How do we eliminate the paradox of poverty & privation amid plenty & abundance?

[jerryweaver]

We are pretty much accepting the high taxes but the beneficiaries of the public largess is the bloated MIC and other projects foreign  to the constitutional mandate that our guberment alleges to operate under.

[worcesteradam]

wealth redistribution away from federal government, is whats needed

[Geolibertarian]

Sweden's methods aren't in line with what we'd use though.

I know, my point is that, in my experience, Austrian Schoolers tend to rail self-righteously against any system that seeks to secure a more equitable distribution of wealth and income. I know there may be exceptions here and there, but that nevertheless seems to be the general rule.

Aside from high taxes,

As you know, my position is that whether a tax is good or bad depends not on how "high" it is, but on what it's levied upon. If it's levied upon land values, it's a good tax, even at a high rate. (Especially at a hight rate, actually.) If it's levied instead upon the value of either labor or capital goods, it's a bad tax, even at a low rate.

the state is heavily involved in delivering education\healthcare (which contradicts your desired policies).

Well, as I've stated before, on the issue of health care I'm actually open to a single-payer system like the one they have in Canada. And on education, I support having tax-funded schools that are "public" in the same sense that libraries are "public." But I'm definitely opposed to both compulsory attendance laws and centralized control of school curriculum (which alone guarantees I'll never be welcome in the Democratic Party).

Returning to the issue of wealth distribution (the mere raising of which tends to conjure scary images of Karl Marx in the minds of most right-wing reactionaries), you may find the following quotes of particular interest:

"We differ from the socialists in our diagnosis of the evil and we differ from them as to remedies. We have no fear of capital, regarding it as the natural handmaiden of labor; we look on interest in itself as natural and just; we would set no limit to accumulation, nor impose on the rich any burden that is not equally placed on the poor; we see no evil in competition, but deem unrestricted competition to be as necessary to the health of the industrial and social organism as the free circulation of the blood is to the health of the bodily organism--to be the agency whereby the fullest cooperation is to be secured." -- Henry George, The Condition of Labor, p. 61

"Socialism takes no account of natural laws, neither seeking them nor striving to be governed by them....It is more destitute of any central and guiding principle than any philosophy I know of." -- Henry George, The Science of Political Economy, p. 198

"[In] truth I think that in trying to understand the socialists, you have confused yourself, which I don't wonder. The truth is that they do not understand themselves. As for Karl Marx, he is the prince of muddleheads." -- Henry George, An Anthology of Henry George's Thought, p. 78

"[John] Locke was not in error. The right of property in things produced by labor--and this is the only true right of property-- springs directly from the right of the individual to himself, or as Locke expressed it, from his 'property in his own person.'" -- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 30

"I believe that the right of property lies at the very foundation of the social order and that no community can be prosperous or any state stay secure when the right of property is denied, and the heaviest indictment against the present state of things is that it is a denial of the right of property. What is the right of property? From what does it spring? Is it not, as Adam Smith says, that the first and most sacred rights of property is the right of man to himself and to the produce of his own labor; and is not a system which takes from laborers the produce of their labor and puts it in the hands of men who do nothing whatever to earn it--is not that system a denial of the first and most sacred right of property?" -- Henry George, An Anthology of Henry George's Thought, p 88

     "Yet to whoever will grasp first principles it must be evident:
     "That there can be no real conflict between labor and capital--since capital is in origin and essence but the product and tool of labor;
     "That there can be no real antagonism between the rights of men and the rights of property--since the right of property is but the expression of the fundamental right of man;
     "That the road to the improvement of the conditions of the masses cannot be the road of restricting and denying the right of property, but can only be that of securing more fully the right of property; and that all measures that impair the right of property must in the end injure the masses--since while it may be possible that a few may get a living or be aided in the getting a living by robbery, it is utterly impossible that the many should.
     "It is not as deniers, but as asserters of the equal rights of man, that we who for want of a better term call ourselves single-tax men so strenuously uphold the right of property." -- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 209

"The right of life and liberty--that is to say, the right of the man to himself--is not really one right and the right of property another right.  They are two aspects of the same perception--the right of property being but another side, a differently stated expression, of the right of man to himself.  The right of life and liberty, and the right of the individual to himself, presupposes and involves the right of property, which is the exclusive right of the individual to the things his exertion has produced.
     "This is the reason why we who really believe in the law of liberty, we who see in freedom the great solvent for all social evils, are the stanchest and most unflinching supporters of the rights of property, and would guard it as scrupulously in the case of the millionaire as in the case of the day-laborer." -- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, pp. 210-211

"To prevent government from becoming corrupt and tyrannous, its organization and methods should be as simple as possible, its functions be restricted to those necessary to the common welfare, and in all its parts it should be kept as close to the people and as directly within their control as may be." -- Henry George, Social Problems, p. 171

"The first and main purpose of government is admirably stated in that grand document which we Americans so honor and so ignore--the Declaration of Independence. It is to secure to men those equal and unalienable rights with which the Creator has endowed them." -- Henry George, Social Problems, p. 171

"The best use that could be made of our great law libraries…would be to send them to the paper mills….At the same time our statute-books are full of enactments which could, with advantage, be swept away. It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve." -- Henry George, Social Problems, p. 173

"It is not the business of government to direct the employment of labor and capital, and to foster certain industries at the expense of other industries." -- Henry George, Social Problems, p. 178

"These essays [by Herbert Spencer] are strongly individualistic, condemning even bitterly any use of governmental powers or funds to regulate the conditions of labor or alleviate the evils of poverty. In this Mr. Spencer was continuing and accentuating a line begun in 'Social Statics,' and, in the view of those who think as I do, was in the main right; for governmental interferences and regulations and bonuses are in their nature restrictions on freedom, and cannot cure evils that primarily flow from denials of freedom." -- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 66

"I have been an active, consistent and absolute free trader, and an opponent of all schemes that would limit the freedom of the individual. I have been a stancher denier of the assumption of the right of society to the possessions of each member, and a clearer and more resolute upholder of the rights of property than has Mr. [Herbert] Spencer. I have opposed every proposition to help the poor at the expense of the rich. I have always insisted that no man be taxed because of his wealth, and that no matter how many millions a man might rightfully get, society should leave to him every penny of them." -- Henry George, A Perplexed Philosopher, pp. 70-71

"For my part, I would put no limit on acquisition. No matter how many millions any man can get by methods which do not involve the robbery of others--they are his: let him have them. I would not even ask for charity, or have it dinned into his ears that it is his duty to help the poor. That is his own affair. Let him do as he pleases with his own, without restriction and without suggestion. If he gets without taking from others, and uses without hurting others, what he does with his wealth is his own business and his own responsibility." -- Henry George, Social Problems, p. 87

