I don't think so.
I know what your trying to say, your basically giving me reagan economics:
Allow the rich to do whatever they want because they have proven they want to be "elite" therefore since they showed motivation before you can hope for a larger investment.
Frankly i'm tired of the rich exploiting the working class just so they can steal enough from them to privately invest in what THEY want to do.
I can just as easily say that the proletariat will do better when hes not starving or if he can get that operation he needs to do better than that other guy. Or if he simply can simply take a sick day once in a while.
Lol. Yeah, pay attention. You completely missed my point
What I'm saying is that 99% of the so-called "rich" are people that work harder than anyone else - yet they blend in because theyre still normal people. They aren't ostentatious pricks nor do they drive flashy cars and own $30000 purses.
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with leftist retoric - you blindly assign these labels to these people, when you know nothing about them. What I was posting was just proving my point - the vast majority of the rich deserve your utmost praise and respect. Hate on your hiltons and madoffs all you want (we all do) - but leave the average millionare out of it. He has done nothing but good for you, and will continue to do so despite the undeserved scorn you throw his way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
I'm not angry at wealthy people because they do their jobs well i'm mad at people that approve of this system which basically creates rich people (which in turn creates poor people)...
Many poor people are right-sided and many rich people are left-sided.
Your implying that i stereotype others and think the rich are totally in control of what they do. People decide if people can become poor and rich people is what i'm trying to say. >.>;
I'm not angry at wealthy people because they do their jobs well i'm mad at people that approve of this system which basically creates rich people (which in turn creates poor people)...
Many poor people are right-sided and many rich people are left-sided.
Your applying a stereotype to what i said and thats wrong >.>;
Our system does very little to create rich people. In fact, I'll argue that our system is BY AND FAR the best for letting a poor person become rich, if they're willing to work hard enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
One thing i'd like to add is people generally see the rich and think "they don't work much harder then me if at all". Ignoring the group of people you would say inherit their wealth, most people earning the 200k ~1m are hard working people. The difference people fail to see:
1. They've spent years studying and getting training/experience to be where they are and should be rewarded for doing as much. The person on average wage is not likely to have done that.
2. Many work much harder then you think, in my office I see numerous of the higher level execs in the office while i'm going home. On the odd occassion i'm in on a weekend they're also there so i assume at other times too. wen things happen in the middle of the night they get woken up to fix it. Now if I had to be "on call" even outside my usual 9-5 day and work weekends I better be getting paid a lot more then I am.
Of course many will look at a Paris Hilton and say why should someone like that be so well off etc etc but really I think she's in the minority. Yes some people are just luckier then others but that life isnt it? Some people will win the lottery and get millions doing nothing oh well so what? People don't get what they necessarily deserve that's just life, if you want equity in your life (not "equality") then move to some communist nation cause there you'll be having the same conditions as 99% of it's population.
Our system does very little to create rich people. In fact, I'll argue that our system is BY AND FAR the best for letting a poor person become rich, if they're willing to work hard enough.
I don't want people to be rich if it means someone has to be poor. i'd just rather everyone be middle class.
although honestly i'd probably want to be rich if i might get shifted into lower class by your system, which is why i am on the left to prevent such atrocities from happening.
I think it has more to do with greed then jealousy. The American dream has shifted from the idea that you can work hard and earn your money; to the idea that everyone is entitled to their fair share regardless of how hard they work for it.
This example is a little off base, but I think it gives some insight to the general publics thought process. Here in Pittsburgh we had 3 brave police officers slaughtered by some psycho. At my work, we are taking donations for their families. One person made a comment to the effect that “don’t they already have enough money” since various other places are taking donations as well, plus the $100,000 that local companies have pledged. It’s as if he said “why should they get money when I am not getting any”. I think a lot of people feel this way about the rich. They think, oh these guys make tons of money, why shouldn’t they have to pay more so I don’t have to. That’s why in the end, I really feel it has to do with greed more then anything else.
I think all the people making claims about whether rich people are rich because of hard work or not should read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It has some very fascinating arguments in regards to this exact topic, backed up by some pretty impressive data.
I think it has more to do with greed then jealousy. The American dream has shifted from the idea that you can work hard and earn your money; to the idea that everyone is entitled to their fair share regardless of how hard they work for it.
This example is a little off base, but I think it gives some insight to the general publics thought process. Here in Pittsburgh we had 3 brave police officers slaughtered by some psycho. At my work, we are taking donations for their families. One person made a comment to the effect that “don’t they already have enough money” since various other places are taking donations as well, plus the $100,000 that local companies have pledged. It’s as if he said “why should they get money when I am not getting any”. I think a lot of people feel this way about the rich. They think, oh these guys make tons of money, why shouldn’t they have to pay more so I don’t have to. That’s why in the end, I really feel it has to do with greed more then anything else.
I agree with the main point of your statement. It's seen in the US that the government tries to be both just and equal. But in reality, justice and equality are two different things. Back in the older days, justice reigned in thought more than equality; one gets what one deserves. But once you get people who become jealous of their neighbors, they start to wonder why they can't have what their neighbors have. To justify this thought, those people argue that it is no longer "equal" (and neither fair) even though it may be "just" (although they'll never admit it). And the thing is, if those people become rich, once again they focus on "justice" over "equality." In the end, what is "fair" and "unfair" to the ordinary citizen is what best suits them in terms of "justice" vs "equality". In this modern day and age, people have stopped looking out for society as much as the individual, for a slew of controversial and uncontroversial reasons. And once these people start to influence the lives of others through government, then things begin to fall apart.
I think it has more to do with greed then jealousy. The American dream has shifted from the idea that you can work hard and earn your money; to the idea that everyone is entitled to their fair share regardless of how hard they work for it.
This example is a little off base, but I think it gives some insight to the general publics thought process. Here in Pittsburgh we had 3 brave police officers slaughtered by some psycho. At my work, we are taking donations for their families. One person made a comment to the effect that “don’t they already have enough money” since various other places are taking donations as well, plus the $100,000 that local companies have pledged. It’s as if he said “why should they get money when I am not getting any”. I think a lot of people feel this way about the rich. They think, oh these guys make tons of money, why shouldn’t they have to pay more so I don’t have to. That’s why in the end, I really feel it has to do with greed more then anything else.
