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.

 

Ron Paul A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul

page: 34
50
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
this thread is proof to the power of trolling.

just poke the ants nest a few times with a sharp stick then run...




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


You are funny. Its like you pick what part to attack and where to draw conclusions. I don't think many people disagree on the issues. Not you or I. Where we don't see eye to eye is on how to deal with it. Calling me a boot licker doesn't make my point not valid. We agree on the problem even despite your personal attack and failure to read what I wrote. I just think abolishing government programs is not the way to go.

Also I was not discussing Imperialism. It is Cultural Imperialism Theory



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
OK buddy, why don't you tell me who to vote for then? Who's rings do you kiss? Why should I vote for your candidate? Can you give me some quality youtube videos to convince me on your pick?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter


Let's review!



Let's review Again.
edit on 9-5-2011 by HappilyEverAfter because: to add


I have already showed how QE has worked and why we needed it. If you are trying to use a cheaply done animation and a hitler parody to prove you point, your not doing very well. Im glad hitler is one of your role models who you take facts from, its makes for an excellent argument.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi

I have already showed how QE has worked and why we needed it.


LOL



That has to be the funniest crap I've ever heard in my life.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


um gorgi has replied with facts each time. you however reply with nothing useful for the discussion.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by gorgi
 


He doesnt want to just get rid of institutions like these, he just believes they should not exist at the federal level because they become too powerful, as did our founding fathers. He wants to let states chose what programs to have etc. and as for being "wrong" he has predicted the swing of the economy more than almost anyone else. While most politicians talk about gay marriage and abortion hes talking about the real issue, our economy.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nastyness19
reply to post by gorgi
 


He doesnt want to just get rid of institutions like these, he just believes they should not exist at the federal level because they become too powerful, as did our founding fathers.


So he wants to get rid of them. They need power to do their purpose. What would be the point of having an agency with no power?
The founding fathers did want federal oversight.


He wants to let states chose what programs to have etc.



Sates do have rights. Having states pick and choose what laws they want to follow and what agencies they have with regard to what the federal govt does now would be extremely inefficient. Businesses would not be able to be in too any states because of all the strange new laws each one would have because the federal govt does not have one for all.


and as for being "wrong" he has predicted the swing of the economy more than almost anyone else. While most politicians talk about gay marriage and abortion hes talking about the real issue, our economy.


He has been constantly wrong on how the economy has been preforming and why its has been doing so. he has missed it so many times.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconRiot
I don't think many people disagree on the issues. Not you or I. Where we don't see eye to eye is on how to deal with it.


I would agree with that. From what I see in this thread are common areas of concern.

I would say that, outside of an isolated environmental protest the last thirty years, the power of citizens to put pressure on legislatures to demand change was last seen in the 1970s. I bring up Love Canal as an example of citizen action.

After 1970s citizen anger resulting in direct action was directed to cultural issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, and whose religion was best for saving souls and America, and away from government.

The Have-Mores also harnessed citizen anger to their side with tax issues. For example, Republican pollster Frank Luntz acknowledged that the phrase "death tax", "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not", thus making even a Have-Less (even Have-Squat) rage about how the govt was taxing them to death, even though they most likely wouldn't need to ever pay them, as the Inheritance Tax historically was indeed a tax on the Have-Mores.

Yes, govt must be reformed, which implies action, re-forming, not just penciling out part of it on paper, in order to work for not just the Have-Mores but the Have-Less-Than the-Have -Mores. Can offices be managed better, with bigger bite to go after offenders or fraud? Yes.

While we are showing income disparity at an alarming rate historically comparable to less developed countries, and in an increasingly complex, global era, there are many who want to return govt back to a one room cabin or hut, instead of accepting the necessity of the additional rooms that were created to solve increasing problems.

Citizen anger must once again be turned to pressure groups to demand change. The war on the middle class (the economic soul of this nation) is too great to expect one person to do it for us. IMO RP would only exacerbate the immense problems and challenges our country faces, as he is coming from an extremist position.
edit on 9-5-2011 by desert because: fix link



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 





The paranoia over Commie/Socialist/Marxist hiding in our closets is misplaced. Despite the increased shouting about it over the years, we're being done in by corporate control in govt and greed. Fight that, and you'll be battling the true enemy.

