Why the 1% Hates the Gold Standard

#yiv0160116939 P.yiv0160116939c44e583f-d6cc-4a62-945c-8d442f1f597f {MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;}#yiv0160116939 LI.yiv0160116939c44e583f-d6cc-4a62-945c-8d442f1f597f {MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;}#yiv0160116939 DIV.yiv0160116939c44e583f-d6cc-4a62-945c-8d442f1f597f {MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;}#yiv0160116939 TABLE.yiv0160116939c44e583f-d6cc-4a62-945c-8d442f1f597fTable {MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;}#yiv0160116939 DIV.yiv0160116939Section1 {} #yiv0160116939 -- filtered {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv0160116939 filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv0160116939 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0160116939 filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv0160116939 filtered {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}#yiv0160116939 filtered {}#yiv0160116939 filtered {font-family:Oswald;}#yiv0160116939 filtered {font-family:Neuton;}#yiv0160116939 p.yiv0160116939MsoNormal, #yiv0160116939 li.yiv0160116939MsoNormal, #yiv0160116939 div.yiv0160116939MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0160116939 a:link, #yiv0160116939 span.yiv0160116939MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0160116939 a:visited, #yiv0160116939 span.yiv0160116939MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0160116939 p.yiv0160116939MsoAcetate, #yiv0160116939 li.yiv0160116939MsoAcetate, #yiv0160116939 div.yiv0160116939MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv0160116939 span.yiv0160116939EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv0160116939 span.yiv0160116939BalloonTextChar {}#yiv0160116939 .yiv0160116939MsoChpDefault {}#yiv0160116939 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0160116939 div.yiv0160116939WordSection1 {}#yiv0160116939 Why The “1%” Hates The Gold Standard Between 1930 and 1970, it was only the "bottom 90%" that saw their incomes rise Image Credits: Giorgio Monteforti / Flickr byZero Hedge| February 20, 2015 By now everybody knows that the primary consequence, one which we originally predicted back in 2009 – and many have since agreed – was completely intended, of the past 6 years of unprecedented monetary policy has been to push wealth inequality to record levels, not just in the US but across the world. What may not be so clear is precisely when this period of unprecedented wealth disparity started. The answer, as the following handychart from NPR shows, is that long before QE, the wealth gap for the 1% really started in the early 1980s, courtesy of none other than Greenspan’s “great moderation.” More importantly, and what is certainly not known, is that between 1930 and 1970, it was only the “bottom 90%” that saw their incomes rise, as can be seen on the next chart. This is how the NPR qualified this dramatic variance in wealth gaps, the first of which benefited most Americans, especially the middle-class, and which ended with a thud in the early 1970s, and the second which was unleashed in the early 1980s: In the first phase, known as the great compression, inequality fell. Incomes rose for people in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution, as the postwar boom led to high demand for workers with low and moderate skills. At the same time, income was basically stagnant for the top 1 percent of earners. A combination of high marginal tax rates (around 80 percent) for the wealthy, and social norms, may have kept a lid on wages at the top, according to the economists who gathered the data we used to make the graphs. In the last 35 years, the reverse occurred. Top marginal tax rates fell sharply. Incomes rose for those in the top 1 percent, largely driven by rapidly rising pay for top executives. And this is how NPR tries to describe the transformation that took place: “a combination of global competition, automation, and declining union membership, among other factors, led to stagnant wages for most workers.” Sure, why not. But while we are all speculating, there is one far more important and very critical event on the calendar that happened just as the ascent of the non-1% peaked. This: Which should also clarify just why to the “1%”, including their protectors in the “developed market”central banking system, their tenured economist lackeys, their purchased politicians and their captured media outlets, the topic of a return to a gold standard is the biggest threat conceivable.

(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image003.jpg is missing)

(Attachment image004.jpg is missing)

It's hard to know where to start with Tyler's ridiculous narrative. It so much as says it is the big- guy's fault the little-guy was mugged, ignoring the mugger in the narrative.
He further suggests the big-guy should pay for the mugging.
He ignores indisputable conditions:
1) This is a capitalistic industrial economy, it makes people rich. 2) Government took huge amount of wealth and spent it on 25 years war3) Government took huge amount of wealth and built a police/prison state 4) Government regulation is destroying industry5) Government regulation is destroying wealth6) Government spending is consuming wealth
The 1% have wealth because they should have wealth and they are harder to rob. Every one should have more wealth. But the 99% elect the government that is robbing them, and Tyler blames the 1%!!!!!!
His narrative is moronic at the most fundamental level, appealing to naive popular hysteria in people who read his crap.
THINK ABOUT WHAT HE IS SAYING!!! He is saying, "The rich are taking the wealth form the poor and they are doing it with monetary shenanigans." It is total bullsh**! The truth is that government is taking from the poor for war and a global police-state.
In effect he is a shill for the warmongers and police-state hacks.
Here is the quote, "was completely intended, of the past 6 years of unprecedented monetary policy has been to push wealth inequality to record levels
That analysis is outrageous!! The wealth disparity is completely due to the ease with which wealth is taken from the poor contrasted to the difficulty in taking wealth from the rich.

Good points John….the 1% own that government that does all those things and the 99% support it with votes and money. As the old saying goes…In a Democracy, the people get what they vote for….good and hard.

I don’t know that Tyler is blaming the 1%...he’s just calling a “spade” a “spade”.

Mike

More comments….see below.

Mike

The 1% own the government??!!! That's total bullcrap!!
The government is the one thing the 99% still own, while it is robbing them!!But they are too stupid to see it.
Except for war, the global police-state, and titanic government, the 1% would have even more, as they should; and when the 99% finally have nothing left to tax or steal, the 1% will be next on the chopping block, with the stupid help of the 99%.
That is how it works. That's how the criminals GET EVERYTHING!! They point at the last people who have anything left and blame them for the misery. The stupid people buy the lie every time.
I though it would be different among libertarians. Stupid me!

A few of the warmongers and police-state hacks are the 1%. Most are not...yet.
But as they gobble everyone's wealth, the 1% are in the oven for the feast.

Read http://www.dunwalke.com/introduction.htm

Learn how Wall Street and the government (CIA) collaborated to build the prison industrial complex and made sure there were plenty of people to fill it. The profit per person incarcerated was part of the business plan. She names names with photos of those involved…including the Bushs and Clintons.

Hard to imagine the 99% running the show when stuff like this is going on. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially on the “discuss” list. Smile.

Mike