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.

 

Why You Will Soon Be Living In Poverty

page: 2
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The illusion will continue until after the Elections do not go according to the PTB, then they will pull the plug! Otherwise we are in a stagnation of smart spending, if any at all, which does not feed the economy when everyone is participating in "holding on".

The PTB still want to bleed us just a wee bit more! Soon they will be able to draw off of peoples incomes to cover the first part of the Obama Health Care, and the Government will act like they won the Lotto. Spend, spend, spend, we must spend our way to "recovery", wasn't that their message 9 months ago?




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Free markets do not involve any government intervention at all. As soon as one starts introducing government intervention into the markets, the markets are NO LONGER FREE.


Sure, it's called a regulated market. Technically, a "freeway" is not a FREE WAY, but a regulated WAY, because there are traffic rules. And it's good to have traffic rules, don't you think?


Almost all government intervention is done on behalf of large corporate interests.


Most important bits are not. Like Glass–Steagall act -- which in fact was eroded and repealed in late 1990s. So it was in fact SHRINKING GOVT INTERVENTION that led in large part to the financial crisis we have today.


Almost all regulations are created by big business to cartelize markets and drive out competition. When government engages in this kind of behavior, it is called FASCISM.


The anti-trust laws are in place, so what the hell are you talking about?



Mussolini’s vision of the State is almost identical to our current system of governance in America and in most western European nations.


Well then, check your reading comprehension skills, because in the continuation of your post you contradict yourself:


Economist Sheldon Richman writes, “Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.”


The government in the US and Europe does not control any of this. So on the face value, your Mussolini=USA thesis is cr@p (why am I not surprised?).


What we can see from this is that free market capitalism played absolutely ZERO role in the destruction of our country.


Yeah right. Free market capitalism, which does not give a flying rat f@rt about you and I, shifted manufacturing in Asia and South America. It didn't do jack to improve America's infrastructure (why should it, it's just bottom line it cares about). It didn't invest in education and healthcare (again, who needs that when they can make a quick buck by borrowing from the Chinese, buying sneakers and selling them here to impoverished Americans). It's cancer.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Very nice!

Just a question... wouldn't this create what you want essentially, after all is said and done?

There will be no authority left -



Right now we have a lawless government.

The lawlessness of government will lead to society imploding into a state of chaos.

In free-market anarchy, people are not killing each other for food because government hasn't taken anything from them to begin with. Chaos is only going to occur because government and the banks have taken everything.



edit on 22-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


We only need glass-steagall and other mechanisms to control the banks because the federal reserve system and legal tender laws exist.

Those systems of regulation are totally unnecessary if the market was allowed to function properly to begin with.



edit on 22-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


If poverty means coorperate dismanteling.....now your talkin...

If this poverty....I don't like that word... brings down wall mart...and brings back the farmers markets....and local wealth....

I don't care about dollars or address...if where you live, ='s status....I'm happier as king in the slum, than a 90210 pool boy...in a studio apt.....

I think TPTB have the word "poverty" and its aura...of meaning blasted through, to you from HD TV...

Poverty means ...something along the lines of ..."not smart unough to survive without help"
Country boys will survive...



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Holiday
 


Poverty means your dollars will buy nothing.

The government has destroyed us.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Invest in alcohol and make-up...two things on the top of the list to go up...when economy is down..
Or maybe Iraq $$$$ it will be going up alot...very soon...



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by 2weird2live2rare2die
 


Technology is what is going to save us.

You are totally off base.

Technology allows more goods to be produced more efficiently with less labor.

This frees up labor to do even greater productive tasks.

With enough technology, people would barely have to work at all and everything would be nearly free for the taking.