Couldn't that question also mean that he thinks he could give to a better donation, not that he won't give? Or even that hes just really poor and needs that money to live off of?
Maybe i'm wrong, maybe hes just a jerk. that doesn't mean you guys are off the hook either. maybe that money won't make a difference in those peoples lives, you can't be certain of that. they lost a loved one, not their money for all we know.
I believe if this was because they were poor, or they needed some extra money just for therapy because of their missing loved ones i can understand, but if your thinking that your donation is better than any other donation your over stepping your bounds.
And if that guy is doing well for himself, then you'd be agreeing with me, because he needs to help others that are less fortunate than him. which brings me to greed. are the rich more greedy than the poor? i think not. there are good people and bad people, both can be rich or poor. being rich and asking for money seems pretty greedy to me though.
But in reality, justice and equality are two different things
you'd be more politically correct if you said freedom and equality. I think all the left sided people would say we're for social justice and your for freedom lol.
Couldn't that question also mean that he thinks he could give to a better donation, not that he won't give? Or even that hes just really poor and needs that money to live off of?
Maybe i'm wrong, maybe hes just a jerk. that doesn't mean you guys are off the hook either. maybe that money won't make a difference in those peoples lives, you can't be certain of that. they lost a loved one, not their money for all we know.
I believe if this was because they were poor, or they needed some extra money just for therapy because of their missing loved ones i can understand, but if your thinking that your donation is better than any other donation your over stepping your bounds.
And if that guy is doing well for himself, then you'd be agreeing with me, because he needs to help others that are less fortunate than him. which brings me to greed. are the rich more greedy than the poor? i think not. there are good people and bad people, both can be rich or poor. being rich and asking for money seems pretty greedy to me though.
you'd be more politically correct if you said freedom and equality. I think all the left sided people would say we're for social justice and your for freedom lol.
True, I guess the meaning of the word fails us there. In the sense I was using it, I meant justice: receiving punishment or reward based on one's actions
One could also say justice: that which is morally right or good though, so the meaning could be taken in different ways.
But if one starts using words like "freedom" or "communism," I find the issue begins to lie in people (not accusing anyone here of this) taking long-standing and meme-like prejudices into consideration.
Whatever word works, though, as long as the meaning is preserved.
Couldn't that question also mean that he thinks he could give to a better donation, not that he won't give? Or even that hes just really poor and needs that money to live off of?
No, the guy didnt want to donate b/c he thought they had gotten enough money. When infact no amout of money will bring those kids father back, those wives husband back, those perants children back. But it might help them from struggling to pay the morgage, or buy food, or clothes for the kids now that their father's are dead.
I dont really care to get into this topic, but I felt that my example was a good indication of the greed that this country is plegde with.
I don't want people to be rich if it means someone has to be poor. i'd just rather everyone be middle class.
although honestly i'd probably want to be rich if i might get shifted into lower class by your system, which is why i am on the left to prevent such atrocities from happening.
When a rich person becomes rich, doesn't mean another person has to become poor. This is faulty logic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
And if that guy is doing well for himself, then you'd be agreeing with me, because he needs to help others that are less fortunate than him. which brings me to greed. are the rich more greedy than the poor? i think not. there are good people and bad people, both can be rich or poor. being rich and asking for money seems pretty greedy to me though.
@walkingplans: how is the rich asking for more money any more or less greedy then the poor asking for more money?
Lets take this analogy if two people work doing the same thing one does it for 1hr and get $10 and the other does 2hrs and gets $20. Clearly person 2 is richer then person 1. Now both ask for more money. Does this mean person 2 is more greedy then person 1?
If now person 1 gets $15 and person 2 gets $20 and person 2 asks for more money is he being greedy?
By saying that someone is more greedy than another for asking for money you are presuming they are getting what they deserve or more than that already. So your comments would mean you naturally believe that the rich are getting more then they deserve already whilst the poor are not.
@walkingplans: how is the rich asking for more money any more or less greedy then the poor asking for more money?
Lets take this analogy if two people work doing the same thing one does it for 1hr and get $10 and the other does 2hrs and gets $20. Clearly person 2 is richer then person 1. Now both ask for more money. Does this mean person 2 is more greedy then person 1?
If now person 1 gets $15 and person 2 gets $20 and person 2 asks for more money is he being greedy?
First off, i said both rich and poor can be greedy, my thoughts are that if someone wants to create a break in the class shift, regardless if he will become rich or not, he is thinking only of himself/herself.
What it really comes down to (this is my honest belief) is if your a team-player or not.
Take your example, and lets say they were making lemonade. i like lemonade.
"now both ask for more money"
i don't really think person 1 is doing anything that wrong. if person two continued to gain more than person 1, he could produce more lemonade or make his stand more attractive, causing people only to buy from him. Now if this situation happened person 1 would have less money to spend. most likely he'll end up as the inferior no matter how much he has perfected his technique more than person 2 later on. now person 2 will always be liked more because hes the only one they trust, even if person 2 turns his lemonade into mud (or what happens in real life is they don't improve the forumula or take out crucial elements to maximize his own profit).
Also, assuming everyone in the world basically makes less than you would for lemonade, person 2 would eventually end up with all of the worlds money for himself...this would make money almost totally useless, as only enough people who provided whatever services person 2 needed/wanted would be able to trade back for lemonade (all other services have been destroyed, in person 2s defense hes probably expanded his shop though). anyways you can probably see how thats bad.
This is why the government (everyone has a government, i don't see that many pure anarchy countries out there) does taxes by percentage, because it would be too easy to create a spilit between wealthy and poor any other way. if you guys had your way, nobody would ever have to pay taxes but everyone who wasn't awesome would basically die or suffer beyond belief lol.
When a rich person becomes rich, doesn't mean another person has to become poor. This is faulty logic.
Just to be clear; the alternative i'm presenting doesn't create how many more rich people than poor people. it is more accurate to say that i'm just trying to shorten the distance between the poorest person and the richest person. if i was a pure socialist everyone would just be middle class however. Poor and rich combined you could say. i guess i could consider myself a liberal socialist, but most pure systems take things way too far to the extreme and its just a way too radical for me. its like how anarachy is just liberal capitalism or fascism to the extreme. how many consider yourselves anarchists and let the example of person 1 and 2 i gave happen?
