Stealing $250 trillion a year [unbelievable]

If it was possible, and someone or some group stole US$270 trillion a year, we would take it back and punish the person or group.
After all, world annual income is only US$275 trillion, so it would be stealing 98% of human wealth, stealing an average of US$270,000 a year from every family in the world.
If the person or group were stealing different amounts from families, they might be stealing virtually all the earnings of some families, which would deprive those families of means to survive. It would be killing people. It would be mass-murder.
We would certainly take it back and punish them.
We have 1% of people taking US$270 trillion a year, 98% of human wealth, killing 1% of humanity, 50 million people, every year, from starvation, and another 1% of humanity every year from the violence [war and crime] engendered by the theft. Causing the deaths of one in fifty human beings every year. And causing a growth of violence [war, crime and weaponry] to the present point of 60 times PDC [planet death capability] and evergrowing violence, which must reach the point where we will use these bombs, killing 6+ billion people. If you turn the kettle on, and the temperature rises to nearly boiling, it will soon boil, if you don't turn it off.
Without this theft, every average-sized family in the world working average hard would be on US$275,000 a year. And larger and smaller sized families, and families working above and below average, would be on proportionately more or less. Instead we have 99% of families on less than US$275,000, 80% of families on less than a 100th of US$275,000. The pool of human wealth, the products of human work, almost completely drained. 1% getting between the world average pay of US$275,000 and 100,000 times that, US$27,500,000,000 a year, and 99% getting between the world average pay and 10,000th of that, US$27.5 a year.
If someone were going around killing one in fifty people every year, we would do something about it. If someone were doing something that was endangering the lives of 6+ billion people, we would do something about it. What greater crime could there be? Stealing virtually everything and endangering everyone including themselves.
Why do we not take the money back and punish the takers?
We don't take it back and punish the takers because we somehow believe they have earned it, have a right to it.
What if this is sheer delusion, sheer error?
Is it?
Even if it was true that they had earned it and had a right to it, would we let them keep it, when it was soon going to extinguish the human race?
Are we under a massive illusion? Are we under a suicidal spell?
Or is it that we just don't know the facts?
Or is it that we know the facts, but we think that nothing can be done about it, because money is power, and so people with 100,000 times the average income per year are 100,000 times more powerful than the average, and 1,000,000,000 times more powerful than the most underpaid, the most robbed?
Yet every heap of wealth, national and private, in history has been brought down by the underpaid. The state built on injustice cannot stand, is an old saying, and all history confirms it. Every empire has been built on injustice and every empire has fallen. So while the overpaid have money-power, the underpaid have a greater power. However great a fortune is, it is limited in size. But the power of the underpaid goes on eroding overpay ceaselessly, so every heap of overpay has to fall in time. And while the overpaid still have the heap, they have to labour mightily, stressfully and ceaselessly to try to preserve the heap. If one person steals the goods of 1000 people, that person has to labour mightily to keep it all. And has lost the company, the trust, the belonging with the 1000. Belonging, being part of the human tribe, is the greatest fun in the world to a human. Being an outcast is the worst punishment, often driving mad.
Is overpay good? The overpaid have a ceaseless extreme struggle, have lost the company and friendship with the human tribe, and they can get no added pleasure from the overpay, because fairpay, US$275,000, satisfies all needs, all major and minor desires, down to the teenytiniest, like bobby pins, doll's furniture, a 10th toy for the pet. Fairpay buys all necessities, buys very comfortable chairs, beds, beautiful furniture, rooms, cars, wonderful holidays, health care [and would buy even better health care if some health professionals were not overpaid], education and everything. The overpaid can only sit in one chair, can only fill the same area in a bed, occupy one room at a time, drink and eat as much as the fairpaid. And the overpaid have the underpaid after them constantly in a fight they can win only for a time, in a fight they have always lost in time, and they are isolated, cut off from human community, friendship and protection.
Do we think the overpaid have earned the overwealth?
Have they?
We know the overpaid do not work up to 100,000 times as many hours as the average. The average work over 50 hours a week, no one can work more than 100 hours a week longterm. Housewives work long hours, up to 90+ hours a week. Most overpaid do not work harder than average. The severely underpaid work longest hours. In any case, there is no measuring of how hard a person works, so no one is being paid for working harder. No one knows if the overpaid work longer hours. So overpay has nothing to do with working harder.
