It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
May I ask... what Union paid minimum wage lol
Seriously, I have never heard of this in my life...
this sounds made up, I need details
History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job
Though industrialization is usually portrayed as something that happened as a natural result of technology bringing about ever-increasing efficiency, this notion doesn't fit the facts....
The current level of economic concentration we see today is the result of careful strategic planning. If actions are not taken to support a less-capital intensive methods a handful of global transnational corporations control will soon control the entire food supply. Farmers and livestock producers alike have been intentionally rendered price takers, while vested interests unfairly externalize environmental and production costs, capturing profits through monopolistic activities that should be halted through anti-trust enforcement by the US Department of Justice....
With World War II, America saw its agricultural system intentionally subjected to political policies that radically transformed it. What was once a decentralized system that provided a means to self sufficiency and independence for tens of millions of farmers was purposefully centralized into a capital-intensive fossil-fuel dependent system that restructured local economies, permitting their wealth to be extracted by what are now transnational cartels dedicated to the so-called free market and globalized trade at all costs.
This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful – though unelected – financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies.
Composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve, the banking industry, private equity firms, insurance companies, railroads, information technology firms, publishing companies, pharmaceutical companies, the oil and automotive industries, meat packing companies, retailers and assisted by university economists – representatives from every sector of the economy with the key exception of farmers themselves – CED determined that the problem with American agriculture was that there were too many farmers. But the CED had a “solution”: millions of farmers would just have to be eliminated
Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn't help but congratulate itself in another agricultural report called “A New US Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs” for the efficiency of the tactics they employed to drive farmers from their land.
The human cost of CED's plans were exacting and enormous.
CED's plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers' lives ended in suicide , not unlike farmers in India today who have been tricked into debt and desperation and can see no other way out.
From the Bank of England forward all the governments of Europe had central banks for a very good reason. The kings and princes of Europe had learned from hard experience that they could raise the taxes of their subjects only so high and then they had a revolt on their hands and they tended to lose their jobs (and heads). It appears that that natural level was about 40-43%; people will tolerate taxes up to about 40-43% and then they start digging in their heels and they just won't allow it to go any further. But with the central bank mechanism in place the lid was off. Now these governments could tax their people 50%, 60%, 70% and in some cases 80% of everything they produced and they did not have a revolt on their hands. They did not have resentment because the people didn't know that they were paying a tax. They knew that prices were going up, but they didn't understand why, they didn't know who was getting their lost purchasing power....
Let's stand back from the creature a few paces and take a look at its general form and shape and see what it is we got. We got a corporation chartered by Congress which was given an exclusive franchise to create our nation's money supply. We got a mechanism whereby Congress has been able to raise unlimited taxes from the American people without them even knowing that they're paying a tax and we got a mechanism whereby the banks can earn perpetual interest on nothing. That is the shape and form of the creature from Jekyll Island.
Actions have consequences and one of the consequences of this scam is what we call a "national debt." ...
Another way of measuring that is that we've had a known inflation of 1,000% since the Federal Reserve System was created. Another way of phrasing that is that a dollar in 1913 today buys about nine cents worth of goods. That's how much money has been taken from us, taxed from us, through this hidden process.
Have you ever wondered, as I used to, why don't we have more inflation than we have had? ... This expression of exporting inflation--what does that mean? It means 70% of the American currency that has been created by our Federal Reserve System is no longer in America, it's overseas....
What happens when the day comes when for whatever reason these countries can no longer, or no longer wish to, use American dollars? What are they going to do with those dollars? They'll send them back. They'll buy something with them while they can. It'll be a big rush. It'll be our refrigerators, our automobiles, our real estate, our high-rise buildings, our corporate stock, our politicians, whatever's for sale. All of this money will come in and then we'll find out in a very short period of time what the true inflation rate really should have been all of these years.
