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.

 

600 more American jobs heading to Mexico because of corporate gluttony

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jacobe001

This will change only when we vote for people who were plumbers, marketers, auto mechanics, cashiers, stock clerks, office managers six months prior to running for office.

Seems like the wealthier the office holder is/gets the worse their decision making skills get.


Why would I ever want to vote for someone of average ability to hold a position of far above average responsibility?


originally posted by: jacobe001
Even if we put in a monkey to run for president, he would do a better job for the country because he would not intentionally be rigging the market place for their wealthy donors at the expense to the majority in this nation.


So you support electing someone because they're too dumb to know how to bend the laws? Isn't that governance through ignorance? Essentially idiocracy? Would you support President Camacho?
edit on 27-6-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

So you support electing someone because they're too dumb to know how to bend the laws? Isn't that governance through ignorance? Essentially idiocracy? Would you support President Camacho?



Well I certainly do not want someone in from one of the Too Big Too Fail or a Major Company in this country because they would create policies specifically to benefit their company or industry as has been seen time and time again. I would rather have someone in that works to benefit the whole country and not just they and their cronies as we have seen...time and time again.

It is no coincidence that many of the Too Big Too Fail and Major Corporations in this country exploded in size once they had the ability to purchase puppet politicians.

Look at the size of the Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industry and how much it has grown thanks to Lobbyists and look how much it is costing tax payers, business and consumers, and look how much they give to puppet politicians. How can this be a good thing especially since we have the most expensive healthcare in the world
edit on 27-6-2016 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

If not the heads of an industry then who is best to give advice on that industry? Certainly there's a potential or rather a certainty for a conflict of interest, but isn't that all the more reason for the public to have their own lobbyists that aren't working for any specific corporate interest?

I don't know about you, but I don't trust a politician to know how to get things right without a little bit of guidance though I do think that most elected officials are capable of making good decisions if you can teach them about issues as they're relevant. It's no different than the public sector with CEO's really. They make the decisions but they don't know everything, they rely on subordinates to write reports that help with the decision making.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: jacobe001

If not the heads of an industry then who is best to give advice on that industry?


They are not going to the government to give advice to lawmakers, especially since the corporate lobbyists and lawyers already have the bills written up.

They are going to the government with a Fistfull of dollars in one hand and and the bills they have written for laws, regulations, and contracts in the other hand for things such as:

A Cut of the Food Stamps Program, Corporate Subsidies, Trade Pacts with slave labor countries, Defense Contracts, Healthcare and Insurance contracts which all tax payers have to pay for, but moreover, the wealthy benefit more than anyone else from these policies.

Where is the citizens and labor input in all of this?
Where was the citizens and labor input in the formation of the TPP or NAFTA for that matter?

That reeks of Fascism, not Capitalism.

Why do the citizens even need government then if it is being used to steal from them via their tax dollars and productivity and time?



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I bought a microphone that is proudly made in the USA.

It's junk, and everyone in my profession has also gotten lemons.

The problem is that American companies can't make quality products in the USA and sell them at prices the American market can afford. Why?

The shareholders and CEO's demand certain profit margins, salaries and bonuses.

If they send manufacturing overseas, they keep the quality somewhat decent and possibly even lower the price to the consumer, thereby selling more.

And in a free capitalist market we can't tell a corporation how much their top people are allowed to be paid or what profit margin they're allowed to shoot for. We can't force a company to pay their employees more, lower the prices and their top people take the hit.

That's just how it works in a free capitalist society folks.

There are ... more 'regulated' alternatives, but those alternatives are "bad words" around these parts. That dirty word "socialism"



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

edit on 27-6-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jacobe001

This will change only when we vote for people who were plumbers, marketers, auto mechanics, cashiers, stock clerks, office managers six months prior to running for office.

Seems like the wealthier the office holder is/gets the worse their decision making skills get.


Why would I ever want to vote for someone of average ability to hold a position of far above average responsibility?


originally posted by: jacobe001
Even if we put in a monkey to run for president, he would do a better job for the country because he would not intentionally be rigging the market place for their wealthy donors at the expense to the majority in this nation.


So you support electing someone because they're too dumb to know how to bend the laws? Isn't that governance through ignorance? Essentially idiocracy? Would you support President Camacho?


What makes you think that the average politician is a genius or above average intelligence and able to handle the responsibility? How do you think we arrive at the wars we are involved in, the debt that we have and the imbalance of wealth we are experiencing? When an average person is elected they are familiar with average problems.

Take the ACA, do you think for one second an average Joe would say ya that sounds like it will work.

Do you think the average Jane will think we need 10 of thousands troops stationed in foreign countries keeping other nations safe for free for ever?

Do you think an average Joe is going to vote for a Bill before he reads it?

Do you think an average Jane is going to shut up and sit down when they know something is wrong?

And, do you think an average Joe is going to vote for these horrible trade agreements designed to bone American workers?

