The top one percent of households "account for half of all assets in the world," according to a new report from a leading multinational bank.
I've read too much history because looking at these statistics ... I'm getting to feel more and more like did some mediaeval peasant or serf in a thatched hut looking at the Nobility up in their fine castles. Those 1% who own everything and are above the law and who make those same laws that favor them while collecting taxes from me which they themselves don't actually pay.
Something never discussed is institutionalized genocide, particularly of indigenous peoples wherever agribusiness targets the traditional lands. The case of the Guarani Kaiowa in Brazil is emblematic of the effects of the Monsanto model of corporate power. The world over - deforestation, export GDP engines for financialization of GMO, biodiversity loss, water pollution and hydric disruptions, desertification transnational mining, meat CAFO and disease/antibiotic risks, private mercenary groups, corruption of governance structures, weather modification and climate chaos... the more you look the more you see that all of these need to be addressed as "climate change"..
The list now generates exponential destructive forces of such scale that hottest new industry in electronic surveilance is coupled with nation corporate/state secrecy. They can't leave home without it.
We definitely need a change of climate in the western ideas of the human realm
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
For every dollar the rich, powerful and corporate thieves evade in taxes, a dollar comes out of the pockets of the poor and middle-classes - soon to be poor.
Giving-back to the societies and world that makes the "success' of the uber-wealthy parasites possible is no longer the norm. Politicians, especially republiCons, are the agents of the rich and have repeatedly touted and sold the lie of "lowered taxes", but the lion's share is always to and for the rich and the 99% must pay the difference!!
There are alternatives to global vulture capitalism, banker/financial fraud and usury - the financial parasites.
Sorry for duplicate post - don't know how I did that. My bad......
For every dollar the rich, powerful and corporate thieves evade in taxes, via corrupt politicians/Congress, a dollar comes out of the pockets of the poor and middle-classes - soon to be poor.
With the introduction of Ivanka, Trump's numbers should rise. it is looking to me like there will be a Hillary/Sanders ticket vs a Trump/ICahn or Trump/Carson ticket. What will progressives do?
The problem is the Media. the rupert murdocks of the world. but that should come as no surprise. considering he's from Australia where at least 20% of the population can claim heritage to criminals. and of course anderson cooper who's family is the Vanderbilt. They are the 1%. The Media is the problem and fixing inequality starts there
"‘Out of Control’ Inequality: Global One Percent Owns Half of World’s Wealth."
* Ye Gods! I've been writing and warning about this for over two decades!
* I'm getting the impression of a "Great Awakening" happening, but I fear it may be too little and too late.
* As Wereflea says above, "I'm getting to feel more and more like did some mediaeval peasant or serf in a thatched hut looking at the Nobility up in their fine castles. Those 1% who own everything and are above the law and who make those same laws that favor them while collecting taxes from me which they themselves don't actually pay."
* As I've written many times, the whole idea seems to be to reduce the population to a controllable number of serfs, then just work them to death, each one to be replaced by another desperate serf.
* "Arbeit macht frei" was a buzzword in the Third Reich. Let's see what the Fourth Reich produces.
The ruling class has never had it so good Comrades! Losers of the World Unite and throw off your credit card debt !! Where is Madame Defarge when we need her most?
If we stay home and do not vote, Republicans will win. We saw the difference between the two last night.
Developed countries with near 100% voter turnout are the best democracies.
If your net wealth in is around or above the median net wealth in the top 20 or so OECD countries, then you are in the top global 2% of personal net wealth. That even applies to people living in the U.S. There is somewhat of a disillusionment regarding the 1% trope in developed countries, with an apparent perception that it is the 1% 'haves' vs the 99% 'have nots'
I'm sure people in Mali for instance would just love to compare notes on how tough things are in comparison to the '99%' in America.
The 'Inequality' theme has run its course both with the "Occupy" movement and with Sanders' campaign.
The absolutely top hot, and constantly repeated topic all over the
media today about the debate last night was about how Sanders had
given Clinton a break, and possibly cost himself the nomination with
the following most memorable lines:
“I think the secretary is right, and
that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about
your damn e-mails.”
