Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

Wealth Disparity Caused By Government And Bankers

Recommended Posts

link

The Coup de Grace Against Big Government and Paper Money

The graph below is so revealing that I would think that arrest warrants should be filed against anyone even saying the words “socialism, deficit spending, paper money or big government.”

3.gif

Ironically, some of these statistics are from a “liberal leaning” wealth sharing, quasi-socialist group.

What they are missing is that the “system” they are deploring – capitalism, private property, and lower taxes is not the culprit. They are totally confused. It is big government waste and paper money that is dictating the horrible loss of income gains by the lower and middle income earners. Almost 50 years ago the average wage earner was getting a fair share.

One can see that the paper money system and big government wasteful spending has created a situation where the bottom 90% of our citizens went from owning a big piece of the income gains (65%) in the 1960’s to being squashed in the 2002 – 2007 period to 11%.

This inequity was caused by an almost 1000% increase in the money supply from 1960 to 2007 and a federal budget that went from $92 billion to $2.8 trillion. These increases were destructive. They have almost destroyed America and Americans. They have allowed an elite group of politicians, bankers and social engineers to create a very dishonest and corrupt system over the past 50 years, a system with paper money and big government as the cornerstones of policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is strange the way different people interpret the same information in radically different ways, though always it seems to confirm what they originally thought.

To me it says that the general move towards free market principles and away from social provision has benefited the rich at the expense of the poor. Exactly as you would expect. Exactly as was intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is strange the way different people interpret the same information in radically different ways, though always it seems to confirm what they originally thought.

To me it says that the general move towards free market principles and away from social provision has benefited the rich at the expense of the poor. Exactly as you would expect. Exactly as was intended.

What free market principles?

money - state backed monopoly.

land - state backed monopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in 1960-69 the rich paid a top rate of 98%

Now tax is for little people, the rich don't pay it.

And somehow this means 'socialism' is bad?

It was the Regan/Thatcher neocon reforms that did this, not the communist party...

Muppet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is strange the way different people interpret the same information in radically different ways, though always it seems to confirm what they originally thought.

To me it says that the general move towards free market principles and away from social provision has benefited the rich at the expense of the poor. Exactly as you would expect. Exactly as was intended.

remind me again what the states share of gdp was in the 1950's

not to worry its reached the point where it collapses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism is a suicide cult.

Whereas a total free for all using up the earth's resources at a quicker and quicker rate while printing money like it is going out of fashion (according to Injin it may well be going out of fashion) and producing enough greenhouse gases to fry the pelicans in the oil washing up on the beaches is just fine and dandy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas a total free for all using up the earth's resources at a quicker and quicker rate while printing money like it is going out of fashion (according to Injin it may well be going out of fashion) and producing enough greenhouse gases to fry the pelicans in the oil washing up on the beaches is just fine and dandy!

All of those things are socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may have a slightly idiosyncratic idea of what socialism is. It isn't just a catchall term for everything nasty.

Edit: Misread your comment.

Edited by nik21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can see that the paper money system and big government wasteful spending has created a situation where the bottom 90% of our citizens went from owning a big piece of the income gains (65%) in the 1960’s to being squashed in the 2002 – 2007 period to 11%.

This inequity was caused by an almost 1000% increase in the money supply from 1960 to 2007 and a federal budget that went from $92 billion to $2.8 trillion. These increases were destructive. They have almost destroyed America and Americans. They have allowed an elite group of politicians, bankers and social engineers to create a very dishonest and corrupt system over the past 50 years, a system with paper money and big government as the cornerstones of policy.

And the proof for this "causal link" is what, exactly? The 1945-75 period also correlates with a period of favourable demographics, massive technological improvements, and cheap energy. After the early 70s US oil production declined (see the charts at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6517#more ) and, coincidentally, so did the gains made by poorer people. You can blame it on money supply if you like but it is just as easy to describe the phenomena in terms of the price and availability of energy, or price and availability of labour against productivity gains from mechanisation. Simplistic unitary "explanations" might be comforting but that's about as far as it goes. We could have had big government even if we'd kept the gold standard, or do you have in mind some mechanism whereby a gold standard limits the size of government? That'd certainly be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The art of debate at its finest :lol:

That’s what I love about HPC :)

I loved that one too. And I am not being ironic. I genuinely do love the way things are debated on here. One minute you can have some really good analysis, and the next minute mindless abuse. A lot of posters do both. Injin often manages both at the same time. I love it all. And I repeat, I am not being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I kinda agree with Low.

One of the overriding things that has pummeled ordinary people in the last fifty years is tax. Forget about tax rates for a minute and think about the tax burden on a household today compared to back in the 60s.

For a start, we now have far, far more households where both adults work -- that's two lots of income tax levied for a start. Then there's the doubling of associated taxes on top -- two lots of car tax etc. And it is worth remembering that back in the 60s, there was no VAT and rates were very low.

There's also a lot of tax leakage through associated double income costs: the added tax costs through buying childcare etc.

