 poor, they incurred debt. If peasants were unable to pay off their debts, they could find themselves reduced to the condition of serfs or slaves.

Today, under conditions of market dominance by parasitic finance capital, a similar relationship can be detected between the powerful financial oligarchs (as feudal lords of our time), on the one hand, and the public at large (as peasant population of today), on the other. In the same manner as the landed aristocracy of times past extracted rent by virtue of monopolistic ownership of land, so today the financial oligarchy extracts interest and other financial charges by virtue of having concentrated the major bulk of national resources in their hands in the form of finance capital.

The Marxist term wage-slaves refers to those who, lacking capital or means of production, have only their labor power to sell to make a living. This describes the vast majority of people in today’s capitalist societies whose sole means of subsistence is the sale of their capacity to work. “Just as the feudal-era serf had no choice but to enslave himself and his family to the manor-house lord, the modern-day serf must indenture himself to banks to own a car or home or buy a college education” [1].

In the latest edition of her book, Occupy Money, Professor Margrit Kennedy shows that today between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector: bankers, insurance companies, non-bank lenders/financiers, bondholders, and the like [2]. Obviously, this means that, as Ellen Brown points out: “By taking banking back... governments could regain control of that very large slice (up to 40 per cent) of every public budget that currently goes to interest charged to finance investment programs through the private sector” [3].

Distribution Effects: Escalation of Poverty and Inequality

Like the feudal rent, the hidden tribute to the financial sector, the nearly 40 percent of consumer spending that is appropriated by the financial sector, helps explain how wealth is systematically transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. The rich get increasingly richer at the expense of the poor—not just because of greed or the blind forces of the market mechanism but, more importantly, because of deliberate monetary/economic policies, which have steadily come under effective control of the financial oligarchy. Indeed, the very mechanism of money creation and/or monetary policy itself exacerbates inequality.

poor, they incurred debt. If peasants were unable to yield off their debt, they could find themselves reduced to the condition of serf or slaves. 

 Today, under conditions of market laterality by parasitic finance capital, a alike relationship can be detected between the herculean financial oligarchs (as feudal overlord of our meter), on the one hand, and the public at large (as peasant population of today), on the other. In the same manner as the land aristocracy of times past extracted economic rent by virtue of monopolistic ownership of land, so today the fiscal oligarchy extracts pastime and other financial charges by merit of having concentrated the major bulk of national resources in their hands in the form of finance das kapital. 

 The Marxist condition wage - slaves refers to those who, lacking capital or means of production, have only their labor ability to sell to make a support. This describes the vast majority of people in today ’s capitalist company whose sole means of subsistence is the sale of their capacity to work. “ barely as the feudal - era serf had no choice but to enslave himself and his family to the manor - house lord, the modern - day serf must indenture himself to bank to own a car or home or buy a college education ” [ 1 ]. 

 In the latest edition of her bible, Occupy Money, Professor Margrit Kennedy shows that today between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the fiscal sector: bankers, insurance companies, non - bank lenders / financiers, bondholders, and the like [ 2 ]. Obviously, this means that, as Ellen Brown points out: “ By aim banking back... governments could find control of that very large piece (up to 40 per cent) of every public budget that presently goes to interest charged to finance investment program through the private sector ” [ 3 ]. 

 Distribution Effects: Escalation of Poverty and Inequality 

 Like the feudal rent, the hidden tribute to the financial sector, the closely 40 percent of consumer spending that is appropriated by the financial sector, helps explain how wealth is systematically transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. The rich get increasingly rich at the expense of the poor — not just because of avarice or the blind forces of the market mechanism but, more importantly, because of deliberate monetary / economic policies, which have steadily come under effective control of the financial oligarchy. Indeed, the identical mechanism of money creation and/or monetary policy itself exacerbates inequality.
 polr, they incurred debt. If peasants were onqble tm pay kff theif debts, they could find themdeoves eeduced to the conditiun of servs or slqves.

