Extending Unemployment Benefits

[saveliberty]

a widget is a hypothetical product.

city slicker that i am, i wouldn't know a longhorn's temperament from from a yellow widget.

my point is that in a chicken and egg scenario between demand and supply, the demand lays the supply every time. business people rise out of the ranks of everyone else at the recognition of potential demand for something, and the wealth realized from that comes from the demand - the ranks of everyone else. its not even worth calling wealth at a rate of 25k a year, but as the individually inane consumer activity trickles upward, fewer and fewer people in the favor of business owners get their hands on the proceeds. the owner himself has .1% of 500,000 $20,000 incomes at the end of the quarter...

This may come as a shock, but I'm no economist, however I think the free market economy is the best, that's what built this country and it's what we need to sick with.

There is no such thing as a "free market economy" today. We've had a MONOPOLISTIC economy for over 100 years. You need to get up to speed!

Monopolistic for over the last 100 years? Since there are more than one company in most industries, I can only conclude that you think the government owns everything.

 

[edthecynic]

This may come as a shock, but I'm no economist, however I think the free market economy is the best, that's what built this country and it's what we need to sick with.

There is no such thing as a "free market economy" today. We've had a MONOPOLISTIC economy for over 100 years. You need to get up to speed!

Monopolistic for over the last 100 years? Since there are more than one company in most industries, I can only conclude that you think the government owns everything.

Again the ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is on full display!

The number of companies in each industry is completely meaningless. It's who CONTROLS the companies in each industry.

For example, there are many oil companies but the Rockefeller family controls the majority of the major oil companies, thus the Rockefeller family controls the oil monopoly, as they have for 100 years.

 

[cad]

There is no such thing as a "free market economy" today. We've had a MONOPOLISTIC economy for over 100 years. You need to get up to speed!

Monopolistic for over the last 100 years? Since there are more than one company in most industries, I can only conclude that you think the government owns everything.

Again the ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is on full display!

The number of companies in each industry is completely meaningless. It's who CONTROLS the companies in each industry.

For example, there are many oil companies but the Rockefeller family controls the majority of the major oil companies, thus the Rockefeller family controls the oil monopoly, as they have for 100 years.

are you saying the rockefeller family today, controls, the majority of oil companies? i'm assuming you mean US oil companies. which ones in particular do they control?

 

[edthecynic]

Monopolistic for over the last 100 years? Since there are more than one company in most industries, I can only conclude that you think the government owns everything.

Again the ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is on full display!

The number of companies in each industry is completely meaningless. It's who CONTROLS the companies in each industry.

For example, there are many oil companies but the Rockefeller family controls the majority of the major oil companies, thus the Rockefeller family controls the oil monopoly, as they have for 100 years.

are you saying the rockefeller family today, controls, the majority of oil companies? i'm assuming you mean US oil companies. which ones in particular do they control?

EXXON, Mobile, Chevron, Conoco, and Marathon.

 

[cad]

Exxon Mobil - 1 company - "Last week Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president of public affairs, said the Rockefellers own .006 percent of the company's 5.4 billion shares."

give us some information about the ownership stake the rockefellers have in the other companies.

or is this some new world order, trilateralist conspiracy theory?

 

[loosecannon]

Now that the issue of extending unemployment benefits is one which the Republicans have finally decided to definitively oppose, some of USMB's party-aligned pundits have solidly followed suit with criticism of the policy. I have always thought that this is the single most effective method of stimulus which we have employed in a recovery characterized by job losses and deflation. Am I missing something?

Yeah, you are.

There was a stimulus opportunity that far surpassed merely granting unlimited unemployment compensation for folks who are as likely to fall from the labor force as to ever secure employment again.

To have simply provided Fed Reserve financing directly to distressed mortgage holders at the same rate of interest as was offered to TARP banks would have kept millions in their homes, would have arrested the mortgage defaults, mortgage derivatives defaults and arrested the decline in RE prices and sales in one fell swoop.

While costing us next to nothing. Far less that saving the banks, first and exclusively.

Creating a new class of permanent entitlement cases is an effective stimulus if you subscribe to the least meaningful definitions of "stimulus". But it solves absolutely nothing. Trading deficits for GDP directly is a losing bet.

Unless you want to tax income 101%+ in order to generate the means to drive recovery.

So far the options on the table span the spectrum from taxing people 200% of their income to reducing taxes or even eliminating taxes.