And then Sanders said, “Middle class
in this country is collapsing. We have 27 million people living in
poverty. We have massive wealth and income inequality. Our trade
policies have cost us millions of decent jobs. The American people
want to know whether we’re going to have a democracy or an
But just imagine what a totally
different and much greater effect on the people and the media it
could have been if Sanders ended his comment with this shocker:
“The American people want to know whether we’re going to have a
democracy or an Empire” ---and then, if he followed up with this
“Bulworth” and “Network” truth shout-out:
“You know, the American people
should really know that those four people who died in Benghazi,
and those 4000 American soldiers who died in Iraq, and the millions
of people throughout the Middle East wars in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, and Yemen who died and their families and kids who
are now pouring into Europe really suffered and died just because
America, our country, is acting like a damned Global Empire, and
treating them all like expendable 'subjects' of an Empire.”
“And our own people 'at home' are also being treated like 'subjects' of a
damned Global Empire that has taken over even our own country, and
that we have very little --- really no --- representation in this
supposed democratic Republic right here, because no matter what the
polls say the vast majority of the people really want on all these 'issues' of; gun
control, or breaking-up the banks, or ending the wars, or providing
health-care for all, etc. etc., the entrenched government, and
media/propaganda-sector, and financial royalists, and the
environment-killing oil corporations, and the military industrial
complex, that President Eisenhower warned us about more than a half
century ago, and the stacked extra-legal un-Supreme court just keep
treating all of us like the British Empire treated our forefathers
--- and nothing is going to change, regardless of what is said on
this stage until we stage a real Second American Revolution against
EMPIRE --- but this time a totally non-violent Revolution by simply and publicly
en-mass exposing this EMPIRE.”
Now, Obama, has reportedly said that sometimes he just wants to “Go
Bulworth” and 'shout-out' all the truth about how this system of
Empire is stacked. Well, the time has come to throw open our windows
on these happy-talk, phony TV networks and shout, “We're not going
to take it any more”. “We're going to get rid of this damned
If only there were more like you! You seem genuinely concerned and honest. Thanks, I enjoy your comments.
The concept and history of a guaranteed basic income goes all the way back to Thomas More in 1516.
In modern history, President Richard Nixon (Republican) introduced the Family Assistance Plan in August of 1969. A guaranteed basic (family) income was included in George McGovern's (Democratic) campaign platform in 1972. A very brief history is provided below.
Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan and McGovern’s support for the "demogrant"(1)
In this lively and promising context, a petition was organized in the Spring of 1968 calling for the US Congress “to adopt this year a system of income guarantees and supplements”. It was supported by James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Lampman, Harold Watts and over one thousand more economists, though not by Milton Friedman. In a context in which dependence on the existing means-tested welfare system was increasing dramatically, this petition contributed to creating a climate in which the administration felt it had to move ahead. This led to the Family Assistance Plan (FAP), an ambitious social welfare program prepared by the democrat senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) on behalf of Republican President Richard Nixon’s administration. The FAP provided for the abolition of the aid program targeting poor families (AFDC) and incorporated a guaranteed income with financial supplements for workers which came close to a negative income tax scheme. It was publicly presented by President Nixon in August 1969, adopted in April 1970 by a large majority in the US House of Representatives, rejected by the relevant Commission of the US Senate in November 1970, and definitively rejected in 1972, despite several amendments meant to assuage the opposition, owing to a coalition between those who found it too timid and those who found it too bold. A more ambitious “demogrant” plan was included on James Tobin’s advice in democrat George McGovern’s platform for the 1972 presidential election, but dropped in August 1972. Combined with McGovern’s defeat by Nixon in November 1972, the beginning of the Watergate affair in March 1973 and Nixon’s resignation in November 1974, the defeat of the FAP in the Senate marked the end of the short but strong appearance of UBI-type ideas in the US debate. The discussion continued however in a more academic vein, on the basis of five large-scale experiments with negative income tax schemes (four in the USA and one in Canada) and controversies over the results.
(1) As Senator, McGovern had previously sponsored a bill, submitted by the National Welfare Rights Organization, for $6,500 guaranteed minimum income per year to families, based on need.
I believe that the only way any country can effectively eliminate poverty on a long-term basis is by implementing an guaranteed basic income that covers the basic needs of people (food, housing, health care, etc.) and adjusted annually based on a real Consumer Price Index.
Oops! Serfs down! :O)
How can we have democratic choice when we don't vote?
...because they have near 100% voter turnout.