"What we want today to bring us all together is, not union under one government that shall assume to govern, but that absolute freedom of intercourse that shall entwine all interests, that absolute freedom of intercourse that shall establish a daily ferry from this side of Atlantic to the other side of the Atlantic, that shall make everyone belonging to any of these nations, wherever he may be on the territory of another, feel as though he were at home. That is what we strive for--for the freedom of all, for self-government to all--and for as little government as possible. We don't believe that tyranny is a thing alone of kings and monarchs; we know well that majorities can be as tyrannous as aristocracies; we know that mobs can persecute as well as crowned heads. What we ask for is freedom--that in each locality, large or small, the people of that locality shall be free to manage the affairs that pertain only to that locality; that each individual shall be free to manage the affairs that relate to him; that governments shall not presume to say of whom he shall buy or to whom he shall sell, shall not attempt to dictate to him in any way, but shall confine itself to its proper function of preserving the public peace, of preventing the strong from oppressing the weak, of utilizing for the public good all the revenues that belong of right to the public, and of managing those affairs that are best managed by the whole. Our doctrine is the doctrine of freedom, our gospel is the gospel of liberty..." -- Henry George, An Anthology of Henry George's Thought, p. 41

"The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry." [Emphasis added] -- Albert Jay Nock, Free Speech and Plain Language, p. 159

"I do not wish to be misunderstood as falling into the trap of the socialists and communists who condemn all privately owned business, all factories, all machinery and organizations for producing wealth. There is nothing wrong with private corporations owning the means of producing wealth. Georgists believe in private enterprise, and in its virtues and incentives to produce at maximum efficiency. It is the insidious linking together of special privilege, the unjust outright private ownership of natural or public resources, monopolies, franchises, that produce unfair domination and autocracy.

"The means of producing wealth differ at the root: some is thieved from the people and some is honestly earned. George differentiated; Marx did not. The consequences of our failure to discern lie at the heart of our trouble."

-- Agnes George de Mille, http://www.progress.org/books/george.htm

"Marx's biggest error was to suppose that society could be improved by grand design: that the solution was to impose a new order, rather than to abolish privileges embedded in the existing order. His scheme actually rescued the aristocracy he had condemned, as it required an aristocracy to run it, and it pitted labor against capital, when, in fact, true capital is nothing more than the fruits of labor, and is a natural ally of labor against privilege....

"The errors of anti-Marxists derive mostly from overreaction -- from denying whatever Marx asserted, replacing Marxist half-truths with equally false anti-Marxist half-truths. Often, in so doing, they fall into the trap of accepting underlying Marxist assumptions....

"While Marx treated land as capital to attack it, anti-Marxists treat land as capital to defend it. This not only accepts the Marxist redefinition of capital, but causes anti-Marxists to say absurd things about land that make sense only with regard to true capital.

"Buying into the Marxist equation of wealth and privilege, anti-Marxists defend privilege as if it were wealth. They do this with regard not only to land, but to banking, incorporation, franchises, the overextension of patents, etc. While there are sometimes glimmers of theoretical distinctions, there is a near constant defense of those parties whose wealth comes almost entirely from capitalized privilege, and only minimally from true capital. Such errors defy logic, are inconsistent with classical liberalism, and are intuitively rejected by the unindoctinated."

-- Dan Sullivan, http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html#marxist

[freedom_commonsense]

I know, my point is that, in my experience, Austrian Schoolers tend to rail self-righteously against any system that seeks to secure a more equitable distribution of wealth and income. I know there may be exceptions here and there, but that nevertheless seems to be the general rule.

Fair enough.

As you know, my position is that whether a tax is good or bad depends not on how "high" it is, but on what it's levied upon. If it's levied upon land values, it's a good tax, even at a high rate. (Especially at a hight rate, actually.) If it's levied instead upon the value of either labor or capital goods, it's a bad tax, even at a low rate.

When I said high, I also elaborated that they're the same old wage and sales taxes that we see all over Europe, and they're incredibly high even by UK standards.

Well, as I've stated before, on the issue of health care I'm actually open to a single-payer system like the one they have in Canada. And on education, I support having tax-funded schools that are "public" in the same sense that libraries are "public." But I'm definitely opposed to both compulsory attendance laws and centralized control of school curriculum (which alone guarantees I'll never be welcome in the Democratic Party).

France has something more akin to a single payer healthcare system than the Nordic countries. As for schooling, well I can't think of a country that doesn't have compulsory attendance laws.

Returning to the issue of wealth distribution (the mere raising of which tends to conjure scary images of Karl Marx in the minds of most right-wing reactionaries), you may find the following quotes of particular interest

Thanks, I'll be sure to reference them in order to seperate Georgism from Marxism in the eyes of Chicago School adherents.

[africknamerican]

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/569425/study%3A_most_americans_want_wealth_distribution_similar_to_sweden/

Study: Most Americans Want Wealth Distribution Similar to Sweden

Or you could call it "Jeffersonian" wealth distribution.

The problem is not about the end -- a better distribution of wealth, but it's about the means, and about the bureaucratic socialist state that usually accompanies it.

Most social democracies like Sweden tax (and regulate and bureaucratize) to achieve equal outcomes. This ends up stifling incentives and innovation. Actually, the Swedish seem to love it, but they are a conformist people. Equalizing outcomes rubs most Americans the wrong way.

A Georgist system, however, would simply serve to distribute the opportunity to create wealth, like a substitute for distributing land back in the day of homesteading. And people could do with that opportunity whatever they like.  IF opportunity is equal, hard work, innovation etc. could lead to natural wealth disparities but nothing like the disparities we have today.

[Freeski]

Or you could call it "Jeffersonian" wealth distribution.

The problem is not about the end -- a better distribution of wealth, but it's about the means, and about the bureaucratic socialist state that usually accompanies it.

Most social democracies like Sweden tax (and regulate and bureaucratize) to achieve equal outcomes. This ends up stifling incentives and innovation. Actually, the Swedish seem to love it, but they are a conformist people. Equalizing outcomes rubs most Americans the wrong way.

A Georgist system, however, would simply serve to distribute the opportunity to create wealth, like a substitute for distributing land back in the day of homesteading. And people could do with that opportunity whatever they like.  IF opportunity is equal, hard work, innovation etc. could lead to natural wealth disparities but nothing like the disparities we have today.

Good post, dude.

I'm leaning more towards a localized concept where I only need about a dozen people to keep me happy. A carpenter, doctor, electrician, mechanic, programmer, farmer, baker, dentist, trash collector, store owner, etc. Point being, maybe there's a finite number of people that we actually "need"? Maybe we need a billion local networks of free people?

f**k Wal-Mart.

[africknamerican]

Well, as I've stated before, on the issue of health care I'm actually open to a single-payer system like the one they have in Canada. And on education, I support having tax-funded schools that are "public" in the same sense that libraries are "public." But I'm definitely opposed to both compulsory attendance laws and centralized control of school curriculum (which alone guarantees I'll never be welcome in the Democratic Party).

