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.

 

you make me sick,zeitgiest 2 disinfo

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 1011010110
 


I think what he is suggesting is this...

Say the government provides everybody with a basic $50,000 (im using Aussie dollars here but convert that into your own currency). So therefore everybody has enough money, as a basis, to live a comfortable life. For those that wish to have more money to spend on life they have the option of working in whatever field they choose and earning more money. For those that don't wish to work, they will still be able to live a good life.

Medically disabled people would receive free, government sponsored, care.

As for the rest of your examples they are irrelevant because nobody hires/fires people based on their eye colour or their height (unless of course the job is height dependant).

I think this is a great idea actually, everybody starts off on equal footing and the onus is on the individual to decide if they wish to work for more money in order to further their lifestyle.




posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1011010110
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Uh huh, and who decides what the basic standard of living is? The government?


Yep, just like the military gives you more money if you have dependents and are of a certain rank. I assume you would have to take on extra jobs in order to gain some type of rank in society that reflected your experience of contribution to the new system. You might have a pay grade just like civilian DoD workers.



What if someone is sick? Is their standard of living the same as everyone else's? Does a cancer patient get more money to maintain the same standard of living as everyone else?


Of course. Healthcare would be free pretty much like in the military. Life insurance would not be free though.



Does a brown-eyed person get more money so they can have the same standard of living as a blue-eyed?


No, that would be incredibly stupid.




Shorter people make less money and are esteemed less by society than taller people, so what if shorter people want growth hormones? Are you going to give it to them for free?


I don't think height determines your standard of living. In the military anyway, they never offer to make people larger. They will correct your vision for free with Lasik surgery if you can get on the list.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
You just discredited yourselves. First of all, giving everyone 50k is useless. Basic economics dictates inflation would reset the baseline to 50k. In other words, 50k would be the new minimum wage. LOL!

And as for living like the military, I certainly don't want to live with military benefits. Have you even been to the VA? Of course not. Otherwise, you'd know what sort of health benefits they have. They're horrendous.

I'm afraid you guys completely discredited yourselves. Face it, your technocratic utopia is actually a road to Aldous Huxley's Brave, New World. You guys just don't want to recognize it.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 1011010110
 


Take a closer look at what I said, I'll even repost it for you...


I think what he is suggesting is this...

Say the....


Learn to see a hypothetical when it is used. If you do not know what hypothetical means, look it up


And 'basic economics' does not apply, neither does 'inflation' because it is a whole new financial system that discludes those.

The military example was simply a comparison, it was not meant to say 'exactly like the military'.

Sheesh.

[edit on 7/10/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


You can't give an adequate example, but you want us to trust you when you say it'll happen, even though you can't figure out exactly how it'll happen. Economics doesn't exist, greed will vanish, and people will no longer want anything.








posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 1011010110
 


DUDE! I was simply attempting to clarify what the previous poster said based on my interpretation of it.

Hence I said "I think what he is trying to say is..."

Bloody hell....



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by badmedia


I haven't seen the movie, but the OP is right based on what he said.


The OP is right, based on what he said, LOL. Well, what else have you got to base it on, you haven't even bothered to watch a movie with ideas you just tried to write off. It is a movie, its up to you to watch it, then take any Ideas and truth it offers, reasearch them, discuss them and decide if they have truth and/or merit. Like the way you should treat all info! Including the OP who is right based on what he said.lol.
The NWO must be loving all the dumb people.


[edit on 7-10-2008 by atlasastro]


Maybe it's because I have been studying economic systems for years now. If you had read further, you'd notice I have watched the movie now. And guess what? It didn't show me a SINGLE thing that I didn't already know.

Even the system it mentions wasn't new to me. I've been arguing with people in the alien forums weeks ago about the same system.

It wasn't anything new, but the more people who say it as far as what is wrong with the current system the better. But the solution it recommends is in fact what the NWO wants.

So before you go calling someone dumb, maybe you should question the reason you had learn the stuff from the movie, and why you didn't know about it already.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1011010110
You just discredited yourselves. First of all, giving everyone 50k is useless. Basic economics dictates inflation would reset the baseline to 50k. In other words, 50k would be the new minimum wage. LOL!


Would that happen if the government set prices? There'd have to be some type of commissaries like agencies set up perhaps. It wouldn't be a free market system, of course - at least for the necessities. How about food stations, would you like that better? Obviously you are lacking in imagination here, and for what reason, we'll never know. I can guess though, and I'm sure others can too.



And as for living like the military, I certainly don't want to live with military benefits. Have you even been to the VA? Of course not. Otherwise, you'd know what sort of health benefits they have. They're horrendous.


I never said you'd get military benefits, I said the benefits would be similar to how the military operates. If you've served you've met a few guys who go ahead and have 6 or 7 gets just to get the benefits. When I got out I was making 65k/yr with all of my benefits (not that I have 7 kids). I'm sure there are plently of lower/middle class people who would love to make 65k a year for no work.



