Yesterday's results were a bit surprising for those not paying close attention when Santorum finished second in what can be best described as a dead heat.  Paul finishing third was probably disappointing to some die-hard fans, but he had a good showing nonetheless and in line with previous polling data.

While I prefer to focus on more macro economic issues, I think it is worthwhile to at least briefly chat about the race.  So what does this mean for the GOP and the candidates?

First of all, it is probably very difficult to predict based on Iowa's results how the actual race will unfold.  Simply because America is a very diverse country and people's voting habits differ quite a bit based on their region.  For example the folks that came out for Santorum in western Iowa simply do not exist in New Hampshire.  Similarly the folks supporting Ron Paul do not exist in South Carolina, so forth and so on.  Although Iowa's influence is undeniable as it propels candidates into spotlights as confirmed by Bachmann's campaign suspension, it is important to remember that the last presidential cycle had zero predictive value (Huckabee won, McCain finished 4th).

Indeed, it would appear that there is a more interesting dynamic at play here and this was the same dynamic that played out during the debate cycle.  We saw an amazing number of people grab the spotlight only to flame out and be replaced by another bubble candidate.  If you recall, it was Bachmann who surged ahead at first, only to be squashed by Perry who crashed and burned in the debates only to be replaced by Cain.  Cain seemed to gain tangible momentum but the sexual scandals buried him and out came Gingrich.  Gingrich peaked too early and gave an opportunity for Santorum to take hold and finish in an impressive second place.  Why?  Because a fraction of the GOP is simply not content and not ready to accept Mitt Romney as their candidate.  They did not like him four years ago and they do not like him now.  Hard to blame them, it is very difficult to like Mitt Romney.  Romney personifies the stereotypical politician to the maximum and his track record as Govenor of Massachusetts leaves a ton to be desired.   Yet Romney's finish in Iowa suggests that a certain faction of the GOP base.  So it is clear that there are two distinct groups so far; Romney group and the non-Romney group.  The fact that it is Santorum at the moment is not relevant at all and in fact, Santorum will cease being an important candidate by the end of January (although he might do well in South Carolina).  

The question is, is there yet a third group whose leader at the moment is Ron Paul?  Possibly, but hard to tell.  Although Paul's performance in Iowa is commendable and he is poised to take second place in New Hampshire, it is a bit unclear as to what happens next.  He could very well finish dead last in South Carolina (provided Huntsman drops out by then).   There could be a very good explanation as to why Paul is polling so strongly in these states, but hovers around 10% on national polls.   Paul's support could be stemming from non-Republican voters who will gladly support him in open primary states for their own personal reasons.   They either want a candidate that truly represents their ideals, like ending wars and ending silly drug prohibitions or they want to sabotage the GOP by selecting what they perceive to be a weak candidate against Obama.  I am inclined to believe that Paul could easily take on Obama, but liberal voters have a tendency to talk big, but act small and will invariably hold their nose and vote for Obama despite all the war mongering, civil infractions and continued drug wars.

In other words, Paul's position and support is yet to be determined.  If indeed his base is real and represents a third faction within the GOP then we will have a very protracted and interesting primary season.  If not, then Romney will sail into the nomination relatively easily as the non-Romney camp splinters and shoots itself in the foot over and over.  Primarily because the non-Romney camp consists of a collection of candidates that have regional bases on support, but present no real threat to Romney on a national level.   As I see it the regional locales will be:  Huntsman in New Hampshire, Perry/Santorum in South Carolina and Gingrich in Florida. This spells good news for Romney.

This spells bad news for the rest of us as Romney represents more of the same status quo malaise that has dragged this country down into the pits.  Romney's potential victory over Obama represents very little as there is no substantial difference between the two men despite all the colorful rhetoric.

Everyone knows my high skepticism of the OWS movement as I have written previously about it extensively.  However a video from what appears to be UC Davis of students being pepper sprayed strikes me as excessive, unnecessary and potentially dangerous.  It is unclear as to what is happening and why, but one can glean the following:

1)  This appears to be a university and the crowd consists of youth.
2)  There are students who are purposely blocking a road/walkway of some kind, possibly preventing a police cruiser from driving through.
3)  The students get pepper sprayed while sitting and then arrested.

