patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,365,248 comments by 15,735 users - desertguy, HeadSet, stereotomy online now
The wealth distribution resembles the intelligence distribution.
2012 Jun 12, 8:03am 10,438 views 22 comments
« First « Previous Comments 21 - 22 of 22 Search these comments
I remember in the 80's(when the banks paid people to save money).
People on meager incomes, still managed to save up money and buy land, and have a nest egg, and other investment irons in the fire.
These people weren't in debt, they saved up and paid cash for every thing. They were good a managing their money, and knew how to make what little meager money that had work for them and pay them. It took discipline, way too much discipline for the instant gratification generation's liking.
This statement seems contradictory. In the parentheses, you mention the banks paying people to save, but then you go onto personal spending habits.
This is exactly the divide and conquer thinking that keeps bankster-bootlicker's in power. Your first arguement is correct, namely that the game has been rigged so you can't save. Wages stagnate, while inflation drives up the prices of the basics, food, gas, healthcare,etc. This leaves less money to save. However, savings rates are in the toilet and can't even match inflation, so saving actually costs money. That is why people ran to housing and purchasing goods and services. At least with that stuff, you could get the practical and entertainment value before the value was lost. Saving destroyed value by virtue of monetarist scheming by the FED (run by banksters, which is why I referenced bankster-bootlickers).
Until we restore true market value to everything in the marketplace, no amount of personal discipline will keep people financially secure. Politicians just want you to blame yourself, not their campaign contributors, so they say you're lazy and a spendthrift if inflation beats your savings rate, while your wages stagnate.
freak80
@
2012 Jun 13, 2:06pm
This is exactly the divide and conquer thinking that keeps bankster-bootlicker's in power. Your first arguement is correct, namely that the game has been rigged so you can't save. Wages stagnate, while inflation drives up the prices of the basics, food, gas, healthcare,etc. This leaves less money to save. However, savings rates are in the toilet and can't even match inflation, so saving actually costs money. That is why people ran to housing and purchasing goods and services. At least with that stuff, you could get the practical and entertainment value before the value was lost. Saving destroyed value by virtue of monetarist scheming by the FED (run by banksters, which is why I referenced bankster-bootlickers).
Amen to that. Well put!
« First « Previous Comments 21 - 22 of 22 Search these comments
Top 1% = 40%
Bottom 40% = 2%
This means that if the top 1 percent gave up just 2% of their share of the countries net worth they could double the bottom 40%'s net worth! The problem lies only partially in the income distribution. What is more important is the distribution of disposable income. If a family lives on $10,000 a year, they essentially have 0 disposable income. It is kind of hard to acquire wealth with 0 potential to save.
Most people are poor not because they have such low incomes that they cannot save money. Only a minority of the population lives on less than $10,000 income a year. The reason that people in our country are poor is mostly their own fault. People are so busy living outside of their means that they get caught up voluntarily giving money to banks and insurance companies their whole lives.
If people didn't serve their ego before their financial security maybe there wouldn't have had a housing bubble. People also need to realize that when they spend their money, because of the distribution of income and wealth, it will more than likely end up in the pockets of the wealthy. This means the U.S. must restore savings as a value, because how else can someone become wealthy if they don't save? This country focuses too much on income and not enough on net worth. Net worth shows an individuals worth to society as a whole.
People can be poor regardless of income if they live outside their means, and people can be wealthy only if they are smart enough to save. The beauty about net worth is that it puts otherwise unquantifiable values into quantifiable measures. The man with $30,000 income who has amassed $100,000 net worth is financially more valuable than the million dollar income earner who has a net worth of -$150,000. This illustrates that wealth is not as tied to income as it is the overall intelligence of the individual and their ability to control their ego.
Thus society gets a very simple relationship; an individual is smart enough to save their disposable income and they are wealthy, or they are stupid and don't save what’s left over after subsistence and are poor. The same people who may argue that "well, the value of subsistence grows with income." are the same people who are not intelligent to have a positive net worth. By definition subsistence is bare minimum, lets say $10,000 a year, therefore most everyone can cut back on consumption to become successful. The only problem is that most people don't value being successful more than they value serving their own greedy, gluttonous desires. For these unfortunate reasons, intelligence has more to do with wealth than income.
#housing