The attack on "The 1 Percent" was a brilliant move, aided and abetted by the real source of our problems: the 0.001%.
The mood in early 2009 was strong enough to get the Tea Party moving and cause President Obama to tell bankers 'the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks is me' (paraphrasing). President Obama doubled down on bailouts, and signed the messed up Dodd-Frank reform bill into law. People were still unhappy with the TBTF banks and were wondering why the guy they thought was a populist offering hope + change had not jailed any bankers? The banks were suffering PR problems that they felt they should address.
How does the focus on the 1% help them? The focus on the 1% spreads the attack to a wider base. The concept moves from US vs. the Wall St banks to Little Guy vs. 1% overclass.
http://28sherman.blo...ff-wall-st.html
Focus on the 1% Takes Heat Off Wall St
Started by
stocks
, Oct 23 2012 01:05 PM
1 reply to this topic
#1
stocks
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 4,550 posts
Member
Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:05 PM
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
#2
stocks
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 4,550 posts
Member
Posted 27 October 2012 - 09:44 AM
What is the Cantillon effect?
Richard Cantillon (writing decades before Adam Smith) showed how those closest to the money source benefited unfairly from currency debasement at the expense of others, by thinking through the effects in Spain and Portugal of the influx of gold from the new world as follows:
“If the increase of actual money comes from mines of gold or silver … the owner of these mines, the adventurers, the smelters, refiners, and all the other workers will increase their expenditures in proportion to their gains. . . . All this increase of expenditures in meat, wine, wool, etc. diminishes of necessity the share of the other inhabitants of the state who do not participate at first in the wealth of the mines in question. The altercations of the market, or the demand for meat, wine, wool, etc. being more intense than usual, will not fail to raise their prices … Those then who will suffer from this dearness … will be first of all the landowners, during the term of their leases, then their domestic servants and all the workmen or fixed wage-earners ... All these must diminish their expenditure in proportion to the new consumption …
(Quoted in Mark Thornton, “Cantillon on the Cause of the Business Cycle” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics Vol 9, No 3 [Fall 2006])
Richard Cantillon (writing decades before Adam Smith) showed how those closest to the money source benefited unfairly from currency debasement at the expense of others, by thinking through the effects in Spain and Portugal of the influx of gold from the new world as follows:
“If the increase of actual money comes from mines of gold or silver … the owner of these mines, the adventurers, the smelters, refiners, and all the other workers will increase their expenditures in proportion to their gains. . . . All this increase of expenditures in meat, wine, wool, etc. diminishes of necessity the share of the other inhabitants of the state who do not participate at first in the wealth of the mines in question. The altercations of the market, or the demand for meat, wine, wool, etc. being more intense than usual, will not fail to raise their prices … Those then who will suffer from this dearness … will be first of all the landowners, during the term of their leases, then their domestic servants and all the workmen or fixed wage-earners ... All these must diminish their expenditure in proportion to the new consumption …
(Quoted in Mark Thornton, “Cantillon on the Cause of the Business Cycle” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics Vol 9, No 3 [Fall 2006])
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
