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.

 

How are we going to create jobs and rebuild our economy? What is the best path to take?

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Easy!!! (Or should I say easier said than done!)

Stop these unfounded wars. Get our people out of there.

- Iraq (Why are we still there???? Oh, it's the Stargate. I forgot.)

- Afghanistan (Why are we there???? Oh, It's the poppy seeds. I fogot about that too.)

-War on Drugs (Why fight a battle you can't win? Allow pot and tax. Look at CA, and a few other states. This was sucessfully done with alcohol.)

Curtail or eliminate any new projects with the military.

Redirect our interest towards ourselves, rather than a global economy. He need to take care of our house first, before we can assit others. Even then, do we really want to assist others? Some are not salvagable.

Abolish all "Black budget spending" (Trillions saved right there.)

All proceeds from Poppy seeds needs to be given to the public. (More trillions!)

Stop supporting Isreal. 50% of the battle will be won right there. We can not continne to be used by others.

Get all US banks to lend money instead of just hoarding it - waiting for interest rates to rise. I see this everyday...the hoarding must stop!

Fed Reserve - They gotta go! Chuck em!

Loose the electorial system. We dont vote for president. We vote for idiots at the electorial college, who vote for preseident. They don't have to vote the way the majority wants. They can do as they please. This is not a democracy in the way we all believe it to be. We have been fooled for too long.

-E2




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaanny
 





Abolish the federal reserve


I just don't see this happening.
This is the type of thread filled with people, who write the President letters and even though they never recieve so much as a thank you note. Their sure he read it.

The only thing that's going to happen ? Is what's supposed to happen.
edit on 26-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


United we stand, divided we fall. Anarchy will never, ever reach the success a united nation will achieve. FACT. It wont help the economy either.

Only a nationalist style government will solve the economic problems we have today because the whole aim of nationalism is supporting one's people. Not like our governments now whose aim is to sell us out to the highest bidder.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTGerman
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


United we stand, divided we fall. Anarchy will never, ever reach the success a united nation will achieve. FACT. It wont help the economy either.

Only a nationalist style government will solve the economic problems we have today because the whole aim of nationalism is supporting one's people. Not like our governments now whose aim is to sell us out to the highest bidder.


Hmm, well you seem to have the most vexing and destructive problem that faces humanity all sorted out and squared away, in a couple short paragraphs to boot! All the accumulated wisdom and mistakes paid in the blood of millions was all for naught, seeing as all we had to do was to wait for SGTGerman to come along and set us all strait via a few short lines of opinion guised as well reasoned FACT!

You sir, have convinced me, somehow, that violence does indeed work, and work well! How foolish was I to question the wisdom of the Gun.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
IMO, the answer is really quite simple. The USA as well as every industrialized and/or emerging economy should, for it's own protection, adopt legislation mandating that products be manufactured in the same nation in which they are to be sold, with the exception of raw materials. This one step eliminates the need to get into an import/export taxing war with other nations while protecting the economic base of each country. Wouldn't need all the so called "free trade" deals either.

Much the same way that Toyota and others have come and built assembly plants here in the USA to build cars intended to be sold here in the USA, this is the model we should follow. By adopting this policy, we also insure that the price of labor and/or the lack of environmental regulations in one nation are not utilized as a tool to bring down the economy of another. For any products that for one reason or another can't be made at home, I would support import taxes so high, (including restrictions against passing the tax costs on to consumers) that the tax itself would give corporations the incentive to find a way to produce them here. I don't care if we had to tax them 1000%, (kinda like the 1000% + profits they're currently making off their outsourced products) if that's what it takes!

Wasn't it Henry Ford who promoted the idea that workers should be able to afford to buy the products they make? Well, I'd like to see you try selling a pair of NIKE shoes for $200 to one of the workers who make them in Indonesia. Today, multi-national corporations are utilizing the difference in regulations and labor cost of emerging nations to fuel their never ending greed and they will continue to do so until they are stopped. I only hope it's not too late to stop them.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
IMO, the answer is really quite simple. The USA as well as every industrialized and/or emerging economy should, for it's own protection, adopt legislation mandating that products be manufactured in the same nation in which they are to be sold, with the exception of raw materials.


