jaoman wrote:


These statistics are actually somewhat misleading. Yes, 10 percent of the worlds adults have 85 percent of the wealth. However, by far the greater part of that wealth is contained in banks. What this means is that, due to the way the world's economic system has come to be structured, this wealth is primarily fictional. By far the greatest part of it is composed of credit notes. The only way to maintain the illusion is for the wealth to constantly moving around.

It's kind of like a trick of the light. To use an example, imagine two people passing a ball back and forth. If they do this fast enough, to the outside observer it begins to look like both are holding a ball. If you have three people passing the ball at this rate, it look like three people are holding a ball. This way, one ball multiplies over and over. However, this only works so long as the ball continues to be in constant rapid motion between the people. If one person should need to hold the ball for a minute, it suddenly becomes obvious that rather than many balls, there is only one.

The world's economy system is very analogous to this. While 10 percent of the world's population owns most of the money, they know they can't hoard it. Once they do, the money suddenly disappears. They constantly need to have their money passing through other hands. Typically, this is done by paying workers, who then buy products. To have money, they always need to be passing it to you and rest.

This looks bad on paper – an indeed, many third world countries have terrible poverty (so, it's not completely on paper) – however, the fact of the matter is that while they make less, prices are also reduced to match. Everything from cars to food items is priced at a tenth of what it's worth in America.

The pretense is that this system is a means of making more money; however, the the reality is that it is rather a way to give citizens of certain countries privilege in the world market. While the larger percentage of the world's population earns and pays less, the exorbitant prices and relatively high salaries of the North America and other first world countries, balance it out in so far as the movement of capital.

The consequence of this is that a consumer revolution in North America, where it is affordable, would have a much more significant impact then a consumer revolution in Zimbabwe. For while the latter may buy more items, the former provides by far the greater amount of currency.



This is also misleading. More correct would be to say that 80% of the wealth is held by corporations. A fictional wealth in the hands of fictional individuals. The corporation are controlled by the top 20% percent, but it's not actually their wealth. The reason is the same as I said above. The wealth doesn't exist. The system is designed to work around it. The only way to work around that is to pay you and the rest of the 80% enough money to keep buying products, passing the wealth around such that it always comes back to the source. Which is way you feel overwhelmed by expenses. They really don't want you to have too much more money than you can spend. If you save, it messes with the system.

But you do have enough money to spend and if you demonstrate that you are more likely to buy a certain product that product will become cheaper and more abundant because you buying products, and getting paid for the making of products, is the only thing that keeps the system from spilling its guts out.

And since your 15k is worth about 25 third world citizens, you decision also have a great deal more impact world wide. They don't need the consumer revolution, you can do it for them.

Choose your cause and, as I explain to you, it will become affordable. Then choose your next cause. It doesn't have to be all at one. It just has to be all eventually. So, dig in.