I'm talking about what everyone on the right is trying to point out - an average individual that grosses around $1 million a year is far, far, FAR from the paris hilton rich retard stereotype that the left propogates as the norm. I speak from my own experience...
What you are actually talking about, is the (upper middle) professional class. As a conservative that finds it hard to identify with the "right", I think an important distinction should be made. The fact that the top 50 wealthiest people could have shouldered the entire public debt, but hardly pay the 15% the "right" thinks is a good tax (instead of passing it on to the real tax payers you are talking about), is not justified just because we might protect all the non-Paris-Hilton-rich/retarded wealth in America from paying the taxes we need to pay to afford all the spending the "right" as done, as well as the "left" who have less debt spending since WWII than the "right. The fact is none of our politicians have the discipline to not spend money they don't have nor have they the balls to tax us what they do spend. Still, I think it is pitiful that anyone making well over the living wage will cry about taxes, compared to the sacrifices many make that do not make a living wage. While the 50 richest hide from taxes over a hundred times that have lost their lives securing the interests and supporting the freedoms that allow such an embarrassment of riches.
First, this is a terrible source, and does not say anything about how many people drive pickups. Even in Oklahoma none the wealthiest I saw ever drove a pick-up, except possible to go spotlighting. Finding an "average" millionaire that drives a Silverado is far from a basis to say millionaires do not have extravagant cars.
Second, my incredulity was not based on the statistic of pickup ownership, but the implication that the statistic was germane to the topic at all. It greatly detracts from a defense of millionaires if we are reduced to such shallow characterizations.
Third, I expect most nouveau riche to have little class or taste in things such as fine cars. The fact is that our money is worth so little these days that a becoming a millionaire is not so fantastic. Compare to opening a foil mythic rare? I think the latter is more special these days.
When a rich person becomes rich, doesn't mean another person has to become poor. This is faulty logic.
Actually, it would if not for the fact that usually a rich person getting richer makes everyone more poor. Logic has less to do with it that the fact that our economy is based on fractional reserve banking and usury has more influence on the distribution of wealth than supply and demand, hard work, or innovation.
In a simple system, however, to support an economy where 5% of the population control 95% of the wealth, you certainly do have to pay the rich with a reduction in wealth from the poor. It's pretty simple division that most grade school kids can tell us about.
Unfortunately the real system is a cluster**** of derivative delegated accountability, quid pro quo regulation, and is inherently screwed by the operational profile of the federal reserve.
First off, i said both rich and poor can be greedy, my thoughts are that if someone wants to create a break in the class shift, regardless if he will become rich or not, he is thinking only of himself/herself.
What it really comes down to (this is my honest belief) is if your a team-player or not.
Take your example, and lets say they were making lemonade. i like lemonade.
"now both ask for more money"
i don't really think person 1 is doing anything that wrong. if person two continued to gain more than person 1, he could produce more lemonade or make his stand more attractive, causing people only to buy from him. Now if this situation happened person 1 would have less money to spend. most likely he'll end up as the inferior no matter how much he has perfected his technique more than person 2 later on. now person 2 will always be liked more because hes the only one they trust, even if person 2 turns his lemonade into mud (or what happens in real life is they don't improve the forumula or take out crucial elements to maximize his own profit).
Also, assuming everyone in the world basically makes less than you would for lemonade, person 2 would eventually end up with all of the worlds money for himself...this would make money almost totally useless, as only enough people who provided whatever services person 2 needed/wanted would be able to trade back for lemonade (all other services have been destroyed, in person 2s defense hes probably expanded his shop though). anyways you can probably see how thats bad.
This is why the government (everyone has a government, i don't see that many pure anarchy countries out there) does taxes by percentage, because it would be too easy to create a spilit between wealthy and poor any other way. if you guys had your way, nobody would ever have to pay taxes but everyone who wasn't awesome would basically die or suffer beyond belief lol.
Just to be clear; the alternative i'm presenting doesn't create whos rich or poor. it is more accurate to say that i'm just trying to shorten the distance between the poorest person and the richest person. if i was a pure socialist everyone would just be middle class however.
Can you explain why if person 2 lets his lemonade turn to mud people wont go to person 1? Even if turns to mud then it'll have to be less muddy then person 1's and at that point why cant person 1 keep his stuff as good as "his stuff" was originally?
Also I might be reading too much into it but you say you dont think person 1 is doing anything "that wrong" implying you do think it's wrong just not something major.
Also person 2 will only have all the worlds "money" as far as lemonade stands are concerned if he keeps his goods better then what anyone else can make it and anyone else can go make somthing else like apple juice (comparative advantage economic 101).
The only reason theres a % on tax that I can see is because the poor outnumbers the rich and we live in a democracy and the poors vote counts as much as the rich. If you were to take a company of shareholders they vote based on wealth so to speak and everyone gets out of it how much they put in i.e. the more capital you injected the more of the return you should get back. imagine if shareholders get less dividends per share because they have more shares.
And lets face it in the end if person 2 works harder why shouldnt he get the benefits. if person 1 wants to stop people going to person 2 he should work harder also, it's competition. i see it all the time especially with small businesses. In my local area a gentlmen starts off selling phone cards in the mall. He makes a lot from it. Starts opening for a couple hrs a day only and gets lazy. Some other people come in to compete and his now forced to work harder and open up shop for longer as he should. if he wanted to continue opening just a couple of hrs a day he'll lose business as he should. Like someone some said before you have a right to work towards a dream and sucess you dont have a right to it.
First, this is a terrible source, and does not say anything about how many people drive pickups. Even in Oklahoma none the wealthiest I saw ever drove a pick-up, except possible to go spotlighting. Finding an "average" millionaire that drives a Silverado is far from a basis to say millionaires do not have extravagant cars.
i agree with you 100% except on this...it clearly says the average rich person has pickup trucks. but mostly this page is just an add for a book that tells you how to save money to become rich...
he sorta makes a very obvious point about our topic though. some poor people want to be rich because they're jealous. i would conjecture that there are actually equally as many poor people who admire rich people for their work ethic, abilities, how they became rich and...obtaining their stuff. blah blah blah.
