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: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Correct me if I am wrong, your "socialist agitators" are in fact corporate capitalists. These economic elitists are at war with labor and regulators in the name of the "free market". So I am a bit confused by your terminology. The Fed is a group of private bankers (capitalists)...not what I would call "socialist agitators".

Privatize gains and socialize losses. Hoard the wealth or "maximize profits" is their only principle. These are not traditionally seen as socialist values.

Capitalism is not synonymous with liberty, equality or democracy.



The banksters look like capitalists, and act like capitalists, but their goal is the coming
collapse and then they can re-write the rules by using a good crisis as Rahm would say.

The Hegelian Dialectic is old school warfare of a shadowy nature.

In modern terms they use Problem, Reaction , Solution.

Create a problem where you know the reaction of the ppl,
and then have a solution waiting to make them seem like the hero.

As I have posted in many other threads this is all by design just
like the Robber Barons rigged the panic of 1908 and the crash of 1929.

Then they conspired in secret on an island to create an agency that
is not part of the government to issue our money.

en.wikipedia.org...


Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written... The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York's ubiquitous reporters had been foiled... Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry... Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality.[9]


Good deeds are done int he light of day, so its obvious they had
something to hide.




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Didn't the deregulations on the banking industry cause the current worst recession since the depression? No government regulations is like having a kid minding a candy store. What has free trade got us? The majority of manufactured products are now being produced over seas, which is causing a good portion of the unemployment. If corporations were taxed for moving their manufacturing facilities over seas and across the borders, maybe we wouldn't have lost all of our good paying manufacturing jobs! Maybe if our government would have initiated a protective tax on goods coming into this country, our American companies would have been competing more on a level playing field. Companies have been screwing the American worker for years. They hire temporary people to avoid paying health care benefits. Credit card companies have hit the American consumer with unreasonable late fees and charges. They've kept minimum payments low by keeping some customers in the dark on how much more they are actually paying in the long term. These are just a couple of things that government regulations can help end. (Obama has already put a stop on some of the outrageous practices of the credit card companies). People who are complaining about government regulations are the first to complain about losing their social security and medicare. How many college graduates find themselves without healthcare coverage after graduating from college. (The new healthcare bill allows them to stay on their parents insurance while they find a full time career until age 26). If this country allowed companies free reign without government regulations, our cars wouldn't have safety features, our food wouldn't be safe. (How many food recalls have we had since Bush cut back on government safety inspectors and the lack of inspection in imported food?) How about dangerous toys painted in lead, hmm? How about all those obnoxious and invasion of privacy courtesy calls? What about false advertising, housing discrimination, no product ingedient labels etc... Yep, I think government regulation is a good thing when it's applied to protect the American consumer. Capitalisim greed has no concious.


edit on 23-9-2010 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


The deregulation did play a role in the current crisis.

When you have a federally mandated banking cartel, it requires extensive regulation to keep it in check since there are no market forces at work preventing fraud.

Deregulation does a lot of damage if the underlying fraud is not addressed first.

The production of short-term goods moving overseas is a direct consequence of the low interest rates effecting the factors of production. So you can thank the Fed for that.




edit on 23-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
last night, i watched Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A love story" ...i encourage everyone to see this... i think the points he makes in the film are true of our economy in america today. heres the link to the website where it can be streamed:

Capitalism: A Love Story


basically, Michael Moore says that when our economy was working well, the wealthiest people in the country had to pay a tax of 90% ...when Reagan was president, however, he changed this...he cut the tax rate of the wealthiest in half...so during Reagan's term, their tax rate went from 90% to 45%...

Moore goes on to talk about Goldman Sachs, and how that's the real reason why our market is failing...Obama might have changed our economy for the better if it hadn't been for them...idk, watch the movie and judge everything for yourself. I think Moore depicts the economy quite accurately, however.


edit on 23-9-2010 by srahhhhh because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by srahhhhh
last night, i watched Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A love story" ...i encourage everyone to see this... i think the points he makes in the film are true of our economy in america today. heres the link to the website where it can be streamed:

Capitalism: A Love Story


Michael Moore is good at pointing out the problems of big business and the cartels it loves to create, he just does a piss poor job of looking at how government involvement in the market creates and perpetuates those problems.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I know this post is probably going to be buried in the comments, but mnemeth, I think there has been a significant oversight in your explanation of the options we have for monetary systems.

While it is popularly believed that there is a dichotomy between fractional reserve banking and gold/silver standard, this is not the case!

