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.

 

Republicans against free market!

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by jibeho
 





If you were not making the 500g's would you think you were entitled to it because of how much you spent on your education?


Nope, but I'd be a complete idiot for paying that much for my education if I didn't get a proper return


And the reason I'm not investing in the US at the moment is the same reason a lot of other investors invest abroad. Look at the growth rate of investments in foreign countries and regions like Africa/Asia...it's pretty crazy, but justified given the increased profit potential. To give you an example, last spring I invested in a new office development in Senegal, with a growth rate that would have been unobtainable in the US (or Europe). Money goes where money's to be made, and it's not in the US anymore, at least if you care about growth rates and profit potential. I'm not a patriotic investor, and either are most other investors.

And sure, the airplanes and ships trading benefit me...but how on earth does that entitle the oil companies to subsidies??? They already get paid for their oil by the shipping and trade companies. So according to your logic it's all good if the tax payer pays more to them on top of that??

I have one main question: Do you truly believe those subsidies are justified? Really???

PS: I don't think hospitals should get subsidies either, they should be profitable as it is. Of course if they aren't for whatever reason, I rather have the government support them and ensure the health of the nation, than oil companies that give back NOTHING.


edit on 14-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


I am by no means defending subsidies entirely. I just want to make sure people know that subsidies are handed out like candy to a wide variety entities for just as many reasons. Sometimes they are effective and sometimes unfortunately, when the subsidies expire the recipients are off to look for greener pastures and bigger handouts. I offered examples of both further up in the thread.

Please apply an even hand to all who receive them and all who enable them. Subsidies clearly are not the solution for every situation. In most cases they simply lead to stagnation. Amtrak is a prime example and yet we have a President who still thinks High Speed Rail would be neato. If there was a profit to be made the private sector would have built it years ago. Just like the private sector built this nations rail system in the last century.

This thread title states that Republicans are against free markets and that is simply a broad and rather obtuse statement based on the words of a career politician who I'm sure has received his fare share of kick backs over the years. Let's just agree that most politicians Dem or Rep have grown to appreciate the rewards that just happen to come along with granting subsidies and doing favors. Big oil, big pharma, GE,




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 





I disagree with you completely here. What has globalization given us? Globalized economics require a global reserve currency, and that would require a country to allow their currency to be used as such. This is what the US has done, and its gotten us a trade deficit which is stagnating our economy.


Globalization hasn't lead to the deficit... reckless defence spending and subsidizing the economy has, as well as bailing out corporations that should have gone bust long ago due to taking crazy risks.



Globalization also leads corporations to also seek new markets to expand into, which in this case is the third world of developing countries. In order to 'catch them up' to the global economy, institutions such as the IMF and World Bank offers loans and adjustment programs that end up doing nothing more than creating rich minorities and impoverished majorities that have no domestic manufacturing base at all, just low paying sweatshops producing goods for first world countries. As these programs often include low taxes for corporations as incentive to bring jobs in, coupled with the promise of cheap, quasi-slave labor, jobs flee from majority countries to developing nations. As a result, first world economy stagnates further and debt multiplies as it has to continue borrowing just to keep itself afloat.


That's slowly changing though. A few years ago, many developing countries had a population that was...for a lack of a better word...uneducated. So sweat shops and the production sector was their only option. But just look at India now, they have management consultants, HUUUUUUUGE IT companies, and the same goes for China. Why? Because their citizens got educated.

The salaries are lower because the cost of living is cheaper. The reverse can be true as well. For a Swiss, US salaries are a bit of a joke. When I worked in Switzerland as a student, I made almost $40/hr counting ballots...and $35/hr serving food at events. Try to find someone that pays you that much in the US...but of course the cost of living is cheaper over there.

I will give you though that a small minority often profits before the general population. But the same is true in the US if you think about it, the top 1% saw their income grow by 281% since the 80s, while the middle class and poor saw growth between 16 and 25%. So yeah, even in your industrialized western world, the rich screw over the poor




And of course, the very idea of national sovereignty is at stake.


