Yes, and even worse than the definition of a zero-sum game states. Zero-sum is a situation in game theory in which one person’s gain is equivalent to another’s loss. The net change of capitalism is negative, not zero. I read enough articles, discussions and what more where the public opinion states our system is not a zero sum game.

The red line in these articles and discussions are technical, explaining capitalistic theory and from that point of view explaining this world. Is that a right way to assess the current state of affairs?

I somewhere read the assessment that in order for the rich to get richer they need to provide something in return to society at lower costs. If we would grasp that we would understand that accumulating wealth benefits all and not just a few.

OK, instead of reasoning from theory and rational, let’s look at the world events and state.

How is mother earth doing under capitalistic rule? Is it benefiting at all? No. And it is losing more long term than we gain short term.

How is society doing under capitalistic rule? Is it benefiting at all? No, more and more people have less money to come by and this is increasing each year. Food stamps in the US are increasing, in the Netherlands more and more children live under the minimum life standard. The examples are endless.

How is the elite doing under capitalistic rule? Is it benefiting at all? Yes absolutely. The 1% richest people (as far as we truly know them, I don’t read Rothschild in the Forbes list for instance, with trillions of wealth), own 90%+ of all global wealth. We, the seven billion people are given us the left overs a mere 10%.

Where do we get the assessment that the rich are distributing wealth so that everyone benefits? They are hoarding wealth and not distributing at all.

The disturbing fact of all this wealth accumulation is that it happens outside the real world, society and economies. They make massive amounts of money in the so-called global casino through derivatives (which is prognosed to be 1.2 quadrillion dollars), stock etc. Wouldn’t it be nice if they would solve poverty for instance for a mere 122 billion dollars? That’s change money for the rich. Why is that not happening? But instead the US only spends hundreds of billion to the military. It is by design.

How can it be that stock exchanges rise but the real world becomes poorer and challenging? Stock is a new way of moving wealth. Martin Armstrong has prognosed that the skyrocketing of stocks (in general) is going to last till 2030. Do we really want that?

Current  economic and financial systems could work in theory, due to human characteristics such as the love and greed for money, hunger for control and domination these do NOT benefit all people.

We need to change how we look at the world, it is not what we learn from books, it is already happening, but the critical mass is not achieved yet. Let’s remember, to sustain their system, we buy –literally- into it with consumerism for instance. We have much more power than we are led to believe. The outside is a reflexion of the inside. We are the change.

Featured image credit: Youtube