Single-payer? Say it isn't so!

It's a great theory -- "Congress pays, you choose" -- but when has government ever paid for anything and left you free to choose? Single-payer would be accompanied with all the govt. dictates and restrictions we have today, possibly even more.

I support public health services, in theory, if the people of a town, city or county want them -- although I live in the second biggest county in the nation (Cook County, Chicago area), which evidently is way too big since county govt. and its hospital system suffer all the legendary inefficiencies, corruptiion, nepotism etc. associated with Chicago. If you want to have a public health system, you'd better keep it super-local. Outside of Chicago, we still have township goverments (which are only a few miles square), and some of those, particularly the rural or semirural ones, provide health clinics. Somethin the size of a township or large school district seems about the level on which to provide such services and still maintain enough public oversight to avoid corruption. Combined with a radical free-marketization (??) of health care -- which would include lifting the restrictions on charity care, and many other layers of red tape, subsidies, etc., I think health care would be accessible to everyone. No further government involvement should be needed, and certainly no interference by the long arm of Washington.

On libraries vs. schools, I think libraries are the ideal schools. They offer free access to materials, they are relatively unpoliticized, and nobody tells you when you must come or what you must learn. More and bigger libraries, locally funded and controlled, could host all sorts of different classes, homeschoolers, and tutoring relationships.

The problem with schooling is, the "compulsory" aspect, the controlled curricula, the unions, the bureaucracy, etc., seem to be inseparable now. How would you separate state funding from the whole litany of other things that follow in its trail? Government schooling has devolved from being a service, a convenience for the community, into a religion, and its chief article of faith is that education cannot take place without a whole host of "experts" running the machine and imposing "standards."  

Seems to me that in order to break the faulty logic of "if 'government' pays, then government gets to control," you have to defund the system, give people vouchers (better yet, just their individual CD, from which they decide how much to spend on education), so it's understood the money belongs to the parents, therefore the choice belongs to the parents as well. Defund and deregulate the "system," fund parents instead, and the schools themselves go from being govt. schools pretending to serve the public, to real schools that actualy answer to the public and therefore must serve them.

[freedom_commonsense]

Agreed. I get fed up of the big government sympathisers who think they're doing me a favour by upping the job-destroying minimum wage or advocating the highly flawed, bureaucracy ridden welfare system we currently have. Equally though, I'm fed up of the "right-wing" crowd who think I can magically walk into a job tomorrow without major changes in law and governance.

[worcesteradam]

Agreed. I get fed up of the big government sympathisers who think they're doing me a favour by upping the job-destroying minimum wage or advocating the highly flawed, bureaucracy ridden welfare system we currently have. Equally though, I'm fed up of the "right-wing" crowd who think I can magically walk into a job tomorrow without major changes in law and governance.

you could create your own job if there wasnt so much regulation

[Geolibertarian]

Single-payer? Say it isn't so!

I never said I was unconditionally supportive of it, just that I’m "open" to it.

As I explain here, the health care issue is, at bottom, really about the unjust concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a relative few, since the varying degrees of poverty and privation that this concentration imposes on everyone else is what makes government assistance programs in general (including Medicare and Medicaid) seem necessary in the first place.

Thus, the ideal would be for the economic reforms I advocate on page one of this thread to be implemented, since the resultant surge in prosperity would be so dramatic and so widespread -- and the consequent drop in the various stress-related illnesses caused by perpetual poverty and chronic economic insecurity so sharp -- that there would no longer be such a widely perceived need among the laboring classes for government assistance on health care. (Medicare would still have to exist for those currently in the system -- particularly those who, whether due to old age or physical disability -- are simply unable to help themselves; but with the financing of it having been delinked from wage taxes, this would be nowhere near the economic burden it is now.)

Unfortunately, there’s much more public support at present for instituting single-payer than there is for implementing the aforementioned economic reforms (largely because there’s so little awareness of those reforms), just as there’s much more support for the Tobin tax than for the Single Tax (and for the same reason). Thus, in view of how badly overprivileged health insurance companies and Big Pharma are fleecing the American people (health care bills being the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.), I see single-payer as, if nothing else, a far lesser evil than the corporate fascist system we have now -- particularly if it’s financed with the national Tobin tax advocated by Webster Tarpley and others.

So if single-payer health insurance and the Tobin tax are the only reachable goals at present -- which appears to be the case -- then I think it would be extremely unwise not to take advantage of any opportunity that comes along to implement those two reforms as one package and thereby loosen the stranglehold that Wall St. speculators, private health insurers and Big Pharma currently have over our entire economy. Would that solve all of our country’s economic problems? Of course not. But by shifting the balance of power at least somewhat away from ruling-class oligarchs, would you at least agree that it would be a significant step in the right direction?

It's a great theory -- "Congress pays, you choose" -- but when has government ever paid for anything and left you free to choose?

Again, I never said single-payer was perfect, but you don’t have to be an unconditional supporter of that system to recognize how much better off tens of millions of people would be under it than under the institutionalized extortion we have now. It’s important to bear in mind we’re in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. If, in that context, we continue to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, then we are, for all practical purposes, cutting off our collective nose to spite our face.

Single-payer would be accompanied with all the govt. dictates and restrictions we have today, possibly even more.

If we implemented the system they have in Britain, yes, but not necessarily if we implemented the one they have in Canada. Socialized medicine and single-payer health insurance are not the same thing. The latter would essentially be Medicare for all, and while Medicare is certainly not without its flaws, it’s still a much more humane and -- believe it or not -- less costly system than one in which insurance tycoons and glorified druglords are simply allowed to price-gouge everyone to death (in many cases literally).

If you want to have a public health system, you'd better keep it super-local.

If we attempt to do this without first implementing the tax and monetary reforms that are urgently needed for towns and communities to become prosperous enough, and hence financially independent enough, to finance such a system, we’ll discover the hard way that we’re merely putting the cart before the horse. Thus, until those reforms are implemented, I’ll be inclined to support (as a transition measure) any reform that moves us away from the corporate fascist system that continually forces millions of people to choose between (a) being fleeced of their life savings and eventually driven into bankruptcy, and (b) going without the health care they desperately need, and consequently dying of sickness or injury.

Hopefully that clarifies what I meant when I said was “open” to single-payer.

If you have any additional comments to make with regard to this issue, please post them in either of the following two threads:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=122929.0
       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=52952.0

[Geolibertarian]

you could create your own job if there wasnt so much regulation

And if so much well-situated land wasn't being held out of use by land speculators.

[TahoeBlue]

Re: Study: Most Americans Want Wealth Distribution Similar to Sweden

Bilderberger - Wallenberg, Jacob (Chairman, Investor AB) (owns 40 percent of Sweden),

*SWE Wallenberg, Jacob (Chairman, Investor AB)
SWE Wallenberg, Marcus

http://www.whartonzurich07.com/bio-s-wallenberg2.html
Biography of Jacob Wallenberg, W’80, WG’81
14 October 2006 The Economist

They have had their ups and downs, but kept the family firm together for 150 years. Now the Wallenbergs once again consider reinventing their business.

