" All we are now is one big warehouse and a cafe ."

Also ask people around to think about stability of such a system :-)

This is the impact of zombie banking, QE, ZIRP and the promotion of systemic bank balance sheet fraud to break the link between interest rates, wages and house prices.

Well, no.

It is fully planned system. Main goal of such system is to reduce population with constantly increasing diversification (in other words - stimulate births in lowest income families using stimulus).

If you look at the charts it is exactly three main things that went nuts - educational costs, healthcare costs and cost of living place (or rent).

More Americans who do not currently own a home say they do not think they will buy a home in "the foreseeable future," 41%, vs. 31% two years ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182897/fewer-non-homeowners-expect-buy-home.aspx

You people do understand this is all connected, right ? ....the separation of the world into the haves and havenots, the rise of the stasi state, and the wars against those countries that don't signup to the program to handover their resources. The situation is much more critical than whether new businesses can get off the ground, or homesales. They're leading us like mules into wwlll, and millions will sign up just for the career opportunities !

It's interesting how we seem to be following a script written by ourselves ...in science fiction books and films . This tells me the ptb can't really invent for themselves but have to chose possible narratives that are at their disposal....aka rand and orwell. Sadly at darpa they're following the terminator script !

One crack in their plan is the unified response from security forces. If you read about the stanford prison experiment, it appears that some people who were chosen guards wouldn't play their game. And another flaw is the internet. When people are out of work...they have alot of spare time on their hands....to read ! Fifty million americans are on food stamps, and 40% have no emergency savings. Alot of brainwashed soldiers in those ranks ! But....if they can be educated while not working...instead of watching mindless media, they might learn who is their real enemy .

Outside of health and education there has not been one net new job created in the American economy since July 2000! Yes, not a single new job—as in none, nein, nichts, nada, zip!

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/jobs-friday-how-bubblevision-misses-the-epic-failure-of-the-us-labor-market/

Rich are feeling very good now:

IMHO the comparison with France before the revolution does not fit in a number of ways:

• The French aristocrats could not have easily fled the country within hours (by air), after an effort of only minutes to transfer significant parts of their wealth to whatever part of the world they wanted.

• There was no total surveillance available to identify anyone involved in "revolutionary" activities early enough to get rid of those before they organize in groups of significant size

• Providing food & entertainment to the poor today is simple and cheap enough that broad support from starving masses can easily be avoided

Plus, there's a good chance that fully automated security enforcement / riot control becomes a reality before it becomes difficult to find enough human resources to suppress large scale riots.

Young adults, age 18 to 34, are most likely to feel the dream is unattainable, with 63% saying it's impossible.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/news/economy/american-dream/index.html

Truth is painfully obvious: a middle class lifestyle is unaffordable to all but the top 20%. This reality is destabilizing to the current arrangement, i.e. debt-based consumerism a.k.a. neofeudal state-cartel capitalism, so it is actively suppressed by the officially sanctioned narrative: that middle class status is attainable by almost every household with two earners (a mere $50,000 annual household income makes one middle class) and middle class wealth is increasing.

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.ru/2014/05/the-destabilizing-truth-only-wealthy.html

So-called US conservatives harp on about the debt but they are the ones that pushed the country into this, and took on the lions share of the debt under their administrations.

No, sorry, you can't pin it on one ideology in the US. Both conservatives and liberals have expanded the government and racked up their own versions of entitlement spending. And there's not way around it, debt comes from unfunded or misappropriated entitlements. There's no debt if everyone just pay for their own shit, to be blunt.

Anyways, how can you talk about conservatives pushing the country into debt, when it was the Clinton administration that forced banks to sell bogus mortgages? The Democrats are at fault for that one...

And no, I'm not defending everything conservatives do, and only blaming Democrats, but if you haven't noticed, all our government has been doing for the last 100 years is passing laws and giving special-group benefits that make their administration look good during office, then deferring, shifting, and masking the debt until the other party has to deal with the costs. It's non-stop game of hot-potato. Both parties do this constantly. It's the nature of politics.

and the wealthiest have something like 40% more money than they did only 20 years ago. If someone wants to challenge that I'll find some stats, but I don't know why this is considered acceptable by anyone.

Well, if they actually earned it by producing useful products and running legitimate services, then who cares? You're still thinking in terms of a Zero-Sum game. Yes, unfortunately, we have made some aspects of economics quite zero-sum... but on the philosophical level... one mans wealth is not another loss unless he has set up some agency of coercion. And yes, the philosophy is important to get right so we don't just end up stripping people's money away out of animal-level jealousy and spite. In the case of bankers and politicians? Yes, absolutely, they should have their assets stripped. But who will do this? Who regulates the regulators? More regulation... to solve the issue of unaccountable-regulation? A political 1% to solve the problem of an economic 1%? This is all just fighting fire with gasoline.

including the example of societies which have very different policies and results than ours.

These societies don't exist in a vacuum. For example, many countries with socialized medicine can do so because they're calculating the costs with other market-based countries. The medical innovations they use have to be payed for and developed by someone. Then you also have to take into account population size and genetic homogeneity. Allot of things that work in small-homogenous societies don't work for entire industrial countries with diverse populations.

A lot more of nothing is still nothing. And prices don't just deflate or increase because of what central banks do to influence interest rates. Businesses tend to charge what they think the market will bear and will raise prices accordingly.

The poor, and ever larger swathes of the middle class, do not save money (at least in the US), and many of them have their backs to the wall because of the costs of rent, healthcare, utility bills. In the US most of these are wholly or largely run by businesses and people cannot choose not to pay because they are necessities. But even if they run out of money, business keep charging more if they can. And for healthcare in particular, they can because the government has to pick up the tab.

Sooner or later the US debt will not be sustainable and will crash the world economy if something isn't done. So-called US conservatives harp on about the debt but they are the ones that pushed the country into this, and took on the lions share of the debt under their administrations.

Anyway, the rich have never had it so good, and the wealthiest have something like 40% more money than they did only 20 years ago. If someone wants to challenge that I'll find some stats, but I don't know why this is considered acceptable by anyone.

Idea that somehow static simple solution exist is wrong. Nature is complex thing, same is the society.

I don't claim to be able to foretell the future, or to say what might have happened in the past if things had been different.

In this case, however, it's a simple matter of assessing evidence which already exists, and outcomes which are already known. Did claims for one policy or other prove to be true in a finite period under limited circumstances? We should be able to arrive at that much.