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.

 

What Happens When the Rich Have the Money & Own Everything?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 


So you like Manson's quotes and communism do you?

Stick this quote in your pipe and smoke it:

Communism is the last resort and bastion of the idle, the diffident, the uningenious, the unremarkable and above all the inept.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RolandBrichter

As long as mankind exists, we will have greed and envy, but the new reality will necessitate a sustainable cooperation that will help mute these evils in the name of simple survival...

I am looking forward to this change as well..but it will not be won without considerable sacrifice and pain..



No, there will be a time without greed or envy


Two possibillities: No greed and envy = golden ages

greed and envy remaining = war, hatred, slavery and sooner or later destruction of mother earth

Lots of sacrifices



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
IMO at that point there would be no use for money as it would be a barter system for the lower class because what good is something if only a few elite people have it.

Not to mention the second you do not accept it and barter only it then becomes worthless and the rich then come back down to the same level as everyone else.

After all if no one you associate with has money then there is no purpose for it as paper becomes just paper and you want a food for food trade so to speak not a food for paper.

Once their servants realize that they can not obtain anything without bartering and the paper they are paid is worthless the rich go from rich to bartering with what they have.

Of course that would be very difficult to pursue something like that because people have it so ingrained into their head that money means everything that people will still use it to some extent. For me at that point I would go food for food never cared about money and chances are I never will.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 


Returning to a barter economy is a stupid idea.

I mean really, the economic consequences are absolutely ludicrous. I wont go into too much detail, but I will list to two most pressing things:

1. Massively decreased complexity of professions. How will a scientist spend time in the lab curing AIDS if he has to grow his own grain to trade that grain for a petri dish?

2. Liquidity is destroyed. Trading becomes infinitely more difficult. How can you buy a car if it costs 35 years' worth of potatoes?

Money as a concept was brilliant because it facilitated both those things.

If you are unhappy with the way the world works at the moment, its because you are presumably in a dependent position. The solution is not to try and destroy the system, its to flourish within it.

Dont like working for someone else? Go and start your own company.

Dont like having debts? Don't take out loans.

etc etc. This mentality that people are somehow forced into indebtedness and servitude is puerile, not to mention infantile.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Dont like having debts? Don't take out loans.




Money IS debt.


Google Video Link



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by username371
 


Slight fallacy.

In that way, any production, service or item is debt since I can use that item to pay other people to do work for me.

If I grow 10 times the amount of grain than anyone else, I can grow grain for 1 year and then sit back for the next ten; or I can pay people to build me tables etc etc.

That is the fundamental basis of trade. And if you disagree with the concept of trade, then logic is of no use to me as I simply cannot debate with someone who disagrees with trade as a whole.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 



The point I am trying to make is that debt is inevitable in a system where money is loaned into existence.

Simply asking people not to take out loans doesn't solve the debt problem. If there were no loans then there would be no money.

Also, if everybody were to attempt to pay back their debts, the money that was created by the banks would vanish back to where it came. Paying back old loans literally destroys money. The funny thing is that we would run out of money long before we ran out of debts that had to be repaid.

Astonishing, but true.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
The other solution of course is to get together in communities and explore alternative economies, such as moneyless resource societies, and survival groups, and simply redefine politics. Walk away from it all. Group up and support each other, share. Refuse to allow any of them their rights. Treat them all like the psycho criminals they are. Give them no more money, and consider the entire world yours and your childrens. Thats what I propose.


Ah yes! The voice of the REAL new world order!

Yes - This is how we must look at ourselves and the world. We are SO capable of so much. We have just been led to believe we are not. It's a scam. We don't have to be a part of the scam.

Let's dictate what our lives are.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


why don't you stick this up .

i am not interested in the rants of a islam hating america loving right wing british hindu immigrant who has the 'holier than thou ' attitude .

Corporate capitalism has failed ....




[edit on 30-1-2009 by sadchild01]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 


Attack my points instead of attacking me.

Once again you show your intellectual weakness by resorting to ad hominems...

I don't feel superior to anyone, I don't have a holier than thou attitude. I believe all views are equal and worth consideration. However the fact that you attack me instead of my views shows that you are intrinsically incapable of debate.

(btw are you Manson? I haven't seen him around in ages)



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


You don't get it. They've been at it for years. If their $200 B is in danger of being devalued, they can just immediately transfer it to another currency with just a few clicks of the mouse. They're the ones who plan what and how in all aspects of our lives.

