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.

 

Its time to defeat the powers that be - by adopting communisim!

page: 18
50
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I agree that there are obstacles but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Plus I believe the leaders of those countries you are talking about would crumble through the power of their own people.

I have met a lot of Russians and Chinese people among other nationalities in my work and none of them claim that there government is particularly representative of their peoples - no more then Bush was representative of the vast majority of the American people during much of his reign.

People in those countries much like the rest of us are just apathetic as they don't see a new way, a new hunger among people to change and that is what I'm saying - this is what the powers that be want as they have us where they want us - believing that no new way is possible - but it is - anything is possible if you wish hard enough to quote Peter Pan - where has peoples sense of wonder and adventure gone - there are new frontiers still to be explored




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by count66
 


But my answer to that was they should have never taken on the debt. They could have found investors, reinvested their profits, found a venture capital firm, etc.. This way they are not laden with debt. If there product is good enough someone would invest in it for a share of the company.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


But surely the point is -that he realises he has been paid far more then he ever needed or wanted - that this excess money is pointless and thats why he is going to redistribute his wealth.

No one is against a fair wage for a fair job - prove yourself - earn more by all means but let those earnings be within the scale of possible spend within a persons lifetime.

Come on - how can anyone spend a million a year unless its on pure extravagance which the person does not need



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


But surely the point is -that he realises he has been paid far more then he ever needed or wanted - that this excess money is pointless and thats why he is going to redistribute his wealth.

No one is against a fair wage for a fair job - prove yourself - earn more by all means but let those earnings be within the scale of possible spend within a persons lifetime.

Come on - how can anyone spend a million a year unless its on pure extravagance which the person does not need


The point is it should be his choice to redistribute his wealth. Not the governments. It is not up to anyone to tell anyone else what is extravagent. You know a lot of things in this world get created because some "extravagant" guy decides he cant live without one.

Plus, no one would be excited about living just getting what they NEED. You have to get some of what you WANT.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I myself do believe Marxism is truly the right path to take, but the idea itself needs to be updated with the times. It is said it looks good on paper but will never work in reality. i say it looks even better on a computer screen!LOL!! Half the time communism failed not only because of the powers wanting to make a profit rather than make all the right decisions for all the right reasons. It also failed because the system became buried under mountains of paperwork involved with the system i.e. " it looks better on a computer screen". Now with that said the only real obstacle is getting the masses to understand that life is more than a picket fence and a hummer (going both ways) LOL. I believe this thread is one step to making things come together. So I urge those of you involved with this site ... honestly those of you that are involved with this planet to do more than just argue points but discuss optimistically of course how we the people can rise through the system at hand i.e. using petitions, rally s , and/or peace walks"whatev" and instead of being in the "pursuit" of happiness we simply should be able to reach out and grab it with just a little hard work and being able to actually follow your dreams/your calling without being told you have to take out a loan first. I believe we all have the capability to see the better way, but do we have the will, the might, or the cohenes to ask the obstacle/powers to step aside and join us in traveling down the right path. I myself have quite a few ideas for the system and the introduction of said system(communism in case i lost anyone), but due to the length of this rant I will stop here I am very eager to hear what everyone has to say and am a big fan of constructive criticism so critique away... GOOD DAY



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


And move the company abroad to exploit a lower paid worker who lives in poverty and therefore will work for less.

The whole system of multinationals currently operates this way - currently we see the flight to Eastern Europe, China, India - after workers living standards rise in these countries as they are already doing, wage demands will increase and what will the multinationals do - move on to Africa - all the while the old countries workers like the US, western Europe have been driven to poverty through mass unemployment - then what happens when our living standards have dropped - the multinationals come back and hire us cheaply all over again.

All the time the shareholders and investors continue to reap profits no matter where the company is - hence the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Check out the statistics - in the 1970's 10% of the worlds population owned 70% of the wealth - now 10% of the worlds population own 85% of the wealth - it speaks for itself



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


And move the company abroad to exploit a lower paid worker who lives in poverty and therefore will work for less.

The whole system of multinationals currently operates this way - currently we see the flight to Eastern Europe, China, India - after workers living standards rise in these countries as they are already doing, wage demands will increase and what will the multinationals do - move on to Africa - all the while the old countries workers like the US, western Europe have been driven to poverty through mass unemployment - then what happens when our living standards have dropped - the multinationals come back and hire us cheaply all over again.

All the time the shareholders and investors continue to reap profits no matter where the company is - hence the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Check out the statistics - in the 1970's 10% of the worlds population owned 70% of the wealth - now 10% of the worlds population own 85% of the wealth - it speaks for itself


I agree that SOME leaders of companies could be a bit more ethical at times. But this is really about supply and demand. People are trying to produce a product as competitely as possible because if they dont they will go out of business and all of their employees will lose their jobs not just part of the employees.