Im sorry but the answer is NOT simple, because if it was it would have been solved long ago and wed all live in protectionist heaven.

I didnt read further into your post because you seem to think, in your opinion, that returning to the dark ages is the simple answer every other dummy just hasnt thought of or is too stupid to grasp.

Seriously man, and not to be condescending but im sure this will come off as such; pick up an econ 101 book and realize just how catastrophic your plan would be if enacted, which it most surely would not be, as it would be a surefire way to absolutely reverse and destroy all the progress weve made as a species since the dark ages.

And just for fun. i might ask: what moral rule would you say justifies myself not selling my used XBOX games on ebay to someone in the States, who live just a few short kms from me? Would you oppose my selling of this game to him in a voluntary and peaceful way? If so, what means should be employed in order to stop us from doing so?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Originally posted by Flatfish
IMO, the answer is really quite simple. The USA as well as every industrialized and/or emerging economy should, for it's own protection, adopt legislation mandating that products be manufactured in the same nation in which they are to be sold, with the exception of raw materials.


Im sorry but the answer is NOT simple, because if it was it would have been solved long ago and wed all live in protectionist heaven.

I didnt read further into your post because you seem to think, in your opinion, that returning to the dark ages is the simple answer every other dummy just hasnt thought of or is too stupid to grasp.

Seriously man, and not to be condescending but im sure this will come off as such; pick up an econ 101 book and realize just how catastrophic your plan would be if enacted, which it most surely would not be, as it would be a surefire way to absolutely reverse and destroy all the progress weve made as a species since the dark ages.

And just for fun. i might ask: what moral rule would you say justifies myself not selling my used XBOX games on ebay to someone in the States, who live just a few short kms from me? Would you oppose my selling of this game to him in a voluntary and peaceful way? If so, what means should be employed in order to stop us from doing so?


I'm not sure what's so complicated about it and I doubt it would take us back to the "dark ages" either. If we don't protect our own economic base, then who does? Corporations? In case you hadn't noticed, corporations take an oath, so to speak, to remain loyal to the almighty profit margin and not to any specific country.

I'm not saying that we totally eliminate importing or exporting all products, hell I'm a retired longshoreman, my entire career was spent in that business. I'm just saying that we scrutinize the process a lot more closely. If a company wants to sell a product in a foreign country, why can't they build it right there where they're going to sell it? Is it because they won't be able to screw the living hell out of the consumer by selling it in an established economy for 1000 times what it cost to make it in an emerging one? Greed cannot be left unchecked!

With respect to your used XBOX games, to be quite honest I hadn't given that much thought to used product sales but I'm sure that something could be figured out that would accommodate sales, while at the same time, put safeguards in place to insure that "Used Product Sales" weren't being used as a "Front" for evading trade laws.

The only thing I know for sure is that if we want or expect different results, then we are going to have to try a different approach.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Originally posted by Flatfish
IMO, the answer is really quite simple. The USA as well as every industrialized and/or emerging economy should, for it's own protection, adopt legislation mandating that products be manufactured in the same nation in which they are to be sold, with the exception of raw materials.


Im sorry but the answer is NOT simple, because if it was it would have been solved long ago and wed all live in protectionist heaven.

I didnt read further into your post because you seem to think, in your opinion, that returning to the dark ages is the simple answer every other dummy just hasnt thought of or is too stupid to grasp.

Seriously man, and not to be condescending but im sure this will come off as such; pick up an econ 101 book and realize just how catastrophic your plan would be if enacted, which it most surely would not be, as it would be a surefire way to absolutely reverse and destroy all the progress weve made as a species since the dark ages.