Can you explain why if person 2 lets his lemonade turn to mud people wont go to person 1? Even if turns to mud then it'll have to be less muddy then person 1's and at that point why cant person 1 keep his stuff as good as "his stuff" was originally?
oh sorry, its because hes run out of money because the only way he could pay for lemons to feed himself was to buy them from the guy who bought the lemon farm (orchid?), person number 2.
Also person 2 will only have all the worlds "money" as far as lemonade stands are concerned if he keeps his goods better then what anyone else can make it and anyone else can go make somthing else like apple juice (comparative advantage economic 101).
would you rather use your last dime to die paying for a lemonade stand that you wish completed or for that nice lemonade that guy is selling to keep you going just a little longer?
its called a monopoly. America has had them before, that's right, capitalism has failed more than once (looks at everyone that can't believe an economic system favor could fail). the government took the left sided action and put an end to it long time ago, i believe we have some sort of law to prevent mega mergers with the lemonade stands and lemon orchid farms for instance if they both make too much money.
oh sorry, its because hes run out of money because the only way he could pay for lemons to feed himself was to buy them from the guy who bought the lemon farm (orchid?), person number 2.
would you rather use your last dime to die paying for a lemonade stand that you wish completed or for that nice lemonade that guy is selling to keep you going just a little longer?
well if you cant compete go sell apple juice. if you insist on competing and you have no new strategy the theory of evolution says you should die because your stubboness will get the species killed if you were allowed to reproduce.
you can't buy apple juice thats the point. haven't you played Monopoly (tm) before? who ever has everything wins. he will simply buy you or you just sit there and wait for death lol.
Look this example is severe, but as you can see, the guy who got the head start gets a way biggier advantage and that's what left vs right economics is all about.
Second, my incredulity was not based on the statistic of pickup ownership, but the implication that the statistic was germane to the topic at all. It greatly detracts from a defense of millionaires if we are reduced to such shallow characterizations.
Third, I expect most nouveau riche to have little class or taste in things such as fine cars. The fact is that our money is worth so little these days that a becoming a millionaire is not so fantastic. Compare to opening a foil mythic rare? I think the latter is more special these days.
To make my point abundantly clear: The so-called rich suffer because the left horribly characterizes them. I was merely providing one (of many) sources that give you solid statistics on what a "rich" person actually is. I would -love- to see how having a net worth of at least 1 million is upper middle class, though...
On the other hand - are you suggesting that rich people that DONT drive expensive cars have no class or taste, or something along those lines? The Pickup statistic actually stems from the fact that these "rich" people do a lot of their own damn work - and would not be able to accomplish that work in a regular vehicle. (carrying tools and equiment a la contractors comes to mind)
So if people continue to insist on a skewed view of what it means to be rich, that source remains a valid point in the argument - the view that rich people are (as stated too many times before) some sick hybrid of A celebutard and a wall street con man are so far off base, its like calling a guy that wears cologne gay.
Actually, it would if not for the fact that usually a rich person getting richer makes everyone more poor.
Cutting out all the irrelevance - Define "everyone" in this sentence. Certainly, if someone that is rich invests IN HIS COUNTRY, then if he makes more money, more is reinvested, creating blah blah blah blah trickle down economics. I dont feel like going through the details - you can agree or not, but I've seen my views actually work, so yeah. I do not know a -single- rich person that hordes wealth - savings are one thing, but a vast majority of their income goes back into their economy. Moreso, even if this fallacious reasoning were true, I'd rather see one person that contributes enough to socitey to become rich get his due than see him struck down and his hard earned wealth redistributed to the masses by some pretentious government ruling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
you can't buy apple juice thats the point. haven't you played Monopoly (tm) before? who ever has everything wins.
And given that on a monopoly board everyone has the same chances of buying anything any smart person would know they need to be good in areas your good at i.e. if you have mayfair buy parklane from someone if you have regent st and oxford st buy the other one (forgot the name the other green one) from someone. And if your the other person ask for a lot for it so that you can use it to maybe buy out some other area. Yes like a monopoly board theres luck involved some people are just luckier then others but thats life isnt it? I used the example before some people will win from the lottery and squander their fortune thats their right. Whenever I played monopoly with people the same couple always wins and it's probably because they're better at that sort of thing and maybe I should go play SF4 instead cause I'm better at that. No one can be good at everything.
And given that on a monopoly board everyone has the same chances of buying anything any smart person would know they need to be good in areas your good at i.e. if you have mayfair buy parklane from someone if you have regent st and oxford st buy the other one (forgot the name the other green one) from someone. And if your the other person ask for a lot for it so that you can use it to maybe buy out some other area. Yes like a monopoly board theres luck involved some people are just luckier then others but thats life isnt it? I used the example before some people will win from the lottery and squander their fortune thats their right. Whenever I played monopoly with people the same couple always wins and it's probably because they're better at that sort of thing and maybe I should go play SF4 instead cause I'm better at that. No one can be good at everything.
lol you don't get it at all. you start out evenly because its a game. everythings fair, just like socialism the first turn. BUT, it isn't socialism its capitalism. After you start buying things its a race to get as much as you can asap. whoever gets the most wins, and nobody can beat the person who gets everything. there is a clear loser and winner in capitalism. you would be the loser in this case unfortunatly.
that's all there is to it. i'm not talking about going and re-playing your entire childhood...just how monopolies and other social ills are caused by a right-wing system, and the game monopoly is based on this.
To make my point abundantly clear: The so-called rich suffer because the left horribly characterizes them. I was merely providing one (of many) sources that give you solid statistics on what a "rich" person actually is. I would -love- to see how having a net worth of at least 1 million is upper middle class, though...
Enlisted people in the military are saving up that much in a 20 year career without any investments more agressive than an IRA. Most of the defense (sub)contractors I have worked for/with manage that in less than half the time. Seriously, if it wasn't for Magic and kids, I would have that much and I have not even finished my education yet (on the 4 decade program...).
On the other hand - are you suggesting that rich people that DONT drive expensive cars have no class or taste, or something along those lines?
Not really, though there is room for that if we continue to discuss things in terms of petty stereo types. I understand what you are saying, but I think it is really a distraction from the real problems with hour capitalism has been crippled in the U.S. You are right that this class of people should not be categorized with Paris Hilton. I am saying that they really are not, even by the liberal media biased portrayals.
