Wealth Redistribution Through Climate Activism | Piers Corbyn Interview

wealth-redistribution-through-climate-activism-|-piers-corbyn-interview

07-11-19 07:04:00,

I interviewed Piers Corbyn, scientist, activist and brother of Jeremy Corbyn, about the current political quagmire.

Follow me on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/profile/JnQkBKkHmwuP/

Follow me on Telegram: https://t.me/sargon_of_akkad

You can support me via:
Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/sargonofakkad
SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/sargon
Merch: https://teespring.com/en-GB/stores/sargon-of-akkad
Bitcoin: 3F88QMRVaNdHqcufuQB2jRq6j3szR5Uddh

Other social media:
Gab: https://gab.com/Sargonofakkad100
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Sargon_of_Akkad
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sargonofakkad100/

Share this:

Vind ik leuk:
Like Laden…

 » Lees verder

The Fed’s “Wealth Effect” Has Enriched The Haves At The Expense Of The Young

the-fed8217s-8220wealth-effect8221-has-enriched-the-haves-at-the-expense-of-the-young

05-03-19 02:03:00,

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The Fed is the mortal enemy of the young generations, and thus of the nation itself.

“The wealth effect” generated by rising stock and housing prices has long been a core goal of the Federal Reserve and other central banks. As Lance Roberts noted in his recent commentary So, The Fed Doesn’t Target The Market, Eh?(Zero Hedge), Ben Bernanke added a “third mandate” to the Fed – the creation of the “wealth effect”–in 2010, the reasoning being that higher asset prices “will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence” which will then lead to higher spending and all the wonderfulness of endless economic expansion.

But as Chris Hamilton explains in his recent essay Economic Doom Loop Well Underway, “the wealth effect” has enriched the already rich at the expense of the young who didn’t get the opportunity to buy the assets the Fed has pushed to the moon at pre-bubble prices. That privilege was largely reserved for those who bought a decade or two ago, before the Fed made boosting asset prices the implicit goal of all its policies.

Take a look at the chart of household net worth below. Household worth has soared from around $40 trillion in 2000 to $100 trillion in 2018–a gain of $60 trillion while the economy grew at a much more modest pace. Household net worth has leaped from $55 trillion in 2010 to $100 trillion in 2018–$45 trillion in gains for those who already owned stocks and houses.

As Chris observed,“non-discretionary items like homes, rent, education, healthcare, insurance, childcare, etc. are skyrocketing versus wages.” This is visible in the second chart of wage growth, which has hobbled along at 2% or 3% while stocks and housing have doubled or tripled.

The wealth effect has benefited the haves at the expense of the have-nots, the young who can no longer afford to buy homes or start families unless Mom and Dad provide the capital.

The nation is losing an entire generation as a result of the Fed’s cargo-cult like obsession with boosting the wealth of the haves. The wealth effect is the most generationally lopsided policy possible,

 » Lees verder

Inequality of Wealth | Armstrong Economics

inequality-of-wealth-armstrong-economics

22-01-19 11:06:00,

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; So if I am correct, you have no problem with the inequality of wealth because you have it. Correct?

JS

ANSWER: Let us look seriously at this issue. All of these people who talk about the disparity or inequality of wealth, claiming it is evil, completely fail to even understand the subject. The wealth of someone like Bill Gates and others who created companies like Henry Ford have been looked at or regarded as the super rich and thus evil. The problem boils down to assets v income. Pretend you bought a house in a modest area, say Atlantic City, and then the state passed a law that allowed casinos. Suddenly, your house goes from $100,000 to millions. So you are now “rich.” Since the land value rose, does that mean you should now pay more income taxes every year that may exceed your salary since you own a house that is worth more than average?

Those who talk about the “rich” look at their total asset values and not actual income. The value of someone is based upon their stock holding in a company they created. That is NOT cash. So should they be compelled to surrender that holding? If so, to whom? The government? So now Microsoft is seized by the government. If they sell it in small packages to the average person, the company will not be worth what it once was when the creator is driven out. Apple had to bring back Steve Jobs.

The “super rich” will pay taxes on their income every year but not on their assets, which fluctuate up and down. You may be surprised that most billionaires do not even have $1 million in a checking account. If we tax assets, then you will wipe out all small business that creates 70% of employment. How many farmers died and their heir had to sell off chunks of land to pay death taxes instead of continuing the family business?

You will hear about some billionaire who paid little taxes. That is simply the difference between asset values they did not sell and income. If you bought IBM in 2009, should you be taxed every year on its value that you held but did not sell?

 » Lees verder

Generation Wealth: rijkdomheid – De Lange Mars Plus

Generation Wealth: rijkdomheid – De Lange Mars Plus

18-10-18 09:49:00,

In het Fotomuseum in Den Haag draait nog tot 3 februari volgend jaar de film Generation Wealth van Lauren Greenfield. Ogenschijnlijk gaat deze 1,5 uur durende docu over rijkdom van de aanstormende generaties. Pas aan het einde van de film ontvouwt zich de clou. Tegelijkertijd draait in het museum de gelijknamige tentoonstelling.

Greenfield (1966) verzamelde in een periode van 25 jaar een half miljoen foto’s over haar obsessie voor rijkdom en de mensen die zich hiermee bezig houden.

Zij onderzoekt het materialisme, de cultuur van beroemdheden, sociale status staat stil bij het verlangen om rijk te worden tot iedere prijs. In de film interviews in Los Angeles, Moskou, Dubai, China die de consequenties van de (zucht naar) rijkdom laten zien.

Voor sommige mensen zijn gouden handtassen, glanzende sportauto’s, juwelen, luxe villa’s en ‘killer bodies’ zo belangrijk voor hun identiteit en uitstraling dat ze het huren of een imitatie kopen om het maar te kunnen laten zien op Instagram.

De Amerikaanse fotograaf en filmmaker toont de rijke en beroemde 1% en diegenen die hetzelfde imago willen hebben.

Voor Green geven bekende personen een gezicht aan de ‘heilige graal van onze tijd’: een leven met onbeperkte materiële mogelijkheden en maximale bekendheid.

In de film worden mensen geïnterviewd tijdens hun periodes van exorbitante rijkdom en jaren later wanneer het vaak financieel minder met hen gaat.

De teneur is dat hoeveel je ook hebt, je desondanks altijd maar meer wilt.

Rijkdom blijkt een verslaving zoals elke andere. Hebzucht blijkt geprezen te worden, onder het motto:

“Greed is good. Greed works.”(Hebzucht is goed, hebzucht werkt)

Voor de in rijkdom opgegroeide kinderen geldt dat ze nog meer rijkdom verwachten als ze ouder zijn.

Bij het zien van zoveel oppervlakkigheid bekruipt me een algeheel gevoel van ontzetting en ongeloof over zoveel stompzinnigheid om met dit eindeloze gejakker naar meer bezit of een beter imago door te gaan. Vooral het imago is heel belangrijk voor de rijkaards. Hoe zie ik eruit, wat heb ik .

“Als ik aankom rijden in een super limo dan ben ik iemand.”

Pas aan het einde van de film blijkt dat deze niet gaat over rijkdom,

 » Lees verder