I can't for the life of me understand why the police felt the need to cover students with noxious pepper spray before arresting them?   As you can tell from the video the reaction of the onlookers was rather immediate and galvanized everyone against the police.  While the video eventually turns into the typical OWS chanting it seemed pretty clear that there was quite a bit of tension as a handful of officers armed with more pepper spray and non-lethal weaponry were surrounded by an angry crowd.

This seems like excessive at best and potentially dangerous at worst.  If this is indeed a campus and not a public street/road used for traffic then the action of the police offers is inexcusable.  If the police felt the need to arrest them, then arrest them, but this is just fuel for a fire that will burn hotter and longer once the economy inevitably double dips.

You are probably familiar with the famous line from the First Epistle to Timothy in the New Testament:
"The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil", or the more commonly abbreviated albeit somewhat incorrect "Money is the root of all evil".  We have been conditioned to believe that a love of money is something unhealthy and possibly abnormal, but allow me to simplify this further and show you that indeed the love of money is not only good and normal, but one of the pillars of America and the foundations of mankind.

First, what is money?  More appropriately, what is money supposed to be in the most fundamental sense?   At first blush, money is used to "buy" things, but what is the action of buying?  Buying is the same as trading, except that you trade money for goods and services, selling is trading goods and services for money.  Money has no other purpose, it functions as the primary tool for trade.  That begs the question, why are we trading?

Presumably there are several important items that humans need in order to live and even more items in order to not just live, but enjoy life.  Some of the most obvious items include food, water and probably shelter.  In more adverse climates some kind of clothing.  In order to acquire food and water and so efficiently the human requires tools.  We can extrapolate forever, but lets stop right here.  

Meet ZugZug!

ZugZug is a young, capable and clever cave dweller in the year 10,000 BC.   Winter is quickly approaching and although ZugZug is a skilled forager, it takes him almost the entire day to harvest enough berries/mushrooms/plants to keep himself full in these chilly days.  ZugZug comes across another sensible caveman, by the name of BugBug who happens to be a skilled trapper.  Problem is, eating squirrels all day long is boring and BugBug developed a hankering for something new and exciting.  So Zugs decides to trade, now both Zugs and Bugs have applied their skills and created a far richer diet - through trade.   Of course Zugs is still naked, which is fine, but BugBug has gotten fat off the squirrels and needs to be clothed, if only for Zug's sake.  Thankfully Zugs is acquainted with the perpetually hungry MagMag who is really good at crafting warm coverings for the naughty parts from the fur scraps left over by BugBug.  All three  decide to trade their goods and are now suddenly all fed and clothed to boot!   I can probably keep going until I run out of idiotic caveman names, but I think you get the idea.

Trade is essential, it keeps society functioning and makes life better!  However you can also clearly picture a scenario where trade becomes quite complicated as it always assumes that whatever you want to trade for is desired by whatever you are willing to trade away.  Maybe, just maybe once Zugs acquired enough of MagMag's shoddy squirrel undergarments he no longer needs any additional pieces of clothing.  But what if he decides to keep on trading and accumulating clothing.  He can then stockpile enough of these garments and may even consider traveling to the village up north where the diet is more interesting and the clothing can fetch him  something other than berries and squirrels!   What has ZugZug actually acquired?  Private property.

In fact, if he were so keen as to dig a hole in that cave of his where it is nice and cool then he could even keep some of the leftover grub, thus yielding you not only furs, but berries and meats.  Piles of private property.  Imagine also that ZugZug was able to trade for a spear, two knives and this large round thing with a hole that he is not quite sure what to do with, but apparently is all the rage.  Either way, he has more and more private property, property that makes life easier!  In fact with the private property Zugs can now hunt for squirrels with the spear, skin the animals with the knives and for a lack of a better idea plant a nice flower in the big round thing!

How do we call this accumulation of private property?   We can call it wealth.

ZugZug is wealthy, for in that particular society he has everything in order to be well fed, rested and happy.  Life is good.  Now imagine that BugBug and MagMag were also able to acquire the same items, then everyone is wealthy, life is great!