The Commie/Socialist/Marxist hiding in our closets are the same as the corporate cartels in control of our government.

That is TPTB's biggest weapon. They OWN both sides!


More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States.



This was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both. The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really threefold: (1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could "blow off steam," and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went "radical."

www.questionsquestions.net...


Remember JP Morgan has owned the media since 1917 so how else do you explain a "left leaning" media being "allowed" to exist.

U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...

JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

THIS is what happens if they do not want the information in print:

On a spring day in 1918 several government agents entered a print shop at Washington, D. C., where the original edition of this book was being printed. "Destroy all the Lindbergh plates in your plant," they told the head of the institution. He was forced to comply. The hysteria of war-time brooked no delays. Not only were the plates of this book "Why Is Your Country at War?" destroyed, but also the plates of Congressman Lindbergh's book "Banking and Currency," written in 1913 and attacking the big bankers and Federal Reserve Law. So was the painstaking effort of months wiped out.... www.campaignforliberty.com...


The bankers are all in favor of all those "social welfare programs" the progressives so love.



They know all about the cascading effect of all those "social" programs.

1. Politicians pass laws mandating "social programs" to "buy votes" from the "bleeding hearts"

2. Congress then goes to the FED to "Borrow" money. The FED gives them a big RUBBER check, backed by nothing but thin air.

3. Taxes are raised to pay the FED interest on the fairy dust backing the rubber check. (About 50% of the 14 trillion in US debt is OWED to the bankers and it is ALL fairy dust!)

4. The money supply is increased causing the price of goods to increase.

Here is a money supply/gold/wage chart:
Date.....$ /oz gold.. Money supply......minimum wage...min wage in gold..CEO pay in gold
1971 ......40.62.............. 81 billion...........$1.60 ...................0.0394 oz.
1974 ......195.20...........101 billion...........$2.00.....................0.0102 oz.
1976 ......124.74 ........... $113 billion.......$2.30.....................0.0184 oz............0.663.oz
1985 .....354.20 ...........$205 billion........$3.35....................0.0094 oz.
1994 .....409.80........... $ 406 billion.......$4.25.....................0.0104.oz.
2006 .....636.30 ...........$808 billion........$5.15.....................0.0081 oz.
2008 .....880.30........... $831 billion........$5.85.....................0.0066 oz.............2.44.oz
2009...1,020.28...........$1663 billion........$6.55.....................0.0064.oz.


From the beginning of 1964 ($54 billion) to the end of 2010 the bankers have made $1961.967 billion dollars in fiat currency! That is the amount they increased the money supply.

That is a factor of 36! The minimum wage in 1964 was $1.15. Is the minimum wage now $41.78????
($54 billion divided by $1961 billion equals 36. $1.15 times 36 is 41.78) (gas was around $0.15 and now it is over $4.00 and headed to $5.00 (Dan Estullin) so yes Gorgi it is a decent rough estimate)


Of course TPTB do not take the same stealth pay cut:


In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker. timelines.ws...


And the money pores into the FED from the increase in taxes to pay for the increasing Federal debt.


According to an article in The New Republic of Dec. 2, 1991, in 1948, a married couple with median income and two children, paid only 2% in state, federal, and Social Security taxes. In 1999, Social Security was 15.3%, plus 2.9% for Medicare, out of the first $62,700 in wages, or $11,411.40, and then perhaps 30% in federal taxes…if you were lucky.... www.gold-eagle.com...


15.3% +2.9% +28% + 10% =56.2% in Taxes!
(I use 10% for the state because sales tax is 5%,6%,or 7% plus a nominal 5% direct. State sales tax showed up in 30 states by 1940 and are in every state except Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon.)

WHY ever would you think the bankers are AGAINST socialism when it is such a HUGE money maker???




