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.

 

Let the Poor DIE!!

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The perfect title of this thread should have been "Let them eat cake!" Which was allegedly said by Queen Marie Antoinette.




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Of the two careers I have had, both have taught me one thing: school is not a substitute for experience.


I spent 8 years prior to entering school working in construction for Holmes and Narver first, then Raytheon on a DOE project. I do have experience. Even in the reading of blueprints, and I still do not pretend I am an engineer.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
He looked at me and asked "Do you know how to drive a truck?" I responded "No Sir; I know enough to learn from you."


I also took a trade and learned via apprenticeship. I understand learning from people with more experience than myself. If what you are trying to say is that the skill set of a plumber, no matter how good, is equivalent to the skill set of an engineer, I disagree. Or when I operated a backhoe, and I am very good, I still could not build one. Understanding how a thing works, what each piece is intended to do, how it functions, how they interact, in what sequence, those are very different skills than knowing how to run a piece of equipment. A CEO is an operator, not an engineer of economies. Often times their goals, their ends, are opposite the end of the economic engineer, and we all do like to look at things from our own perspective and when we have a dog in the fight, we like to assume our dog is the one who deserves to win. I understand you have a personal stake in the corporate form, and so you also have a personal stake in making a profit. The economy does not care.

In a freely competitive market, profit should approach zero. (Which is why I say at times that no one wants a free market, everyone wants a regulated market, but one that is regulated in their favor.) Only engineers of economies want a freely competitive market, (and only those who do not themselves have a stake in a biased one, ie; on the payroll of someone with a stake) All the "operators" want one biased in their favor, and against their competitors.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
But it is sad that you apparently are content to allow your emotions (specifically hatred at corporate entities) to blind you to reality.


Do you think I spent three years and thousands of dollars on business school, which I paid for myself, because I have a natural and abiding hatred of either making money or corporations? Because that just doesnt make any sense at all, that I would waste my money, that I dug in the dirt for, on a career in a field I had hatred for. As I came to understand the theory, and how the pieces work together, are intended to work together, and MUST work together to have anything even approaching what could reasonably a "free" market, (and a fair and just society) I came to realize that the corporate form makes that impossible. The reasons are complicated, many, and personally I am tired of explaining them in threads to people who are dogmatic in their beliefs. It would probably take me ten years and a book the size of "The Wealth of Nations" to do it well in any event, so pardon me for not doing it in this thread.

It is not "emotion" that is blinding me. I have no "hatred" for corporations. They simply subvert the free market and democracy by their very nature. They have to, they are programmed to. And I would lobby for putting an end to that form because they are antithetical to a free market, not because I have an irrational "hatred" of them.

YOUR stand is the emotional one, "Well MY experience....MY company........MY interests." You are an interested party. You have a stake. Your concern is with YOUR interests, not the interests of the market or society in general. Although I am sure you would quickly take up the chant of "free market" often wielded by those who like the sound as they lobby fiercely against one.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
It is the hardest job I have ever held in my life, and the most thankless. It is getting that call 30 minutes before clock-in time that so-and-so won't be making it in today because he "doesn't feel well" and spending the rest of the day scrambling to fill his position temporarily. It is finding out later that he spent the day fishing.


Every low level manager at McDonalds has had that experience, not only CEO's. And probably for a lot less pay than you, too.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
The bottom line is that no matter what economic theories you subscribe to, no matter what the textbooks say, no matter what your professor says, businesses are run by individuals. They do it for two reasons: the job and the money.


"The money" in a corporation that the CEO works for has nothing to do with profit. Unless that CEO is the sole owner of the business, (Which would be an interesting twisting of the corporate form and bring into question the lowered liability,) he works for a salary. Which is a COST to the corporation, and he gets paid whether the corporation posts a profit or a loss. (Although some have taken a cut in salary to bolster profits, for various reasons)

"Making no profit" is not equivalent to "making no money." And as someone who is a CEO of something, I am VERY surprised you do not know that. Do you not look at your own financials? If you are a publically traded corporation, posting or not posting a profit affects you share price, and thus the net worth of the owners (shareholders) potentially, but many corporations do not pay dividends and so actual cash does not flow to them while they own the stock in the form of "profit." And despite all this, business continues. Corporations break even, lose money, (often for years running) and still they go on. Odd, considering your theory that if they make no profit they cease to exist. Because you are forgetting that profit is not the way most of the component parts of a corporation get paid.

