World's Richest Now Richer Than Before Great Recession

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the People need to be made to pay for the government they get. If you make people PAY for the spending, spending will lose its charm.

The rich already pay for most of the government, how much of it do you want them to have?

In case you have not been paying attention, spending has lost its charm with everyone that has to pay for it, the ones that support the spending are the ones that receive it. Do you support raising the taxes on the lower quintile so that they actually have to pay for part of the of the government they get? If not, your reason for raising taxes makes less sense than most of the things you say, which makes it pretty stupid.

Why can't you answer the question? btw. You're the one who said this is about taking away people's right to get rich.

Does a 39% top tax rate take away that right? If not, what does and who is proposing it?

I can answer the question, I just enjoy twisting you around in knots to show how stupid you actually are.

 

[Steelplate]

Because the People need to be made to pay for the government they get. If you make people PAY for the spending, spending will lose its charm.

The rich already pay for most of the government, how much of it do you want them to have?

In case you have not been paying attention, spending has lost its charm with everyone that has to pay for it, the ones that support the spending are the ones that receive it. Do you support raising the taxes on the lower quintile so that they actually have to pay for part of the of the government they get? If not, your reason for raising taxes makes less sense than most of the things you say, which makes it pretty stupid.

Why can't you answer the question? btw. You're the one who said this is about taking away people's right to get rich.

Does a 39% top tax rate take away that right? If not, what does and who is proposing it?

I can answer the question, I just enjoy twisting you around in knots to show how stupid you actually are.

That's bullshit. The ones that support it are the ones that receive it. Funny... how about the 90% of the country that will be hit and hit hard by the cuts proposed... Cuts in programs that they have faithfully paid into their whole lives. But the people who have the most in this country... especially the top 2-3%... will suffer nothing.

Yeah... there's nothing to be outraged about from the 97%ers. It's all in their heads.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Payroll taxes are now more than income taxes, for the first time ever. 50% don't pay federal income taxes, but their payroll taxes and fees put them in the same tax bracket as the rich. Followers of Rush, Fox, and elitist pubs are sorely misled, dupes of the pub propaganda machine...The rich have gotten away with murder under Pubs for 140 years, even worse under Reaganism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's bullshit. The ones that support it are the ones that receive it. Funny... how about the 90% of the country that will be hit and hit hard by the cuts proposed... Cuts in programs that they have faithfully paid into their whole lives. But the people who have the most in this country... especially the top 2-3%... will suffer nothing.

Yeah... there's nothing to be outraged about from the 97%ers. It's all in their heads.

It's bullshit?

Are you trying to tell me that everyone who receives government largess in the form of Medicare, farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, welfare, and every other thing that the government does to help those who suck off the working class actually oppose government handouts.

Thanks for proving you cannot read, something many people on this forum suspected.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because the People need to be made to pay for the government they get. If you make people PAY for the spending, spending will lose its charm.

The rich already pay for most of the government, how much of it do you want them to have?

In case you have not been paying attention, spending has lost its charm with everyone that has to pay for it, the ones that support the spending are the ones that receive it. Do you support raising the taxes on the lower quintile so that they actually have to pay for part of the of the government they get? If not, your reason for raising taxes makes less sense than most of the things you say, which makes it pretty stupid.

Why can't you answer the question? btw. You're the one who said this is about taking away people's right to get rich.

Does a 39% top tax rate take away that right? If not, what does and who is proposing it?

I can answer the question, I just enjoy twisting you around in knots to show how stupid you actually are.

No you can't. You spewed out some imbecilic tripe about the Rich losing their right to get rich and got busted on it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the People need to be made to pay for the government they get. If you make people PAY for the spending, spending will lose its charm.

The rich already pay for most of the government, how much of it do you want them to have?

In case you have not been paying attention, spending has lost its charm with everyone that has to pay for it, the ones that support the spending are the ones that receive it. Do you support raising the taxes on the lower quintile so that they actually have to pay for part of the of the government they get? If not, your reason for raising taxes makes less sense than most of the things you say, which makes it pretty stupid.

Why can't you answer the question? btw. You're the one who said this is about taking away people's right to get rich.

Does a 39% top tax rate take away that right? If not, what does and who is proposing it?