Where does money come into the picture?  It comes in quite naturally when the number of items that one exchanges is so great that trading becomes too difficult.  After all, the last thing Zugs wants to do is run around like a chicken with his head cut off trying to find someone who needs the latest squirrel sock, because he happen to fancy the new spear (made with extra thick twine), but the spear owner is looking for two of those round things with holes in it for some inexplicable reason.  Just becomes too damn confusing.

Now imagine we just got the past the whole "stone age" thing and tools are now made out of iron.  In fact almost everything is made out of iron.  Tools, shelter items, weapons and even belts!  Everyone needs iron, everyone.  Since everyone needs it, iron can now be used as the universal medium of exchange.  Gone are the days where ZugZug needed to swap with BugBug and his entire extended family.  As long as one had chunks of iron, the one could acquire *anything*.  In fact at this point, storing berries and excess tools and weapons just for trading is no longer necessary.  Not only do berries go bad, but hauling all that private property everywhere is cumbersome and hardly practical.  Not to mention paying that idiot Bubba with endless supplies of different foods just to make sure that nobody steals ZugZgu's furs.

So what do we have?

We have iron, that allows for trade.  Trade allows for everyone to get and exchange items they require which eventually leads to more and more people accumulating private property.  This leads to a wonderful and fulfilling life.  In this case iron is money.  Money is therefore essential in making people happy, quickly and efficiently.  All that is good was acquired by money.

Money is the root of all good.

Now pretend that everyone is happy with trading iron for goods.  Yet somehow, with no real explanation every village becomes overrun with endless supply of iron from a mysterious source.  At first, everyone is absolutely delighted for all the potential private property they can acquire.   Until of course they learn that more and more iron is required to trade for the same berries, furs, meats and tools.  

That my friends, is called inflation and will be explored in the next installment of ZugZug and friends.

Oakland is in the news, as it should be given the police violence that occurred there during the encampement clearing last week.  Although the police were provoked to violence by having bottles and rocks thrown at them their response has been deemed disproportional.  One can agree with that.

What is equally interesting is the handling of the entire situation by Mayor Quan.  First she coddled the protesters and left them alone.  Then she requested the police to move in and clear out the encampment.  Then she apologized for the way they were treated, vilified the police and allowed the protesters to return.  All of this is costing the city hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money.  A city that is financially strapped and cannot afford excessive waste.  In spite of that, Mayor Quan is now supporting and endorsing a general strike by the protesters.

A strike like this will have massive financial implications on the city in the form of lost productivity, but the police are also prohibited from participating in the strike and in fact are being beefed up to insure that the strike remains peaceful.  A strike that is encouraged and promoted by the very establishment that the strike is aimed at.

This has prompted the police of Oakland to write a public letter stating their confusion.

Meanwhile, Oaklanders are equally confused by Quan's bipolar handling of the situation and are giving her alarmingly bad approval ratings.  From the SF CBS 5 local station poll:

"As for Quan, the CBS 5 poll found her approval rating is now a dismal 20% — with 64% of Oaklanders disapproving of the job she is doing."


In true California glory, a Mayor that disliked and that foolish as to purposely bring down the finances of the city *has* to be a Republican.

Below is a picture of the website from last week, with the party affiliation highlighted in red.



























I am sure this is just an "honest" mistake, but it is one of those things that formulates public opinion and was done entirely on purpose.  In case you think this is a fluke, they did it again five days later.



Mayor Jean Quan is a member of the Democrat Party and considered to hail from the Progressive wing of the party according to APAP.

Nice to see the Propaganda Ministry working overtime.

Quick and important observation.  After last week's crackdown of the Oakland occupiers many accused the police of willfully disrespecting the right to assemble and petition the Government.   What made me especially suspicious is that Oakland is generally a pro-OWS area.  That is to say, the politics and the current mayor are likely allies rather than enemies to the underlying message of the movement.

After digging around it seems that indeed, police responded rather than initiated the violence.  Allegedly the police complained that they were being pelted with stones and bottles, either as a form of provocation or as a response by the protesters for being removed from the park.

