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.

 

Poverty in the richest country in the World.

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 



I'm sure even you would agree the total bailout of the second group, in the long run, far exceeds that of One Billion bucks many times over.


I most certainly would not agree. I would like you to show me some figures that show welfare and/or public assistance payouts come anywhere near the amount of taxpayer money shelled out to corporations both directly and indirectly in misguided adventures such as Iraq. I can't believe you would seriously try to present that as a valid argument.




You say feed the masses first, I say quit buying stuff you can't afford and spend that money on food instead.


Now you're trying to tell me that people are starving because they spent their money on a plasma TV? I am really beginning to think that you don't know the first thing about poverty. Please, by all means, prove me wrong.



Why should I be forced to support folks that don't want to help themselves?


For the same reason you allow your money to be spent on the people who dictate the conditions of poverty.




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Merely delaying the inevitable. A handful of people at the top of the Bear Sterns heap have already secured their funds, it matters not if employees are let go in the coming months, or if the investors never see a ROI.


Actually, its a common practice of I-Banks for their employees to buy stock in their bank. Its something of a point of pride within the bank. Therefore, whatever holdings exes, or even just regular employees, might have had took a severe hit. As for "securing their funds", um, yeah, if they had invested their personal money in other stocks of course they'd be fine. I don't quite understand what you're implying here. Had exes sold off their stock right before the collapse, the SEC would be investigating them for insider trading, and they would be facing prison serious prison time. Do you have any facts to back up your allegations, or are you just assuming that bankers are all crooks?



Furthermore, the money would have been much better spent in the small business sector giving opportunity to people who have not already proven to have failed miserably and at great expense to this nation even before the bailout.


For one, the vast majority of small businesses collapse within the first year of their operation. The Govt didn't step in just to stop some random company from collapsing, but to prevent a wider crash within the financial sector. Regardless of how you or I feel about it, their actions helped to prevent another hard blow to the financial industry, and likely saved billions of dollars. Something that giving hundreds of millions of dollars to housewives in Topeka Kansas never could have done.



This is a deliberate tactic of the elite. Do you really think the top-dogs were hurt by this whatsoever? They took the money and ran, leaving those left behind holding the bag. A "fire-sale" alright, after a financial "jewish-lightning" scheme.


Hmm, let me think... They allowed one of the most successful banks on Wall Street collapse into a heap because they didn't do their homework. The careers of every significant employee (decision makers, not analysts) is toast after this. You cannot destroy that much wealth and hope to ever work within the Financial community again. Just doesnt happen.

As for your "jewish-lightning" comment, I would politely ask that you keep your bigoted, racist opinions to yourself.



I think I have just explained that, but let me be clear. You walk with all the good investments and set up shop elsewhere to start the whole process over again. Meanwhile, you leave someone else accountable for all the risks that never paid off.


Precisely how are they supposed to "walk" with all the good investments? Is the CFO supposed to just stroll out of the building with stocks for which Bear Sterns is the registered holder? Do you think I-Banks keep bearer bonds just around the office? Maybe some brokers could keep their clients, and go to a different firm, right? Sure, Id trust anyone who just helped tank the bank to invest my money wisely.



Fine, you call a banker the next time your house gets broken into or catches on fire, or you are choking on a thousand-dollar hamburger.


Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

Its apparent that your opinions are formulated more through your own rather limited experience with business, and a streak of racist bigotry. It seems you believe that anyone who is wealthy is inherently a crook. Poor = integrity in your opinion?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist
 



Actually, its a common practice of I-Banks for their employees to buy stock in their bank. Its something of a point of pride within the bank. Therefore, whatever holdings exes, or even just regular employees, might have had took a severe hit.


You are failing to see the bigger picture. Judging by your seemingly intricate understanding of finances, I would say that you are not the sort to really be able to see what is outside of the box.



Do you have any facts to back up your allegations, or are you just assuming that bankers are all crooks?


The current economic system under which we operate today is termianlly flawed.
Money as Debt



The Govt didn't step in just to stop some random company from collapsing, but to prevent a wider crash within the financial sector.


Delaying the inevitable. The American people will never see the ROI.



Something that giving hundreds of millions of dollars to housewives in Topeka Kansas never could have done.


And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Do you have some grudge against housewives, or just Topeka Kansas?



You cannot destroy that much wealth and hope to ever work within the Financial community again.