I can answer the question, I just enjoy twisting you around in knots to show how stupid you actually are.

No you can't. You spewed out some imbecilic tripe about the Rich losing their right to get rich and got busted on it.

Really? Can you point out where that happened?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because the People need to be made to pay for the government they get. If you make people PAY for the spending, spending will lose its charm.

The rich already pay for most of the government, how much of it do you want them to have?

In case you have not been paying attention, spending has lost its charm with everyone that has to pay for it, the ones that support the spending are the ones that receive it. Do you support raising the taxes on the lower quintile so that they actually have to pay for part of the of the government they get? If not, your reason for raising taxes makes less sense than most of the things you say, which makes it pretty stupid.

The Rich have most of the money. They benefit most from government spending. They benefit most from a government borrowing and spending to artificially prop up the economy so that the investments and businesses the Rich own can prosper. The Rich have more money to influence government, thus distorting the democratic process in their favor.

I support raising the top rate, reinstating PAYGO, and eliminating the child tax credit.

 

[Steelplate]

That's bullshit. The ones that support it are the ones that receive it. Funny... how about the 90% of the country that will be hit and hit hard by the cuts proposed... Cuts in programs that they have faithfully paid into their whole lives. But the people who have the most in this country... especially the top 2-3%... will suffer nothing.

Yeah... there's nothing to be outraged about from the 97%ers. It's all in their heads.

It's bullshit?

Are you trying to tell me that everyone who receives government largess in the form of Medicare, farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, welfare, and every other thing that the government does to help those who suck off the working class actually oppose government handouts.

Thanks for proving you cannot read, something many people on this forum suspected.

No... I am not saying that at all. But turning a blind eye towards the wealthy elite that have chosen to abandon the country in favor of high profits and Tax haven Countries is just plain ridiculous.

You idiots believe in "trickle down" as much as you believe in Jesus. Let me clue you in... only one of them are real.... and the one that IS true isn't in the realm of man.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because the People need to be made to pay for the government they get. If you make people PAY for the spending, spending will lose its charm.

The rich already pay for most of the government, how much of it do you want them to have?

In case you have not been paying attention, spending has lost its charm with everyone that has to pay for it, the ones that support the spending are the ones that receive it. Do you support raising the taxes on the lower quintile so that they actually have to pay for part of the of the government they get? If not, your reason for raising taxes makes less sense than most of the things you say, which makes it pretty stupid.

Why can't you answer the question? btw. You're the one who said this is about taking away people's right to get rich.

Does a 39% top tax rate take away that right? If not, what does and who is proposing it?

I can answer the question, I just enjoy twisting you around in knots to show how stupid you actually are.

That's bullshit. The ones that support it are the ones that receive it. Funny... how about the 90% of the country that will be hit and hit hard by the cuts proposed... Cuts in programs that they have faithfully paid into their whole lives. But the people who have the most in this country... especially the top 2-3%... will suffer nothing.

Yeah... there's nothing to be outraged about from the 97%ers. It's all in their heads.

Hey niwwit. How is it anyone who is working and providing for their families or themselves, "getting hit"....The only ones getting his are those on the public dole. And most of them are gaming the system.
Ya know who suffers the most here.? Those who are actually in need. The handicapped, the disabled, the ones who've put in a great many years were injured or worn out but not old enough to retire. These are the people these entitlements were designed for and they are being cheated. Cheated by waste fraud bureaucracy and red tape.
The system cannot be fixed by simply throwing more money at it which is what you people think is the answer.
You cannot get a different result by doing the same things over and over again.

 

[Lars]

Hey Lars... I'd be willing to be that you are one of those guys you speak of... both in income level and intelligence.

How much do you want to bet?

OK... intelligence wise anyway. Because if you had any bit of intelligence you'd realize that the wealthy get pandered to in a much larger way than the 97% you despise so much do.

All I am saying is **** it... IF us scumbag 97%-ers have to take a hit... then the greedy bastards that have been influencing policy since Reagan was elected need to also sacrifice to the exact same degree... you know... as far as actual PAIN... not just in Money. If grandma has to eat dog food, then by God so should Donald Trump. Why is our grandmas any less important than some rich **** not being able to buy his third yacht or his 2nd vacation home in Club Med.

