich countries, poor countries, socialist, communist, capitalist, monarchist.  Everywhere it is like that.  

What about bitcoin early adopters who bought at $1 and now have 500X return on investment.  You think that's unfair too?

Banking is advantaging asset holders unfairly.  I defend my right to speak about it, whether it is in Australia, America or a developing country.

Let's admit to ourselves what FRB is: A way for rich people to stay rich.  Please, let's not obfuscate the plain truth!

I do not agree with the statement "with or without FRB"  Clearly, it has advantaged asset holders against people with no assets and the young.

As for bitcoin holders who bought at $1, I hold no grudge against people with foresight, determination and who played on an EVEN PLAYING FIELD.  I welcome fair competition, the way capitalism was meant to be.  

Moreover, ozziecoin reserves 50% of coin supply for the residents of Australia. We now possess the means to fix this unfair advantage that rich people have, via ensuring that only money on the Blockchain is considered real money. We can COMPLETELY ELIMINATE FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.

[Ozziecoin]

For those of you who just joined this thread and wonder what is going on, please read the first post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=621654.msg6885312#msg6885312

[twiifm]

You are full of shit.  What's the difference of some buying BTC because of 'foresight' and someone's great grandfather buying a plot of land in lower Manhattan when it was a dump?

If you are born w no assets and you have a great business idea.  You know what you do to finance your business?  You borrow money from the bank or find investors.  Without FRB it would make it way harder for banks to loan money.  The interest would be sky high because of liquidity constraints

I already explained Piketty's theory of wealth inequality resulting from Return of Capital exceeding Growth. 

The fix is not to eliminate FRB or fix money supply.  All that will do is create give the current holders of capital assets MORE advantage than the people who haven't even been born yet.  More rent seeking behavior than our current situation

[Ozziecoin]

You are full of shit.  What's the difference of some buying BTC because of 'foresight' and someone's great grandfather buying a plot of land in lower Manhattan when it was a dump?

If you are born w no assets and you have a great business idea.  You know what you do to finance your business?  You borrow money from the bank or find investors.  Without FRB it would make it way harder for banks to loan money.  The interest would be sky high because of liquidity constraints

I already explained Piketty's theory of wealth inequality resulting from Return of Capital exceeding Growth.  

The fix is not to eliminate FRB or fix money supply.  All that will do is create give the current holders of capital assets MORE advantage than the people who haven't even been born yet.  More rent seeking behavior than our current situation

Wow! You're just one angry fella aren't you?  Please provide evidence not assertions.

I have explained why I believe FRB leads to wealth inequality.  Here is My explanation .

I have provided evidence of widening wealth inequality. I have shown that debt levels are rising due to FRB.  I have shown that poor people are being disadvantaged.

AFAICT, you got nothing.  Current holders of capital assets are being unfairly advantaged.  You're either dense or working for the rich.  I think Ockam's razor is eliminating the latter.  In which case, you're now on my ignore list.

[Ozziecoin]

And suddenly there is peace and quiet. 

[glub0x]

Banking is advantaging asset holders unfairly.

this. plain truth.

[NotLambchop]

...  This should not be accepted in America which is supposed to represent the land of opportunity where dreams can be realised.

Oh Jesus, don't tell me it ain't true!  They've been lying to me all along?  MY America?!!
Now I'm almost afraid to ask, but are the streets paved with gold like they say, or is that just a bunch of phooey too?!

Is there anything left to live for, Ozziecoin?!

Answer the question notlambchop.

You, after reaching adulthood in Australia, would like to know if an American kid from a brokeass family has the same odds of becoming rich as a kid who inherits his wealth?
The answer is no.  No he does not.

Should he?
That depends on who you ask.  People who bitch against inheritance tax, for instance, think the notion reeks of Socialism.  

And now you know about the magical land of opportunities called Equestria America, where everyone is equal, and nothing ever hurts.

[xavier]

Poor people work for their money, rich people have their money work for them.


And that is the way of the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If only things were as simple as that ...

[Kprawn]

Wow this thread clearly crush "dreamers" 

There are enough evidence, everywhere in the world, where people with "Poor" backgrounds, excelled in life, and made it big.

Bill Gates started in his garage {Today he is the richest man alive}

My neighbor came to our "3rd world" country with only a bag of clothes. 45 years later he pensioned a millionaire, and I am the poor bastard next door, spoiling his view. Ha ha ha.

And there are thousands of these examples of poor people making it big. {Those are the good stories, that catch the news, not the wealthy rich boy, who inherit millions}

Will the rich get richer, yes they will.. Do poor people, have no change, of making it big? No way.   

[21pilot]

45 years later he pensioned a millionaire, and I am the poor bastard next door, spoiling his view. Ha ha ha.

but you got the Bitcoins 
Maybe the "pecking order" in your street will change once BTC price hits a new all-time-high 

[BombaUcigasa]

Bill Gates started in his LOADED FAMILY {Today he is the richest man alive}

Some people like to dream... got any other examples?

[Kprawn]

Well .... Financial world.. people like "Robert Kiyosaki" etc... / Science world - Mark Shuttleworth

Entertainment world... "Justin Bieber" / "Carlise Theron"

Read some biographies of these people and see where they came from.

Need more?

[glub0x]

And there are thousands of these examples of poor people making it big. {Those are the good stories, that catch the news, not the wealthy rich boy, who inherit millions}

Will the rich get richer, yes they will.. Do poor people, have no change, of making it big? No way.    

those /I or I know someone who / made it always make me laugh.

I actually know a man who survived a plane crash. He did it, why all those idiots of Malaysia airlines didn't manage to save at least one guy to tell us where is the plane?

you really belive it's a fair world where labour is rewarded at it's fair price so the small can be big if they just move their ass?

[nickenburg]

Wow this thread clearly crush "dreamers" 

There are enough evidence, everywhere in the world, where people with "Poor" backgrounds, excelled in life, and made it big.

Bill Gates started in his garage {Today he is the richest man alive}

My neighbor came to our "3rd world" country with only a bag of clothes. 45 years later he pensioned a millionaire, and I am the poor bastard next door, spoiling his view. Ha ha ha.

And there are thousands of these examples of poor people making it big. {Those are the good stories, that catch the news, not the wealthy rich boy, who inherit millions}

Will the rich get richer, yes they will.. Do poor people, have no change, of making it big? No way.   

Bill gates is not the richest man, thats what the media wants you to believe, but there are family's with alot more.
And that's only a few examples of people who started poor but came out rich, the rest of the world still has to slave away for a little money

[Ozziecoin]

I've got nothing against hardworking poor people who made it.  I'm just pointing out that rich people shouldn't get a helping hand.  Or do we still want to help rich people over poor people?  Seems kinda sad right?  FRB is the root of all evil.  (Says me).

[sameev29]

From my experience its the nationalism system of the world.For example in the world of Bitcoins,a multipool developer from Asia will charge much less than a developer from US.Although the work is same.He can charge more being in the US and buyers will prefer him more but the one in Asia is preferred less for these newly sophisticated technical works.Many common IT related works are outsourced from Asia on the other hand too but not for all sectors.

For your topic,actually no can can get rich doing nothing.He has to do some sort of work at least physically or mentally.It could be that he is fueling the project with his idea and letting the technicians handle the work and so on.

[Ozziecoin]

From my experience its the nationalism system of the world.For example in the world of Bitcoins,a multipool developer from Asia will charge much less than a developer from US.Although the work is same.He can charge more being in the US and buyers will prefer him more but the one in Asia is preferred less for these newly sophisticated technical works.Many common IT related works are outsourced from Asia on the other hand too but not for all sectors.

For your topic,actually no can can get rich doing nothing.He has to do some sort of work at least physically or mentally.It could be that he is fueling the project with his idea and letting the technicians handle the work and so on.

Please read the first page. 

[Kprawn]

Well ....Ok I am not mentioning the Mafia and Cocain Kings 

Bill Gates is listed as the richest man alive. For the sake of that example, it still count.

There are enough hard working people, Who do make it in life.

And we need "Rich" people in the world. It's surely not the poor people, who fund and invest in up and coming businesses.

Bill Gates and many other people like him, are giving, what they do not need away.

If we did not believe these things, we would all live in some communist country, slaving away to be poor anyways.

[Ozziecoin]

Well ....Ok I am not mentioning the Mafia and Cocain Kings 

Bill Gates is listed as the richest man alive. For the sake of that example, it still count.

There are enough hard working people, Who do make it in life.

And we need "Rich" people in the world. It's surely not the poor people, who fund and invest in up and coming businesses.

Bill Gates and many other people like him, are giving, what they do not need away.

If we did not believe these things, we would all live in some communist country, slaving away to be poor anyways.

Please read the first page. Also, don't believe everything in media. When they hunted Gaddhafi, somehow he had between $67 and $200 Billion, making him wealthier than Gates. This is from one small despot. Imagine all the other bigger rulers.

I have nothing against rich people. I believe they shouldn't be advantaged via FRB, that's all.  Please read the first page.   

This is not about communism.  This is about building better capitalism.  One WITHOUT FRB.

[scryptasicminer]

Bill Gates and many other people like him, are giving, what they do not need away.

The wealthy family form charity organization to evade tax. Not freely giving what they don't need away.

[tabnloz]

Maybe the OP's issue is with money printing ie QE and not FRB?

I understand FRB allows massive credit creation without any backing (eg Gold Standard & deposits to match lending). On the whole though, I always thought lending is an important growth engine.

What isn't healthy is the inequality that comes with money printing / QE.

QE and other related programs essentially gives free money to the top of the food chain. Banks can and have lent $ from the Fed at 0% interest and then lent the same $ back to the govt at 2-3%, making risk free profit. The $ given to the banks at 0% isn't being lent to the middle class or lower classes at the moment, for now there is no trickle down effect. And because there is a system awash with cheap credit coupled with ZIRP, people and corporations are forced to speculate to find returns. This is why there is such a run up in the stock market and RE. The Feds policies are basically pushing you to speculate because keeping in cash means slowly losing your value. If you can't get into stocks or RE, then what?

The inequality of this can also be combined with the fact that it is basically legal for financial institutions to commit fraud and receive no penalty. No major banker has gone to jail for the deeds committed in the lead up to the financial crisis. Trillions of $ were lost from the pension funds and investment vehicles from working and middle classes worldwide, yet no one pays for it. The best that has happened is some large fines,taken without admittance of guilt, that still do not make fraud unprofitable. As has been said a thousand times, the big banks are not there to look after customers, they are there to make a profit. Fraud and fines are part of the cost of doing business. The justfication here is that it is a) hard to prosecute because evidence is hard to gather b) hard to beat an army of high priced lawyers that can argue for years on end and c) possibly detrimental to the health of the system.

All of this is of course patently absurd. Guy like Dimon, Blankfein, Diamond, Cohen etc should all be in jail. The money they made from the markets they have rigged (basically everything) comes from yours, mine and everybody's pockets in some way.

But the real kicker here is that if Average Joe down the street robs a shop or lies to the govt about tax or something, he's going to the big house.

[NotLambchop]

...The Feds policies are basically pushing you to speculate because keeping in cash means slowly losing your value. If you can't get into stocks or RE, then what?

Well sure, low interest rates push people to spend and invest.  That's the intent of lowering interest rates.  You seem to be upset because it works as intended.

The inequality of this can also be combined with the fact that it is basically legal for financial institutions to commit fraud and receive no penalty. No major banker has gone to jail for the deeds committed in the lead up to the financial crisis. ...

The rich get preferential treatment from the courts?  In MY America?!
Sure.  Multimillion dollar legal teams find employment, while there are perfectly good court-appointed attorneys for the poor.  If both net the same results, why spend the extra money?  

[Ozziecoin]

Maybe the OP's issue is with money printing ie QE and not FRB?

I understand FRB allows massive credit creation without any backing (eg Gold Standard & deposits to match lending). On the whole though, I always thought lending is an important growth engine.

What isn't healthy is the inequality that comes with money printing / QE.

QE and other related programs essentially gives free money to the top of the food chain. Banks can and have lent $ from the Fed at 0% interest and then lent the same $ back to the govt at 2-3%, making risk free profit. The $ given to the banks at 0% isn't being lent to the middle class or lower classes at the moment, for now there is no trickle down effect. And because there is a system awash with cheap credit coupled with ZIRP, people and corporations are forced to speculate to find returns. This is why there is such a run up in the stock market and RE. The Feds policies are basically pushing you to speculate because keeping in cash means slowly losing your value. If you can't get into stocks or RE, then what?

The inequality of this can also be combined with the fact that it is basically legal for financial institutions to commit fraud and receive no penalty. No major banker has gone to jail for the deeds committed in the lead up to the financial crisis. Trillions of $ were lost from the pension funds and investment vehicles from working and middle classes worldwide, yet no one pays for it. The best that has happened is some large fines,taken without admittance of guilt, that still do not make fraud unprofitable. As has been said a thousand times, the big banks are not there to look after customers, they are there to make a profit. Fraud and fines are part of the cost of doing business. The justfication here is that it is a) hard to prosecute because evidence is hard to gather b) hard to beat an army of high priced lawyers that can argue for years on end and c) possibly detrimental to the health of the system.

All of this is of course patently absurd. Guy like Dimon, Blankfein, Diamond, Cohen etc should all be in jail. The money they made from the markets they have rigged (basically everything) comes from yours, mine and everybody's pockets in some way.

But the real kicker here is that if Average Joe down the street robs a shop or lies to the govt about tax or something, he's going to the big house.

Money printing is what happens after the FRB system (including shadow banking) has failed.  Both are at fault in my view, as both inflate the wealth of the rich relative to those who hold no assets. And Krugman is no conscience of no liberal.  He is working for the wrong team.  He is crucifying the very people he claims to be helping, the people without assets will never catch up to the people with assets under FRB/QE.

[tabnloz]

...The Feds policies are basically pushing you to speculate because keeping in cash means slowly losing your value. If you can't get into stocks or RE, then what?

Well sure, low interest rates push people to spend and invest.  That's the intent of lowering interest rates.  You seem to be upset because it works as intended.

The inequality of this can also be combined with the fact that it is basically legal for financial institutions to commit fraud and receive no penalty. No major banker has gone to jail for the deeds committed in the lead up to the financial crisis. ...

The rich get preferential treatment from the courts?  In MY America?!
Sure.  Multimillion dollar legal teams find employment, while there are perfectly good court-appointed attorneys for the poor.  If both net the same results, why spend the extra money?  

Low interest rates punish savers, punish the prudent among us.

Low interest rates allow governments to survive the interest repayments on debt that would otherwise render them insolvent.

I read that in the UK, low IR's have pilfered triple the amount from citizens through low to negative returns than have saved the populace in mortgage repayments.

Monetary policy is used to stimulate demand in order to smooth out the business cycle, however long term ZIRP have a consequence of wealth transfer, which is, in agreement with the OP, a subtle form of class war.

[ranlo]

...The Feds policies are basically pushing you to speculate because keeping in cash means slowly losing your value. If you can't get into stocks or RE, then what?

Well sure, low interest rates push people to spend and invest.  That's the intent of lowering interest rates.  You seem to be upset because it works as intended.

The inequality of this can also be combined with the fact that it is basically legal for financial institutions to commit fraud and receive no penalty. No major banker has gone to jail for the deeds committed in the lead up to the financial crisis. ...

The rich get preferential treatment from the courts?  In MY America?!
Sure.  Multimillion dollar legal teams find employment, while there are perfectly good court-appointed attorneys for the poor.  If both net the same results, why spend the extra money? 

Low interest rates punish savers, punish the prudent among us.

Low interest rates allow governments to survive the interest repayments on debt that would otherwise render them insolvent.

I read that in the UK, low IR's have pilfered triple the amount from citizens through low to negative returns than have saved the populace in mortgage repayments.

Monetary policy is used to stimulate demand in order to smooth out the business cycle, however long term ZIRP have a consequence of wealth transfer, which is, in agreement with the OP, a subtle form of class war.

I think a big reason for low interest rates is also because it helps push money into the economy. If interest rates are high, people are going to save. If they're low, might as well spend instead (like investments and such).

[Ozziecoin]

Please read page one and answer the question before commenting Ranlo.

[ranlo]

Please read page one and answer the question before commenting Ranlo.

I was responding to that person's post. As for how this works, it's simple: we have a free market. You either work for someone else or you are the boss; that's entirely your choice. It's quite literally as easy as that. The problem is Americans, as a whole, are lazy and want everything handed to them. Which is great for the market makers, since they can capitalize on laziness (which is where lower wages come from and more profit for bosses).

[Ozziecoin]

I knew there was a reason I put ranlo on ignore!  

[Slingshot]

Please read page one and answer the question before commenting Ranlo.

I was responding to that person's post. As for how this works, it's simple: we have a free market. You either work for someone else or you are the boss; that's entirely your choice. It's quite literally as easy as that. The problem is Americans, as a whole, are lazy and want everything handed to them. Which is great for the market makers, since they can capitalize on laziness (which is where lower wages come from and more profit for bosses).

 You must be joking. That's sheer nonsense spoken from lips of someone I would like to see sacrificed to the devil.

 Idiots like this can't even handle the facts, nor any of the truth. Lie and deny is all your capable of doing instead.


 So lower wages comes from laziness. Wrong.

 They exported many jobs, and imported many illegal and legal aliens to pay lower wages. Hint: 1992: Perot: Giant sucking sound. NAFTA.

 What didn't you get the memo 34 years ago in 1980 either? Wait, your not that old maybe, and obviously you were born with a silver spoon.

 Well hear this: They threw the American Public under the boss for ever more profits. They destroyed American family farmers and they destroyed American small businesses by driving them under. Now we don't have enough jobs, let alone enough better paying jobs hence now they can lower wages even further. Then jerks and clowns have the gall to come here and state what? How dare you!

 And here this this worthless, lying piece of filth, he comes here to blame the workers for being too lazy, all while he sits on his fat ass doing nothing but rake in ever more record profits while corporations slash and burn millions of more jobs for ever more record profits. Well the music just stopped. Now your time is up. You have been finally Checkmated. You obviously inherited all yours and never worked an honest day in your entire life. Either that or your absolutely retarded to the extreme. Now brace for utter ruin you lying piece of filth.


 listen to this: George Carlin ~ The American Dream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=player_embedded

RIP George Carlin.



 Free markets don't Reward Failure.

 All the losers were wiped out. Everyone except the Winners lost everything.

 The banks took almost everyone down with them.

 Until we stopped practicing free market capitalism in 2008.

 On top of Rewarding Failure we then witness Bonuses for Losers. The Criminal Losers.

 Free Markets. The man is insane. He is so full of crap he can't see straight.


 The losers kept on with their illegal short squeezes relentlessly, until they finally lost control, then when they again gained control they demand congress pass a bs Tarp bill that was all smoke and mirrors, all while they again Pull the market down by 777 points for the bs Tarp bill to get passed (CNBC Mrs Money Honey "we need you all to sell, sell, sell. Sell so congress will pass the Tarp bill" the day the market fell 777 points. Go ahead it's all there. She is a criminal too. RICO Act Felony Conspiracy for doing such a thing (illegal market manipulation).

 All while the criminal Fed drafts trillions in secret bailout monies to all their criminal member banks and other pals. The Tarp Bill was all a shame to misdirect attention and gain support, nothing more. Chump change is 800 billion. All told the Fed loaned out 15.3 Trillion at their last confession that I heard about by 2012 when they finally publicly admitted the truth. No telling how much in the two plus years since then. In the mean time the banks are still hiding their losses off balance sheets, and still claiming record profits, still marking assets to fantasy. All while the government still refuses to send them all straight to prison or a firing squad.

 Of course they re-blew the bubbles with The Bubble of Last Resort. Just like the FED is now almost the entire Bond Market because no one on earth except the dumbest of the dumb would dare buy Treasuries. Even the FED has scooped up all the Mortgage paper it can because of course the FED doesn't want to be holding a worthless bag of treasuries should anything else go wrong.

 All while the PPT (Plunge Protection team: Fed+ US Treasury) kept on buying round after round of SP500 futures, all in vain efforts to push back up the market. But finally the reality would have none of it. And down all the crooks and almost everyone else went. The real winners? Most were swept away in dozens of short squeezes. Only a few remained in tact at the end, lucky for them.

 Next up it will be "Bail-In's" to save him and his criminal bankster pals, and his criminal friends on wall street, not to mention every pension and retirement fund along with every other institutional fund and hedge fund all bailed out. And it wasn't by way of "Free Markets". You lying filthy LOSER.

 And when bail-in's fail as they surely will they will demand Ten's of Trillions in instant Bailouts, and likely Ten's of Billions in ever more Bonuses for Failure, just to rub it in who owns who.


 Free markets? Your full of shit. Your a LOSER. Everyone Lost. Except those that were honestly short the markets during their 20+ month crash period. But of course almost all those winners were turned into Losers by short squeeze after short squeeze. I want and demand to be part of that firing squad. After all they stole some of my winnings too. I am one of the real Winners. Hands down, short for all 20 months I was. I beat these LOSERS. And all while they claimed the economy was fine, everything is a-okay. Housing isn't in any bubble, the markets are not in any bubble, and the banks are not committing widespread felony frauds per the FBI themselves, nor passing worthless tranches in trillions of mortgages onto unsuspecting victims worldwide..

 And this ass-wipe comes along preaching 'free markets'. What bullshit. Get the hell out of here.

 Get the hell out of here. And don't come back. Your not welcome here. No one wants nor desires you here. NEVER. Just get the hell out of here and get ready to go to prison for the rest of your worthless existence.

[Ozziecoin]

My personal experience with normal everyday Americans is that they are a positive hardworking honest bunch. It's unfortunate about the military/finance machine running in the background.

[sameev29]

From my experience its the nationalism system of the world.For example in the world of Bitcoins,a multipool developer from Asia will charge much less than a developer from US.Although the work is same.He can charge more being in the US and buyers will prefer him more but the one in Asia is preferred less for these newly sophisticated technical works.Many common IT related works are outsourced from Asia on the other hand too but not for all sectors.

For your topic,actually no can can get rich doing nothing.He has to do some sort of work at least physically or mentally.It could be that he is fueling the project with his idea and letting the technicians handle the work and so on.

Please read the first page. 

Actually I don't understand the technical aspects of economics.I just told my experience and what I think about the topic.

[ranlo]

Please read page one and answer the question before commenting Ranlo.

I was responding to that person's post. As for how this works, it's simple: we have a free market. You either work for someone else or you are the boss; that's entirely your choice. It's quite literally as easy as that. The problem is Americans, as a whole, are lazy and want everything handed to them. Which is great for the market makers, since they can capitalize on laziness (which is where lower wages come from and more profit for bosses).

 You must be joking. That's sheer nonsense spoken from lips of someone I would like to see sacrificed to the devil.