Thomas Edison said, "People who will not turn a shovel-full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of materials will collect more money than will the people who will supply all the materials and do all the work." I wondered when I read that if Tom was exaggerating so I got my calculator out. I assumed that there was going to be a $100,000 house built. I assumed that $30,000 would have to go for land, architect's fees and permits and that kind of thing. $70,000 would go for the actual construction of the house, building materials and labor. I assumed that the buyer would go to the bank and put 20% down and then borrow the balance at 10% over 30 years. I punched in the numbers and discovered that the borrower will pay to the bank in interest $172,741 compared to $70,000 paid for the construction of the house. In other words, about 2 1/2 times as much money will be paid to the bank in interest than will be paid to those who provide all the labor and all the materials. And you may say to yourself, yes but that's fair, after all a 30 year loan is a long loan and people work for their money and sacrifice its use and loan it and so forth and deserve to be compensated. No. Not this money. Nobody worked for this money, nobody saved this money. There was no sacrifice of any kind for this money. This money was created out of nothing and I suggest that $172,741 interest on nothing is excessive!
I think it's time for a new definition of usury as follows: any interest on any loan of fiat money (meaning money made out of nothing). This example of a $100,000 home, as shocking as it is, producing $172,741 unearned interest, this is just a grain of sand in the Sahara. You have to multiply that by all the homes in America, by all of these hotels in America, all the high-rise buildings, all the factories, all the airplanes, automobiles, farm equipment, schools, everything, all the physical assets of America. You apply this same ratio and can you see it in your mind? We're talking about a river of unearned wealth that is so wide you can't even think of crossing it, flowing perpetually into the banking cartel. A dead short across the productive element of society. Money being taken from people who are working hard providing the material and the labor. They don't even know that this is being taken from them and it's in this huge river of wealth flowing into the banking cartel. It's a staggerin
Originally posted by amongus
Proposing a strike is a slap in the face for the millions of americans who have been laid off over the past several years. You don't like your job? Well just be glad you have one.
And sure, Unionization and better care for workers is not the ONLY answer for a fundamentally robber baron system that is flawed and broken and basically stealing allot of money.
The People have the ultimate power. They choose their representatives when they vote. However, the ultimate power and insurance they have against government run amok is their power in the jury.
It is the jury who decides on whether there is “probable cause” to cause a person to answer to the court AFTER they have heard testimony given under “oath or affirmation”. Today’s system is so perverted that we actually allow ONE prosecutor to decide if, when, and what charges will be brought, if any! This is the first place the people have given away their power.
If a grand or petit jury decides charges should be brought against someone, it is they who get to decide to what extent after hearing an unbiased reason IN LAW for the proposed charges. This is the second place the citizen gives away his power. If an accused is called to answer charges, the JURY alone not only decides upon guilt or innocense; THEY have the right to judge the law that the accused is alledged to have broken. That is where the term “jury nullification” comes from. A modern jury simply gives a verdict of “not guilty” which does NOTHING to challenge the law they are judging! Of course, they are not “nullifying” their verdict; the attempt is to nullify the law whether it is unconstitutional or improperly applied.
The potential jury member of today is UNLAWFULLY instructed by the judge that they are triers of the facts and nothing more. Any potential juror who did not assent to those instructions and who understood the ancient right of declaring a law unconstitutional would not be allowed to sit on a jury. A judge is NOTHING more than a referee and is there to be certain that the laws are applied, and in some cases, interpreted and used in that manner as he sees they were meant to be.
HOWEVER, the jury is still the final judge— they can ignore a judge they feel he is wrong. This is the third and final chapter in the People’s forfeiture of their rights! They simply do not understand that the SCOTUS is not the final judge— THEY ARE!
The earnings are most certainly not being re-invested in the workforce, materials or facilities. Most workplaces have very poor working conditions and bare bones resources with which to do the job.
Where is all of that profit? At the very top of the corporate structure - in plush offices and gated communities.
In particular I'd like to have you look with me at three particular objectives which were very well discussed in that period in which the Federal Reserve System was created....
Objective number two was to reverse the trend of what is called private capital formation. That's banker language for a process in which an individual or a corporation uses their own savings to pay for something instead of going to the bank and borrowing it, if you can imagine that happening. It was happening at the turn of the century. The trend was that businesses in particular were withholding some of their dividends each quarter and putting that money into a sinking fund and then as the money accumulated or as the capital formed, then they finally had enough that they could use their own money to build that new factory or to launch a research & development project or whatever instead of going to the banks and borrowing for it.
There would need to be legislation that prevents them from doing so, In a world of lobbying that would be hard to accomplish, but again 93 million people not going to work for a bit and rent striking would destroy the economy they would have no choice but to do something about it.