“THEY are a bit like royalty,” says Peter Thelin, a manager at Brummer & Partners, a Swedish hedge fund. He is describing the Wallenbergs, whose business counts as his most aristocratic investment. The Wallenbergs have been around a long time—even longer than the Bernadottes, the royal family who came to Sweden in the early 19th century when one of Napoleon's marshals was adopted as heir by an ageing Swedish king. But it was under the House of Bernadotte that the Wallenbergs rose to prominence and now run one of the world's most successful family firms.

By the late 1990s the Wallenbergs controlled some 40% of the value of the companies listed on the Swedish stock exchange.

Their interests range from Ericsson, a leading telecoms firm, to Astra Zeneca, a pharmaceuticals company now listed in London, Electrolux, a white-goods manufacturer, and ABB, a global engineering giant. After Volkswagen, the family is also the second-biggest shareholder in Sweden's Scania, for which Germany's MAN, a rival truckmaker, has made a euro9.6 billion ($12 billion) hostile bid. There is little that happens in Swedish business that does not involve the Wallenbergs.

What is the secret of their success? The family employs professional managers and has not been afraid to change. Some believe their next reincarnation could be as a private company. Despite denials that this strategy has been discussed, the Wallenbergs have the resources to buy back the shares of Investor, their main company. Moreover, they are making more private-equity investments.

Another generation

Moving with the times has helped the Wallenbergs before and could do so again. Few family businesses manage to survive beyond the third generation. A failure to develop the founder's business, together with disputes over dividing up the spoils, usually does in most family firms. Not the Wallenbergs, where the fifth generation hopes to hand over to the sixth.

The family quickly points to one factor that helps hold their enterprise together: “No one owns it, which means that we cannot consume it though we can certainly destroy it,” says Jacob Wallenberg, chairman of Investor. Most of the family's wealth is tied up in the Wallenberg foundations, which have combined assets of some SKr45 billion ($6.2 billion). These non-profit organisations provide grants of about SKr1 billion a year to science, research and the arts in Sweden. The foundations control 46% of votes at Investor and hold 22% of its capital, as well as owning big chunks of SAS, the main Scandinavian airline, Stora Enso, a huge paper company, and SKF, a maker of bearings.

The first and biggest of these foundations was set up in 1917 by childless Knut Wallenberg as a tax-saving way to keep the family wealth together. “Our first responsibility”, says Jacob Wallenberg, “is to return capital to the researchers of this nation.” Nor has the family confined itself to business. It has given Sweden a foreign minister, a Davis Cup player and Raoul Wallenberg, a hero of the second world war who rescued Hungarian Jews.

This year is the 150th anniversary of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB), one of the Nordic region's biggest banks. It was founded by André Wallenberg and marks the start of the empire. Investor was set up 90 years ago for SEB's equity holdings in response to a law restricting banks' ownership of shares. Marcus Wallenberg (pictured on the left with his first cousin Jacob), is chairman of SEB. Both turn 50 this year.

Each generation of the Wallenbergs has done something to reinvent the family business. André Wallenberg was the financier of Sweden's industrialisation. Knut and his brother steered the family firm through the 1920s, when Sweden was badly hit by a global recession. Marcus Wallenberg, the tennis champion and grandfather of the present Marcus, ran the shop like an old-time industrialist—an apt strategy when post-war Europe was being resurrected. Peter Wallenberg, Jacob's father, became Investor's chairman in the 1980s and transformed it into a diversified investment company.

The present Marcus Wallenberg is driving the latest modernisation. He believes that the internet is for him the equivalent of the bet his grandfather placed on aviation. Marcus senior invested in Saab after the company was created in 1937. By 1946, he had sold out of railways altogether to concentrate on planes.

Marcus junior invested in Spray Networks, a Swedish internet portal, but this was a disaster. He also co-financed Bredbandsbolaget (B2), a provider of broadband and phone services. This too seemed to have failed, but Investor continued to back the company and last year it sold B2 to Telenor, a Norwegian media group, for a healthy profit.

Yet the outcome of Marcus Wallenberg's boldest technology investment is still uncertain. In 2000 he agreed to build 3 Scandinavia, a provider of third-generation mobile-phone services, in a joint venture with Hong Kong's Hutchison Whampoa. It is still leaking money, because subscribers are not switching to its services as fast as expected. The Wallenbergs agreed to fund 3 Scandinavia until 2008, when it is expected to break even. By then they will have paid between SKr8 billion and SKr10 billion for their 40% stake. If the firm is still in the red, will they let it go?

Loyal to a fault

The family takes pride in sticking to its companies through thick and thin, but says it will not hesitate to sell when prospects seem permanently dim. When Marcus senior switched from trains to planes, he wrote in a letter to his brother that this meant “a shift from the past to the future, which has been the family motto in previous generations, and is the only tradition worth keeping”. These values have not changed, says the younger Marcus. In the 1930s, Investor sold its coal and coke business because other forms of energy were being more widely used. And in the 1980s the Wallenbergs lost confidence in basic chemicals and got out of Kema Nobel.

Even so, loyalty and belief in the long term remain pillars of the Wallenberg way of doing business. Firms in the family sphere benefit from a network of carefully fostered contacts. Their bosses swap experiences and help each other search for talented executives. In return, the companies reward the Wallenbergs with multiple-voting shares and board seats. No important appointment is made without them. But this has its detractors and some suspect that the Wallenbergs concentrate more on preserving their powerful network than on the interests of Investor's 130,000 other shareholders.

“People say the Wallenbergs are only kingmakers,” fumes Jacob Wallenberg in response. They are not, he insists, and take part in all important decisions on company strategy. Moreover, the family intends to become more actively involved, even though its stakes in some companies are likely to get smaller as a result of mergers among global operators.

Today Investor has the biggest, or one of the biggest, shareholdings in ten blue-chip companies (see chart). But if Investor is to continue to thrive, it needs to do something about its investment discount. The company trades on average at some 25% less than the combined market value of its holdings, minus their share of debt. The firm's current market value is SKr119 billion. Although the discount is lower than it has been it is still “the biggest weakness of the Wallenberg empire,” says Mr Thelin, the hedge-fund manager. The discount restricts the ability to issue new equity to pay for big acquisitions.

The reason for the discount is the use of dual-class shares. Raffi Amit, who specialises in family firms at the Wharton business school, says that although dual-class shares give families more control, they tend to diminish the value of a corporation because other shareholders suspect the controlling family will grab special benefits for themselves or initiate strategic moves that help their business interests, but not those of other investors.