Globalization doesn't threaten sovereignty...it creates COMPETITION. The problem is, some governments (most in fact) chose to cheat through subsidies in order to negate the effects of globalization...instead of adapting to the changing environment.

Here's an excellent discussion (with Jim Rogers) about east vs west in today's economy. He's spot on!







The US cease to be a reserve currency, and an international organization must be established to oversee an international reserve currency to do nation-to-nation business in and fix exchange rates.


Agree with you on that, although for different reasons. Up until now, the US$ has been the reserve currency. The problem with that is, if the US economy tanks, it pulls down everything with it in a disproportionate manner. The solution you're proposing is currently examined by a many countries including China, Russia, India, Japan, and a few others. The end solution will be a "basket of currencies" forming the reserve currency...and it's only a matter of time until this happens, it's inevitable, and the last crisis proved that. Of course there's opposition from the US, because once the dollar isn't the reserve currency anymore, it'll take a bit of a hit, and so will the US economy...plus, the patriots will shed a few tears




Perhaps it would be best if the world were divided up into specific blocks where localized regional trade is encouraged.


Not gonna happen in the world of Internet and interconnectivity. You can't just shut the door on globalization, it's progressed too far. It'll take time for a good global system to emerge. Just think about it, 150yrs ago trade between continents was a major hassle...nowadays it's super easy, but our economic system hasn't caught up with technology (yet). We can ship stuff easily nowadays, and invest abroad easily...but we're still using the same economic models mostly. Hell, if you go to uni, a ton of what you learn is based on old theories.

You're right though, a new reserve currency is a MUST. Also, countries will start to specialize more in order to compete better. Like all businesses, countries will have to find their USP. For example, it's pretty clear that in the long run, the US won't be able to compete with China/India's production sector as they can offer stuff for a lot cheaper (lower cost of living > lower salaries). But there's other stuff the US has been traditionally better at...innovation (although China's slowly changing from copying stuff to innovation). You won't be able to compete in every single sector and industry.

For example, I work in niche real estate...and although the Swiss banking industry is strong, I wouldn't be able to find many jobs there in my field. Plenty of jobs abroad though in that field. The same goes for the manufacturing industry in the US, it can't compete with developing nations due to lower salaries. So either the employees are willing to move...or they have to find something else. There's still plenty of fields where the US can compete.

However, if you think globalization can be stopped, you're wrong...not gonna happen, and I'd bet all my belongings on that



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


They're all sucking on the tit of corporations, I give you that. When some democrats tried to close a loophole that allows corporations to evade taxes an ship jobs offshore, the GOP was against it...but it wasn't long until even Obama agreed with them. So yeah, you're right by saying they're all messed up. The thing is, voting for someone else isn't the solution as every single person who gets voted in, will eventually fall for the temptation of money and do whatever the lobbyists want.

The system needs to be fixed, and all this republican vs democrat vs tea party bull# is nothing but gladiator games to entertain the stupid.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by croweboy
 


Though there are traces of socialism in my ideology, what I am advocating is not socialism. Socialism would mean that the workers own the methods of manufacturing directly - no wage system. I'm speaking about markets and incentives, which has nothing to do with this.

What I am saying is that corporations themselves are a pure byproduct of the government, and that small business cannot properly compete alongside large business. When I say "decentralized", I don't mean a decentralized business model, I'm referring to decentralized industry where large swaths of it are wrapped up in large, monolithic industries. Its the classic Main Street Vs. Wall Street debate. I'm siding with Main Street.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 


I don't agree completely...mostly because I'm actually a fan of capitalism (NOT corporatism though)...and just fyi, like I mentioned earlier, I'm more left than right too.

The main problem is that Wall Street is detached from Main Street. What I'm saying is that the people leading those huge companies don't really care about the success of those companies anymore, all they care about is their profit. Just look at CEO salaries, the guy who ran Lehmann into the ground got $520mil as a golden parachute while the rest got NOTHING.

So yeah, it is very much an issue of Main vs Wall Street. The thing is, politicians created that environment in the first place through deregulation. It started when Reagan hired someone from Morgan Stanley as chief economic advisor, and it went downhill from there. Just look at how many of the current "advisors" work(ed) for Goldmann Sachs!