I'm afraid you guys completely discredited yourselves. Face it, your technocratic utopia is actually a road to Aldous Huxley's Brave, New World. You guys just don't want to recognize it.


BS. You've discredited everyone who believes the unrealistic nonsense you are spouting. You can't even imagine a successful NWO, and that really tells about your real motives here. You're being one sided and narrow minded by only concentrating on the potential evils. You must be a real credit to your race car driver.



[edit on 7-10-2008 by logician magician]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by greenjuice
 
Oh,no a flim came out that says that this system is fatally compromised!!
how dare,they say our form of government is an illusion!!
If we just put Ron Paul in office that will restore the American Dream!! I don't see anything wrong with presenting a new idea to what have have right now,I always thought that's why this site existed to promote different ideas.I guess people see what they wanna see.Go back to the Patriot movement with their mindless flag wavers and bible thumpers you seem to fit right in.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I just watched the section on the Federal Reserve.

What they fail to mention is that the interest made off the securities is rebated back to the treasury. The Fed system is non-profit. It also makes it look like the FED holds all of the national debt by omission, when it's probably less than 15% now even with the war.

In 2005 it only held 9% of the public debt while it held over 50% of private U.S household debt, so most of the interest doesn't even go to the Fed, only that 11% debt that it "bought" - and that is STILL given back to the treasury after expenses of the section of the system that is government!



The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday released figures that indicate the Federal Reserve Banks distributed approximately $21.454 billion of their $30.246 billion total income to the U.S. Treasury during 2005.


The rest of it is paid to other sources and other countries (which are the same countries that don't want our dollar value to fall because they hold a lot of dollar RESERVES so of course they don't want the value of the dollar to fall) Japan and China hold nearly 30% of the debt together.

The guy who make these movies is either a genius troll, or a moron who works with 85% information to come to his conclusions.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
It's funny in a way, because he's painting the Federal Reserve in a bad and fictitious light in order to scare you into thinking the our current free market capitalist money system is corrupt and then trying to promote the communist ideas behind a NWO.

I guess I kind of agree with what he's doing. He's trying to trick you guys so you'll follow along. Maybe I should edit my post above, hehe.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


From en.wikipedia.org...


Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.


Communism, in theory, is a workable solution when not abused or misinterpreted.


The communist movement has attempted to produce a communist society by setting up political parties, which in some cases have become governments. These attempts have never produced a communist society, and have frequently led to totalitarian states.


This is why it has failed and is seen as an enemy to freedom. The premise itself is innocent and good, the implementation however has always been abused and twisted to meet the needs of the corrupt and greedy.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
reply to post by greenjuice
 
Oh,no a flim came out that says that this system is fatally compromised!!
how dare,they say our form of government is an illusion!!
If we just put Ron Paul in office that will restore the American Dream!! I don't see anything wrong with presenting a new idea to what have have right now,I always thought that's why this site existed to promote different ideas.I guess people see what they wanna see.Go back to the Patriot movement with their mindless flag wavers and bible thumpers you seem to fit right in.


The movie is right about pointing out the problem. But the solution offered isn't right. There is a difference.

The problem with money today is we live in a debt based system. As the movie pointed out.

Do you agree that a man in debt is a slave? So therefore a system of debt based money will be creating what? Economic slavery. Would you not agree with that?

So, does that in itself mean the entire concept of money is flawed? Money being just a symbol of transfer of energy to ease commerce. Any and all trading systems are based on value. If I trade 10 chickens for your cow, then there is still value between the 2, even though money itself is not being exchanged. If I give you $1 per chicken, and $10 for the cow, it's the exact same change.

Even this "resource" based system is still based on value. They even say so themselves, as they will need to "manage" the resources "properly". Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, that is what communism does.

What we need is an HONEST money system based on value rather than debt. What we need is to remove the entity that is allowed to create debt based money.

As we have found out, there is no limit on the amount of debt you can create.

The movie is right when it describes the money problem. dead on. It hit all the major points. The movie is right when it states that cheaper energy sources will help free the people.

But the movie is dead wrong if it thinks you can get rid of money for a "resource" based system. It proves this by itself.

Value is created by the limits of the resource. If there was an unlimited amount of resources, the management of the resources and such would NOT be needed. If management of the resources is needed, then you have a limited amount of resources. PERIOD. There is no way around that. Did you notice it never mentions who is going to "manage" these resources "properly"? What is actually saying there is a group of elites will control the resources for the people. That is NWO communism.

As I said in my previous post, the NWO isn't going to come about by them telling people the truth. It will be sugarcoated as being in the best interests of the people. Create a problem, and then offer a solution.