 Idiots like this can't even handle the facts, nor any of the truth. Lie and deny is all your capable of doing instead.

//Moar stuffz

 Free markets don't Reward Failure.

 All the losers were wiped out. Everyone except the Winners lost everything.

 The banks took almost everyone down with them.

 Until we stopped practicing free market capitalism in 2008.

 On top of Rewarding Failure we then witness Bonuses for Losers. The Criminal Losers.

 Free Markets. The man is insane. He is so full of crap he can't see straight.

So what you're saying here is... survival of the fittest. This is exactly how it should be.

Delusion takes over far too many people's lives and leads them to the point where they feel like they should be carried to riches. It's a ridiculous thought and I'm glad it doesn't work that way. There are TONS of people who go from being extremely poor and having nothing (nor any "chances" to make it) to multi-millionaires. Because someone hands it to them? No. Because they want it and they go get it. If you want to hold yourself back, that's your own damned choice, but quit trying to drag down the rest of us with you.

(Disclaimer: I can't speak for people in countries other than the US, as I'm not sure how the various markets/laws/etc. work. As such, this is geared only towards US citizens)

[Ozziecoin]

Whatever ranlo said u can safely ignore.

[lyth0s]

Ozziecoin I suggest showing your total M3 supply instead of the M3 growth in the chart on your website. The reason why is that to the lay-person they may look at that graph and think to themselves that the "growth is pretty steady, no big changes", while if you show them the actual M3 it's easier to imagine that their money is getting inflated through the roof.

Just my suggestion

[Ozziecoin]

Ozziecoin I suggest showing your total M3 supply instead of the M3 growth in the chart on your website. The reason why is that to the lay-person they may look at that graph and think to themselves that the "growth is pretty steady, no big changes", while if you show them the actual M3 it's easier to imagine that their money is getting inflated through the roof.

Just my suggestion

Thanks for the suggestion. The second chart is below. I will move it up to immediately below the first chart. Soon.

[tabnloz]

Please read page one and answer the question before commenting Ranlo.

I was responding to that person's post. As for how this works, it's simple: we have a free market. You either work for someone else or you are the boss; that's entirely your choice. It's quite literally as easy as that. The problem is Americans, as a whole, are lazy and want everything handed to them. Which is great for the market makers, since they can capitalize on laziness (which is where lower wages come from and more profit for bosses).

 You must be joking. That's sheer nonsense spoken from lips of someone I would like to see sacrificed to the devil.

 Idiots like this can't even handle the facts, nor any of the truth. Lie and deny is all your capable of doing instead.

//Moar stuffz

 Free markets don't Reward Failure.

 All the losers were wiped out. Everyone except the Winners lost everything.

 The banks took almost everyone down with them.

 Until we stopped practicing free market capitalism in 2008.

 On top of Rewarding Failure we then witness Bonuses for Losers. The Criminal Losers.

 Free Markets. The man is insane. He is so full of crap he can't see straight.

So what you're saying here is... survival of the fittest. This is exactly how it should be.

Delusion takes over far too many people's lives and leads them to the point where they feel like they should be carried to riches. It's a ridiculous thought and I'm glad it doesn't work that way. There are TONS of people who go from being extremely poor and having nothing (nor any "chances" to make it) to multi-millionaires. Because someone hands it to them? No. Because they want it and they go get it. If you want to hold yourself back, that's your own damned choice, but quit trying to drag down the rest of us with you.

(Disclaimer: I can't speak for people in countries other than the US, as I'm not sure how the various markets/laws/etc. work. As such, this is geared only towards US citizens)

Yes, Slingshot was referring to survival of the fittest except that.... that is exactly what didnt happen as a result of the financial crisis. Instead, those who, criminally I might add, caused the crisis, were given free money to mask their failures under the guise of 'TBTF' and the implicit guarantee of the now infamous Holder Memo that aims to fine rather than prosecute. This is really permission to scam as much as you can because there is no threat of jail time to put banksters off...

Your view sounds rather Tea Party-esque; blame all problems on the welfare cheats and the lazy people who lack the motivation to claw their way up from the bottom, while ignoring the fact that the roots of the problem comes from the conscience-less white collar brigade. This is not to say there are no welfare cheats and lazy asses, because there are, but, assuming there is an equal amount of welfare cheats compared to white collar fraudsters, who has caused the most damage?

[jeffersonairplane]

There are economic gaps everywhere, and it's not because of a rigged system. It's somewhat because of luck.

[Ozziecoin]

There are economic gaps everywhere, and it's not because of a rigged system. It's somewhat because of luck.

If you make such a statement, you tend to have to provide this thing called evidence. LOL.  For those that just joined us, please read page one.

[TaunSew]

There are economic gaps everywhere, and it's not because of a rigged system. It's somewhat because of luck.

Yup it's all luck, you sir are all correct.  85 people in this world have more wealth than 3.5 billion people, are just 'lucky'.  If you're in the backwater of Africa and Asia, all you need to do is pull up your bootstraps (oh wait can't afford said boots) and then encounter "luck".  

[efreeti]

There are economic gaps everywhere, and it's not because of a rigged system. It's somewhat because of luck.

Yup it's all luck, you sir are all correct.  85 people in this world have more wealth than 3.5 billion people, are just 'lucky'.  If you're in the backwater of Africa and Asia, all you need to do is pull up your bootstraps (oh wait can't afford said boots) and then encounter "luck".  

Being born in the right place and being at the right time is considered luck.

[Ozziecoin]

We should do things necessary to let the "luck" run out, instead of letting it grow and grow and grow and ...  well, you know what i mean.

[efreeti]

A lot of things have to be right for someone to be able to get to the top.

[bryant.coleman]

Yup it's all luck, you sir are all correct.  85 people in this world have more wealth than 3.5 billion people, are just 'lucky'.  If you're in the backwater of Africa and Asia, all you need to do is pull up your bootstraps (oh wait can't afford said boots) and then encounter "luck".  

If you look closely, many of those 85 people in the list built their wealth themselves. I am not talking about the Arab Sheikhs who got rich by selling gas and oil, but about people like Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg. They started from scratch, and made themselves rich.

[Ozziecoin]

Yup it's all luck, you sir are all correct.  85 people in this world have more wealth than 3.5 billion people, are just 'lucky'.  If you're in the backwater of Africa and Asia, all you need to do is pull up your bootstraps (oh wait can't afford said boots) and then encounter "luck".  

If you look closely, many of those 85 people in the list built their wealth themselves. I am not talking about the Arab Sheikhs who got rich by selling gas and oil, but about people like Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg. They started from scratch, and made themselves rich.

The people who are not on the list are the real wealthy people of the world. Like Gaddhafi before he was killed.

[JypsiCreme]

"Always do the right thang" - that's the only words from old Spike Lee movie I follow. And now matter who and how is becoming rich and how hard are you trying.

[Ozziecoin]

More interesting data:

Distribution of Wealth Across Individuals: Inequality Remains High
To determine how global wealth is distributed across households and individuals – rather than regions or countries – we combine our data on the level of household wealth across countries with information on the pattern of wealth distribution within countries. Our estimates for mid-2013 indicate that once debts have been subtracted, an adult requires just 4,000 US dollars in assets to be in the wealthiest half of world citizens. However, a person needs at least 75,000 US dollars to be a member of the top 10 percent of global wealth holders, and 753,000 US dollars to belong to the top 1 percent. Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1 percent of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest 10 percent hold 86 percent of the world’s wealth, and the top 1 percent alone account for 46 percent of global assets.

If we continue with FRB and QE, what do you think will happen to the top 10% versus the bottom 1%?!?

If we continued to INFLATE asset prices - why would the top 1% need to work at all?!?  The answer is: they don't!  They can sit on their assets and "manage".  Wake up people!  This is an absolute travesty and it's disgusting.

[efreeti]

More interesting data:

Distribution of Wealth Across Individuals: Inequality Remains High
To determine how global wealth is distributed across households and individuals – rather than regions or countries – we combine our data on the level of household wealth across countries with information on the pattern of wealth distribution within countries. Our estimates for mid-2013 indicate that once debts have been subtracted, an adult requires just 4,000 US dollars in assets to be in the wealthiest half of world citizens. However, a person needs at least 75,000 US dollars to be a member of the top 10 percent of global wealth holders, and 753,000 US dollars to belong to the top 1 percent. Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1 percent of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest 10 percent hold 86 percent of the world’s wealth, and the top 1 percent alone account for 46 percent of global assets.

If we continue with FRB and QE, what do you think will happen to the top 10% versus the bottom 1%?!?

If we continued to INFLATE asset prices - why would the top 1% need to work at all?!?  The answer is: they don't!  They can sit on their assets and "manage".  Wake up people!  This is an absolute travesty and it's disgusting.

I think you have it backward. Inflation hurt the wealthy as much as it hurt the poor.

In fact, I would argue inflation hurt them more as labor cost needs to adjust upward. Asset price appreciation will only mean higher tax.

[arbitrage001]

People who are at bottom have little to lose.

Last financial crisis is a shark eats shark event.

[Ozziecoin]

People who are at bottom have little to lose.

Last financial crisis is a shark eats shark event.

And now the sharks have more than recovered but not so the little guy on the street.

[Ron~Popeil]

People who are at bottom have little to lose.

Last financial crisis is a shark eats shark event.

And now the sharks have more than recovered but not so the little guy on the street.

The sharks got their bailout so the rest of us can keep our crumbs. You would think we little people would be more thankful.

[Ozziecoin]

That's right, the rich people are telling us WE MUST BE THANKFUL FOR BAILING THEM OUT!

[hodap]

That's right, the rich people are telling us WE MUST BE THANKFUL FOR BAILING THEM OUT!

It is always the few that rules the majority. Has it ever occur that a society that is ruled by the majority?

[Ozziecoin]

That's right, the rich people are telling us WE MUST BE THANKFUL FOR BAILING THEM OUT!

It is always the few that rules the majority. Has it ever occur that a society that is ruled by the majority?

No, but the technology now exists for this to occur. It's called bitcoin.

[jeffstern]

If this is the case, it is smarter to be rich.

Nevertheless, the statistics you are using are misinterpreted. Any rich person can be rich today and poor tomorrow. And it has become a lot easier to win and lose. Being rich at one time in your life doesn't guarantee you lifetime membership in the club of the rich. Actually, you start losing the day you feel nothing can harm your wealth. And immediately someone else takes the position.

[Ozziecoin]

Please read the first page jeffstern: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=621654.0

The rich are getting richer.

[Ron~Popeil]

Please read the first page jeffstern: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=621654.0

The rich are getting richer.

They are indeed. They insulate themselves by buying influence from corrupt governments. Your average wage slave has no access to government and even legal fees make it tough to get anywhere with the court system as well. 

[Ozziecoin]

Why are house prices so high? http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1514

[TaunSew]

Why are house prices so high? http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1514

Housing bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by cheap credit, from the idiot savante middle upper class who can't figure out a better way to acquire money.

[twiifm]

Why are house prices so high? http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1514

Housing bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by cheap credit, from the idiot savante middle upper class who can't figure out a better way to acquire money.

Bitcoin bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by an-cap paranoia, from the libtards who can't figure out a better way to acquire money.  

[ReserviorHunt]

Why are house prices so high? http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1514

Housing bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by cheap credit, from the idiot savante middle upper class who can't figure out a better way to acquire money.

Bitcoin bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by an-cap paranoia, from the ibtards who can't figure out a better way to acquire money. 

Funny how they are but two sides of the same coin.

[Ozziecoin]

But we don't pay interest to bankers with bitcoin. Removal of bankers from the equation is a plus in my book. Is there a good reason why we should persist with FRB that enriches the 1% and pay interest to bankers who create money out of thin air?  It's too ridiculous.

[TaunSew]

Why are house prices so high? http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1514

Housing bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by cheap credit, from the idiot savante middle upper class who can't figure out a better way to acquire money.

Bitcoin bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by an-cap paranoia, from the ibtards who can't figure out a better way to acquire money. 

Funny how they are but two sides of the same coin.

Except Bitcoin doesn't interfere with access to affordable shelter.

Imagine if water was commercialized and made a huge bubble and was priced out of the stratosphere that the only way to afford it would be debt?  Lol

[runam0k]

Because money makes money and the rich get richer.  Inheritance all but guarantees ever increasing disparity.  Sad but true.  The argument that trickle down occurs is flawed (or at least it does nothing to address the increasing disparity).

[Ron~Popeil]

Why are house prices so high? http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1514

Housing bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by cheap credit, from the idiot savante middle upper class who can't figure out a better way to acquire money.

Bitcoin bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by an-cap paranoia, from the ibtards who can't figure out a better way to acquire money. 

Funny how they are but two sides of the same coin.

Except Bitcoin doesn't interfere with access to affordable shelter.

Imagine if water was commercialized and made a huge bubble and was priced out of the stratosphere that the only way to afford it would be debt?  Lol

Don't give them any ideas. 

[twiifm]

Why are house prices so high? http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1514

Housing bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by cheap credit, from the idiot savante middle upper class who can't figure out a better way to acquire money.

Bitcoin bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by an-cap paranoia, from the ibtards who can't figure out a better way to acquire money. 

Funny how they are but two sides of the same coin.

Except Bitcoin doesn't interfere with access to affordable shelter.

Imagine if water was commercialized and made a huge bubble and was priced out of the stratosphere that the only way to afford it would be debt?  Lol

Imagine if water was contained in a lake 21 million Liters in size and half of it has already been claimed the only way to share it is to split the rest amongst every unborn child from here til eternity.  LOL 

[RodeoX]

I hope you realize that it was you working your butt off that got that dude rich. You are how it happened.

[TaunSew]

I hope you realize that it was you working your butt off that got that dude rich. You are how it happened.

If that were the case then all the construction subtrade contractors would be wealthy (when most are only middle upper class at best).  The rich in our society either made money off cheap credit, monopolies and/or franchising.

[Ron~Popeil]

I hope you realize that it was you working your butt off that got that dude rich. You are how it happened.

If that were the case then all the construction subtrade contractors would be wealthy (when most are only middle upper class at best).  The rich in our society either made money off cheap credit, monopolies and/or franchising.

A lot of them got rich with a great idea, hard work, and smart decisions. There is definitely a lot of people that rode a system of theft to great wealth but to say that about all wealthy people is simply wrong.

[Ron~Popeil]

Because money makes money and the rich get richer.  Inheritance all but guarantees ever increasing disparity.  Sad but true.  The argument that trickle down occurs is flawed (or at least it does nothing to address the increasing disparity).

So I don't have the right to pass the fruit of my life long labor to my wife and children? Who then is entitled to steal my hard work? A government looter? You?

[Ozziecoin]

This thread isn't about inheritance tax. It is about the ability of FRB to create wealth for the wealthy because of the mere fact that they hold assets. Please read page 1 if unsure.

[DolanDuck]

The “increasing lopsidedness in terms of wealth accumulation at the top end” would not be so dramatic if median wealth was also increasing. (Mike Santoli)

[lightfoot]

Wow this thread clearly crush "dreamers" 

There are enough evidence, everywhere in the world, where people with "Poor" backgrounds, excelled in life, and made it big.

Bill Gates started in his garage {Today he is the richest man alive}

My neighbor came to our "3rd world" country with only a bag of clothes. 45 years later he pensioned a millionaire, and I am the poor bastard next door, spoiling his view. Ha ha ha.

And there are thousands of these examples of poor people making it big. {Those are the good stories, that catch the news, not the wealthy rich boy, who inherit millions}

Will the rich get richer, yes they will.. Do poor people, have no change, of making it big? No way.   

Gates was hardly from a poor background. Yes he made a lot of money, but never, NEVER forget that a good part of that was because he was in the office the day Digital Research was out hang-gliding. When IBM came a-calling he was there. Was that hard work? Sure. Was that also luck? Sure.

I remember these guys from the ITS days, and when Gates was writing code for the Model 100. Luck played a bigger part than you might want to acknowledge.

And I know plenty of people who founded companies in the 90's dot.com boom and the late 90's Internet boom. Some made a lot of money, then lost it all on their next investment. Because they confused their "luck" with "skill" and "smartz".

That said, studies have shown that social mobility in the US is stagnated. It's a lot harder to drop from rich to poor, and a lot harder to move from poor to rich. Easier to fall out of middle class, harder to move from middle-rich. That's not an opinion, that's a simple flat fact.

My own story of dropping out of HS to where I am now (quite happy and comfortable) is kind of cool, but it really helped that I was sleeping on the right steam grate when the opportunity arose. I credit my skills, my friendly manner, but I *never* forget that luck played a part, along with my upbringing (son of an AT&T manager in the 70's. Got a lot of cool things to play with as a kid).

[Ozziecoin]

I'm really wondering whether the US even has a "middle class" anymore.

[practicaldreamer]

That said, studies have shown that social mobility in the US is stagnated. It's a lot harder to drop from rich to poor, and a lot harder to move from poor to rich. Easier to fall out of middle class, harder to move from middle-rich. That's not an opinion, that's a simple flat fact.

Yes - social mobility studies provide us with the facts that they'd prefer we didn't know about - they'd much prefer to "big up" the guy who dragged himself from the gutter to go on to make a million. Even though it hardly ever happens. But if you live in hope you won't die in despair etc etc - its almost like the opium of the masses these days, having displaced religion, this illusion/self delusion of personal freedom.

Luck played a bigger part than you might want to acknowledge.

... Some made a lot of money, then lost it all on their next investment. Because they confused their "luck" with "skill" and "smartz".


 ...I credit my skills, my friendly manner, but I *never* forget that luck played a part

I've got to say Lightfoot, yours is one of the better posts I have read of late - because by acknowledging your good fortune/luck you are showing humility - and humility is a trait sadly lacking these days in most people. They love to tell you about how they didn't have it easy and had to struggle - even those that blatantly had it laid on a plate - because having the good grace to acknowledge their own good fortune would be a severe hit to their own cherished image of themselves. Its the vanity of it that gets my blood up.

   I've done OK too - I have been lucky - of course I could tell you all a real hard luck story - but the truth is that if I'd been born with a darker skin a few thousand miles south of where I currently reside I wouldn't have 2 bits to scratch my arse with, and if I'd been born where I am now, but maybe 75 years earlier I may have perished in the Great War.

    No - luck plays a much bigger part in all our lives than we care to imagine.

   The 85 who own half this world just won't admit it, thats all. I wonder why   ?

[TwinWinNerD]

@OP. You have logical flaw in your argument in the opening post.

Increased money supply is actually a bad thing for people that hold FIAT or investments that depend on the value of fiat. It is good for people/countries that have lot of debt.

Obviously this flaw doesn't change the fact that the kapitalism is sucking money from the workin folks and distributing upwards

[Robert Paulson]

@OP. You have logical flaw in your argument in the opening post.

Increased money supply is actually a bad thing for people that hold FIAT or investments that depend on the value of fiat. It is good for people/countries that have lot of debt.

Obviously this flaw doesn't change the fact that the kapitalism is sucking money from the workin folks and distributing upwards

capitalism doesn't suck money out of anybody, capitalism is about trading things with one another.
every free trade is beneficial to both parties of the trade, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
rich people are simply people who produced so much goods and services that people want that they were able to trade them for alot of money.

[TwinWinNerD]

@OP. You have logical flaw in your argument in the opening post.

Increased money supply is actually a bad thing for people that hold FIAT or investments that depend on the value of fiat. It is good for people/countries that have lot of debt.

Obviously this flaw doesn't change the fact that the kapitalism is sucking money from the workin folks and distributing upwards

capitalism doesn't suck money out of anybody, capitalism is about trading things with one another.
every free trade is beneficial to both parties of the trade, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
rich people are simply people who produced so much goods and services that people want that they were able to trade them for alot of money.

I was talking about the fact that capitalism is called capitalism because capital is working for you if you have it.

You don't need to produce goods or services. That is the point. Todays financial markets might have basis that creates that stuff, but the way money is made with money previously owned has nothing to do with that anymore (or atleast only remotley).

[Ozziecoin]

@OP. You have logical flaw in your argument in the opening post.

Increased money supply is actually a bad thing for people that hold FIAT or investments that depend on the value of fiat. It is good for people/countries that have lot of debt.

Obviously this flaw doesn't change the fact that the kapitalism is sucking money from the workin folks and distributing upwards

capitalism doesn't suck money out of anybody, capitalism is about trading things with one another.
every free trade is beneficial to both parties of the trade, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
rich people are simply people who produced so much goods and services that people want that they were able to trade them for alot of money.

please read my explanation on pg 1. FRB is enriching asset holders at the expense of those with no assets. If you disagree; cite evidence, not opinion.

[NotLambchop]

...
capitalism doesn't suck money out of anybody, capitalism is about trading things with one another.
every free trade is beneficial to both parties of the trade, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
rich people are simply people who produced so much goods and services that people want that they were able to trade them for alot of money.

Sure.
When I stick a gun in your face and tell you to hand over your money, the proposed exchange is beneficial to both parties--I get your money and you get your life.  Win/win.

Re. ur definition of "rich people": Rich people are simply people with more money than poor people, no need to complicate things.  They are rich regardless of how said money was acquired--through production, manipulation, or theft.
If you were rich at the time I stuck my gun in your face, you are now poor [after, presumably, producing "so much goods and services"], and I am rich.

[tinof]

"Capitalism" means the society value capital and not labor.

Hence, people who know how to manage money get ahead of the games.

[Robert Paulson]

...
capitalism doesn't suck money out of anybody, capitalism is about trading things with one another.
every free trade is beneficial to both parties of the trade, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
rich people are simply people who produced so much goods and services that people want that they were able to trade them for alot of money.

Sure.
When I stick a gun in your face and tell you to hand over your money, the proposed exchange is beneficial to both parties--I get your money and you get your life.  Win/win.

Re. ur definition of "rich people": Rich people are simply people with more money than poor people, no need to complicate things.  They are rich regardless of how said money was acquired--through production, manipulation, or theft.
If you were rich at the time I stuck my gun in your face, you are now poor [after, presumably, producing "so much goods and services"], and I am rich.

i said that every free trade is beneficial to both parties.
if you rob someone by force then obviously the trade isn't free, that isn't capitalism.

@OP. You have logical flaw in your argument in the opening post.

Increased money supply is actually a bad thing for people that hold FIAT or investments that depend on the value of fiat. It is good for people/countries that have lot of debt.

Obviously this flaw doesn't change the fact that the kapitalism is sucking money from the workin folks and distributing upwards

capitalism doesn't suck money out of anybody, capitalism is about trading things with one another.
every free trade is beneficial to both parties of the trade, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
rich people are simply people who produced so much goods and services that people want that they were able to trade them for alot of money.

please read my explanation on pg 1. FRB is enriching asset holders at the expense of those with no assets. If you disagree; cite evidence, not opinion.

i agree with you, FRB is fraud, it has nothing to do with capitalism either.
capitalism and free markets don't exist anywhere in the world today.