Money rules the world, but it would the politicians' job to protect the citizens from exploitation...yet they fail HORRIBLY at it. Why? Because they're only in it for the money too of course. Until those incentives are taken away, nothing will change as those who could initiate change are corrupt...all of them. Only very few politicians are not bought sadly, and they stand no chance against the majority that are.

A good example of that is the shots given to premature babies. A while ago, those shots cost only $20...however, thanks to the FDA, they suddenly cost $1000 per shot! Production cost of those shots didn't increase at all, and politicians shouldn't allow a 5000% price increase like that...especially if it costs lives because some families suddenly can't afford those shots anymore. But the pharma lobby is strong, and the politicians are like puppets...
edit on 14-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Unfortunately, in this country you have a large group of poor to middle class people who have some kind of obsessive love for the rich. It is amazing, often you see and hear them in the media and even on this forum, so concerned that the rich have to pay taxes and are criticized.

We rarely hear people hating the rich, all we ask is for fairness, not that their heads should be taken, like in the French Revolution times.

That is a strange group . . . the lovers of the rights of the rich, as if they need their help and sympathy, and are the most acute brainwashed people in the country, who usually go vote for the nearest Republican lackey of the rich they can find and defend his actions.

The OP has posted one the most brilliant threads I have seen since joining ATS,
Good work!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Its very simple. The mainstream ordinary American is so brainwashed against: socialism; any kind of assistance to the poor and middle class is demonized as “socialistic welfare nanny state.” Even though as you point out that corporate welfare makes ordinary welfare for the poor [ who it was truly intended for] seem like nothing, in comparison.

Now the Republican and corporatists behind them are going after the students in America, who will soon have their tuitions raised almost 25 percent!

Compared to many advanced countries where tuition to college is free, America again is far behind.

Of course again those people who are brainwashed to hate anything not resembling pure capitalism, will again cry: FREE EDUCATION IS SOCILALSM!.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Healthcare is a different monster, but I have to agree on education.

While I don't feel that throwing more money at the education system is wise cutting it to shreds isn't either. As a matter of fact an education system that focuses less on social and political propaganda and more on math and science I'd gladly shell out for provided there are tangible results.

I can't for the life of me figure out why our government can't figure out where to cut when we have hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies going out to various industries every year. Oh yeah, that's right, we have a congress and a senate full to the brim with politicos on the take. Not to mention the fact that we have unaccountable bureaucracies from the Dept. of Education to the DOD who allocate funds based on what can be described only as fraudulent accounting.

There are A LOT of reforms to go around. Part of that is making some changes to who takes care of what. I think we need to leave more to the state rather than let the Federal government run amok with taxpayer money. The more local, the more accountable.

Secondly, the excuse for subsidies is always "Well if there's not enough demand for a service or product we have to subsidize it." My argument is, if there's not enough demand for a service or product then it doesn't belong on the market. If it won't make it on it's own merits then throwing tax payer money into it can only be called a waste.

Some of you want to make it about rich vs. poor. I reject that paradigm. It's about corrupt and not corrupt.
edit on 15-3-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 





Some of you want to make it about rich vs. poor. I reject that paradigm. It's about corrupt and not corrupt.


But it's often the corrupt ones that end up rich


Given that the income gap has been growing at a pretty crazy rate (look at the graph 1 page ago) since the 80s, it's pretty clear that the rich are controlling politics and the middle class and poor are losing out big time. How else do you explain their income growing by 281% since the 80s, while the poor and middle class see a growth rate of only 16-25%?

Not all rich folk screw over people of course, I haven't screwed over anyone making my money (although I could have easily), but money is always tempting. I don't wanna make this a rich vs poor as not all rich people are sharks that pray on the middle class and poor...but when I see medical shots increase from $20 to $1000 (!!!) in a single day due to FDA regulations that have been pushed by some pharma fat cat lobbyist and CEO, I wanna puke. It's wrong, and shouldn't be allowed. I mean, even if you're against regulation, you have to admit that a 5000% price increase is wrong when it costs the lives of countless babies because parents can't afford the shots anymore. And at the same time, those companies get subsidies and tax refunds...and probably pay less taxes as a % compared to the parents that just lost their baby because they couldn't afford a shot.