technology does have the potential to do that but if you consider the track record of the people currently in charge of things they would do everything in their power to suppress any technology that would hurt them financially. this would explain why we have the ability to produce completely clean and emission free vehicles but continue to use fossil fuels. the truth is these people have a lot of money, power, and influence and would never let us reach that type of level with our technology. they have to be on top and they have to keep us poor, distracted, and working to do so. what makes you think these people would give up their profit and lavish lifestyles for the good of mankind? are they doing it now? why are you so sure this will happen? i guess they will just have a sudden change of heart. if you take a moment to look around you will notice that everything in our country is geared to benefit a very small group of individuals.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
technology does have the potential to do that but if you consider the track record of the people currently in charge of things they would do everything in their power to suppress any technology that would hurt them financially. this would explain why we have the ability to produce completely clean and emission free vehicles but continue to use fossil fuels. the truth is these people have a lot of money, power, and influence and would never let us reach that type of level with our technology. they have to be on top and they have to keep us poor, distracted, and working to do so. what makes you think these people would give up their profit and lavish lifestyles for the good of mankind? are they doing it now? why are you so sure this will happen? i guess they will just have a sudden change of heart. if you take a moment to look around you will notice that everything in our country is geared to benefit a very small group of individuals.


Only government has the power to suppress technology.

Patents are creature of government.

In a free market, everyone would be able to copy anyone else - which creates massive competition.

Big business hates competition.




edit on 22-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I've got a nice sum saved up in a bank and about plenty of money worth of gold on my person. Just in case.

Edit to add:

If ever there was a huge poverty hit and I still had this money, I'd try to help as many people as possible.

I hate to see a fellow human being suffer.


edit on 9/22/10 by ohsnaptruth because: (no reason given)


Hmm... if money was worth nothing?...

FINALLY. Money has been driving us to the brink of our own extinction.

By the way, I think the NWO will happen but I don't think it will last.
People eventually fight for their freedom... always.


edit on 9/22/10 by ohsnaptruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ohsnaptruth
 


I'll be sure to give you a ring after the SHTF



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I am in agreement. We're totally screwed. As of tomorrow Obama's healthcare kicks in and big insurance is right there to back it. Just another attempt at infusing more monopoly money to keep us afloat. I don't know what to believe anymore
... I definitely feel like something enormous is going to happen... and its not going to be good.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ohsnaptruth

By the way, I think the NWO will happen but I don't think it will last.



I think they did it on purpose.

America is the hammer in the tool box.

We are the NWOs gun to keep everyone else in check.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I cannot wait to live in complete poverty honestly.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

We only need glass-steagall and other mechanisms to control the banks because the federal reserve system and legal tender laws exist. Those systems of regulation are totally unnecessary if the market was allowed to function properly to begin with.


Mumbo-Jumbo!

Glass-Steagall act insulated commercial banks (which both individuals and many businesses use) from "investment banks", which, in their trading arm, had the potential (sadly realized) to engage in risky activities. It was in fact serving the interest of population at large quite well. The only people who benefited from its repeal were the top tier investment bankers who all of a sudden were given access to a larger purse to gamble with! And in that purse contains money you and I put there for safekeeping.

I'm making that point again because it shows that your premise if inherent evil of government regulation it patently false. I'm willing to bet that if the states eliminated limits on blood alcohol content as basis for DUI classification, the death toll on our roads would certainly rise. Of course, having such limits goes against the grain of free alcohol market and free consumption of this product -- but what you, mnemeth1, wouldn't sacrifice to appease your fetish for free markets?

If a person gets fired because the business they worked for suddenly folds, their cash flow dries up in a millisecond, they have electricity, heat, water and all that cut and pretty quickly get evicted -- that is, if they don't receive unemployment -- is this your idea of orgasmic happiness that absolutely FREE markets must magically bring us?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The current banking structure would not exist without the federal reserve an legal tender laws.

Thus, any claim that we need such regulations in a free banking system are ridiculous.

None of this would be happening right now.

Interest rates would not be manipulated, banks would not get bailed out, lending would be HIGHLY controlled - far far farrrrr more so than now.

Right now, no one gives a flying crap what their bank does or how solvent it is. Banks could still get into investment banking, however since there is no bailout mechanism, the banks customers would be watching them like a hawk.

If the bank was making risky investments, their customer base would yank their money out - which is exactly what we saw during the bank runs of the early 1900s.

Further, people wouldn't even need to use a bank - they could simply store their gold with a gold broker. Banks are not a necessity for people in a system of real money.




edit on 22-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The current banking structure would not exist without the federal reserve an legal tender laws.


Both commercial banks and casinos existed since time immemorial. Financial instruments are older than you think. So Fed is completely irrelevant to the big picture. I understand you like simplifying things to be able to digest them, but come on, make an effort.