I'll tell you what... I don't give a shit what your Income or IQ level is. If you are for ******* over the 97% so that the 3%'s lives can go unchanged... you're either a moron or a traitor.

Just remember dickheads.... us 97%er's votes are unbeatable if you Continue to **** with us... and I don't care how much you wave the flag in our faces, how loud you cry Socialism and scream about the Constitution....That bullshit isn't gonna fly when people get hungry and are living on the streets. The Conservative sleight of hand that they've ben playing is already cracking at the seams.

I fear that if your side keeps this bullshit up... you WILL see Socialism take root.... Not the feigned Socialism like Health Care and the like... But real Socialism which none of us with half a brain want.

You can only push people so far.

I have a registered IQ of 135. I most certainly don't get pandered to more than the welfare receivers. The welfare receivers at the bottom and the top get pandered to. Essentially the bottom 25-30% and the top .001% have hundreds of billions of dollars redistributed to them through government giveaways. And the reason I look down on the majority of voters is because they enable it. They don't oppose the massive corporate giveaways or the welfare/entitlement state which is on the brink of collapsing, or they would vote against the politicians who enacted legislation to these ends. The views of the voting majority are terrifying, the views of the majority of americans(voting or non-voting) are terrifying, and incredibly statist, brutish and ignorant, if you bother to look at public surveys. Most Americans feel they are entitled to certain goods and services and don't even bother looking at the long term economic consequences of state intervention in the marketplace.

I actually agree, I think Universal Democracy is a natural progression towards socialism, because it is based on the premise that all property is held in common and it's redistribution and regulation can be voted upon(a socialist notion). There are also more have-nots than haves. So have-nots will always vote for that which they cannot attain in the marketplace(primarily due to state intervention in the first place), and the growth of the state will continue. That is why anti-spending movements like the TEA Party are flash in the pan while the size and scope of government is ever-increasing. There will always be more people who want more than people who are content with what they have. That is the fault of universal democracy in my opinion, and something founders like John Adams and James Madison were worried about, but that is another discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the People need to be made to pay for the government they get. If you make people PAY for the spending, spending will lose its charm.

The rich already pay for most of the government, how much of it do you want them to have?

In case you have not been paying attention, spending has lost its charm with everyone that has to pay for it, the ones that support the spending are the ones that receive it. Do you support raising the taxes on the lower quintile so that they actually have to pay for part of the of the government they get? If not, your reason for raising taxes makes less sense than most of the things you say, which makes it pretty stupid.

The Rich have most of the money. They benefit most from government spending. They benefit most from a government borrowing and spending to artificially prop up the economy so that the investments and businesses the Rich own can prosper. The Rich have more money to influence government, thus distorting the democratic process in their favor.

I support raising the top rate, reinstating PAYGO, and eliminating the child tax credit.

Define the rich so we are using the word in the same way.

If we use it the way I normally do using the average wealth of the entire world you are correct that the richest 10% owns about 85% of the worlds assets. The problem is that that 10% figure includes people in the US that live below the official poverty level.

I support expanding the tax base, reforming the tax code to eliminate its use as a social engineering tool, removing all loopholes, a balanced budget amendment that matches spending to revenue with automatic cuts across the board if it goes over that, and raising taxes to pay down the debt. In other words, I support the findings of Obama's debt commission. Remember them? I do, and I want to give it the teeth it needs to actually work.

I look at paygo as the joke it is, see no reason to single out the rich as having to carry the burden of the government alone, reducing the pay of every elected official, and requiring them to actually pass a balanced budget in order to get paid at all.

Your position is a joke that is not worthy of serious consideration. You have no business trying to call me on anything I post because you do not have anything to offer that will actually work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's bullshit. The ones that support it are the ones that receive it. Funny... how about the 90% of the country that will be hit and hit hard by the cuts proposed... Cuts in programs that they have faithfully paid into their whole lives. But the people who have the most in this country... especially the top 2-3%... will suffer nothing.

Yeah... there's nothing to be outraged about from the 97%ers. It's all in their heads.

It's bullshit?

Are you trying to tell me that everyone who receives government largess in the form of Medicare, farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, welfare, and every other thing that the government does to help those who suck off the working class actually oppose government handouts.