Do the overpaid work harder per unit of time? Do they pack more work into the hour? They certainly do not pack up to 100,000 times as much work into an hour. Can a CEO work harder per hour than the average CEO? Can he chair a meeting faster, read, talk, think, decide, walk harder? Slackers get noticed, warned and fired. There are very few jobs, if any, that are not supervised in some way. So most people are close to the average. You can't work more than, say, 10% harder than the average per hour. Or not even that. Can one driver drive harder than the average driver? Can one person play the piano harder than another? The range of hardness of work per hour is very small, perhaps 10%.
There are a number of 'reasons' for higher-than-average pay that have been put forward by the overpaid and have been swallowed by the underpaid. The underpaid like these reasons and support them because it means for them some compensation for underpay. So everyone supports them. But unfortunately, while it has meant a bit more for the underpaid, it has meant a lot more, limitlessly more, for the overpaid. It has opened the gates to the vandals. It has meant that 99% come out with less, even if they have sometimes made a bit from higher-than-average pay per hour of work, and 1% have run away with 98% of world wealth, causing astronomical suffering and problems, to themselves and all others, run away with world peace, with the entire human future.
It is because of allowing these 'reasons' for higher-than-average pay per hour of work that we have got into this astronomical pickle. It is because of these that we are sitting around while 1% steal 98% of world wealth, world peace and world future, when otherwise we would take the stolen labour, wealth, workproducts, off the overpaid and punish them. We have conned ourselves out of almost everything, soon everything.
With every family working average hard on US$275,000, we would have 10 times as many scientists, and of the scientists we have, 90% of them would be freed from being tied up in the consequences of violence, in the military-industrial complex, in the courts, hospitals, governments and universities. So progress would go 100 times faster. would have gone 100 times faster for the 1000s of years we have been allowing unlimited pay for what must be limited contribution by work.
The state built on injustice cannot stand, has never stood. Justice is equal pay for equal work, equal compensation for equal sacrifice. But what have we done to preserve our nations from injustice? It is not even sure that we are aware how unjust our societies are. We have not aimed at justice. We have not diligently pursued equal pay for equal work. We have let in many pays for no work, which someone has to pay for by work for no pay. We do not even know that 99% of us are coming out with less than fairpay. Highest income per year's work has gone higher and higher for 1000s of years, and lowest pay per year's work has gone lower and lower. And the consequent violence has grown bigger and bigger for all that time. And has arrived at the brink of extinction, has arrived at 60 times PDC, without us enquiring whether we are doing the right thing, or making a mistake.
If you pay anyone for anything but work, you force others to work for no pay. Every bit of pay for no work has to be paid for by work with no pay. And we have allowed these 'reasons' for higher-than-average pay per hour's work to justify, not just a certain amount, but to justify limitless overpay. And it turns out, these 'reasons' for higher-than-average hourly pay are all false. In reason, they are no reasons. Pay is a license to take out from the pool of wealth, of the products of work. And the only thing that can in reason justify taking out is having put an equal amount in by your work. If we apply our reason to these 'reasons' for higher-than-average pay per hour's work, we find they are no reasons. We have supported them, thinking to benefit from them, and not seeing that 99% of us have to fund them by some work for no pay, and 100% of us have to fund them by sacrificing peace, happiness and, soon, existence. The combination of 60 times PDC and extreme and ever-growing violence, driven by the ever-growing and super-extreme overpay and underpay, is not a happy one, is a fatal one.
We seem to be mad to pay people for no work. We shovel millions and billions at people for no work. And every now and then have a revolution and fight and kill the overpaid to get it back. And constantly try by every possible means to 'steal' it back.
We pay people for owning land. A person buys a bit of land, others make that land valuable by building infrastructure, cities, around it, and the landowner gets the added value, without doing a lick of work. So the community is working and giving the products of that work to the landowners. Very generous! The ceaseless growth of infrastructure, by the labour of the whole community, is reflected in the very steady longterm growth of the value of the stockmarket. And only the stockholders get this pay for this work. And they get paid in proportion to how much overpay they have, the most overpaid getting most. We seem to be keen to obey the rule that those who have will get more, and those who have little will get that little taken away.