Meanwhile the national debt is not amused. By any of this shit!

99 weeks is excessive.
Get a job!

 

[edthecynic]

Exxon Mobil - 1 company - "Last week Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president of public affairs, said the Rockefellers own .006 percent of the company's 5.4 billion shares."

give us some information about the ownership stake the rockefellers have in the other companies.

or is this some new world order, trilateralist conspiracy theory?

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

 

[cad]

Exxon Mobil - 1 company - "Last week Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president of public affairs, said the Rockefellers own .006 percent of the company's 5.4 billion shares."

give us some information about the ownership stake the rockefellers have in the other companies.

or is this some new world order, trilateralist conspiracy theory?

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

this shit is vaguely familiar to an essay someone wrote in 1974 about the rockefellers.

why is that?

it's funny, it listed the companies the rockefellers owned the same way you did,
EXXON, MOBIL, etc..

maybe that's because that paper was written about 15 years before the two companies merged.

interesting...

 

[edthecynic]

Exxon Mobil - 1 company - "Last week Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president of public affairs, said the Rockefellers own .006 percent of the company's 5.4 billion shares."

give us some information about the ownership stake the rockefellers have in the other companies.

or is this some new world order, trilateralist conspiracy theory?

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

this shit is vaguely familiar to an essay someone wrote in 1974 about the rockefellers.

why is that?

it's funny, it listed the companies the rockefellers owned the same way you did,
EXXON, MOBIL, etc..

maybe that's because that paper was written about 15 years before the two companies merged.

interesting...

So how exactly does the fact that I'm so old that Exxon and Mobile were two separate companies for most of my life that I still refer to them that way even though they merged in 1999, change the fact that the Rockefeller family still controls the conglomerate through their banks and charities???

Did the paper you refer to mention how the Rockefeller family and the other monopolists like the DuPont and Mellon families, etc., use charities and banks to control their monopolies? If so, I would like to read it. Could you please link to it? Thanks in advance.

 

[cad]

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

this shit is vaguely familiar to an essay someone wrote in 1974 about the rockefellers.

why is that?

it's funny, it listed the companies the rockefellers owned the same way you did,
EXXON, MOBIL, etc..

maybe that's because that paper was written about 15 years before the two companies merged.

interesting...

So how exactly does the fact that I'm so old that Exxon and Mobile were two separate companies for most of my life that I still refer to them that way even though they merged in 1999, change the fact that the Rockefeller family still controls the conglomerate through their banks and charities???

Did the paper you refer to mention how the Rockefeller family and the other monopolists like the DuPont and Mellon families, etc., use charities and banks to control their monopolies? If so, I would like to read it. Could you please link to it? Thanks in advance.

you're absolutely right, it was just a coincidence. i know it doesn't mean anything and certainly doesn't disprove any of your assertions. i just found it amusing.

so is this the illuminati? skull and bones? new world order? which theory is this? which rockefeller is running the oil industry today?

which other industries do these famililes control? oil, banks, what else? what is their ultimate goal?

 

[antagon]

Now that the issue of extending unemployment benefits is one which the Republicans have finally decided to definitively oppose, some of USMB's party-aligned pundits have solidly followed suit with criticism of the policy. I have always thought that this is the single most effective method of stimulus which we have employed in a recovery characterized by job losses and deflation. Am I missing something?

Yeah, you are.

There was a stimulus opportunity that far surpassed merely granting unlimited unemployment compensation for folks who are as likely to fall from the labor force as to ever secure employment again.

To have simply provided Fed Reserve financing directly to distressed mortgage holders at the same rate of interest as was offered to TARP banks would have kept millions in their homes, would have arrested the mortgage defaults, mortgage derivatives defaults and arrested the decline in RE prices and sales in one fell swoop.

While costing us next to nothing. Far less that saving the banks, first and exclusively.

Creating a new class of permanent entitlement cases is an effective stimulus if you subscribe to the least meaningful definitions of "stimulus". But it solves absolutely nothing. Trading deficits for GDP directly is a losing bet.

Unless you want to tax income 101%+ in order to generate the means to drive recovery.

So far the options on the table span the spectrum from taxing people 200% of their income to reducing taxes or even eliminating taxes.

Meanwhile the national debt is not amused. By any of this shit!