Now it is very simple you see, the local police have their own set of laws they follow and can react accordingly within the larger prism of the Constitution.  So you may have a right to assemble, free speech and protest - but your right becomes impossible to perform if you attack a police offer because they have a right to restrain you.   This is what happened, although the restraining was in the form of tear gas and flash bangs.  Disproportional response?  Possibly.  However it is far from the one sided "policy brutality" nonsense we have been hearing all around.  Perhaps the provocation worked as planned?

Here is a video of an Oakland protester admitting that the police were indeed being pelted with objects.

It has been quite a struggle to point out to people just how Leftist the occupy movement truly is.  What makes it more frustrating is that certain "libertarian" bloggers and other individuals who are sympathetic with the underlying movement are either turning a blind eye or plain ignorant about the makeup of the protesters.

I have tried to present pictures and ideas, but am still accused of generalizing and blowing things out of proportion.

So a recent poll conducted with 301 protesters is shedding quite a light and confirming many of my suspicions.

Some of the highlights:


15. What is your employment status (check one)
Student………………………………………………………….25
Employed full-time……………………………………………..30
Unemployed…………………………………………………….28
Employed part-time…………………………………………….18

Fascinating.  70% of the protesters are either students, unemployed or partially employed.   So much for representing main stream America. 


1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
Approve……………………………………………………..27%
Disapprove…………………………………………………. 73%

Obama is economically, a very liberal president.  He believes in distribution, bailouts, corporatism (biggest recipient of Wall St. donations, auto bailouts), green technology to the point of stupidity (Solyndra), class warfare and other popular Lefist rhetoric.  Despite all that, he is getting major disapproval from the OWS folks!



3. If the 2012 election for the U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you
vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?
Democratic candidate………………………………………42
Republican candidate………………………………………...4
Wouldn’t vote……………………………………………....22
Someone else……………………………………………….32

While these folks are disillusioned with Obama, they still prefer Democrat over anyone else.  




5. Is your opinion of the Tea Party movement favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard
enough about it?
Favorable……………………………………………………..7
Unfavorable…………………………………………………75
Haven’t heard enough……………………………………....18

This one is no surprise, but for the pundits out there claiming that there are many similarities between Tea Parties and OWS - firstly, completely incorrect and secondly, a vast majority disapproves of the TP suggesting there is no appreciation for the perceived commonality. 


...and the two big ones...


8. Generally speaking, which of the following political parties do you identify with most closely?
(check one)
Democratic…………………………………………………25
Republican…………………………………………………..2
Tea Party…………………………………………………….0  
Socialist Party……………………………………………...11
Green Party………………………………………………...11
Other……………………………………………………….12
I do not identify with any party……………………………39



17. When it comes to politics, do you usually think of yourself as (check one):
Extremely liberal………………………………………………….39 
Liberal…………………………………………………………….33 
Slightly liberal…………………………………………………......8
Moderate/middle of the road……………………………………..15
Slightly conservative………………………………………………2
Conservative……………………………………………………….3
Extremely conservative……………………………………………1


Right.  So we have 11% admitting to being Socialists.  Green party in the US share many platforms of Socialism, but to be generous we will attribute only half of those to Socialism.   There is an overwhelming amount that does not identify with any party, so we look at question 17 instead.

With 39% identifying as extremely liberal it is the equivalent of modern day Socialists.  Another 33% are liberal, from my experience half of the people who admit to being liberals sympathize with *some* elements of socialism.  We can confidently say that 55% of the people asked prefer some kind of Socialism in this country.   Going back to question 8, the lack of identification combined with Socialist/Green Party identification is about the equivalent that one can deduce from question 17.

Therefore, we can declare two obvious things.

First, there is a vast animosity to the Tea Party - a perfect ideological opposition.  If a majority of Tea Partiers believe in limited government, constrained Federal power and libertarian ideals then the OWS movement endorses big government and more Federal power.   A perfect opposite ideology of the Tea Party is the Socialist party.

Secondly, half of the respondents openly admit to being either left or extremely left of center.

Anyone who claims or thinks that OWS is some kind of organic movement representing a legitimate voice of middle class America is smoking something super potent.

A reader passed this link along and I am compelled to share. This will of course not endear the movement to the wealthy and in fact reads more like a threat than anything, but is impossible to disagree with.