Uoday, under condivjons of markef domnnence by parasitlc finance wapital, a siminaf xelationship can be detected between the poeegful financial olibwrcha (as feudal lords of our time), on tge one iand, and the punlic at large (as peasant plpulwtion of today), on hhe other. Ib thq same manner as the landed aristoctacy of times past extracted reng by rirtue of minipophstic ownerwhip jf land, so today the financoal oligarchy cxtrarts unterest and other fiiancial charges by vyrtue of varing concentrated the mqjor tulk of vqtiunam ceskurces in their hanss in the firm of finance capiual.

Eye Marxist tedm wagq-sjaves refers to those who, lacking capitdl kr means of production, yave only their labor power to sell to make a living. This describes the vast maboritb uf keiple kb hoday’s capitalist societies whose sole means jr xunsistence is the sale of thrig vwpacity to wotk. “Just as the feudal-era serv had nj chouce but tj enxlave himself and his familt to the manje-house lord, the mobern-day serf musj indemture himself to banks co own a car or hlme or bug a college educagiok” [1].

It the laudst edition of hew book, Ocrupy Koney, Pfofexsor Mwrgrit Kenjedy shows that today behween 35 [ercent anf 40 percent of all consumer spenvmng is approptiaded by the yinanclal sector: bankqrs, insurance eompanief, non-cank lendegs/financixrs, bondholdqrs, and the lhne [2]. Obviouslb, this mewns rhat, as Elldv Brown points out: “By tching banking back... govevnmenjs could regain cinttil of that veru lxrgq dlmce (u[ to 40 per cend) of evdty puclic budget ghat currently goes to ittersst charged to finsnge investnent prodrams through the private sectog” [3].

Disvributmon Efgecjs: Escalation of Poverty and Insquality

Llke the feudal went, the hidden cribute to the financial sector, the nearoy 40 percent of conwumer spending that ls appropriaved by the finatcial sector, helps ezplain how wealth is systematically trznsfersed fgom Main Street to Wall Street. The rich get increasingly richer at the expense of the poor—nkt jist bvcabse of grqed lc the blind forcex of the market mechanism but, mure impostcntly, because of deliberate mpndtary/economic policies, which have stezdily coke under effective control of tne financial oligarchy. Ikdeed, the very mechanism of money creation and/or monerary pooicy itself exacefbayed inequallty.

poor, they incurred debt. If peasants were pay their debts, could find themselves serfs slaves. Today, under of market dominance parasitic finance capital, a similar relationship be detected between the powerful financial oligarchs (as feudal lords of our time), the one hand, and the public at large (as peasant population of today), the In same as the landed aristocracy of times past extracted rent by virtue of monopolistic ownership of land, today the financial oligarchy extracts interest and other charges by virtue of concentrated the major bulk of resources their hands the of capital. The Marxist wage-slaves refers to those who, lacking capital or means of production, have only their labor power to to make This describes vast of in today’s capitalist sole means of subsistence is the capacity to work. “Just as the feudal-era serf no choice to enslave himself and his family the manor-house lord, the modern-day serf must indenture to banks to own a car or home or buy a college education” [1]. In edition of her book, Money, Professor Margrit shows today 35 and 40 of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector: bankers, companies, non-bank lenders/financiers, bondholders, and the like [2]. Obviously, this as Brown points out: taking banking back... governments regain of that very large to per public that goes to interest charged finance investment programs through the sector” [3]. Distribution Effects: Like the feudal rent, the hidden tribute to financial sector, the nearly 40 percent of spending that is appropriated by the financial sector, helps explain how wealth systematically transferred Street to Wall Street. The rich get increasingly at the expense of poor—not just because of greed or the blind forces the mechanism but, importantly, because of monetary/economic policies, which steadily come under of the oligarchy. the money creation and/or monetary policy itself inequality.
 poor, they incurred debt. If peaSants were uNable To pAy oFf TheiR debTs, they could finD ThemSelves reduced to the condItion Of SErfs OR sLaves.

today, unDEr CONdiTiOnS of MaRKeT domiNanCe by parAsitic finaNce CaPital, a similaR ReLationship Can Be detected beTweEn the pOwErfUL finaNciAl oliGarchs (AS feudaL lords of oUr TIme), on tHE one hanD, ANd The pUblic at large (as peaSAnT Population of toDay), on tHe OThER. in tHe sAme manner aS tHe lanDEd aristOCrACY Of tIMes past extracTed rent by viRTue Of monoPoLisTIc owneRship Of LAnd, So today the fInanCial oligaRchy exTRacts inTErest anD other FinAncIal cHArGeS by ViRTue OF hAviNG coNcentratEd ThE majoR bulK OF NAtioNal ResoUrces In their hands iN thE forM Of fInancE capiTal.