Do you really think that the sacrificial lambs were the ones who orchestrated this collapse? The elites crashed the London markets after Waterloo, to seize control of the central bank there. The elites created the Great Depression to reap enormous profits and gain unprecedented power, including taking private ownership of all government in the United States as well as every private citizen. They also created the fiancial crisis that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank years earlier.

Wealth is not being destroyed. Imaginary money is being used to seize real property and goods, each time there is a collapse. Wealth is not being destroyed, it is being consolidated.



As for your "jewish-lightning" comment, I would politely ask that you keep your bigoted, racist opinions to yourself.


Well, you can put that one next to the housewives of Topeka Kansas if you like, but the term was not used to express any racial bigotry. The term is commonly used in reference to the fraudulent activity implied, and can be found in the urban dictionary. Furthermore, Judaism is a religion, not a race.



Its apparent that your opinions are formulated more through your own rather limited experience with business...


It seems that your opinions are formed inside the limited experience of the box in which you have been placed, failing to see historical facts and trends which goes far beyond crunching numbers.



It seems you believe that anyone who is wealthy is inherently a crook. Poor = integrity in your opinion?


You make a false assumption and a logical flaw.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Ask, and you shall receive




Poverty now comes with a color TV



Census data find an ever-growing material prosperity, with formerly high-dollar luxury items now commonplace in even poor households.

The computer has surpassed the dishwasher as a standard household appliance. The poorest Americans have posted a sharp rise in access to air conditioning.

And while the wealth gap may not be narrowing, the rich-poor gap in lifestyles has narrowed substantially since 1992 when measured in many of these tangible items.

Poor, but more comfortable ...nearly 13% of Americans have incomes that place them below the official poverty line. But what does that mean in terms of their daily lives? The fact that 95% of them may have a refrigerator tells only part of the story.

More computers than dishwashers ... the progress is significant for poor and rich alike.

Two-thirds of those in poverty had air conditioners in 1998, up from 50% in 1992. Personal computers have grown increasingly ubiquitous. Where fewer than 20% of homes had them in 1992, nearly 60% did in 2002 (more than own dishwashers).



More computers that dishwashers, just as I have been saying, and you told me you use the Public Library PC.
This explains your massive accumulation of ATS points.

Hey wait a sec, since I am poverty stricken when it comes to ATS points and you are filthy rich, maybe you should be forced to donate some of your hard earned ATS points to others less fortunate.

Sounds only fair.

What do you say, pal?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
And another thing...


Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Alxandro
 



I'm sure even you would agree the total bailout of the second group, in the long run, far exceeds that of One Billion bucks many times over.


I most certainly would not agree. I would like you to show me some figures that show welfare and/or public assistance payouts come anywhere near the amount of taxpayer money shelled out to corporations both directly and indirectly in misguided adventures such as Iraq. I can't believe you would seriously try to present that as a valid argument.




I'm sure there are stats out there which I can find for you, but you can you can chew on this for now.


Myth #5: Welfare is cheaper than creating well paying public jobs.

In his book "Securing the Right to Employment", Philip Harvey calculates that in 1986 we could have achieved full employment by creating l0.4 million public service jobs. He further assumed that the average annual wage would be $13,000. The cost of such a program would have been a daunting $142 billion. But when we deduct from this sum the taxes that would be paid by these new workers and the savings from drastically reduced unemployment insurance payments, welfare , Medicaid, food stamps and other expenditures directly linked to low income and unemployment overall we would have spent $13 billion less. A full employment program, even excluding the social savingsfrom reduced family violence, more stable communities, and less crime, pays for itself in reduced welfare expenditures.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 



More computers that dishwashers, just as I have been saying, and you told me you use the Public Library PC.


I don't own either. I use the Public Library PC, as well as others that I can borrow access to.



This explains your massive accumulation of ATS points.


Good material explains the points.



Hey wait a sec, since I am poverty stricken when it comes to ATS points and you are filthy rich, maybe you should be forced to donate some of your hard earned ATS points to others less fortunate.


Hardly a valid comparison. If I got more points per post or somesuch, you would have a valid argument.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


So, why don't they put American to work then? I have nothing wrong with that.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


And another thing...

Just because someone pulled a color TV from a dumpster doesn't make them well-off.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



You are failing to see the bigger picture. Judging by your seemingly intricate understanding of finances, I would say that you are not the sort to really be able to see what is outside of the box.


