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.
Originally posted by MAD ABSOLUTE GOD
Yugio? God I hope that's a joke.
This is merely a fallacious appeal to tradition.
"Remember when some folks couldn't vote, and women were basically property? Pepperidge Farm remembers."
You think the NWO is a bunch of socialists? The closest thing there is to an NWO is a cartel of international bankers and ceos. They are the most successful CAPITALISTS in the world. The very last thing they want is for the state to take away all their power and money. The NWO are the kind of people that would push propaganda like this.
Today, corporatism or neo-corporatism is used in reference to tendencies in politics for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises (limited liability corporations). The influence by other types of corporations, such as those representing organized labor, is relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies. In this sense of the word, corporatism is also termed corporatocracy.
Capitalists regard the individual member of society as the central figure in wealth creation. They believe that a nation’s wealth could grow through the productive efforts of each individual. They view individuals as naturally competitive... Capitalism supports a competitive business environment where the forces of supply and demand determine the price of goods and services. www.differencebetween.net...
When new money is created it does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Therefore money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money
It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the bankers and the groups most closely connected with them.
www.lewrockwell.com...
Ding! And there we are - the WHOLE PROBLEM with the system in the first couple of sentences of your post.
From the beginning you are at the mercy of the person you're borrowing from - and unlike this cute little cartoon - in real life that person usually isn't Grampa Joe: it's Bank of America, or Mastercard or any of the other major soulsucking corporate empires who make absolutely criminal and disproportionate amounts of profit based on the debt generated by YOUR pursuit of the American Dream.
They realized they could make obscene amounts of money off this system a long time ago - and ever since the only real work any of them have had to do is to make sure no one ever questions it....
Because money is not capital, that is WEALTH, Mises concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value.
When new money is created it does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Therefore money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money
It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the bankers and the groups most closely connected with them.
www.lewrockwell.com...
....So your solution is essentially reducing regulation thus granting more power to the wall street criminals that got us in this mess to begin with? ....
...The USDA's aggressive "do not look, do not tell" non-interference policy with ConAgra backfired when it was finally required to recall over 19 million pounds of ground beef and related trim during the summer of 2002. The reason: Laboratory tests confirmed E.coli 0157:H7 -- the same deadly germ that had taken lives and hospitalized many in previous contamination tragedies.
When John Munsell found that the hamburger he ground from ConAgra-provided meat contained the pathogen E.coli, he informed the USDA. Whereupon the Department launched an inspection of his operation, but not the source of the contamination -- ConAgra, and closed Munsell's plant for four months.
USDA's delay in going after ConAgra's Greeley plant resulted in the death of an Ohio woman and sickness for 35 other consumers before ConAgra recalled 19 million pounds of beef. Nader.org
It (the recall of Hallmark/Westland Meat) highlights one of the problems that we have attempted to raise with the agency ever since 1996 when the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection system was put in place. There seems to be too much reliance on an honor system for the industry to police itself. While the USDA investigation is still on going at Hallmark/Westland, a couple of facts have emerged that point to a system that can be gamed by those who want to break the law. It (HACCP) shifted the responsibility for food safety over to the companies .
domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov...
...Question. Is USDA’s investigation of union president Stan Painter retaliatory?
Answer. USDA’s investigation into the validity of allegations that Specified Risk Material (SRM) regulations are not being effectively carried out or properly enforced was conducted solely to ensure the safety of our Nation’s food supply.
Question. Stan Painter, the president of the food inspectors union, set forth a series of concerns about SRM removal in a letter to the agency in early December. I understand that FSIS has responded to the letter by launching a personal investigation of Mr. Painter. In January, for example, FSIS flew Mr. Painter to Washington DC and questioned him for 3 hours, to try to get him to divulge the sources of his information. However, FSIS has a database of non-compliance reports, which
should document instances in which inspectors have reported non-compliance with
SRM removal. Why has FSIS chosen to investigate Mr. Painter personally instead of addressing
the questions and concerns raised by his letter?
Answer. In a December 8, 2004, letter, the chairman of the National Joint Council
of Food Inspection Locals made unsubstantiated and non-specific allegations that FSIS is not properly enforcing regulations requiring the removal of Specified Risk Materials (SRMs) from beef products. Because of the serious nature of the allegations contained in Mr. Painter’s Letter, FSIS immediately initiated an inquiry into those allegations which included an informal interview of the union chairman. During that interview, Mr. Painter refused to provide specific information to support the letter’s allegations. That inquiry subsequently resulted in a formal investigation by FSIS to determine the validity of the allegations. As part of that investigation, Mr. Painter was formally interviewed on two occasions in January. The FSIS investigation has been completed and the allegations concerning improper enforcement of SRM regulations were not substantiated..... www.access.gpo.gov...
Texas Animal Health Commission
USDA is moving toward supporting fewer labs nationwide, with the remaining labs serving as regional labs and supporting larger geographic areas....
The first-point testing program is the “early warning system” for the brucellosis program, enabling detection of infection prior to sale of cattle within the state. With the discontinuation of first-point testing, slaughter testing will become the primary method for brucellosis surveillance.... www.tahc.state.tx.us...
The short story on meat packing consolidation in America
..In 1890 the Select Committee of the Senate... found price fixing in beef, in contract monopoly and in transportation of food products...
In 1972, the top four firms, American Beef Processors, Armour, IBP and Swift, held 26 percent of the beef market....
A 1996 study by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) ... concluded that a staggering 82 percent of the beef slaughter market was in the hands of four major meat packers.
A 1996 study by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) which was created by the 1921 Act to monitor the packers for antitrust violations, concluded that a staggering 82 percent of the beef slaughter market was in the hands of four major meat packers...
When a few agricultural economists warned of the dangers the giant packers posed in the late 1980’s, Congress was silent....
The Utah Commissioner of Agriculture, Cary G. Peterson, released figures on the collapse of rancher profits from 1991 to 1996. They fell from roughly $8 billion a year to $1.5 billion. During the same period, profits of the packers skyrocketed....
USDA: Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking
James M. MacDonald, Michael E. Ollinger,Kenneth E. Nelson, and Charles R. Handy
Agricultural Economics Report No. (AER785) 52 pp, March 1999
Meatpacking consolidated rapidly in the last two decades: slaughter plants became much larger, and concentration increased as smaller firms left the industry. We use establishment-based data from the U.S. Census Bureau to describe consolidation and to identify the roles of scale economies and technological change in driving consolidation....