Then there is everyone's natural birthright equal share in nature's bounty. All the fruit, grass, leaves, worms, seeds, fish belong to the creatures alive. Every creature on earth gets this equal birthright share on birth, and every creature that dies loses their birthright share to the living. But with humans, this birthright share goes to owners and sticks with them when they die, in the form of private inheritance. The newcomers have to buy their birthright share from the owners by work. Instead of all the wealth of the world automatically transfering to the next generation as the older generation dies, as it does in nature, humans have it stolen from them. The first arrivals at a new bit of land get it all, and the latercomers get nothing, have to work for the first arrivals. The overpaid buy up all the land in the world that is increasing fastest in value, because of the infrastructure labour of others, and reap where they did not sow. Wherever people are building cities fastest, there the overpaid, with much cash to spare, are buying. The most overpaid get most of the 'free' plums. Free until they have to pay for them in violence and extinction.
We pay people for absence, when we pay people for scarcity. Wherever demand is high and supply is low, the price is high, higher than costs. The costs are the payment for work. So in scarcity, people are overpaying for the work gone into the products. In a time of shortage of food, prices go high, although the work in the food that there is, is not greater, is less because there is less food. In new technology, supply is low because the industry is still gearing up. Yet everyone wants it. So people pay for the scarcity, the shortage of the new thing. Prices need only be 40% higher than costs to compound a fortune to 10,000 in 30 years, as it did for Bill Gates. Scarcity seems to be a dream come true. You supply less of it, and get more money. You have lower costs, and higher pay. Until the pay injustice brings retribution in the form of violence, danger, war, crime, revolution, assassination, kidnapping, overthrow and extinction. Because we pay for scarcity, we get more of it. People manufacture scarcity. Governments prevent import of grain in famine times. Governments provide subsidies [at public expense] to stop farmers growing. People make big farms, which are far less efficient at producing food than small to medium farms. The agricultural efficiency of the Sudan and of China are 30 times the agricultural efficiency of the USA. See World book of rankings. Russia converted to big farms, and had to start importing grain. We are being ruled by people devoted to the 'dream nightmare' of scarcity. The hunger and starvation fuel the anger.
We pay people for having received gifts from mother nature, at no work to themselves. They should be paid for every bit of work they do developing their gifts, but not a penny for having received a gift. Paying for natural gifts is as mad as paying for birthday gifts. But we think it makes sense. Obviously, mother nature has done the work, not the person. We think, if a person gets rich, that they must have had a great gift, and therefore they deserve whatever they have. We assume, however much a person has, that they deserve it, that there must be some good reason for them having it. We look up to them, because we assume they deserve it. Yet we cannot and do not measure this gift, this cause of the deserving, and we do not and cannot say how much pay this cause deserves. We should certainly give gifted people the 'higher' positions, but there is no reason to pay them more. The genuinely superior person does not wish to be paid more for being superior in brains, wisdom, intelligence, impartiality, or whatever. The genuinely superior person wishes to be among others, not above them, looking down on them.
We pay people for experience. But the experience is obtained in paid work without effort by the person.
We pay for 'responsibility'. Yet people in lower-echelon jobs are not irresponsible, and we do not, because we cannot, measure 'responsibility', and we cannot determine how much a person should be paid per unit of 'responsibility' if we could measure it. We just assume that, if a person is being paid for 'responsibility', they deserve it. We make no attempt to determine if the person is being responsible or not. Does the person in a 'responsible' job use up more calories, somehow sacrifice more per hour of work? No, they just do their job according to their nature.
We pay people for having studied. We should pay people for studying, instead of getting the parents, scholarships or the students themselves to pay for it, for it is society as a whole that benefits from educated people. But it is paying for nothing to pay people for having studied. And 99% of us have to fund this pay for nothing. And 100% of us have to pay in the violence, war, crime and extinction.
We pay people for business risk, or we allow unlimited fortunes on the 'reason' of risk, although the risk is just to rake overpay for himself, although there is no measurement of risk, no power to determine fairpay per unit of risk if we could measure it, although business risk is far smaller than worker risk, who risk up to and including their lives, although businesspeople minimise risk, although the greatest gains are often with small risk, and the lesser gains with greater risk, although we feel no impulse to pay the fisherman risking bait, the farmer risking seed, or the small businessperson risking, although risk means risk of losing and so loses its meaning if rewarded.
So all these things, which our own good sense easily sees are senseless, we feel are sensible. And seeing the simple explanation of their senselessness, and the devastating catastrophic consequences, will not shift our mindset. Seeing the sense has no impact on our attitudes. The acid of sense is powerless to eat away our senselessness. Where do these fatal attitudes come from? How is senselessness created? And why are we so devoted to it, even to extinction? Why does sense, even when seen, have no impact on our mindset? Since we have come to think that paying people for mother nature's gifts is sense, why have we not come to think that paying people for birthday gifts is sense?