Granted, Wall Street has placed an enormous pressure on corporations to post profit, at all costs, including lying to do so. And granted, the corporate form itself requires its officers to try to make a profit. But that doesnt mean they HAVE to look only at short term profits. They can make decisions that cost the company money in the short run, but promise expansion, greater customer loyalty in the future, preservation of existing markets, increase goodwill, etc. It is individual CEOs who make the decision to whore themselves out to Wall Street and their bonuses and pursue short term profit against long term profitability. Look at BP. A slower pace, higher costs in safety, would have saved them what will be an enormous chunk of change. Short run, long run. Overall, it would have been more profitable to take the hit in this quarter, by reducing profit, but they didnt.

It is simple minded and simplistic to maximize profit indiscriminately. And to put the short run and the whim of Wall Street over good judgment and a long run approach. But thats exactly what these incredibly overpaid CEOs do, and Wall Street encourages it, as do investors (owners) via Wall Street.

Profit isnt everything. Particularly not short run profit. And markets would work just fine if we shifted the emphasis away from it, (salaries dont depend on it) and society above all would benefit because the "means justifying the end" would make less sense in that longer view.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by above
 





What i don't understand is why won't the governments themselves put a medicine factory up and running?


Free enterprise is what keeps the creation of new medicines moving along. Very few people are motivated by pure altruism in their efforts. If the governement took over the pharm business, then the creation of novel new medicines could become stagnant. For many people, the incentive to bust your behind each day comes from the promise of more money. When I was in the military, for example, I was the model airman because I knew that helped me get rank faster. I didn't care that ordering more people around came with each rank. Not at all. It was the $$$. If there was no monetary incentive, I would have skated along with all the other slackers. Of course, there are the power hungry who get off on ordering people around, but for most of us in the service rank was equal to money.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I spent 8 years prior to entering school working in construction for Holmes and Narver first, then Raytheon on a DOE project. I do have experience. Even in the reading of blueprints, and I still do not pretend I am an engineer.

Construction is not Engineering.
Plumbing is not Engineering
Heavy Equipment Operation is not Engineering.

That is not to say any set of skills is inferior or superior to the others. Different does not necessarily equal better or worse.


I also took a trade and learned via apprenticeship. I understand learning from people with more experience than myself.

Then you should appreciate that there are things that cannot be taught in a classroom. Training is important, yes, but so is experience. Sufficient experience can count for a large amount of training, but no amount of training can count for everything experience teaches.

That is why salaries are usually based on experience, not on training.


A CEO is an operator, not an engineer of economies. Often times their goals, their ends, are opposite the end of the economic engineer, and we all do like to look at things from our own perspective and when we have a dog in the fight, we like to assume our dog is the one who deserves to win. I understand you have a personal stake in the corporate form, and so you also have a personal stake in making a profit. The economy does not care.

Oh, my... I do believe I am starting to understand where your ideas are coming from. Read on...


In a freely competitive market, profit should approach zero. (Which is why I say at times that no one wants a free market, everyone wants a regulated market, but one that is regulated in their favor.) Only engineers of economies want a freely competitive market, (and only those who do not themselves have a stake in a biased one, ie; on the payroll of someone with a stake) All the "operators" want one biased in their favor, and against their competitors.

Yes, I do believe I now understand where you are coming from.

Somewhere in your life, some professor(s) who had something in for the profit motive, lied to you. I don't claim to know why; perhaps they were dissatisfied with their lives, perhaps they had a superiority complex. But whatever the reason, they presented their ideas to you and you accepted them, hook, line, and sinker.

"Economics Engineer"... quite a title. But it is a meaningless title. No one engineers economic systems. An automobile is engineered; a television is engineered; computers are engineered. Economies grow naturally around the regulations and customs of a society. Trying to say you engineered an economy is like saying a farmer engineered soybeans... the farmer simply put them where he thought they should be and let them do what they naturally do: grow.