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
gorgi / foodman on a bicycle built for two.
I look at where I eat dinner, where I shop, where I walk, where I call home, and no where do I see ANYONE in the vincinity directly benefiting from any Q mojo magic,
I'm not hanging with the rothschilds or rockefellers, and I dont make my money off the time and lives of others with smoke and mirrors interest or credit default swaps, hedging on a collapse of my own countries systems and structure.
So youre going to have to overlook my limited simpleton intelligence where I assign value and worth to a currency based on speculation and assignment to value based on amount within circulation and actual debt.
Those lining up to oppose you on your stance probably are also well below your income level, social standing, overall net worth, and intelligence as well.
Ron Paul, like myself, is another lucky idiot who has made it 70 years on this planet just wandering in circles talking nonsense to distract attention away from the real issues, and the truth.
I'll concede and I 'll agree that creating more, printing more, and buying more currency for a nation, through a privately held concern, to then charge that nations residents a fee to pay for said currency, to then sell that currency back to myself, to then offer that currency for sale to other countries using our country as collateral, while continuing to dismantle the integrity of the domestic market base by removing manufacturing assets and ownership of said assets to independent overseas concerns, and the employment and ability to employ ,and the reduction in available wages to sustain and wages to taxes, in eroding townships, cities, states, and the ensuing failure of all related physical infrastructure,
is NOT the path that we are currently on and that we suffer no repercussion from this behavior,
I'll agree to all that if you'll agree that you benefit from all of this and that youre both the same person.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nastyness19
While most politicians talk about gay marriage and abortion hes talking about the real issue, our economy.


Here's from 2000.


Abortion-related legislation Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[200] and "an unshakable foe of abortion."[201] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[202][203][204] He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”[205] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.[206] Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."[207] Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[208] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[143] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[209] In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure." He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[210] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[211] [ed

from wikipedia

We can have stealth aircraft for war, but I do not want a return to stealth candidates or pre RvW for a war on women!



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by gorgi
 


So ahh...how's your new job with the Obama Administration working out for ya?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet

First off we have not had capitalism in the USA for over a hundred years. Fractional Reserve Banking kills capitalism because counterfeit fiat currency drives out wealth based money.

[Gresham's law - “bad money drives out good.”]

Capitalism is a system where an individual invests his WEALTH to produce more wealth.

Fractional Reserve banking is a dead short across the productive element of society diverting unearned wealth directly into the pockets of the bankers. This is because the banker invest nothing of value. His "loans" are legally null and void because he provides no consideration


Capitalism includes state capitalism, just like it includes corporations, so while the elite had a huge dishonest interest in american capitalism, it does not change the fact the usa had and continues to have capitalism. If you check out the status of all the federal agencies and FED, you will discover that either they are non-profit religious corporations OR they are general(for profit) corporations...and they are private corporations thus not traded on any stock exchange. Please save me the trouble of posting the details but you can find all of this out by visiting the delaware state registry-division of corporations.





Reagan did major damage to this country by allowing the plague of "corporate Raiders" to tear apart good decent American companies.


Corporate raiders? Are you kidding me or what? The man is known for PRIVATISION and DEREGULATION of everything undert the sun in america, just like Thatcher privatised everything under the sun in the ex-socialist united kingdom.



And just for the record the bankers are on YOUR side.
See: London School of Economics, Cecil Rhodes/Rothschild and the Fabian Society.

Did you really think Socialism and Communism would even be known to the general public without the wealth of the bankers to back them???


The rothchild family controls 50% of the wealth of the planet and most PRIVATE central banks in the world. I am not aware of any PUBLIC central banks, but I do know the bankers have controlled and financed wars, revolutions, charities and enviromental groups.

In short they control everything and everyone, but just because "the elite" have managed to infiltrate those organisations does not mean the basic ideals/principles of them have been compromised. Only the agendas have been temporarily compromised.

Capitalism cannot work in the 21 century without corporations and government overseeing them. The real issue is to deincorporate the government and fold the FED into the treasury department. Then if you want market socialism start nationalising industry, schools, hospitals, parks, prisons, museums, airlines, railroads, telephone, electricity, etc.

Sooner or later capitalism leads to private monopolies because the rules of competition do not allow competition, thus public sovereign monopolies are the only "perfect" solution. Western europe did come close in this regard but they left banking to private "independent" hands to "prevent inflation" and from then on it was a downhill spiral to croney capitalism.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet

WHY ever would you think the bankers are AGAINST socialism when it is such a HUGE money maker???


You made a pretty good post outlinning stuff here and there but most of the private fiat money went to DUMBS and other black budget projects, with little or no government supervision. You should check out donald rumsfeld stating 2.3 trillion missing just one day prior to the 9-11 trajedy!