Trusting the same people (politicians) to make better decisions than let's say an licensed electrician is a fools bet and is going to lead to a catastrophe sooner or later.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001
They are going to the government with a Fistfull of dollars in one hand and and the bills they have written for laws, regulations, and contracts in the other hand for things such as:


That's how things are done, it's not corruption either, it's human nature. If you come up to sometime, make a convincing case that X should be done, and then explain that you've already done the work and just need an authorization they're likely to give it to you.

What ends up happening is DC determines there's a problem somewhere, but to be perfectly honest none of our legislators have the time or breadth of knowledge to write proper legislation so they turn to industry professionals. The legislators in turn know that the companies are going to write something beneficial for themselves but they can also be reasonably sure that whatever legislation gets written isn't going to bankrupt the industry which is a very real risk when you have uninformed people write it.

The real problem though comes from the regulatory side of things, that's who is supposed to represent the people and act as a balancing force against the above (atleast with major industries). The career path of regulators isn't stable that that prevents them from actually doing their jobs. Most regulatory positions are appointed and they change with Presidential administrations this means that if a banker is brought in from Goldman Sachs to regulate the banks (a common situation), they are only there for a maximum of 4 or 8 years. Once the administration changes, and sometimes even in the middle of a term a new appointment happens. The now ex-regulator has to go back to looking for work in their field. If that regulator was overly harsh on the industry there won't be a job waiting for them and as a result they don't seriously oppose anything.

This is all well known and understood by everyone involved, but there's an opinion held by some that this is a good thing because it forces the government to be very picky about what it chooses to fight, instead letting an industry mostly run itself. The problem with that, is that corporations can't be trusted however some are convinced in the free market being able to balance all interests out and that this system is good because it keeps industry from being overly regulated.



Where is the citizens and labor input in all of this?
Where was the citizens and labor input in the formation of the TPP or NAFTA for that matter?


Hamstrung by a system that makes it career suicide for regulators to do their job.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

And in a free capitalist market we can't tell a corporation how much their top people are allowed to be paid or what profit margin they're allowed to shoot for. We can't force a company to pay their employees more, lower the prices and their top people take the hit.

That's just how it works in a free capitalist society folks.

There are ... more 'regulated' alternatives, but those alternatives are "bad words" around these parts. That dirty word "socialism"


So instead we get something worse than Socialism and even worse than Capitalism.
Big Business using The Government Gun to force us to prop up the profiteers and shareholders.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

That's how things are done, it's not corruption either, it's human nature.


It is corruption and it is also immoral and theft from workers, citizens and tax payers.
You should read the thread I made on how Corporations Conquered our Democracy and see the poster above you that hit on some good points

EVERYTHING they have done has made this country worse since then.
EVERYTHING!
From the Trade Pacts, to Bail Outs, to attacking Unions, to stagnant wages.
EVERYTHING has been done at the government level by corporate and banking lobbyists to take more power and wealth from everyone else and give it to themselves.

They need to be thrown out of the government along with all GLOBALISTS

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Like I said, we would be in better shape if a monkey was in power.
edit on 27-6-2016 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You said
"Why would I ever want to vote for someone of average ability to hold a position of far above average responsibility?"

Then you said
"What ends up happening is DC determines there's a problem somewhere, but to be perfectly honest none of our legislators have the time or breadth of knowledge to write proper legislation so they turn to industry professionals.'

Either they can handle it or they can't.

We elect politicians, we don't elect lobbyists.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
What makes you think that the average politician is a genius or above average intelligence and able to handle the responsibility? How do you think we arrive at the wars we are involved in, the debt that we have and the imbalance of wealth we are experiencing? When an average person is elected they are familiar with average problems.


I think that very few people are geniuses, I don't think that any politicians are, and I think that the majority of them are of average to slightly above average intelligence in order to have gotten their college degrees. What I am referring to is their ability to make something out of themselves in life (not the same thing as an education). Most members of Congress are local hero's who are at the top of their community, and then get sent for bigger and better things. It suggests they have some management and leadership abilities that the average person lacks. It also suggests that outside of their professional field they don't have all that much knowledge.

The job of our representatives (when 80% of their time isn't spent fundraising) is to listen to problems, listen to experts on those problems propose solutions, and to then pick and implement a solution. Those experts they listen to are the key to everything and right now they're wholly corporate controlled.

What I would like to see is a public lobbying arm that's just as well funded, specialized on writing bills tailored to pass the ideological rigidness of two parties and looking out for the American people, giving us the best deal rather than the corporations.

Additionally, I would like to see a complete restructure of Congress. I want people with diverse skill sets in those jobs. Engineers, Architects, Mechanics, Artists, Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, and so on. The skills demographic of Congress has too much overlap right now with everyone being a lawyer or a doctor. Lets get some diversity in there, and then lets start putting people on committees where their knowledge and experience is relevant. It's a shame that one of our tech committee's is run by a guy who has to have an attendant work his cell phone for him because he doesn't know how.

Furthermore, I would go a step further and make each of these people have a lot of power over one very narrow area that needs management, as a federal job rather than just listening to the people. Things like being in charge of bridge inspections in Oregon, or water purity in the Colorado River in Arizona, and so on. Get some accountability on these parts, some actual power where the people can make a difference, and a restructured congress that relies on lobbying less (and what it does rely on, the people are heard too).