It's worth looking at Elizabeth Warren's work on US middle income households in this regard; she finds that the greatest burdens on middle income families, and one of the reasons why so many go into bankruptcy, is not consumerism, but rather the awkward financial structure inherent in an economy that expects a double income per household and what the necessity of a double income costs in terms of tax and associated expenses for that household.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I kinda agree with Low.

One of the overriding things that has pummeled ordinary people in the last fifty years is tax. Forget about tax rates for a minute and think about the tax burden on a household today compared to back in the 60s.

For a start, we now have far, far more households where both adults work -- that's two lots of income tax levied for a start. Then there's the doubling of associated taxes on top -- two lots of car tax etc. And it is worth remembering that back in the 60s, there was no VAT and rates were very low.

There's also a lot of tax leakage through associated double income costs: the added tax costs through buying childcare etc.

It's worth looking at Elizabeth Warren's work on US middle income households in this regard; she finds that the greatest burdens on middle income families, and one of the reasons why so many go into bankruptcy, is not consumerism, but rather the awkward financial structure inherent in an economy that expects a double income per household and what the necessity of a double income costs in terms of tax and associated expenses for that household.

two lots of income tax work out as the same as one income taxed at the same rate

Not saying the tax burden isn't also a problem or an increasing burden but Elizebeth warren concentrates on the burden caused by rising housing and medical costs

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I kinda agree with Low.

One of the overriding things that has pummeled ordinary people in the last fifty years is tax. Forget about tax rates for a minute and think about the tax burden on a household today compared to back in the 60s.

For a start, we now have far, far more households where both adults work -- that's two lots of income tax levied for a start. Then there's the doubling of associated taxes on top -- two lots of car tax etc. And it is worth remembering that back in the 60s, there was no VAT and rates were very low.

There's also a lot of tax leakage through associated double income costs: the added tax costs through buying childcare etc.

It's worth looking at Elizabeth Warren's work on US middle income households in this regard; she finds that the greatest burdens on middle income families, and one of the reasons why so many go into bankruptcy, is not consumerism, but rather the awkward financial structure inherent in an economy that expects a double income per household and what the necessity of a double income costs in terms of tax and associated expenses for that household.

True, but the other aspect of people getting richer is that they expect more from the state. In particular demands for education and healthcare rise. We're already seeing an outcry over the rising costs of funding higher education, and there'd be blood in the streets if people had to pay for their kids' schooling. The newspapers and television news regularly run stories about people denied the latest "wonder drug" that will prolong their lives for a few months, even though said drugs can cost tens of thousands of pounds. We could certainly cut taxes a lot if people would scale back their expectations to suit, including the employees and owners of lots of private companies who make most of their income from the public sector (out of taxation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but the other aspect of people getting richer is that they expect more from the state. In particular demands for education and healthcare rise. We're already seeing an outcry over the rising costs of funding higher education, and there'd be blood in the streets if people had to pay for their kids' schooling. The newspapers and television news regularly run stories about people denied the latest "wonder drug" that will prolong their lives for a few months, even though said drugs can cost tens of thousands of pounds. We could certainly cut taxes a lot if people would scale back their expectations to suit, including the employees and owners of lots of private companies who make most of their income from the public sector (out of taxation).

Capital is created

the State comes along to steal it

the State gets so large it kills the economy

the State collapses and people starve

we start again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

er, no.

a capitalist system even with 100% reserve banking and sound money will always result in increasing wealth disparity, if holders of capital reinvest it time and time again rather than spend their gains on consumption.

the reason why should be obvious - that capital reinvested returns returns to the investor, thereby concentrating wealth. This concentration of re-invested wealth then leads to a collapse in demand in the consuming classes which places the re-investors wealth at risk

in recent historical times this demand deficiency has tended to be masked by two things:

1) ever increasing population - which generates new demand

2) ever increasing public debt

see:

http://knol.google.com/k/scepticus-101/demand-deficiency/2tfhsu71vc11q/4#

for more detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

er, no.

a capitalist system even with 100% reserve banking and sound money will always result in increasing wealth disparity, if holders of capital reinvest it time and time again rather than spend their gains on consumption.

the reason why should be obvious - that capital reinvested returns returns to the investor, thereby concentrating wealth. This concentration of re-invested wealth then leads to a collapse in demand in the consuming classes which places the re-investors wealth at risk

in recent historical times this demand deficiency has tended to be masked by two things:

1) ever increasing population - which generates new demand

2) ever increasing public debt

see:

http://knol.google.com/k/scepticus-101/demand-deficiency/2tfhsu71vc11q/4#

for more detail

:lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason why should be obvious - that capital reinvested returns returns to the investor, thereby concentrating wealth. This concentration of re-invested wealth then leads to a collapse in demand in the consuming classes which places the re-investors wealth at risk

No. If the investment is production, then it creates wealth and the invester only reclaims some of the new wealth created. Ergo, an investment in production distributes wealth / creates new wealth

What you are saying is only true of real estate 'investment' (speculation)

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 152 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.