Thanks for proving you cannot read, something many people on this forum suspected.

No... I am not saying that at all. But turning a blind eye towards the wealthy elite that have chosen to abandon the country in favor of high profits and Tax haven Countries is just plain ridiculous.

You idiots believe in "trickle down" as much as you believe in Jesus. Let me clue you in... only one of them are real.... and the one that IS true isn't in the realm of man.

I am not turning a blind eye to anything. If you read my posts instead of just assuming you understand my position you would know that I actually see the world quite clearly.

I see "I live on a fixed income" Harry Reid who is one of the wealthy. I see Nancy Pelosi who is part of the wealthiest 1% in the entire world. I see that most of the top 10 wealthiest Senators are Democrats.

If you don't like the tax polices join me in calling for a reform of the tax code to eliminate the loopholes and stop whining about the rich Republicans when it is the rich politicians that is the problem.

By the way. If trickle down does not work can you explain why there are more rich people now than there were before Reagan cut the tax rates? No one has ever offered me any kind of explanation for that phenomenon. I think I have even asked you that question directly before, and got nothing in return but static.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If the Rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, or the middle class is losing ground while the Rich get richer,

you gotta understand,

that's Conservatism working. Every economic policy conservatives advocate serves to increase the gap between rich and not rich.

If you disagree, name the policies that don't.

The middle class is under attack by the Dems pal. Taxes hurt them. Taxes don't hurt the rich. For whatever reason you just can't seem to get through your skull if the taxes become too onerous the rich leave....because they can. That's one of the nice things about being rich, you get to do what you wish.

Conservatism is about making the opportunities available for the common guy to get rich if he chooses to work hard. Tell me who in Russia ever got rich till they changed over to a more capitalist system? Other then the dictators and their friends of course....those types allways do well don't they.

truly, try reading some history. read about the miserable lives that the Russian people got to live before things opened up for them. The only people who wish for that sysytem to come back are the ones who lived in one room apartments and drank themselves into a stupor every day. They hate the new system with a passion because now they have to work.

All the others though? They LOVE it!

The question is, name any conservative economic policies that serve to narrow the gap between rich and not rich, or rich and poor, whatever you want to call it.

There are no such policies that I can think of. Every conservative policy if implemented effectively widens the gap between rich and poor.

You keep repeating the same thing over and again...It is that you are not reading the responses? Or are you looking for the response you'd like to see?
You ask for someone to produce a conservative policy that serves to narrow the gap between the poor and the wealthy.
Then you you CONCLUDE that EVERY conservative policy by design widens this gap.
SO why bother asking when you've closed your mind to the existence of an alternative conclusion?
TRuth is, there are no such economic policies that widen or narrow.
This is what freedom of choice and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all about.
This is the greatest country on Earth.
No where else do the opportunities as we have here exist.
Each of us is free to pursue our goals to the best of our ability.
We have education and vocational training right at our doorsteps.
Many of our larger employers encourage their workers to continue their education and will help the employee pay for it.
Many of you people on the Left are successful people, while others are getting by like most of Americans. We have the time to share our thoughts in forums such as this.
I fail to see from what perception that all of this complaining from the Left comes.
FRom here, I see no difference whether other people accumulate large amounts of wealth or not. It has no bearing on what I do. He lives his life, I live mine.
I do not understand what makes you liberal tick in this regard. Why is it that you choose to pend so much of your time worrying about what others are doing with their money?
Why are you spending so much time trying to figure out ways to try and get that person's money from him? DO you think he owes you something? Do you think because he has an amount that impresses you , he has money to spare for you?
Say for a moment you work for a large employer. You work in an office environment.
You employer is a multi billion dollar corporation. Now, every day you take a sticky note pad, maybe a few pens, paper, you use the company computer for personal stuff, you may even take a company lap top home and "forget" to bring it back.
Based on your view of wealth, fairness and other factors...Do you think it is ok to do the above things because well, they have the money, they won't miss it, they are very rich and you feel entitled or you feel underpaid so this is your way of levying a TAX against the rich CEO's and other managers?
I ask this because you people on the left seem to think it's ok for someone else to pay your way because they have "far more than they need"..
Now answer my scenarios honestly....

 

[Steelplate]

How much do you want to bet?