The problem with a gold/silver standard is the notion that there is a such thing as "intrinsic value". Functionally speaking, gold is almost useless, so it's hard for me to understand what "intrisic value" can possibly refer to. I'd think that grain or salt has more intrinsic value than gold. The only possible merit to this claim about gold is that the quantity of the substance cannot be easily manipulated. But even this notion is growing less and less useful. Consider who owns most of the gold in circulation: Yes! It is the very powers who control the current fractional reserve system who own most of the gold! Can they not change the amount of gold in circulation at will? If we were to switch to a gold/silver standard, banking practice would surely change, but it would be no less manipulated by The Powers That Be.

The answer to fractional reserve is not a gold standard; it is Greenbacks. There is nothing wrong with fiat currency, so long as the entity printing the money does so in the interest of the people. When we finally extricate corporatism from our government, we can only hope that our government will be trustworthy enough to print its own currency -- as any government should. Fiat currency can be good, so long as there is no debt attached to it.

For more info, I recommend watching a recent documentary called The Secret of Oz:

v.youku.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


mnemeth1, you've provided a detailed and well thought out thread here. Unfortunately, in all of your detail and complication, your naivety shines through. You actually telegraph it right at the beginning by mentioning the socialist agitators.

You seem to agree with the socialist agitators that the current problems are caused by what the socialist call the "free market" and "capitalism" but you prefer to call corporatism and government intervention in the market. What you fail to realise is that corporatism and government intervention are just the natural extensions of the free market and capitalism (as you would define them) and more importantly the whole monetary system. You believe that changing back to a gold standard would fix our problems but fail to realise that this trick has been used by the banking cartels for centuries as a means of transferring wealth to the elite.

You've apparently missed the importance of soveriegn money and the price that Lincoln, JFK and even Ronald Reagan paid for trying to tamper with the banker's monopoly on money creation. You'll remember the immortal words of Mayer Amschel Rothschild: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws" The type of currency is not nearly as important as who controls it.

You're right that "People voluntarily exchanging goods and services do not cause massive economic chaos and disasters." The problem is that we live in a world that rewards people for using any trick in the book for accumulating wealth and the more wealth you have the more leverage you have to steal wealth from others. We live in a system where employees are just another form of capital that is bartered for in the form of wages without any real consideration for the individual's basic needs or quality of life. The absolute minimum that can be paid and still achieve the desired output is what the market will pay.

I'm currently reading Friedrich Engels' "The Condition of the Working Class in England" which details the abject misery of the working class in major towns across England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland during the 19th Century. His description of the absolutely disgusting conditions the workforce had to endure during that time is unfortunately not too far away from some countries today (can you say 'Mexico?') Conditions only get better when the skilled labour is in short supply otherwise capitalist will happily see their workforce living in squalour and just replace them as they expire.

The natural progress of the world is towards automation ever since the Industrial Revolution and as time goes on, humans will become more and more redundant in the industrial process. Look at London where the financial sector is really the only major industry unless you count the service industries that directly support it. If the monetary system disappeared overnight, London's commerce would practically cease to exist.

It makes perfect sense to go with the flow of automation as it frees humans from drudgery, it makes more efficient use of farms and factories but it should be done with the whole of society in mind, not the just the elite. Humans should not be allowed to profit by the abuse of humans as if they were cattle. (this should probably apply to cattle as well but that's a different subject.)

I agree with Engels where he explains in Anti-Dühring that:


…the production and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or estates is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view the fnal causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in man’s better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch. The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has become unreason, and right wrong, is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange changes have silently taken place with which the social order, adapted to earlier economic conditions, is no longer in keeping.


I believe that instead of harnessing all technological advancements in the drive for accumulating wealth to the few, the benefits should be applied for the enhancement of all mankind globally. The world's resources should be managed on behalf of everyone, that products should be produced to meet the real needs of humans, not artificially created needs, that products should be engineered for maximum longevity and usability, not designed for rapid obsolescence to ensure sales or servicing income.

Capitalism produces products that people will pay for. Socialism (or as is usually the case, socialised services) provide products that people need but would not necessarily pay for or maybe even be able to pay for.

When we can change to a global system that provides all basic and additional needs to everyone without charge, where wealth accumulation is impossible and pointless because there is no currency and you can't buy anything with it if you had any anyway - that's when the evils of the current system will disappear.

Unfortunately, the death of the current system is an unavoidable step in the evolutionary process and although it could be done fairly painlessly, the elite won't let go without a fight and will happily defend their position(s) with mountains of dead foot soldiers. Unless of course, the foot soldiers refuse to defend them! Let's hope that they're taking time out to visit ATS!

You're right that sooner or later, the food stamps will disappear and the people will be up in arms. The problem is that they'll know that something has to change but not what or how. Without proper leadership and education, they will just reinstate an earlier version of the system that led to their downfall in the first place.