Cutting out all the irrelevance - Define "everyone" in this sentence...creating blah blah blah blah trickle down economics... I'd rather see one person that contributes enough to socitey to become rich get his due than see him struck down and his hard earned wealth redistributed to the masses by some pretentious government ruling.
This is a bit incoherent. You sound bitter almost? 8P Anyway, "everyone" is defined as usual in that statement. 95% of the value of the U.S. dollar has eroded in inflation in the last century (give or take). Most of this inflation is not due to economic growth, but by constant debt spending creating tons of currency through the Fed. When, for instance, Microsoft makes a billion dollars off of the gov' unless they did it those few months under Clinton we had a surplus, then it generated a billion dollars of debt at interest. This causes a proportional drop in value of the USD (technically "Federal Reserve Note") in short order. Those of us not earning at least this rate in interest are at an automatic loss, and historically only those with a visible share of the pie chart have maintained their great wealth with impunity. Currently we pay some 50 billion dollars in interest alone, to a quasi-official but operationally private bank cartel for doing nothing more that "making the money" out of thin air, only about 3% of which is actually paper.
This is a much more brutal "tax" than anything actually called a tax, and creates a negative feedback loop that even ideal trickle down has no chance of compensating for. Which is why we are in the state we are today.
It also makes the "American Dream" more like a wish to win the lottery; even in hawk up to our ears our country hardly was pretending to sustain 75% true house ownership, for instance.
This is all elementary details any economics major can explain with some variation as to how we might actually sustain such an economy...
...
Anyway, is not being rich not due enough? Is it more important for some people to get rich than for us to maintain a healthy democracy? I think not. It seems to me that the majority rule and minority right must find a way for our system to survive without the harrowing musical chairs of fiscal survival that it has devolved into being its last incarnation before complete collapse.
The reality is that fixing this **** is gonna cost money and the poor people don't have any. So it's up to the rest to pay the piper.
2% inflation rate is acceptedly normal for economic growth. 95% "drop" in the USD's buying power is to be expected. Really, your anti-inflation points are defeated in that you cannot go economically through a stagnant system. Even under moneterist theory the money supply is to mechanically be increased overtime to reflect the economic reality at averagely 3%.
Total price stability is basically unheard of, and a 95% "drop" in the USD's buying power is natural. This is why we convert monetary values for comparison when dealing with wages in the past.
How do you account for inflation and deflation of the system at large?
Most of this inflation is not due to economic growth, but by constant debt spending creating tons of currency through the Fed. When, for instance, Microsoft makes a billion dollars off of the gov' unless they did it those few months under Clinton we had a surplus, then it generated a billion dollars of debt at interest. This causes a proportional drop in value of the USD (technically "Federal Reserve Note") in short order.
Okay, I understand bond rates and such and the interaction of the Feds and the economy. But how exactly are you arriving at this point? There's a mechanic I'm missing obviously to jump in on this point which seems to be the cruxt of what you're arguing. I see this with the bankers getting rich as a part of the Greenspan liquidity policy, but I am not getting the mechanics between Microsoft and the Feds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
2% inflation rate is acceptedly normal for economic growth. 95% "drop" in the USD's buying power is to be expected. Really, your anti-inflation points are defeated in that you cannot go economically through a stagnant system. Even under moneterist theory the money supply is to mechanically be increased overtime to reflect the economic reality at averagely 3%. Total price stability is basically unheard of, and a 95% "drop" in the USD's buying power is natural. This is why we convert monetary values for comparison when dealing with wages in the past. How do you account for inflation and deflation of the system at large?
Natural? Even with the Civil War the 19th century was largely remiss of this effect, compared to the the 20th. The boom and bust system is a confidence scheme. It's not new either, some religions banned usury over the millennial. Very specifically, if you have to unhinge your currency from any concrete (more concrete than law at least) value then the "growth" you are allowing for is fictitious, and you are borrowing on the future's dime (at interest in our current system) to just pretend there was growth.
Okay, I understand bond rates and such and the interaction of the Feds and the economy. But how exactly are you arriving at this point? There's a mechanic I'm missing obviously to jump in on this point which seems to be the cruxt of what you're arguing. I see this with the bankers getting rich as a part of the Greenspan liquidity policy, but I am not getting the mechanics between Microsoft and the Feds.
That was just a general example. If we excuse FDR for his spending that got us from Depression to V-Day in WWII, the rest of the last century has exhibited nearly constant spending by various level of the government through "loans" from the banking system. The banks use the "credit" (and the law making us use the Fed's notes) to "finance" the monetary system, also known as printing the money with no real transaction, at an obscene rate compared to the deposit that needs to back the new money, most of which was made up from nothing by the government bond that represents the original deposit. Our currency is a derivative of debt, just like all these stock-like interests in mortgages that have been repackaged. And even that would be OK, with "natural" inflation, except that for no reason whatsoever (besides the undue influence of banking on the government for their own profit) we pay interest on the bonds and deposits from which this currency spawns.
This kind of problem is not new. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and others all dealt with various problems with "centralized" banking. Just the most recent incarnation has been extremely successful from the banking industries point of view (like the success of the common cold from the viruses point of view). U.S. taxpayers have financed most of the growth and then pay interest on that capital. We have covered most of the bad debt, and then pay interest on those "bailouts". It's insanity, but that's what we have.
It really is not a coincidence that in the same period the dollar lost 95% of its value that a slight margin accumulated 95% of the wealth.
Rockefeller (see Citi group) was the first billionaire, and he got there, with other private banking interests, by sucking the life out of the industrial-yet-infantile U.S. economy that primed it for the depression. Before the last century of inflation he and other interests engineered, his wealth grew to an amount equalling with that inflation some $200 billion. We lionize him today for giving away about 2.5% of his wealth...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lol. Yeah, pay attention. You completely missed my point
What I'm saying is that 99% of the so-called "rich" are people that work harder than anyone else - yet they blend in because theyre still normal people. They aren't ostentatious pricks nor do they drive flashy cars and own $30000 purses.
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with leftist retoric - you blindly assign these labels to these people, when you know nothing about them. What I was posting was just proving my point - the vast majority of the rich deserve your utmost praise and respect. Hate on your hiltons and madoffs all you want (we all do) - but leave the average millionare out of it. He has done nothing but good for you, and will continue to do so despite the undeserved scorn you throw his way.
Many poor people are right-sided and many rich people are left-sided.