And just for fun. i might ask: what moral rule would you say justifies myself not selling my used XBOX games on ebay to someone in the States, who live just a few short kms from me? Would you oppose my selling of this game to him in a voluntary and peaceful way? If so, what means should be employed in order to stop us from doing so?


I'm not sure what's so complicated about it and I doubt it would take us back to the "dark ages" either. If we don't protect our own economic base, then who does? Corporations? In case you hadn't noticed, corporations take an oath, so to speak, to remain loyal to the almighty profit margin and not to any specific country.

I'm not saying that we totally eliminate importing or exporting all products, hell I'm a retired longshoreman, my entire career was spent in that business. I'm just saying that we scrutinize the process a lot more closely. If a company wants to sell a product in a foreign country, why can't they build it right there where they're going to sell it? Is it because they won't be able to screw the living hell out of the consumer by selling it in an established economy for 1000 times what it cost to make it in an emerging one? Greed cannot be left unchecked!

With respect to your used XBOX games, to be quite honest I hadn't given that much thought to used product sales but I'm sure that something could be figured out that would accommodate sales, while at the same time, put safeguards in place to insure that "Used Product Sales" weren't being used as a "Front" for evading trade laws.

The only thing I know for sure is that if we want or expect different results, then we are going to have to try a different approach.


would love to respond but i gotta run. later.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I'm not for 1, 2, or 3 as they are outlined. I am for pieces of some to an extent, but pieces only.

The existing state of affairs would be a poor choice.

I actually believe an increase in minimum wage or continuation of the minimum wage standard is not good for the economy. On the other hand I am for lower tax rates on small businesses and corporations. In terms of income tax rates I believe they may be described as ... fair as they are (www.taxpolicycenter.org...). Notwithstanding the philosophy of fairness, America's entitlement obligations must be dealt with head on. Until that is addressed there's no point in even having this discussion--it's simply unsustainable without current and future federal deficit spending. Moreover, any American with half a bit of wit knows by now that a large fed budget deficit is "not" good for the economy. Well, let me rephrase that because there are Americans with a half a bit of wit and more who simply won't agree with that statement. Instead, I posit that most Americans would agree that a large federal budget deficit is not good for the economy.

As for imposing tariffs and/or import quotas, I think we lose by doing so. Instead, I'd prefer that protectionist clauses embedded in current trade agreements be amended to provide for legitimate free trade agreements. For instance China consistently violates American intellectual property rights to their advantage and our disadvantage. In this way China is sort of like the dude in class who didn't study for an exam, but looks over at our exam and gains an advantage for nothing. And I don't mean to point out China solely--it occurs with other trading partners of America as well. My point is that trading agreements need to equalize for American workers to compete: if one country we trade with imposes restrictions or tariffs on an equal product or service that we provide, then how can we expect compete? We can't. It's simply a matter of what people will buy as determined by prices.

To sum up my ideas in order of merit:
#1) Deal with our entitlement obligations. Touchy subject no doubt, but this is not a philosophical discussion per se.
#2) Lower business and corporate tax rates.
#3) Get our trade agreements in order so that Americans can "equally" compete with their trading partners and close the trade deficit. (As an aside, maybe one reason trading partners impose tariffs or quotas on equal products or services is because American workers have "demonstrated" that their level of productivity is high? In any case, equal trading agreements need to occur if we are going to compete again.)
#4) Don't hike income tax rates.
#5) Cut nonessential federal offices. Is the Office of Homeland Security an essential office? It wasn't before it was instituted. My point is that the federal government has grown from a behemoth to a bloated behemoth. None of that is free of course. Quite expensive in fact.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   


I'm not sure what's so complicated about it and I doubt it would take us back to the "dark ages" either. If we don't protect our own economic base, then who does? Corporations? In case you hadn't noticed, corporations take an oath, so to speak, to remain loyal to the almighty profit margin and not to any specific country.