99 weeks is excessive.
Get a job!

i actually disagree regarding the relative effectiveness of unemployment insurance to the idea of mortgage-direct subsidy, and the characterization of UI as a permanent class of entitlement.

the presumption that our government will turn back to tax-based financing in the short term is even more far fetched.

killing the problem at the root seems more effective to me and where that applies to the situation at hand, i feel that the roots of the demand-lull which accounted for a number of defaults in home finance are in unemployment, an interest spike, and poor decision making institutionally and by mortgage holders. if i had to pick two of these to prop up it would be the rates and unemployment. the government jumped to patch up all three, but left the consumer end out of the latter poor decision making issue on which you suggest we ought to focus exclusively.

i think that the home finance market needs to be cut back like a rose bush, among other consumer credit facilities. i argue that postponing that as you suggest will merely prolong this process. when the wider economy gripped with other concerns like unemployment and consumer confidence is considered, i think that unemployment appears to be a more central concern of the economy in the recovery, rather than the relatively few americans who made unsustainable decisions during the peak of the last bus cycle. targeting the unemployed folks targets those who are falling overboard so to speak. mortgage-holders can rent - come back to the reality they would have been wise to have recognized in the first place.

can we cut employment back like a rose bush?

99 weeks is long, but this has been a long recovery with a massive spell of sustained high unemployment. perhaps this is relative, too. i think folks should get a job or something. there aren't many jobs around, and honestly i think many americans are helpless to do well for themselves without someone packaging an opportunity and handing it to them, but that is what our economy has to deal with. every economy has to deal with a mediocre populace that needs help. it has been the case since the dawn of time. this condition is permanent. i dont think the specific method of UI will be permanent.

 

[The Rabbi]

Exxon Mobil - 1 company - "Last week Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president of public affairs, said the Rockefellers own .006 percent of the company's 5.4 billion shares."

give us some information about the ownership stake the rockefellers have in the other companies.

or is this some new world order, trilateralist conspiracy theory?

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

Yeah. We get that you're a conspiracy theorist wanker of monumental proportions. There is no,zero, evidence that the Rockefeller family "controls" the oil industry, or even one company.
Look at the list of 400 wealthiest people and David Rockefeller (age 94) is listed waaay down at 147.
Yeah yeah, the list is rigged, the information is concealed, no one knows all this except you.
Sheesh.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your own link says that Reaganomics ended with an anti-supply side tax increase. The Right Wing Think Tank simply pretends that taxes didn't increase until Bush I.
From your link:


Here is a list of anti-supply side tax increases after Reagan abandoned his voodoo economics that produced 10.8% UE by Dec 1982.

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

6. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

7. Tax Reform Act of 1986

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

You sure did a nice hatchet job there, but you're wrong and you know it.

Your own link said a tax increase was the end of the Reagan supply side economic policy and that was the late 1982 TEFRA tax increase, the largest peacetime tax increase in history. You know I'm Right but you just can't handle the Reagan Myth going kaplooey.

I think you should read it again.

 

[saveliberty]

To those without a job today: Just an idea, but go out and look for work TODAY somewhere other than where you have gone before. If offered a job, TAKE it regardless of whether it pays as much as what you made before. You'll help cure unemployment, true story.

 

[edthecynic]

Exxon Mobil - 1 company - "Last week Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president of public affairs, said the Rockefellers own .006 percent of the company's 5.4 billion shares."

give us some information about the ownership stake the rockefellers have in the other companies.

or is this some new world order, trilateralist conspiracy theory?

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

Yeah. We get that you're a conspiracy theorist wanker of monumental proportions. There is no,zero, evidence that the Rockefeller family "controls" the oil industry, or even one company.
Look at the list of 400 wealthiest people and David Rockefeller (age 94) is listed waaay down at 147.
Yeah yeah, the list is rigged, the information is concealed, no one knows all this except you.
Sheesh.

Yet another CON$ervative know-it-all moron who does not understand the difference between ownership and control even after it has been explained to him.

David Rockefeller controls the greatest amount of wealth, but as you pointed out, it is not in his name. Anything that is in his name he would have to pay taxes on which is why the bulk his wealth is OWNED by the "charities" he and his family CONTROL. All of the truly wealthy have their true wealth placed in the "charities" that they control.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

Yeah. We get that you're a conspiracy theorist wanker of monumental proportions. There is no,zero, evidence that the Rockefeller family "controls" the oil industry, or even one company.
Look at the list of 400 wealthiest people and David Rockefeller (age 94) is listed waaay down at 147.
Yeah yeah, the list is rigged, the information is concealed, no one knows all this except you.
Sheesh.