[NotLambchop]

...
capitalism doesn't suck money out of anybody, capitalism is about trading things with one another.
every free trade is beneficial to both parties of the trade, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
rich people are simply people who produced so much goods and services that people want that they were able to trade them for alot of money.

Sure.
When I stick a gun in your face and tell you to hand over your money, the proposed exchange is beneficial to both parties--I get your money and you get your life.  Win/win.

Re. ur definition of "rich people": Rich people are simply people with more money than poor people, no need to complicate things.  They are rich regardless of how said money was acquired--through production, manipulation, or theft.
If you were rich at the time I stuck my gun in your face, you are now poor [after, presumably, producing "so much goods and services"], and I am rich.

i said that every free trade is beneficial to both parties.
if you rob someone by force then obviously the trade isn't free, that isn't capitalism.
...

You'e free to turn me down.  You might get shot, but you're free to choose [between your money and your life].
Just like you're free not to work in my factory--you might starve, but the choice is yours.
Just like you're free to leave my country if you don't like my laws--other countries might not be much different/won't take you, but you're always free to try your luck elsewhere.

[jeffersonairplane]

You work your butt off? It's at Mcdonalds, let's be honest that will get you no where. The honest thing is, the corporations are the ones to keep getting richer and richer while the working man helps get that accomplished. Its all a game.

[bitgeek]

It was always like this. Long ago you were born into royalty and others were born into poverty or slavery, they worked their asses off and had nothing their whole lives. Life sux there's no equality and never will be.

[CEG5952]

It was always like this. Long ago you were born into royalty and others were born into poverty or slavery, they worked their asses off and had nothing their whole lives. Life sux there's no equality and never will be.

I'm not convinced. Yes, historically, the basic dynamics of rich vs. poor have never left us, and we aren't exactly fighting the trend, either. But I'm still of the opinion that people can only be kept down for so long....

[Ozziecoin]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing. We should at least remove this feature of modern economies by eradicating FRB. In my view, the best way to achieve this is via having an uninflatable fixed money supply. I.e. crypto currency on a blockchain.

[Ron~Popeil]

It was always like this. Long ago you were born into royalty and others were born into poverty or slavery, they worked their asses off and had nothing their whole lives. Life sux there's no equality and never will be.

I'm not convinced. Yes, historically, the basic dynamics of rich vs. poor have never left us, and we aren't exactly fighting the trend, either. But I'm still of the opinion that people can only be kept down for so long....

I tend to agree that inequality will always be around. We can certainly lessen it greatly but leveling the playing field instead of tilting it in favor of the aristocrats.

[NotLambchop]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

[okthen]

There will be always someone luckier than you, who gets things almost effortless.
But I guess one should take comfort in knowing that if you work your butt off you'll end up better than most dudes in your starting position.

[TheDoors]

The matter is, that there are different rich dudes. Some of them, got rich working their butt off. You just do, what you think you should do, and the result you get is what you deserve.

[Ron~Popeil]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

Indeed it has, but anyone with an internet connection can acquire bit coin and invest with it. There will never be true economic equality, but we don't have to live in a world where the laws and economic playing field is stacked in favor of the rich.

[NotLambchop]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

Indeed it has, but anyone with an internet connection can acquire bit coin and invest with it...

To be more precise, anyone with an internet connection and $654 could acquire a bitcoin.  It is an investment in and of itself.
Investing *with* bitcoin, AKA "invest while you invest," has proved to be slightly less profitable than investing in streetcorner shell games.

[Ozziecoin]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

Indeed it has, but anyone with an internet connection can acquire bit coin and invest with it. There will never be true economic equality, but we don't have to live in a world where the laws and economic playing field is stacked in favor of the rich.

Aye. The initial discrepancy in bitcoin wealth distribution is a one time event, which was made worse by the wealth inequalities in the FRB system allowing the wealthy to acquire more bitcoins to begin with. However, in future years, one must spend bitcoin to obtain goods and services. It will no longer be possible to create more bitcoins out of thin air, as long as all the bitcoins are accounted for on the one blockchain.

[bitgeek]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

Indeed it has, but anyone with an internet connection can acquire bit coin and invest with it. There will never be true economic equality, but we don't have to live in a world where the laws and economic playing field is stacked in favor of the rich.

Aye. The initial discrepancy in bitcoin wealth distribution is a one time event, which was made worse by the wealth inequalities in the FRB system allowing the wealthy to acquire more bitcoins to begin with. However, in future years, one must spend bitcoin to obtain goods and services. It will no longer be possible to create more bitcoins out of thin air, as long as all the bitcoins are accounted for on the one blockchain.

You know how long it will take before bitcoins can no longer be mined? Don't worry about far future, btc may become obsolete before it reaches 21 mill.

[leezay]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

Indeed it has, but anyone with an internet connection can acquire bit coin and invest with it. There will never be true economic equality, but we don't have to live in a world where the laws and economic playing field is stacked in favor of the rich.

Aye. The initial discrepancy in bitcoin wealth distribution is a one time event, which was made worse by the wealth inequalities in the FRB system allowing the wealthy to acquire more bitcoins to begin with. However, in future years, one must spend bitcoin to obtain goods and services. It will no longer be possible to create more bitcoins out of thin air, as long as all the bitcoins are accounted for on the one blockchain.

You know how long it will take before bitcoins can no longer be mined? Don't worry about far future, btc may become obsolete before it reaches 21 mill.

What will make btc obsolete?

[Ron~Popeil]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

Indeed it has, but anyone with an internet connection can acquire bit coin and invest with it. There will never be true economic equality, but we don't have to live in a world where the laws and economic playing field is stacked in favor of the rich.

Aye. The initial discrepancy in bitcoin wealth distribution is a one time event, which was made worse by the wealth inequalities in the FRB system allowing the wealthy to acquire more bitcoins to begin with. However, in future years, one must spend bitcoin to obtain goods and services. It will no longer be possible to create more bitcoins out of thin air, as long as all the bitcoins are accounted for on the one blockchain.

You know how long it will take before bitcoins can no longer be mined? Don't worry about far future, btc may become obsolete before it reaches 21 mill.

Why would it go obsolete? It is designed to be able to evolve with a changing world. 

[okthen]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

Indeed it has, but anyone with an internet connection can acquire bit coin and invest with it. There will never be true economic equality, but we don't have to live in a world where the laws and economic playing field is stacked in favor of the rich.

Aye. The initial discrepancy in bitcoin wealth distribution is a one time event, which was made worse by the wealth inequalities in the FRB system allowing the wealthy to acquire more bitcoins to begin with. However, in future years, one must spend bitcoin to obtain goods and services. It will no longer be possible to create more bitcoins out of thin air, as long as all the bitcoins are accounted for on the one blockchain.

You know how long it will take before bitcoins can no longer be mined? Don't worry about far future, btc may become obsolete before it reaches 21 mill.

Why would it go obsolete? It is designed to be able to evolve with a changing world. 

Yes, and besides that, big names and tech companies are about to get in.
When that happens, they'll have too much to lose and take care of bitcoin's future themselves.

[Ron~Popeil]

For me at least, cryptocurrency is a way to remove one of the major inequality barriers plaguing society. I find it abhorrent that it is possible for asset holders to become wealthier doing nothing...

Holding bitcoin has done just that.

Indeed it has, but anyone with an internet connection can acquire bit coin and invest with it. There will never be true economic equality, but we don't have to live in a world where the laws and economic playing field is stacked in favor of the rich.

Aye. The initial discrepancy in bitcoin wealth distribution is a one time event, which was made worse by the wealth inequalities in the FRB system allowing the wealthy to acquire more bitcoins to begin with. However, in future years, one must spend bitcoin to obtain goods and services. It will no longer be possible to create more bitcoins out of thin air, as long as all the bitcoins are accounted for on the one blockchain.

You know how long it will take before bitcoins can no longer be mined? Don't worry about far future, btc may become obsolete before it reaches 21 mill.

Why would it go obsolete? It is designed to be able to evolve with a changing world. 

Yes, and besides that, big names and tech companies are about to get in.
When that happens, they'll have too much to lose and take care of bitcoin's future themselves.

Exactly. These large organizations now have a vested interest in the future of bit coin. This is a great thing for us.

[Ozziecoin]

One suspects that in the highly unlikely event bitcoin is obsolete that it will be replaced by an alternate cryptocurrency.  As long as the Internet exists, cryptocurrency will exist (is my current view). I think governments are more likely to collapse than for the Internet to collapse. I think the Internet is probably more resilient than the global financial system itself.  

[Ron~Popeil]

One suspects that in the highly unlikely event bitcoin is obsolete that it will be replaced by an alternate cryptocurrency.  As long as the Internet exists, cryptocurrency will exist (is my current view). I think governments are more likely to collapse than for the Internet to collapse. I think the Internet is probably more resilient than the global financial system itself.  

Eventually their will be a satellite based global wifi network. There are a few projects planning that now.

[johnyj]

It's all about the ownership of newly created money --- they belong to reserve banks. Basically banks create money to buy everything on the planet

Notice that the "money" mentioned here is base money, not that FRB based money illusion (M2/M3), banks usually use money illusion to prevent the general public from seeing the truth, and that tactic works very well. You lend the same $100 bill out 10 times and created 10 accounts with $100 in each, but you still have only one $100 bill at any moment, the other $900 are only illusions. FRB is a legalized fraud

[NotLambchop]

^Ever seen a banker moult, johnyj?  It's mesmerizing...

[Ozziecoin]

It's all about the ownership of newly created money --- they belong to reserve banks. Basically banks create money to buy everything on the planet

Notice that the "money" mentioned here is base money, not that FRB based money illusion (M2/M3), banks usually use money illusion to prevent the general public from seeing the truth, and that tactic works very well. You lend the same $100 bill out 10 times and created 10 accounts with $100 in each, but you still have only one $100 bill at any moment, the other $900 are only illusions. FRB is a legalized fraud

Nice illustration. According to positivemoney.org.uk - only 3% of money in the UK economy is real money. 97% of it is credit-money. We are at really crazy levels of leverage.

[bitgeek]

Why would it go obsolete? It is designed to be able to evolve with a changing world. 

Yes, and besides that, big names and tech companies are about to get in.
When that happens, they'll have too much to lose and take care of bitcoin's future themselves.

1. Imagine someone manages to crack the encryption before we reach 21, this is quite possible.
2. Someone makes a better coin, with faster confirmation times. This is possible with enough money pumped into its development.
3. Some countries decide to team up together and create their own crypto. This is also possible, as they may not want to accept bitcoin but have their own thing, and it's almost certain we won't be using paper money in 10 years. 

Yes cryptos are the future but I doubt bitcoin will be the biggest, it will always be known as the precursor, like IBM computers but that's it.

[Ozziecoin]

If one had ANY doubt whatsoever that banks create money out of thin air, watch this: http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1521

We need to use sound money to fix the problem of credit money. Bitcoin, in my mind, is the current front runner.

[distcoin]

Simple:

The wealthy derive their income from investments

The middle class from salary.

The wealthy can place enough of their money outside of currency to profit from the fall of central banker backed fiat money, we the citizens get paid in dollars and are wealth is linked to the fortunes of the currency.

There's your answer. 

[tinof]

Simple:

The wealthy derive their income from investments

The middle class from salary.

The wealthy can place enough of their money outside of currency to profit from the fall of central banker backed fiat money, we the citizens get paid in dollars and are wealth is linked to the fortunes of the currency.

There's your answer.  

The social order changes often.

Wealthy country/family can go down the ladder and middle/lower country/family can climb up.

[Ozziecoin]

The social order changes often.

Wealthy country/family can go down the ladder and middle/lower country/family can climb up.

The one constant under credit-money and unfettered fractional reserve banking is that the 1% ALWAYS gets wealthier, no matter who it is.  ALWAYS.

And the social order does NOT change. It's the same rich people, becoming wealthier.

In Australia for example, the top 1% hold wealth equivalent to the bottom 60%!  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/16/australias-richest-1-own-as-much-as-bottom-60-says-oxfam

The top nine richest people are wealthier than the bottom 20%.  

To pretend that the bottom can get to the top is total and utter nonsense.

Those nine individuals — who also include Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, Harry Triguboff and Frank Lowy — are estimated by Oxfam to have a combined net worth of about $58.6 billion, more than the shared fortunes of the country’s poorest 4.5 million people.

The system is unfairly advantaging asset holders.  It's time we all acknowledged this plain and simple fact. It's also time we used digital currencies to replace credit-money as the lifeblood of our economies. This gross injustice must stop.

[Ozziecoin]

This video explains why the gap between rich and poor is increasing: http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1530

[ljudotina]

Rich sty rich, or get even richer, as they know all rules of the game, and 99% of population is clueless. They play those rules and they live out of that 99%. As simple as that. BTC , if successful, will change those rules. Those that are now rich will have to learn em or parish, while some "new kids" rise....same kids that know new rules and use em.

[TaunSew]

It's not knowing the rules.  It's printing free money through FRB and then buying their own assets - the rich work together
And look out for each other.

[ljudotina]

It's not knowing the rules.  It's printing free money through FRB and then buying their own assets - the rich work together
And look out for each other.

If i knew how fiat system works on time, i would manage my possession very very differenty, and i would have much more now than i have. I wouldn't loose so much value and would probably gain more. Knowing rules in any system is pure gold. Komunism, kapitalism, any other "ism".....all you need to know is rules and of course have guts to work by them.

[LiteCoinGuy]

the rich people get richer and the poor have less and less...hmmm strange  


good video:

http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1530

[Ozziecoin]

Further indicator. Look at where the money is and where it is flowing. Below is a chart of house price increases in price bands over the past 12 months in the US:

[Bobsurplus]

Rich guys are just smarter then you, That's all!

[keithers]

It's because you need money to make more money.   When you have more money, you can also have your money working for you (i.e. investments).

When you are living paycheck to paycheck, you basically feel like you are working your tail off, just to keep your head barely above water.

[DrG]

Rich sty rich, or get even richer, as they know all rules of the game, and 99% of population is clueless. They play those rules and they live out of that 99%. As simple as that. BTC , if successful, will change those rules. Those that are now rich will have to learn em or parish, while some "new kids" rise....same kids that know new rules and use em.

The rich don't know the rules..... they write the rules.  If you can spare 1 million for a team of 5 lobbyist than whisper in your Senator's ear and the Senator writes laws helping you make $10 million more than your competition you just won.  All you need to do is write a check for 5 lobbyists.  This is how is works in the US.  I doubt the rest of the world is any different.

[TaunSew]

It's because you need money to make more money.   When you have more money, you can also have your money working for you (i.e. investments).

When you are living paycheck to paycheck, you basically feel like you are working your tail off, just to keep your head barely above water.

This argument could be true if you're working at Walmart and have three kids to feed, but for most people it isn't.  Wealthier people are not wealthy just because they have money but many have traits conductive to being wealthy, such as patience.  Quite a considerable portion of the world's billionaires owe their wealth due to being buy and hold investors, yes even when they were middle class or poor.

Just think of all the BTC guys who panic sold after making $10K, $100K or $1 million. 

[ajareselde]

Rich guys are just smarter then you, That's all!

i know alot of rich guys, and they are dumb as brick wall.
reason they have money is that it takes money to make money.

then you hire people to work for you, pay them 60% of what u were paid for the job and thats it.
you can do this infinite number of times, because you are not working, and you have your entire time free, unlike workers that loose entire day due to their jobs.

[AdamSmith]

Rich guys are just smarter then you, That's all!

i know alot of rich guys, and they are dumb as brick wall.
reason they have money is that it takes money to make money.

then you hire people to work for you, pay them 60% of what u were paid for the job and thats it.
you can do this infinite number of times, because you are not working, and you have your entire time free, unlike workers that loose entire day due to their jobs.

Investor gets reward by taking risk. Labor get paid by contributing their skill and time and not taking any financial risk.


If investing to get rich is that easier, everyone would be doing it right now.

[Ozziecoin]

I think it should be pretty clear by now that the existing financial system allows investors to invest in assets for speculative reasons and not productive reasons.

I.E. It is easier for a bank to lend for property than for a factory.

This is why, in the UK, only 8% of lending is going towards productive purposes:

Over the last 15 years the banks have used their power to create money to pump hundreds of billions of pounds into the property market (as shown by the increase in the categories “Lending to real estate” and “Secured lending to individuals” below). This has pushed the price of housing out of reach of ordinary people. Lending to the finance sector has also increased greatly over the past 15 years; this sector includes the companies that were involved in much of the reckless speculation which contributed to the crisis.

Meanwhile, lending to businesses has stagnated, harming the real economy and lowering employment and growth.

[trader001]

I think it should be pretty clear by now that the existing financial system allows investors to invest in assets for speculative reasons and not productive reasons.

I.E. It is easier for a bank to lend for property than for a factory.

This is why, in the UK, only 8% of lending is going towards productive purposes:

Over the last 15 years the banks have used their power to create money to pump hundreds of billions of pounds into the property market (as shown by the increase in the categories “Lending to real estate” and “Secured lending to individuals” below). This has pushed the price of housing out of reach of ordinary people. Lending to the finance sector has also increased greatly over the past 15 years; this sector includes the companies that were involved in much of the reckless speculation which contributed to the crisis.

Meanwhile, lending to businesses has stagnated, harming the real economy and lowering employment and growth.

Price of property is governed by rental yield and return of investment. Investors investing in property while ignoring yield and hoping for capital gain is not that much different than gambling and participating in a ponzi scheme.

[Ozziecoin]

Video explaining where money comes from:

http://ozziecoin.com/?p=1538

[keithers]

Many people have earned their way "to doing nothing." The goal should always be to build your business to the point where you need to distribute some of the responsibilities to others so that you can either start building something else, or just become the rainmaker. This applies to sales businesses at least.

[Ozziecoin]

Many people have earned their way "to doing nothing." The goal should always be to build your business to the point where you need to distribute some of the responsibilities to others so that you can either start building something else, or just become the rainmaker. This applies to sales businesses at least.

Please refer to first page.

[NotLambchop]

Video explaining where money comes from:
...

Well son, when two people love each other ... very much ... they get together and uhm...

[Beliathon]

Hello fellow slaves. Here, have some truth. It's free, unlike most things in capitalism, which have first been stolen from you so they can then be sold to you at an unfair price by those who believe themselves to be your masters by right of might.

The biggest scam in history.

The American Dream.

George Carlin - The American Dream

Wealth inequality in America.

Newsnight: Paxman vs. Brand - Full interview

Capitalism hits the fan

Bitcoin vs. political power

Dead dollar walking.

Alternative economy cultures.

The end of poverty.

Capitalism is the crisis.

On climate change. The capitalist elite caste have already destroyed our lives to get what they want: more for themselves and less for everybody else. Do you really believe they won't also wreck this planet to keep their lives of luxury ?

Many people have earned their way "to doing nothing."

Sure they have.  



Don't be naive. These people are sociopaths, every last one. This is our future if we let them keep their power:



Slums for the 99%, luxury condos for the elite caste. Neo-feudalism at its finest.

[Possum577]

Ozzie, you fail to prove how the banker adding 9% to the money supply makes baker Joe 9% poorer. That math wouldn't even work (let alone the fact that you don't provide the explanation to link the logic).

It's great that you're thinking about and questioning how capitalism works!

One thing I think you're missing is that when baker Joe borrows that $100,000 to go into business and subsequently sell his loaves he creates a new need for goods and services from other businesses in the community. He's helped the bank make money, he helps materials and ingredient suppliers make money, he helps the neighboring stores make money, etc. And all of this extra business is created because he's established his business in the first place.

It is true that it takes money to make money. The best part about capitalism, though, is that no matter how much little money you have you can always make money on it, and then make money on those gains, etc. until you've reached a level of wealth you aspire to. And the motivation for all of us should be that the more money we have working for us the more money we can make...it's like a snowball rolling down a hill.

[twiifm]

Hello fellow slaves. Here, have some truth. It's free, unlike most things in capitalism, which have first been stolen from you so they can then be sold to you at an unfair price by those who believe themselves to be your masters by right of might.

The biggest scam in history.

The American Dream.

George Carlin - The American Dream

Wealth inequality in America.

Newsnight: Paxman vs. Brand - Full interview

Capitalism hits the fan

Bitcoin vs. political power

Dead dollar walking.

Alternative economy cultures.

The end of poverty.

Capitalism is the crisis.

On climate change. The capitalist elite caste have already destroyed our lives to get what they want: more for themselves and less for everybody else. Do you really believe they won't also wreck this planet to keep their lives of luxury ?

Many people have earned their way "to doing nothing."

Sure they have.  



Don't be naive. These people are sociopaths, every last one. This is our future if we let them keep their power:



Slums for the 99%, luxury condos for the elite caste. Neo-feudalism at its finest.

Red clay courts.   Sweet.  I wanna live there

[Ozziecoin]

Ozzie, you fail to prove how the banker adding 9% to the money supply makes baker Joe 9% poorer. That math wouldn't even work (let alone the fact that you don't provide the explanation to link the logic).

It's great that you're thinking about and questioning how capitalism works!

One thing I think you're missing is that when baker Joe borrows that $100,000 to go into business and subsequently sell his loaves he creates a new need for goods and services from other businesses in the community. He's helped the bank make money, he helps materials and ingredient suppliers make money, he helps the neighboring stores make money, etc. And all of this extra business is created because he's established his business in the first place.

It is true that it takes money to make money. The best part about capitalism, though, is that no matter how much little money you have you can always make money on it, and then make money on those gains, etc. until you've reached a level of wealth you aspire to. And the motivation for all of us should be that the more money we have working for us the more money we can make...it's like a snowball rolling down a hill.

Ok, please explain to us all why when you or I run a money printing press, the fed police will arrest us immediately. Thanks. Then I'll answer you.

[twiifm]

Ozzie, you fail to prove how the banker adding 9% to the money supply makes baker Joe 9% poorer. That math wouldn't even work (let alone the fact that you don't provide the explanation to link the logic).

It's great that you're thinking about and questioning how capitalism works!

One thing I think you're missing is that when baker Joe borrows that $100,000 to go into business and subsequently sell his loaves he creates a new need for goods and services from other businesses in the community. He's helped the bank make money, he helps materials and ingredient suppliers make money, he helps the neighboring stores make money, etc. And all of this extra business is created because he's established his business in the first place.

It is true that it takes money to make money. The best part about capitalism, though, is that no matter how much little money you have you can always make money on it, and then make money on those gains, etc. until you've reached a level of wealth you aspire to. And the motivation for all of us should be that the more money we have working for us the more money we can make...it's like a snowball rolling down a hill.

Ok, please explain to us all why when you or I run a money printing press, the fed police will arrest us immediately. Thanks. Then I'll answer you.

The Fed doesn't have printing presses.   You're thinking of the Treasury.