Thus, any claim that we need such regulations in a free banking system are ridiculous.


I guess the Glass-Steagall stuff went right over your head. Oh well, not the first time.


Interest rates would not be manipulated, banks would not get bailed out, lending would be HIGHLY controlled - far far farrrrr more so than now.


Gosh, what pure fantasy. Truth is, the manager would still be enticed to gamble because the upside for him personally is much larger than the downside. That simple.


Right now, no one gives a flying crap what their bank does or how solvent it is.


As a person who used to work for a bank and passed the Series 7 exam, I call your complete ignorance on that one. You have a propensity to post on topics you have no clue about (yes, that also includes Einstein).



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I fully expect to be accused of being racist as a result of this post, but I'm long past giving a damn anyway! I'm a white male Canadian, and due to an accident at work that resulted in a broken back and forced retirement, and an almost 3 year fight with compensation for disability, my wife and I were forced to sell off all we had worked hard for, including our home. After the sale of the house and paying everyone off that we owed, we had enough left to purchase a small home in a town in Northern Ontario, some 350 miles north of where we used to live, and away from our families. Now at the age of 60, we are about to become homeless. I keep trying to convince my wife to move in with her daughter and grandson living in Southern Ontario, but she refuses to leave me. Now to the part that really pisses me off, as it does many hard working Canadians who find themselves in the same boat as my wife and myself. Sure I finally started receiving a disability pension, but not nearly close to what a single person claiming to be a "refugee" gets handed to them every month. Canadian senior citizens receive as a pension, somewhere around $1,200 per month, and this is after having worked and contributed via taxes most of their lives. A so-called "refugee" receives around $2,400 per month soon after arriving, along with free health care.
Most of these refugee claiments come from Muslim countries, and it is Canadians who have had to adapt to their ways and customs, and not the other way around as it should be. I'm not religious, but one example is that the Lord's Prayer has been banned from schools, along with children's Christmas Pageants, etc, whilst special rooms have been set aside where Muslim pupils can recite their prayers. So anyone having a tough time trying to survive in the U.S.A., simply cross the border into Canada, then hit the nearest welfare office and tell them you are a Muslim refugee from wherever. My wife and I have worked damn hard only to end up on the street, whilst the hundreds of thousands of "refugees" get whatever they need or want. Our government shells out billions per year in aid to other countries, yet cannot or will not look after their own. Just had to get that off my chest, folks! If I'm in the wrong Thread, my sincere appologies! If I sound like I'm racist or a bigot, then thank my government...it created me!



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The existence of a commercial bank is perfectly fine - as long as there is no central bank, legal tender laws, or other government interventions in the market such as FDIC and other bailout mechanisms which socialize losses and risk to the tax payer.

The bottom line is that we would not be in this situation without the government created federal reserve and enforcing a monopoly on money.

Your claims about the public actually caring what their bank does are a total joke. 99.9% of people in this country don't even know where money comes from or how it is created. They don't care, because they don't have to care. Government is supposedly protecting their savings for them (LOL)





edit on 22-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Ever read about the industrial revolution and the "Gilded Age" at the end of the nineteenth century?

There was entirely free market capitalism then.

It was recorded that one of the Robber Barons (I believe it was Vanderbilt) had a dinner party. After dinner a sandbox was laid on the banquet table. Guests were given little shovels and pails, which they used to dig up their party favors -- diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc.

At the same time, thousands were laboring at six-and-a-half-day-a-week jobs which paid about ten cents a day or less. In many if not most cases not enough to afford the cheapest rent or food for themselves and their families (home ownership was out of the question). If a worker was injured on the job, too bad. No income for him or her or their families for the rest of their lives. No money for doctors or meat. No money for anything.

These were not merely the "poorest of the poor" or those who had lost in the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" but the lot of about half the population. Strong young people quickly succumbed to disease and exhaustion.

The Gilded Age was an age of complete laissez faire capitalism, which you seem to think will be the savior of our country and the world.

Ever read history? Ever read Karl Marx (probably that would be against your religion)? What about Jacob Reis's How The Other Half Lives?

I double-dog dare you.



edit on 22-9-2010 by Sestias because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join