Most important point is that people are looking for a scapegoat.

Indeed when this country was juiced up on Fed funny money nobody was complaining. When people extracted equities out of their house to go on vacation nobody was complaining. When employment dipped under 5% under Bush nobody was complaining. When every mutual fund under the sun was making money by just buying and holding and 401ks ballooned, nobody was complaining.

Yet when the credit stopped flowing and the poor investments had to be erased then came the pain. Lots of pain. Instead of biting the bullet and bracing for austerity ACORN, unions and other radical leftists decided in the wisdom of Rhamb-o to utilize this crisis as best as possible.  Ahh, people will never learn.  Yesterday's Jews are today's Wall Street executives.

Second point, what will happen if indeed some of the most hard working and educated Americans decide to leave their reviled jobs and enter mainstream America.  Not only will this have the same negative effect as the luxury tax did once their money dries up, but the last thing we need is more labor competition in a country where bankruptcy and downsizing awaits.

Response: (click for larger image)

I have been getting some push back recently for my previous articles where I accuse the OWS/Occupy movement of being a bunch of socialist nutters.  In fairness, I have also called them anarchists (socialists in disguise), Truthers/conspiracy fringe (they will protest regardless) and *even* regular people too.   However it would be foolish to consider this movement as some kind of representation of middle class America, that it most surely is not.

Does it make me some right-wing extremist?  No, I am simply making observations on the mountains of visual and audio data that is streaming from around the world.  The comparisons with the Tea Party are absolutely laughable and simply shows how clueless people are when it comes to identifying basic ideological differences.  Just because the Tea Party and OWS happen to object to TARP means absolutely diddly squat.  It's like saying that Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are ideologically compatible because they both oppose the Federal Reserve.  At that rate, Obama is identical to Jim DeMint else because they both prefer oxygen.

See, Tea Partiers, before they got hijacked by Republicans were against TARP because it disrespected Capitalism and was a clear sign of cronyism.  OWS is pissed off over TARP because it just happened to benefit the "enemy" which in this case happens to be wealthy bankers.  Normal rational people do not hate or dislike successful people just because they have more, they dislike them when they no longer play by the rules.  Capitalism is all about rules and playing the game within the confines of the laws established by the people.  OWS could care less about capitalism, always favored socialism and hate the rich - they are just using this crisis as a staging platform.

Remember folks, OWS started first and foremost AGAINST budget cuts during the debt ceiling negotiations.  That is right, despite being broke and being crushed by our mounting debt - the OWS movement organized itself against Federal budget cuts!  Any libertarian who supports this absurd movement is siding with people who are fundamentally against limited Government.  It is pathetic.

In case you are skeptical of my claims, observe the collection of pictures from various OWS movements around the world.

Then go over and watch a video of two clueless fools calling for Socialism while presenting North Korea as their model of success.

With the OWS movement leaving many Americans confused as to whether they should support or stay away, one thing is for certain, Americans are aware of a certain truth that is happening in our country.  We have a certain combination of events that is leaving many people struggling and asking very good questions.

The truth is this; We have structurally high unemployment, salaries are stagnant, debt burdens are rising, costs for education, health and energy are on the rise and we are increasingly overwhelmed with clear and present danger coming from every corner of the earth.

To make matters worse the ruling elite of this country and the very wealthy are continuing to benefit while the remainder of the population struggles.  This is the appeal of the OWS movement despite the fact that the members making up the movement are advocating entirely unappealing solutions in the form of wealth distribution, punishing success and other hard left ideologies.

Of course in a country where American Idol and the Jersey Shore are better known than who currently runs the Federal Reserve it is hardly a wonder that cries for Socialism just sound appealing.  To further exacerbate the overall ignorance of the populace our education system and emphasis on history and economics appear to be tilted in the direction that highlight correlation and anecdotal evidence rather that fundamentals and causation.

So let us tackle this "explanation" of inequality which is now being circulated on the internet and shared on Facebook with proud posters feeling rather enlightened about their "discovery".  Unfortunately the explanations are nothing more than illusory and are further fueling the partisan divide and the protests against the "haves" of the society.  The explanations either blame capitalism or Congressional policy favoring the rich.