OK... intelligence wise anyway. Because if you had any bit of intelligence you'd realize that the wealthy get pandered to in a much larger way than the 97% you despise so much do.

All I am saying is **** it... IF us scumbag 97%-ers have to take a hit... then the greedy bastards that have been influencing policy since Reagan was elected need to also sacrifice to the exact same degree... you know... as far as actual PAIN... not just in Money. If grandma has to eat dog food, then by God so should Donald Trump. Why is our grandmas any less important than some rich **** not being able to buy his third yacht or his 2nd vacation home in Club Med.

I'll tell you what... I don't give a shit what your Income or IQ level is. If you are for ******* over the 97% so that the 3%'s lives can go unchanged... you're either a moron or a traitor.

Just remember dickheads.... us 97%er's votes are unbeatable if you Continue to **** with us... and I don't care how much you wave the flag in our faces, how loud you cry Socialism and scream about the Constitution....That bullshit isn't gonna fly when people get hungry and are living on the streets. The Conservative sleight of hand that they've ben playing is already cracking at the seams.

I fear that if your side keeps this bullshit up... you WILL see Socialism take root.... Not the feigned Socialism like Health Care and the like... But real Socialism which none of us with half a brain want.

You can only push people so far.

I have a registered IQ of 135. I most certainly don't get pandered to more than the welfare receivers. The welfare receivers at the bottom and the top get pandered to. Essentially the bottom 25-30% and the top .001% have hundreds of billions of dollars redistributed to them through government giveaways. And the reason I look down on the majority of voters is because they enable it. They don't oppose the massive corporate giveaways or the welfare/entitlement state which is on the brink of collapsing, or they would vote against the politicians who enacted legislation to these ends. The views of the voting majority are terrifying, the views of the majority of americans(voting or non-voting) are terrifying, and incredibly statist, brutish and ignorant, if you bother to look at public surveys. Most Americans feel they are entitled to certain goods and services and don't even bother looking at the long term economic consequences of state intervention in the marketplace.

I actually agree, I think Universal Democracy is a natural progression towards socialism, because it is based on the premise that all property is held in common and it's redistribution and regulation can be voted upon(a socialist notion). There are also more have-nots than haves. So have-nots will always vote for that which they cannot attain in the marketplace(primarily due to state intervention in the first place), and the growth of the state will continue. That is why anti-spending movements like the TEA Party are flash in the pan while the size and scope of government is ever-increasing. There will always be more people who want more than people who are content with what they have. That is the fault of universal democracy in my opinion, and something founders like John Adams and James Madison were worried about, but that is another discussion.

I have a registered IQ of 120... so what? you're 15 points higher than me.

So... after reading your diatribe.. .let me guess... you're a Libertarian. Those same effect that you speak of(the "have not's wanting a better life for their familieys) will still be in play. Unless you are talking about a Libertarian Dictatorship... which would be just as oppressive as any other dictatorship and will eventually be doomed to failure.

for being a "smart guy" you really aren't all that bright.

 

[georgephillip]

According to an annual report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini the wealth of "high net worth individuals" globally reached $42.7 trillion in 2010, two years after the onset of the Great Recession. Between 2009 and 2010 the HNWIs saw their incomes rise nearly 10%.

Does that sound like shared sacrifice to you?
Or are the rich getting richer by inflicting austerity budgets on everyone else?

How in the hell can you blame austerity budgets for making the rich richer?

We have yet to have any austerity budgets go into action in this country. The STIMULUS & BAILOUTS is what made the rich richer.

Globally the wealth of "high net worth individuals" reached $42.7 trillion in 2010.

Austerity is coming nationally in Europe while it proceeds at a state level in this country. Thanks to Obama bowing low before the "savvy businessmen" on Wall Street many Democrats who voted in 2008 didn't see any reason to cast a ballot in 2010.

Most of the very rich in this country have discovered how to prosper regardless of the state of the economy. Both major parties serve their interests; however, Republicans take special delight in serving the richest 1%:

"My brother Kevin, with all his challenges, is in every way the kind of person we would want in our society: a wonderful son, a great brother, someone who looks out for and helps everyone around him.