What do mean you can't create money like a bank?   What the hell is an ozziecoin then?

[Ozziecoin]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-15/immorality-paper-money

One of today’s most common economic fallacies is that the soaring stock market is evidence of economic recovery. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Stocks have almost tripled since the 2008 collapse, but that stock growth stems from Federal Reserve money printing (inflation) and near zero interest rates. The Fed’s balance sheet has grown more than fourfold since 2008 — to $4.3 trillion — and was used to prop up the “too big to fails.” That money had to go somewhere.

It has found its way into the stock market because U.S. Treasuries are paying less than the rate of inflation; and corporate bonds, certificates of deposit and other fixed-income products pay even less. This and price inflation (currency devaluation) is fueling the rise, not positive economic growth or common sense.

Stocks are being bought by the banksters and large corporations. Average people aren’t buying them. A study by the Pew Research Center found fewer than half of all Americans (45 percent) own stocks. The number is down from 65 percent in 2002. Individual investors are cashing in their retirement funds just to survive.

Government printing press money distorts economic reality, dilutes morality and is the true source of “income inequality.” Financial speculation rises with the increase in paper money and the general work ethic deteriorates. The something-for-nothing mentality pervades society.

Paper money promotes the “quick buck” syndrome like narcotics peddling and hookers on the streets. Hookers, incidentally, were widespread in the Weimar Republic in Germany in 1923 because the women had to sell their bodies for food for themselves and their families.

In a paper money society, the social order visibly deteriorates. The morality of the stable gold standard gradually changes to the amorality of fiat. Few people see the cause and effect, and the politicians try to legislate human behavior. They always fail, as the system is overrun with jails and prisons.

Fiat promotes an illusory reality where non-substance like financial speculation and gambling replaces the substance of industrial production and long-term value. When consumption surpasses income, as the government and the politicians promote, distorted human emotions replace stable behavior. Social breakdown increases, and real values are forgotten.

Prices of labor and craftsmen escalate beyond all reason when there is never enough money. Service repairmen charge fees like medical doctors.

When labor and supplies are valued in fiat, everything becomes distorted. In the final stages of hyperinflation, there is no anchor to sanity and common sense.

Paper money expands consumption way beyond income. This eventually guarantees debt collapse and social breakdown. The foundation of the household collapses and the middle class is destroyed. Paper money is an illusion because it is non-substance and can be created by the government to infinity. When the people accept numbers on green strips of paper or computer symbols for money, they accept illusion for reality. They accept non-substance for substance. Real money (gold and silver) comes from the earth and human production. It is no illusion.

As paper currencies come to their end, governments greatly step up suppression of the people. They start foreign wars. They attack their own population with high-sounding hypocrisy. Government makes criminals out of honest men–“in the public interest,” of course.

What follows? Default of the United States? Not formally, but by stealth depreciation of the currency (inflation). Will the U.S. world system hold? Yes, as long as world fear factor dominates as a result of superior military power. But that fear factor seems to be slipping as the elites behind the scenes use Russia and China to create a system outside the dollar.

Sober people (there are a few) understand monetary realism — to wit, that fiat implies stealth (slow) default. No payment is ever intended and is impossible even if intended. The main feature or attribute of sovereign debt default is gradualism.The public cannot grasp gradualism even as they are impoverished. The debt propaganda — that the U.S. owes debt — is a cover for the fiat regime. It’s a hoax! How can the U.S. owe a “debt” when it can print money to infinity?

A fiat paper money regime always becomes autocratic or fascist toward the last days of its existence. This is the time when the state makes war on its own people. Most never know it because it is not announced, but hidden in propaganda within such terms as “for the common good.”

An unlimited supply of paper money buys sophisticated arms that create fear and the propaganda to manipulate the people against their personal freedom and best interest. Fiat paper money is tyranny or becomes tyranny. It guarantees criminal government.

Paper money, personal freedom and privacy are incompatible. Paper money centralizes power to the state and diminishes the individual. This is the first cause of all you see happening.  All modern wars are paper money wars. Paper money pays the politicians their lavish profligacy, and they keep their mouths shut about the fiat system.

The only way for true economic growth is by the transfer of services, goods or wealth between people (or businesses) who actually produce something. In other words, if someone provides a service and gets gold or silver (actual wealth) or widgets for compensation, both the service provider and widget maker have benefited and each has something that has bettered his standard of living.

If the one who performed the service uses the widgets to acquire trinkets that help him perform his service, then the service performer has benefited. The trinket maker has also benefited, and he can put the widgets to use. This sort of transfer has worked from the beginning of time, when the farmer took his produce to market, where it was sold or bartered in exchange for wealth, tools, supplies and seeds so he could begin producing food for next year.

But the Fed produces nothing but more paper money, and it takes from the producers. Therefore, its only solution for the collapsing financial system is to steal wealth from the producers of goods and services through taxation and provide more and more fiat money and credit. This can only mean final and complete collapse of the U.S. dollar.

A second and primary concern of the Fed is its control of public perceptions. The Fed must keep the crowd quiet. It positively does not want a panic and run on the banks. The very last thing central banks want is transparency. The vested interest (the paper money crowd) will color the news more and more.

Everyone should be aware of this and move as much as possible out of the dollar.

[counter]

Simple a controlled rigged economy from the top down.  The Central banks on top issuing the money they pull all the stings of the puppet politicians.  They have the military and money and that is the answer to your question.  No matter how hard you kill yourself you will be in debt is the case for most people on the planet.

[DavidHume]

Simple a controlled rigged economy from the top down.  The Central banks on top issuing the money they pull all the stings of the puppet politicians.  They have the military and money and that is the answer to your question.  No matter how hard you kill yourself you will be in debt is the case for most people on the planet.

While the game is rigged, people who know how the system work slowly climb their way up. It is not a totally close to outsiders game.

[Ozziecoin]

Simple a controlled rigged economy from the top down.  The Central banks on top issuing the money they pull all the stings of the puppet politicians.  They have the military and money and that is the answer to your question.  No matter how hard you kill yourself you will be in debt is the case for most people on the planet.

While the game is rigged, people who know how the system work slowly climb their way up. It is not a totally close to outsiders game.

Nevertheless, the total unfairness of the system remains. Let's have true and proper capitalism, not debt based regressive capitalism that advantages asset holders. Let's compete on an even playing field.

[Full Spectrum]

Well first what do you mean by nothing? If doing nothing entails market trading, it's not easy, you try it and most likely you'll blow it. But the main reason why a rich person doesn't have to work as hard as a lower class is because they hold something that is hard to take away, social capital. Social Capital is the connections you have, which just alone is a powerful device. Social Capital is very easy to convert into Economic Capital which is why the rich don't have to work as hard as lower classes. Social Capital is the reason why the rich concentrate so easily, the more they congregate the more local property prices rise which makes lower class people sell their houses for a quick buck, the lower classes sell their houses to rich which in turn repeats the process. The rich then use high property taxes to make high quality schooling facilities and then send their children to those schools which build social capital and they get rich continuing the process. If the process is interrupted by integrating the public schools with lower class students like in Boston, they will continue the process with Private Schools. Another reason is because when you're born into the lower class, you have to work harder to get out of it, as opposed to being born into the rich. Lastly to end this, rich people still work, although maybe not as hard, they still do, but I will argue those that have the easiest cakewalk are those with Sexual Capital which is something you can't take away and people are born with it.

[atlosas]

It is easy to criticize fractional reserve banking, but what can you offer instead of it? Communism? Or some deflationary system which doesn't work? (Bitcoin is inflationary)

[Nik1ab]

The problem? Capitalism.

[arbitrage001]

It is easy to criticize fractional reserve banking, but what can you offer instead of it? Communism? Or some deflationary system which doesn't work? (Bitcoin is inflationary)

At least raise the reserve requirement higher when demand for loan is high.

[theonewhowaskazu]

This is silly. There's nothing wrong about fractional reserve lending. People confuse Fractional Reserve Lending with printing money. If you agree to lend me 10 BTC with which I can do whatever I want (i.e, pretty much every loan on this board), and I decide to lend out 9 BTC of that... what's the problem here? Is God supposed to strike me down because I decided to lend that 9 BTC out? Would it be any different if I had just spent that BTC, to a user that again spent that BtC, so the 9 BTC ended back up on you? In either case, you think you have 19 BTC total in BTC and BTC collectibles. If you have something against fractional reserve lending, you have something against debt in general.

What IS wrong is having certain institutions debt be synonymous with cash. Im not even picking a technicality here, people even say stuff like "oh microsoft has sooo much cash." Wrong, they have so much debt of banks. When you make that debt synonymous with cash, then the banks are in fact printing money. What makes it synonymous with cash? FDIC, FED, and the government's implicit promise to bail out every bank.

The correct way for fractional reserve lending to exist:

"Deposits", including CDs, should be legally defined as "super-senior" debt obligations of any institution. If an entity fails to pay something that it calls a "deposit" upon the depositor's request, so long as that request meets the terms of the contract, then the entity must either come up with the shortfall by liquidating its assets, or it enters bankruptcy, and its assets (including debt assets) become the depositor's. All depositor's must be paid before any other creditors, and obviously before any owners of equity in the company.

[Ozziecoin]

This is silly. There's nothing wrong about fractional reserve lending. People confuse Fractional Reserve Lending with printing money. If you agree to lend me 10 BTC with which I can do whatever I want (i.e, pretty much every loan on this board), and I decide to lend out 9 BTC of that... what's the problem here? Is God supposed to strike me down because I decided to lend that 9 BTC out? Would it be any different if I had just spent that BTC, to a user that again spent that BtC, so the 9 BTC ended back up on you? In either case, you think you have 19 BTC total in BTC and BTC collectibles. If you have something against fractional reserve lending, you have something against debt in general.

What IS wrong is having certain institutions debt be synonymous with cash. Im not even picking a technicality here, people even say stuff like "oh microsoft has sooo much cash." Wrong, they have so much debt of banks. When you make that debt synonymous with cash, then the banks are in fact printing money. What makes it synonymous with cash? FDIC, FED, and the government's implicit promise to bail out every bank.

The correct way for fractional reserve lending to exist:

"Deposits", including CDs, should be legally defined as "super-senior" debt obligations of any institution. If an entity fails to pay something that it calls a "deposit" upon the depositor's request, so long as that request meets the terms of the contract, then the entity must either come up with the shortfall by liquidating its assets, or it enters bankruptcy, and its assets (including debt assets) become the depositor's. All depositor's must be paid before any other creditors, and obviously before any owners of equity in the company.

Technically, this comment is incorrect for the reason that banks are able to create money out of thin air and their losses are bailed out by taxpayers.

Secondly, FRB is fraudulent for the reason that people do not read fine print, do not understand that their deposits are being lent out and that they do not have free access to the entirety of their deposits.

[Ozziecoin]

The problem? Capitalism.

Nothing wrong with capitalism, the problem is regressive wealth distribution due to banks being able to create unlimited money out of thin air and charge interest on monies created.

[Ozziecoin]

It is easy to criticize fractional reserve banking, but what can you offer instead of it? Communism? Or some deflationary system which doesn't work? (Bitcoin is inflationary)

We can offer two forms of positive (non debt based) money:

Option 1: Use money printed by central banks that is not debt dependent. Supply controlled by independent central bank with nominal inflation target.

Option 2: issue cryptocurrency, which is non debt based money. Eventually, this money supply will prove more stable than debt based money.

We are choosing the latter as effort to shift government to option 1 will take significant time. Option 2 can be implemented immediately and early adopters can opt out of debt based money immediately.

We are not advocating communism. We are advocating a purer form of capitalism that is not based on debt. The current debt based system unfairly advantages asset holders over non asset holders. We find this reprehensible and contrary to the concept of open competition and free markets.

[theonewhowaskazu]

This is silly. There's nothing wrong about fractional reserve lending. People confuse Fractional Reserve Lending with printing money. If you agree to lend me 10 BTC with which I can do whatever I want (i.e, pretty much every loan on this board), and I decide to lend out 9 BTC of that... what's the problem here? Is God supposed to strike me down because I decided to lend that 9 BTC out? Would it be any different if I had just spent that BTC, to a user that again spent that BtC, so the 9 BTC ended back up on you? In either case, you think you have 19 BTC total in BTC and BTC collectibles. If you have something against fractional reserve lending, you have something against debt in general.

What IS wrong is having certain institutions debt be synonymous with cash. Im not even picking a technicality here, people even say stuff like "oh microsoft has sooo much cash." Wrong, they have so much debt of banks. When you make that debt synonymous with cash, then the banks are in fact printing money. What makes it synonymous with cash? FDIC, FED, and the government's implicit promise to bail out every bank.

The correct way for fractional reserve lending to exist:

"Deposits", including CDs, should be legally defined as "super-senior" debt obligations of any institution. If an entity fails to pay something that it calls a "deposit" upon the depositor's request, so long as that request meets the terms of the contract, then the entity must either come up with the shortfall by liquidating its assets, or it enters bankruptcy, and its assets (including debt assets) become the depositor's. All depositor's must be paid before any other creditors, and obviously before any owners of equity in the company.

Technically, this comment is incorrect for the reason that banks are able to create money out of thin air and their losses are bailed out by taxpayers.

Secondly, FRB is fraudulent for the reason that people do not read fine print, do not understand that their deposits are being lent out and that they do not have free access to the entirety of their deposits.

Did you even bother reading my comment? Fractional reserve banking does NOT allow banks to print money out of thin air. It allows them to print DEBT CONTRACTS out of thin air, which is kind of the entire point of a bank. Its the FED/FDIC/Government's implicit promise that allows banks to print money out of thin air. The free market doesn't allow creation of money from nothing. Fractional Reserve Banking does exist in the free market.

[bit popular]

Because fortune may have come down to the rich guy earlier.

[theonewhowaskazu]

Because fortune may have come down to the rich guy earlier.

How do you have actiity 0? wouldn't posting this give you activity 1?

[Ozziecoin]

Did you even bother reading my comment? Fractional reserve banking does NOT allow banks to print money out of thin air. It allows them to print DEBT CONTRACTS out of thin air, which is kind of the entire point of a bank. Its the FED/FDIC/Government's implicit promise that allows banks to print money out of thin air. The free market doesn't allow creation of money from nothing. Fractional Reserve Banking does exist in the free market.

Yes I did. Debt contracts create money because credit is guaranteed by govts.

As that is what practically happens because the purpose of the central bank is to act as lender of last resort, therefore, banks ARE able to print money out of thin air.

I.e. the entire foundation of banking is based on explicit and implicit guarantees from central bank/govt.

[Ozziecoin]

If we keep going down this path, we will see people live like this in western countries: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-19/listed-only-hk194-million-what-hong-kongs-cheapest-home-looks

[lightfoot]

252k for a US flat in a major city? You haven't been to New York lately, have you? :-)

To be honest I have seen a number of small houses at the Solar Decathalons that are not too much bigger but have more than enough space for two. Check them out sometime; google it.

C

[SHA255]

This is silly. There's nothing wrong about fractional reserve lending. People confuse Fractional Reserve Lending with printing money. If you agree to lend me 10 BTC with which I can do whatever I want (i.e, pretty much every loan on this board), and I decide to lend out 9 BTC of that... what's the problem here? Is God supposed to strike me down because I decided to lend that 9 BTC out? Would it be any different if I had just spent that BTC, to a user that again spent that BtC, so the 9 BTC ended back up on you? In either case, you think you have 19 BTC total in BTC and BTC collectibles. If you have something against fractional reserve lending, you have something against debt in general.

What IS wrong is having certain institutions debt be synonymous with cash. Im not even picking a technicality here, people even say stuff like "oh microsoft has sooo much cash." Wrong, they have so much debt of banks. When you make that debt synonymous with cash, then the banks are in fact printing money. What makes it synonymous with cash? FDIC, FED, and the government's implicit promise to bail out every bank.

The correct way for fractional reserve lending to exist:

"Deposits", including CDs, should be legally defined as "super-senior" debt obligations of any institution. If an entity fails to pay something that it calls a "deposit" upon the depositor's request, so long as that request meets the terms of the contract, then the entity must either come up with the shortfall by liquidating its assets, or it enters bankruptcy, and its assets (including debt assets) become the depositor's. All depositor's must be paid before any other creditors, and obviously before any owners of equity in the company.

Technically, this comment is incorrect for the reason that banks are able to create money out of thin air and their losses are bailed out by taxpayers.

Secondly, FRB is fraudulent for the reason that people do not read fine print, do not understand that their deposits are being lent out and that they do not have free access to the entirety of their deposits.

Did you even bother reading my comment? Fractional reserve banking does NOT allow banks to print money out of thin air. It allows them to print DEBT CONTRACTS out of thin air, which is kind of the entire point of a bank. Its the FED/FDIC/Government's implicit promise that allows banks to print money out of thin air. The free market doesn't allow creation of money from nothing. Fractional Reserve Banking does exist in the free market.

The other end of a debt contract is the person taking on the debt receiving money in exchange for the loan. In essence they are creating money. 

[twiifm]

Yes I did. Debt contracts create money because credit is guaranteed by govts.

Credit is not guaranteed by govt you dumbshit

If you take out a mortgage and you default on it the bank takes your house and if they sell for less than the mortgage they take a loss.  If you overspend your credit card and declare bankruptcy the bank takes the loss.

"Lender of last resort" means they LEND the money as last resort NOT "give it away for free".  God this thread stupid and annoying.  I regret replying but too much FUD here

[lightfoot]

Yes I did. Debt contracts create money because credit is guaranteed by govts.

Credit is not guaranteed by govt you dumbshit

If you take out a mortgage and you default on it the bank takes your house and if they sell for less than the mortgage they take a loss.  If you overspend your credit card and declare bankruptcy the bank takes the loss.

I think the poster is pointing out that in the 2008 debacle, the Govt did bail out the banks. Granted the Govt under Obama *did* make a tidy profit on this, but there are people who do not believe this was "right".

So in that case, credit *was* being backstopped by the Govt.

C

[Ozziecoin]

I have ignore on twiifm, as he prone to outbursts of filth.

To be precise, the purpose of the fed reserve is to act as lender of last resort. So deposits are back stopped, end of story. This has been the case since the creation of the fed reserve. That is the purpose of the fed reserve: to backstop deposits. So, how come the banking system melted down?

During the GFC, due to banks not being able to trust each other's balance sheets (thus jamming up the credit creation mechanism as banks refused to lend to each other) treasury was forced to step in with backstops on tier 1 bank capital.

The problem was caused by banks rehypothecating treasury notes over the last few years. Basically, lending each other treasury notes and pretending everyone had enough tier 1 capital.

The banks were practicing a special form of UNLIMITED FRB, which allowed banks to effectively create unlimited amounts of credit-money.

When mortgage assets inevitably became impaired, the house of cards collapsed. Treasury "fixed" the problem by backstopping tier 1 capital via tarp, modifying GAAP rules to not recognise losses of Mortgage Backed Securities and issuing cheap credit to banks to reinflate lending and asset values.

As a consequence of treasury's helpfulness, all the previous imbalances were restored, including the rich and poor divide; except now the rich are even wealthier and the middle classes are being eroded by low wage growth and high cost of living pressures. Welcome to modern debt based capitalism. Totally rigged in favour of asset holders over non asset holders.

[Ozziecoin]

This explains why credit creation equals money creation: http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/banking-101-video-course/do-banks-create-money-or-just-credit-banking-101-part-5/

[johnyj]

This explains why credit creation equals money creation: http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/banking-101-video-course/do-banks-create-money-or-just-credit-banking-101-part-5/

This explanation, together with many books from economy schools, try to fool people by mixing checkbook money with base money, unfortunately, most of the people fall for the scheme

Central banks create base money, but checkbook money are just numbers recorded at commercial bank's checkbook, in most of the case, banks don't have that money (otherwise Lehman brothers won't go broke, they can just create more credit on their checkbook), they already lend that money out

By lending the same $100 bill 10 times they would create $1000 checkbook money, but at any time, there is only one $100 bill note in existence, if bank's customers request more than $100 withdraw at the same time, the bank will have a bank run thus go broke

Nowadays, when customer do electronic bank wire transfer, withdraw from bank A will eventually reach another bank B, so bank A can simply borrow those money back from Bank B to deal with more withdraw pressure, thus reduce the risk of a bankrun. But for cash withdraws they have no control, so they have to limit how much cash each debit/credit card can withdraw in a day

[GrandmaJean]

Yes I did. Debt contracts create money because credit is guaranteed by govts.

Credit is not guaranteed by govt you dumbshit

If you take out a mortgage and you default on it the bank takes your house and if they sell for less than the mortgage they take a loss.  If you overspend your credit card and declare bankruptcy the bank takes the loss.

"Lender of last resort" means they LEND the money as last resort NOT "give it away for free".  God this thread stupid and annoying.  I regret replying but too much FUD here

this is technically true however a lot of mortgages are guaranteed by GSEs (government sponsored entities) which have an implied guarantee by the government

[twiifm]

Too much misinformation in this thread.

1.  Lehman is not a commercial bank so its not part of the Federal Reserve System
2.  Lehman was doing the borrowing not lending.  It borrowed money to buy MBS's at the lower tranches (subprime & risky).  When the housing market went bust the MBS lost money and they couldn't deleverage fast enough to avoid bankruptcy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers_bankruptcy

3.  Fannie & Freddie don't guarantee mortgages.  They were created in order to expand secondary mortgage market. 
4.  Guarantor is the person who takes on legal obligation of payment in case of default.  I can tell you that if you default the bank will take your house.  Govt (in USA) will not pay your mortgage for you.  Nor they will even sign as guarantor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac

[DooMAD]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-15/immorality-paper-money

Good article, I'll be spreading that one around.  Seems to be supported by this graph:



As soon as monetary supply was warped into something that could be manipulated, the average person's wages began to stagnate in real terms.  Productivity increases, but wages stay the same unless you're the company CEO. It's not some bizarre coincidence, it works that way by design.  Saying the system is 'rigged' doesn't even begin to describe it.  It's all an elaborate theft and transference of wealth.

[Ron~Popeil]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-15/immorality-paper-money

Good article, I'll be spreading that one around.  Seems to be supported by this graph:



As soon as monetary supply was warped into something that could be manipulated, the average person's wages began to stagnate in real terms.  Productivity increases, but wages stay the same unless you're the company CEO. It's not some bizarre coincidence, it works that way by design.  Saying the system is 'rigged' doesn't even begin to describe it.  It's all an elaborate theft and transference of wealth.

It is astonishing isn't it? And it is accelerating. I doubt the current system lasts much longer. I give it 10 years.

[twiifm]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-15/immorality-paper-money

Good article, I'll be spreading that one around.  Seems to be supported by this graph:



As soon as monetary supply was warped into something that could be manipulated, the average person's wages began to stagnate in real terms.  Productivity increases, but wages stay the same unless you're the company CEO. It's not some bizarre coincidence, it works that way by design.  Saying the system is 'rigged' doesn't even begin to describe it.  It's all an elaborate theft and transference of wealth.