Quite amazing how a conspiracy forum that is supposed to be versed on such topics is completely blind to this. You'd think by now you'd be weary of false promises.

How is it any different than what a politician does? He points out the problems, and then offers their "better" solution. As much as I would like to believe the movie is true in that part, I am not so naive.

The only way to get rid of money, is to get rid of the value of things. Which is to literally have unlimited resources. If you are able to do that, THEN you will have no need for money. And at the same time, you will not need to manage the resources.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


The deal with communism and things is the person always see's it as being their way it's done. I'm sure we can all imagine a system where everyone is treated fairly, equally and all that. I know I sure can.

But that is if I am in charge. So at heart what I'd really be doing, and have to gain is control over other people. Thus why it quickly leds to totlitarianism.

This is what it is sold on. Every time I talk to another person who is for this kind of stuff, it's always a discussion on how it would be so good if it's the way they see it. They never stop to think about what someone else might do once given the control, or the person they gave it to giving them the control.

And that is what the entire game in DC is. They really do not care if you vote democrat or republican. All they want is for you to give them control on the issue. They will sell it to you as giving them control for the good. But once given that control, it always ends up bad.

Was public education sold on good things, or was it sold as what we have today?

There is always 2 questions to every issue. The 1st question is always silent and overlooked. And if you point out the 1st question, you will be called names and such. You will find out what the real bias is in the media. And it's not towards democrats and republicans.

The 1st question is always - Who should have control. You or them. Is it a function of government, or is it something you should have choice over. Always. If the answer to that question is YOU, then the issue stops. However, if the answer to that question is them, then the issue branches off in what direction should it be done. And people will sit around and argue over which direction they should force it in, and ignore the first question.

So you take republicans and democrats. If you combine the government they want, you get a government with full 100% control over the people. If you combine all the government they don't want, you get full 100% people control. People generally end up voting against the government the other side wants, because it is the "lesser of 2 evils". They switch back and forth, and what we actually end up with is their 100% control.

Communism and this movie are no different. They are asking for control over the resources. They say the control is good. But once again, the entire game is just to get you to give control over to someone else.

Red team, blue team - same game. Communism, democracy, socialism, all different teams of the same game. You often hear - don't hate the player, hate the game. Well you can't do anything about the game if you don't realize what the game truly is.

Wake up people. Quit giving control away to other people.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I'm not speaking to anyone in general when I say this...

Boasting about your nasty outdated nationalistic and isolationist attitudes just makes you sound like you're living in a different time. Consider both sides. The real actual evidence for this is not the literal multitude of disparate NWO prototypes, but that we will eventually unify into a one world government - most people know it right off the bat. Our leaders are clearly trying to get there, and it's clear. It's the natural course for us, but we won't get there mentally until we're ready, and the only way to get ready is to make ourselves ready - otherwise our corrupt leaders will make us ready by force.

We can get through this the easy way, or the hard way. They clearly want to work toward unification by implementing Unions and strengthening the United Nations, so why don't we grow up and support them instead of acting like selfish paranoid goons?

You know Ron Paul was never going to win because he was an isolationist. If you believe they are controlling the elections, why not just cut your loses and play the game of humanity?

We could speed up this process dramatically by letting them know where on the same team, go with them, and enjoy the smooth ride. To be stubborn and say we need government, we need national militaries, or we need an entity to tell us how to live our life is thinking like a cromagnum for sure.

When adhering to these old traditions, you aren't helping to advance us. The change we need is only going to come about with a large social paradigm shift when we become aware of how our world works rather than adhere to a stupid conspiracy of faith or belief.

I'll tell you right now, if you think the Constitution of the United States is going to be around forever, you might want to reevaluate your thinking. That document will eventually be moved aside for something better. It's appealing to tradition to keep that thing around if we can make something better, lest you believe it to be a perfect document sent down from the heavens from God himself! Ideals from one age don't translate well to the next.

None of this will happen any time soon though. I heard someone the other day say "Anybody who thinks that earth was created by science is clearly a retard"

When you have people who still think like that, you know you'll waste a lot of time trying to drag them out of the intellectual pit they got themselves stuck in.

Instead of wasting time writing your congressmen about Federal Reserve Conspiracies that don't exist (certainly bad practices exist) you should be writing them and telling them that you are ready for, and support a smooth unification. If not, it's going to only be your own fault when the military shows up at your door and takes your guns as a preemptive measure for a possible public retaliation! It's perfectly legal for you to walk around with body armor and loaded pistols as long as you have the permit! They know this, of course - they let you do it. They see us as a veritable citizen militia, and will use appropriate force against all potential targets.

May as well give it up now, because we won't need it in the future. Let them know you're a mature and reasoning individual, not some nut case who thinks his name in all capital letters means he doesn't have to obey laws or show up in court!