It should be the media's job to criticize the government, and the politician's job to protect and serve the citizens. What we have now are politicians working for large corporations, and the media parrotting whatever the politicians tell them. Hell, it's totally ok to LIE during news in the US...misleading the population on purpose. No wonder nothing changes!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


That's what I don't get either. I've seen people defend the tax breaks for the rich even though they make less than $30k per year, it's insane. I think I know why that is though...

Every day, people get sold the "American dream" where someone makes it big and suddenly turns rich. Just look at the Justin Biebers and other people that sell you that dream every single day. So in the minds of a lot of people, they assume that dream will eventually come true...or at least they hope so. So eventually, in their mind, they will be rich too...which is why they protect the interests of the rich.

In reality, only a TINY minority ever makes it...the large majority (95% of the population to be exact) will never be what we consider rich. Yet they believe in the American dream and continue to vote irrationally and support the wrong politicians. The video of that Republican politician in my first post is a good example (there's Democrats that are just as bad btw) as someone had to have voted for him. I get why stakeholders of big oil vote for him, or the top 1%...but that wouldn't be enough votes. So in effect, some incredibly DUMB and UNEDUCATED people voted for him. They're delusional in thinking they'll ever fullfil their dream...and yeah, it's harsh saying that, but statistics back me up.
edit on 15-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Globalization hasn't lead to the deficit... reckless defence spending and subsidizing the economy has, as well as bailing out corporations that should have gone bust long ago due to taking crazy risks.


I do agree that defense spending, subsidies, and bail-outs are horribly crippling the economy. But what I refer to is the "Triffin Dilemma", pointed out by economist Robert Triffin in the 1960s. Keynes also warned about it in the original Bretton Woods negotiations, and proposed a solution in the form of the "Bancor", an international currency to be used in bartering and trade that would be backed by gold. However, the US had certain interests in the status of the dollar as the reserve currency, so Keynes's ideas were scrapped. This is an IMF document that proposed that globalized trade be done in the Bancor, citing adjustment of deficit-ridden economies as one of the key points establishing such a currency:

Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability


That's slowly changing though. A few years ago, many developing countries had a population that was...for a lack of a better word...uneducated. So sweat shops and the production sector was their only option. But just look at India now, they have management consultants, HUUUUUUUGE IT companies, and the same goes for China. Why? Because their citizens got educated.


But it wasn't always this way. Countries subscribing to the "developmentalist" school of thought, such as Iran (pre-US backed coup) and Chile (pre-US backed coup) faired far better than the same countries under free market reform. No sweatshops in sight, however. It wasn't until developing nations were pried open to foreign multinationals that the sweatshop system was created.

As for India, yes, they are financially successful, but at what cost? Some 40% of the population still resides below the international poverty line, and since the reforms of the 1980s, the rural economies of the countries have all but collapsed. "Farmer suicides" due to the financial nightmare facing those in the rural areas is a widely discussed topic, and some studies have said that the numbers of peasant households in debt has doubled since the reforms.

And China? 130 million people living under a $1 a day, mainly in the rural farming areas. And as America's trade deficit balloons, so does a trade surplus in China. The government will have to stimulate domestic consuming of goods and shy away from relying on exports in order to fix this problem. The result will be a rise in wages, and perhaps even a more democratic marketplace where workers, consumers, and citizens aren't oppressed under a totalitarian system.


Globalization doesn't threaten sovereignty...it creates COMPETITION. The problem is, some governments (most in fact) chose to cheat through subsidies in order to negate the effects of globalization...instead of adapting to the changing environment.


Well, tell that to Haiti, Poland, even Iraq.


Not gonna happen in the world of Internet and interconnectivity. You can't just shut the door on globalization, it's progressed too far. It'll take time for a good global system to emerge. Just think about it, 150yrs ago trade between continents was a major hassle...nowadays it's super easy, but our economic system hasn't caught up with technology (yet). We can ship stuff easily nowadays, and invest abroad easily...but we're still using the same economic models mostly. Hell, if you go to uni, a ton of what you learn is based on old theories.