Also how much money spent on wars of foreign aggression such as vietnam, korean peninsula, star wars BS, iraq, libya, yugoslavia, somalia, afghanistan? How much money goes to homeland security and TSA? IS ANY OF THIS NECESSARY that could not go to social welfare programs. Cutting down on medicare to save money is not acceptable!

Bankers DO HATE SOCIALISM because sooner or later people WILL FIGURE OUT what works and what does not work and will force adjustments either through peaceful means or revolution. I think it is disengenius of you to make fun of the left who have prevented more mayhem from taking place in the past!



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boomer1941
reply to post by gorgi
 


So ahh...how's your new job with the Obama Administration working out for ya?


Its going very well actually. Thanks for asking. He appointed me as a czar to oversee the infiltration of ATS. I do get paid very well.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


There is a Rothchild topic going about the rothchilds and put that insane conspiracy there. they dont own 50% of the world. I debunk Ron Paul and people bring up random other things.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Corporate raiders? Are you kidding me or what? The man is known for PRIVATISION and DEREGULATION of everything undert the sun in america, just like Thatcher privatised everything under the sun in the ex-socialist united kingdom.


YES Corporate raiders!

I did not want to go into detail, but here goes:
Reagan's Administration was the Era of the Hostile Takeover aka Leverage buyouts.
First you have to understand what a “Leveraged buyout” IS.

A leveraged buyout (or LBO, or highly-leveraged transaction (HLT), or "bootstrap" transaction) occurs when an investor, typically financial sponsor, acquires a controlling interest in a company's equity and where a significant percentage of the purchase price is financed through leverage (borrowing). The assets of the acquired company are used as collateral for the borrowed capital, sometimes with assets of the acquiring company. Typically, leveraged buyout uses a combination of various debt instruments from bank and debt capital markets...

The leveraged buyout boom of the 1980s was conceived by a number of corporate financiers, most notably Jerome Kohlberg, Jr. and later his protégé Henry Kravis. Working for Bear Stearns at the time, Kohlberg and Kravis, along with Kravis' cousin George Roberts, began a series of what they described as "bootstrap" investments...
en.wikipedia.org...

Notice the PROPERTY used for COLLATERAL of these loans was NOT owned by the Corporate Raiders! THIS is nothing more than THEFT and FRAUD! It would be like me looking at the 500 acres owned free and clear by a couple of retirees and I go to the bank and get a mortgage using that land as collateral.

This is not moral or ethical and given what happened during the Great Depression, I would be very surprised if laws were not enacted to prevent it.
Where the heck was CONGRESS. Where the heck were the COURTS when this was going on???

....Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration's relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called "junk bond" innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals.... www.econlib.org...



So what did the US government do about this highly unethical practices???

...In January 1982, former US Secretary of the Treasury William Simon and a group of investors acquired Gibson Greetings, a producer of greeting cards, for $80 million, of which only $1 million was rumored to have been contributed by the investors. By mid-1983, just sixteen months after the original deal, Gibson completed a $290 million IPO and Simon made approximately $66 million.[9] The success of the Gibson Greetings investment attracted the attention of the wider media to the nascent boom in leveraged buyouts.[10] Between 1979 and 1989, it was estimated that there were over 2,000 leveraged buyouts valued in excess of $250 billion.....
en.wikipedia.org...


A US Secretary of the Treasury started the sellout of our economy. Reagan through his laissez faire attitude did nothing to stop it.

...Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration's relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called "junk bond" innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals....www.econlib.org...



Without intervention greed took over.

Corporate takeovers became a prominent feature of the American business landscape during the seventies and eighties. A hostile takeover usually involves a public tender offer—a public offer of a specific price, usually at a substantial premium over the prevailing market price, good for a limited period, for a substantial percentage of the target firm's stock. Unlike a merger, which requires the approval of the target firm's board of directors as well as voting approval of the stockholders, a tender offer can provide voting control to the bidding firm without the approval of the target's management and directors.....

Because it allows bidders to seek control directly from shareholders—by going "over the heads" of target management—the tender offer is the most powerful weapon available to the hostile bidder. ... Although hostile bidders still need a formal merger to gain total control of the target's assets, this is easily accomplished once the bidder has purchased a majority of voting stock.