I've learned a lot about financial systems over the last decade but the really useful information has come from studying Socialism and via The ZeitGeist Movement. I'll post several of my favourite sources later but for now, I'm signing off with eyes at half-mast.

Good night!


Originally posted by mnemeth1
I’ve noticed the socialist agitators out in full force recently, busy blaming the free market and capitalism for every economic problem under the Sun.

First, we need to understand just what capitalism is. Then we need to understand what it is not. Only through this will you be able to understand why the money in your pocket is about to become totally worthless.

To economists, the word capitalism simply means “voluntary exchange of goods and services.” – nothing more and nothing less. To radical socialists, capitalism apparently involves all manner of fraud, theft, and government intervention on behalf of big business.

Because the mass media and socialist academia have so distorted the meaning of the word capitalism, I shall simply use the term “free market” to mean “voluntary exchange of goods and services”, which is really the same as using the term “capitalism”

“Free market” = “voluntary exchange of goods and services” = “free market capitalism”
.......



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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)



That's BS, sir.

Suppressing technology doesn't just include government enforced copyrights/patents but also includes the suppression of advanced technology BY economic interests in order to milk an outdated/under-developed idea. The entire basis of Capitalism is essentially advertising (i.e. SELLING) products, akin to selling snake-oil (selling people sh*t they don't need for a profit). You can idealize the market all you want, but the price is the same- somebody's always gettin screwed. You also conveniently forget to mention planned obsolescence. Now for an alternative to Capitalist free markets, a market based on open-source would be nice, as would one based on Anarcho-Socialism but that would take an entire CULTURAL change/revolution and NOT simply the adoption of free markets.

Also, most Anarchists DONT CONSIDER CAPITALISTS TO BE ANARCHISTS. Anarcho-Capitalism has never actually existed, except perhaps in Somalia, but that situation is quite a mess and involves various hierarchies (namely religious) which are antithetical to Anarchism. Even so, I will concede that there are some good examples set by Somalia's markets. At the end of the day, however, Capitalist markets are prone to hierarchy and oppression, both of humans and ecosystems. A system which creates illusory economic bodies whose main/sole purpose/responsibility is to profit/expand is just asking for heaps of trouble. Private entities can and do become de-facto governments but with little to no Democratic recourse or fair representation.

Everybody!

For an in-depth and more proper Anarchist take on "Anarcho-Capitalism" please check these Anarchist FAQ pages out:

www.infoshop.org...
www.infoshop.org...
www.infoshop.org...
www.infoshop.org...
www.infoshop.org...
www.infoshop.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PriamsPride
 


Greenbacks almost destroyed this country once.

It is stupid to think it would not happen again.

Gold has intrinsic value AS CURRENCY for the following reasons:

1. It is limited in supply, making it rare and difficult to acquire

2. Due to its limited supply, it can represent large amounts of value in a very small quantity

3. It is easily transferable and identifiable

When people are allowed to chose currencies without anyone putting a gun to their head, they consistently chose gold.

It is ridiculous to think that the use of violence can result in a better system of currency than one people freely chose on their own without coercion.


bah, keep copy pasting in to wrong responses


edit on 23-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


If there were no patents, it is literally impossible for a corporation to suppress those inventions.

Tell me, how would they do it without government force?

And your claim that "anarchists" don't consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists is outrageous. There are ENTIRE ACADEMIC INSTITUTES dedicated to nothing but anarcho-capitalism.



edit on 23-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


I don't think I'm being naive.

I pointing out that the looting can not occur without government's involvement.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper
the absolutely disgusting conditions the workforce had to endure during that time is unfortunately not too far away from some countries today (can you say 'Mexico?') Conditions only get better when the skilled labour is in short supply otherwise capitalist will happily see their workforce living in squalour and just replace them as they expire.


That's what the high priests of "free markets" choose to deliberately exclude from their discourse. Which is, "markets" in themselves should be just a means to an end. To them, it's a religion and a fetish.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


If there were no patents, it is literally impossible for a corporation to suppress those inventions.

Tell me, how would they do it without government force?

And your claim that "anarchists" don't consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists is outrageous. There are ENTIRE ACADEMIC INSTITUTES dedicated to nothing but anarcho-capitalism.



edit on 23-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



You're saying only a government can enforce suppression of technology? Once again... I'm not talking about the patent system, I'm talking about ANY suppression of technology which doesn't need the government to be enforced. Even large corporations like Coca Cola keep their recipes a secret, other companies keep their designs/specs a secret, and most companies don't make the BEST product they can (even if they'd still turn a profit) simply because profit doesn't necessarily follow what is most advanced, useful, or ecologically friendly. That's why people are sold things ALL THE TIME that are the opposite- primitive, faulty, useless/excessive, and ecologically destructive. Government has a very small role in these downfalls of the market, in fact they have a larger role in mitigating/regulating these negative outcomes.