Your implying that i stereotype others and think the rich are totally in control of what they do. People decide if people can become poor and rich people is what i'm trying to say. >.>;
Our system does very little to create rich people. In fact, I'll argue that our system is BY AND FAR the best for letting a poor person become rich, if they're willing to work hard enough.
1. They've spent years studying and getting training/experience to be where they are and should be rewarded for doing as much. The person on average wage is not likely to have done that.
2. Many work much harder then you think, in my office I see numerous of the higher level execs in the office while i'm going home. On the odd occassion i'm in on a weekend they're also there so i assume at other times too. wen things happen in the middle of the night they get woken up to fix it. Now if I had to be "on call" even outside my usual 9-5 day and work weekends I better be getting paid a lot more then I am.
Of course many will look at a Paris Hilton and say why should someone like that be so well off etc etc but really I think she's in the minority. Yes some people are just luckier then others but that life isnt it? Some people will win the lottery and get millions doing nothing oh well so what? People don't get what they necessarily deserve that's just life, if you want equity in your life (not "equality") then move to some communist nation cause there you'll be having the same conditions as 99% of it's population.
I don't want people to be rich if it means someone has to be poor. i'd just rather everyone be middle class.
although honestly i'd probably want to be rich if i might get shifted into lower class by your system, which is why i am on the left to prevent such atrocities from happening.
This example is a little off base, but I think it gives some insight to the general publics thought process. Here in Pittsburgh we had 3 brave police officers slaughtered by some psycho. At my work, we are taking donations for their families. One person made a comment to the effect that “don’t they already have enough money” since various other places are taking donations as well, plus the $100,000 that local companies have pledged. It’s as if he said “why should they get money when I am not getting any”. I think a lot of people feel this way about the rich. They think, oh these guys make tons of money, why shouldn’t they have to pay more so I don’t have to. That’s why in the end, I really feel it has to do with greed more then anything else.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
I agree with the main point of your statement. It's seen in the US that the government tries to be both just and equal. But in reality, justice and equality are two different things. Back in the older days, justice reigned in thought more than equality; one gets what one deserves. But once you get people who become jealous of their neighbors, they start to wonder why they can't have what their neighbors have. To justify this thought, those people argue that it is no longer "equal" (and neither fair) even though it may be "just" (although they'll never admit it). And the thing is, if those people become rich, once again they focus on "justice" over "equality." In the end, what is "fair" and "unfair" to the ordinary citizen is what best suits them in terms of "justice" vs "equality". In this modern day and age, people have stopped looking out for society as much as the individual, for a slew of controversial and uncontroversial reasons. And once these people start to influence the lives of others through government, then things begin to fall apart.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Couldn't that question also mean that he thinks he could give to a better donation, not that he won't give? Or even that hes just really poor and needs that money to live off of?
Maybe i'm wrong, maybe hes just a jerk. that doesn't mean you guys are off the hook either. maybe that money won't make a difference in those peoples lives, you can't be certain of that. they lost a loved one, not their money for all we know.
I believe if this was because they were poor, or they needed some extra money just for therapy because of their missing loved ones i can understand, but if your thinking that your donation is better than any other donation your over stepping your bounds.
And if that guy is doing well for himself, then you'd be agreeing with me, because he needs to help others that are less fortunate than him. which brings me to greed. are the rich more greedy than the poor? i think not. there are good people and bad people, both can be rich or poor. being rich and asking for money seems pretty greedy to me though.
you'd be more politically correct if you said freedom and equality. I think all the left sided people would say we're for social justice and your for freedom lol.
True, I guess the meaning of the word fails us there. In the sense I was using it, I meant justice: receiving punishment or reward based on one's actions
One could also say justice: that which is morally right or good though, so the meaning could be taken in different ways.
But if one starts using words like "freedom" or "communism," I find the issue begins to lie in people (not accusing anyone here of this) taking long-standing and meme-like prejudices into consideration.
Whatever word works, though, as long as the meaning is preserved.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
No, the guy didnt want to donate b/c he thought they had gotten enough money. When infact no amout of money will bring those kids father back, those wives husband back, those perants children back. But it might help them from struggling to pay the morgage, or buy food, or clothes for the kids now that their father's are dead.
I dont really care to get into this topic, but I felt that my example was a good indication of the greed that this country is plegde with.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
When a rich person becomes rich, doesn't mean another person has to become poor. This is faulty logic.
@walkingplans: how is the rich asking for more money any more or less greedy then the poor asking for more money?
Lets take this analogy if two people work doing the same thing one does it for 1hr and get $10 and the other does 2hrs and gets $20. Clearly person 2 is richer then person 1. Now both ask for more money. Does this mean person 2 is more greedy then person 1?
If now person 1 gets $15 and person 2 gets $20 and person 2 asks for more money is he being greedy?
By saying that someone is more greedy than another for asking for money you are presuming they are getting what they deserve or more than that already. So your comments would mean you naturally believe that the rich are getting more then they deserve already whilst the poor are not.
First off, i said both rich and poor can be greedy, my thoughts are that if someone wants to create a break in the class shift, regardless if he will become rich or not, he is thinking only of himself/herself.
What it really comes down to (this is my honest belief) is if your a team-player or not.
Take your example, and lets say they were making lemonade. i like lemonade.
"now both ask for more money"
i don't really think person 1 is doing anything that wrong. if person two continued to gain more than person 1, he could produce more lemonade or make his stand more attractive, causing people only to buy from him. Now if this situation happened person 1 would have less money to spend. most likely he'll end up as the inferior no matter how much he has perfected his technique more than person 2 later on. now person 2 will always be liked more because hes the only one they trust, even if person 2 turns his lemonade into mud (or what happens in real life is they don't improve the forumula or take out crucial elements to maximize his own profit).
Also, assuming everyone in the world basically makes less than you would for lemonade, person 2 would eventually end up with all of the worlds money for himself...this would make money almost totally useless, as only enough people who provided whatever services person 2 needed/wanted would be able to trade back for lemonade (all other services have been destroyed, in person 2s defense hes probably expanded his shop though). anyways you can probably see how thats bad.
This is why the government (everyone has a government, i don't see that many pure anarchy countries out there) does taxes by percentage, because it would be too easy to create a spilit between wealthy and poor any other way. if you guys had your way, nobody would ever have to pay taxes but everyone who wasn't awesome would basically die or suffer beyond belief lol.
