America's 1% Has Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

Yes but it wouldn't be any different at another enterprise. You're hired precisely because you create more value than what they pay you. That's the business model.

 

Back this up.

 

This study came from that leftist rag, the RAND Corporation.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html

 

Central control of currency is the fifth plank of Marx's manefesto

 

"Before the late 1970s, wages and benefits of the vast majority of workers grew in line with productivity. In the late 1970s, typical worker pay growth split from economy-wide productivity growth. Productivity is a measure of how much income is generated in an average hour of work in the economy. While productivity after 1979 grew more slowly relative to previous decades, it did grow steadily, offering the potential for broad-based pay growth. But income gains were not broad-based. In fact, average pay of the 80 percent of the private-sector workers who are not supervisors barely budged in that time. The growing wedge between productivity and pay is the income generated by workers in the economy that has been claimed by corporate owners and managers and others at the very top of the pay scale."

https://www.epi.org/publication/top-charts-2019/

 

that's not an answer. you should argue your points, rather than by proxy. The point I argue is that I spend less than I make. I take what I have left over and invest it wisely. That means each year, I am wealthier than I was the year before. What is the alternative that lefties want?

 

Name an OECD country that doesn't have "control of currency".

There isn't one, and there can't be one.

Are you a Mercantilist, that's the only way that mess would make sense.

 

Psst, it's called reality.

 

again, not an answer. argue your point-what happens if us "rich" folks are not getting richer?

 

And as they bail out their failed bankers, and as they purchase corporate debt and equities, and as the FED alone has brought 3 trillion dollars into existence since feb of this year and exchanged it for bad banker debt, placing the debt on its own books, you call it capitalism.

 

You are evading the obvious, you were wrong. All developed countries control their currency one way or another. That's sanity, not Marxism.

I'll put you down as a Mercantilist for the time being.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequa...y&qid=1600610052&sprefix=stigl,aps,176&sr=8-2

 

in other words, you cannot argue the point yourself. I sort of figured that.

 

1) Naw, you have your excuse, no way are you going to give that up.

2) I have tried explaining it before. It never works, and they never even try.

3) So, on the entirely absurd notion that you want to learn, that's a quick easy way to do it. You can get it from any library (although you might need to inter-library loan). I bought my copy, and I don't buy a lot of books, it's that good.

 

Marx and Engels advocated seizing the means of production from the bourgeoisie. There would then be a transition to a system based on "the association of free and equal producers," causing the state to become obsolete and "withers away."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_(Marxism_and_anarchism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

The Bolsheviks never allowed the transition to socialism. They just replaced corporate executives and boards of directors with government officials. Lenin called it "state capitalism". The core problem remains: "When industry is in the hands of the state, it behaves in exactly the same way as private capitalist production based on the exploitation of labor."

https://libcom.org/library/marxism-...te-groepen-van-internationale-communisten-gik

 

the fed under Trump's supposed "great" economy, has kept the interest rates low (near zero) and dumped trillions into the economy

and now the fed is even buying stock to artificially keep the stock price up

the country has passed the debt that is manageable, 30 trillion in debt means now, we are just printing money to keep afloat as long as we can

that doesn't happen under a "great" economy

greedy Corporatism has destroyed Capitalism, via sending excessive amounts of jobs overseas and importing good

 

I can't relate to the OP. In my life, I've been robbed several times by lazy, bottom dwellers. And the rich have always provided me with jobs and goods from around the world at reasonable prices. Furthermore, the person most responsible for my economic situation is myself and the choices I've made, not some billionaire, motoring around the ocean on a hundred million dollar, private luxury ship. More power to him, I say. I am glad for him or her. The most important things in life are what kind of person you are. And the greatest treasures are those one stores in heaven, and the pricelessness of forgiveness that one extends to another, if one has it to give. Therein resides the greatest dearth, if there is want. I have never been one to covet or envy anothers blessings or holdings. I also think that the wealthy of yesteryear were more local than todays. And have since diversified their investments to the world, thereby making gains hand over fist, while the workaday American plods along locally. The disparity in worth then is not so much evidence of an injustice, but simply the fruits of have plowed a much larger field. There is also the matter of twenty percent of our population on welfare, who add nothing. Taking from the rich to give to these will also add nothing to the whole because they will remain doleful, fruitless and unproductive. Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

if you send all the jobs overseas and import all the goods from overseas, you destroy capitalism

greedy corporatism is destroying capitalism

 

the more we are robbed by the top 1%, the poorer the working class will get, the more the bottom 1% will rob us

tough times are in our countries future imo

 

40 or 50% of American's, the richest country in the world, do not have $500 put away for a rainy day. You are one of the more fortunate. The loss of the ability to look after their families and to give them at least as good as, not better than which people expected for generations since WW2, has caused a massive increase in suicide and drug and drink misuse by white working class American's because they blame themselves for the fact that they are unable to do this. They are wrong to blame themselves.

 

They have our Democracy. Politicians serve them, not the people. For a long time it has looked to me like a new form of Aristocracy and I know some political theorists believe we are moving into a new form of feudalism.

 

Greedy Corporatism leads to fascism. That is what they realised during WW2 and why the West including the US to some extent had a mixed economy and restrictions on capital. Without restriction on Capitalism you can't have democracy. Lack of restrictions makes it too powerful and hence they own our politicians who serve them not us.

 

Yes they have been buying stock for a long time now, socialism for the richest while the rest of you will need to pay it back. High prices in Stock offer nothing to the people, just money in the richest pockets paid for by you.

 

What is a prosperous nation to you?

https://www.mic.com/articles/157441/these-are-the-10-most-prosperous-countries-in-the-world
What's the difference between being rich and actually prospering?

Zeroing in on which countries prosper and share wealth among citizens — and which don't — is the goal of an annual study just released by the Legatum Institute, a London-based organization that researches how people, groups and nations move from poverty to prosperity

The study examined 149 countries around the globe across nine broad factors: economic opportunities and growth, business environment, effective government with political participation, access to education, quality health care, national security and personal safety, personal freedoms, social support and civic participation and investment in natural resources.

Surprise, surprise: America isn't great at sharing the wealth it has among its people. The United States, which came in 17th in this year's index, has been dropping in rank over the past decade both for economic reasons and because of challenges to security and safety.

 

Central control of the currency was a key component of the plan.
Bankers aren't producers and the FED has been crucial to the financialization of the economy and the governments ability to grow to enormous proportions via spending.
One slimey hand washing the other.

And simpletons think this is free market captalism