Are the Super Rich and there companies to blame for our Economic crisis and plunder?

[jossebastian]

A couple of things. First and most important the rich get richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich in the first place, and the poor get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor in the first place. Like it or not people are normally in the position they are in because of the choices they have made. Second upward mobility in this country has been stifled by a progressive tax rate and an overbearing and bloated government with all of the attendant regulations, debts and deficits. We could even throw in the Federal Reserves loose money policies for good measure. They keep pumping more fake money into the stock market to shore up the “investor class” while the rest of the country suffers from inflation and the relentless bubble/burst cycle it creates.

The whole intention of Market driven Capitalism is to create booms and busts, because that is the only way wealth can be transferred from poor to rich in a regulated environment. In bust periods, the poor has no money to invest, where as the rich do. And poor are willing to sell things at a loss just to survive. In order for the rich to have more money to have this cycle accelerated, they need to have more money. Lower tax rate does that. The lower tax rate imparts negligible benefits to the poor, since lower tax rate brings less money to government and this means that less funding for public transportation, poor roads (frequent maintenance of vehicles), cuts in schools, poor VA, etc. Lower tax rate increase money supply, and this increases inflation, worsening the situation of the poor.

America prospered in the 50s and 60s, post war. that was the “Worker” America. 70s and 80s, America graduated to “Boss’” America as a result of “Worker” America’s toils, and this time, corporate-isation happened, and lowering tax rate also happened. What does the “Boss’” America have… Money. We have become the richest nation and Japan at a distant number 2. 90s and early 2000s is the “Spender America”, and we spend like there is no tomorrow. With no “Worker” America culture, and aloof of poor-man’s conditions, we spent on rich-man’s toys and tools hoping that it will create jobs. By mid-2000 till now, we are “Scoundrel” America, who has no idea how to make money, no “Worker” sense, no “Boss” sense, and the whole generation has only seen the previous generation as spenders. This is the time we lose our wealth and morals, as we are seeing now with frivolous wars and culture of death. God is ridiculed. The next generation will have nothing left that they become “Worker” and have belief in God and honor Him, and eventually build back this country. I hope that day is sooner (which also means that we are completely emptied of our wealth – which I do not wish for). The cycle repeats.

Jos

 

[WilT]

The whole intention of Market driven Capitalism is to create booms and busts, because that is the only way wealth can be transferred from poor to rich in a regulated environment. In bust periods, the poor has no money to invest, where as the rich do. And poor are willing to sell things at a loss just to survive. In order for the rich to have more money to have this cycle accelerated, they need to have more money. Lower tax rate does that. The lower tax rate imparts negligible benefits to the poor, since lower tax rate brings less money to government and this means that less funding for public transportation, poor roads (frequent maintenance of vehicles), cuts in schools, poor VA, etc. Lower tax rate increase money supply, and this increases inflation, worsening the situation of the poor.

America prospered in the 50s and 60s, post war. that was the “Worker” America. 70s and 80s, America graduated to “Boss’” America as a result of “Worker” America’s toils, and this time, corporate-isation happened, and lowering tax rate also happened. What does the “Boss’” America have… Money. We have become the richest nation and Japan at a distant number 2. 90s and early 2000s is the “Spender America”, and we spend like there is no tomorrow. With no “Worker” America culture, and aloof of poor-man’s conditions, we spent on rich-man’s toys and tools hoping that it will create jobs. By mid-2000 till now, we are “Scoundrel” America, who has no idea how to make money, no “Worker” sense, no “Boss” sense, and the whole generation has only seen the previous generation as spenders. This is the time we lose our wealth and morals, as we are seeing now with frivolous wars and culture of death. God is ridiculed. The next generation will have nothing left that they become “Worker” and have belief in God and honor Him, and eventually build back this country. I hope that day is sooner (which also means that we are completely emptied of our wealth – which I do not wish for). The cycle repeats.