Businesses do not spring from the earth, but they do spring naturally from the human desire to create. Without that 'seed', it is akin to trying to grow a field that was never planted; all you get are weeds and grass. To get a crop, one must nourish each individual seed, for it is those seeds combined that make up the field, just as it is individuals, entrepreneurs, and creators who make up an economy.

Just as a farmer gets better crops when he fertilizes them, so good regulations can aid this economic growth. And just as a farmer gets a poor crop if he sprays the field with gasoline, poor regulations can lead to poor economic results. Again, in neither case is the farmer 'creating' soybeans... he is using what information he has to allow them to grow or not grow.

What we have in Greece, using this analogy, is the Greek government trying to harvest their crop before it ripens. Any farmer will tell you that is ill-advised.

No profit on the balance sheet does not mean no money, correct. My company never posted a profit; instead I did as CEO. But in some ways it did produce a profit. I started with almost no money, a few old tools I had, a lot of contacts for potential customers, and a good name. Over the years the business grew to take on employees, buy new,better equipment, buy more equipment, and move into its own building. Those things cost money, and so the fact that the business grew means it had to make a profit. Otherwise there would have been no money to afford those items that were needed for growth.

It could not have grown if it did not profit.

Growth is the lifeblood of business. Without growth, a business will cease to exist.

Ergo, profit is the life force of business.


It is not "emotion" that is blinding me. I have no "hatred" for corporations. They simply subvert the free market and democracy by their very nature. They have to, they are programmed to. And I would lobby for putting an end to that form because they are antithetical to a free market, not because I have an irrational "hatred" of them.

I will agree in part that there are too many freedoms given corporations under our present system. I would be in favor of not allowing corporations to own shares in other corporations. I would be in favor of a national corporate structure as opposed to the present state structures. There are many things you and I would probably agree on concerning this... but I will not agree that corporations should be outlawed. Such is antithetical to a socially mobile society and restrictive toward innovation and technological improvement.

As I touched on earlier, there are three main forms of businesses: proprietorship, partnership, and corporation. The primary difference lies in who can own them. A proprietorship is owned by one person who simply hangs his shingle out to do business. He is solely responsible for the business costs. That in itself prevents the vast majority of proprietorships from growing; few people have the necessary funds (or even the necessary credit) to single-handedly finance a large business employing thousands of workers.

A partnership is similar, but allows for more than one person to operate the business. All parties are equal partners and share (theoretically) the duties and the profits. Of course, this means that the partners generally have to again all be well-financed to start the venture. That works in some instances, such as when all the partners are similarly talented or financed, but it has been my experience that most partnerships have a very limited lifespan. This primarily due to jealousy and bitterness between the partners which tends to grow until they part ways and the business either becomes a proprietorship, becomes a corporation, sells out to a larger company, or disappears. The more partners, the quicker this happens.

A corporation addresses the problems with needing huge sums of ready cash from individuals. I can pull up a web site right now and buy stock from WalMart; so can you or anyone else reading this. As such I can become a partial owner of WalMart. I could never come up with the capital required to finance even one-tenth the cost of opening a new company to compete with WalMart. Thus, the requirement for huge sums of money is lessened, allowing lower income individuals to enter the business market.

As someone who simply invested in WalMart, I should not have the liability that WalMart has. I don't think anyone would expect a single share holder in WalMart to be liable for damages over, say, ice on the sidewalk. Shareholders do not always have the power to prevent such occurrences, meaning they should not be held independently liable as a proprietor or partner would be.

As a shareholder (assuming common stock) I do have the right to vote on who heads WalMart's Board of Directors. So in that sense I am not totally helpless in what happens with the company. Yet, unless I own (or control via proxy) over 50% of the common stock, neither am I in full control.

In short, the corporate form operates as an investment vehicle and as an introduction mechanism for the 'little people' to enter the world of business.

