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.

 

Do Not Watch This Video...

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by the b rain
 


You do not buy everything you are told, yet you unequivocally believe a video that offers no proof to substantiate anything it talks about and tells us there is a global conspiracy. Stop trying to insult people, its just showing how little evidence you have for your entire conspiracy theory.

Oh, the irony.

When the FACTS are brought out, the essential nexus of the video is shown to be false. And you refuse to believe the facts. Instead, you use raw data and nominal indicators to prove your point, and yet when this data is adjusted for inflation or holds externality variables constant, it proves you are wrong.

I do not see your delusions, I see reality. You can pray and hope your delusions will come into reality, but they won't. Its time to just take some personal responsibility and live your life without thinking THE MAN is here to hold your finances down.




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I'm not making my decisions based on just the video.
Gold my friend Gold. Where is it? Whos got it? I dont mean the trinkets I mean the bullion ,the bars, the big yellow bricks.
Follow the yellow brick road it leads to OZ.
Your the one who doesn't get it. Q. Where is Britains gold? Who sold it? When? For how much?.........Where is Japans gold? Same questions, Americas gold? and so on. Because its not in any of those countries vaults or even on their soil.
But they keep printing the cash, and we keep using it to buy international goods with. But for how much longer.
Nobody is debating the theory of piggy banks with you. You are right, people should save and spend within their means.
You should see LOST IN AMERICA. Its an old movie with Albert Brooks, very funny movie but the lesson is learned by the husband and wife when they sell everything they own and drop out of the rat race, buy a trailer and tour the country. They have enough money (using calculations done by Albert) to live till the die BUT! on a very tight budget. Well they decide to 2cd honeymoon in Vegas and you can guess the outcome. After the catastrophe Al has to re-explain the "Nest Egg" theory to his wife. Outside of the fact that the seen could leave you crying with laughter the point is don't mess with the nest egg.
Ours WAS the Gold .......end of story.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by the b rain
 


Who cares who has the gold? Gold only has value because we put a value on it. Paper money only has value because we put value in it. We could have all the gold in the world, and it would mean nothing if people didn't value it. The value of our currency is based not on whether its backed in gold, but in the faith that the economy is backed by strong enough fundamentals to continue to back our financial obligations. You could have enough gold for every dollar issued by the mint, and that would not stop the value of the dollar to fall when currency speculators panic, or rise when speculators get greedy.

In fact, with as much currency as is in the world right now, you'd have to mine so much gold so back it up that you would cause inflation beyond your wildest dreams. It would make the cost of platinum look pathetic.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Thats right! But if gold ever makes a return to single global currency as a result of fiat money collapse then He who has the gold has the power. As long as the value placed on it is upheld. Which is a decision we are not involved in. And if not gold then with what shall the banks be repaid with?
Slaves,food,oil,water,medicine? Beer?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




By the way, you've still shown no evidence that wages are going down and inflation is going up. So far, you've shown the opposite. This is lying.


I never claimed that wages were decreasing. Who is lying?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by the b rain
 


The amount of economic upheaval necessary to devalue all fiat currency to require a return to pure gold would be astronomical. The only events I can imagine that would do this are something along the lines of a world-wide nuclear war or natural disaster on a global scale. If those events happen though, the banks will quickly find the population has become more concerned about finding food than anything else. It would take until tens, maybe hundreds of years after the aftermath of such an event before concentration returned to trade. The all powerful group holding all the gold now (if one exists) would not directly benefit because they'd all be dead by then.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
o.k. Lets say we put saaaaaayyyy........YOU! in charge.
How would you propose we bring down our debt of give or take 9 trillion and please be specific. We are listening. Remember the daily interest!



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


Personal responsibility is one thing, but not being able to buy things that are needed because the government is causing the money to loose its value is a whole other thing. I have to agree with jackinthebox and what he has been saying. I don't even have to look back ten years to see the effects of what he has been talking about.

There is a major problem when in one generation could raise a family in decent surroundings on one income. Then the next generation it takes two incomes with each person holding down one job to stay at the same level of living. Then the next generation it takes each person holding down several jobs to keep the same living standards.

You may feel you don't deserve a decent car, but that is you. By the sounds of it, unless you can work on your own car, the costs to keep it running would practically equate to a car payment. Been there and done that. I personally found out it is cheaper to buy a better car and more decent car.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by the b rain
 


This is folly, because you don't give us a plan - and you will critique whatever I say. I will play along though, and don't you dare critique a thing until you lay out YOUR plan. If you do, I will continue to call you out on it until you do.

You dont concentrate on paying it down aggressively or quickly. You focus on increasing GDP to ensure the debt makes up a relatively small part of our economic spending power. No one gets scared about you not paying back your obligations because your economy is strong. How do you do that? Let the free market run its course. Stop interfering in the market except where market failures occur.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mystery_Lady
 


No one is unable to buy something because of the GOVERNMENT "devaluing" currency. If you want to make such an outrageous claim, I hope you have proof.

Your example is fallacious because the standard of living has increased dramatically over those generations. It used to be, one TV and a few cable channels was enough. Now everyone has a TV in every room and digital tv with 100 channels. It used to be, one car was enough. Now everyone "needs" multiple cars. People can still live on one income if they want to match their standard of living to what was standard a "generation" ago.