Jos

thanks jossebastian

 

[Seraphim73]

The whole intention of Market driven Capitalism is to create booms and busts, because that is the only way wealth can be transferred from poor to rich in a regulated environment. In bust periods, the poor has no money to invest, where as the rich do. And poor are willing to sell things at a loss just to survive. In order for the rich to have more money to have this cycle accelerated, they need to have more money. Lower tax rate does that. The lower tax rate imparts negligible benefits to the poor, since lower tax rate brings less money to government and this means that less funding for public transportation, poor roads (frequent maintenance of vehicles), cuts in schools, poor VA, etc. Lower tax rate increase money supply, and this increases inflation, worsening the situation of the poor.

America prospered in the 50s and 60s, post war. that was the “Worker” America. 70s and 80s, America graduated to “Boss’” America as a result of “Worker” America’s toils, and this time, corporate-isation happened, and lowering tax rate also happened. What does the “Boss’” America have… Money. We have become the richest nation and Japan at a distant number 2. 90s and early 2000s is the “Spender America”, and we spend like there is no tomorrow. With no “Worker” America culture, and aloof of poor-man’s conditions, we spent on rich-man’s toys and tools hoping that it will create jobs. By mid-2000 till now, we are “Scoundrel” America, who has no idea how to make money, no “Worker” sense, no “Boss” sense, and the whole generation has only seen the previous generation as spenders. This is the time we lose our wealth and morals, as we are seeing now with frivolous wars and culture of death. God is ridiculed. The next generation will have nothing left that they become “Worker” and have belief in God and honor Him, and eventually build back this country. I hope that day is sooner (which also means that we are completely emptied of our wealth – which I do not wish for). The cycle repeats.

Jos

Well that’s a bunch of hogwash. Boom/bust cycles are created by monetary policy. It’s a function of government. Why is the stock market today breaking records? Is it because the companies are worth more? Of course not. The economy actually receded in the last quarter. The reason the stock market is as high as it is is because the federal reserve continues to print fake money and pour it into the markets.

The problem is that’s not reality. It’s an artificial bubble and It has no basis on the actual value of the stock market. One day that bubble will break, and the more it is pumped up the more dramatic the drop will be. Every recession from the Great Depression on was caused by flawed government policy. It had almost nothing to do with capitalism and free markets.

 

[nmgauss]

Well that’s a bunch of hogwash. Boom/bust cycles are created by monetary policy. It’s a function of government. Why is the stock market today breaking records? Is it because the companies are worth more? Of course not. The economy actually receded in the last quarter. The reason the stock market is as high as it is is because the federal reserve continues to print fake money and pour it into the markets.

The problem is that’s not reality. It’s an artificial bubble and It has no basis on the actual value of the stock market. One day that bubble will break, and the more it is pumped up the more dramatic the drop will be. Every recession from the Great Depression on was caused by flawed government policy. It had almost nothing to do with capitalism and free markets.

The money supply is what the U.S. Federal Reserve tweaks. It’s not fake money. Money is created these days by means other than printing. American interest rates have been low for several years and so has inflation. The amazing thing is that in the last five years with all this money being created, cash was flowing into corporate accounts and just sitting there. Corporations lost a lot of money in the recession that started in 2007-2008 and were gun shy for a considerable period.

How do you explain the several panics and busts of the nineteenth century? Were they created by monetary policy? Look at the details of the Panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1907.

In actuality, the stock market crash resulted from excessive speculation. People were borrowing millions to buy stocks with sometimes only 10-20% down payment; then when prices started to fall, they panicked and sold in huge numbers.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Well that’s a bunch of hogwash. Boom/bust cycles are created by monetary policy. It’s a function of government. .

The function of the government is to stabalize.

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.

The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: Maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

BTW
Here is a pretty complete report on 2014 economic indiacators:
richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/national_economic_indicators/pdf/all_charts.pdf

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The whole intention of Market driven Capitalism is to create booms and busts, because that is the only way wealth can be transferred from poor to rich in a regulated environment.
Jos

The poor, by definition have no wealth…they are poor.

I think you better find another source of wealth for the rich to acquire. One that makes sense.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The poor, by definition have no wealth…they are poor.

I think you better find another source of wealth for the rich to acquire. One that makes sense.

Do the poor own cars? If so, that is wealth. Do they own tvs? That is wealth as well. They usually have at least some wealth at some point during the month.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Do the poor own cars? If so, that is wealth. Do they own tvs? That is wealth as well. They usually have at least some wealth at some point during the month.