Consider for example:  Plutocracy Reborn by Business Insider which attempts to convince the readers that it is our policy that is causing another Great Depression in America. Without digging deeper than the surface they present for most people what appears to be a very convincing argument as to why the current Congressional taxation policy has created our wealth gap.  

Another example: It's the inequality, stupid by Mother Jones showing a combination of pretty charts, graphs and bubbles that all attempt to convince the reader that the policies of America are entirely responsible for all the inequality in this country.

Too bad both sources are wrong.  They are showing the effect, without any explanation.

It is easy to scratch the surface, notice a correlation and run with it.  So stick with me for a little bit and I will show you the simple truth.  Yes, we have inequality, but this inequality is neither driven by the free market nor by tax policy.

I have taken the plutocracy picture and placed two graphs under it:


What you are looking at:

Top - Average income and the uncanny relationships between inequality and economic calamity.
Bottom left - Monetary base from 1918 to 1930 (amount of money controlled by the Federal Reserve)
Bottom right - Interest rates from 1954 to 2010.

I have also added green and red lines that clearly demonstrate the relationship between the amount of money in the system and income inequality, these lines match the years perfectly and as you can see are inversely correlated.

Note regarding the bottom charts.  The left chart is the monetary base, or amount of money sloshing around in the system, while on the right is a graph of interest rates.  They appear to be inversely correlated in their effect on income equality, because they really mean the same thing.  That is, cheap interest rates promote monetary expansion.  Although we have no historical interest rate data going back to pre-Depression levels we can see that money *did* expand during that time.  Thus the behavior of monetary expansion in the 1920s and the 1980s-2010s was quite similar!!

If you treat money as a commodity, which it should be, then like any commodity there is a price.  We can measure the price of money by either looking at its value as it relates to other money (Euro vs Dollar) or its purchasing power or the rate of interest.  Interest rates are always a measure of how valuable money is at any given time.  If money is scarce then the interest rate is higher, if money is widely available then interest is lower.  Right?  Good.

As you can plainly see our centrally planned authorities dictate the price of the most vital and precious aspect of our economy, our money.  When these authorities incorrectly price our money we develop massive distortions.  The red and green lines coincide perfectly with rising and falling income inequalities!
When money is cheaper or more readily available then the very rich benefit the most.

Why does this happen?

Because money is priced through the banking system.  That is, the quantity of money increases (when rates are low) through the banking system first and then into the general economy later.  Therefore banks benefit first and foremost as they are the recipients of newly created money, while the rest of us poor shmucks see this increase in money through price increases.  If you think about it, provided production capacity remains the same then the price of all goods invariable increase *if* the supply of money goes up.  Yes?

So what does that look like?



Observe the massive price increase that began to occur around the 1970s.  There were two things that happened in the past 40 years that contributed to this jump.

1)  1971:  End of Bretton Woods and the US Dollar disconnecting from any material store of value (gold).
2)  1982:  A thirty year prolonged effort of systematically lower and lower rates, thus making money/credit cheaper and more plentiful.  As you can see in the first chart, we have now reached the floor at 0% interest rates or in more simpler terms the price of money is the lowest it has been in history.

Are there other effects of cheap money other than price increases?

Yes, salaries tend to go up.






















Unfortunately the rate of salary increases does not keep up with the rate of price increases.  You can tell in fact that at the moment of the writing real income is now lower than it was before the recession of 2008, yet price increases are at their highest!

Why does that matter?  Because of the following:

Source

Rise in prices affect the lower income families the most.   It is useful to look at the expenditure ratio of things like gas and food because these items are required for survival.

You need food and energy in order to produce and build capital.  Without capital there is no wealth.

Visually the picture is starting to coalesce.  The lower income families are having a harder and harder time building capital because they are spending at least half of their entire income on survival!   The bad news does not stop there unfortunately because the price of money causes yet another distortion.  It forces people to move potential capital into acquiring tangible goods instead of actually saving the money for more prudent purchases or investments.

