Tuesday, January 21, 2014


What is causing our huge welfare bills, huge debts and huge poverty?

"Inequality has surpassed the levels of Edwardian England."

Inequality was declining until the 1970s.

It was in the 1980s that nasty people like Reagan and Thatcher began the process of increasing inequality.

How severe is the inequality?

Eighty-five people control the same amount of wealth as half the world's population.


If these 85 people could have their wealth distributed among the poor, then surely life would get better.

Many of the super rich are simply people who control monopolies.

The real issue - it's all about inequality - Will Hutton - The Observer, Sunday 19 January 2014

Will Hutton has been invited to a Bilderberg meeting in the past, so he knows what's going on.

Will Hutton writes that INEQUALITY is the cause of the following:


Ill health, 

The growth of the welfare bill, 

The escalating borrowing, 

The banking crisis,

The collapse in productivity, and the stagnation in innovation and investment.


Will Hutton writes that so many of the high incomes are "plainly undeserved and unrelated to merit".

After World War II, the rich elite had their plan to increase inequality.

This plan involved brainwashing people into thinking that:

1. The useless bosses were wonderful 

2. And that the hard-working workers were useless.

Yes, most of you were brainwashed.

Big corporations are evil.

According to Hutton the plan was to:

1. Reduce the power of the Trade Unions.

2. Reduce the taxes on the rich.

3. Allow vast monopolies.

Poverty in Greece

According to Hutton:

In Britain, now 28th out of 34 countries in the equality league table, the inequality has led to:

A. A mountain of debt

B.  A weakening in the growth rate compared to the 1960s

C. Falling productivity

D. And the financial crisis.

Much more here: The real issue - it's all about inequality

What is the solution?

1. Increase the power of the Trade Unions.

2. Increase the taxes on the rich.

3. Break up the monopolies.

A well nourished Sudanese man steals maize from a starving child during a food distribution at a feeding center in Sudan in 1998. Photo by Tom Stoddart.

Of course some of you will disagree.

But that is because you have been brainwashed.

Why did Britain lose so many of its industries, at a time when South Korea was building up its industries?

The government of South Korea, unlike the government of the UK, protected its industries and poured huge sums of money into these industries. 


Anonymous said...

A Tale of Two Reports: The Guardian’s Propaganda on Syria and Israel


Anonymous said...

Why the Obama Administration Will Not Admit that Fukushima Radiation is Poisoning Americans


CanSpeccy said...

"The poor," said Jesus, "will always be among you." What matters is not inequality of wealth but that so many in the West, as well as the Third World, lack a living wage.

And widespread Western unemployment is a direct result of globalist policies that have allowed Bill Gates and friends to transfer well-paid jobs from the west to low-wage, Third World sweatshops, the difference in wages accruing to our so greatly admired titans of industry.

Oxfam appears to be engaged in an exercise in diversion, distracting attention from the widespread misery caused by globalization in the West by drawing attention to the age-old poverty of the Third World.

Anonymous said...

This the same Will Hutton who was earning £180,000 a year and the owner of a string of buy to let properties? Yes, thought so.

I don't have much time for hypocrites.

Anonymous said...

Hullo Aang,

I'd put it down to usury. I mean you've pretty much defined usury here.

Think about it, usury is simple: those without money must pay those with too much for the right to utilise some of their excess.

It is by its very definition a poor-to-rich wealth transfer system. And it should be remembered that this is not some let's-blame-the-victim episodic thing. Our entire monetary system has usury as its foundational definition. All money is debt. Every transaction that takes place (ie. me down the shop buying tobacco) is effectively saddled with a cascading debt that transfers wealth from those without to those with too much.

Places do exist where money is not debt and usurers don't run things but we are currently blowing their shit up.

Our masters bid us and indebted as we are, we obey. Three cheers for us.

best etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

As long as you ignore the IMF and the BIIS, you are not working with a full deck. Who do you think owns those corporations that are making all these decisions and wrecking the lives of humanity??? ALL the other "stuff" related to these few people is just distraction. FIAT CURRENCY AND USURY are the tools; get rid of them and the system falls apart.

hirundine said...

Trickle down? More like drip down!

A few years ago I spent some time working for Wallies. As retail staff, they start you off at what might be regarded as a "living wage". After that you're trapped by small increments of wage increase. That's the carrot they use. The stick is a method of, visits to the office. Ostensibly for some triviality of error. Then they give you, what's laughingly called a "coaching". This then limits the employee to any sort of wage increase, for the upcoming year. That's how they drag employees down.

If by any chance, after a number of years you reach their wage ceiling. That's it for wage increases. Instead you're given a bonus which comes as a separate cheque, that has maximum taxation withheld.

With Wal-Mart, wages are governed by Head Office. Any store manager going over the store's wage threshold, are similarly and summarily dismissed or transferred. The managers are started at a much better salary than hourly paid, yet they are expected to work 50-70 hours a week. This can be weekdays, week-ends, nights or statutory holidays. End of year they might get a bonus?

These methods are being repeated by all other corporate retail outlets.

What seems to be missing from the corporate equation, is that. When the employee has money, they will spend it on what is regarded as luxury items. Which in turn translates to overall wealth of society. That is what is missing from drip-down economic policies.

Anonymous said...

Is the graph not 17,5%?

sovereigntea said...


A prophetic interview with Sir James Goldsmith in 1994 Pt1


Site Meter