Just to be clear; the alternative i'm presenting doesn't create how many more rich people than poor people. it is more accurate to say that i'm just trying to shorten the distance between the poorest person and the richest person. if i was a pure socialist everyone would just be middle class however. Poor and rich combined you could say. i guess i could consider myself a liberal socialist, but most pure systems take things way too far to the extreme and its just a way too radical for me. its like how anarachy is just liberal capitalism or fascism to the extreme. how many consider yourselves anarchists and let the example of person 1 and 2 i gave happen?
What you are actually talking about, is the (upper middle) professional class. As a conservative that finds it hard to identify with the "right", I think an important distinction should be made. The fact that the top 50 wealthiest people could have shouldered the entire public debt, but hardly pay the 15% the "right" thinks is a good tax (instead of passing it on to the real tax payers you are talking about), is not justified just because we might protect all the non-Paris-Hilton-rich/retarded wealth in America from paying the taxes we need to pay to afford all the spending the "right" as done, as well as the "left" who have less debt spending since WWII than the "right. The fact is none of our politicians have the discipline to not spend money they don't have nor have they the balls to tax us what they do spend. Still, I think it is pitiful that anyone making well over the living wage will cry about taxes, compared to the sacrifices many make that do not make a living wage. While the 50 richest hide from taxes over a hundred times that have lost their lives securing the interests and supporting the freedoms that allow such an embarrassment of riches.
OK. A few points:
First, this is a terrible source, and does not say anything about how many people drive pickups. Even in Oklahoma none the wealthiest I saw ever drove a pick-up, except possible to go spotlighting. Finding an "average" millionaire that drives a Silverado is far from a basis to say millionaires do not have extravagant cars.
Second, my incredulity was not based on the statistic of pickup ownership, but the implication that the statistic was germane to the topic at all. It greatly detracts from a defense of millionaires if we are reduced to such shallow characterizations.
Third, I expect most nouveau riche to have little class or taste in things such as fine cars. The fact is that our money is worth so little these days that a becoming a millionaire is not so fantastic. Compare to opening a foil mythic rare? I think the latter is more special these days.
Actually, it would if not for the fact that usually a rich person getting richer makes everyone more poor. Logic has less to do with it that the fact that our economy is based on fractional reserve banking and usury has more influence on the distribution of wealth than supply and demand, hard work, or innovation.
In a simple system, however, to support an economy where 5% of the population control 95% of the wealth, you certainly do have to pay the rich with a reduction in wealth from the poor. It's pretty simple division that most grade school kids can tell us about.
Unfortunately the real system is a cluster**** of derivative delegated accountability, quid pro quo regulation, and is inherently screwed by the operational profile of the federal reserve.
Can you explain why if person 2 lets his lemonade turn to mud people wont go to person 1? Even if turns to mud then it'll have to be less muddy then person 1's and at that point why cant person 1 keep his stuff as good as "his stuff" was originally?
Also I might be reading too much into it but you say you dont think person 1 is doing anything "that wrong" implying you do think it's wrong just not something major.
Also person 2 will only have all the worlds "money" as far as lemonade stands are concerned if he keeps his goods better then what anyone else can make it and anyone else can go make somthing else like apple juice (comparative advantage economic 101).
The only reason theres a % on tax that I can see is because the poor outnumbers the rich and we live in a democracy and the poors vote counts as much as the rich. If you were to take a company of shareholders they vote based on wealth so to speak and everyone gets out of it how much they put in i.e. the more capital you injected the more of the return you should get back. imagine if shareholders get less dividends per share because they have more shares.
And lets face it in the end if person 2 works harder why shouldnt he get the benefits. if person 1 wants to stop people going to person 2 he should work harder also, it's competition. i see it all the time especially with small businesses. In my local area a gentlmen starts off selling phone cards in the mall. He makes a lot from it. Starts opening for a couple hrs a day only and gets lazy. Some other people come in to compete and his now forced to work harder and open up shop for longer as he should. if he wanted to continue opening just a couple of hrs a day he'll lose business as he should. Like someone some said before you have a right to work towards a dream and sucess you dont have a right to it.
i agree with you 100% except on this...it clearly says the average rich person has pickup trucks. but mostly this page is just an add for a book that tells you how to save money to become rich...
he sorta makes a very obvious point about our topic though. some poor people want to be rich because they're jealous. i would conjecture that there are actually equally as many poor people who admire rich people for their work ethic, abilities, how they became rich and...obtaining their stuff. blah blah blah.
oh sorry, its because hes run out of money because the only way he could pay for lemons to feed himself was to buy them from the guy who bought the lemon farm (orchid?), person number 2.
would you rather use your last dime to die paying for a lemonade stand that you wish completed or for that nice lemonade that guy is selling to keep you going just a little longer?
its called a monopoly. America has had them before, that's right, capitalism has failed more than once (looks at everyone that can't believe an economic system favor could fail). the government took the left sided action and put an end to it long time ago, i believe we have some sort of law to prevent mega mergers with the lemonade stands and lemon orchid farms for instance if they both make too much money.
well if you cant compete go sell apple juice. if you insist on competing and you have no new strategy the theory of evolution says you should die because your stubboness will get the species killed if you were allowed to reproduce.
Look this example is severe, but as you can see, the guy who got the head start gets a way biggier advantage and that's what left vs right economics is all about.
To make my point abundantly clear: The so-called rich suffer because the left horribly characterizes them. I was merely providing one (of many) sources that give you solid statistics on what a "rich" person actually is. I would -love- to see how having a net worth of at least 1 million is upper middle class, though...
On the other hand - are you suggesting that rich people that DONT drive expensive cars have no class or taste, or something along those lines? The Pickup statistic actually stems from the fact that these "rich" people do a lot of their own damn work - and would not be able to accomplish that work in a regular vehicle. (carrying tools and equiment a la contractors comes to mind)
So if people continue to insist on a skewed view of what it means to be rich, that source remains a valid point in the argument - the view that rich people are (as stated too many times before) some sick hybrid of A celebutard and a wall street con man are so far off base, its like calling a guy that wears cologne gay.