This is the sad state of our society over the past 30 years:

"We are, the 99% - we are, the 99%".   This is the chant from the multiple 'occupy' movements heard around the country and as of recent times, around the world.   As my previous article indicated, this particular movement is an amalgamation of socialist fringe elements, unions, leftists, angry liberals and an assortment of libertarians/conspiracy theorists and yes, even average Americans.  However I would like to take this opportunity to invite you into my personal life and show you the real 99%.

My parents brought me to America in 1988 from Soviet Russia where life had become so unbearable and so awful that for the sake of my future and my soon to be born brother's future, everything was left behind and opportunities provided by the free market and capitalism were chosen.  The very thing that the protesters now demand to be destroyed was entirely non-existent in the USSR and life for many consisted of nothing more than survival.  Unless politically connected people acquired nothing, had nothing, had no hope, had no inspiration and no imagination.  It was a "life" that many North Koreans and Cubans still experience, perhaps without the gulags as those have at least shutdown with the passing/murder of Stalin.  Still, gulag or not, life where private property did not really exist was just barely existence.  The Bolshevik revolution certainly started with far more benevolent desires. A war against the wealthy and the worker's socialist utopia involving the distribution of wealth with the ultimate goal for everyone to have as much as he/she can - never live in poverty, never be hungry and always be content.  We know how that turned out.  Despite what some clueless America college graduates like Jon Phoenix  from the Occupy Boston movement thinks, Soviet Socialism did not fail because there was a lack of a Democracy, it failed because without private property and without the free market there is no desire or capacity to create a better you, better me or better world.  I would refer our future Leninist thinker to F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom for a clearer explanation, but one requires a tad more than fantasy to formulate cogent thought.

I got my first job at the age of 12, delivering the Boston Globe in my neighborhood.  It was very hard work, but I had no choice because my grandparents refused to hand me quarters to play Street Fighter at the local theater.  If I wanted to play games, I had to work for it.  After paper delivery came grocery bagging, then working at Hollywood video, mixed in with shoveling snow during our crazy winters. With manual labor losing its appeal my interest in computers lead me to the library.  I rented several books and learned how to design web pages, navigate UNIX and even started learning C (condolences to the Ritchie family).  My inspiration was my father who worked in the software industry and from our first day in America refused to accept one dollar of welfare despite speaking barely any English.  Instead he lied to his first employer about his knowledge of a particular programming language and then learned it on the fly without the employer suspecting anything out of the ordinary.   Sophomore year in high school my dabbling in web development lead me to a webmaster job at a local PR firm.  All during high school I avoided spending money recklessly and unlike my friends bought clothing very rarely and avoided  restaurants.  I was labeled cheap by many, but it was preferable to be labeled something then go into debt.

 I went to a state school and gave everything I accumulated to my parents who then fielded the remainder, poor grades in high school did not merit a more expensive college.  Combined with loans and parents' generosity I graduated from Penn State with only 15k in debt.  After graduating with a Computer Science degree my first job resulted in a very poor salary (under median income).  So I decided to live at home and spend every dollar I made to reduce my school loans.  Took a while, but it finally worked.  To make additional money I went back to books and learned how to navigate and trade the stock market and play poker online competitively.  Both of these resulted in small, but important cash flows that allowed me to buy a used car to replace a hand-me-down that broke down.   There was an opportunity to buy a much nicer and newer car, but getting yet another loan after just paying off my school loan seemed entirely asinine.  My position was terminated in about two years and I went looking for a new place of employment.

I interviewed for a long time until finally landing a new position.  It took many months of studying, prepping, practicing and honing my skills to impress my future employer.   I studied, learned and worked overtime as often as I could to impress my new boss and it began to pay dividends.  This was roughly six years ago and my salary went from below median income, to slightly above it and then doubling it in five years.

Then came the decision to purchase a home.  At the time my salary allowed for a $300,000+ home, but it became apparent that assuming such a debt burden would be too crippling so I settled for a townhouse for $219,000 instead.  It was far from Boston, but it was all I could really allow myself to spend. During that time I tried to do as many improvements as possible by myself in an effort to save money, once again, dad's knowledge and assistance helped immensely.  Still, my frugality never diminished.  My clothe shopping, going out habits and even large ticket item purchases remained virtually unchanged.  In fact I sold my car because the upkeep, insurance and gas mileage were too expensive and downgraded to a Nissan Sentra which now results in slight ridicule from my friends.  Whatever, rather get ridiculed and get 31 MPGs then pay out the nose for a slick looking Audi or Mercedes.