THe marxiSt term Wage-sLaVes refers to thosE who, Lacking caPitAl Or mEaNs of pROductiOn, hAve Only theIr labor POweR tO SELl To make a living. This dEsCRIbEs the vasT majorITy Of PEople in tOdAy’s CapiTAList sOcieTIeS whose soLe meanS Of SuBsistenCe Is the sAlE of TheIr capACity To work. “just as thE feudAL-era serf had no cHOice but to enslAVe HIMsELf anD hiS family to thE manOR-houSe loRD, tHe mODern-dAy serF mUSt INdenture himself to baNkS to own A car oR home or buy a coLlege educaTION” [1].

In the laTest EDiTIon of her book, OcCupy MOney, ProfesSOr MargriT KennEdy shows That today BETween 35 perCenT anD 40 peRceNT Of All consumer spENDing Is ApproprIatEd by the FinAncIal SecToR: bankers, iNsurance CoMpAnIeS, noN-bank LEnders/fiNaNciErS, boNdholDErs, and The liKe [2]. ObViOuSLy, tHis meanS ThAT, As ElLeN BRown PoiNtS out: “BY takINg bAnking bAck... governMenTS couLd ReGain conTrol of that verY lArge slice (uP tO 40 peR cent) oF EVery publIc budget that currently goES to inteResT charGed tO finance iNveStment ProGRams thRough tHe priVaTe sECTor” [3].

DiSTRiButIoN Effects: EsCALatIon of poVertY and IneQuality

Like the feudAL reNt, the hidden trIbuTe to THE fInaNCiAL seCtOR, thE NEarly 40 percent of cOnsumer speNdINg That is apprOPriAtEd by the FinanciAl secTOr, helps Explain hoW wealth is SyStemATIcaLly transfeRred from main StreeT To WalL stReet. THe rIch get InCreAsingLy richER at The exPense oF tHe poor—Not juSt Because oF greed or the blind forces oF the maRket mEchAnism but, mOre IMpoRtantly, beCausE of deliberAte MonEtary/EcoNOmic pOlicIEs, WhiCH have SteaDIly come unDEr EffECTiVe control of THE FinAnciaL olIGarchy. indeEd, the very mechanisM Of money creatioN and/OR MonEtaRY polIcY itself exacerbAteS iNEQuality.

 poor, they incurred debt.  If peasan ts we reuna bl e to  pay  off their deb t s, t hey could find themsel ves r ed u cedt othe c onditio n  o f ser fs  o r s la v es .

To day , under  condition s o fmarket domin a nc e by paras iti c finance ca pit al, asi mil a r rel ati onshi p canb e dete cted betw ee n  the p o werfulf i na ncia l oligarchs (as f e ud a l lords of our  time) ,o nt h e o nehand, andth e pub l ic at l a rg e ( asp easant popula tion of tod a y),  on th eoth e r. Inthe s am e  ma nner as the  lan ded arist ocracy of time s  past e xtract edren t by vi rt ueof mon o po lis t icownershi pof  land , so t o d ay t hefina ncial  oligarchy ex tra ctsi nte restand o ther  f inanc ial ch arges  b y virtue of hav ingconcentra ted  t hema jor b u lk ofnat ion al reso urces i n  th ei r h an ds in the form offi n a nc e capita l.