Perhaps the Wallenbergs should end their multiple-voting shares, especially as they are regularly under fire from Anglo-Saxon investors. But Sweden has long resisted this because some two-thirds of its listed companies have them and it helps keep firms under Swedish ownership in an open economy. Eight of Investor's core investments contain high-voting stock. Only the Anglo-Swedish AstraZeneca and the Swiss-Swedish ABB have converted to one vote per share. At Ericsson, the 1,000-fold voting rights of the Wallenbergs' A shares were reduced in 2004 to ten times the voting rights of B shares.

Jacob Wallenberg is a combative defender of multiple-voting shares. In his opinion, the Wallenbergs deserve their special rights because of their role in the foundation and development of the companies they have put their money into. Dual-class shares promote corporate Sweden's tradition of strong and involved ownership, says Rolf Carlsson, a management consultant. He thinks the system may survive at firms where Swedish ownership is considered important.

The actions of the Wallenbergs' managers have helped to reduce the discount. So far, SEB is thriving under its newish chief executive, Annika Falkengren. Börje Ekholm took over as chief executive of Investor in September last year after running Investor Growth Capital, the venture-capital arm in New York. Compared with the patrician Wallenbergs, Mr Ekholm cuts a bolder, more hands-on figure. He has certainly been busy making changes.

In May he joined forces with EQT, a Swedish private-equity company, to buy out Gambro, a Swedish medical-technology company. In June he pushed for the spin-off of Husqvarna, a maker of chainsaws and other outdoor equipment, from Electrolux. And in August he sold Investor's stake in WM-Data Nordic, an information-technology consultancy. The deals continue. Apart from the unresolved Scania bid, Atlas Copco recently agreed to sell most of its construction-equipment rental business, also to private-equity investors, for $3.8 billion.

Mr Ekholm intends to look at riskier, but more lucrative, unlisted investments, which now make up 16% of Investor's net asset value. Investor has become a big investor in private equity through its part-ownership of EQT and Investor Capital Partners, a subsidiary based in Hong Kong. Through Investor Growth Capital it finances fledgling companies in health care and technology in America. And it is the owner of other unlisted firms, such as Novare, a head hunter, and Stockholm's Grand Hotel. The advantage of these assets, says Mr Ekholm, is that “our work with them only benefits our investors”.

What to buy?

Investor is sitting on a pile of cash and is nearly debt-free. Stockholm's financial circle hums with speculation about what Mr Ekholm might do with this money. He could make a big acquisition or buy back shares. Mr Ekholm says he will look for takeover targets in financial services, technology, health care and engineering. But neither does he rule out a share buy-back.

Could he take all of Investor private and transform it into a gigantic private-equity firm? Simon Blecher, of HQ Fonder, an investment fund, calculates that the company could mobilise some SKr25 billion immediately and release another SKr40 billion in the short term, which could go a long way towards a buyout. Investor could then re-list some of its private-equity funds. This has worked for Ratos, a middle-sized Swedish investment firm, which used to trade at a big discount. Ratos now trades at a premium. Mr Ekholm, though, denies that the Wallenbergs have ever discussed taking Investor private.

The next generation, however, is waiting in the wings. The Wallenberg cousins have 11 children between them. “Of course it would be wonderful if they were interested,” says Jacob Wallenberg. It is what the family expects. But if the sixth generation takes up the reins it will have its own ideas about the future of the family firm.

[Geolibertarian]

Re: Study: Most Americans Want Wealth Distribution Similar to Sweden

Bilderberger - Wallenberg, Jacob (Chairman, Investor AB) (owns 40 percent of Sweden),

It's ridiculous I even need to say this, particularly in view of how specific I've been in terms of the reform measures I advocate, but I'll say it anyway: I never even implied I supported Sweden's economic policies. My only point was that, as flawed as their system is, the corporate fascist system we have here is even worse (thus making their system preferable by default in the eyes of most people), because our system has given rise to the very sort of extreme wealth and income disparities that have, throughout history, triggered the disastrous collapse of countless nations and societies.

Since we cannot ignore these enormous and ever-worsening disparities without doing so at our own peril, it only makes sense to recognize the common ground most people have in terms of their desire for a system in which wealth and income are not so ridiculously concentrated in so few hands (relatively speaking), and to use that common ground as a means of uniting people behind an agreed-upon policy agenda.

Is that so unreasonable?

[TahoeBlue]

... our system has given rise to the very sort of extreme wealth and income disparities that have, throughout history, triggered the disastrous collapse of countless nations and societies.

I completeley agree.  Once they corrupt the true concepts of "Rule of Law" and "Property Rights" , and force US to accept that THEY acquired these properties by monopoly and fraud!, we are lost... Where is the Common good? What is the Common Wealth?

Of course I agree with you. How to set things right is the question.

[Geolibertarian]

How to set things right is the question.

Agreed.

My answer to that question, of course, is to institute a Greenback money system, a Georgist tax system, and the other key reforms listed on page one of this thread.

Unfortunately, because I support those reforms so passionately, I'm unable to feel truly "at home" in any political party. So it seems I'm destined to spend the rest of my life politically homeless.

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/about-1-in-7-in-u-s-receive-food-stamps.html

About 1 in 7 in U.S. Receive Food Stamps

Sara Murray
WSJ
Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Growth in the food stamp program appeared to reach a plateau in February — with 14.3% of the population relying on the safety net program.

The number of food stamp recipients was essentially flat in February, the most recent month available, with 44.2 million Americans receiving benefits, according a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (See a sortable breakdown of the data here.)

The food stamp program ballooned during the recession as workers lost their jobs or saw their hours and income reduced. The rise in recipients has begun to flatten in recent months, which may mean that as the economy is improving fewer Americans are seeking to join the program. Enrollment in the program is still high though, with 11.6% more people tapping benefits in February than the same month a year earlier.

Food stamp numbers aren’t seasonally adjusted though, meaning a variety of factors could influence the monthly tallies and the program could grow again in coming months.

Full story here.

------------------------------

Something to keep in mind as you read the following:

-- "The budget [by Senator Rand Paul] provides two years of war funding, at the President’s requested levels."

-- "The food stamp program and the child nutrition program" (cut)

-- "The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (eliminate)

-- "Affordable Housing Program" (eliminate)

Source: http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-jobless-claims-hit-eight-month-high.html

US Jobless Claims Hit Eight Month High

Reuters
Thursday, May 5, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The number of Americans filing for jobless aid rose to an eight-month high last week and productivity growth slowed in the first quarter, clouding the outlook for an economy that is struggling to gain speed.

While the surprise jump in initial claims for unemployment benefits was blamed on factors ranging from spring break layoffs to the introduction of an emergency benefits program, economists said it corroborated reports this week indicating a loss of momentum in job creation.

New claims for state jobless benefits rose 43,000 to 474,000, the highest since mid-August, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Economists had expected claims to fall.

One factor that likely helped push claims up and that could prove lingering were auto layoffs brought about by supply disruptions from Japan’s earthquake and tsunami.

Full story here.