You see, the Elites are smart. Very smart. All of your statements about their coming inadequacy is all but wishful thinking.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 




Attack my points instead of attacking me.

then i suggest you stop attacking me


Once again you show your intellectual weakness by resorting to ad hominems...


and you commonly show yours right wing hindu brahmin/punjabi intellectual weakness with your fanatical hate for muslims




Communism is the last resort and bastion of the idle, the diffident, the uningenious, the unremarkable and above all the inept.


depends on which type of communism you refer to ,if its leninist or trotskyite then i agree , if Stalinist no . the figures/facts will speak for themselves
Communism was innovative and in many respects more than capitalism , particularly the military and heavy industrial sector /space exploration




I don't feel superior to anyone, I don't have a holier than thou attitude. I believe all views are equal and worth consideration. However the fact that you attack me instead of my views shows that you are intrinsically incapable of debate.


you clearly have a holier than thou attitude



(btw are you Manson? I haven't seen him around in ages)


no , manson believes that Soviet empire collapsed due to falling oil prices ,
while I believe that Gorbachev allowed the soviet russia to be ripped apart by NWO , or like others who believe it was part of a deception plan .
like more takes on that deception plan
and show me where i said love communism ??

I know the advantages of communism and capitalism , i like ron-paul style capitalism, but despise corporate capitalism




[edit on 30-1-2009 by sadchild01]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by sadchild01]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by sadchild01]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by username371
 


Here's the best solution for humankind

groups.google.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 


Go ahead and show me where I insulted or attacked you. If I have erred, I will apologise. If I believe what I said, then I will defend it. Either way, go ahead and show me which of my posts caused offence to you?

And stop bringing my background into it... else taunts of Bihar might come flying back at you. Let's keep it civil.


As for the points, perhaps I should clarify:

I believe that in the modern economic climate, communism has no place. Stalin's economic policies were good for the USSR at that time. The levels of industrialization were unparalleled until China 20thC. However that still glosses over the excesses of his rule, such as rampant murdering of opposition figures and the decimation of the agrarian sector in the USSR.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And once and for all please understand that I don't consider myself above others. I am merely espousing my viewpoints and then defending them. I suggest you do the same instead of attacking my supposed "right wing hindu, anti-islamic" beliefs.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I suggest you refer to documentary posted by the poster Russi on Stalin
secondly refer to Douglas Tottle books

thirdly, most of the nonsense printed on Stalin used today was orginally printed by Hearst press which was a open supporter of hitler and nazis .




Go ahead and show me where I insulted or attacked you. If I have erred, I will apologise. If I believe what I said, then I will defend it. Either way, go ahead and show me which of my posts caused offence to you?

/Either way, go ahead and show me which of my posts caused offence to you? /
next time keep your american style sermonising to yourself :
first quote offensive


Stick this quote in your pipe and smoke it:





And stop bringing my background into it... else taunts of Bihar might come flying back at you. Let's keep it civil.


I GOT IT !! SO YOU ARE PUNJABI!!!
no wonders ,you sound so arrogant , but no problems most punjabis already despise biharis . punjabis are blinded by their love for money, and behave like hotair bags with attitude and delusion of grandeur , while we biharis love IAS/IPS civil services and work extremely hard .

most Civil services qualifiers are biharis and a large number of IITians too



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 


"Stick this in your pipe and smoke it" is not an offensive term in any way... it might be slightly impolite, but nothing more than that. Go and google it.

Why are you so fixated on my background? I'm not Punjabi, guess again. I wonder why you think I come across as arrogant... I think you're simply intimidated.

I have nothing in particular against Biharis... but you lot aren't exactly geniuses are you? Laloo et al are worshipped in Bihar. No wonder its such a backward state.

But anyway, this is getting pointless. Your sources are totally different to mine, so we will never be able to debate. Your refutation that Stalin promoted industry at the cost of agriculture is perplexing... I've never heard anyone take that stance before. Perhaps you should go and ask someone who's ancestors died in the massive famines that struck the USSR as a result of farmers being forced to (rather ironically) build tractors rather than farm the land.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by sadchild01
 


"Stick this in your pipe and smoke it" is not an offensive term in any way... it might be slightly impolite, but nothing more than that. Go and google it.

Why are you so fixated on my background? I'm not Punjabi, guess again. I wonder why you think I come across as arrogant... I think you're simply intimidated.

I have nothing in particular against Biharis... but you lot aren't exactly geniuses are you? Laloo et al are worshipped in Bihar. No wonder its such a backward state.

But anyway, this is getting pointless. Your sources are totally different to mine, so we will never be able to debate. Your refutation that Stalin promoted industry at the cost of agriculture is perplexing... I've never heard anyone take that stance before. Perhaps you should go and ask someone who's ancestors died in the massive famines that struck the USSR as a result of farmers being forced to (rather ironically) build tractors rather than farm the land.





massive famines that struck the USSR as a result of farmers being forced to (rather ironically) build tractors rather than farm the land.

more Hearst press nonsense that propagated myths , Russia has mass deportations of kulak farmers to central asia and 200,000 died in the deportation , by the way 1933 harvest in the Ukraine had been good.

www.stalinsociety.org.uk...