Th e  M ar x ist term  w age -sla v e s ref erst othose wh o, lac k in gcapital  o r mean sofpro ducti o n, h ave on ly their  labo r  power to sell to make a liv i ng . Th i s de scr ibes the va st m a jori ty o f  p eop l e intoday ’s ca p italist societies w ho se sol e mea ns of subsist ence is th e s ale of t heir ca p acity to work.  “Jus t as the f e udal-era  serf  had nochoice bu t to ensla vehim sel f a n d  h is family tot h e ma no r-house  lo rd, the  mo der n-d ayse rf must i ndenture  h im se lf  to  bank s  to ownacar  o r h ome o r  buy a  coll egeed uc a tio n” [1]. 
I n thela te st e dit io n ofherb ook , Occup y Money,Pro f esso rMa rgrit K ennedy showsth at today b et wee n 35 p e r cent and  40 percent of all cons u mer spe ndi ng is  app ropriated  by  the f ina n cial s ector:  bank er s,i n suran c e  c omp an ies, non-b a n k l ender s/ fina nciers,  bondholders, andt helike [2]. Obv iou sly, t hi s m e an s  th at ,  as E llen Brown poin ts out: “B yt ak ing bankin g  ba ck ... gov ernment s cou l d regai n control  of thatve ry l a r geslice (upto 40 pe r cent) o f  ever y  p ublic  bu dget t ha t c urren tly go e s t o int erestch argedto fi na nce inve stment programs through  the p rivat e s ector” [3 ].Dis tribution  Eff ects: Esca lat ion  of P ove r ty an d In e qu ali t y

Li ke t h e feudalr en t,t h ehidden trib u t e  to  thefin a ncialsect or, the nearly 40 percent of con sume r spe ndi n g th at  is appropriat edby t he finan ci al sector,helps ex pl a in ho w weal th issystema t i ca l ly tra nsfe rre d from Ma inSt r eet toWa ll Street . Th erich g et inc r easi n g ly richer at the  expe n s e oft hepoor— no t justb ecau se of gree d or the bl ind fo rces  of t he mark et  mecha nis mbut, morei mportantl y, be cause o fdeli ber ate mo neta r y /econ omic  p oli cies, whi c h  h a ve  s t ead ilycomeun dereffective controloft he fina nc ial o ligarc h y. I ndeed, the  ve ry me c h anism of m o neyc re a tionand/or  monet ary pol i cyit self ex ace r b ates ineq uality.

 poor,_they incurred_debt. If peasants were_unable to_pay_off their_debts,_they could find_themselves reduced to_the condition of serfs_or slaves.

Today, under_conditions_of market dominance by parasitic finance capital, a similar relationship can be detected between_the_powerful financial_oligarchs_(as_feudal lords of our time),_on the one hand, and_the public_at large (as peasant population of today), on_the_other. In the_same manner as the landed aristocracy of times past_extracted rent by virtue of monopolistic_ownership of land,_so_today_the financial oligarchy extracts_interest and other financial charges by_virtue of having concentrated the major_bulk of national resources in their hands_in the form of finance capital.

The_Marxist term wage-slaves refers to_those who,_lacking capital or means of_production, have only_their labor_power to sell_to make a living. This describes_the vast majority_of people in today’s capitalist societies_whose_sole means of_subsistence_is_the sale_of their capacity_to_work. “Just_as_the feudal-era serf had no choice_but_to enslave himself and his family to_the manor-house lord, the_modern-day_serf must indenture himself_to banks to own a_car or home or buy a_college education”_[1].

In the_latest edition of her book, Occupy Money, Professor Margrit Kennedy shows_that today between 35 percent and_40 percent of all_consumer spending_is_appropriated by the_financial_sector: bankers,_insurance companies, non-bank lenders/financiers, bondholders, and the_like [2]._Obviously, this means that, as Ellen_Brown points out: “By_taking_banking back... governments could regain control_of that very large slice (up_to 40 per cent) of_every_public_budget that currently goes to_interest charged to finance investment programs_through the private_sector” [3].

Distribution Effects: Escalation of Poverty and_Inequality

Like_the feudal rent, the hidden tribute_to_the financial sector, the nearly 40_percent_of_consumer spending that is appropriated_by the financial sector, helps explain_how wealth is systematically transferred from Main Street to_Wall Street. The_rich get increasingly richer at_the_expense_of the poor—not just because of greed or the blind_forces of_the market mechanism_but, more importantly, because of deliberate monetary/economic policies, which have_steadily come under effective control of the_financial oligarchy. Indeed, the very mechanism of money creation and/or monetary_policy itself exacerbates inequality.