Take the ACA, do you think for one second an average Joe would say ya that sounds like it will work.


The average Joe who supported the ACA wanted insurance for everyone and thought that would lower costs. So no, because the average person doesn't understand that insurance is not designed to lower health costs, it's designed to raise costs across the board by a little bit for everyone in exchange for being protected from catastrophic events.

This happens to be exactly what the government delivered actually. They gave exactly what the public asked for but not what the public meant. Communication with government is always a bit of a monkeys paw.


Do you think the average Jane will think we need 10 of thousands troops stationed in foreign countries keeping other nations safe for free for ever?


It depends. What does the geopolitical landscape look like? Do the host nations want us there? Is it cheaper to remain there or to pull back and face a potential backlash? Pulling out of the ME would increase instability but ultimately work out well. Pulling out of Korea would be a gigantic mistake.



Do you think an average Joe is going to vote for a Bill before he reads it?


The average Joe didn't even complete their assigned reading in high school and if they attended, college. Instead they supplemented with books, cliff notes, and looking up the summaries online. I think that Joe who works for 6 hours a day asking for party donations, 1 hour a day in the legislature, 2 hours a day in fundraisers, and 4 hours a day in office management has no time to read bills. Instead Joe's staff reads them, highlights the important parts and maybe quotes something. Then Joe is handed a 1-2 page printed sheet with a summary written in English rather than legalese and makes decisions based on that.



Do you think an average Jane is going to shut up and sit down when they know something is wrong?


As soon as she figures out the political landscape and knows who/what to criticize if she hopes to have any allies in reforming the system, yes.



And, do you think an average Joe is going to vote for these horrible trade agreements designed to bone American workers?


Maybe not, maybe so. It depends on which version of economics is your personal religion. Personally I'm on the side that economics is an entirely sham science in the first place so I would vote to keep the jobs here but there are other concerns because those jobs also represent influence with other nations. It may very well be the right thing to have some extra unemployment here in exchange for greater influence with a nation when we need to use their air space or protected waters.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Aazadan

You said
"Why would I ever want to vote for someone of average ability to hold a position of far above average responsibility?"

Then you said
"What ends up happening is DC determines there's a problem somewhere, but to be perfectly honest none of our legislators have the time or breadth of knowledge to write proper legislation so they turn to industry professionals.'

Either they can handle it or they can't.

We elect politicians, we don't elect lobbyists.


Representatives do not write laws. At the most their staff writes them, more typically they are written by corporations and special interest groups. Then the contents of the law are summarized, and it goes to the floor.

It would be a bad thing if our representatives wrote our laws actually, because many of them aren't lawyers and you need a lot of knowledge of the law in order to make your intentions a reality. That's not to say they shouldn't have input put a professional law writer is not the same thing as a public servant who listens to your concerns and proposes laws to fix them.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Hostess reopened, stayed in the USA, and paid their workers what the Union wanted. The price of their duo cupcake pack is now $1.64. I now buy the same product, made by "Little Debbie" for $.99 cents.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001
You should read the thread I made on how Corporations Conquered our Democracy and see the poster above you that hit on some good points


I read it when you wrote it. I disagreed strongly with many parts of it.


From the Trade Pacts, to Bail Outs, to attacking Unions, to stagnant wages.
EVERYTHING has been done at the government level by corporate and banking lobbyists to take more power and wealth from everyone else and give it to themselves.


One of our European trade agreements is the reason we were able to threaten Iran with bombers. Trade pacts aren't all bad and neither is a trade imbalance. If you're getting an imbalance it means you're getting influence elsewhere. In the case of China it's in getting our way occasionally on world issues. My guess is it's most often used in the UN Security Council, but that's just a guess. Buying votes, the democratic way.

If we hadn't done the bail out, what do you think the US would have looked like financially? We would be a nation where no one in the next 30 years would be able to retire, which means no jobs opening up, which means massive unemployment and stagnant/declining incomes. The banks would have further consolidated, leaving us very possibly under a monopoly banking structure at this point and the vast majority of homes would have been repossessed (and then likely destroyed to keep out squatters) leading to rampant homelessness. The bail outs weren't great but they were the least bad option.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Do you think it costs an additional $.65 to make that treat?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The ceo and cfo probably get 20 cents of every sale.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Secrets and Lies of the Bailout



The federal rescue of Wall Street didn’t fix the economy – it created a permanent bailout state based on a Ponzi-like confidence scheme. And the worst may be yet to come.

But the most appalling part is the lying. The public has been lied to so shamelessly and so often in the course of the past four years that the failure to tell the truth to the general populace has become a kind of baked-in, official feature of the financial rescue. Money wasn't the only thing the government gave Wall Street – it also conferred the right to hide the truth from the rest of us. And it was all done in the name of helping regular people and creating jobs. "It is," says former bailout Inspector General Neil Barofsky, "the ultimate bait-and-switch."




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

I don't know how many items they sell, but it would be a great number to have.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join