Actually, the comment I was replying to was regarding the one you made regarding exes having "secured" their funds. My point was that regardless of whether or not you actually worked in the bank, anyone with shares of Bear Stearns took a hit when the bank collapsed. However, its more likely that people working for the bank owned shares, therefore they took a hit. Your comment, as you phrased it, doesn't make any sense.


The current economic system under which we operate today is termianlly flawed.

Such is your opinion. Keynesian economics is actually widely accepted, and practiced to great success in many nations. What other system would you suggest? Classical economics?


Delaying the inevitable. The American people will never see the ROI.

The return on the government's investment was to prevent the complete collapse of a major player on Wall Street, and prevent further panic from invading the market. Considering how much wealth might have been destroyed if such a crash occured, it was a prudent move to make. Personally, I don't support the govt's actions in this regard, but I'm more of a laissez-faire proponent.


And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Do you have some grudge against housewives, or just Topeka Kansas?


Actually, no. Kansas provides a decent microcosm of the nation, and most small businesses are started by women. Its also a fact that most small businesses fail within their first year, and that the percentage of small businesses that actually grow into massive Multi-nationals or I-Banks is slim. Therefore, if you're looking to invest hundreds of millions of dollars, and want to see a decent return, stay away from the small businesses. From a govt perspective at least.


The elites created the Great Depression to reap enormous profits and gain unprecedented power, including taking private ownership of all government in the United States as well as every private citizen.


And who, presumably, would you classify as an "elite"? Do you also believe in a shadow government? Just curious as to how much conspiracy theory I should be assuming as fact when conversing with you.


The term is commonly used in reference to the fraudulent activity implied, and can be found in the urban dictionary. Furthermore, Judaism is a religion, not a race.


Well, let's see what else is in the Urbandictionary.com...
Ni**er, F*g, d*ke, as well as racist slang that refers to white people, asian people, hispanics, and just about everyone else on the planet. Such a respected source as the Urban Dictionary certainly cannot be racist, right?

You're correct about Judaism. I should have referred to you and your comments as being Anti-Semitic.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist
 



I should have referred to you and your comments as being Anti-Semitic.


I didn't day "semitic-fire."



Just curious as to how much conspiracy theory I should be assuming as fact when conversing with you.


Um, memo. This is a conspiracy website.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Interesting thread Jack and pig, or is it bloodthirsty, oh yeah

Corporations exist for one purpose and one purpose only, to make a profit. Everything that may happen for good or ill as a result of the pusuit is of no consequence to the corporation, it has no conscience, no concern for fellows, etc. It is a machine made up of a hierarchy of workers who perform a function, but have no say in the policy of the organization as a whole.

If that is the case, then the debate you are having cannot be reconciled, I believe, because Jack is approaching the topic from the humanitarian/ethical position, and the Capitalist from "business". You are both right, essentially.

But let's consider the concentration of media ownership that has occurred in recent years. If it has been detrimental to our society as a whole, which it has in my opinion, yet very successful in terms of profit...where would our Capitalist draw the line? If it makes a profit, it's good. Period, or do you have any sort of limit to what you would support in the name of the almighty $$$?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   





posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Alxandro
 



Hey wait a sec, since I am poverty stricken when it comes to ATS points and you are filthy rich, maybe you should be forced to donate some of your hard earned ATS points to others less fortunate.


Hardly a valid comparison. If I got more points per post or somesuch, you would have a valid argument.



I don't know jack I think you have way too many points, I think you should share the wealth with others that can put them to better use.
You don't really need all them points any way do you?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Richest country in the world? Are you kidding me? The USA isn’t even close to being the richest country in the world. Do some research!

Last I checked it was Luxemburg!

I think you should be changing the thread title.

Mikey



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mikey84
Richest country in the world? Are you kidding me? The USA isn’t even close to being the richest country in the world. Do some research!

Last I checked it was Luxemburg!

I think you should be changing the thread title.

Mikey


Luxumberg does not have a $13 trillion GNP...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


Going on GNP, Luxemburg is still the world’s richest country.

Ten Richest Countries (based on 2004 GNP per capita in US$)
1. Luxembourg ... $56,380
2. Norway ... $51,810
3. Switzerland ... $49,600
4. United States ... $41,440
5. Denmark ... $40,750
6. Iceland ... $37,920
7. Japan ... $37,050
8. Sweden ... $35,840
9. Ireland ... $34,310
10. United Kingdom ... $33,630

Here's one link for you, there are many more, Luxembourg is usualy first on most, weather its GDP, GNP etc etc, have yet to see USA on the top.

internationaltrade.suite101.com... ountries


Mikey


PS: GNP per capita is the most widely accepted index for a country's financial success.