Then they are not poor…are they?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Then they are not poor…are they?

It depends on how you define poor. Does poor mean zero wealth?

 

[estesbob]

Actually this is the 25th year I’m dealing with such issues. I’ve never seen a mortgage on a Church property that is from a secular source (I’ve seen money loaned by private sources for say, a new church or renovation). FWIW, I have several excellent sources I can discuss the matter with, and will bring it up in the future.

I negotiated one for our parish from a commercial bank. Got us a rate of prime minus 4%. Of course it was made easier by the fact the Diocese guaranteed the note.

 

[nmgauss]

It depends on how you define poor. Does poor mean zero wealth?

If one is living hand-to-mouth, they have zero wealth. Wealth means that having assets balanced out by liabilities and thus having no equity, there is nothing left over for wealth.

There are various levels of poverty:
United Nations: Fundamentally, poverty is the inability of getting choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.[9]

World Bank: Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one’s life. [10]

Copenhagen Declaration: Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to social services.[11] The term ‘absolute poverty’ is sometimes synonymously referred to as ‘extreme poverty.’[12]

Poverty is usually measured as either absolute or relative (the latter being actually an index of income inequality).

Absolute poverty[edit]

See also: Extreme poverty

Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. First introduced in 1990, the dollar a day poverty line measured absolute poverty by the standards of the world’s poorest countries. The World Bank defined the new international poverty line as $1.25 a day for 2005 (equivalent to $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices).[13] but have recently been updated to be $1.25 and $2.50 per day.[14] Absolute poverty, extreme poverty, or abject poverty is “a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.” [15] The term ‘absolute poverty’, when used in this fashion, is usually synonymous with ‘extreme poverty’: Robert McNamara, the former President of the World Bank, described absolute or extreme poverty as, “…a condition so limited by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency”.[16][notes 1][17] Australia is one of the world’s wealthier nations. In his article published in Australian Policy Online, Robert Tanton notes that, “While this amount is appropriate for third world countries, in Australia, the amount required to meet these basic needs will naturally be much higher because prices of these basic necessities are higher.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

Extreme poverty, absolute poverty, or abject poverty is stated as “a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information." It depends not only on income but also on access to services.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

 

[WilT]

If one is living hand-to-mouth, they have zero wealth. Wealth means that having assets balanced out by liabilities and thus having no equity, there is nothing left over for wealth.

There are various levels of poverty:
United Nations: Fundamentally, poverty is the inability of getting choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.[9]

World Bank: Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one’s life. [10]

Copenhagen Declaration: Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to social services.[11] The term ‘absolute poverty’ is sometimes synonymously referred to as ‘extreme poverty.’[12]

Poverty is usually measured as either absolute or relative (the latter being actually an index of income inequality).

Absolute poverty[edit]

See also: Extreme poverty

Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. First introduced in 1990, the dollar a day poverty line measured absolute poverty by the standards of the world’s poorest countries. The World Bank defined the new international poverty line as $1.25 a day for 2005 (equivalent to $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices).[13] but have recently been updated to be $1.25 and $2.50 per day.[14] Absolute poverty, extreme poverty, or abject poverty is “a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.” [15] The term ‘absolute poverty’, when used in this fashion, is usually synonymous with ‘extreme poverty’: Robert McNamara, the former President of the World Bank, described absolute or extreme poverty as, “…a condition so limited by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency”.[16][notes 1][17] Australia is one of the world’s wealthier nations. In his article published in Australian Policy Online, Robert Tanton notes that, “While this amount is appropriate for third world countries, in Australia, the amount required to meet these basic needs will naturally be much higher because prices of these basic necessities are higher.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

Extreme poverty, absolute poverty, or abject poverty is stated as “a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information." It depends not only on income but also on access to services.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

Thanks for your definition of poor and poverty. Very clear and precise.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It depends on how you define poor. Does poor mean zero wealth?

I can only relate to what Robin Hood, in the film Time Bandits said about “the poor”.

Oh you must meet them. I’m sure you’ll like them. Of course they haven’t got two pennies to rub together but that’s because… [nudges Randall] they’re poor.