It also serves another purpose from the viewpoint of those wishing to open a new business. The corporate structure allows successful businessmen to further their income while helping fresh 'talent' enter the field, by investing through shares. They usually have no interest in running another business; they are simply looking for somewhere to invest their money. Enterprising individuals with fresh new ideas typically care nothing about the huge sums of money, but are interested in getting their idea to market for the personal satisfaction of seeing it in store shelves. The corporate structure allows the businessman to invest and step aside, free from personal liability issues, while it allows the enterprising entrant into the business world a chance to obtain financing and a way to operate a new business without risking everything they ever had or will have in liability.

So not only does it allow lower-class individuals to enter the marketplace and allow for investment, it also allows new ideas to enter the marketplace via an easier route than a proprietorship or partnership.

Now, you are probably rolling your eyes right now at this upstart redneck who has the sheer audacity to post things you no doubt already know. But it is posted for two reasons: firstly to set the stage for the point I am about to make, and secondly for the benefit of those poor 'unenlightened' readers who do not have your vast wealth of knowledge.

The point is this: the corporation is the single largest mechanism to allow a mobile society, retirement for the elderly, innovation and invention, and job creation. Sure, there are areas that need adjusting, and there are abuses, but to decry the entire structure over those is akin to demanding that no one be allowed to sing because my voice is sort of like nails grating on a chalkboard.

BTW, since you are such a wonderful 'economic engineer', why not just solve this problem? Start your own company to sell insulin for what Greece can afford. Should be easy, right?

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by truthquest
 


What do you work for this pharmaceutical company or something?


Nobody who is against slavery could possibly support any individual or group being forced to work for the government against their will. You should be embarrassed for believing differently. Or maybe you are proud of slavery and want it re-instated? Starting with drug companies being forced to churn out drugs for people you believe deserve free medicine?

[edit on 1-7-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by truthquest
 


What do you work for this pharmaceutical company or something?


Also Kevin, I've quite seriously been planning to start up a program designed to help poor people get affordable medicine for some time. Sadly its been on the backburner with more pressing programs because its one of about 20 or so ideas I have to help poor people out.

After reading your posts on this thread I've got an idea to speed it up. Perhaps as part of the program I should break into your house and steal half of your Tylenol and other meds. What do you think of that plan? I got the idea from you when you implied when a source of drugs does not give away their drugs for free or at a cost you deem fair to the poor. we should take them by force and give them to those in need.

Please give me feedback on my idea so I can start picking out a crow bar to break into your house with and force you to supply drugs at a cost I think is fair (such as free or something).



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
As one who has been to Greece a couple of years ago to visit some family there, I can say this has nothing to do with Greece or the Greek people on the whole it's all business smoke and mirrors the Greek have been through this hundreds of thousands of times before from Egypt to Persia to Rome to today, it's the same shint only on a different stick. Smoke and mirrors insulin shminsulin those who peddle wares always want you to think theres is the only product or way to do something or accomplish something. Last time I was there the populace of the town my cousin worked in were busy threatening to burn some government building so all the beaches were nice and free of people, sweet huh. And that was before the economic hell and drug dealers, started there propaganda, and to cry fowl. Greece will be fine. America though oh man does it have problems, and for some reasons people are getting sick here a lot and really fat to, we need more drugs more Prozac/Viagra and beer to make everybody happy, and lets not forget the narcotics.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Blah blah blah, more moralizing. Stop telling other people what they ought to do with something you don't own. Mind your own business.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
Free enterprise is what keeps the creation of new medicines moving along. Very few people are motivated by pure altruism in their efforts. If the governement took over the pharm business, then the creation of novel new medicines could become stagnant. For many people, the incentive to bust your behind each day comes from the promise of more money. When I was in the military, for example, I was the model airman because I knew that helped me get rank faster. I didn't care that ordering more people around came with each rank. Not at all. It was the $$$. If there was no monetary incentive, I would have skated along with all the other slackers. Of course, there are the power hungry who get off on ordering people around, but for most of us in the service rank was equal to money.


Bingo. Doesn't anybody ever wonder how the rich got that way? People gave them money. Why? People valued whatever they were selling. Free people exchanging goods without government interference. Both the seller and buyer are greedy, and they both benefit when the trade it complete. How can someone blame a person for acting in their own best interest? Since when did self-preservation become a crime?