[TahoeBlue]

It was interesting that on Monday 5/2 , the explanation for the dow drop was a bad jobs report. Now they have different stories...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126763568

NEW YORK May 5, 2011, 04:15 pm ET
A free-fall in commodities and an unexpected jump in unemployment claims put financial markets on edge, dragging the stock market lower.

Stock indexes fell as concerns grew that Friday's jobs report may be worse than originally thought.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 139 points, or 1.1 percent, to 12,584. The S&P 500 dropped 12, or 0.9 percent, to 1,335. The Nasdaq composite fell 14, or 0.5 percent, to 2,815.

Oh deja vu from May 7 2010:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575227754131412596.html

MAY 7, 2010 MARKET TUMULT: FROM A SLIGHT GAIN, TO DOWN 998.50 POINTS, TO DOWN 347.80
Dow Takes a Harrowing 1,010.14-Point Trip Biggest Point Fall, Before a Snapback; Glitch Makes Things Worse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42913692/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Stocks tumble after unexpected jump in weekly jobless claims
First-time claims for unemployment aid rise to their highest level in eight months
28 minutes

 NEW YORK — Renewed worries about the health of the job market weighed on stocks Thursday after the government reported an unexpected jump in unemployment claims. Commodities also fell on concerns that higher prices would reduce demand from cash-strapped consumers.

The Labor Department said that first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose to 474,000 last week, the highest level in eight months. Forecasters didn't see it coming. Economists had expected claims would drop to 410,000.
...
 A barrel of crude oil plunged nearly 9 percent to settle below $100.

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-unemployment-rises-to-9-per-cent.html

US Unemployment Rises To 9 Per Cent

Dan Arnall
ABC News
Friday, May 6, 2011

The nation’s unemployment rate – the result of a separate but simultaneously released survey of households instead of businesses – showed an uptick to 9.0 percent.

That “rate” translates into some 13.7 million Americans wanted to work last month but were unable to find any. That kind of move is statistically significant, and is likely the result of people who were discouraged (didn’t believe there was work available so they didn’t even look) coming back into the mix for a job.

Economists had been predicting a steady state of the unemployment rate at last month’s 8.8 percent, but because the move can likely be attributed to people coming back into the labor force after dropping out, it’s likely a good thing. Several are saying this move is an expected part of the “healing” of the jobs market.

Full story here.

[Geolibertarian]

Dan Arnall
ABC News
Friday, May 6, 2011

The nation’s unemployment rate – the result of a separate but simultaneously released survey of households instead of businesses – showed an uptick to 9.0 percent.

Here's the unemployment rate the corporate "news" media never tell us about:

     

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ceos-at-the-nations-largest-companies-were-paid-better-last-year-than-they-were-in-2007-when-unemployment-was-roughly-half-what-it-is-today.html

“CEOs at the Nation’s Largest Companies Were Paid Better Last Year Than They Were In 2007, When … Unemployment Was Roughly Half What It Is Today”

Washington’s Blog
May 7, 2011

CNN Money points out:

Just 22% believe the country is on the right track, Rasmussen tells us. According to a new Gallup poll, more than half of us say the economy is in recession or depression, despite the fact that output has been expanding since the summer of 2009. In fact, more of us (29%) say the country is in a depression than say the economy is growing (27%).

There’s a good reason for this: As inflation surges at the store and the gas pump, the economy is stalling. And the heart of the problem could very well be the Federal Reserve’s $600 billion “QE2″ money-printing initiative, which was implemented last November to great fanfare on Wall Street and is set to end in June.

***

Yes, the stock market has posted impressive gains since the idea of QE2 surfaced….

But stock ownership is concentrated among the wealthy: On average, just 12% of households worth $100,000 or less own stocks and mutual fund shares outside their retirement plans — a group that comprises 74% of the total population. While many more own shares through 401ks and IRAs, they’re not in a position to easily tap that wealth for current spending.

At the same time, QE2 has pushed up borrowing costs, pressing down the prices of homes — a much more widely held asset. The Case-Shiller Home Price Index started falling last summer as the idea of QE2 was floated, and it hasn’t stopped since. The broad 20-city index now sits below 2009 levels.

This is a continuation of trends that have been in place since the recession ended in 2009. According to Credit Suisse equity strategist Douglas Cliggott, it suggests the improvement in net worth during the past two and half years “has been heavily skewed towards that relatively small part of the U.S. population that has significant equity holdings.”

While the program has helped push up the cost of living for all of us — sending inflation into the red zone and damaging consumer confidence — evidence suggests its benefits have accrued only to the top tier of the net-worth ladder.

In other words, the Fed’s “stimulus” has made the rich richer, with limited impact in terms of new spending. It’s made the vast majority of people poorer, and less able to spend. It’s this tradeoff that threatens to snuff out the feeble, three-year-old economic recovery.

And salaries have only gone up for the very top. AP notes:

[Continued...]

[freedom_commonsense]

When most of the job vacancies advertised in your area are to work to for big brother government agencies, you know it's bad...

[EvadingGrid]

When most of the job vacancies advertised in your area are to work to for big brother government agencies, you know it's bad...

Its bad . . .. . . 

[freedom_commonsense]

Its bad . . .. . . 

We could use some of the Japanese management culture here...

[EvadingGrid]

We could use some of the Japanese management culture here...

We could do with Freedom and Common Sense !
 

[freedom_commonsense]

We could do with Freedom and Common Sense !
 

That too. With the economic reforms Geolibertarian put forward, there'd be competition for labour more than for jobs, improving wages\conditions drastically. Not to mention the impact on rent-seeking.

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/if-you-are-unemployed-should-you-move-somewhere-else-in-order-to-find-a-job.html

If You Are Unemployed, Should You Move Somewhere Else In Order To Find A Job?

The Economic Collapse
May 9, 2011

It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Unfortunately, millions of Americans find themselves slowly going insane as they apply for hundreds upon hundreds of jobs and yet never get hired. It is incredibly difficult to get a good job in most areas of the United States today. So if you are unemployed, and there are no jobs in your area, should you move somewhere else in an attempt to find work? That is a very hard question. Of course if what you are currently doing right now is not working it is only natural to want to change course, but sadly unemployment is absolutely rampant all over the United States. Today, the “official” unemployment rate is hovering around 9 percent, but the true employment picture is much bleaker than that. There are millions and millions of unemployed Americans that are so discouraged and have given up looking for a job for so long that the U.S. government does not even consider them “part of the labor force” any longer. If they were included in the “official” figure, the true unemployment rate would be well into double figures. In addition, there are millions upon millions of Americans that are working part-time jobs or very low paying jobs because that is all they can get. Those millions of “underemployed” Americans would jump at the chance to get a “good job” if that opportunity was available. Low income jobs now make up 41% of all the jobs in the United States. So there are a lot of people that have a job that really wish that they were making a lot more money. Because of the lack of good jobs, millions of American families have been pushed to the edge of economic desperation and millions of American families are drowning in debt. So what do you do if there are no good jobs in your area? Do you sit tight or do move to a new location hoping for something better?