Cutting out all the irrelevance - Define "everyone" in this sentence. Certainly, if someone that is rich invests IN HIS COUNTRY, then if he makes more money, more is reinvested, creating blah blah blah blah trickle down economics. I dont feel like going through the details - you can agree or not, but I've seen my views actually work, so yeah. I do not know a -single- rich person that hordes wealth - savings are one thing, but a vast majority of their income goes back into their economy. Moreso, even if this fallacious reasoning were true, I'd rather see one person that contributes enough to socitey to become rich get his due than see him struck down and his hard earned wealth redistributed to the masses by some pretentious government ruling.
And given that on a monopoly board everyone has the same chances of buying anything any smart person would know they need to be good in areas your good at i.e. if you have mayfair buy parklane from someone if you have regent st and oxford st buy the other one (forgot the name the other green one) from someone. And if your the other person ask for a lot for it so that you can use it to maybe buy out some other area. Yes like a monopoly board theres luck involved some people are just luckier then others but thats life isnt it? I used the example before some people will win from the lottery and squander their fortune thats their right. Whenever I played monopoly with people the same couple always wins and it's probably because they're better at that sort of thing and maybe I should go play SF4 instead cause I'm better at that. No one can be good at everything.
lol you don't get it at all. you start out evenly because its a game. everythings fair, just like socialism the first turn. BUT, it isn't socialism its capitalism. After you start buying things its a race to get as much as you can asap. whoever gets the most wins, and nobody can beat the person who gets everything. there is a clear loser and winner in capitalism. you would be the loser in this case unfortunatly.
that's all there is to it. i'm not talking about going and re-playing your entire childhood...just how monopolies and other social ills are caused by a right-wing system, and the game monopoly is based on this.
Enlisted people in the military are saving up that much in a 20 year career without any investments more agressive than an IRA. Most of the defense (sub)contractors I have worked for/with manage that in less than half the time. Seriously, if it wasn't for Magic and kids, I would have that much and I have not even finished my education yet (on the 4 decade program...).
Not really, though there is room for that if we continue to discuss things in terms of petty stereo types. I understand what you are saying, but I think it is really a distraction from the real problems with hour capitalism has been crippled in the U.S. You are right that this class of people should not be categorized with Paris Hilton. I am saying that they really are not, even by the liberal media biased portrayals.
This is a bit incoherent. You sound bitter almost? 8P Anyway, "everyone" is defined as usual in that statement. 95% of the value of the U.S. dollar has eroded in inflation in the last century (give or take). Most of this inflation is not due to economic growth, but by constant debt spending creating tons of currency through the Fed. When, for instance, Microsoft makes a billion dollars off of the gov' unless they did it those few months under Clinton we had a surplus, then it generated a billion dollars of debt at interest. This causes a proportional drop in value of the USD (technically "Federal Reserve Note") in short order. Those of us not earning at least this rate in interest are at an automatic loss, and historically only those with a visible share of the pie chart have maintained their great wealth with impunity. Currently we pay some 50 billion dollars in interest alone, to a quasi-official but operationally private bank cartel for doing nothing more that "making the money" out of thin air, only about 3% of which is actually paper.
This is a much more brutal "tax" than anything actually called a tax, and creates a negative feedback loop that even ideal trickle down has no chance of compensating for. Which is why we are in the state we are today.
It also makes the "American Dream" more like a wish to win the lottery; even in hawk up to our ears our country hardly was pretending to sustain 75% true house ownership, for instance.
This is all elementary details any economics major can explain with some variation as to how we might actually sustain such an economy...
...
Anyway, is not being rich not due enough? Is it more important for some people to get rich than for us to maintain a healthy democracy? I think not. It seems to me that the majority rule and minority right must find a way for our system to survive without the harrowing musical chairs of fiscal survival that it has devolved into being its last incarnation before complete collapse.
The reality is that fixing this **** is gonna cost money and the poor people don't have any. So it's up to the rest to pay the piper.
Total price stability is basically unheard of, and a 95% "drop" in the USD's buying power is natural. This is why we convert monetary values for comparison when dealing with wages in the past.
How do you account for inflation and deflation of the system at large?
Okay, I understand bond rates and such and the interaction of the Feds and the economy. But how exactly are you arriving at this point? There's a mechanic I'm missing obviously to jump in on this point which seems to be the cruxt of what you're arguing. I see this with the bankers getting rich as a part of the Greenspan liquidity policy, but I am not getting the mechanics between Microsoft and the Feds.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Natural? Even with the Civil War the 19th century was largely remiss of this effect, compared to the the 20th. The boom and bust system is a confidence scheme. It's not new either, some religions banned usury over the millennial. Very specifically, if you have to unhinge your currency from any concrete (more concrete than law at least) value then the "growth" you are allowing for is fictitious, and you are borrowing on the future's dime (at interest in our current system) to just pretend there was growth.
That was just a general example. If we excuse FDR for his spending that got us from Depression to V-Day in WWII, the rest of the last century has exhibited nearly constant spending by various level of the government through "loans" from the banking system. The banks use the "credit" (and the law making us use the Fed's notes) to "finance" the monetary system, also known as printing the money with no real transaction, at an obscene rate compared to the deposit that needs to back the new money, most of which was made up from nothing by the government bond that represents the original deposit. Our currency is a derivative of debt, just like all these stock-like interests in mortgages that have been repackaged. And even that would be OK, with "natural" inflation, except that for no reason whatsoever (besides the undue influence of banking on the government for their own profit) we pay interest on the bonds and deposits from which this currency spawns.
This kind of problem is not new. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and others all dealt with various problems with "centralized" banking. Just the most recent incarnation has been extremely successful from the banking industries point of view (like the success of the common cold from the viruses point of view). U.S. taxpayers have financed most of the growth and then pay interest on that capital. We have covered most of the bad debt, and then pay interest on those "bailouts". It's insanity, but that's what we have.
It really is not a coincidence that in the same period the dollar lost 95% of its value that a slight margin accumulated 95% of the wealth.
Rockefeller (see Citi group) was the first billionaire, and he got there, with other private banking interests, by sucking the life out of the industrial-yet-infantile U.S. economy that primed it for the depression. Before the last century of inflation he and other interests engineered, his wealth grew to an amount equalling with that inflation some $200 billion. We lionize him today for giving away about 2.5% of his wealth...