Its likely because CEOs are paid w capital (stocks) and workers are paid for labor.  Cannot make conclusion w gold standard just by looking at that chart

[Ozziecoin]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-15/immorality-paper-money

Good article, I'll be spreading that one around.  Seems to be supported by this graph:



As soon as monetary supply was warped into something that could be manipulated, the average person's wages began to stagnate in real terms.  Productivity increases, but wages stay the same unless you're the company CEO. It's not some bizarre coincidence, it works that way by design.  Saying the system is 'rigged' doesn't even begin to describe it.  It's all an elaborate theft and transference of wealth.

Yes, it's even worse because real wages only covers inflation. Over and above ordinary inflation, asset prices have been jacked up at about two or three times the rate of inflation.

Hence, asset holders benefit twice: once via productivity gains they are not paying fair wages for and secondly via asset price increases which they have benefited from by doing nothing.

The biggest lie of debt based capitalism is that it is efficient at distributing resources. It does no such thing. It screws over those people who work and cannot afford assets; basically the most disadvantaged groups in society.

[twiifm]

If anyone is actually interested in the subject of "inequality" then watch this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2215151/?ref_=nv_sr_1

And read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405911106&sr=8-1&keywords=piketty

The underlying causes have little to do w Federal Reserve or gold standard or fractional reserve banking.  Mostly it has to do with deregulation, globalization that coincides w rapid technological advancement

[Ozziecoin]

Mainstream economics has lost all credibility. Time for a new and better understanding of what goes on in our economies. Hopefully, we can all stand back and frankly assess where money actually comes from. And what effects that debt-money has on our economic systems.

Personally, I'm sick of the blind bandaid solutions that conventional economists have recommended. We can see the US will not achieve economic recovery, not even close. Something is wrong with the Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen/Krugman view of economics. They have clearly been misled and are not wise enough to realise that their policies are hurting poor/middle classes whilst enriching the rich. There is no doubt in my mind they have caused great harm on ordinary people, whether intentionally or otherwise. Enough is enough. Let these blind people practice their crafts of self delusion on themselves. Get rid of them. Let them be recognised for what they are in history books. Let people write about what Tim and Hank did during the GFC.

There will be a new school of economics that will debunk the myths of mainstream economics, pointing out the very obvious flaws: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/21/global-news/are-students-revolting-or-it-economics

So business-as-usual has returned. But it won’t be business-as-usual at Kingston. I’ve been hired with the express mandate to take a University that is open to non-orthodox thought in economics and make it even stronger. We will teach neoclassical economics as well, warts and all. And we will teach the many non-orthodox streams of thought (post Keynesian, evolutionary economics, econophysics) too.

In doing so, we’ll be responding to the successors of those students who, 41 years ago, fought for a different approach to economics at Sydney University. There are now at least 65 student organizations around the world calling for a new approach to economics in what they have titled ISIPE: the "International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics”.

[Cicero2.0]

Mainstream economics has lost all credibility. Time for a new and better understanding of what goes on in our economies. Hopefully, we can all stand back and frankly assess where money actually comes from. And what effects that debt-money has on our economic systems.

Personally, I'm sick of the blind bandaid solutions that conventional economists have recommended. We can see the US will not achieve economic recovery, not even close. Something is wrong with the Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen/Krugman view of economics. They have clearly been misled and are not wise enough to realise that their policies are hurting poor/middle classes whilst enriching the rich. There is no doubt in my mind they have caused great harm on ordinary people, whether intentionally or otherwise. Enough is enough. Let these blind people practice their crafts of self delusion on themselves. Get rid of them. Let them be recognised for what they are in history books. Let people write about what Tim and Hank did during the GFC.

There will be a new school of economics that will debunk the myths of mainstream economics, pointing out the very obvious flaws: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/21/global-news/are-students-revolting-or-it-economics

So business-as-usual has returned. But it won’t be business-as-usual at Kingston. I’ve been hired with the express mandate to take a University that is open to non-orthodox thought in economics and make it even stronger. We will teach neoclassical economics as well, warts and all. And we will teach the many non-orthodox streams of thought (post Keynesian, evolutionary economics, econophysics) too.

In doing so, we’ll be responding to the successors of those students who, 41 years ago, fought for a different approach to economics at Sydney University. There are now at least 65 student organizations around the world calling for a new approach to economics in what they have titled ISIPE: the "International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics”.

I can remember just a few years ago in college hearing about what a hero Keynes was. I was one of the few that had the temerity to disagree. I think my professor hated me but I stood my ground and actually got an A in the class.   

[twiifm]

Mainstream economics has lost all credibility. Time for a new and better understanding of what goes on in our economies. Hopefully, we can all stand back and frankly assess where money actually comes from. And what effects that debt-money has on our economic systems.

Personally, I'm sick of the blind bandaid solutions that conventional economists have recommended. We can see the US will not achieve economic recovery, not even close. Something is wrong with the Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen/Krugman view of economics. They have clearly been misled and are not wise enough to realise that their policies are hurting poor/middle classes whilst enriching the rich. There is no doubt in my mind they have caused great harm on ordinary people, whether intentionally or otherwise. Enough is enough. Let these blind people practice their crafts of self delusion on themselves. Get rid of them. Let them be recognised for what they are in history books. Let people write about what Tim and Hank did during the GFC.

There will be a new school of economics that will debunk the myths of mainstream economics, pointing out the very obvious flaws: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/21/global-news/are-students-revolting-or-it-economics

So business-as-usual has returned. But it won’t be business-as-usual at Kingston. I’ve been hired with the express mandate to take a University that is open to non-orthodox thought in economics and make it even stronger. We will teach neoclassical economics as well, warts and all. And we will teach the many non-orthodox streams of thought (post Keynesian, evolutionary economics, econophysics) too.

In doing so, we’ll be responding to the successors of those students who, 41 years ago, fought for a different approach to economics at Sydney University. There are now at least 65 student organizations around the world calling for a new approach to economics in what they have titled ISIPE: the "International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics”.

OMG you posted an article written by Steve Keen who is a self described post-Keynesian and MMT'r.  You obviously don't know what you are talking about when it comes to monetary theory because Steve Keen would not subscribe to bitcoin or any type of crypto.

A central tent of MMT is that money is endogenous, which means money is not created by Central Banks but from credit (loans).  MMT wouldn't even classify bitcoin as money in the first place.

This is why I can't stand this thread.  You keep posting misinformation based on your ignorance of economics.

C'mon man educate yourself

[Ozziecoin]

Notable quotes from Keen:

Banks, private debt, asset markets and money played essential roles in Minsky’s vision of capitalism, but they were completely ignored in mainstream economic models before the crisis. This is where Abbott was and is wrong: just because left-wing economists are ideological, it doesn’t follow that mainstream economics was logical. Crucially, its illogical decision to model capitalism as if banks, private debt and money didn’t exist led it massively astray when it came to perceive grave risks to the real economy.

[SunBin]

Mainstream economics has lost all credibility. Time for a new and better understanding of what goes on in our economies. Hopefully, we can all stand back and frankly assess where money actually comes from. And what effects that debt-money has on our economic systems.

Personally, I'm sick of the blind bandaid solutions that conventional economists have recommended. We can see the US will not achieve economic recovery, not even close. Something is wrong with the Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen/Krugman view of economics. They have clearly been misled and are not wise enough to realise that their policies are hurting poor/middle classes whilst enriching the rich. There is no doubt in my mind they have caused great harm on ordinary people, whether intentionally or otherwise. Enough is enough. Let these blind people practice their crafts of self delusion on themselves. Get rid of them. Let them be recognised for what they are in history books. Let people write about what Tim and Hank did during the GFC.

There will be a new school of economics that will debunk the myths of mainstream economics, pointing out the very obvious flaws: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/21/global-news/are-students-revolting-or-it-economics

So business-as-usual has returned. But it won’t be business-as-usual at Kingston. I’ve been hired with the express mandate to take a University that is open to non-orthodox thought in economics and make it even stronger. We will teach neoclassical economics as well, warts and all. And we will teach the many non-orthodox streams of thought (post Keynesian, evolutionary economics, econophysics) too.

In doing so, we’ll be responding to the successors of those students who, 41 years ago, fought for a different approach to economics at Sydney University. There are now at least 65 student organizations around the world calling for a new approach to economics in what they have titled ISIPE: the "International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics”.

Their view is the reason why they are allowed be on top of the government food chain. The men behind the scene is putting the right puppets in the right position to steer the country toward their desire course.

[twiifm]

Notable quotes from Keen:

Banks, private debt, asset markets and money played essential roles in Minsky’s vision of capitalism, but they were completely ignored in mainstream economic models before the crisis. This is where Abbott was and is wrong: just because left-wing economists are ideological, it doesn’t follow that mainstream economics was logical. Crucially, its illogical decision to model capitalism as if banks, private debt and money didn’t exist led it massively astray when it came to perceive grave risks to the real economy.

Yeah exactly.  So why you keep thinking Central Banks and fractional reserve create money?

Central Banks create base money but half the money exists in shadow banking.   This is all uncharted territory and where the post-Keynesians & MMT'rs put their focus.  The issue is how to regulate shadow banking.  We already know how to deal w commercial banks

[hyperdimension]

Sorry,
but dont really understand this chart the OP posted...
The world is like this: there is rich people and there is poor people..there is no middle point. Everyone who think he is in the middle point is actually poor. Thats it!

BR,
Gondel

This then this.

[Ozziecoin]

Why house prices are so high: http://youtu.be/Y4WmDoYJhnk

It is purely caused by the kind of financial system that we have. Asset holders are not any smarter, they were simply born at the right time and into the right family.

[coinits]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

[lightfoot]

Quack Quack Quack.

(As I watch this thread slide into Duckspeak, I wonder how I can get it off my updated topics list)

[twiifm]

Why house prices are so high: http://youtu.be/Y4WmDoYJhnk

It is purely caused by the kind of financial system that we have. Asset holders are not any smarter, they were simply born at the right time and into the right family.

How did you watch that video and conclude a correlation between rich and lucky.   Video said nothing about that.

You seem to have a comprehension problem

[SHA255]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

[Ozziecoin]

@OP. You have logical flaw in your argument in the opening post.

Increased money supply is actually a bad thing for people that hold FIAT or investments that depend on the value of fiat. It is good for people/countries that have lot of debt.

Obviously this flaw doesn't change the fact that the kapitalism is sucking money from the workin folks and distributing upwards

Which is why rich people hold assets and not fiat. The fiat is being pumped into asset prices via private debt creation. Hope that makes sense.

[Ozziecoin]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

It should be very clear by now that banks are creating unlimited credit money on top of fiat. When the government then guarantees bank deposits, they effectively convert bank credit money into fiat.

Therefore, fiat is now the greatest Ponzi in all of history. This is because the banking sector is able to create unlimited amounts of effective fiat. See m3 money supply on page 1 of this post.

[51percemt]

Notable quotes from Keen:

Banks, private debt, asset markets and money played essential roles in Minsky’s vision of capitalism, but they were completely ignored in mainstream economic models before the crisis. This is where Abbott was and is wrong: just because left-wing economists are ideological, it doesn’t follow that mainstream economics was logical. Crucially, its illogical decision to model capitalism as if banks, private debt and money didn’t exist led it massively astray when it came to perceive grave risks to the real economy.

Yeah exactly.  So why you keep thinking Central Banks and fractional reserve create money?

Central Banks create base money but half the money exists in shadow banking.   This is all uncharted territory and where the post-Keynesians & MMT'rs put their focus.  The issue is how to regulate shadow banking.  We already know how to deal w commercial banks

it is important to understand that any major changes to the regulation of shadow banking can cause huge effects as the shadow banking system is highly leveraged

[twiifm]

Notable quotes from Keen:

Banks, private debt, asset markets and money played essential roles in Minsky’s vision of capitalism, but they were completely ignored in mainstream economic models before the crisis. This is where Abbott was and is wrong: just because left-wing economists are ideological, it doesn’t follow that mainstream economics was logical. Crucially, its illogical decision to model capitalism as if banks, private debt and money didn’t exist led it massively astray when it came to perceive grave risks to the real economy.

Yeah exactly.  So why you keep thinking Central Banks and fractional reserve create money?

Central Banks create base money but half the money exists in shadow banking.   This is all uncharted territory and where the post-Keynesians & MMT'rs put their focus.  The issue is how to regulate shadow banking.  We already know how to deal w commercial banks

it is important to understand that any major changes to the regulation of shadow banking can cause huge effects as the shadow banking system is highly leveraged

Your right about leveraging causing fragility but by definition shadow banking is unregulated banking.  We can regulate CDSs for example but the banks will just invent new financial intruments. 

[i dig bitcoins]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

Are you f*#king kidding me? You are joking right? If not, that is a hilarious statement...you ought to become a comedian.

[AdamSmith]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

Are you f*#king kidding me? You are joking right? If not, that is a hilarious statement...you ought to become a comedian.

If the currency and interest rate are regulated by market, then the statement "Fiat is generally backed by the economy(production and service) of the country" assessment is mostly correct.

[i dig bitcoins]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

Are you f*#king kidding me? You are joking right? If not, that is a hilarious statement...you ought to become a comedian.

If the currency and interest rate are regulated by market, then the statement "Fiat is generally backed by the economy(production and service) of the country" assessment is mostly correct.

You cannot generally back fiat...it is either backed or not. As well, by the very classification of FIAT means that it is back by nothing but the "Faith and Credit of the Govt"
Also, currency and interest rate are NOT regulated by the market...it is determined by the Federal reserve, specifically the FOMC. The two of you are spewing bullshit!!
Faith and Credit doesn't mean jack shit either as the credit is just monetized debt. Quit playing games, man.

[twiifm]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

Are you f*#king kidding me? You are joking right? If not, that is a hilarious statement...you ought to become a comedian.

If the currency and interest rate are regulated by market, then the statement "Fiat is generally backed by the economy(production and service) of the country" assessment is mostly correct.

You cannot generally back fiat...it is either backed or not. As well, by the very classification of FIAT means that it is back by nothing but the "Faith and Credit of the Govt"
Also, currency and interest rate are NOT regulated by the market...it is determined by the Federal reserve, specifically the FOMC. The two of you are spewing bullshit!!
Faith and Credit doesn't mean jack shit either as the credit is just monetized debt. Quit playing games, man.

Hardly anyone here knows the meaning of 'backed'.  It means 'convertible to'.

A long time ago when we had gold notes,   "backed by gold" means convertible to gold.  

Nowadays,  the Federal Reserve assets still have gold but mainly securities.  So USD is only convertible to USD but its value is derived from Feds assets.  On forex different currencies prices has to do w the issuing country's economic output amongst other things

Bitcoin,  however is pure speculation because its value is not derived from anything other than market forces.  The closest we ever got to a bitcoin economy was silk road.

Some people thinks the value of bitcoin is tied to the cost of production.   Like how much it costs to mine 1 BTC.   If you think this then you see bitcoin as a commodity not as a money

Credit is money by definition,  whether you have a moral objection to it or not

[Ozziecoin]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

Are you f*#king kidding me? You are joking right? If not, that is a hilarious statement...you ought to become a comedian.

If the currency and interest rate are regulated by market, then the statement "Fiat is generally backed by the economy(production and service) of the country" assessment is mostly correct.

As money is being created out of thin air, effectively it is backed by nothing.

[AdamSmith]

You cannot generally back fiat...it is either backed or not. As well, by the very classification of FIAT means that it is back by nothing but the "Faith and Credit of the Govt"
Also, currency and interest rate are NOT regulated by the market...it is determined by the Federal reserve, specifically the FOMC. The two of you are spewing bullshit!!
Faith and Credit doesn't mean jack shit either as the credit is just monetized debt. Quit playing games, man.

As money is being created out of thin air, effectively it is backed by nothing.

You can buy just about any goods and services using fiat. So it is backed by something.

[twiifm]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

Are you f*#king kidding me? You are joking right? If not, that is a hilarious statement...you ought to become a comedian.

If the currency and interest rate are regulated by market, then the statement "Fiat is generally backed by the economy(production and service) of the country" assessment is mostly correct.

As money is being created out of thin air, effectively it is backed by nothing.

You don't know what backed means.   Whats Ozziecoin backed by?

[Ozziecoin]

You cannot generally back fiat...it is either backed or not. As well, by the very classification of FIAT means that it is back by nothing but the "Faith and Credit of the Govt"
Also, currency and interest rate are NOT regulated by the market...it is determined by the Federal reserve, specifically the FOMC. The two of you are spewing bullshit!!
Faith and Credit doesn't mean jack shit either as the credit is just monetized debt. Quit playing games, man.

As money is being created out of thin air, effectively it is backed by nothing.

You can buy just about any goods and services using fiat. So it is backed by something.

See GFC, wealth/money can be instantly destroyed.

[rottentomatoes]

Ive had this feeling forever. How to scape? 

[Ozziecoin]

Ive had this feeling forever. How to scape? 

Avoid debt. We need positive money in our financial system, as in non-debt based money. Either the government provides it (see Japan post 1990) or choose a digital currency to do the job. Btc is ok but has no privacy. Darkcoin is interesting. Gold is relevant to barter economies which I don't think we are going to revert to.

[Ozziecoin]

I love these quotes from this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking:

The proceeds of most bank loans are not, however, in the form of currency (central bank money). In the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has stated:
Of course, they [commercial banks] do not really make loans out of the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, they would be acting just like financial intermediaries and no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits they make to the borrowers' deposit accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise....[21]

The American Bankers Association has also stated that most bank loans are made not by doling out paper currency and coin, but instead by creating or increasing deposit liabilities owed by the bank:
Typically, bank loans are made to existing customers, or the proceeds of a loan are used to open an account; thus, most bank loans increase total deposits. In the typical credit situation, two balance sheet items --loans and deposits -- are simultaneously increased.[22]

[novacn]

AFAIK many rich dudes also work their butt off, even busier than most of us.

[TaunSew]

AFAIK many rich dudes also work their butt off, even busier than most of us.

Only by choice.  Most rich people 'work' through a division of labour, meaning all the slog and the actual real work is passed down the hierarchy to the thousands or millions of employees who are only paid 'competitive salaries' (meaning subsistence wages or barely middle class).

The hardest thing in this world is becoming a credentialed professional and yet most professionals in this world are only middle class in income and hold a lot of responsibility, have to be accountable and run the risk of being terminated at any moments' notice.

If 'many rich dudes also work their butt off', is the case then maybe they should just quit that hard work and become a Doctor, an Accountant or one of those lazy lawyers?  Heck just quit and do something like fix piping underneath houses for 12 hours a day, so easy!

[DrG]

Well those whose objectives are to be become wealthy and nothing more (not create a company to be proud of, not create a product to change the world) often look for work that bypasses not hurdles and attempts to exploit some resource (human, manmade or natural).  Those people's goal is strictly money - and they don't care how they get it.  Some may indeed "work" hard, but they may not actually be doing "work" in the sense of creating something purposeful.

Most burglars in a large city "work" - they just don't accomplish anything.

[Ltsknnr]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

Are you f*#king kidding me? You are joking right? If not, that is a hilarious statement...you ought to become a comedian.

If the currency and interest rate are regulated by market, then the statement "Fiat is generally backed by the economy(production and service) of the country" assessment is mostly correct.

As money is being created out of thin air, effectively it is backed by nothing.

Exactly.

Take the Federal Reserve for example: US govt wants to inject cash into economy, so it goes to FR sells some bonds, and FR "prints" a billion dollars. That billion dollars gets deposited into banks (electronically of course- none of the currency actually exists), the banks then (thanks to fractional reserve) create 9 billion dollars via voodoo banking magic. Now there is $10B additional currency in the system that can then be used to provide loans, credit etc...which is what leads to bubbles, and credit crises, and then when someone decides to call the loans due, the house of cards comes tumbling down (unless the government steps in again with another round of QE).  Currency is backed by nothing more than the debt that was used to create it. That debt is backed by every living, breathing American that is born, as there is the understanding that you grow up, you get a job, you pay 35% of your earnings back to the government through taxes (which barely covers the interest that's due) and the whole cycle repeats itself.

The Fed continues to make money, and the families that control the banking industry continue to get richer while the middle class is further destroyed.

This is why crypto is so disruptive, it challenges the status quo of people who have literally controlled EVERYTHING for generations.

[RodeoX]

Rich dude: I engage with the government and lobby for changes that help me.
Poor dude: I complain to other internet users about how shitty the government is.

Rich dude: I keep complete control over my money and make it work for me.
Poor dude: I got a payday loan to buy the newest Sony TV.

Rich dude: I manage a diverse and balanced portfolio to maintain my wealth.
Poor dude: I invest in lotto tickets and own many beanie babies.

Rich dude: I follow economic trends and study any relevant developments.
Poor dude: I heard on infowars that secret societies can read your mind.

[hodap]

Rich dude: I engage with the government and lobby for changes that help me.
Poor dude: I complain to other internet users about how shitty the government is.

Rich dude: I keep complete control over my money and make it work for me.
Poor dude: I got a payday loan to buy the newest Sony TV.

Rich dude: I manage a diverse and balanced portfolio to maintain my wealth.
Poor dude: I invest in lotto tickets and own many beanie babies.

Rich dude: I follow economic trends and study any relevant developments.
Poor dude: I heard on infowars that secret societies can read your mind.

Nice one.

Rich dude study the game and play along while the poor dude complain injustice rather than play along.

[Ozziecoin]

Fiat currency is the greatest Ponzi scheme in all of history.

I would disagree. Fiat us generally backed by the economy of the country that printed the fiat.

Are you f*#king kidding me? You are joking right? If not, that is a hilarious statement...you ought to become a comedian.

If the currency and interest rate are regulated by market, then the statement "Fiat is generally backed by the economy(production and service) of the country" assessment is mostly correct.

As money is being created out of thin air, effectively it is backed by nothing.

Exactly.

Take the Federal Reserve for example: US govt wants to inject cash into economy, so it goes to FR sells some bonds, and FR "prints" a billion dollars. That billion dollars gets deposited into banks (electronically of course- none of the currency actually exists), the banks then (thanks to fractional reserve) create 9 billion dollars via voodoo banking magic. Now there is $10B additional currency in the system that can then be used to provide loans, credit etc...which is what leads to bubbles, and credit crises, and then when someone decides to call the loans due, the house of cards comes tumbling down (unless the government steps in again with another round of QE).  Currency is backed by nothing more than the debt that was used to create it. That debt is backed by every living, breathing American that is born, as there is the understanding that you grow up, you get a job, you pay 35% of your earnings back to the government through taxes (which barely covers the interest that's due) and the whole cycle repeats itself.