On the negative side, it can be extremely expensive to move. Not only will you have moving expenses, but you will also have to find a new place to live, set up new utilities, change your insurance policies, register your vehicles in a new area, etc. etc.

Moving somewhere new almost always costs more money than you think that it will.

Then, once you get to a new location, often you don’t have the same “connections” that you did in the place where you used to live.

And in today’s economy, having “connections” is one of the only ways that you can get a good job.

[Continued...]

[freedom_commonsense]

It costs a large amount of money to move, and if any of the unemployed people are like me they'll have no savings left.

If you're a renter, you also have to deal with landlords' prejudice against the unemployed.

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/20-facts-about-child-hunger-and-child-poverty-that-will-break-your-heart.html

20 Facts About Child Hunger And Child Poverty That Will Break Your Heart

The Economic Collapse
May 12, 2011

Did you know that nearly half of the 44 million Americans that are on food stamps today are children?  Did you know that more than a fifth of all U.S. children are living in poverty and that a fourth of all U.S. children are enrolled in the food stamp program?  Did you know that most of the people that starve to death around the globe are children?  In 2011, child hunger and child poverty are major problems in the United States and they are at epidemic levels in many areas of the world.  The facts that are you are about to read are tough to stomach and they are meant to break your heart.  Most of us need to be touched on an emotional level before we will take action.  As I have written about previously, the world is on the verge of a horrific global food crisis.  Unless a miracle happens, there is not going to be nearly enough food for everyone in the world in the future.  We all need to prepare so that we will be able to feed our own families when that time comes and so that we will be able to be generous and share with others in need.
 
The food stamp program is the modern equivalent of the old-fashioned bread lines.  Today, the number of Americans on food stamps is absolutely exploding.  Despite claims that the economy is “recovering”, the number of Americans relying on food assistance just continues to increase.
 
Many food retailers have seen food stamp usage soar to unprecedented levels.  Just check out the following quote from a recent article posted on the website of a local Pennsylvania news station….

“The trend started about three years ago and it has increased significantly we have some stores up 40% from last year,” said Scott Karns owner of seven Karns Supermarkets in central PA.

Sadly, a disproportionate number of those on food stamps are children.  Even as you read this article, there are millions of children in the United States that are wondering where their next meal is going to come from.
 
The following are 20 facts about child hunger and child poverty that will break your heart….

[Continued...]

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/america-is-rapidly-bleeding-wealth-and-jobs-28-statistics-about-the-gutting-of-the-u-s-economy-that-will-blow-your-mind.html

28 Statistics About The Gutting Of The U.S. Economy That Will Blow Your Mind

The American Dream
May 12, 2011
 
Red alert! Over 40 billion dollars of America’s national wealth is being shipped out of the country every single month.  Our economy is being gutted and we are bleeding wealth and we are bleeding jobs.  This is a distress call.  Is anyone listening?  Thousands of our factories and millions of our jobs are being shipped overseas.  Over the past decade over 6 trillion dollars have been transferred into the hands of foreigners.  Our national government is so broke that they constantly have to go and beg those foreigners to lend us back some of that money in order to finance our exploding debt. The number of good jobs continues to decline and there are millions upon millions of my countrymen that are unemployed.  Can anybody help us? Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!
 
Sadly, the vast majority of Americans really are dead asleep on this issue.  They just continue to run out to the big retail stores and fill their carts with products made in China and yet they seem completely bewildered by the fact that the number of good jobs continues to decline.
 
Over the past decade, the number of middle class jobs has fallen by about ten percent.  There is a reason for this.  America is becoming poorer.  The economic pie is shrinking.  When we ship 40 to 50 billion dollars into the hands of foreigners every single month, that means that there is a lot less wealth for all of us to divide up.
 
Every single month, the U.S. ships in massive amounts of foreign oil and massive amounts of cheap plastic trinkets from places such as China which we greedily consume.  In return, we send them a giant pile of money.
 
This happens month after month after month.  You see, we always need more of their oil and more of their plastic trinkets.  They are more than happy to keep getting richer and richer.
 
Meanwhile, thousands of our factories and millions of our jobs continue to be sent overseas where labor is far cheaper.  Thanks to globalization, American workers much now directly compete for jobs with workers that are willing to work for less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the globe.
 
The dismantling of our economy is happening right in front of our eyes and most of our politicians are not doing a thing to stop it.

The following are 28 statistics about the gutting of the U.S. economy that will blow your mind….

[Continued...]

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/50-things-every-american-should-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-economy.html

50 Things Every American Should Know About The Collapse Of The Economy

Economic Collapse Blog
Saturday, May 14, 2011

Right now, we are witnessing a truly historic collapse of the economy, and yet most Americans do not understand what is going on.  One of the biggest reasons why the American people do not understand what is happening to the economy is because our politicians and the mainstream media are not telling the truth.  Barack Obama and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke keep repeating the phrase “economic recovery” over and over, and this is really confusing for most Americans because things sure don’t seem to be getting much better where they live.  There are millions upon millions of Americans that are sitting at home on their couches right now wondering why they lost their jobs and why nobody will hire them.  Millions of others are wondering why the only jobs they can get are jobs that a high school student could do.  Families all across America are wondering why it seems like their wages never go up but the price of food and the price of gas continue to skyrocket.  We are facing some very serious long-term economic problems in this country, and we need to educate the American people about why the collapse of the economy is happening.  If the American people don’t understand why they are losing their jobs, why they are losing their homes and why they are drowning in debt then they are going to keep on doing all of the same things that they have been doing.  They will also keep sending the same idiot politicians back to Washington to represent us.  There are some fundamental things about the economy that every American should know.  The American people need to be shocked out of their entertainment-induced stupor long enough to understand what is really going on and what needs to be done to solve our nightmarish economic problems.  If we do not wake up enough Americans in time, the economic collapse that is coming could tear this nation to shreds.

The U.S. economy was once the greatest economic machine in modern world history.  It was truly a wonder to behold.  It worked so well that entire generations of Americans came to believe that America would enjoy boundless prosperity indefinitely.

But sadly, prosperity is not guaranteed for any nation.  Over the past several decades, some very alarming long-term economic trends have developed that are absolutely destroying the economy.  If dramatic changes are not made soon, a complete and total economic collapse will be unavoidable.

Unfortunately, the American people will never agree to fundamental changes to our economic and financial systems unless they are fully educated about what is causing our problems.  We have turned our backs on the principles of our forefathers and the principles of those that founded this nation.  We have rejected the ancient wisdom that was handed down to us.

It has been said that those that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind.

We are about to experience the consequences of decades of really bad decisions.

Hopefully we can get the American people to wake up.

The following are 50 things that every American should know about the collapse of the economy….