Unfortunately, the world is full of waterheads who think business is bad, money is bad, and all inequality should be squashed. That we'd be better without commerce. That we'd all be better off without cheap canned food at the grocery store and shopping malls.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal
 


Who are these people that think business and money is bad, and that there is such a thing as equality, or getting a deal on something is bad. To tell you the truth I have never seen such a thing nor meet a single person who didn't like money, were have you. I am interested in knowing were such a thing is. And what is a waterhead most people have gooey protein mater and red fluid stuff in there heads.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
How can someone blame a person for acting in their own best interest? Since when did self-preservation become a crime?

.



So 'self preservation' at the expense of others is NOT a crime? We are talking about Corporate greed here anyway, so self preservation would mean justifying the daylight robbery of humans who fall ill, and denying medical aid to those who need it but are poor.

Hippocrates must had been a liar and those who sworn the Hippocratic oath are ...hypocrites, chief amongst them the W.H.O. officers, who often boast of saving a few africans and opportunities for photo-op shoots, while silently supporting the medical industrial complex to make billions other humans poor with expensive medication and operations as well as the insidious culling of humanity.


To truthquest:-
I am honoured that you would think of help the poor to access with affordable (but not cheap?) medicines.

However, if you think that by robbing the poor of their wealth(?) is the solution to help the poor, then please rob me first. I would even leave my door open for you, saving you the stress to crack your brains on how to break into my house.

I don't have much medicines at home, unfortunately, as I am a healthy person. But you can rob my material possessions. Must warn you though, as I live only a simple life, the only thing of material value would be perhaps my computer, circa 2004 pentium 4, with no graphic cards, as I don't play games and use it more as a microproccesor only.

You probably can get only $20 if you trade it in, but if you think you can help the poor access to affordable medicines, you are welcomed to it.

But conversely, as you propose such a solution as robbery, it would also mean I can and should rob you too. I'll bet you have much more material possessions than me anytime. Careful with your wish and proposals.

No one is proposing robbery on anyone except you, even as the untamed and unregulated Corporation robbed humanity daily.

No one is denying the rich their profits, ONLY the excess of it. They make billions of dollars, more money than they and their generations can spend in their lifetimes, and yet many billion humans are suffering which science advancement paid by societies through funding of education and research could have helped them.

The Corporation that manufacture and manages output cares not. Greed and 'self preservation' is their creed, even if they were to swim and wallow in money and luxuries like pigs in mud, as poor humans watched in pain of their loved ones denied medical aid and leaving this world suffering....

These are the animals you are defending - the greedy rich. Please awake....



[edit on 2-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





So 'self preservation' at the expense of others is NOT a crime?


How does the pharmco issue fit this? They make the medicine, so they have the right to profit. If I were a diner owner, I would have no obligation to give a free lunch to someone just because they were poor and starving. No one has any obligation to help anyone, just because they are poor. The worlds not fair. Never was, and never will be. Many people do take it upon themselves to help others, because they choose to do so.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
So 'self preservation' at the expense of others is NOT a crime? We are talking about Corporate greed here anyway, so self preservation would mean justifying the daylight robbery of humans who fall ill, and denying medical aid to those who need it but are poor.
[edit on 2-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]


First of all, nobody is advocating violating peoples' property rights. Commerce doesn't work if you simply steal from your customers .. why would they come back to you? Second, there seems to be a divide among the naive where "commerce" is GOOD, "business" is OK (not great, but OK) and "corporate" is BAD. You are one of those naive people. Third, the US does not practice capitalism. The US allows for heavily, heavily regulated commerce where the laws are generally written by lobbyists participating in that commerce. It is not capitalism by any stretch. I think the closest example of pure capitalism you'll find is Hong Kong.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal
 


1. No one is advocating violating people's property rights except you? Had you seen the light that I had illumintated to you so much that now you sing a different tune which is a replica of mine?

2. You claimed I am naived, but unfortunately, by your post. it is YOU that had been naived. Need me to bring up Alan Greenspan and his apology here over his non-regulation of the market and left it to the free and invisible hand of the market over the past few decades?

Why is it that you cannot simply admit your mistake? Is your ego worth more than the reality of sufferings of your fellow humans that is currently going thru?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





So 'self preservation' at the expense of others is NOT a crime?