The Fed continues to make money, and the families that control the banking industry continue to get richer while the middle class is further destroyed.

This is why crypto is so disruptive, it challenges the status quo of people who have literally controlled EVERYTHING for generations.

Actually, the banks literally create money out of nothing. They literally create money on the spot when loans are provided. They don't even need to borrow money from the Fed Reserve to do this.

[Ozziecoin]

See what the fat cats of Australia own:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/08/aussie-politicians-300m-property-portfolio/

[TaunSew]

Rich dude: I engage with the government and lobby for changes that help me.
Poor dude: I complain to other internet users about how shitty the government is.

Rich dude: I keep complete control over my money and make it work for me.
Poor dude: I got a payday loan to buy the newest Sony TV.

Rich dude: I manage a diverse and balanced portfolio to maintain my wealth.
Poor dude: I invest in lotto tickets and own many beanie babies.

Rich dude: I follow economic trends and study any relevant developments.
Poor dude: I heard on infowars that secret societies can read your mind.

Nice one.

Rich dude study the game and play along while the poor dude complain injustice rather than play along.

No it's terrible rhetoric.  You are taking two extreme opposites while ignoring the mainstream middle.  You can't have anyone relate to the poor person as the average person does not consider the lottery to be an investment (actually a gamble) and not many people own beanie babies.  That must be one dumb rich person because that's called a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

There's many people in the middle who are suffering due to the decisions of the rich, such as clawing back on defined pensions for most Americans or the funds who are gambling away people's pensions.


Many people are playing by the "rules" of society, as in working hard through college, hard in their careers, having 2 to 4 kids to ensure the reproduction of the workforce, saving and investing for a later retirement.

How has society rewarded these people?  Sub prime made many middle class people lose their homes and pensions, while the rich people got a bail out.  Recent college graduates are being forced to work jobs that were a decade ago reserved for those who flunked highschool.  While the rich have seen no change in their lifestyle in comparison.



Becoming an educated professional is one of the hardest things to do in this world - a Doctor and a Lawyer is someone who I can respect.   Whereas many rich people got to where they are through familial inheritance or networking through relatives or getting lucky on investments (or even engaging in fraud such as Mark Karpeles who lives in one of the most expensive condominium buildings in Tokyo).

[Cluster2k]

Some poor people are poor by choice.  Yes, that is a troll kind of thing to say but it's true.  A friend works nights full time.  He earns a decent wage and last week told me "I just filed my taxes, I made $40k after tax yet I don't see a single cent in my account.  Where the fuck did it all go!?"  He makes poor spending choices.  He buys gadgets he doesn't need that will end up being shelved after a few weeks and never used again.  He goes to the cinema and buys $20 popcorn and Coke without realising what a terrible decision that is.  $20 for maybe 50c in product. 

Stop buying things you don't need and perhaps you'll find your life is better with less stress, less work, and more true satisfaction.

[Ozziecoin]

Some poor people are poor by choice.  Yes, that is a troll kind of thing to say but it's true.  A friend works nights full time.  He earns a decent wage and last week told me "I just filed my taxes, I made $40k after tax yet I don't see a single cent in my account.  Where the fuck did it all go!?"  He makes poor spending choices.  He buys gadgets he doesn't need that will end up being shelved after a few weeks and never used again.  He goes to the cinema and buys $20 popcorn and Coke without realising what a terrible decision that is.  $20 for maybe 50c in product. 

Stop buying things you don't need and perhaps you'll find your life is better with less stress, less work, and more true satisfaction.

On the scale of important issues in life, this ranks below zero. Sorry.

Please note: your financial system is regressively distributing wealth by rewarding asset holders over non-asset holders. It doesn't matter who spends how much on what when your entire financial system is regressive.

[RodeoX]

No it's terrible rhetoric.  You are taking two extreme opposites while ignoring the mainstream middle.  ...

I do understand your position, and I totally agree that many financial schemes have become rigged or corrupted. The banks job is to get you playing their games. Once in debt you are captured and the milking begins. The solution is to not play the game.

It's not because someone is poor. Sadly, kids do not learn anything about money in school anymore. They have no clue about what a good contract looks like, or even that they don't need loans or a 401k.

The examples I posted were for comedic effect. But they do have some truth to them. All the "rich dude" lines are things anyone (rich or poor) could do. All the "poor dude" things are examples I see people actually doing.

The fact is rich people did not get rich doing nothing. They did a lot of rational things.

[Ozziecoin]

No it's terrible rhetoric.  You are taking two extreme opposites while ignoring the mainstream middle.  ...

I do understand your position, and I totally agree that many financial schemes have become rigged or corrupted. The banks job is to get you playing their games. Once in debt you are captured and the milking begins. The solution is to not play the game.

It's not because someone is poor. Sadly, kids do not learn anything about money in school anymore. They have no clue about what a good contract looks like, or even that they don't need loans or a 401k.

The examples I posted were for comedic effect. But they do have some truth to them. All the "rich dude" lines are things anyone (rich or poor) could do. All the "poor dude" things are examples I see people actually doing.

The fact is rich people did not get rich doing nothing. They did a lot of rational things.

haha. Like being born pre 1970 and buying property. The point is that today's generation don't have those same opportunities.

[RodeoX]

No it's terrible rhetoric.  You are taking two extreme opposites while ignoring the mainstream middle.  ...

I do understand your position...

haha. Like being born pre 1970 and buying property. The point is that today's generation don't have those same opportunities.

But they do. There has never been a better opportunity to buy land than the last several years. And back in the 70s people thought $200 per acre was high. It's all relative since no one is making more land the price is highly likely to go up in the future. Look at these: http://www.landwatch.com/default.aspx?ct=r&type=&r.PRIC=%2C35999&sort=PR_A

If you just drop your cable TV service for about a year, you could buy one of those properties for cash. Without financing you then own it outright for the best price you can get. If you watch TV instead, you have nothing to show for it. One need not be rich to own property in America, but you do need to work and sacrifice.

[Ozziecoin]

No it's terrible rhetoric.  You are taking two extreme opposites while ignoring the mainstream middle.  ...

I do understand your position...

haha. Like being born pre 1970 and buying property. The point is that today's generation don't have those same opportunities.

But they do. There has never been a better opportunity to buy land than the last several years. And back in the 70s people thought $200 per acre was high. It's all relative since no one is making more land the price is highly likely to go up in the future. Look at these: http://www.landwatch.com/default.aspx?ct=r&type=&r.PRIC=%2C35999&sort=PR_A

If you just drop your cable TV service for about a year, you could buy one of those properties for cash. Without financing you then own it outright for the best price you can get. If you watch TV instead, you have nothing to show for it. One need not be rich to own property in America, but you do need to work and sacrifice.

oh please, your financial system has been wealth regressive since the 80's. anyone buying now have little gains and much downside. Without fed intervention, property would be less than half current values. Now the fed is stuck. Massive wealth divide, and low GDP growth. Let's see how long the fed can fight the populace.

[johnyj]

Money is just a special kind of commodity, like any other commodity, its value should be close to its cost, money without any cost should worth nothing

Fiat money has value because they were backed by gold before, so even the gold standard was abolished, the old consensus is still there. But sooner or later people will realize that fiat money's value is an illusion since 1971

[RodeoX]

oh please, your financial system has been wealth regressive since the 80's. anyone buying now have little gains and much downside. Without fed intervention, property would be less than half current values. Now the fed is stuck. Massive wealth divide, and low GDP growth. Let's see how long the fed can fight the populace.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. I have made money this way. Most of the wealthy people I know made their money buying property for cash. It is as simple as buy low and sell high. Over time property accrues value better than anything; Better than gold, or stocks, anything. Real estate is real wealth. Far better than money, for example.

Despite the unholy work that has been done to keep the rich in power and the poor downtrodden, there is still more opportunity in the U.S. than most places.  I'm sure your not arguing that it would be better to have watched TV for a year?

Work hard, save hard, don't buy shit, don't do credit, don't buy depreciating assets, buy appreciating assets. You will be surprised how quickly it adds up.

[Ayers]

well some of them are already rich since birth, other i know become rich because of luck or talent, i think luck play a big role here

[Ozziecoin]

oh please, your financial system has been wealth regressive since the 80's. anyone buying now have little gains and much downside. Without fed intervention, property would be less than half current values. Now the fed is stuck. Massive wealth divide, and low GDP growth. Let's see how long the fed can fight the populace.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. I have made money this way. Most of the wealthy people I know made their money buying property for cash. It is as simple as buy low and sell high. Over time property accrues value better than anything; Better than gold, or stocks, anything. Real estate is real wealth. Far better than money, for example.

Despite the unholy work that has been done to keep the rich in power and the poor downtrodden, there is still more opportunity in the U.S. than most places.  I'm sure your not arguing that it would be better to have watched TV for a year?

Work hard, save hard, don't buy shit, don't do credit, don't buy depreciating assets, buy appreciating assets. You will be surprised how quickly it adds up.

I mean this: since the 80's property has increased at between 7% to 10% per annum, doubling every 7 to 10 years. The correct strategy was not buy and sell, incurring transaction costs in the process. Buy and just hold would've done as well if not better. So, A) you're not the genius you think you are B) in reality, you were just lucky to be born at the right time; and C) your opportunities were available to you but not the young people of today. Here's why:

Now the magic of compounding dictates that property doubles every say 10 years but wages growth are rising at 3.5% or less. Therefore, wages are effectively doubling at the rate of every 20 years.

So, after three decades you have property (and shares) rising by about 400% versus wage growth of maybe 150%.  So, maths is telling us that either property values must come down or wages must go up, otherwise no one will be able to own the average home. Therefore, you are near the limits of debt fuelled growth. Ergo, future growth is very limited, with limited upside and significant downside.

Of course, the population could split into rich and poor groups. And that is what you are seeing in America today. However, such divergences are unstable in democratic societies. Even authoritarian monarchies collapse when the social divide becomes too wide. Just ask the French and Chinese.

I think you are extrapolating the past into the future when making financial decisions based on your personal experiences. However, the divergence of property prices versus wages is not something that is going away; unless you are prepared to say that property will double again in the next 10 years (to 800% over 4 decades) whilst wages growth remain at 3 to 3.5% per annum. Therefore, yes - young people may in fact be better off watching TV rather than buying property - at this point in time.

Ask the Japanese post 1991.

[TaunSew]

It's too soon to make any definite conclusions on real estate prices.  I have a feeling when most of the boomers run out of money (as most people do not get defined pensions anymore) or die from old age, there'll be a lot of them dumping properties at the same time and nobody will be buying as most Generation X and Y are broke.  There isn't enough Starbucks sipping Yuppies to buy all the homes that'll flood the market.   That means a $500K equity becomes $100K overnight.

[Hiraga]

Intelligence is a big factor. Poor and simple people need to work hard for little money, if you can work hard and also be smart the payoff would be much greater. 

[Ozziecoin]

Intelligence is a big factor. Poor and simple people need to work hard for little money, if you can work hard and also be smart the payoff would be much greater. 

Sorry way off. Human productivity has been approximately 2% per year in real terms over 200 years. Working hard has nothing to do with it.

[Hiraga]

Intelligence is a big factor. Poor and simple people need to work hard for little money, if you can work hard and also be smart the payoff would be much greater. 

Sorry way off. Human productivity has been approximately 2% per year in real terms over 200 years. Working hard has nothing to do with it.

Your comment doesn't make any sense at all. Go to another thread.

[hodap]

No it's terrible rhetoric.  You are taking two extreme opposites while ignoring the mainstream middle.  You can't have anyone relate to the poor person as the average person does not consider the lottery to be an investment (actually a gamble) and not many people own beanie babies.  That must be one dumb rich person because that's called a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.

There's many people in the middle who are suffering due to the decisions of the rich, such as clawing back on defined pensions for most Americans or the funds who are gambling away people's pensions.


Many people are playing by the "rules" of society, as in working hard through college, hard in their careers, having 2 to 4 kids to ensure the reproduction of the workforce, saving and investing for a later retirement.

How has society rewarded these people?  Sub prime made many middle class people lose their homes and pensions, while the rich people got a bail out.  Recent college graduates are being forced to work jobs that were a decade ago reserved for those who flunked highschool.  While the rich have seen no change in their lifestyle in comparison.



Becoming an educated professional is one of the hardest things to do in this world - a Doctor and a Lawyer is someone who I can respect.   Whereas many rich people got to where they are through familial inheritance or networking through relatives or getting lucky on investments (or even engaging in fraud such as Mark Karpeles who lives in one of the most expensive condominium buildings in Tokyo).

No one forcing anyone to accept sub prime loan and no one forcing anyone to elect crony politicians that bail out mega corporation. Again, if the population think the game is rigged, they can change the system by voting incumbent out and demand change.

[kerafym]

It's too soon to make any definite conclusions on real estate prices.  I have a feeling when most of the boomers run out of money (as most people do not get defined pensions anymore) or die from old age, there'll be a lot of them dumping properties at the same time and nobody will be buying as most Generation X and Y are broke.  There isn't enough Starbucks sipping Yuppies to buy all the homes that'll flood the market.   That means a $500K equity becomes $100K overnight.

You are forgetting the inflation that kick will eventually kick in because of printing press. Some of the paper money has to go somewhere.

[giveBTCpls]

well some of them are already rich since birth, other i know become rich because of luck or talent, i think luck play a big role here

And what is talent? Exactly, luck.

[leopard2]

Interest (and that includes appreciation of assets, rent, dividends etc) is a re-distribution mechanism from hard working people to rich people

It is natural because there is a tipping point where the growth of assets you own (minus living expenses) becomes positive.

Sure enough rich people benefit from a continuous inflation. Their real world assets are like a sail in the winds of inflation, so to speak.  

[Ozziecoin]

Intelligence is a big factor. Poor and simple people need to work hard for little money, if you can work hard and also be smart the payoff would be much greater. 

Sorry way off. Human productivity has been approximately 2% per year in real terms over 200 years. Working hard has nothing to do with it.

Your comment doesn't make any sense at all. Go to another thread.

Firstly, this is my thread. Secondly, you are not Einstein (no offence meant). If you worked hard it makes no appreciable difference to human productivity. It appears human productivity growth is a constant, with geniuses arising here and there throughout time making small differences as they develop new thinking.

[Ozziecoin]

Interest (and that includes appreciation of assets, rent, dividends etc) is a re-distribution mechanism from hard working people to rich people

It is natural because there is a tipping point where the growth of assets you own (minus living expenses) becomes positive.

Sure enough rich people benefit from a continuous inflation. Their real world assets are like a sail in the winds of inflation, so to speak.  

It's actually worse than what you say. M3 money growth is expanding at a rate of 10 to 11% per year. So, 2 to 3% is inflation (matching productivity growth) and the rest goes to increasing asset prices. So, that's why we see asset price growth of roughly 7% per year on average.

[Ozziecoin]

I am not a gold and silver buff because I believe Btc is better. With that in mind, watch this video explanation of how the US financial system actually works: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

[TaunSew]

Interest (and that includes appreciation of assets, rent, dividends etc) is a re-distribution mechanism from hard working people to rich people

It is natural because there is a tipping point where the growth of assets you own (minus living expenses) becomes positive.

Sure enough rich people benefit from a continuous inflation. Their real world assets are like a sail in the winds of inflation, so to speak.  

It's actually worse than what you say. M3 money growth is expanding at a rate of 10 to 11% per year. So, 2 to 3% is inflation (matching productivity growth) and the rest goes to increasing asset prices. So, that's why we see asset price growth of roughly 7% per year on average.

Fractional reserve banking is also inflationary as the banks can print money out of thin air and assigned this out in the form of mortgages, student loans, et cetera - the system works until there is a bank run but bank runs can't happen anymore (Occupied Wallstreet tried to orchestrate a run on Bank of America and failed as banks can take indefinite banking holidays or blame "technical errors")

[cinder]

Interest (and that includes appreciation of assets, rent, dividends etc) is a re-distribution mechanism from hard working people to rich people

It is natural because there is a tipping point where the growth of assets you own (minus living expenses) becomes positive.

Sure enough rich people benefit from a continuous inflation. Their real world assets are like a sail in the winds of inflation, so to speak.  

It's actually worse than what you say. M3 money growth is expanding at a rate of 10 to 11% per year. So, 2 to 3% is inflation (matching productivity growth) and the rest goes to increasing asset prices. So, that's why we see asset price growth of roughly 7% per year on average.

Fractional reserve banking is also inflationary as the banks can print money out of thin air and assigned this out in the form of mortgages, student loans, et cetera - the system works until there is a bank run but bank runs can't happen anymore (Occupied Wallstreet tried to orchestrate a run on Bank of America and failed as banks can take indefinite banking holidays or blame "technical errors")

Bank run can still happen if there is no bail out from the government. That is assuming the country has the reserve currency status.

For the rest of the world, even government won't be able to stop bank run if the bank is badly managed.

[yunkie]

Thats the basic function of capitalism 

[PowerCordZ]

This is all about good and bad karma. Those who brought good karma with them from previous life they are rich and the people who brought bad karma they are poor.

[wenben]

This is all about good and bad karma. Those who brought good karma with them from previous life they are rich and the people who brought bad karma they are poor.

This is bitcoin economy forum. Not Hindu religious karma/casta discussion group.

[Ringumbau]

This is all about good and bad karma. Those who brought good karma with them from previous life they are rich and the people who brought bad karma they are poor.

So early adopters bought a lot of discount karma right? 

[botany]

This is all about good and bad karma. Those who brought good karma with them from previous life they are rich and the people who brought bad karma they are poor.

This is bitcoin economy forum. Not Hindu religious karma/casta discussion group.

He is just being philosophical. Instead of the word karma, think of it as fate.

[superresistant]

This is all about good and bad karma. Those who brought good karma with them from previous life they are rich and the people who brought bad karma they are poor.

There is WAY MORE people alive today than all dead people cumulated from the past.
Where are the souls come from if there are not enough dead corpse ?
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#pastfuture
How can we have previous life if there are no life before ?
Was there 100 souls in one body ?
I like the reincarnation paradox

[Timetwister]

Money doesn't make money. Only investing it properly will make you richer. And to invest, you need to win money first, and choose not to spend it.

Take a look at the Forbes' list of say 30 years ago and tell me if you even know any of them.

[Ozziecoin]

Money doesn't make money. Only investing it properly will make you richer. And to invest, you need to win money first, and choose not to spend it.

Take a look at the Forbes' list of say 30 years ago and tell me if you even know any of them.

Please explain how Fractional Reserve Banking works and why is it that M2 money supply is growing so fast?  Where is all that money coming from?

[Hendrick0909]

Poor people work for their money, rich people have their money work for them.


And that is the way of the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We just have to accept this fact. And its how the world evolve nowadays.

[superresistant]

Money doesn't make money. Only investing it properly will make you richer. And to invest, you need to win money first, and choose not to spend it.
Take a look at the Forbes' list of say 30 years ago and tell me if you even know any of them.

Please explain how Fractional Reserve Banking works and why is it that M2 money supply is growing so fast?  Where is all that money coming from?

Quantitative Easing is creating money out of thin air.
FIAT money (USD) is not backed by anything since president Nixon.
Money is created on demand, the more money created, the lower the value.

History shows that all FIAT money end up being worth zero.

[Timetwister]

Money doesn't make money. Only investing it properly will make you richer. And to invest, you need to win money first, and choose not to spend it.

Take a look at the Forbes' list of say 30 years ago and tell me if you even know any of them.

Please explain how Fractional Reserve Banking works and why is it that M2 money supply is growing so fast?  Where is all that money coming from?

What does that have to do with what I said? I know fiat's problems and that the money supply is increasing. That's why I'm an advocate of the gold standard and I also love bitcoins.

[Ozziecoin]

Money doesn't make money. Only investing it properly will make you richer. And to invest, you need to win money first, and choose not to spend it.
Take a look at the Forbes' list of say 30 years ago and tell me if you even know any of them.

Please explain how Fractional Reserve Banking works and why is it that M2 money supply is growing so fast?  Where is all that money coming from?

Quantitative Easing is creating money out of thin air.
FIAT money (USD) is not backed by anything since president Nixon.
Money is created on demand, the more money created, the lower the value.

History shows that all FIAT money end up being worth zero.

This fact alone makes digital currencies a worthwhile endeavour. Bankers are stealing from us all. The rort must be stopped.

[marney111]

Maybe we can ask our mom this question. Its all her fault she didnt work that hard to get rich. LOL

[zimmah]

This is all about good and bad karma. Those who brought good karma with them from previous life they are rich and the people who brought bad karma they are poor.

you don't seriously believe this shit do you?

oh man, if this were true i can't imagine what the next wave of reincarnations would look like, with all the evil in the world right now, live must be incredibly shitty the next generation.

[wasserman99]

Money doesn't make money. Only investing it properly will make you richer. And to invest, you need to win money first, and choose not to spend it.
Take a look at the Forbes' list of say 30 years ago and tell me if you even know any of them.

Please explain how Fractional Reserve Banking works and why is it that M2 money supply is growing so fast?  Where is all that money coming from?

Quantitative Easing is creating money out of thin air.
FIAT money (USD) is not backed by anything since president Nixon.
Money is created on demand, the more money created, the lower the value.

History shows that all FIAT money end up being worth zero.

Even when the dollar was backed by gold there was not anything special that was giving gold it's value. Gold is valuable because people think it is valuable.

Fiat money does generally lose value over time however this happens very slowly and there are ways people can protect themselves from these price declines.

[Timetwister]

Money doesn't make money. Only investing it properly will make you richer. And to invest, you need to win money first, and choose not to spend it.
Take a look at the Forbes' list of say 30 years ago and tell me if you even know any of them.

Please explain how Fractional Reserve Banking works and why is it that M2 money supply is growing so fast?  Where is all that money coming from?

Quantitative Easing is creating money out of thin air.
FIAT money (USD) is not backed by anything since president Nixon.
Money is created on demand, the more money created, the lower the value.

History shows that all FIAT money end up being worth zero.

Even when the dollar was backed by gold there was not anything special that was giving gold it's value. Gold is valuable because people think it is valuable.

Fiat money does generally lose value over time however this happens very slowly and there are ways people can protect themselves from these price declines.

Very slowly? It depends, look at the Argentinian Peso or the Venezuelan Bolivar. And historically there are dozens of examples of hyperinflation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

[yunkie]

Rich invented work, so they can keep being rich.

[wasserman99]

Money doesn't make money. Only investing it properly will make you richer. And to invest, you need to win money first, and choose not to spend it.
Take a look at the Forbes' list of say 30 years ago and tell me if you even know any of them.

Please explain how Fractional Reserve Banking works and why is it that M2 money supply is growing so fast?  Where is all that money coming from?

Quantitative Easing is creating money out of thin air.
FIAT money (USD) is not backed by anything since president Nixon.
Money is created on demand, the more money created, the lower the value.

