'Capitalism' IS conspiracy. Make all business non-profit to stop war & starvation & poverty, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 04:25 PM by Kaploink

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
GM is broke because they make crappy vehicles with bad gas mileage.

That's the largest load of crap I've heard you spew from that ridiculously inane mouth of yours yet.

GM isn't broke because they make crappy vehicles, GM is broke because the vehicles that they are ALLOWED to make end up being crappy simply because of all those profiteering UNIONS that decide they DESERVE to get paid $50 an hour to make such crap not to mention all the other perks of UAW workers that make it unrealistic AND un-American to actually BUY American.

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
It isnt our job or duty to stop war and end poverty.

Yes, it most certainly is.

AB1

You do realize that auto manufactures such as BMW have unions at their plants and somehow manage to produce very high quality automobiles. I don't think the unions are the sole cause of GM's quality control or financial problems.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 04:55 PM by waterpie

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

You say that greed is good as it is a motivator.

I agree that it is a motivator, but a really bad one, where the worst people are best at it. It leads to fraud (directly economical, or indirectly social (like pollution)), destruction and disrespect for others and society in general, lobbying, the law of the jungle, etc.

I would like to suggest that people have an innate motivator much better and purer: Curiosity.

People will create because curiosity is a human instinct. They can't help it. They have to learn, ask, wonder, experiment, and then gloat over what they did.

Abolish patents, copyrights, etc. We should say no to greed, and the profit motive. People are naturally endowed with the curiosity motive.

Public "servants" are not characteristic of this and not a counter example, because they don't and can't do what they want. They sold their freedom to do what they want, their curiosity, for the greater security and stability of a gov job. They castrated themselves.

Finally, a free market vs. central planning is a false dichotomy. Freedom is diff from greed. Leave people free to do whatever they want economically (no central planning) and give out the profits equally to everyone (kill the greed profit motive).

edit:
Just look the free software movement (Linux, etc.), the free documentation movement (wikipedia, etc.) etc. It seems kind of obvious by now. Actually this is one reason for my conspiracy TSHTF: It is becoming obvious that through giving everyone gains more than through greed, so the powers that be must act decisively now: Economic disaster and possibly wars so that people are distracted from the effective killing of the free internet and its transformation to a TV like, restricted, everything-is-approved, no-anonimity abomination.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by waterpie]

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:15 PM by Ismail

reply to post by waterpie

Thank you for your open-mindedness! The world needs more people who think like you. Thats the only way anything will ever change. Curiosity did NOT kill the cat, it made it evolve into an intelligent species. In red dwarf it did anyway... That and hair spray. Peace, friend.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:17 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by Little Insanity

Which is why I quit paying taxes. When the government decides to actually follow the Constitution, I will begin paying taxes again.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:18 PM by LettucePrey

reply to post by counterterrorist

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism.
Ron Paul

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:33 PM by muzzleflash

I think it would be alot more reasonable to either

#1 ) Put a CAP on how much profit you can make

or

#2 ) Make a law where the Workers get far more % of the "profit" generated by their work

i think 2 may be the best idea, because if the workers made a % of the profit of their work, they would work harder and more effeciently so their pay would increase - now thats true capitalism imo

[edit on 12-10-2008 by muzzleflash]

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:37 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by muzzleflash

hahaha who would be in charge of "capping" how much someone could make? Profit is what drives the market, you know that right?

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:45 PM by waterpie

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
It isnt our job or duty to stop war and end poverty.

I would bet that you don't live in a war torn country, and you are not poor.

Easy for you to say. And chilly.

Also your comment below that the (USA) constitution doesn't provide for the gov helping the poor, doesn't compute. I would expect a half baked, broken AI program making such an argument (no rule for poverty, can't answer) than a human being.

I am not a "constitutional scholar" but does the constitution provide for not being "repulsively inhuman and evil"? And could we classify war as being "repulsively inhuman and evil"? And do you agree that war is the ultimate profit machine?
If yes, then if you don't care about the human pain maybe you can care about "conflict of interest". (Big profit vs war is bad). I suppose that is in the laws somewhere.

PS: You don't actually need war. For example polluting the earth to the point of destruction (for millions of people), in order to boost your short or medium term profits, is "war". I don't expect you to compute that either, you seem too much rule based, but well.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 05:50 PM by Constitutional Scholar

reply to post by waterpie

If you want to spend your money trying to help others, by all means, go right ahead.

The Constitution (you know of the document correct?) doesnt provide any power for the government to use PUBLIC (that means taxpayer) money to "fight poverty".

I am against war unless it is in defense of the nation.

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 06:29 PM by constitutionist 1971

I just watched Zeitgeist addendum on google video. It was very mind opening. I wait for the day when the earth is at peace and society is placid. Science and technology and a free resource system is a great answer to the worlds problems. Our new idea should be What are you doing to improve mankind? How are you making the world a better place?

reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 06:48 PM by reticledc

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

If there is no reward or dividend for excellence, why would anyone create or build or strive? For the public good?

