They’ve already got it~!

  By Mystic | August 19, 2012 - 06:00 |

Here is a rough transcription of the presentation for people who are hard of hearing. Apologies for the lack of grammar, I am working to improve the automated transcriptions -
hello my Sunday this first clip is from United States of America but is a similar position in United Kingdom down at the bottom is what called ideal now this is for ideal distribution of wealth across the society now who says it’s ideal why they say it’s ideal will leave aside in the United States of America all the men and women hold Hispanic all of these types of different people have been asked what they think the wealth distribution actually is and most all of is it’s surprisingly none of them get anywhere near right and they all get it wrong in about the same way servers really no disparity between all people asked how they think the wealth distribution actually is and estimated is their representation of what they think it is at the right above is what it actually is now you can see an estimated they think the hard top 1020% and the second 20% have about three quarters of the wealth of the United States when the actual story is that the top 20% have about 80% of the actual wealth the next 20% have the next 15 leaving 5% for the bottom 60% now I’m putting this up because of the stress on actual wealth that the reason actual wealth there established them out there and in this fiscal cliff where going to have things like armed capital gains tax is going to go up and hand allsorts is going to go up and wound could have to pay more but the thing is the wealth is already established when you hear armed statistics on income and income tax like we can say that the top 20% and the second 20% top 20% of top 40% pay Now what would it be in America about 80% of all income tax paid 7080% of all income tax paid and the groom sliver and downwards pain very little income tax paid it’s the truth the top do pay just about all the income tax but it doesn’t encroach on their massed already amassed wealth they’ve got it as it where so you can put income tax up you can even put capital gains tax up and tax on hand dividends on stocks but it’s not go to encroach much into their actual wealth because what I miss stressing here is Dave already got the actual wealth they’ve got it and you can tax on on this that and the other but unless you get it and get into that you got to get in if you want to get you got going and get it where it is as opposed to just at this nibbling at what is on the edges and what kind of jumps often jumps back in again and try and grab that the actual wealth is already owned by the top people write okay thing stress that enough now get I just throwing that now out okay let’s go to the United Kingdom and this was in this morning’s Telegraph just three paragraphs to read Paul Tucker the debt Deputy Gov of the Bank of England told an October meeting of the chief executives of Britain’s largest banks that there was a serious chance known of their businesses would survive to the end of the year this was the end of last year gentleman new could all be out of business by Christmas Mr Tucker said in a stark warning to the bank chiefs according to 3 sources present at the meeting the revelation of Mr Tucker’s remarkable warning shows the depth of fear among senior officials of the bank of England over the havoc that, sovereign Eurozone would reach on the British financial system as to things there the importance of European mess and how weak the British financial system is arm if a BA aim make MS comes from anywhere but the the big finger is pointing towards the possibility of it being Europe a European mess which knocks a song to imagine we know the guy has been over in tried to tell them what to do but what harm stresses will be coming from the exterior to influence the people that they think they can influence in Europe to hold this bloody thing together this Euro thing because we don’t want to be dragged down by you imagine the stresses and strains were basically being put on Germany to bailout the system or Germany to let the European Central bank bailout the system not understanding that the European Central bank really can’t bail out the system I’ll just repeat because maybe you didn’t hear yesterday on the day before what’s going on on the banks books let’s say in Europe are mainly government bonds as loans and mortgages are going bad as well and that was the one truly knew it was going bad that the government bonds are the thing that the central banks chosen only hurt the powers that be have chosen to keep up to keep up the price of the government bonds of all Eurozone countries sovereigns so as to keep the banks books together because it’s mainly the banks in Europe that pork pouring the euro down and it’s the banks leaning on the sovereigns and the sovereigns being tumbled over by the banks and the bank this sovereigns getting into trouble because of the banks and the sovereigns the week anyway because they had already been spending lots of money and where up to this high debt to GDP sort of numbers believed that the effort is to keep up the price of sovereign bonds so as to keep the banks solvent if it really came to shove you can imagine that the Bank of England and the Fed will buy those peripheral government bonds to keep the European banking system up because of the European payment banking system goes down the British banking system goes down you can imagine what the ramifications would be around the world right are just finishing in the Guardian UK dear George Osborne it’s time for plan B says top economists seven leading economists on what Chancellor and basically had chipping in in saying that they ended the Chancellor in the UK should change direction from this stare at you think in Stiglitz and Krugman are in there but among the seven is what I really want that note was our friend Steve keen Arlene the video below as well just for your edification by

Written by: Mystic on August 19, 2012.
Pages: 1 2
Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • windslice

    The first video became boring. The second video started on about fractional reserve banking. I can no longer stand listening to people who base their ideas on fractional reserve banking.

    The Guardian article: Did all those guys really write those responses?

    Lots of the old economists spouting Blah Blah Blah.

    Fed up with that crap.

    Keen has his head on another planet. His proposal will never, ever be accepted. He should come up with something that could be useful or say nothing and keep on “playing the blues” in his band.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/9484414/A-message-from-the-1970s-on-state-spending.html 

    ”
    “We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending,” boomed the Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, at the 1976 Labour Party conference.”

