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.

 

Time to let New Orleans sink?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Gateway
 


I don't see it in those terms. This isn't about personal responsability, it's about neglect, the USA's neglect to take care of it's own territory.

Well, then if you feel it's a matter of neglect then the people of Louisiana should pick up the slack, not the rest of the Nation. The city of New Orleans and its expansion or decline should be decided by the people of Louisiana not the people of New York, or California. When these states or the rest of the Nation picks up the tab, for the folks living along the coast it sends them a message that WE will pick up the TAB till infinity, which is immoral and economically unsound.




Just my opinion, no ofense intended.


None taken, no worries, it's not like I'm a neocon, I'm willing to hear other people's concern. Talking about problems and how to solve them is good.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Gateway]




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


I think it's telling that in your quotes of my post you left out the part which is the real solution here: the state needs to control monetary policy so it can effectively help when needed.

If a money is issued as investment, not debt, the nation becomes richer. I think the core problem with the way you look at N.O is because money is debt, and fixing the city would create problems elsewhere.

This is not how it should be, or indeed how it was at the start of US history.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
A reply to all of the insane* NO residents:

To everyone that has said "We dont need your money!!!!":

Yes, yes you do. This has been proven. And Im sure it will be proven yet again. And again. And again. And again.

A note on the culture and "spirit" of NO:

Will it really matter when everything that made the state so "alive" is submerged? When everything you know and love is completely wiped off the map? Im sure you'll all disagree with me because youre too stubborn to see past your ignorance.

Tax payers certainly shouldnt pay for your obdurateness.

*I call you insane because the definition of insanity is:
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Edit: Also, quoting "Lil Wayne" certainly doesnt help your case or your credibility for that matter. Lets keep anyone with "Lil" in their name out of this one, k?

[edit on 5-9-2008 by BloodRedSky]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Gateway
 


I think it's telling that in your quotes of my post you left out the part which is the real solution here: the state needs to control monetary policy so it can effectively help when needed.

Well, currently monetary policy is controlled by a quasi-government institution, the FED.

In other words, if we give Government complete control of the money supply we would have a worthless currency, simply because of government's insatiable lust for funding unlimited pet projects, wars and foreign influence.




If a money is issued as investment, not debt, the nation becomes richer. I think the core problem with the way you look at N.O is because money is debt, and fixing the city would create problems elsewhere. This is not how it should be, or indeed how it was at the start of US history.

Well, I was referring to private money. In terms of insurance companies basing their decisions on investment on statistical models and viewing the city of New Orleans as a worth while investment. I think the city would still thrive, under a free-market proposal were only the people who could afford the "high" risk premium would continue to live there. And if god forbid, other hurricanes came into the city of New Orleans the costs would only be borne by private individuals and insurance company at zero costs to taxpayers. I see that as a win win situation. The city of New Orleans would be known as place of self-sufficiency not a place of government hand-outs or lack of self-reliance as it is currently viewed.


[edit on 5-9-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


The FED, as I understand it, is private. And the creation of money is done mostly in the banking system, due to fractional reserve banking, where they create money as debt, ie loans, in quantities much larger than their actual deposits. The reason taxpayers feel the pinch whenever the state spends money, even to make things better, is because the state has lost control of it's capital. There is literally more debt in the economy than money to pay it, and the extra money that has to be made to pay the debt is also issued as debt. Add it all up and it comes to around 4 trillion, although wars help in the grand total.

If there were in the US a real democracy that was in control of it's currency, there would be no debt, and infrastructure would be seen as an opportunity and not a cost.

This is relevant, because everyone is talking about the cost, and I am pointing out that cost is only a problem because the system was engineered to make it a problem. If the system were setup right, with state control of a real currency based on investment, not debt, then everyone would be running to N.O to get the contracts for the rebuild.

See how this works?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by Gateway
 


The FED, as I understand it, is private.

Well, it's quasi-government.




And the creation of money is done mostly in the banking system, due to fractional reserve banking, where they create money as debt, ie loans, in quantities much larger than their actual deposits. The reason taxpayers feel the pinch whenever the state spends money, even to make things better, is because the state has lost control of it's capital. There is literally more debt in the economy than money to pay it, and the extra money that has to be made to pay the debt is also issued as debt. Add it all up and it comes to around 4 trillion, although wars help in the grand total.

Yes, I agree with everything you stated.




If there were in the US a real democracy that was in control of it's currency, there would be no debt, and infrastructure would be seen as an opportunity and not a cost.


Yes, and no. Do you mean a commodity base currency or another type of fiat currency? Regardless, interest rates are a reflection of people's time preference towards consumption. Basically what I'm saying is that any investment regardless if a FED existed or not will still have to be looked at as whether its returns outweigh its investment. In New Orlean's case, if the insurance companies were allowed to raise premiums on construction or the maintenance of property those that could afford it would stay, and not be a burden, and those that couldn't would move to more affordable and less riskier areas.



This is relevant, because everyone is talking about the cost, and I am pointing out that cost is only a problem because the system was engineered to make it a problem. If the system were setup right, with state control of a real currency based on investment, not debt, then everyone would be running to N.O to get the contracts for the rebuild. See how this works?


Well, I'm arguing the opposite. Yes, you are correct that the current fiat-based government system has not helped in this situation. What I'm proposing is market based solutions for the problem, not more government based solutions, since those where the ones that led us to this current predicament. It was cheap fiat money that led to bad investment decisions, and giving more power to the STATES or FEDERAL government to print money will not solve the the problem, but make it worse.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


Here's the pinch, the FED is private, as are the banks. What is happening is basically fascism, where corporations control government. This can only happen through economic pressure, as the mechanisms of law are still public. Government is not seperate from the populations, it has just been hijacked. Government is not the problem, governments being hijacked by elite groups are.

So it wasn't really government that got the US into the current problematic set of circumstance, it was interest groups, lobbyists and big money. Money which the state dosen't control.

If the people control the government and the government controls the capital, the system can work.

And you really need it to work to coordinate the massive amount of infrastructure renovation needed in the US.

If the emission of capital is done, instead of debt, but as emission of money for infrastructure investment, then the system works better, because you don't have a money issueing class leeching off the economy in exchange for basically nothing. The emission of money, as it is today, is a privilige which is destroying the economic systems of the world more than anything else, including scarcity of commodities.

Money is really the key here.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Realms
 


I was reflecting on Senator Bennett's 'personal' account of 10' feet below sea level as was proven to be inaccurate since he only mentions New Orleans while he should be including the surrounding districts of which comprised of the area he was speaking of.
thethirdbattleofneworleans.blogspot.com...

If you study the map in link below.....it appears New Orleans does border the Gulf on it's Eastern side though I made the mistake of including the surrounding districts of New Orleans as being included in the 'below sea level' zone.

en.wikipedia.org...:Map_of_Louisiana_highlighting_Orleans_Parish.svg
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BloodRedSky
 


Lol, I never said that we didn't NEED your money, I said that I, meaning me, not everyone, DO NOT WANT your money. I feel that the situation is our burden to bear, I'm quite sure you agree with that! At the same time, I also wrote that I am fortunate enough to afford to be "insane*", I'm sure you read that too! Also, I know what the definition of insane is Webster, thanks anyway.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
amen dey need 2 get dere asses out of there and out of the governments wallet



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join