G

I agree. I also believe that there can be a happy medium to this, and the key may be to become a producing nation once again. We have been consuming for far too long.
Yes there will be an increase in cost initially due to the fact that it costs more right now to produce at home. That will balance out as more people become employed. Resources need to be abundant and this will keep cost down. There also can be a way of encouraging people to strive for excellence, and that is most definitely EDUCATION. The more you know a bout any given thing, the more it becomes like second nature. When people are confident in what they do and take pride, good things can happen. At my job, it's easy as hell to let things slide and slack off. I don't because I know my job inside and out, because I have educated myself at it. I take pride in the details, that a lot of other do miss. I do not get paid all that much, but I take pride none the less because I know i did a good job. That is a personal thing, and believe me, my employer offers no incentive whatsoever to do a good job.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 08:07 AM by counterterrorist

badmedia: How can you blame capitalism for todays problems, when we've been moving away from capitalism for over a century?

counterterrorist: the money-issuing power must be taken away from the banks (which are privately owned and returned to the people (the publicly owned treasury)

badmedia: What we have today is not capitalism.

counterterrorist: Yes, it is.

badmedia: What we have today is corporatism.

counterterrorist: banks are for-profit corporations. make them non-profit corporations and we're better off. HOWEVER, privately held corporations do not issue stock. Therefore, since centralization of wealth in obscene proportions must be controlled and limited, as it destroys the body politic i.e. humanity.

badmedia: It's allowing dishonest practices and then bailing people out at the expense of the people that has to stop.

CT: right. how?

badmedia: If we had a capitalistic system, the fed wouldn't and couldn't exist.

CT:We do have a capitalistic system. ALL THE INVESTMENT BANKERS OWN ALL THE CAPITAL (with a few exceptions), so the investment bankers own 99.999% of ALL the capital.

IT IS THE MONEY-ISSUING CLASS THAT MOST FIRST BE NEUTRALIZED, not the upper, middle (managerial) or working (blue collar) classes.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 08:12 AM by counterterrorist

reply to post by reticledc

You ask: If there is no reward or incentive to work, why would people work?

You're making my argument for me: Take the profit out of war, out of slavery, out of drug-running, out of oil monopoly, out of starvation, out of genocide, out of fractional banking -- and it will stop.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 08:23 AM by Ismail

reply to post by counterterrorist

Amen to that. Money does not motivate me in the slightest way. I know that on my death bed the things that will matter to me will not include my account balance. Money is air. We live in system built on air. Time to come back down to earth.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 08:27 AM by counterterrorist

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by waterpie

The Constitution (you know of the document correct?) doesnt provide any power for the government to use PUBLIC (that means taxpayer) money to "fight poverty".

The history of the U.S. is the history of the fight between a publicly owned central bank vs a privately owned central bank. A publicly owned central bank charges no interest (you've heard of interest?)

The U.S. Revolutionary War was fought to eliminate poverty (you've heard of poverty?) It was fought for financial freedom from the privately owned Bank of England. (you've heard of the Bank of England?) All the major wars have been fought against privately owned Central Banks, because the wars have financed and created by privately owned central banks -- and war is an effort to centralize wealth (you've heard of centralized wealth?)

Many of the founding fathers and our presidents (you've heard of them, right?) intended for us to have a (publicly owned) U.S. Treasury, and indeed we did. Until Rothschild and Warburg (Rothschild agents) interests tried 3 times to establish PRIVATELY OWNED central banks: First Bank of the United States (which lasted a year or two), Second Bank of the United States (which lasted a year or two) and the Federal Reserve Bank, founded in 1913 -- which has generated 11-12 trillion dollars of financial slavery for the American people.

You'd profit from reading Eustace Mullins' 'Secrets of the Federal Reserve' (free online) -- the first expose, done in 1951: www.whale.to... (you want to profit, don't you?)

And also see the charts and presidential quotes at www.my2012.4t.com...

"Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks & corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks & restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." ~ President Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809

"Bankers are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out & by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our central bank system, there would be a revolution before morning. If the central bank continues to control our currency, receiving our public monies, & holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable & dangerous than the naval & military power of the enemy. It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government ... More than 8 million dollars of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners ... Is there no danger to our liberty & independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favor alike on the high & the low, the rich & the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing."
~ President Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837

"Whoever controls the money of a nation, controls that nation & is absolute master of all industry & commerce. When you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation & depression originate."
~ President James Garfield, 1881

"We began planning the Revolutionary War in order to issue our own money again ...and keep King George III and Bank of England from enslaving us with debt, and making Americans their financial slaves. By the time the revolutionary war started, Apr. 19 1775, British taxation had sucked the gold and silver out of the American colonies, to Britain. So, we had to print money to finance the war." ~ Benjamin Franklin, a 'founding father', 1706-1790

"The privilege of creating and issuing money is the supreme prerogative of Government, the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By adoption of these principles, taxpayers are saved immense sums of interest." ~ President Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1866

(Editor's note: In the history of America there have been three attempts to have a privately-owned central bank. The first two failed, after lasting a total of 2-to-3 years, the third one was established in 1913, and has bankrupted America -- as of 2008 we owe the private owners of the Fed nine trillion dollars. Lincoln printed publicly-owned money, called, 'greenbacks'. Kennedy printed publicly-owned money in the form of a two-dollar bill. The following excerpt refers to Lincoln printing publicly-owned (U.S. Government-owned) greenbacks.

"If this mischievous financial policy which has its origin in North American during the late war in that country, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." ~ Hazard Circular, inserted in 1865 London Times, speaking of Lincoln's 'Greenbacks'.

"Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination & legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds & mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile & more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing voters through the political party system, we get them to expend energies fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned & successfully accomplished. ~Aug. 25, 1924 USA Banker's Magazine

[edit on 13-10-2008 by counterterrorist]

[edit on 13-10-2008 by counterterrorist]

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 08:40 AM by counterterrorist

reply to post by waterpie

Right on!

Welcome to ATS! We need more people w/compassion and intelligence and wisdom.

reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 08:49 AM by counterterrorist

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar

hahaha who would be in charge of "capping" how much someone could make? Profit is what drives the market, you know that right?