Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 1 PERSON 1 VOTE is dangerous to the 1%: Here are the docs that Citibank worked so hard to remove from the Internet.

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 20, 2013, 9:05 a.m. EST by therising (6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It used to be very difficult, nearly impossible to get ahold of these memos. They were sent by Citibank to their wealthiest clients around to world ostensibly to give insider advice on investments, but they revealed much more.

http://our99angrypercent.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/download-citigroup-plutonomy-memos/

Read the entire memos at link above when you have a chance, but here's a small sample.

"Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich. . . A third threat comes from the potential social backlash. To use Rawls-ian analysis, the invisible hand stops working. Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Pluto-participant. Why kill it off, if you can join it? In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”. But if voters feel they cannot participate, they are more likely to divide up the wealth pie, rather than aspire to being truly rich. Could the plutonomies die because the dream is dead, because enough of society does not believe they can participate? The answer is of course yes. But we suspect this is a threat more clearly felt during recessions, and periods of falling wealth, than when average citizens feel that they are better off. There are signs around the world that society is unhappy with plutonomy - judging by how tight electoral races are."

That 1 person 1 vote thing is what the 1% is most afraid of. They know that they're screwed if we ever figure out that we have the power and that we the 99% are all in the same boat. That's when the 1 person 1 vote thing makes them powerless.

That's when the the people's agenda rises above the corporate agenda.

Still think the rich might be right about trickle down economics? Read this: http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/neoliberal-theory-economic-failure

26 Comments

26 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20541) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

this post should be permalinked on the forum page - it should remain front and center 24-7

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

It is rare we catch the 1% so blatantly chattering amongst themselves. We can't let them scrub it away, especially when the truth is as naked as this.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I second that.

[-] 2 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

The naked truth is purely clean and therefore we get the transparency for WE to move forward, down and dirty wash away wash away Bless...

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Couldn't we push from both the inside and the outside?

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Nonviolent protest and Voting. . . Who would have thought they'd be such a threat to the 1%?

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

The effort to keep these leaked memos off the web was pretty extraordinary. But it failed.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the upper crust" - Lupe Fiasco

Citi banks gives money to a political campaign. That person wins the election. The winner then chooses a Citi bank exec to head the treasury. And that is racketeering simply explained.

That's why they buy off "both sides" and have worked hard together to demonize social labor movements and communist labor movements that fought for higher wages and better working conditions. That's why THEY shot at union leaders and took out great community leaders in the 60's.

Great post!!!!

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Great comment. Unity is a threat to the establishment.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"both sides"? Yeah agreed, but no reason to get partisan about it. We are against all pro 1% politicians. I like Sanders he may lean one way but WE must look at each individual politician, most are bought off but we must support any and all that challenge the 1%. Better yet, If we can focus on the issues in our street activity we will continue influencing the people to pressure all politicians. All while staying uninvolved with "both sides".

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

It's not partisan. It's the truth.

Even Sanders voted for the NDAA. I like him on most accounts, but he has a couple blights on his voting record.

Corps and banks corrupt the government with cash. This can force the honest into tough spots as well.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree "cash....can force the honest into tough spots" I believe Sen Sanders is against and voted against NDAA until his no vote against the broader veto proof military budget made it moot. I don't think bankster money was involved though. I agree Sanders is great on most accounts and that his voting record includes actions that are disagreeable. But no one is perfect, and "both sides" (parties???) share guilt. So rather than get lost in the weeds I would submit we agree that both parties are bought off, some politicians are decent but the corporations and their efforts/preferred policies are the cruxt of our problems. So first (through street action) we must get all money out of politics and influence the population to pressure their representatives for change that helps the 99%. In regards to banks I propose that means shutting the existing banking system down, recreating a system (with strong regulations) that favors working class low interest investment in community business/jobs. For me I think I can fight for these issues without getting too involved with "Both sides" or even particular politicians. Once I start getting into "both sides" (the parties) then we stop talking about the issues and create exclusion, not inclusion.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You can't depend on people funded by Wall Street to save you from Wall street. -my main motto

post edit- didn't mean to stinkle you. Changed it to an upvote.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (6499) 9 hours ago "You can't depend on people funded by Wall Street to save you from Wall street."

Quite true :). Hey - I may be away from this forum for a bit, but I shall return soon. Involved in some nonviolent change at the local level at the moment and I want to give it my full attention.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Good luck! Give 'em peace!!!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

A good motto, however simplistic and obvious. I am committed to increasing the numbers of our street activities because I agree we cannot depend on politicians, but rather only on our selves. I would like to see a real effort at overturning CU, establishing that corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Once that is accomplished there may be more Bernie Sanders to work with. Until then we are most effective influencing the 99% who will in turn pressure their representatives.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"You can't depend on people funded by Wall Street to save you from Wall street. "

Seems kind of obvious eh?

Shows the power of divide and conquer. Fear based politics and media.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

The majority of people do not see it as obvious. A majority of people are still blinded by allegiance to the party politic.

You ever go to a party politic rally with a sign that says "your politician is bought" ? -(edit: knowing you, I'm sure you have

They will insult you and bash on you. They do not see the corruption as obvious.

It should be obvious.

Goldman Sachs finances politicians and gives them insider information. Politicians then vote to give them billions.

We need to make the corruption obvious to them. OWS has done a great job opening people's eyes to the corruption. And the work must continue!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

It is an important fact to be reiterated until enough people do see the obviousness, enough people so that the overturning of CU, the repealing of corporations as people, and the repudiation of money = speech can be achieved. Hopefully this is the reason for your efforts/motto. I'm pretty sure overturning CU is why Occupy has been working hard to open peoples eyes to corp control of our government.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Yes. But capitalism and corporate/bankster dominance existed long before Citizens United. CU put it in acceleration mode. OWS goes way beyond CU. Solving the CU problem is only one of many issues.

In simple words - OWS is about equality, peace, and societal advancement. Real prosperity for the people.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I do not disagree with your assessment of what Occupy is, although I'm not comfortable speaking so conclusively about the movement. I would simply suggest that while the CU ruling IS recent, the concept of corporations as people goes back to the industrial revolution, at the dawn of the gilded age. In any event all the issues occupy seeks to change will require that corporations be removed from the control of the peoples government. That is why I submit that be an early goal. You disagree?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Never disagreed with that. I disagreed on your "partisan" assessment in your first comment.

The politicians have been corrupted by money in politics. We need to make this obvious.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'm just less interested in the political battles that using "both sides" seems to elicit, and more interested in fighting for change, and growijng the movement. The corruption of our politicians and the need to inform more people of that obviousness I covered when I responded : "It is an important fact to be reiterated until enough people do see the obviousness, enough people so that the overturning of CU, the repealing of corporations as people, and the repudiation of money = speech can be achieved" .We seem to be on a similar page.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

people need to understand the politicians are corrupt or they're just going to keep blindly supporting the corruption. The corrupt lie and often make false claims which people believe.

You're going to have to face uncomfortable conversations when speaking the truth. The truth is often unpopular in a world shrouded in lies and corruption.

We can't depend on people funded by Wall Street to save us from Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I face uncomfortable conversations often. Not today, but often. That is not a problem. The uselessness of arguing over this parties mistakes, or that parties corruption or both sides guilt is just less important to me than the specific issues that threaten the 99%. Too many people are excluded unnecessarily when one party or both are brought up. If we focus on pushing solutions to specific issues, we will inform, and influence more and more people who will in turn pressure their representatives. bringing more people over to our solutions is the inclusion we should nurture.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

1 person one vote is a real dilemma for the 1% - and this doc shows them lamenting it openly....