    ““I tell you, in all candour,” he went on, “that that option no longer exists. And in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion… by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step…”

    Well, maybe. I suppose in his time the BoE was not so supportive by buying up the government debt. Times have moved on.

    As the chart pointed out, there is a massive amount of assets held by the few. But, with the relative ease these assets can now be moved around the globe, there is no way that the governments can effectively tax them. In Switzerland they do have an asset tax, but it is a very small percentage. And naturally expenses can be written off against the taxable asset value.

    I think the fact that most of the assets belong to the few has always been the same throughout history, whether it has been due to theft, religion, influence and power.

    Capital will continue to accumulate more capital. That’s the way it works.

    Only through production or mineral extraction will real wealth be made available to the workers. All the rest  working outside these areas are parasitic. With taxes the governments can redistribute some of the wealth created through production, but governments do not increase the net wealth.

    The UK is a sinking global power, its wealth is funded by its history of theft.

    Europe is a mixed basket of producers, consumers and opportunists. The latter two are heading for a big reset in their expectations.

  • Axel1million

    The Economists give their opinion, it pays the mortgage and keeps food on the table. Unfortunately they don’t have a clue about the real world. They live in a world of Keynesian models and Peer reviewed papers.At best they only describe the morphology and know nothing of the inner workings.
    The machine is changing all the time and its changing the humans as it evolves.
    Humans are going in and extending out coming together and moving apart, one brain cannot conceive of it, but one million just might.

  • John_by_the_creek

    Dear Mr. Mystic:
     
    I often wonder how many people proposing the “tax the rich [solution]” really understand what you explained in the first part of this video.  The “Income Tax” system does what the name implies; It taxes INCOME.  “Income” implies movement, or a “changing of hands” of money.  When money velocity slows, governments’ ability to capture revenue from that movement of money also slows. 

    The knee-jerk “solution” is to raise “capture rates” (on high incomes, AKA - ”The Rich”).  Viewing it from a perspective that assumes a “static environment”, this approach would appear to offer a solution (even if only a partial one).  But in reality, the economy, by its very nature, is a “hyper-dynamic environment”.  This approach offers very little in the way of solving the long term “money velocity” problem.
     
    Taxing “static wealth” has historically been the purview of local governments.  I’m not sure if our “99%” friends grasp this concept, and do date, I have heard none of the “Occupy” crowd propose a “national net worth tax”.  That is why I believe this whole fuss about “raise the income tax on the 1%” is a silly waste of time.

    • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

       Aye~!

      • CSArichardo

        You are both alittle …well should I say challenged and more wealthy than I.  Hence I (we) need to take it from you !   Why not ?  You will just get it all back in the next decade again ?
         

  • augustine

    Hello Mistic.  If you can please explain how in one video you say that the rich can’t pay much of anythng and in another show a chart that shows the rich have all the wealth.

    • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

       It is for you to work out.

  • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

    As most money is below the water line would it not make sense to introduce Robin Hood type taxes? But how to do so effectively?

    If debt is unlikely to be paid off, what percentage
    reduction would be necessary to take most out of risk of default? Relief could be a long term loan repayable on
    sale of the asset at death, or there could be other conditions. QE for the Mr Average. Government has assets to balance the liabilities incurred. Likelihood of default reduced as the repayment is kicked into the future and life for many returns to approximating normality. 

    At what point does  asset values start to rise again due to inflation and possible impact on currency value?

    It is a strange situation, I know many who cannot borrow because the conditions are, for them, to onerous. I also know a few who will not invest in their businesses, as there is no point, no likelihood of increased demand.

    Austerity on its own is not working, but how best to stimulate investment for future benefit, and by so doing improve revenue?

  • b blackstone

    hard money camp V easy money camp

    http://fofoa.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/debtors-and-savers.html 

    I am not sure which camp I fear the most?

  • http://www.economicstability.org/ Joebhed

    On Bill Still’s video, pointing out the IMF’s rather strange support of a public money solution, as contained in The Chicago Plan for Monetary Reform.
    Bill makes a couple of minor errors.
    The IMF paper’s reference in the Abstract to Fisher’s 1936 work is not a claim that the CP was written in 1936. It was a reference to Fisher’s 1936 paper that advanced the benefits of the CP and of Fisher’s 100 Percent Money proposal.
    Second, Bill says that Irving Fisher was the organizing force behind the CP proposal.
    Fisher was NOT an author of, nor signatory to, the CP proposal.

    Fisher’s early work recognized the true source for the idea of full-reserve banking, which was Dr. Frederick Soddy, whose photo attaches to each of my postings.
    Soddy was the originator of all of the ideas that became the legacy of Fisher and of the Chicago Plan authors, all of whom were part of the founding of the early Chicago School of economics.
    Whenever I get to recommend to anyone who really wants to understand the nature of money and of our monetary-economic predicament, I always recommend to read Frederick Soddy.
    AS I have on a number of occasions to the Mystic Man.

    But Still is correct in his emphasis of a shifting tide in our understanding about money.
    The times are a-changing.

    I believe I mentioned that IMF author Kumhof will be presenting this paper on the Chicago Plan at the AMI conference in Chicago next month.
    I find it amazing that someone at the IMF is thinking in terms of such an outside the private bank money paradigm for solutions.