History shows that all FIAT money end up being worth zero.

Even when the dollar was backed by gold there was not anything special that was giving gold it's value. Gold is valuable because people think it is valuable.

Fiat money does generally lose value over time however this happens very slowly and there are ways people can protect themselves from these price declines.

Very slowly? It depends, look at the Argentinian Peso or the Venezuelan Bolivar. And historically there are dozens of examples of hyperinflation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

This happens when the economies and countries are run very poorly and the government is corrupt. When you are discussing major countries that have major currencies this will almost never happen.

[twiifm]

Fiat money is created ex nihilo but it isnt free.  The Fed buys Treasuries to get money into circulation.  USD is backed by liabilities of the Treasury.  The Treasury pays off debts by collecting taxes.  So USD is backed by future economic output of USA.  Thats why USD should be more stable than a currency backed by computers solving puzzles

The currency itself is just a medium of exchange.  Value lies in the goods & services

[madken7777]

The currency itself is just a medium of exchange.  Value lies in the goods & services

Value comes from the demand of the consumers as well as the perceived profit of holding it for future gain.

Btc is backed by investors and speculators alone, without this group, no merchant will take btc as payment.

[Nawaytes]

"Capitalism" means the society value capital and not labor.
Hence, people who know how to manage money get ahead of the games.
it's just about how to think out off the box to manage the money you hace, not about work work and work 

[Justine]

"Capitalism" means the society value capital and not labor.
Hence, people who know how to manage money get ahead of the games.
it's just about how to think out off the box to manage the money you hace, not about work work and work  

This is only true if the capital exceed certain size and the manager know how to manage the money and labor.

Even if everything is done right, there are still risk which the money manager can not control.

[johnyj]

The currency itself is just a medium of exchange.  Value lies in the goods & services

Value comes from the demand of the consumers as well as the perceived profit of holding it for future gain.

Btc is backed by investors and speculators alone, without this group, no merchant will take btc as payment.

Right, value is only decided by supply and demand combined together. If goods and services have no demand, their value will drop to zero too

The demand for bitcoin comes from 3 direction: Anti-inflation saving, instant international money transfer, and true financial privacy. As long as these 3 demand holds, there will be value for it

[LitecoinBoss]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

[Timetwister]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

If that's true, what's wrong with that? They'll have to make good investments (and therefore produce for the society) if they want to maintain their wealth.

[Ozziecoin]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

If that's true, what's wrong with that? They'll have to make good investments (and therefore produce for the society) if they want to maintain their wealth.

Please see page 1. Asset holders do not have to work.

[Ozziecoin]

"Capitalism" means the society value capital and not labor.
Hence, people who know how to manage money get ahead of the games.
it's just about how to think out off the box to manage the money you hace, not about work work and work 

We do not have a capitalism based economy, we have an economy that is based on credit. Creditism is overlaid on top of capitalism and distorts the allocation of resources within the economy. Credit money is being pumped into non productive assets such as property, which worsens wealth inequality and greatly reduces the productive capacity of the economy because very little money is being put into productive manufacturing type activities.

[Justine]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

If that's true, what's wrong with that? They'll have to make good investments (and therefore produce for the society) if they want to maintain their wealth.

Please see page 1. Asset holders do not have to work.

Wealth from inheritance usually do not last longer than 3 generations. Children from wealthy family are usually quite spoiled and feel entitled without working hard.

[master-P]

"Capitalism" means the society value capital and not labor.
Hence, people who know how to manage money get ahead of the games.
it's just about how to think out off the box to manage the money you hace, not about work work and work 

We do not have a capitalism based economy, we have an economy that is based on credit. Creditism is overlaid on top of capitalism and distorts the allocation of resources within the economy. Credit money is being pumped into non productive assets such as property, which worsens wealth inequality and greatly reduces the productive capacity of the economy because very little money is being put into productive manufacturing type activities.

Credit and capitalism go hand in hand. Providing credit is simply investing your money in a loan that the borrower will use to hopefully make some level of profit, or increase their standard of living (when it comes to buying property).

[Ozziecoin]

"Capitalism" means the society value capital and not labor.
Hence, people who know how to manage money get ahead of the games.
it's just about how to think out off the box to manage the money you hace, not about work work and work  

We do not have a capitalism based economy, we have an economy that is based on credit. Creditism is overlaid on top of capitalism and distorts the allocation of resources within the economy. Credit money is being pumped into non productive assets such as property, which worsens wealth inequality and greatly reduces the productive capacity of the economy because very little money is being put into productive manufacturing type activities.

Credit and capitalism go hand in hand. Providing credit is simply investing your money in a loan that the borrower will use to hopefully make some level of profit, or increase their standard of living (when it comes to buying property).

This is also known as the loanable funds model, which is false. Money is created out if thin air when banks lend money to people. The money you deposit in banks make no difference to the amount that banks are able to lend out: http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/proof-that-banks-create-money/

This means that banks dilute the money supply everytime they make loans to people. As they create money out of thin air, resources are diverted towards speculative activities. The problem is that credit growth cannot be sustained forever. There is an absolute limit which prevents further debt growth and the system collapses.

[Ozziecoin]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

If that's true, what's wrong with that? They'll have to make good investments (and therefore produce for the society) if they want to maintain their wealth.

Please see page 1. Asset holders do not have to work.

Wealth from inheritance usually do not last longer than 3 generations. Children from wealthy family are usually quite spoiled and feel entitled without working hard.

This is not supported by evidence. See the royal families and aristocrats of Europe. Also, see the land owners of the US.

[Timetwister]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

If that's true, what's wrong with that? They'll have to make good investments (and therefore produce for the society) if they want to maintain their wealth.

Please see page 1. Asset holders do not have to work.

Looking for profit opportunities is also working. Or somebody else is being paid for doing those decisions, then that person is working.

You don't magically create wealth, you have to be able to use productions factors to create something that customers are willing to buy for more than it costs you to produce.

[Ozziecoin]

Looking for profit opportunities is also working. Or somebody else is being paid for doing those decisions, then that person is working.

You don't magically create wealth, you have to be able to use productions factors to create something that customers are willing to buy for more than it costs you to produce.

On the contrary, banks create money out of thin air everyday. Most of the current issuances of debt is for speculative non-productive asset purchases. This means the US economy will stay weak because ordinary people don't have real jobs. This worsens wealth inequality. Meanwhile, asset holders become wealthier because asset prices are inflated by all that extra money being created out of thin air: http://www.positivemoney.org/issues/house-prices/

Asset holders got wealthy over the past few years by simply doing nothing. The assets they held increased in value due to the policies of the fed reserve in printing money and lowering long term borrowing costs, and this had nothing to do with real work.

[Mightycoin]

Please provide your best explain.  Mine is here: My explain (read before commenting or providing your explanation)



USA

Look at your money supply, USA. Wow! All those extra dollars, making Donald Trump feel justified in telling you how to live your life and to be like him.



Can debt rise faster than wages forever?  Only Keynesian and Monetarist economists think so.  


Europe

Don't laugh at our Americans friends, my European friends. Look at all these extra dollars the European banking system and the ECB has created:



This is why you had such a nice time leading up to the GFC.  Now, your Governments realise it is crazy to let debt expand uncontrollably.  Unfortunately, this is causing a lot of pain and misery for the 99%.  


China

This is not a Western Economic issue.  The big gap between rich and poor also exists in China.  Look at this:



This is a rigged system to my eyes.

You can blame it on the history and time itself.Knowingly there is less normal people could do.

[MightyBTC]

What would you expect to happen otherwise?If no one would be rich then who you compensate you for your work?And if everybody's rich who would work?It's a circle which by anyone's effort isn't possible to turn Square

[giveBTCpls]

Every successfull aka rich businessman does this, he needs the poor to stay poor so he can pay shitty wages for max benefits, unfortunately.

[Timetwister]

Every successfull aka rich businessman does this, he needs the poor to stay poor so he can pay shitty wages for max benefits, unfortunately.

If you consider that you are getting shitty wages (which is probably because of the enormous amount of money that the government steals in taxes, or because you are less productive than you think you are), you are free to work on your own, as self employed or starting your own company.

[Bitzkrieg]

Every successfull aka rich businessman does this, he needs the poor to stay poor so he can pay shitty wages for max benefits, unfortunately.

If you consider that you are getting shitty wages (which is probably because of the enormous amount of money that the government steals in taxes, or because you are less productive than you think you are), you are free to work on your own, as self employed or starting your own company.

Majority of them.

[thecast]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

If that's true, what's wrong with that? They'll have to make good investments (and therefore produce for the society) if they want to maintain their wealth.

No lol, you have to be mentally retarded to lose big wealth, once u reach a certain amount of wealth, money grows on trees. Its a scam.

[Ringumbau]

Everyone cant be rich. The one that works butt off is necessary for the 1% to be rich. 

[Ozziecoin]

Everyone cant be rich. The one that works butt off is necessary for the 1% to be rich. 

Income disparity in Switzerland between the highest earning and least earning was only 6 times in the early 80's now it is more 400 times. So, credit growth has amplified income and wealth differences to the detriment of society. Capitalism is unequal but under creditism, these inequalities become unbearable due to fractional reserve banking. Normal loans of real money is ok with me but FRB is not ok. Society is fragmenting.

[SW725]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

If that's true, what's wrong with that? They'll have to make good investments (and therefore produce for the society) if they want to maintain their wealth.

No lol, you have to be mentally retarded to lose big wealth, once u reach a certain amount of wealth, money grows on trees. Its a scam.

Nothing is wrong I think. The thing is, poor people have to start from way way below from the people who were rich already

[Champ92]

That is why, one should love simply. If you will live simply you dont need to work your butt off.

[leannemckim46]

Around 60% of the worlds richest wasnt self made. The money they got now were the money made by their family.

If that's true, what's wrong with that? They'll have to make good investments (and therefore produce for the society) if they want to maintain their wealth.

No lol, you have to be mentally retarded to lose big wealth, once u reach a certain amount of wealth, money grows on trees. Its a scam.

That is not true. Many people who did not earn their wealth (lottery winners, people who inherited a lot of money, ect) end up pissing away their money because they do not understand how to control their spending.

[misscointamer]

That is why, one should love simply. If you will live simply you dont need to work your butt off.

Need to go back to the old ways. If you can accept that you are not going to be rich then you are happy.

[wachtwoord]

This is a rigged system to my eyes.

It is a rigged system in any sane person's eyes. But knowing this is half the battle so enjoy the lead you have on the vast majority of the population.

[ajareselde]

Imagine this:

person A has no money and is working 50% of his time to get paycheck, rest of his time he uses to sleep and be with family. 100% time used

person B has money, and can hire other people to do job instead of him , and he gets his own cut, therefore, he earns money without wasting time to do so, allowing him to spread his business more and more, earning more, and with no time wasted on actually doing anything.

there's also a word for this ; modern slavery.

[tinkersay]

That is why, one should love simply. If you will live simply you dont need to work your butt off.

Need to go back to the old ways. If you can accept that you are not going to be rich then you are happy.

Sure sure.. Are you saying that people should not embrace change?

[superresistant]

 
But people WANT this slavery.
Look at them ! They fear change and are terrorized by choices.
Most people don't want to be free and chose wage-slavery.
You can complain from wage-slavery but it is quite comfortable.
You do what you are told to do and nothing unexpected will ever happen.
You eat, shit, die.

For one dude succeeding in getting rich, 10 others goes bankrupt.
For those who are born rich, they can only lose what they've been given unless they work their ass off.
Unexpected shit spawn all the time when you manage big money.

[twiifm]

Imagine this:

person A has no money and is working 50% of his time to get paycheck, rest of his time he uses to sleep and be with family. 100% time used

person B has money, and can hire other people to do job instead of him , and he gets his own cut, therefore, he earns money without wasting time to do so, allowing him to spread his business more and more, earning more, and with no time wasted on actually doing anything.

there's also a word for this ; modern slavery.

Comparing yourself to slaves is an insult to real slaves

[zadiume]

Imagine this:

person A has no money and is working 50% of his time to get paycheck, rest of his time he uses to sleep and be with family. 100% time used

person B has money, and can hire other people to do job instead of him , and he gets his own cut, therefore, he earns money without wasting time to do so, allowing him to spread his business more and more, earning more, and with no time wasted on actually doing anything.

there's also a word for this ; modern slavery.

Yup, if 1 BTC doesnt make me slave-wage-free in 10 years, im going V for Vendeta in this shit.

[johncarpe64]

Imagine this:

person A has no money and is working 50% of his time to get paycheck, rest of his time he uses to sleep and be with family. 100% time used

person B has money, and can hire other people to do job instead of him , and he gets his own cut, therefore, he earns money without wasting time to do so, allowing him to spread his business more and more, earning more, and with no time wasted on actually doing anything.

there's also a word for this ; modern slavery.

It is not slavery because the first person was able to receive a paycheck in exchange for his work. His paycheck is reflective of his skills that he can offer and the skills needed for his job. What you are likely wanting to see is unskilled people being able to make huge sums of money, however this is simply unrealistic.

The reason why the 2nd person is able to make money off of others' backs is because they are risking their own money to hopefully earn a return on their investment. It is not guaranteed that the 2nd person will end up making money, but it is guaranteed the 1st person will make money as long as there is work available.

[jdany]

This thread is retarded and is the reason why poor people stay poor.
We look up at the clouds and we want to make shapes from them.
Stop wasting brain cycles on stupid ass shit.

If you want to be rich, do what rich people do.
If you want to be skinny, do what skinny people do.
If you want to be powerful, do what powerful people.

It's not rigged.  People aren't as bright or clever as you think they are.
Most of them are lazy.
Most of them cheat when they can.
But, for the most part, you can easily win because there are so few people actually trying.

A bunch of whiny, wimpy, girlie ass 'kids' up in here.

[superresistant]

This thread is retarded and is the reason why poor people stay poor.
We look up at the clouds and we want to make shapes from them.
Stop wasting brain cycles on stupid ass shit.
If you want to be rich, do what rich people do.
If you want to be skinny, do what skinny people do.
If you want to be powerful, do what powerful people.
It's not rigged.  People aren't as bright or clever as you think they are.
Most of them are lazy.
Most of them cheat when they can.
But, for the most part, you can easily win because there are so few people actually trying.
A bunch of whiny, wimpy, girlie ass 'kids' up in here.

I don't think it is about being stupid but more about being submissive and the fear of chaos (the real world).
People complain but they actually like being slave.
Being a slave is comfortable because it allows you to live in the illusion of order and stability.

[troisky]

This thread is retarded and is the reason why poor people stay poor.
We look up at the clouds and we want to make shapes from them.
Stop wasting brain cycles on stupid ass shit.

If you want to be rich, do what rich people do.
If you want to be skinny, do what skinny people do.
If you want to be powerful, do what powerful people.

It's not rigged.  People aren't as bright or clever as you think they are.
Most of them are lazy.
Most of them cheat when they can.
But, for the most part, you can easily win because there are so few people actually trying.

A bunch of whiny, wimpy, girlie ass 'kids' up in here.

Really, so what does rich people do?

[jdany]

Find someone in a spot you'd like to be in, and get to know them.  Ask them questions.
Amazingly, wealthy people rarely get asked advice about money and finances.

Here's a good book:
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206#

[leannemckim46]

But people WANT this slavery.
Look at them ! They fear change and are terrorized by choices.
Most people don't want to be free and chose wage-slavery.
You can complain from wage-slavery but it is quite comfortable.
You do what you are told to do and nothing unexpected will ever happen.
You eat, shit, die.

For one dude succeeding in getting rich, 10 others goes bankrupt.
For those who are born rich, they can only lose what they've been given unless they work their ass off.
Unexpected shit spawn all the time when you manage big money.

Your statement infers that anyone who earns a wage via a job is a "slave", and I disagree with this conclusion. People who earn a wage receive a steady income, which means they rely less on the economy to be able to pay their bills. A lot more would need to go wrong in their workplace before they would not get paid. Earning a wage is overall much less risky then earning money off the backs of others.

[megashira1]

That is why, one should love simply. If you will live simply you dont need to work your butt off.

The more you got, the more you got to lose.

[BeeTeeSea]

This thread is retarded and is the reason why poor people stay poor.
We look up at the clouds and we want to make shapes from them.
Stop wasting brain cycles on stupid ass shit.
If you want to be rich, do what rich people do.
If you want to be skinny, do what skinny people do.
If you want to be powerful, do what powerful people.
It's not rigged.  People aren't as bright or clever as you think they are.
Most of them are lazy.
Most of them cheat when they can.
But, for the most part, you can easily win because there are so few people actually trying.
A bunch of whiny, wimpy, girlie ass 'kids' up in here.

I don't think it is about being stupid but more about being submissive and the fear of chaos (the real world).
People complain but they actually like being slave.
Being a slave is comfortable because it allows you to live in the illusion of order and stability.

If you are born rich it's easy to live off rents. Just buy shit and rent it, its so easy.

If you aren't born rich chances are you'll die as a non rich individual, its a scam.

[vipgelsi]

Its just the natural way of things.

[logictense]

This thread is retarded and is the reason why poor people stay poor.
We look up at the clouds and we want to make shapes from them.
Stop wasting brain cycles on stupid ass shit.

If you want to be rich, do what rich people do.
If you want to be skinny, do what skinny people do.
If you want to be powerful, do what powerful people.

It's not rigged.  People aren't as bright or clever as you think they are.
Most of them are lazy.
Most of them cheat when they can.
But, for the most part, you can easily win because there are so few people actually trying.

A bunch of whiny, wimpy, girlie ass 'kids' up in here.

the owner of the slave would force them to work for nothing they would not pay and give them minimal food or drink, saving themselves money. If they were a farmer they would force the slave to farm then the owner would sell the crop and keep all profit for himself, often they would sell the slave to some one richer and buy a cheaper one, slaves meant nothing to the owner they were just an object.

[SeaofBTC]

Imagine this:

person A has no money and is working 50% of his time to get paycheck, rest of his time he uses to sleep and be with family. 100% time used

person B has money, and can hire other people to do job instead of him , and he gets his own cut, therefore, he earns money without wasting time to do so, allowing him to spread his business more and more, earning more, and with no time wasted on actually doing anything.

there's also a word for this ; modern slavery.

That's a phrase, it's a play to emotions, and it's a bad one. You simply cannot compare the current state of affairs to slavery, as it doesn't satisfy the conditions of slavery at all. People really need to stop using slavery as a comparison to people who work jobs. You're severely diminishing the term "slavery" and exaggerating the 9-5 sludge.

People are being paid to do the work, they are not being forced to do the work, they can leave their job at any point, and usually they are actually very desperately wanting to have the work to do.

The term for person B is entrepreneur and person A is worker.

We absolutely need both. Either you have entrepreneurs who create jobs, or you have the government create the jobs.

We've seen both scenarios, we know the outcomes.

In the end, I know very few rich people who do not work their butts off. Sure there are some trust fund kids... but please. People over exaggerate the "lifestyles" of the rich. Most rich aren't Kim Kardashian, and Donald Trump *does* work. He's a bad dude, got rich off screwing others, but he does work his butt off, so your premise is still wrong.

Most importantly as well, if you feel your country is slavery because of capitalism, get the hell out. Go to Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, or whatever country uses the type of system you want. Again it's not slavery. Pick up your lazy ass and go where you want to be.

[megashira1]

Imagine this:

person A has no money and is working 50% of his time to get paycheck, rest of his time he uses to sleep and be with family. 100% time used

person B has money, and can hire other people to do job instead of him , and he gets his own cut, therefore, he earns money without wasting time to do so, allowing him to spread his business more and more, earning more, and with no time wasted on actually doing anything.

there's also a word for this ; modern slavery.

People are being paid to do the work, they are not being forced to do the work, they can leave their job at any point, and usually they are actually very desperately wanting to have the work to do.

This is debatable. People ARE forced to work to earn wages which are a requisite to survive in a capitalist system.

[SeaofBTC]

Imagine this:

person A has no money and is working 50% of his time to get paycheck, rest of his time he uses to sleep and be with family. 100% time used

person B has money, and can hire other people to do job instead of him , and he gets his own cut, therefore, he earns money without wasting time to do so, allowing him to spread his business more and more, earning more, and with no time wasted on actually doing anything.

there's also a word for this ; modern slavery.

People are being paid to do the work, they are not being forced to do the work, they can leave their job at any point, and usually they are actually very desperately wanting to have the work to do.

This is debatable. People ARE forced to work to earn wages which are a requisite to survive in a capitalist system.

No, it's not. You may leave at any time. Go join a tribe. It's not slavery, and it's gross to see that term being thrown around. Next people will be comparing themselves to Jews and gays in the Holocaust.

Yeah, if you want to survive, you'll put in work in some form or fashion.

You do NOT need to work for any company to survive even in the USA. You can do subsistence farming and live off the land.

Do you want a TV with 400 channels, internet, two cars, a computer, and to eat out a few times a week? Yeah, you're going to need to participate in capitalism.

It's all your choice. It's not slavery.

[realdope]

Imagine this:

person A has no money and is working 50% of his time to get paycheck, rest of his time he uses to sleep and be with family. 100% time used

person B has money, and can hire other people to do job instead of him , and he gets his own cut, therefore, he earns money without wasting time to do so, allowing him to spread his business more and more, earning more, and with no time wasted on actually doing anything.

there's also a word for this ; modern slavery.

That's a phrase, it's a play to emotions, and it's a bad one. You simply cannot compare the current state of affairs to slavery, as it doesn't satisfy the conditions of slavery at all. People really need to stop using slavery as a comparison to people who work jobs. You're severely diminishing the term "slavery" and exaggerating the 9-5 sludge.

People are being paid to do the work, they are not being forced to do the work, they can leave their job at any point, and usually they are actually very desperately wanting to have the work to do.

The term for person B is entrepreneur and person A is worker.

We absolutely need both. Either you have entrepreneurs who create jobs, or you have the government create the jobs.

We've seen both scenarios, we know the outcomes.

In the end, I know very few rich people who do not work their butts off. Sure there are some trust fund kids... but please. People over exaggerate the "lifestyles" of the rich. Most rich aren't Kim Kardashian, and Donald Trump *does* work. He's a bad dude, got rich off screwing others, but he does work his butt off, so your premise is still wrong.

Most importantly as well, if you feel your country is slavery because of capitalism, get the hell out. Go to Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, or whatever country uses the type of system you want. Again it's not slavery. Pick up your lazy ass and go where you want to be.

People aren't "free to leave the job at anytime". If you are working a shitty job, it means you aren't able to find any better, and if you stop working, you are fucked as you can't pay the bills and basic needs. It's subtle slavery, while Mr King has a perpetual luxurious holiday. It's a joke.

[SeaofBTC]

People aren't "free to leave the job at anytime". If you are working a shitty job, it means you aren't able to find any better, and if you stop working, you are fucked as you can't pay the bills and basic needs. It's subtle slavery, while Mr King has a perpetual luxurious holiday. It's a joke.

