The top 1%...

[BA Deere]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/top-1-has-65-times-more-wealth-than-the-bottom-half-and-...  

Now you liberals that think you can change that by voting for 0bama or Elisabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton or Francois Hollande or Bernie Sanders are sorely mistaken.

Let me just say this: saying 1% is 65 times more wealthy than the bottom half, doesn`t touch the tip of the iceberg, it`s much more distorted than that....we are all just about in the "bottom half".  Here, in the case of farmers, let`s say interest rates go to 20% again like they did in the 80`s, let`s say corn goes to $2/bushel like it was 7, 8 years ago...and I`m sure other businesses could have similar dilemmas.  we all hang on crop reports and what the fed chairperson will do with interest rates.

[bruce MN]

Seems like I've read that 100 times from 100 different sources. From all over the board politically.

He sounds all of the alarms, and like just about everybody else who does, offers no suggestion for solutions, other than to BE PREPARED!!!

This writer does mention the abolishing of the U. S Federal Reserve, but doesn't really go on to say just how he sees that helping, why it is that he holds it almost singulary reponsible or what it would take in it's place to keep the trains running and keep there from being even less people eating and keep them sleeping out of danger.

So I went to the comments, thinking that there might be some suggestions there. Read the 72 that were up a few minutes ago and found 2 or 3 where something alternative was hinted at.  Most of them were from parrots of politcal and religious movement's, left and right....mostly right.... and were, again, sh!t I've read a thousand times.

I find it interesting that you as a self-proclaimed conservative (I think you're backsliding more than you can tell that you are ) can put this up and nobody will call you a commie or a promoter of dedistribution and unAmerican etc, but somebody puts up somone else telling almost the same tale, and in this case.......    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/opinion/krugman-the-undeserving-rich.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=0&gwh...   

breaking the disparity down even further to the .1 of 1%,  either a full blown sh!t storm erupts or it is greeted by total silence.

[hardnox604008]

Was pondering that in regards to something I'd been reading. The source isn't important but it was a history set in the US ca. 1890-1910, before The Fed.

Anyway, was struck by the description of widespread ruination and common suicide among formerly prosperous men following the Panics of 1893 and 1907.

My point isn't that the world is bettre because of central banking, but that free market, sound money regimes are prone to vicious cycles.  Austrians actually view that as a good thing, a purgative for excess. But it seems that those cycles may take out a decent number of the 1-5%er types, and cause great misery among those below, but leave the .01%ers relatively unscathed.

It's kind of like if you're Warren Buffett and your net worth drops 50%, is that a bad thing if you can buy lots of stuff for .10 on the dollar?

Don't know what conclusion to draw from that, just thinking.

[Samnospam]

What is a life with no prospect of ever having a job, ever improving your lot, but knowing you won't starve because a safety net?    

I don't think we're less prone to cycles, but have increased both the amplitude and period. 

[BA Deere]

I guess what I`m saying Bruce is, the rest of us ants can fight among ourselves over who controls the anthill and bread crumb supply, but the 1% ain`t gonna change whether the black ants control the hill or the red ants control the hill.  The BTO down the road doesn`t really have any idea of what he`s worth until the markets open Monday morning.

We could change things, because we out number them.  But you know i have it pretty good right now, hot cup of Folgers watching the snow blow, I`m not gonna upset the apple cart until I really have to.  Others will say "If we could just vote in Elisabeth Warren...then things would really get good".   I think that we would have to "end the Fed" and congress issue money, I don`t think that raising income tax much more or placing a "wealth tax" on the guy down the road that owns a couple acres more than I would do any good.

[kraft-t]

The graduated income tax was by design meant to exact more revenues from those that could afford to pay. It's ilogical to think a custodian in the local school can pay the same tax rates  as does Warren Buffett or Mitt Romney. Yet for nigh unto 30 years now we have been sold the bill of goods that folks like those mentioned will use the tax savings to create jobs plus conservative hell bent on cutting revenues to the treasury.

Thus we have had issue after issue that congress has dealt with by mnipulating the code. Tax incentives for financial behavior  which may or may not produce the desired results but always diminishing revenues to the treasury. WE still have the mindset that diminishing revenues is the fiscal answer. Starve the beast, but don't cut anything that I want.

Currently there is a super majority of the public that wants extended unemployment compensation but the rabid minorty says no way!. The rabid minority is convinced that forcing the poor to work is the solution. Yet they vehemently oppose raising the minimum wage. So they not only demand that they work but do so for paltry wages, while the corporate beneficiaries of that policy reap the reward and choose not to pay taxes.

We cannot design a tax code where nobody pays taxes. Those that earn the most must pay the bill and that means you me and those more fortunate than us. Cutting taxes over the last 30 years has not produced a robust economy. Nor will it.

[schnurrbart]

Much better than starving to death!

[425Cat]

At what point does economics say I will automate before I increase wages. Some are people driven many are profit driven