It might be useful to you to define the nature and spawn point of the corporation. Corporations, by their very nature, are sanctioned and enabled to exist by the *state*. I know its easy and accepted to associate the modern corporation with capitalism, but the two terms are in reality polar opposites.

'Corporations' are legal fictions given writ by the state, and under that umbrella of protectionism they flourish and dominate. 'Corporations' are legal fictions that are granted special rights and immunities that are not afforded to the the average person or business in a statist system by the state itself. In exchange for legal immunity from losses potentially suffered by the people who make up the corp, the state grants, by fiat, special rights to favored corporations who pay for such privileges through the millions and billions of lobbiest dollars.

Corporatism = Fascism = Mercantilism. As soon as the State is allowed the right to determine who is taxed and to what extent, a feeding frenzy of powerful interests is assured, as to not buy a politician or two, under those circumstances, it to yield the field. Thus the large monopolistic concerns that you rightly rail against are indeed creations of the State, and thus no amount of State intervention will correct the problem, in the same way that we do not look to the foxes to guard the henhouse.

Corporations dominate because the State allows them to do so. Without legal and financial immunity granted via violence, 'corporations' as you know them simply would not exist.




I'm not saying that we totally eliminate importing or exporting all products, hell I'm a retired longshoreman, my entire career was spent in that business. I'm just saying that we scrutinize the process a lot more closely. If a company wants to sell a product in a foreign country, why can't they build it right there where they're going to sell it? Is it because they won't be able to screw the living hell out of the consumer by selling it in an established economy for 1000 times what it cost to make it in an emerging one? Greed cannot be left unchecked!



You did earlier state that all trade between nations should be eliminated or seriously curtailed.

Again, I ask you, what business is it of yours about who or why I sell my own property to?

If selling and processing raw materials is so superior to exporting them, then there should be no issue here as the rightful owners of said raw materials will prefer to have them processed locally.

In other words, if you yourself fell a tree and machine it into a usable and sell able product, would you want me, or any other person, telling you what you should or should not do with your rightfully owned product?

Do I have the right to determine the usage of your justly earned surplus? Do you claim the right to determine the usage of mine?



With respect to your used XBOX games, to be quite honest I hadn't given that much thought to used product sales but I'm sure that something could be figured out that would accommodate sales, while at the same time, put safeguards in place to insure that "Used Product Sales" weren't being used as a "Front" for evading trade laws.


New/used is totally irrelevant in the context of ownership. There is literally no distinction that is meaningful. If my house is 'new' 10 years ago, and is worth $100, 000, and is 'used' in 20 years and is worth $200, 000, does the value of my house change at all when we consider how much ive 'used' it? Of course not! The value of my house is determined almost totally independently of my usage of it. Thus in this case, unlike a car or a video game, my usage of my property is a non factor, and may indeed be a positive, when considering its sell value.

Thus the fact that you hadnt considered my scenario implies that you havent considered the meaning of 'value', and its implications, at all. I respect your admission of ignorance on the subject, but I must wonder how you have draw such strong and rigid conclusions about how humans should trade and interact without taking a few moments to consider the real world implications of what youre proposing.



The only thing I know for sure is that if we want or expect different results, then we are going to have to try a different approach.


This is for sure all that we know.
edit on 25-9-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Originally posted by SGTGerman
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


United we stand, divided we fall. Anarchy will never, ever reach the success a united nation will achieve. FACT. It wont help the economy either.

Only a nationalist style government will solve the economic problems we have today because the whole aim of nationalism is supporting one's people. Not like our governments now whose aim is to sell us out to the highest bidder.


Hmm, well you seem to have the most vexing and destructive problem that faces humanity all sorted out and squared away, in a couple short paragraphs to boot! All the accumulated wisdom and mistakes paid in the blood of millions was all for naught, seeing as all we had to do was to wait for SGTGerman to come along and set us all strait via a few short lines of opinion guised as well reasoned FACT!

You sir, have convinced me, somehow, that violence does indeed work, and work well! How foolish was I to question the wisdom of the Gun.