Plus, these multi nationals are actually accomplishing some of what you want to accomplish, by moving jobs to poorer countries. Then by pure economics it over time evens the playing field for everyone.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
could be a bit more ethical at time?? how about ALLOT more ethical??? wal-mart is a prime example ... come in ravage a towns economy and then move out!!! all a company cares about is its bottom line and its obligation to shareholders.. it has no obligation to the U.S... its all about the BOTTOM LINE



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


I would disagree - that is the very basis of the lie that is being spun - the fact is these multinationals always move on - their average stay in most countries is between 15-20 years before they move on - and what happens when they move on - the workers they leave behind fall into unemployment and need to take lower wages and a cut in the standard of living.

The shareholders however continue to reap the profits - as I said the statistics in the ownership of wealth in the world which show the rich getting richer bear this out



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by count66
 


You are way oversimplifying this. To do it on a global scale would mean taking complete control of all the worlds governments. I'm fairly certain billions would die in ensuing violence and wars.

If all countries were now Democratic with basic freedoms already in place perhaps over a few decades it could be accomplished. But I doubt it.

Leaders would still be needed. Police and Laws would still be needed. Corruption would take over and in the end we would go backwards to a version of the old USSR.

I applaud your enthusiasm and faith in Humanity, but it is unrealistic. Keep that positive attitude however.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
could be a bit more ethical at time?? how about ALLOT more ethical??? wal-mart is a prime example ... come in ravage a towns economy and then move out!!! all a company cares about is its bottom line and its obligation to shareholders.. it has no obligation to the U.S... its all about the BOTTOM LINE


Most of it has to be about the bottom line. Wal-Mart is a prime example. They have found a way to deliver goods to consumers more cheaply and efficiently than anyone else. Therefore, they win. You as a consumer benefit by getting more for your money. You know the slogan "WHY PAY MORE"". Society obviously supports this idea or they would just go to a local store and pay more to keep them in business. But they dont, because they want to get as much as they can for their money. They voted with their dollar.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Perhaps I am being overly optimistic but I would rather try and see a better way then continue to blindly support the extreme unfairness of the current global economy.

I mean we are all being led to complete ownership of the worlds wealth by a minority within the next 50 years - it took only 30 years for the 10% of the worlds population to increase their wealth from 70% of the world assets to 85%.

Then we really will be all slaves in everything but name



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


very true but at the cost of the local economy?? like a parasite destroying a host...you are right the people do vote with there wallet and it is ultimately them that help the corporation inflict the damage... what the consumer does not know (especially in these small towns) is that they are damaging or possibly destroying there financial eco-sytem.. in the end the consumer becomes unemployed and can no longer purchase the "cheap" items and the store as a result closes down and more unemployed people are left to dispair ... in the end the cost for these cheap items is much larger then the few dollars they are saving



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


They need as much as they can for their dollar as living standards are dropping in the western world.

Again look at the statistics for the wage drops that have occurred since the 1960's in the western world compared to inflation.

On average 10% - why is that? for the same reason that the rich have got richer perhaps.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


very true but at the cost of the local economy?? like a parasite destroying a host...you are right the people do vote with there wallet and it is ultimately them that help the corporation inflict the damage... what the consumer does not know (especially in these small towns) is that they are damaging or possibly destroying there financial eco-sytem.. in the end the consumer becomes unemployed and can no longer purchase the "cheap" items and the store as a result closes down and more unemployed people are left to dispair ... in the end the cost for these cheap items is much larger then the few dollars they are saving


They would have lost their jobs eventually, because they worked for companies that are no longer competitive. Eventually they will fail. Its just a matter of time. If it wasnt Wal-Mart it would just be another company or another group of companies that did them in. It is like an old water buffalo.. eventually some lion will catch it and eat it. Its doesnt matter which lion, because in the end its still dead.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by count66
 


I would assume this standard of living has dropped because of globalization spreading the money around the world. It will just be worse for the Western world after their money is redistributed to the poorer countries.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by count66
 


I would assume this standard of living has dropped because of globalization spreading the money around the world. It will just be worse for the Western world after you redistribute their money to the poorer countries.



[edit on 3-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


But the point is the wealth hasn't been distributed - 10% of the world owned 70% of the wealth in the 1970's and now the same 10% own 85% of the wealth - this 15% increase is roughly equivalent to the 10% drop in living standards in the western world.

The rest has come from the continued exploitation in the rest of the world



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by count66
 


If you look at working for someone as being exploited (which I kind of agree with) then I suggest you start your own business and become the exploiter or the sharer or whatever you want to be.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Again this comes back to the unfair rates I would need to pay to obtain capital for starting a business in the first place.

I would ask you why can't the government supply money at an almost 0% rate for a viable start up business.

The same goes for housing.

The reason is , is that the powers that be would then lose control of the masses who could control their own destinies



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join