Why do we support the overpaid, and then wake up briefly in revolutions and get mad, and then let the equality slide away? Where has liberty, equality and fraternity gone in France? The American dream of liberty and justice for all, of eternal freedom from tyranny, was sensibly founded on prevention of overpay, for overpay is overpower. No tyranny without overwealth. But this is hardly known, not even in America, not even among the brightest, and the students of American history.
A person with a billion can hire a million soldiers for a 1000 days at a dollar a day. There are a billion people on less than a $1 a day. So overpay is warmongering and cannonfoddering of the many. Unlimited fortunes is unlimited power of those who have them over those who fund the overfortunes.
A person is deemed mad when others decide they are mad. But are there madnesses that we all have, so there is no one to tell us we are all mad? Can we, with heroic effort, force our little bit of sense to overcome and control our senselessness?
Why are the 99% underpaid totally unstirred to keenness to have US$275,000 a year, peace, freedom from warmongering and tyranny, and a future for themselves and their children? Why are the 1% overpaid totally unstirred to keenness to have no less satisfaction, to have freedom from danger, great labour of defense, and inevitable fall, to have fellowship with the human tribe, so important to all humans, and to have a future?
Or did love of being alive and happy, pursuit of our selfinterest, die?







You know the saying 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'.
But did you ever think that this is just plain theft?
That it means that the overpaid get evermore dollars for each bit of work they do, and the underpaid get everless?
And did you ever think that this has been going on for thousands of years and so has gone very far indeed?
Can you believe, we now have yearly pay from a low of $30 to a high of $30,000,000,000.
And have you thought that this is theft of the thing which is a joker good, good for just about everything, all necessities and desires?
And that this theft therefore makes people very angry and desperate, and makes people fight?
And that this is why violence [war, crime and weaponry] have been increasing for those same thousands of years?
From sticks and stones to ICBMs and world wars.
To the present point of 60 times PDC [planet death capability]?
So we really want to do something about it if we can?
Have you wondered how many people get less than fairpay?
At the present stage of things, 99% of people get less than fairpay.
have you ever wondered what you'd get if you weren't underpaid?
The average-sized family working average-hard would be on $300,000 a year, if 99% of us hadn't been slipping lower and lower for 1000s of years.
Of course 99% are getting below-average pay!
If you pull taffy up out of a pot, the higher you pull, the lower the taffy in the pot gets.
If a malicious imp takes everyone's things and leaves them outside the door of one person, the obvious thing is to give them back.
If the person outside whose house the things get left tries to keep them, there will be trouble.
Everyone else will be worse off, and that one person will be worse off, having a huge fight on his hands.
Can 1 person keep the property of 99 people?
Can it do him any good to do so?
He will have gained a lot of surplus things, and lost all position and respect in the community.
Have to work day and night to hold onto the things.
Can 1% keep the property of 99% of people?
Through all history they have tried, and through all history they have eventually lost.
Through all history they have had to labour mightily all their lives to hold on to it.
And always in the end failed and been clobbered.
And the two fighting sides have invented everbigger weaponry, to the danger of all.
What is the use of overwealth?
After necessities, major desires and minor desires are satisfied, right down to the littlest things, what can more money add to happiness?
Fairpay [$300,000] satisfies every need, all major desires and millions of smaller and smaller desires, down to children's toys and bobbypins.
So overpay can add only the satisfaction of the teenytiniest desires.
You can spend more, but you can't get much out of it anymore.
Except a heap of fighting, danger, labour and cost hanging on to it.
So if both overpay and underpay are bad, why have we got so much of it?
Are we missing something?
Even if desires were infinite, and the overpaid were happy in proportion to their overpay, would that be any reason to steal happiness from 99%?
Have you ever thought that money is power, so extreme overpay-underpay is extreme overpower-underpower?
Which means the less powerful being bossed around by the more powerful?
And means the more powerful doing whatever they like, which is usually not pleasant for the underpowered?
And then the underpaid getting mad and clobbering them?
And all this conflict and weaponry is rushing to a climax in destruction of everything, thanks to e=mc2.
Have you heard that the bombs we have will block out the sun with the smoke, lowering the planet temperature 25 degrees, which is three times colder than an iceage?