The idea is already at work in the world today, quite prominently in South America. There is the Bolivarian Alliance for the America (ALBA), which consists of Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela. They are currently in the process of creating their own currency, the SUCRE, to replace the dollar as the business currency. ALBA will respect the markets of each nation by avoiding free trade deals and ultimatum-style loans, opting instead for economic aid to help revitalize the public sector (conducted by the new IMF-alternative, the Bank of the South) and engaging in bartering. There is also the Union of South American Nations, which seeks to integrate two other unions: Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) and the Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru). The Union of South American Nations will deal with a collective defense force, lax immigration laws, and stimulate competition on local levels.


However, if you think globalization can be stopped, you're wrong...not gonna happen, and I'd bet all my belongings on that


Well, perhaps I should reword myself. I'm not against globalization by any means, just globalization in its present form.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
There's a HUGE misconception when it comes to developing nations...they are not as backwards as people want to believe


Watch these excellent videos...the developing world is picking up speed FAST, very very very fast.







Fact is, we live in a globalized world, and interconnectivity is INCREASING and not decreasing...a trend that is hardly reversible. And the developing nations are catching up...which forces the developed nations to adapt. So far they're doing a piss poor job at it. An example of this is throwing subsidies at stuff that doesn't need or should be entitled to subsidies because it doesn't benefit the nation.

Also, the nations that form alliances aren't losing sovereignty...they are joining an alliance and Brazil will still be Brazil, and Bolivia will still be Bolivia...and its people will be called Bolivians and Brazilians. But forming alliances will help them compete in a global market place, so it makes sense...has nothing to do with sovereignty though

edit on 15-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Oh, I was arguing in favor of the South American unions, as an example of how trade can be balanced easily with protecting the people from the harsher aspects of capitalism.

Thanks for the videos! I'll watch them here in a few.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Someone336
 




They're TED videos, all brilliant...especially these videos as if you're clever, and recognize those trends, you can make a ton of $$$. I made most of my $ in developing nations because I spent a ton of time analyzing those markets. It's why I get annoyed at the Western world not adapting and losing ground. The Western politicians are selling out the people to big corporations, cut education (the very thing that would allow the people to get an edge), and generally don't work for the citizens anymore.

Here's an interesting discussion about the importance of education...


I'm a big fan of Cenk Uygur...yes, he's on MSNBC so a ton of people will call him a democrat. But if you watch his YoungTurks program, you realize he's criticizing the democrats just as much, especially Obama

edit on 15-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn




Some of you want to make it about rich vs. poor. I reject that paradigm. It's about corrupt and not corrupt.


Reject it if you will but logically.....

Money/Rich people have the power economically to control not only their lives but the lives of others.

Power.....is the most corrupting influence affecting society and civilization as a whole.

So who is the most corrupt? The poor peope? I think not!

Poor people are worried about providing the basic necessities of life for themselves and their families to have any influence.

btw...thanks for the videos....very informative.


edit on 15-3-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   


And so it continues



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The reason us folks who make 30 grand a year don't want to tax anyone who signs our paychecks is a mystery?

You know what, one day I DO wan't to be one of the guys signing other's paychecks. If the government is taking 50% of my money to spread around to people who simply aren't trying hard enough then there's no incentive for me to want to sign paychecks.

I'm gonna go where my money works for me. Not the government.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Well, right now they're spending the majority on military and subsidies (and bailouts) for corporations that don't really need it. On top of that they give tax break to the rich, who then invest a lot of that money abroad because that's where it's easier to multiply that money.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Shouldn't we be making it easier here then?

Nearly everything that comes out of both republican and democratic administrations seems to make anyone who IS seeking to make an HONEST buck(or even billions of bucks) want to go elsewhere with their money.

Should we not be trying to create incentive to start businesses here?

Businesses aren't started to create jobs. They are started to make money and turn a profit. Everything else comes with it. But if the primary goal cannot be met, then the rest will not materialize.
edit on 16-3-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join