And no, you can buy a good beater car that runs well and needs minimal maintenance. That you've bought into the consumer culture that only "good" cars are expensive is not my fault. True, my beater doesn't look pretty and it won't get me any gold diggers. But it runs fine.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
What happens to money created by a note of dept when the barer of that dept note then declares bankruptcy ? Is that \" money \" then subtracted from the economy ?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I won't critique whatever you say, only if you don't believe what I do!
Just kidding, but seriously It gives me no pleasure to consider complete economic collapse.
I honestly wouldn't know where to start. It would be like going on a long vacation and coming home to find your house destroyed by a huge party Times 9 trillion.
Firstly,I would make it a Priority to deal with this issue. No issue is bigger so I think I would want a think tank of the countries leading experts on economics and business gathered together initially to meet and express opinions then select several candidates to work full-time on planning strategies to get us out of this.
Let them have no restrictions on creative solutions. When they had formatted a few scenerios it would go to vote.
No one person could solve a crises this large.
But I still believe there is a hidden agenda at the upper levels otherwise I would'nt be on this forum listening to other conversations.
The people here are at least trying to figure things out. I like that



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by the b rain
 



Watch this...

The current population is about 304 million people.
The population in 1980 was about 228 million people.

This is aprroximately a 25% increase in population.

In 1980 there less than 2 million people under correctional supervision.
In 2006 there were more than 7 million people under correctional supervision.

This is an increase of more than 250%.


It might also be worthy to note that people who are incarcerated are not included in poverty statistics.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Tsk tsk tsk, yet another example of spinning statistics. You people really should try to convince people who haven't had so many classes in statistics or economics. This just won't work as long I am here to point out what your doing.

A disproportional increase in people that have been touched by the court system compared to the population is easily explained. It only becomes an anomaly if the variables impacting the court system have not changed in the past 27 years.

(1) Due to better police techniques, more crimes are being caught and criminals appropriately prosecuted.
(2) Laws have been expanded thanks to mandated sentencing.
(3) Mandated sentencing ensures people in jail stay in for longer periods than previously, so the ratio of criminals in and out has fundamentally changed.

Nice try though. You keep spinning, I'll keep shining the light on what your doing.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I was recently accused of being a socialist, and it made me think of something I read recently.

I found the following in The Illuminatus! Trilogy, by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson:



Free Market: That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.

The State: That institution which intereferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).

Tax: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the state collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of priviledge, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.

Privilege: From the Latin word privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

Usury: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

Landlordism: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land, and thereby takes tribute (rent) from thise who live, work, or produce on the land.

Tariff: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.

Capitalism: That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

Conservatism: That school of Capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market, while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.

Liberlism: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden."

Socialism: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.

Anarchism: That organization of society in which the Free MArket operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege. Right Anarchists predict that the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate. Left Anarchists predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.





posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


It is too bad you wouldn't learn about your own ideology through a more authoritative - and sane - book. Like a textbook for American government, perhaps?

Just sayin'



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 





(1) Due to better police techniques, more crimes are being caught and criminals appropriately prosecuted.


Police techniques have increased by 250%? That's a stretch.



(2) Laws have been expanded thanks to mandated sentencing.


Many laws, particularly drug laws have actually been repealed. Furthermore, mandated sentencing usually refers to mandatory prison sentences. The figures provided included probationers and parolees.



(3) Mandated sentencing ensures people in jail stay in for longer periods than previously, so the ratio of criminals in and out has fundamentally changed.


In and out quicker would actually lead to higher numbers anyway. So by combining your points 2 and 3, I see you really have no point



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




Like a textbook for American government, perhaps?


A propoganda bible that changes every few years to meet the new agenda you mean?

My source was published in 1975 and remains peritinent today, if not more so than when it first came out.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


This comes from someone who reads a work of fiction and declares it must be the authoritative stance on all things political.

Nice try though. Maybe this is just your way of justifying why nothing in reality agrees with your theories - because its just all one big piece of government propaganda!


And I am sorry that you do not understand the impact of multi variate reality upon the prison population. Yet again, a showing of no sense of reality. Its quite comical at this point. I will once again lay it out for you (although you'll ignore it once again):

(1) Police techniques on crime means more crimes are actually caught. This is one variable, and it is the result of technology improvement across the board.

(2) Mandatory sentencing means judges no longer have the capability to let people "off" easily. Previously offenses that could optionally be given years in prison were actually commuted into much shorter sentences. Mandatory sentencing laws forced judges to go with these more severe punishments. More people in jail for longer time = more people in jail overall as time progresses.

Yet another conspiracy theory shot down. Whats next? The economics and crime statistics failed you. What's amusing is even if there had been a 1000% increase in those touched by the courts, you would still have to prove that it occurred because of financial distress. Apparently people rape and kill each other when they can't pay for their mortgage, eh?

[edit on 14-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 




This comes from someone who reads a work of fiction and declares it must be the authoritative stance on all things political.


And where did I claim this? Was your head up an exit when I said that?


Don't go away mad, just go away.




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join