[Continued...]

[lamourlady]

#7 Credit card usage in the United States is on the increase once again.  During the month of March, revolving consumer credit jumped 2.9%.  Sadly, it looks like Americans have not learned their lessons about the dangers of credit card debt.

I can't agree with this knock against the American people not 'learning their lessons', I truly believe that it has become a last resort to being able to survive.  At this point, no one really cares about their credit report and if they come for their money, most people just don't have anything for them to take.  Is it reasonable?  Of course not, but as Celente states,  “When people lose everything, they have nothing to lose and they lose it."

It's almost to the point of the fox who would gnaw off his own foot to release himself from a trap.

[Geolibertarian]

I can't agree with this knock against the American people not 'learning their lessons', I truly believe that it has become a last resort to being able to survive.

No argument from me on that point. In fact, if you read through this entire thread you'll see that I myself have taken issue with some of the ideological assertions which the author of that blog has made (see this, this and this).

[lamourlady]

No argument from me on that point. In fact, if you read through this entire thread you'll see that I myself have taken issue with some of the ideological assertions which the author of that blog has made (see this, this and this).

“Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt.”

As I've explained both here and elsewhere, none of the so-called "money" that these bankers have "loaned" to us ever really existed in the first place. It is therefore the height of absurdity to insist that we should sacrifice our living standards in order to "pay back" all of this fraudulent debt, all so that elite bankers can continue to live in the lap of luxury.

Beware of anyone who attempts to convince you otherwise. And that includes Austrian School propagandists, who love to euphemistically characterize the banker-engineered collapse in living standards as a mere case of "market forces" imposing a just and necessary "correction" on the economy (even though in reality it's an obvious case of ruling-class parasites engaging in a patently unjust and totally unnecessary looting of the economy).

Duly noted.  I have to agree with you. 

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/end-of-the-service-economy-european-mcdonald%e2%80%99s-partially-replacing-employees-with-touchscreen-terminals.html

End of the “Service Economy”? European McDonald’s Partially Replacing Employees with Touchscreen Terminals

Louise Lucas
Financial Times
Monday, May 16, 2011

McDonald’s is to change the way customers order its meals in Europe, partly replacing cashiers and the use of banknotes at its 7,000 fast-food restaurants in the region with touchscreen terminals and swipe cards.

Mr Easterbrook said that the changes would make life easier for consumers as well as improve efficiency, with average transactions three to four seconds shorter for each customer. McDonald’s European stores serve 2m customers a day.

Diners at the 1,200 McDonald’s outlets in the UK will shortly be able to pay by simply swiping a Visa debit card, just as London’s commuters can swipe their Oyster cards at train stations.

Full story here.

[freedom_commonsense]

Already happened with supermarket self-service checkouts.

Of course that won't stop comments like this about welfare:

Making the payments conditional has been shown to work quite well in Latin America. In Brazil, under a scheme called "Bolsa Familia" poor mothers receive extra money for making sure that their babies have vaccinations, that their kids attend school etc.

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/20-questions-to-ask-anyone-foolish-enough-to-believe-the-economic-crisis-is-over.html

20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over

The Economic Collapse
May 26, 2011

If you listen to Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama and the mainstream media long enough, and if you didn’t know any better, you might be tempted to think that the economic crisis is long gone and that we are in the midst of a burgeoning economic recovery.  Unfortunately, the truth is that the economic crisis is far from over.  In 2010, more homes were repossessed than ever before, more Americans were on food stamps than ever before and a smaller percentage of American men had jobs than ever before.  The reality is that the United States is an economic basket case and all of these natural disasters certainly are not helping things.  The Federal Reserve has been printing gigantic piles of money and the U.S. government has been borrowing and spending cash at a dizzying pace in an all-out effort to stabilize things.  They have succeeded for the moment, but our long-term economic problems are worse then ever.  We are still in the middle of a full-blown economic crisis and things are about to get even worse.

If you know someone that is foolish enough to believe that the economic crisis is over and that our economic problems are behind us, just ask that person the following questions….

[Continued...]

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-is-the-economy-so-bad.html

Why Is The Economy So Bad?

The American Dream
May 28, 2011

Millions of Americans have lost their homes, tens of millions of Americans can’t find a decent job and 44 million Americans are on food stamps.  This is causing an increasing number of Americans to ask this question: “Why is the economy so bad?”  There are some Americans that are old enough to remember the Great Depression, but the vast majority of us have never known hard times.  All our lives we were told that America was the greatest economy on the planet and that we would always experience endless prosperity in this nation.  That was easy to believe because even though we had a recession once in a while, things always bounced back and got even better than ever.  But now something seems different.  The current economic downturn began back in 2007 and yet here we are in 2011 and there seems to be no end in sight for this economic crisis.  So what in the world is going on?  Can anyone explain why the economy is so bad?

The following are some of the kinds of questions that the American people are asking about the economy these days….

[Continued...]

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/one-percent-holds-39-percent-of-global-wealth.html

One percent holds 39 percent of global wealth

AFP
June 1, 2011

WASHINGTON — Around one percent of households have 39 percent of the globe’s wealth according to a study published Tuesday, pointing to increased inequalities in the wake of the global downturn.

The number of millionaire households across the globe increased 12 percent in 2010, according to The Boston Consulting Group report, increasing millionaires’ share of wealth from 37 percent in 2009.

Despite being at the epicenter of the global financial meltdown, the United States had by far the most millionaires last year, with 5,220 millionaire households, and increase of 1.3 percent from the previous year.

Japan was second with 1,530 and China third with 1,110.

Full article here

[TahoeBlue]

Listen to this while you read the article: Elvis Costello - The People's Limousine

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/05/31/4765/limousine-liberals-number-government-owned-limos-has-soared-under-obama
Limousine liberals? Number of government-owned limos has soared under Obama
...
According to General Services Administration data , the number of limousines in the federal fleet increased from 238 in fiscal 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 412 in 2010. Much of the 73 percent increase—111 of the 174 additional limos—took place in fiscal 2009, more than eight months of which corresponded with Obama’s first year in office.
...
The State Department, with 259, had more limos than any other agency in 2010 and has gained 194 limos just since fiscal 2008. Of those new limos, 98 were defined as “law enforcement,” which the GSA said means they are equipped with sirens or lights, high-performance drivetrains, or are used for surveillance or undercover operations.  
...
The department said it defines a limo as a vehicle that carries a VIP or “other protectee,” rather than by the type of car, but said most of its limos are Cadillac DTSs, which cost the taxpayer more than $60,000 for a 2011 base model and support the additional weight of armoring. The department said it also purchased a limited number of 7-Series BMWs for ambassadors in countries where vehicles are right-hand drive.
...
According to a March report by the GAO, the federal government spent $1.9 billion on new vehicles in fiscal 2009, and burned through 963,000 gallons of fuel  a day with its fleet of 600,000 vehicles.