Yes... and there are also entire institutes dedicated to Scientology... or anything else you can name. That doesn't make it correct though. As I've said before, the vast majority of Anarchist thought/history/support (and Libertarian for that matter) is left-wing, period.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by JohnJasper
the absolutely disgusting conditions the workforce had to endure during that time is unfortunately not too far away from some countries today (can you say 'Mexico?') Conditions only get better when the skilled labour is in short supply otherwise capitalist will happily see their workforce living in squalour and just replace them as they expire.


That's what the high priests of "free markets" choose to deliberately exclude from their discourse. Which is, "markets" in themselves should be just a means to an end. To them, it's a religion and a fetish.




LOL

As if the Mexican government has nothing to do with their people's plight.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

You're saying only a government can enforce suppression of technology? Once again... I'm not talking about the patent system, I'm talking about ANY suppression of technology which doesn't need the government to be enforced. Even large corporations like Coca Cola keep their recipes a secret, other companies keep their designs/specs a secret, and most companies don't make the BEST product they can (even if they'd still turn a profit) simply because profit doesn't necessarily follow what is most advanced, useful, or ecologically friendly. That's why people are sold things ALL THE TIME that are the opposite- primitive, faulty, useless/excessive, and ecologically destructive. Government has a very small role in these downfalls of the market, in fact they have a larger role in mitigating/regulating these negative outcomes.

Yes... and there are also entire institutes dedicated to Scientology... or anything else you can name. That doesn't make it correct though. As I've said before, the vast majority of Anarchist thought/history/support (and Libertarian for that matter) is left-wing, period.


How buddy - HOW - tell me how a corporation can suppress technology someone else creates without government enforced patents?

Tell me how.



edit on 23-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
the easy way = work for somebody, the hard way = work for yourselves. its not capitalism thats the problem, the number one reason you have less money in your pocket is pure and simple, taxes. taxes are the form by which governments control inflation and economic growth. the government can pass laws and tax every single citizen 99% and they will find a way to spend every penny of it. imagine what your paycheck would be like if u deposited every single penny of the money you earned. very little people would be complaining and the economy would grow because you will spend it, you'll be so happy you'll go out for dinner, buy new clothes, drive around more. so the question you have to ask is, does america really need 170 bases around the world, does america really need 95% percent of the crap congress spends your money on? you work 30% for the government 40-60% for your home and 10% for yourselves if you're lucky.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




Regulations are imposed mandates on businesses that have no specific victim. Regulations attempt (and fail miserably) to prevent fraud from occurring in the first place. Fraud laws are criminal laws that have a clear victim, which can in turn sue for damages. There is only one simple law necessary - if you defraud someone you will be punished. Businesses should be free to adjust how they operate on their own, free of regulations. If they defraud someone, THEN they should be punished.

oh, c'mon, my friend, that's just playing with the words
any player of the free market wants to destroy own competitors through different possible mechanisms -- that's how Capitalism works



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


oh, c'mon, my friend, that's just playing with the words
any player of the free market wants to destroy own competitors through different possible mechanisms -- that's how Capitalism works


Yeah, and the consumers benefit tremendously from this competition.

It is only when the violence of government gets involved through regulations that cartelize industries and drive out competition that things become problematic.

You do realize that the federal reserve is a private banking cartel right?

All the commercial banks are forced to own shares in it.




edit on 23-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

I gave you a star for WOW!

I ended up obtaining two degrees, so I can find a place within a corporation, firm, etc... I will be pulling my own weight, so to hell with the 'entitlement' movement. While they fight over scraps of this and that, I will be dealing with my own and my family's means for survival. If you cannot stand on your own two feet, I personally believe you will fall aimlessly into the abyss.

Educational degrees and/or work experience will ensure long term success and survival. They will give us something to batter with, so that goods and services can be exchanged. You do something for me, and I do something for you ideology.

If you are apart of the 'entitlement' group, (no education, no work experiences, and/or no trade), you have nothing to barter with for your survival. Tough luck.

Almost 50% of the population in the U.S. sucks off of the 45% who work. That stinks.

Good thread man!




edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm glad to see you come out in support of ending the war on drugs and legalizing prostitution. All drugs should be free of govt intervention and regulation, let the free market dictate the supply and demand. Same goes of sexual services, the govt has been regulating this service for too long. Let the market decide.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join