Hostile tender offers have been around for decades, but they were rare and generally involved small target firms until the mid-seventies. Then came the highly controversial multibillion-dollar hostile takeovers of very recognizable public companies. By the late eighties there were dozens of multi-billion-dollar takeovers and their cousins, leveraged buyouts (LBOs). The largest acquisition ever was the $25 billion buyout of RJR Nabisco by Kolberg Kravis and Roberts in 1989. [Editor's note: this was written in 1992.] .... www.econlib.org...


This is the result of the 1980's leveraged buyout feeding frenzy.


Of mergers and acquisitions each costing $1 million or more, there were just 10 in 1970; in 1980, there were 94; in 1986, there were 346. A third of such deals in the 1980's were hostile. The 1980's also saw a wave of giant leveraged buyouts. Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.'s, which had accounted for less than 5 percent of the profits of Wall Street brokerage houses in 1978, ballooned into an estimated 50 percent of profits by 1988...

THROUGH ALL THIS, THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP between product and paper has been turned upside down. Investment bankers no longer think of themselves as working for the corporations with which they do business. These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers.... In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America....

THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another's.

Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages.

January 29, 1989 www.nytimes.com... New York Times


America has been quietly sold off piece by piece. This is a sampling of the industries with over 50% foreign ownership, according to Source Watch www.sourcewatch.org...

* Sound recording industries - 97%
* Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
* Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
* Metal ore mining - 65%
* Wineries and distilleries - 64%
* Database, directory, Book and other publishers - 63%
* Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
* Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
* Rubber product - 53%
* Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
* Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
* Other insurance related activities - 51%
* Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
* Glass and glass product – 48%
* Coal mining – 48%



A real eye opener isn't it. But it gets worse. The Department of Homeland Security says 80% of our ports are operated by Foreigners and they are buying and running US bridges and toll roads. www.alabamaeagle.org...

Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990,before WTO was ratified, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. www.fame.org...

The problem is getting worse as this more recent article shows.

In the 1980s during the great takeover boom and hollowing out of the industrial heartland, many states adopted amendments to their corporate codes that codified directors' fiduciary duties, so-called "constituency statutes". In general, these provisions made it clear that a director need not "maximize shareholder value." Rather, in complying with their fiduciary obligations, directors may take all sorts of things into consideration - the impact of their decisions on various constituencies, including employees, the community, the environment, the color of the sky, whatever...

When these statutes were first passed, they were heralded as way to protect jobs, etc....

My problem with these statutes is that they strike me as a bit of a head fake. While they certainly give boards the power they need to protect local communities, etc should they so desire, they don't actually require directors to protect those constituencies. In effect, such statutes, simply give directors another fiduciary lever to pull when negotiating with a potential acquirer.

I've said this before, but you know a board might be very concerned about the impact of a potential acquisition on employees and the community when the bid is $69. At $75, the board's concerns about the impact on the community might start to fall away. Why not move the HQ to Paris? It's so much nicer there than Cambridge. At $85? Employees ... we have employees?!

There's no requirement that a board share the incremental price increase with those stakeholders who will lose out when a transaction is ultimately done..... lawprofessors.typepad.com...



‘Whitewashed Windows and Vacant Stores’
As I drive around my town, I can’t get the lyrics or somber melody out of my head. It is like witnessing old friends drop dead one by one.

Last week I went into town to buy some guitar strings. Band Central Station, a friend of 30 years, was gone. In its place? Nothing....

And, it isn’t just small enterprises. We lost a Circuit City, a Chevrolet dealership, tried-and-true franchises like Dairy Queen and Arby’s. Last week Sam’s Club announced it will close its local big box bulk store. Then came news that Wal-Mart, the parent company, intends to lay off 10,000 Sam’s Club Employees. Even the ubiquitous 99 cent stores have been cut in half....

So, the businesses that provided jobs are gone, the office and retail space sits vacant, likely in default. The windows get broken, the walls get tagged, the weeds grow, trash blows, and, with no one to stop it, nature begins the process of permanent destruction. The value of those businesses and real estate is now gone.
Each of these failed enterprises is a sad testament to the times we live in, but taken in their entirety, they foretell an even grimmer future. It will be a longtime before the jobs return...