[edit on 27/3/2008 by Mikey84]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Either way, we're still the most powerful country on the planet. Which means that the only reason we're not the richest is mismanagement. Someone's skimming off the top and sending it to Luxembourg, and Switzerland, and Monaco.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mikey84
reply to post by West Coast
 


Going on GNP, Luxemburg is still the world’s richest country.

Ten Richest Countries (based on 2004 GNP per capita in US$)
1. Luxembourg ... $56,380
2. Norway ... $51,810
3. Switzerland ... $49,600
4. United States ... $41,440
5. Denmark ... $40,750
6. Iceland ... $37,920
7. Japan ... $37,050
8. Sweden ... $35,840
9. Ireland ... $34,310
10. United Kingdom ... $33,630

Here's one link for you, there are many more, Luxembourg is usualy first on most, weather its GDP, GNP etc etc, have yet to see USA on the top.

internationaltrade.suite101.com... ountries


Mikey


PS: GNP per capita is the most widely accepted index for a country's financial success.


Again, Luxembourg does NOT have a $13 TRILLION GNP!!! (notice the TRILLION) So your point is moot.

Luxembourg GDP (PPP) - $30.9 billion

Americas GDP (PPP) is almost $14 TRILLION

Now tell me, which number is the biggest?

Also Luxembourg's labor force is 316,500, with 121,600 being foreign workers.


If Luxembourg was a US state, it would be the poorest state in the union. Contributing only a paultry 30.9 billion dollars... Yes, per capita wise, they are richer, however, they are not a richer nation when measured by total GDP. Luxembourg is far to small to compare to the US juggernaut. Most large US city's have a higher per capita GDP than Luxembourg does, that would be a fair comparison... Here is a list of California city's who easily are "richer" than Luxembourg in per capita terms.

Washington's District of Columbia has a GDP per capita alone of $148,641

A fairer comparison...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


Again, GNP per capita is the most widely accepted index for a country's financial success.

Notice the words “per capita” and “country” not state/district.

If you want to start going by district/region etc, doesn’t the EU still come out on top of the USA?

By your working out and logic it would make the USA 3 times poorer than Somalia, the USA has over 32 million people in poverty, Somalia only has 9 million in poverty.

See why “Per Capita” and percentages are used.

What ever way you look at it or ignore it, the USA is still not the world’s Richest Country, as for the most powerful? Yes, maybe, but some would argue it, and I don’t think it’s too long before another country takes that position.

Mikey


[edit on 27/3/2008 by Mikey84]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mikey84
reply to post by West Coast
 


Again, GNP per capita is the most widely accepted index for a country's financial success.



No, a better case for a country's financial success would be in PPP terms, which translates to "purchasing power parity," if we go by that, then the US is the undisputed number one, with nearly $14 Trillion in PPP.


Notice the words “per capita” and “country” not state/district.


The fact remains, that a US city, with similar size in population contrasts to Luxembourg's, has similar, and in many cases, a higher GDP per capita... You cannot compare a population of some three hundred thousand, to a population of some three hundred million. If Luxembourg had a population the size of Americas, it would not have a $54,000 GDP per capita...


By your working out and logic


There is hardly in logic when it comes to ignorance..


it would make the USA 3 times poorer than Somalia,
the USA has over 32 million people in poverty, Somalia only has 9 million in poverty.


Which we know is not true, as even in poverty terms ($15,000 income) that person has a much better life then the average Somalian, thus living much more comfortably.

PS, Please link your sources for further substantiation...

See why “Per Capita” and percentages are used.


You are being a redundant ass, yet you still cannot manage to effectively comprehend what it is you are saying.

As Eistien once said, "if you cannot explain something in succinct simple terms, you do not understand it well enough."




the USA is still not the world’s Richest Country,


Do please explain how a 30 billion dollar economy is richer than a 13.8 trillion dollar economy...


as for the most powerful? Yes, maybe,


A emphatic "YES" is more suitable...


but some would argue it,


I would like to hear those "arguments."



and I don’t think it’s too long before another country takes that position.


I hope your not thinking about china.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by West Coast]



[edit on 27-3-2008 by West Coast]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join