I will overlook your sarcasm this time and say this - There is little point in us debating, as much as I like talking about subjects such as this. I am a Nationalist. I believe in a united nation with aims toi make the country the best it can be.

You on the otherhand are the compelte oppossite. "Everyman for himself". I do not doubt that this would be amazing, and peaceful but not suitable for this world.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTGerman

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Originally posted by SGTGerman
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


United we stand, divided we fall. Anarchy will never, ever reach the success a united nation will achieve. FACT. It wont help the economy either.

Only a nationalist style government will solve the economic problems we have today because the whole aim of nationalism is supporting one's people. Not like our governments now whose aim is to sell us out to the highest bidder.


Hmm, well you seem to have the most vexing and destructive problem that faces humanity all sorted out and squared away, in a couple short paragraphs to boot! All the accumulated wisdom and mistakes paid in the blood of millions was all for naught, seeing as all we had to do was to wait for SGTGerman to come along and set us all strait via a few short lines of opinion guised as well reasoned FACT!

You sir, have convinced me, somehow, that violence does indeed work, and work well! How foolish was I to question the wisdom of the Gun.



I will overlook your sarcasm this time and say this - There is little point in us debating, as much as I like talking about subjects such as this. I am a Nationalist. I believe in a united nation with aims toi make the country the best it can be.

You on the otherhand are the compelte oppossite. "Everyman for himself". I do not doubt that this would be amazing, and peaceful but not suitable for this world.


Indeed your world and mine are incompatible. You uphold the usage of force as legitimate, and I do not.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Originally posted by SGTGerman

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Originally posted by SGTGerman
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


United we stand, divided we fall. Anarchy will never, ever reach the success a united nation will achieve. FACT. It wont help the economy either.

Only a nationalist style government will solve the economic problems we have today because the whole aim of nationalism is supporting one's people. Not like our governments now whose aim is to sell us out to the highest bidder.


Hmm, well you seem to have the most vexing and destructive problem that faces humanity all sorted out and squared away, in a couple short paragraphs to boot! All the accumulated wisdom and mistakes paid in the blood of millions was all for naught, seeing as all we had to do was to wait for SGTGerman to come along and set us all strait via a few short lines of opinion guised as well reasoned FACT!

You sir, have convinced me, somehow, that violence does indeed work, and work well! How foolish was I to question the wisdom of the Gun.



I will overlook your sarcasm this time and say this - There is little point in us debating, as much as I like talking about subjects such as this. I am a Nationalist. I believe in a united nation with aims toi make the country the best it can be.

You on the otherhand are the compelte oppossite. "Everyman for himself". I do not doubt that this would be amazing, and peaceful but not suitable for this world.


Indeed your world and mine are incompatible. You uphold the usage of force as legitimate, and I do not.


Only defend my people from danger. Not to control them. If you think having armed forces is wrong ask Holland and the Danes how life was under the Nazis....



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SGTGerman
 


No one was talking about any such thing, and I myself especially was not. I wont legitimize your strawman argument by responding any further.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
End the fed, a lot other things have to be done but this first. The fed did start the great depression after all.


Despite the varied theories espoused by many establishment economists, it was none other than the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and the horrific suffering, deprivation and dislocation America and the world experienced in its wake. At least, that's the clearly stated view of current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The worldwide economic downturn called the Great Depression, which persisted from 1929 until about 1939, was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment, and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history."

What exactly caused this economic tsunami that devastated the U.S. and much of the world?

In "A Monetary History of the United States," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman along with coauthor Anna J. Schwartz lay the mega-catastrophe of the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve.


www.wnd.com...

Which baffles me that because the Government and the private bank that controls it started that whole mess its blamed on capitalism. Then whats his face(Its at the tip of my tongue can't remember the guys name though) began his whole "New deal" bringing microeconomics thus putting the finally nail in the coffin for the free market. See how this works, create a problem, blame it on the people and their freedoms. Take control.




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join