"This is the kind of person Republicans would leave by the side of the road in order to, as my friend Bob Creamer put it, 'protect tax loopholes for CEOs who fly corporate jets.'

"They would devastate Medicaid and programs for the disabled, so that the wealthiest most powerful people in America would not have to pay a single extra dime in taxes."

What Does America Stand For? | Crooks and Liars

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Let me know when the Hopey Changey One makes his good buddies over at GE start paying Taxes. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt his "Jobs Czar??" What a fuckin joke.

 

[georgephillip]

You mean we're not all in this together?

Not if you're among the "high net worth individuals" (HNWIs) who've not only made back what they lost in the fall of '08, now they are richer than ever and there are more of them - nearly 11 more - than before the recession struck.

"According to the annual world wealth report by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, the wealth of HNWIs around the world reached $42.7tn (£26.5tn) in 2010, rising nearly 10% in a year and surpassing the peak of $40.7tn reached in 2007, even as austerity budgets were implemented by many governments in the developed world..."

The rich get richer because the poor get austerity budgets.

World's Wealthiest People Now Richer than Before the Credit Crunch | Common Dreams

The rich get richer because they have the skills, talent, knowledge and discipline to multiply what they have more than the rest of us. Who are these individuals and how can I learn from them? Instead of tearing down successful people, why don't you whiny liberals try to emulate their habits? Oh...that's right! Because as more people can take care of themselves, there's less demand for liberal politicians by people willing to sell their vote for a handout.

The rich get richer because they tapped into $12.3 trillion in liquidity and short term loans that the Fed made available to the large money center banks.

Malignant conservatives (and whiny liberals) got all that free bail out money which increased the deficit and enhanced their bottom lines for speculating in food and oil and spiking unemployment levels to 15 year highs.

Soon the rich will be demanding higher interest rates to continue investing in US Treasury Bonds.

In all instances the middle class is left paying the bills.

Socialize the cost.
Privatize the profit.
That's how the rich get rich.

 

[georgephillip]

Did you notice that the HNWIs have more wealth than existed before the great recession? That there are 11 million HNWIs today, which is about 10% of the US population in 1930. Are you aware that wealth is not a limited resource?

Are you aware money is a commodity?

The HNWIs have more wealth today precisely because those they depend upon for investment advice manufactured and popped a housing/credit bubble.

Greed is also "not a limited resource."

Money is a concept, not a commodity.

Would you agree?

"MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another.

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you aware money is a commodity?

The HNWIs have more wealth today precisely because those they depend upon for investment advice manufactured and popped a housing/credit bubble.

Greed is also "not a limited resource."

Money is a concept, not a commodity.

Would you agree?

"MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another.

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

All that proves is that the guy that writes that blog is an idiot.

From your link.

As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade. What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another.

One indication that someone has no idea what they are talking about is the excessive use of bold text in order to emphasize points that are completely unrelated to reality. During the period that the US created all those millionaires, and supposedly reduced the money supply in the process, the net worth of the US went from approximately $37 trillion to more than $60 trillion. That means that, in the real world, the 97% of the rest of the US population had around $20 trillion more dollars to play with.

I do enjoy reading Phil when someone posts a reference to his delusions though, so I thank you for bringing him back again.

 

[newpolitics]

Are you aware money is a commodity?

The HNWIs have more wealth today precisely because those they depend upon for investment advice manufactured and popped a housing/credit bubble.

Greed is also "not a limited resource."

Money is a concept, not a commodity.

Would you agree?

"MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another.

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

This is not exactly true. Money is created everyday out of think in little "ones" and "zeros" because... Money is debt. The fractional reserve system says that a bank can loan out 9X the money it has in its reserve, which then gets lent out again and again... but none of it is real, it is just debt, or borrowed. So, what started out as a small principle, is now spread out across millions of people, who all, conceptually, have that same dollar that you say isn't possible, since it all came from a small principle in the beginning before it was exponentially increased by the fractional reserve system of lending.

The Fed is a joke and the central bank has been killing this country since its inception in 1913, and has only helped make the rich richer and the poor poorer and that isn't an accident. Don't chalk it up to personal volition. It is intentional and built into our financial system that there is inflation, debt, and consolidation of wealth among few. There is nothing that can be done about it unless you change monetary policy with regards to the Fed.