Yet another CON$ervative know-it-all moron who does not understand the difference between ownership and control even after it has been explained to him.

David Rockefeller controls the greatest amount of wealth, but as you pointed out, it is not in his name. Anything that is in his name he would have to pay taxes on which is why the bulk his wealth is OWNED by the "charities" he and his family CONTROL. All of the truly wealthy have their true wealth placed in the "charities" that they control.

No I understand it completely.
I also understand that you are a moron of galactic proportions.
PLease explain how it is you "know" that this is the case, even though there is no paper trail and no evidence.

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah. We get that you're a conspiracy theorist wanker of monumental proportions. There is no,zero, evidence that the Rockefeller family "controls" the oil industry, or even one company.
Look at the list of 400 wealthiest people and David Rockefeller (age 94) is listed waaay down at 147.
Yeah yeah, the list is rigged, the information is concealed, no one knows all this except you.
Sheesh.

Yet another CON$ervative know-it-all moron who does not understand the difference between ownership and control even after it has been explained to him.

David Rockefeller controls the greatest amount of wealth, but as you pointed out, it is not in his name. Anything that is in his name he would have to pay taxes on which is why the bulk his wealth is OWNED by the "charities" he and his family CONTROL. All of the truly wealthy have their true wealth placed in the "charities" that they control.

No I understand it completely.
I also understand that you are a moron of galactic proportions.
PLease explain how it is you "know" that this is the case, even though there is no paper trail and no evidence.

I know it because it is well known! How do you explain your willful ignorance????

"Own nothing and control everything."
John D. Rockefeller

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet another CON$ervative know-it-all moron who does not understand the difference between ownership and control even after it has been explained to him.

David Rockefeller controls the greatest amount of wealth, but as you pointed out, it is not in his name. Anything that is in his name he would have to pay taxes on which is why the bulk his wealth is OWNED by the "charities" he and his family CONTROL. All of the truly wealthy have their true wealth placed in the "charities" that they control.

No I understand it completely.
I also understand that you are a moron of galactic proportions.
PLease explain how it is you "know" that this is the case, even though there is no paper trail and no evidence.

I know it because it is well known! How do you explain your willful ignorance????

"Own nothing and control everything."
John D. Rockefeller

I dont know it. I would bet most people dont know. They don't know it because it isn't true.
Edtheshlemiel is now joining his other ignorant friends.

 

[edthecynic]

No I understand it completely.
I also understand that you are a moron of galactic proportions.
PLease explain how it is you "know" that this is the case, even though there is no paper trail and no evidence.

I know it because it is well known! How do you explain your willful ignorance????

"Own nothing and control everything."
John D. Rockefeller

I dont know it. I would bet most people dont know. They don't know it because it isn't true.
Edtheshlemiel is now joining his other ignorant friends.

I love how CON$ assume that because they choose to be willfully ignorant then everyone else must be willfully ignorant.

That most famous quote from J D Rockefeller sums up the "secret" to protecting assets, avoiding taxes, and establishing a monopoly that everyone knows but you.

How to protect your wealth from lawsuits - Forsyth Wealth Management - on ProducersWEB.com

So the question becomes, "What can I do to protect my assets?" The first thing to do is identify your risky assets (i.e., real estate or a risky business) and your safe assets (i.e., bank or securities accounts).

Second, decide to whom you want to transfer the assets. Yes, I said transfer as in give away. However, be sure to transfer the assets in such a manner that you can control them. John D. Rockefeller said, "Own nothing and control everything." This strategy may also help in estate planning by reducing your taxable estate. No one can tax what you don't own. And, in the event that you are sued, no one can take what you do not own.

Finally, think about the structure you may need, can afford, and are willing to be comfortable with.

The following are strategies people use to achieve these goals:
Transfer assets to safe family members
Secure assets with loans from other family members
Hide non-income producing assets in obscure places
Use a corporation for business activities
Put assets into a limited partnership or LLC
Put assets into an irrevocable trust
Put money into life insurance owned by others
Donate money to a charitable trust or family foundation
Move money into offshore trusts or corporations

 

[cad]

which rockefeller runs the american oil indsutry?

what are his ultimate goals?