Why Aren't We Having a Middle Class Revolt?

[4-2-7]

Economics 101, supply and demand, the more volume of a commodity the less it cost.
The supply of workers has overwhelmed the demands of production.
When a business produces more at a lower operating cost it's profit. Which is the whole premiss to running a business.

The gripe should be the purchasing power of the currency one earns. Anybody can double there currency denomination but the inflation just dilutes it to were the quality of life is stagnant or backwards.

This is the hidden tax that the majority does not look at. This subject would be mute if everyone's earnings had the purchasing power of of thirty years ago. How about interest earned for your dollars saved goes back to around 8 percent again.

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Economics 101, supply and demand, the more volume of a commodity the less it cost.
The supply of workers has overwhelmed the demands of production.
When a business produces more at a lower operating cost it's profit. Which is the whole premiss to running a business.

The gripe should be the purchasing power of the currency one earns. Anybody can double there currency denomination but the inflation just dilutes it to were the quality of life is stagnant or backwards.

This is the hidden tax that the majority does not look at. This subject would be mute if everyone's earnings had the purchasing power of of thirty years ago. How about interest earned for your dollars saved goes back to around 8 percent again.

Once again, REALLY???
I suggest you go back an read 19th history of the US worker. Look up Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and so on. If a corporation can enslave you to make their money, they will, Period. No such BS as supply and demand. The only time this even remotely cam close to true, was when the Unions were strongest and the middle class was at its peak. It is when the middle class is strong, when they earn a good wage, then and only then would we have purchasing power. When we are paid peanuts, the CEO's are paid some 200x the average worker, then we have nothing but slave labor.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by JCricket

Once again, REALLY???
I suggest you go back an read 19th history of the US worker. Look up Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and so on. If a corporation can enslave you to make their money, they will, Period. No such BS as supply and demand. The only time this even remotely cam close to true, was when the Unions were strongest and the middle class was at its peak. It is when the middle class is strong, when they earn a good wage, then and only then would we have purchasing power. When we are paid peanuts, the CEO's are paid some 200x the average worker, then we have nothing but slave labor.

If the Banking Institutions can enslave you they will. They have!!!

Come on I know all about that time period but perhaps you could try and look into the Moneychangers, the Banksters. They control all Corporations, Politicians and Counties all by the monetary system.

All I have been trying to say is look at the head of the beast and not the arms.

There is some good documentaries (award winning) that are great intro to exactly what I am saying.

The Money Masters,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EeIM-4hJO44

The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Docu of 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=swkq2E8mswI

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

If the Banking Institutions can enslave you they will. They have!!!

Come on I know all about that time period but perhaps you could try and look into the Moneychangers, the Banksters. They control all Corporations, Politicians and Counties all by the monetary system.

All I have been trying to say is look at the head of the beast and not the arms.

There is some good documentaries (award winning) that are great intro to exactly what I am saying.

The Money Masters,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EeIM-4hJO44

The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Docu of 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=swkq2E8mswI

I'll look these over. I need to ask, how does a bank "enslaving us", connect to wages earned by the middle class. I thought that was what we were talking about/??

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by JCricket

I'll look these over. I need to ask, how does a bank "enslaving us", connect to wages earned by the middle class. I thought that was what we were talking about/??

Well because the question of the thread was.
Why Aren't We Having a Middle Class Revolt?
It's brought up because of the quality of life of all, let alone the middle class is suffering. Which I agree with.
When a country is going down the tubes and you can't eat thats when.

But History tells us why! and where not the only society in time that has gone through this.

It's all about the money supply and who controls it. When privet banks do it we are slaves to them. The currency is loaned with interest to the government /us, only debt is incurred and not wealth.

When the government issue currency with out interest and controls the supply, the country prospers. and generates wealth.

If we do what the bankers want us to do were not bothering them looting the country. They want a divided society fighting over politics and paying them no attention. We are doing just that it's the rich,it's the poor,it's the dems, it's the tee baggers lol

If you like history you will like the vids. Money masters is quite long but goes through the whole history of monetary systems from the beginning. It's kind of funny listening to issues 200 years ago that we are dealing with today. This game has been played many times in history. But has also been stopped many times by many countries and then the leaches come back to start over.

How does that relate to the middle class worker, the poor, the rich, the government and yes corporations? If you and your country are not smothered in debt we are able to keep more of our earned money. Goods and services are cheaper and your saved wealth does not evaporate with inflation. There would be a lot less starving people in this world with one little step. And we can do it without any changes to the law. The government issues there own currency spending it into circulation paying off the national debt.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

If the Banking Institutions can enslave you they will. They have!!!

Come on I know all about that time period but perhaps you could try and look into the Moneychangers, the Banksters. They control all Corporations, Politicians and Counties all by the monetary system.

All I have been trying to say is look at the head of the beast and not the arms.

There is some good documentaries (award winning) that are great intro to exactly what I am saying.

The Money Masters,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EeIM-4hJO44

The Secret of Oz - Winner, Best Docu of 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=swkq2E8mswI

Is Jesse Ventura in either of those videos? Who gave them an award?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Economics 101, supply and demand, the more volume of a commodity the less it cost.
The supply of workers has overwhelmed the demands of production.
When a business produces more at a lower operating cost it's profit. Which is the whole premiss to running a business.

Good observations. The problem for the workers is structural, and the solution must be structural.

And the 'whole premise of running a business,' as you say, may not be optimum. Unless Scrooge had it right, before the hauntings.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Economics 101, supply and demand, the more volume of a commodity the less it cost.

Not always. It depends on the elasticity of the supply/demand relationship. A pretty easy argument can be made that labor costs don't follow the traditional supply/demand model. For example, the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay has grown 10-20 fold in the past 40 years. Has the supply of prospective CEO's diminished by a factor of 10-20 in these years? Does a company need a good CEO 20 times as much as they did 40 years ago?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not always. It depends on the elasticity of the supply/demand relationship. A pretty easy argument can be made that labor costs don't follow the traditional supply/demand model. For example, the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay has grown 10-20 fold in the past 40 years. Has the supply of prospective CEO's diminished by a factor of 10-20 in these years? Does a company need a good CEO 20 times as much as they did 40 years ago?

Here's a graph for ya Finn.

[piece-itpete]

They needed monopolies to wield that degree of power.

Pete