In the autumn of 1934, an American using the name of Thomas Walker entered the Soviet Union. After less than a week in Moscow, the remainder of his 13 day stay was spent in transit to the Manchurian border, at which point he left the USSR never to return. Four months later a series of articles began in the Hearst press in America, by Thomas Walker, “noted journalist, traveller and student of Russian affairs who has spent several years touring the Union of Soviet Russia”. The articles described a famine in the Ukraine that had claimed six million lives, and was illustrated with photographs of corpses and starving children. Walker was said to have smuggled in a camera under “the most difficult and dangerous circumstances”.

Louis Fischer, an American writer living in Moscow at the time was suspicious. Why had the Hearst press sat on these sensational stories for ten months before publication? He established that Walker’s short visit to the Soviet Union could not possibly have allowed him to even visit the areas he described and photographed. He also pointed out that Walker’s photographic evidence was distinctly odd: not only were the pictures suggestive of an earlier decade (Fischer thought probably of the 1921 Volga famine) but contained a mixture of scenes taken in both summer and winter. Fischer also noted that the 1933 harvest in the Ukraine had been good.

Some of the pictures were subsequently identified as showing scenes from the Austro-Hungarian empire and World War 1, and it was known that Hearst newspapers were digging up old pictures and retouching them for use as propaganda. Pictures some times appeared labelled as having been taken in Russia, and at other times the same picture is relocated to the Ukraine for obviously political reasons. Not only were the photographs a fraud, and the trip to the Ukraine a fraud, but Thomas Walker himself was a fraud, turning out to be an escaped convict by the name of Robert Green who had served time for forgery. At his subsequent trial following recapture he admitted that his series of pictures used in the Hearst newspaper articles were fakes and were not taken in the Ukraine as stated. Despite these facts, the same photos are still those used in commemoration posters, on web sites and in the film ‘Harvest of Despair’.

The Hearst Press

The Hearst Press needless to say continued with its famine genocide campaign despite the Walker fiasco. This is not surprising when we consider that Hearst himself was known to millions of Americans as "America's number one fascist". (One of Mussolini's chief sources of personal income during the early 1930s was from being a paid correspondent for the Hearst Press).


that myth came into circulation thanks to hearst press ,
www.plp.org...



I have nothing in particular against Biharis... but you lot aren't exactly geniuses are you? Laloo et al are worshipped in Bihar. No wonder its such a backward state.


laloo is worshipped by yadavs villagers who are illiterate and this Yadav was not elected this election

[edit on 30-1-2009 by sadchild01]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by sadchild01]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by sadchild01]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by sadchild01]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I notice a lot of ignorance on these boards when it comes to what communist and socialist policies really are. It's like everyone's been watching black and white propaganda films from the early fifties they used to scare kids with, or maybe just listening to the ranting of some liberalist or other.
When it comes to communism, you should read something written by a communist. Not some fanatical communist hater. You'll notice a difference.
Some make it sound like socialism is all about the state using taxes to "steal your money and freedom" when it is actually a system where the workers themselves control the means of production. The state runs the corporations rather than the corporations running the government. And the state is not motivated by profit but by progress and is not a tool against the people like it is now. It's not about personal bailouts using other people’s money, hard work is encouraged and rewarded. For example, even in screwed up "socialist" countries like the USSR those who worked hard had access to better goods. I'm not saying there's no positive aspect to capitalism, it's a necessary stage in the evolution of a society, following feudalism. But it's time for progress.
Communism is the evolved stage of socialism, where there no longer is a state and there are no social classes with the hierarchy that follows them. Where do you get the "extreme power centralisation by the state" from?
The "communism" you often describe is not communism. Like Vladmir Lenin said:

"When there is a state there is no freedom. When there is freedom there can be no state"

I realise posting this won't make me very popular around here but I felt it had to be said.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Mudler
 


You speak a lot of truth.

I disagree with your specific ideas, but your overall premise is similar to mine (that the evolution of a state involves different macro-economic approaches).

Personally I feel that when a state is in its infancy, a coherent approach is required to create infrastructure, institutions and establishments. Hence I feel that a command economy (either communism, or fascism) is required. However once people are educated, roads are built etc etc (ie the state in which the West is in atm), then people have an equal access to opportunity, and as such a libertarian system is best so that people can achieve their potential as opposed to fall back on society.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
"Stick this in your pipe and smoke it" is not an offensive term in any way... it might be slightly impolite, but nothing more than that. Go and google it.


Ah, yes. Ask the Almighty Google if it is offensive or not. I LOLed.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join