It's no wonder we don't get any support from our politicians.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Well, you've just pretty much confirmed you are someone who advocates a NWO. Resistance if futile huh?

The simple fact you view Ron Paul as an isolationist is also a confirmation that you do not even understand the things you are putting down. There is a difference in minding your own business, and not doing anything with anyone. Just as there is a difference in working with countries, and going around and forcing countries to work the way you want them too.

And to say that the constitution is about traditionalism is just a plain out lie. Newsflash, the only things that have changed in our history is our technology. When it comes to freedoms and liberties, nothing has changed. The same principles and philosophy that applied then applies now. Just like people like Socrates and Pluto contemplated the same basic questions and philosophy thousands of years ago, as we do today.

Sorry, but I will not be taking authority as truth. I take truth as authority. And the truth is, you wish people to be slaves/cattle. And your basically saying - you can jump into the slaughter house, or we can push you in there.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
So rather than living in a better world where disagreements didnt end in bloodshed, or when someone wanted to make a few more billion dollars they didnt have to start a war,

in a world where energy was free and abundant

where machines made up the work force and humans could enjoy there lives instead of working it away

where people were actually encouraged to become the smartest person they can be, not just a worker drone.

Instead of living in a world where everyone can be happy, you would rather live in this world?



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
So rather than living in a better world where disagreements didnt end in bloodshed, or when someone wanted to make a few more billion dollars they didnt have to start a war,

in a world where energy was free and abundant

where machines made up the work force and humans could enjoy there lives instead of working it away

where people were actually encouraged to become the smartest person they can be, not just a worker drone.

Instead of living in a world where everyone can be happy, you would rather live in this world?


Just because the movies points out the bad stuff very correctly, does not mean it has correctly identified the solution.

Why must we have such duality? That because they are wrong, you must automatically be right?

Are you telling me a free society(not 1 under facism and economic slavery like today) is incapable of those things?

Who is going to manage the resources? Who is gonig to decide how much each person should get? Who is going to decide when it's being used properly. What do you intend to do with people who don't go along with the system? Why are these questions never asked, much less answered?


[edit on 7-10-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I never once said I was right I did say that a world where abundance is the base of the economy instead of scarcity, would be a better world.

Right now scarcity is causing suffering for everyone on earth, so if scarcity is the problem then what would be the best notion for a solution the opposite of scarcity being abundance. Yes it may not be 100% perfect im saying this and the movie also stated this, but it would be so much better than the way things are right now.

Can you argue against that? How could a world where everyone has food, clean water, free energy, where they dont have to worry about money, where technology is advancing rapidly to make life easier, how can a world like this be a bad place?



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   


I never once said I was right I did say that a world where abundance is the base of the economy instead of scarcity, would be a better world.

Right now scarcity is causing suffering for everyone on earth, so if scarcity is the problem then what would be the best notion for a solution the opposite of scarcity being abundance. Yes it may not be 100% perfect im saying this and the movie also stated this, but it would be so much better than the way things are right now.

Can you argue against that? How could a world where everyone has food, clean water, free energy, where they dont have to worry about money, where technology is advancing rapidly to make life easier, how can a world like this be a bad place?


scarcity and abundance are really just opinions. Compared the energy and things we have today, to 200 years ago, they might say that we have an abundance, and they have a scarcity. The term horsepower in a car comes from from the power of horses, so where they were working with 1 or 2 horsepower, we easily work with 100's of horsepower on a daily basis.

In that way, we are already living in a world of abundance. But things haven't changed. Because in the end, it only represents an upgrade in technology, it doesn't change the basic philosophies involved.

I'm all for a world where everyone has food, clean water, free energy and so on. But only under freedom and liberty. Our problems do not come from our freedoms. They come from the lack of freedoms. We can never be free when we live under a system of debt, and economic slavery. The movie is right there. But the solution given is just another form of control, as they will control the resources. And whats to stop them from making up things to divert the resources? As they have complete control over the resources, they can divert them in any direction they want, so long as it is deemed as - for the good. Which in reality is no different than what we have now.

It's the same old argument people give for socialism and communism. Nothing new, just a promise of better technology. The philosophy and principles are no different.

I'll ask once again. Who is the decider on how much resources people get? Who is the decider on how the resources are properly used? These questions keep getting avoided, and in return all I hear is don't you want people to have this stuff? I sure do, but I do not fall for false promises.

How is this any different from anyone else coming along and saying - "give me control, I'll make things better!"?

I see no reason we can't have all the things mentioned in there without having a communist society. All we need to do is free the people from the economic slavery, and quit allowing lobbyists to create regulations that push out their competition so that we can have truly free markets.

And maybe when the day comes where we have such an abundance of resources that nothing physical will have value - not because someone says no value, but because they really do not have value as anyone can create/conjure it up, we can get rid of systems completely.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join