How does the pharmco issue fit this? They make the medicine, so they have the right to profit. If I were a diner owner, I would have no obligation to give a free lunch to someone just because they were poor and starving. No one has any obligation to help anyone, just because they are poor. The worlds not fair. Never was, and never will be. Many people do take it upon themselves to help others, because they choose to do so.


No one is denying anyone to their profits. Only this is, how much is too little or too much of a profit that an individual or a conglomerate can hold without entailing that the rest of humanity suffers that precious lives be given up due to the high costs rather than to save them, from such excessive greed? $1 million, or $1 trillion over several lifetimes?

[edit on 4-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
They should be able to profit however much they choose in a free market system. The greater the profit, the greater the taxes they will pay. That is more than their fair contribution of grease for the socialist democratic machine. The real problem is not the pharmco's, but instead the unsustainable free handout system some have come to expect as their "human right". Now that the free handouts have overburdened the system, those in favor of something for nothing are simply looking for a way to keep it going.

I know what I would do if I was forced to give my product away at a cost that is less than I want. I would close the doors and go out of business. I in no way support the pharmco's ordinarily. I think they peddle poisons in many instances. However, I am a big fan of profit. I know what I will do if I ever get taxed beyond a point that I deem acceptable. I will sit down, turn on the idiot box, and wait for the mail to come with my free handouts with the rest of them. If enough people start to do that, then the free handouts would come to a halt for everyone. Governments would also shut down. Hmmm. Wait a minute. Maybe I have changed my mind. Free handouts for everyone!





[edit on 4-7-2010 by tamusan]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
1. No one is advocating violating people's property rights except you? Had you seen the light that I had illumintated to you so much that now you sing a different tune which is a replica of mine?


Huh? You think you're the first Libertarian to stumble upon this forum? Please remove your head from your ass. Thanks.



2. You claimed I am naived, but unfortunately, by your post. it is YOU that had been naived. Need me to bring up Alan Greenspan and his apology here over his non-regulation of the market and left it to the free and invisible hand of the market over the past few decades?


Great argument. Alan Greenspan said X, thus X is true. Is that all you've got?



Why is it that you cannot simply admit your mistake? Is your ego worth more than the reality of sufferings of your fellow humans that is currently going thru?


Are you going to post anything of actual substance? I'm waiting for a logical rebuttal. All I've heard is "you're copying me", "alan greenspan said i'm right" and "you've got a big ego".



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

No one is denying anyone to their profits. Only this is, how much is too little or too much of a profit that an individual or a conglomerate can hold without entailing that the rest of humanity suffers that precious lives be given up due to the high costs rather than to save them, from such excessive greed? $1 million, or $1 trillion over several lifetimes?

[edit on 4-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]


Listen to what you're saying. "no one is denying anyone to their profits", followed by "how much is too little or too much of a profit that an individual can hold?". You can't have it both ways. You either leave their profits alone or take their profits away. This is like arguing with a child who's attention span lasts exactly 2 seconds.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
You know what this whole thing sounds like to me?

Take a look at the health care field in the US. Hospitals, pharma, doctors are TOLD what they will be paid by the government for the Medicare and Medicaid patients so the industry forces the price difference onto the rest of us, which hence forces up costs leading to higher prices. Hmmmm, sounding familiar yet?

PROBLEM IS, when the globalists realize and everyone else out there actually uses more than one of the their brain cells, the people paying for this CRAP can no longer afford to continue to pay.

SORRY, we are broke, time for you to steal from someone else, oh wait! there is no one else.


The next step of course will be to seize the companies and run them into the ground.

Choice. This is where it all leads.

I have made mine, sooner or later everyone is going to come to the same conclusion. This experiment always comes to the same conclusion. Millions will be killed and slavery and tyranny will prevail.

No you say because this time it will be done right and in a GLOBAL sense.

Well I guess I was wrong. Change that millions to billions then. Collective crap will never work, ever. You are responsible for yourself, your family and your community. Everything else is just fluff.

Either welcome to my community or not, that is your choice. Slavery and theft is NOT going to work anymore. Period.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join