So I suppose you just ignored 95% of what I said and continued using the ignorant term.

You do not have to take part in the American Way. Capitalism is not everywhere, there are other societies for you to choose from.  You can leave. Go join a different society, we'll show you the door.

[megashira1]

People aren't "free to leave the job at anytime". If you are working a shitty job, it means you aren't able to find any better, and if you stop working, you are fucked as you can't pay the bills and basic needs. It's subtle slavery, while Mr King has a perpetual luxurious holiday. It's a joke.

So I suppose you just ignored 95% of what I said and continued using the ignorant term.

You do not have to take part in the American Way. Capitalism is not everywhere, there are other societies for you to choose from.  You can leave. Go join a different society, we'll show you the door.

Capitalism has a monopoly over the world economic systems. You must partake or you will suffer even more greatly.

[SeaofBTC]

People aren't "free to leave the job at anytime". If you are working a shitty job, it means you aren't able to find any better, and if you stop working, you are fucked as you can't pay the bills and basic needs. It's subtle slavery, while Mr King has a perpetual luxurious holiday. It's a joke.

So I suppose you just ignored 95% of what I said and continued using the ignorant term.

You do not have to take part in the American Way. Capitalism is not everywhere, there are other societies for you to choose from.  You can leave. Go join a different society, we'll show you the door.

Capitalism has a monopoly over the world economic systems. You must partake or you will suffer even more greatly.

Please list all of the places you've actually lived. Not what you've read online or seen on the television. Actually lived. If that list is exceedingly short, then go ahead and reference the places that you have personally visited.

Since you know capitalism is this plague infecting everywhere, I imagine the list must be massive and very interesting.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

People aren't "free to leave the job at anytime". If you are working a shitty job, it means you aren't able to find any better, and if you stop working, you are fucked as you can't pay the bills and basic needs. It's subtle slavery, while Mr King has a perpetual luxurious holiday. It's a joke.

So I suppose you just ignored 95% of what I said and continued using the ignorant term.

You do not have to take part in the American Way. Capitalism is not everywhere, there are other societies for you to choose from.  You can leave. Go join a different society, we'll show you the door.

He has pointed an objective fact: You cannot leave a job that will leave you without your fundamental needs covered, because your biological preservation mechanism is telling you to not stop working because if you do, you'll not have food, water and shelter, and you don't want this. You are not free to like this situation, any sane mind doesn't like this. Therefore, under no alternatives, you aren't free to leave your job. This is a fact, and you seem upset at this fact.

[kokojie]

It's not important that you "work your butt off", what's important is how much value have you created with your work. If you haven't created value, then you can "work your butt off" all you want, and you'd still be poor. Only 30% billionaires inherited their wealth, the rest had to also earn it, by creating large amount of value.

[SeaofBTC]

People aren't "free to leave the job at anytime". If you are working a shitty job, it means you aren't able to find any better, and if you stop working, you are fucked as you can't pay the bills and basic needs. It's subtle slavery, while Mr King has a perpetual luxurious holiday. It's a joke.

So I suppose you just ignored 95% of what I said and continued using the ignorant term.

You do not have to take part in the American Way. Capitalism is not everywhere, there are other societies for you to choose from.  You can leave. Go join a different society, we'll show you the door.

He has pointed an objective fact: You cannot leave a job that will leave you without your fundamental needs covered, because your biological preservation mechanism is telling you to not stop working because if you do, you'll not have food, water and shelter, and you don't want this. You are not free to like this situation, any sane mind doesn't like this. Therefore, under no alternatives, you aren't free to leave your job. This is a fact, and you seem upset at this fact.

You can leave your job. I hated working for others, so I left. Started my own job, years later, still at it.

I am not upset at an opinion. It's not a fact. People quit their jobs, leaving for a better place often. Those who don't, deserve to be unhappy. You can go to another country, go join a tribe, go be a part of an
Amish society,  whatever. The "basic needs" that people consider are really just luxuries. If you want the capitalist, materialist, luxuries, you've got to play the game. If you don't want to play the game, you do not have to. It's simply not a fact that you can't leave any time you want.

Bottom line: not slavery. If you're not happy, get out.

[polynesia]

People aren't "free to leave the job at anytime". If you are working a shitty job, it means you aren't able to find any better, and if you stop working, you are fucked as you can't pay the bills and basic needs. It's subtle slavery, while Mr King has a perpetual luxurious holiday. It's a joke.

So I suppose you just ignored 95% of what I said and continued using the ignorant term.

You do not have to take part in the American Way. Capitalism is not everywhere, there are other societies for you to choose from.  You can leave. Go join a different society, we'll show you the door.

He has pointed an objective fact: You cannot leave a job that will leave you without your fundamental needs covered, because your biological preservation mechanism is telling you to not stop working because if you do, you'll not have food, water and shelter, and you don't want this. You are not free to like this situation, any sane mind doesn't like this. Therefore, under no alternatives, you aren't free to leave your job. This is a fact, and you seem upset at this fact.

The 'fundamental' needs are different for each person.
An educated person may not consider just food and water as fundamental. His fundamental needs would include a minimum standard of living.

[professionalboatmisser]

People aren't "free to leave the job at anytime". If you are working a shitty job, it means you aren't able to find any better, and if you stop working, you are fucked as you can't pay the bills and basic needs. It's subtle slavery, while Mr King has a perpetual luxurious holiday. It's a joke.

So I suppose you just ignored 95% of what I said and continued using the ignorant term.

You do not have to take part in the American Way. Capitalism is not everywhere, there are other societies for you to choose from.  You can leave. Go join a different society, we'll show you the door.

He has pointed an objective fact: You cannot leave a job that will leave you without your fundamental needs covered, because your biological preservation mechanism is telling you to not stop working because if you do, you'll not have food, water and shelter, and you don't want this. You are not free to like this situation, any sane mind doesn't like this. Therefore, under no alternatives, you aren't free to leave your job. This is a fact, and you seem upset at this fact.

The 'fundamental' needs are different for each person.
An educated person may not consider just food and water as fundamental. His fundamental needs would include a minimum standard of living.

Most of us in western society understand as fundamental what is perfect explained in Maslow's piramid. You need MONEY for these. If your only income is your shitty job, you are shit out of luck. Unless you have SAVINGS, you can't just simply quit and "start your own business", that's unrealistic. You are a slave of your own work, if you don't agree, you've never been in that position or you were the small % that go nuts, quit their job, take a loan, and get a successfull business going (the small %, statistically). Poster SeaofBTC is delusional.

[teukon]

A slave is a person which is simultaneously property.  To all those that believe having a "shitty job" is slavery, may I ask you to identify the corresponding master/owner?

[manselr]

A slave is a person which is simultaneously property.  To all those that believe having a "shitty job" is slavery, may I ask you to identify the corresponding master/owner?

Its usually someone running a business, the usual suspect. If you are a wageslave you are fucked... not much margin of action. If you are not part of the initial distribution of the pie and your family didnt got a nice slice of the pie, then you'll need something special. Most people aren't and its difficult to break the wageslave loophole.

[SeaofBTC]

Most of us in western society understand as fundamental what is perfect explained in Maslow's piramid. You need MONEY for these. If your only income is your shitty job, you are shit out of luck. Unless you have SAVINGS, you can't just simply quit and "start your own business", that's unrealistic. You are a slave of your own work, if you don't agree, you've never been in that position or you were the small % that go nuts, quit their job, take a loan, and get a successfull business going (the small %, statistically). Poster SeaofBTC is delusional.

Alright, sure, if you cannot spell successful it'll be hard on you. I'm not delusional, you're just a coward.

Plenty of careers to choose from, many of which are not laborious or 9-5 sludge. Check out working for a startup, working for a beach rental company, working for a non-profit... lots of non-conventional employment.

If you still aren't happy, start your own business. You wont starve to death in the USA or most first-world countires. The only reason people beg on the side of the road is for money to buy drugs or alcohol, or they are a part of a crime ring being forced to do it, not really for food... or they are just mentally disabled, or do not know they can just go to a shelter. If you need food, you go to a church, shelter, or soup kitchen.

If you aren't happy with the capitalist American way, you have many choices. If you want a more conservative culture, you have many options, a great place for a conservative right now is Australia.

If you are looking for more of a liberal place, check out northern Europe.

If you are looking for a socialist welfare state, check out China or Cuba.

If you want lack of materialism, join an Amish society, or check out some of the Mexican Tribes, or rain forest tribes.

If you want solitude and complete independence, look into subsistence farming, and live in the mountains off the land.

If you want anarchy, check out this list of anarchist communities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

If you want lack of materialism, and are annoyed at the amish, become a monk. There are many sects, some are not even religious. The main idea here is to give up all material possessions.

If you just are looking to feel bad for yourself, to complain just to complain, and you're too lazy to just change your life, then keep on posting.

Most people aren't and its difficult to break the wageslave loophole.

Wageslave loophole? How does one "break" a loophole? C'mon people, you're just throwing out words that sound good now.

[megashira1]

Most of us in western society understand as fundamental what is perfect explained in Maslow's piramid. You need MONEY for these. If your only income is your shitty job, you are shit out of luck. Unless you have SAVINGS, you can't just simply quit and "start your own business", that's unrealistic. You are a slave of your own work, if you don't agree, you've never been in that position or you were the small % that go nuts, quit their job, take a loan, and get a successfull business going (the small %, statistically). Poster SeaofBTC is delusional.

Alright, sure, if you cannot spell successful it'll be hard on you. I'm not delusional, you're just a coward.

Plenty of careers to choose from, many of which are not laborious or 9-5 sludge. Check out working for a startup, working for a beach rental company, working for a non-profit... lots of non-conventional employment.

If you still aren't happy, start your own business. You wont starve to death in the USA or most first-world countires. The only reason people beg on the side of the road is for money to buy drugs or alcohol, or they are a part of a crime ring being forced to do it, not really for food... or they are just mentally disabled, or do not know they can just go to a shelter. If you need food, you go to a church, shelter, or soup kitchen.

If you aren't happy with the capitalist American way, you have many choices. If you want a more conservative culture, you have many options, a great place for a conservative right now is Australia.

If you are looking for more of a liberal place, check out northern Europe.

If you are looking for a socialist welfare state, check out China or Cuba.

If you want lack of materialism, join an Amish society, or check out some of the Mexican Tribes, or rain forest tribes.

If you want solitude and complete independence, look into subsistence farming, and live in the mountains off the land.

If you want anarchy, check out this list of anarchist communities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

If you want lack of materialism, and are annoyed at the amish, become a monk. There are many sects, some are not even religious. The main idea here is to give up all material possessions.

If you just are looking to feel bad for yourself, to complain just to complain, and you're too lazy to just change your life, then keep on posting.

Most people aren't and its difficult to break the wageslave loophole.

Wageslave loophole? How does one "break" a loophole? C'mon people, you're just throwing out words that sound good now.

Unless you are part of the socio-economic elite I cant understand why you are in such support of an exploitative system that at its heart is against you and your classes interest. Capitalism siphons capital and resources into the hands of the few at the expense of the many. There is no debating this. It is a fact of capitalism that wealth becomes ever more concentrated over time. The only reason you are such an adamant supporter of this system is because you believe in the possibility of upward mobility. This is what the elites want you to believe, that everyone and his brother can obtain a better standard of life if only he works HARD ENOUGH; The American Dream baby. However, like the poster above mentioned - you don't make millions working hard, you make millions for others while you work hard for them. The surplus value of your labor power is what is called profit, and profit is made through exploitation, and its not the elite who are getting exploited its YOU my friend. Yes, capitalism seems alright for the middle class as they make what now seems to be decent wages and there standard of living is pretty good and there's still that possibility of moving up the social ladder. However, if you look at the statistics the middle class is shrinking more and more and people are experiencing downward mobility. The possibility of moving up the socio-economic ladder is slim to none for the vast majority. And no its not because people are lazy, or because they don't work hard enough. Its because those at the top of the system want to protect their wealth, status, and power at the expense of yours.

How many are on food stamps now in the United States? What is it 50million now? Gee, if only they all worked harder. Or better yet why don't they all just jump over the ocean to Australia; oh wait that costs money too.

[teukon]

A slave is a person which is simultaneously property.  To all those that believe having a "shitty job" is slavery, may I ask you to identify the corresponding master/owner?

Its usually someone running a business, the usual suspect. If you are a wageslave you are fucked... not much margin of action. If you are not part of the initial distribution of the pie and your family didnt got a nice slice of the pie, then you'll need something special. Most people aren't and its difficult to break the wageslave loophole.

Hmm...  What happens if a "wageslave" is fired?  Are they then free?

[SeaofBTC]

Unless you are part of the socio-economic elite I cant understand why you are in such support of an exploitative system that at its heart is against you and your classes interest.

I am very much middle, if not lower-middle. I like where I am, I love my country, and I love that I had the freedom to be on my own. I love that I had choices to start a few companies in college while working a "wage slave" job and going to school, which gave me the freedom I have today.

What system do you support? Does it exist anywhere in the world?

[megashira1]

Unless you are part of the socio-economic elite I cant understand why you are in such support of an exploitative system that at its heart is against you and your classes interest.

I am very much middle, if not lower-middle. I like where I am, I love my country, and I love that I had the freedom to be on my own. I love that I had choices to start a few companies in college while working a "wage slave" job and going to school, which gave me the freedom I have today.

What system do you support? Does it exist anywhere in the world?

I would advocate a communist system. And no not the evil communism that has been propagated by the powers that be. True communism; of which has never been fully realized as an economic system.

According to Marx and his theory of historical materialism, communism is the last and final stage in an evolutionary process towards a free stateless, classless, and propertylessness society. 

Primitive Communism > Slave society > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history - give it a read

In capitalism, the profit motive rules and people, freed from serfdom, work for the capitalists for wages. The capitalist class are free to spread their laissez faire practices around the world. In the capitalist-controlled parliament, laws are made to protect wealth.

But according to Marx, capitalism, like slave society and feudalism, also has critical failings — inner contradictions which will lead to its downfall. The working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the "grave digger" of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces. The rest is surplus value — the capitalist's profit, which Marx calls the "unpaid labour of the working class." The capitalists are forced by competition to attempt to drive down the wages of the working class to increase their profits, and this creates conflict between the classes, and gives rise to the development of class consciousness in the working class. The working class, through trade union and other struggles, becomes conscious of itself as an exploited class.

In the view of classical Marxism, the struggles of the working class against the attacks of the capitalist class lead the working class to establish its own collective control over production — the basis of socialist society. Marx believed that capitalism always leads to monopolies and leads the people to poverty; yet the fewer the restrictions on the free market, (e.g. from the state and trade unions) the sooner it finds itself in crisis.

What do you think? Pretty crazy how relevant and accurate his writings are still to this day, considering they were written well over 100 years ago.

Coincidentally I believe bitcoin technology will help in this evolutionary process towards a more egalitarian society

[practicaldreamer]

Pretty crazy how relevant and accurate his writings are still to this day, considering they were written well over 100 years ago.

Yes - agreed. Startlingly relevant and accurate - but we aren't supposed to mention it. He's been thoroughly discredited (apparently).

Coincidentally I believe bitcoin technology will help in this evolutionary process towards a more egalitarian society

Here's hopin' 

[merockstar]

If you are looking for more of a liberal place, check out northern Europe.

I would love to try this, but it seems you need a bachelor's to immigrate anywhere.

[merockstar]

A slave is a person which is simultaneously property.  To all those that believe having a "shitty job" is slavery, may I ask you to identify the corresponding master/owner?

Its usually someone running a business, the usual suspect. If you are a wageslave you are fucked... not much margin of action. If you are not part of the initial distribution of the pie and your family didnt got a nice slice of the pie, then you'll need something special. Most people aren't and its difficult to break the wageslave loophole.

Hmm...  What happens if a "wageslave" is fired?  Are they then free?

This is discipline for disobeying.

Now they have to suffer, probably lose their apartment, rely on other people which stresses relationships, experience self-esteem loss from being temporarily (or permanently, in some lines of work) unable to provide for one's self, possibly go hungry/be subjected to a demeaning food-stamp program (not every city has soup kitchens, or well stocked food pantries, and not everybody lives in a city), all while having to go around filling out job applications and present their best self for job interview after job interview, selling yourself to a new master.

[teukon]

A slave is a person which is simultaneously property.  To all those that believe having a "shitty job" is slavery, may I ask you to identify the corresponding master/owner?

Its usually someone running a business, the usual suspect. If you are a wageslave you are fucked... not much margin of action. If you are not part of the initial distribution of the pie and your family didnt got a nice slice of the pie, then you'll need something special. Most people aren't and its difficult to break the wageslave loophole.

Hmm...  What happens if a "wageslave" is fired?  Are they then free?

This is discipline for disobeying.

Now they have to suffer, probably lose their apartment, rely on other people which stresses relationships, experience self-esteem loss from being temporarily (or permanently, in some lines of work) unable to provide for one's self, possibly go hungry/be subjected to a demeaning food-stamp program (not every city has soup kitchens, or well stocked food pantries, and not everybody lives in a city), all while having to go around filling out job applications and present their best self for job interview after job interview, selling yourself to a new master.

So, a master can punish a slave by setting them free.  The free person will then want to find any new master that will have them.

Not sure the "slave" analogy is the right one to be honest.

[merockstar]

A slave is a person which is simultaneously property.  To all those that believe having a "shitty job" is slavery, may I ask you to identify the corresponding master/owner?

Its usually someone running a business, the usual suspect. If you are a wageslave you are fucked... not much margin of action. If you are not part of the initial distribution of the pie and your family didnt got a nice slice of the pie, then you'll need something special. Most people aren't and its difficult to break the wageslave loophole.

Hmm...  What happens if a "wageslave" is fired?  Are they then free?

This is discipline for disobeying.

Now they have to suffer, probably lose their apartment, rely on other people which stresses relationships, experience self-esteem loss from being temporarily (or permanently, in some lines of work) unable to provide for one's self, possibly go hungry/be subjected to a demeaning food-stamp program (not every city has soup kitchens, or well stocked food pantries, and not everybody lives in a city), all while having to go around filling out job applications and present their best self for job interview after job interview, selling yourself to a new master.

So, a master can punish a slave by setting them free.  The free person will then want to find any new master that will have them.

Not sure the "slave" analogy is the right one to be honest.

Setting them free would be promoting them to a liveable wage.

Which would permit them to save up some cash, which in turn makes it possible for them to advance their education, move to a different country if they choose, or just save up enough to live on for a while and leave.

But that's not profitable. Master would have to "train" somebody new.

If your employees feel like slaves there's nothing you can do to change that except pay more and improve the working environment/hours. Also they won't tell you if that's the case, they want you to free them.

If you're a small business owner odds are you pay your people well though, unless your just starting and struggling to become profitable, in which case you're out there pulling your weight with them.

I can think of one decent paying position that doesn't require a bachelors. Mailman. But competition is fierce for a job with the USPS.

[megashira1]

A slave is a person which is simultaneously property.  To all those that believe having a "shitty job" is slavery, may I ask you to identify the corresponding master/owner?

Its usually someone running a business, the usual suspect. If you are a wageslave you are fucked... not much margin of action. If you are not part of the initial distribution of the pie and your family didnt got a nice slice of the pie, then you'll need something special. Most people aren't and its difficult to break the wageslave loophole.

Hmm...  What happens if a "wageslave" is fired?  Are they then free?

This is discipline for disobeying.

Now they have to suffer, probably lose their apartment, rely on other people which stresses relationships, experience self-esteem loss from being temporarily (or permanently, in some lines of work) unable to provide for one's self, possibly go hungry/be subjected to a demeaning food-stamp program (not every city has soup kitchens, or well stocked food pantries, and not everybody lives in a city), all while having to go around filling out job applications and present their best self for job interview after job interview, selling yourself to a new master.

So, a master can punish a slave by setting them free.  The free person will then want to find any new master that will have them.

Not sure the "slave" analogy is the right one to be honest.

Setting them free would be promoting them to a liveable wage.

Which would permit them to save up some cash, which in turn makes it possible for them to advance their education, move to a different country if they choose, or just save up enough to live on for a while and leave.

But that's not profitable. Master would have to "train" somebody new.

If your employees feel like slaves there's nothing you can do to change that except pay more and improve the working environment/hours. Also they won't tell you if that's the case, they want you to free them.

If you're a small business owner odds are you pay your people well though, unless your just starting and struggling to become profitable, in which case you're out there pulling your weight with them.

I can think of one decent paying position that doesn't require a bachelors. Mailman. But competition is fierce for a job with the USPS.

Haha, I actually just applied to be a mailman.. 

[jjacob]

Setting them free would be promoting them to a liveable wage.

Which would permit them to save up some cash, which in turn makes it possible for them to advance their education, move to a different country if they choose, or just save up enough to live on for a while and leave.

But that's not profitable. Master would have to "train" somebody new.

If your employees feel like slaves there's nothing you can do to change that except pay more and improve the working environment/hours. Also they won't tell you if that's the case, they want you to free them.

If you're a small business owner odds are you pay your people well though, unless your just starting and struggling to become profitable, in which case you're out there pulling your weight with them.

I can think of one decent paying position that doesn't require a bachelors. Mailman. But competition is fierce for a job with the USPS.

With almost everyone completing a bachelor's education, employers are free to set the bar high. Most positions wouldn't really require a college education, but since there are so many graduates around, employers can be choosy and hire somebody with a bachelor's degree.

[Stockhome]

Thats how the world goes right now.

[TheLoser]

Because the rich dude got money to walk in front of you by 2 steps or more so I don't know man. Unless your mom and dad mutate your gene or someshit then you're one lucky mofo.

[fredthegambler]

Thats how the world goes right now.

Agree. Rich becomes richer, poor becomes poorer.

[novacn]

Great men's sons seldom do well. With our btc, I'm pretty sure that the next half of our lives will be better.

[Mccoy818]

So who's to blame? The rich or the poor?

[abrahamlitcoin]

That is how life goes in a city. You have no money, you work, you use your money and then youll have no money again.

[superresistant]

Thats how the world goes right now.

Agree. Rich becomes richer, poor becomes poorer.

So who's to blame? The rich or the poor?

Wealth is relative.
You are not rich of poor. You are poor compared to someone and rich compared to someone else.

Getting poor make the others richer. Getting rich make the others poorer.
To have everyone on the same level, you must force everyone to be very poor and take everything just for you, this is called Communism.

[mmortal03]

Available here in eBook --> http://www.richdad.com/ebooks.aspx

I enjoy his books, and he explains a lot, in lame men's terms.

*layman's terms

[Bit N Roll]

That is how life goes in a city. You have no money, you work, you use your money and then youll have no money again.

That is true.. But you have to be working your butt in order to live.