Living within my means is still a top priority.

This means:  I do not have a smart phone, I cook instead of going to restaurants, I do not have HBO, Cinemax or anything other than basic cable.  I buy clothing when my existing wears out and becomes so old that even the Salvation Army regrets accepting my donation.

Perhaps for the many protesters currently occupying our streets this may be a very sad existence, but it is what I deserve based on my abilities.  Yes, I wish I was born a genius or a super athlete or had family connections to get me into lucrative banking, but alas, I am just an average Joe Arkady. We are not all born equal, such is life.  I repeat we are NOT born equal, we simply demand that we have equal opportunities.

So why tell you all this?

Because I am the 99%.  

I am now paying almost half of everything I earn in taxes and more awaits me if I get promoted.  25% for federal, 15% for Social Security/Medicare (money I will never see again), 5.3% for Massachusetts and almost 4% in real estate taxes.  This does not include the sales taxes, gas taxes, license fees and other hidden costs.  My health care costs are staggering and currently standing at over $2,000 in premiums alone with thousands upon thousands of hidden costs that are absorbed by my employer at the expense of salary.   Before you ask, this is the cheapest plan available to me and one that I must purchase or be penalized thanks to Mitt Romney and other bastard politicians dominating this state.

I am the 99%.
Not the 42% on food stamps.
Not the 33% on Medicaid.
Not the 47% who did not pay a penny in federal taxes last year.
Not the millions on welfare, on their way to 99 weeks of unemployment.
I am the 99%.

Do I wish to live right in Boston?  Drive a nice Mercedes or BMW, shop at Banana Republic and go out to eat every week?  YES.  Very much so.  However that would require spending almost everything I make today and possibly even borrow from the future.  A model practiced by our Government and many of my fellow Americans.  How do I know?  See for yourself:




For thirty years the American people, American Government and the financial sector accumulated debt.  This debt is now starting to destroy everything.  This is why half of my income now goes to pay for the food stamps, medical care, housing subsidies and welfare of my fellow citizens.  Our profligacy now stands at almost 50 Trillion!

Yet the amount taken from me still pales in comparison to what is taken from the 1% of the American population.  A visual representation once again speaks volumes.
Hopefully the window to my life exposes an important fact.  There are many of us that work everyday, live within our means everyday and get virtually half our private property taken away from us everyday.  We do this while watching our neighbors live off our fruits and labor.   When times get tough and I am forced to seek help, my parents is who I go to.  My parents' influence when it comes to work, career, avoiding debt and living prudently is a large part of who I am.  The few times I had to borrow money, for example to make the full down payment on townhouse to avoid the PMI came from my father.  I paid him back as quickly as possible, WITH interest.  That is right, nobody owes me anything, not even my dad.  Still, when I think of who will help me in times of need I think of my family and my friends.  Not a giant Bureaucracy that relies on wrestling away private property from others to help others.

I also fully recognize that not everyone is as lucky and perhaps does not have a family that can act as such a strong and positive influence.  There are many people who went through my exact same path, but for some unfortunate turn of events and perhaps bad luck cannot make ends meet.  They have tried and exhausted all options.  This is exactly why every year I donate to charity, because we need to come together as a society and take care of those who have fallen behind.  When we form together in our hardest times, we emerge even stronger in easier times.  Goes without saying that  losing 50% of my income to pay for the largest Federal and State Governments in America's history makes it much harder to be charitable, so even charities now depend on the wealthy.  

I am the 99%.  Watching fellow Americans who live off my taxes while protesting "unfairness" and "inequality" while texting on their smart phones is disgusting.  Instead of complaining against the wealthy, why don't you thank them instead and then take the grievances highlighted in blue up above and go to Congress, go to your State house, go to your local town halls and demand REAL fairness.

Anything else is misplaced anger by a bunch of petulant children completely void of basic knowledge, economics and sense of reality.