99%? Who wants to be a part of the 100%?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You are wrong. Way wrong. At least 50% of all the currency in circulation is held by the 1%!

I would like to see some documentation on that. In any case, even if it is true, it doesn't matter. I was discussing net worth, which has little to do with who has stacks of cash and who doesn't. Net worth includes everything of value that a person owns, minus their current debt obligations, and is a legitimate indicator of a given person's wealth, or lack of it.

It is called trickle down economics because a few crumbs fall off the table and the scavengers fight like dogs to prevent starvation.

First of all, there is not, nor has there ever been, a "trickle down" theory of economics. It is not a legitimate term in the science of economics--rather, it is a fiction created by detractors of the free market system, so that they can have something to sneer at when they give speeches.

Second....starvation?? Really?? Have you looked at the "poor" people in North America and in Europe recently? They are fat, which is not an indication of starvation and privation! Quite the opposite. Also, they have a roof, running water, vehicles, electricity, air conditioning, HD flatscreen tvs, computers/laptops and broadband internet access, dvd collections, satellite broadcasting 500 channels, stereo systems, cellphones. Some of them have above ground pools. Today's "poor" are, by the standards of 99.9999999999% of the human beings who have lived and died on this planet, fabulously wealthy.

So even though there is not a "trickle down" economic theory, you cannot possibly come to the conclusion that our system has been "trampling" on "poor people." Not if you have even the slightest bit of perspective of history.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
But there has to be enough troy ounces of gold and silver to BACK-UP the currency in circulation. Certificates only confer ownership to the gold and silver, nothing else!

Omg. I give up. Either you are willfully misunderstanding what I have explained, in great detail, two times now....or you aren't trying to understand it....or you are not actually reading what I wrote....or you just aren't capable of grasping the concept.

Ah well.

originally posted by: orbitbaby
And how did they earn that money? They make money off of our
money. That's all they do.They don't contribute goods or services,
and they give nothing back. HOW have they earned that money?

They have to invest their money or they lose it to inflation. By investing their money they allow companies to exist. Without those companies making food, clothing, housing, etc and employment you wouldn't efficiently survive. Even if they just hoard their money in Banks they allow others to borrow to make more businesses. Or other projects.

If the government confiscates the money before the rich invested it. They would reduce your way of making money also. Who decides where that confiscated money goes? A crooked politician who offers nothing and did nothing to create the wealth? No thank you! Rich people (excluding worthless politicians who confiscate) are just people like you who have found a way to live off their investments without having to work.

If the government confiscated their wealth before they invested it. Less tax dollars would be collected due to losses in taxes paid by the wealthy. By punishing success everyone loses. It's better that a few are poor instead of everyone "except for the worthless elite confiscators".

Get a clue Kiddies.