With the rich still getting richer and the fighting still getting intenser, can we avoid arriving at using those bombs, if we keep going the way we are?
With the weapons, and the super-extreme overpay and underpay generating everincreasing violence, how can extinction not arrive?
Maybe not this century, maybe this century, maybe tomorrow, maybe this afternoon.
Probably not all at once, probably here a bomb, there a bomb, a little more, a little more.
They have already used depleted uranium.
Can we do better?
Do the overpaid want to become extinct?
Are the overpaid free from trouble?
All heaps of wealth [kings, emperors, empires] in history have been levelled in time.
However great the overfortune, it is still limited in size.
But the attacks on it by the robbed are endless, so every heap of overwealth falls.
Bigger banks have stronger vaults because they need them.
Bigger heaps of honey attract more bears.
And desires get teenytiny above fairpay of $300,000 a year.
Who benefits from overpay and underpay?
The overpaid get no more pleasure, a lot more danger and labour, and extinction as the cherry on top.
The underpaid get nonsatisfaction of minor and mjor desires, of needs, constant labour of fighting for rights and fairshare, and extinction.
Not exactly a bargain for anyone.
How does money drift from all the workers to a few?
Who or what is the malicious imp who has been moving goods from everyone to few and so got everyone into this almighty mother of all pickles?
Whenever you buy or sell anything, the two things exchanged are never exactly equal in value.
So there is a little hidden theft in every transaction.
One person gives more than they receive.
Over trillions of transactions, this little drop of theft grows into the ocean of overpay and underpay.
Over many transactions, a few people will break even.
But most will gain or lose.
A few will gain big, a few will lose big.
If you toss a coin millions of times you won't of course get heads tails heads tails all the way.
You'll get strings of heads, strings of tails.
There will be lots of strings of two.
The longer the strings of heads or tails, the rarer they will be.
But they will occur.
In the same way, most will lose or gain from lots of transactions.
And the more transactions go on, the greater the gain or loss will be.
Anyone can go from gaining to losing, or the other way, at any time.
But over everyone, underpay and overpay will ever-increase.
And then this growth is accelerated by everyone trying to get as much and give as little as possible.
And then money 'makes' money.
A pile of money, once got, will start pulling in more money.
A billion pulls in $50 million, every year, for no work by them, at a modest 5% interest.
And sometimes there are far higher returns than 5%.
But they can buy things with the money they get for no work.
Things which have been made by work.
So they sometimes get products of work for no work. Overpay.
So others sometimes get work for no money. Underpay.
Leading to fighting and extinction for all.
Like a boiler getting hotter and hotter till it explodes.
A little tiny theft in every transaction, and the world is going to blow.
We can correct for this by making everyone heirs of large deceased estates.
The private heir has done nothing, everyone has done everything for this money, so such a law is just.
And justice in pay makes peace.
The country or planet built on injustice cannot stand.
The purpose of government is justice.
And governments are not powerful enough to give it to us.
Only we are powerful enough to give it to us.
Money drifts from all to few, so we drift it back from few to all.
Money will continue constantly to drift from all to few with every transaction, but we can make it constantly drift back again.
The accumulated overpay of thousands of years will rain down on humanity in two generations.
90% of world income, US$250 trillion a year, or US$250,000 per family, is up in a very very high thin needle of overpay.
The honey will be lowered back into the pot, raising the level, stopping the evergrowing overpay-underpay violence.
How to interest people in doing this?
There are plenty of extremely good reasons for both the overpaid and underpaid people to do this, but people need to know first that everyone else is keen to do it.
No one will take one step forward until everyone else does.
Which is quite sensible because people laugh if you step out of line, if you wear a hat when no one else is, or don't wear a hat when everyone else is.
But we can talk about it with our friends, and then it will in time reach a point where everyone will know that everyone knows about it, and then it won't be so hard to step forward one step.
Then someone wil get excited with the idea of being the first, and then step forward, and then others will be sorry not to have been first, and will step forward to be second, and then more and more will take the step, and then we can laugh at the last ones to step forward.
This laughter is not mean. We have survived by being a herd, and this laughter is a reminder not to wander off from the herd and get killed.
Don't rely on politicians or academics to lead the way. They are either overpay, or bought and sold by overpay, or they are busy studying some tiny corner of the big big world, drowned in so much information that they have lost their common sense, their overview, their perspective.