It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ending Poverty is Impossible without Globalization

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Then you recognize that one way or another this is coming. There's only one way to completely change the government.

Well no, there is another way to fix this.

For big business, banks, and the corporate world to suddenly decide it's in their best interest (which it is) to work towards a more stable and less predatory world economy by adopting a policy of enlightened self interest.




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: forkedtongue

Obviously part of such a system is bringing cash back to equivalent worth. As a globally enforced economy, 15 dollars should be 15 dollars in worth everywhere.


Here's the thing: $15 is $15 everywhere. It's just that $15 brings in a different amount of goods and services in different places.

That doesn't mean that $15 is actually worth more or less than $15.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

propose a solution to the problem your pointing out.
edit on 1/17/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

Then you recognize that one way or another this is coming. There's only one way to completely change the government.

Well no, there is another way to fix this.

For big business, banks, and the corporate world to suddenly decide it's in their best interest (which it is) to work towards a more stable and less predatory world economy by adopting a policy of enlightened self interest.


I think I want a decentralized system. The bigger a system is the harder it falls.

If a small business with 50 employees fails, those 50 employees will feel the pain and hardship. If one of the big three auto companies fails, how many employees do they have? How many other businesses depend on them for patronage?

I think it's time to shrink the systems rather than grow them.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: ketsuko

propose a solution to the problem your pointing out.


I just did.

The fewer people caught in a system failure the smaller the sick portion is that has to be healed. The easier it is for the "healthy" portion of the system to absorb and help buoy up the ones who are temporarily feeling hardship.

We used to do this with strong families, neighborhoods and faith communities.
edit on 17-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

in order for anything to work first we need to eliminate Wall Street and take the money and put it back into the pockets of the employees who earned it.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: ketsuko

in order for anything to work first we need to eliminate Wall Street and take the money and put it back into the pockets of the employees who earned it.


My husband has a 401K. He is invested in Wall Street through that. Did he not earn those wages that went in to that account? There are many, many more like him who are likewise so invested. Are they "evil?"



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The corporate and business world as well as banking is global there is no going back from that. Thanks to the technology we have today it will always stay that way.

Regulations and laws must be able to affect them on the same scale they exist on, or they're mostly worthless. They don't exist like citizens do, they aren't truly restricted to a single nations laws but they control every nations economy.
edit on 1/17/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Is that all you care about is your husbands 401k?

He wouldn't even need the damn thing if he got payed what he was actually worth.

Don't they tax your 401k again?

edit on 1/17/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I would say ending poverty is impossible now with the population growth in some of the poorer countries. There just aren't enough resources to sustain this amount of people.

Also the fact that the rich are taking more of the pie each year.
Just 62 people now own the same wealth as half the world's population apparently...
www.independent.co.uk...:gom ods:



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

There's plenty of resources, renewable resource and we have the technology to use it.

It looks like we don't have enough resources right now because we are acting like drug addicts culturally. We just can't get enough.

So because of this all of our current resources are being mismanaged.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DBCowboy

I just said I'd fight and die for human rights issues such as slavery, so what do you think my opinion on such is?

I don't think that multiculturalism is more important than human rights. So yeah, I'm personally not going to accept, "It's my culture" as an acceptable excuse for every depraved action under the sun.

That being said, that's not actually what this is about, the main focus here is a global regulated and enforced economic system with constitutionally inbuilt human rights protections.

It's not actually about micromanaging every facet of government. My goal is to create an economy not so easily taken advantage of by dodging regulations meant to protect the people.

Your trying to muddy the issue by bringing in things not actually related to the economy and work force.


I'm not trying to muddy the issue. It brings to the fore, the vast differences in cultures that would make a one-world system impossible, unless it's under force.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sometimes force is the only ethical option. Not every cultural trait is deserving of the protection of observing the multiculturalism shield.

When slavery was ended in the united states it was a good thing. Doing so destroyed the culture that grew up around that slavery, but I shed not a single tear for it. I'm saddened for the lives lost to make this change, but the culture not a bit.

By the way I'm more concerned with the economy than anything else. As I said the business and banking world are global and for laws to truly regulate them, the laws must be global as well. That's my main focus here.

The big business and banking world are above the law because laws can only truly restrict them if they are global, since unlike the laws we pass they exist as global entities. Since few laws restrict them globally they have a free pass.
edit on 1/17/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sometimes force is the only ethical option. Not every cultural trait is deserving of the protection of observing the multiculturalism shield.

When slavery was ended in the united states it was a good thing. Doing so destroyed the culture that grew up around that slavery, but I shed not a single tear for it. I'm saddened for the lives lost to make this change, but the culture not a bit.


And who picks and chooses what's worth keeping and what isn't and why?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

The corporate and business world as well as banking is global there is no going back from that. Thanks to the technology we have today it will always stay that way.

Regulations and laws must be able to affect them on the same scale they exist on, or they're mostly worthless. They don't exist like citizens do, they aren't truly restricted to a single nations laws but they control every nations economy.


You just said that system is collapsing.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sometimes force is the only ethical option. Not every cultural trait is deserving of the protection of observing the multiculturalism shield.

When slavery was ended in the united states it was a good thing. Doing so destroyed the culture that grew up around that slavery, but I shed not a single tear for it. I'm saddened for the lives lost to make this change, but the culture not a bit.


I find many cultural practices disgusting. What I also find disgusting is imperialism of any sort.

What truly frightens mean is well-meaning people who would impose their brand of life onto me and mine just because they feel they know better. It is arrogant and elitist.

I would and will fight any and every aspect of your one-world government.

I'm for freedom. Real freedom, not your "sanitized for my protection" type of freedom.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes it is, but it "can" be fixed if we can find a way to create and enforce global regulations and human rights laws. Which I, and it might just be me, can think of no way of doing without globalization.

So please help come up with ways to fight big business on the same scale they exist on. Because no law passed by any one nation can affect a truly global entity as the entity can just throw that country under the bus until they give in and comply.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: ketsuko

Is that all you care about is your husbands 401k?

He wouldn't even need the damn thing if he got payed what he was actually worth.

Don't they tax your 401k again?


No, you're the one saying that. I am simply pointing out that lots of people who work for their wages are investors on Wall Street. Many of those people rely on those investments for their retirement.

Heaven forbid, I cite real world examples.

Employers offer benefits as part of the package. Do you know why benefits are offered? Because once upon a time, the government decided they knew what was best and told employers they could not pay people what they were worth. They imposed a wage cap. In order to compete for the best workers, employers created extra value to the salary by offering benefits ... like retirement accounts and pension and ... wait for it ... health insurance.

Yes, it was government price controls that created the current regime of employer health insurance among other things.

So before you blame business for being greedy and not paying people what they are worth, understand that this system was created by government intervention by people like Puppylove who thought they knew better.

Also understand that benefits are cost to the employer for all that employees do not always see money in their check or are asked to contribute something out of the check for the benefit. Health insurance is much cheaper and 401Ks often come with full matching from the company.

And yes, a 401K is taxed unless you build it with already taxed money to begin with which most people don't.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So your against laws against people raping your wife or children? There's a balance between totalitarianism and freedom that must be maintained. Complete freedom is anything but.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Most people don't get any of those benefits thanks to temp services and part time jobs that allow them to skirt those issues.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join