The failure of Linen’s and Things is a prime example of how Wall Street plundered Main Street, robbing retailers, big and small, and leaving a trail of failure, unemployment and boarded up buildings behind.
Once Wall Street realized that success can only be so profitable but failure has unlimited potential, the race was on to loan money and securitize the debt.
....You might be familiar with the mall-based, teen-focused, accessories chain, Claire’s Stores. It was taken over in 2007 by Apollo Management LP for $3.1 billion. At the time, the chain had over $245 million in cash on hand. Today, the cash is gone. Struggling under the weight of $2.3 billion in debt, sales continue to decline....

Underlying all of this are the same activities that led to losses in sub-prime residential equities. Money was looking for a home, and some investors saw that cash could be leveraged out of these enterprises by buying them with someone else’s money and looting the assets.
The making of more and bigger loans was driven by the fees and bonuses Wall Street could earn by finding a home for private equity. They didn’t care about the quality of loans because, just like sub prime mortgages, these loans were being pooled into securities and sold.
As the market overheated, it became a breeding ground for fraud. A flurry of new court cases reveals the disturbing extent to which commercial mortgage borrowers may have doctored loan documents...
The counter parties who sold the default swaps, but only have fractional reserves to offset losses will have to turn to the government for further bailouts or not pay the banks. That is why AIG was bailed out in 2007. Should we do it again?
The investors in these commercial properties, pension funds, hedge funds, etc. will bear the losses, and will probably bring numerous class action law suits against the originators of the investment pools, further tying up vacant commercial property until the case makes it’s way through court.
But, as these were mostly Special Purpose Vehicles, registered in the Cayman Islands, the enormous profits are not only unrecoverable but cannot be taxed.
Everyone says it’s the economy and that we are “coming out of it” as though it were all a drug-induced haze. But, we aren’t coming out of anything, we are going deeper. Nothing has improved except Wall Street compensation. We still don’t make anything, export anything, or do anything that is creating marketplace returns sufficient for the profits of these firms.

They aren’t living off of the fruits of our excess, or adding value, they are eating the seed corn.





posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


NONE of THIS Leveraged buyout stuff is "CAPITALISM" it is not wealth driven but Fiat Funny Money Driven!



These Corporate raiders are NOT using their own wealth - that is the product of their own labor, to make these "deals" they are borrowing money that a banker creates out of thin air.

Stop and think, could all those leveraged buyouts actually happen if the "money" to do it had to come from someones savings???

REAL capitalism is reinvesting the fruits of YOUR labor into producing products to sell. It is not the evil here. It is the creating money out of thin air that is the problem. Money whose VALUE according to Mises is stolen from those who are last in line. The poor smucks buying products at inflated prices with devalued wages!

Now to the actual definition of Capitalism since we seem to disagree:


cap·i·tal·ism
   /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. dictionary.reference.com...



An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition:

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.


In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable. www.importanceofphilosophy.com...


Note that in neither of these definitions is there any place for "money" manufactured out of thin air and a system based on the manufacturing of money is what we now have in the USA and most of the rest of the world. - IT IS NOT CAPITALISM!

No matter how much the Banksters and Collectivists want to blame "Capitalism" it isn't even in the picture anymore except as the small Mom & Pop businesses based on private savings, struggling to keep the whole country afloat!

“If you don’t have the right to own property...you are property!” …………………...Anonymous




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Your making a circular argument, by using gold backed currency versus fiat currency, in attempt to blame collectivism? I already pointed out to you that the american government and all its agencies are private corporations, thus the states and its pseudo-citizens are "customers" of those private corporations.

Obviously you have no real rights to property and obviously the entire financial system is a pyramid scheme. I am not arguing that, but it still does not change the fact that corporations/sole propreiterships/partnerships are all business entities in a capitalist system.

European Socialism was not pure either since private central banks issued their own private fiat currency. That means socialism was infiltrated and reduced to state capitalism, just like in the good ole' usa. One way or another "the elite" get state capitalism because they own the issue of currency and now they also own most if not all of industry because weak industry is getting swallowed up by big industry.

That is what the WTO is/was all about. Globalisation of all assets by croney capitalism and privatisation of all "public" industry. The new world order may have been a socialist/communist ideal decades ago but it got taken over by "the elite", just like they took over greenpeace and wwf.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join