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.

 

The US economy explained in 2 minutes, by Robert Reich

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   


Former minister of labor under Clinton does a wonderful job explaining the truth about the US economy.




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
That video explains nothing!
It is a socialist agenda for equality and spreading the wealth.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 



No, I don't think so. I believe it states it very simply! The tax base is drying up because the middle class is being decimated. plain and simple.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by robwerden
That video explains nothing!
It is a socialist agenda for equality and spreading the wealth.


If you know anything about history, oh wait!!

Do you mean the system where everyone worked and paid taxes ?

Do you mean the system where we had people building roads that were not beating your car apart ?

Do you mean the system where we had more kids in school than we had criminals crowding our jails ?

Do you mean the system where this country actually made and exported stuff to other countries ?

I guess I'm just a little old fashioned for these modern conservative times, but I can remember all these things and many more.

They all took place in a far distant land we called America.

If there were more people working, there would not be a budget crisis.

If there were more people working, there would be more money for the upkeep of our infrastructure.

If there were more people working, there would be more money to pay good teachers. I don't remember the stats but studies have shown that we MUST build schools or we WILL build jails.

If there were more people working, there would be a greater market for things made here at home rather than imported. The more people who work the more stuff they will buy, the more they buy the more people are needed to work.

Kind of odd how this last item works out.

Oh, wait, you were talking something about socialism.

Oh yes ! I'll bet you want lower taxes on those who make the most.

Well, did you know the only taxes that are paid by those in business are calculated on their profits.

I am not against profits, but the easiet way to hold down taxes on profits is to reinvest it into your own business.
Put more people to work and the demand for your product will come.
edit on 28-6-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Interesting that he mentioned the friction being caused between the private and public sector. It is something that is being openly pushed by government in the UK and will only get worse after the strikes on Thursday. Interesting to see an American analysis that matches so closely with what is happening in the UK.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Thirty years of "trickle-down" economics that were intended to see all boats rise and look where we are at.

The majority have been sold a bridge in Brooklyn and have yet to realize it's a sham.

Our corporations are sitting on vast amounts of cash, waiting to see what Washington will do next. The same thing happened during the recession at the end of senior Bush's term in office. The rich had plenty, but were hesitant to put it to use because they were uncertain and the majority suffered.

So what was the goal of supply-side economics? If it was to make the rich far richer, than Mission Accomplished.

If it was truly intended to benefit the vast majority, than it appears to be an abject failure.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Hessling because: spelling



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
Do you mean the system where this country actually made and exported stuff to other countries ?

Oh, wait, you were talking something about socialism.


Do you mean overpriced American goods before China entered the scene?


Socialism is only possible with a tax rate of 50% or more (which stifles domestic consumption) and heavy government borrowing. Germany can afford to be socialist because they are the best engineering nation in the world (ahead of Japan, even) and as long as they make BMWs that the world buys they're okay. Try that with American products. I'd rather shoot myself than drive an American car.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
Socialism is only possible with a tax rate of 50% or more (which stifles domestic consumption) and heavy government borrowing.


Not true. Look at the Scandinavian model. High tax rates, but no substantial government borrowing. I attended a guest lecture by the Nobel Laureate winner professor Stiglitz and he provided a long list of argument as for why the American model is not sustainable (which is currently being shown) while the Scandinavian model is. I'll provide my notes later on as I need to go now.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by eldard
 


Yea !

The socialism like we had in the early 1950's with tax rates at over 90%.

Did you learn anything about this in your school in China ??

Or maybe you were to busy walking everywhere you went because we didn't have the Chinese, or much Japanese, copies of the American cars available.

Almost everything which you can find made overseas and imported into the states was invented or innovated here and most of the companies and plants which now make these things there was once located here.

Rather than trying to act cute and smart, try getting some knowledge so at least you can become a little smarter.

If you are serious about not driving an American car I hope you will use one of those great Chinese guns, an American gun would actually be reliable.

I can't help you about the cute part. If I could I would help my self first.
edit on 28-6-2011 by hdutton because: after thought



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Fix for the economy: Do the opposite of what Robert Reich recommends.

Second line second time: Do the opposite of what Robert Reich recommends.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Here is the real truth.

The economy is based on spending. The more people spend the better the economy.
Why are people not spending?
A: Because the devaluation of the currency through inflation drives prices up on things people need to survive so they are less likely to spend money.

How do you fix the economy?
A: You stop inflation by removing the cause of the devaluation of the currency. In the case of the USA the culprit is the federal reserve. So step 1 is to end the FED. Second you base the currency on commodity metals like gold and silver to prevent the treasury from diluting the money supply.

When a country has a stable currency, then prices are more stable and spending resumes because savers know the money they have in the bank will buy the same goods and services in 20 years as it does today.

The key is stability in the money supply.

This is the way the Constitution demanded we manage our currency and it was socialists and greedy banks who convinced the American public keynesian economics was the solution to the market corrections we were going through in the 20th century. What these scum bags never told us was after 100 years the entire system would fall like a house of cards, and the exodus from the gold standard in 1971 sped up the downfall even faster.

Don't spew your socialist communist economic alice in wonder land theories at me, I will destroy you with my article 1 section 8 laser cannon.
buh by



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


It's almost as if you are asleep and dream typing. You have no clue what your talking about except the delusion that you are some how making any sense.
Nothing of what you said is accurate or based on any sound economic principle other than socialism and communist agendas.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by eldard
Socialism is only possible with a tax rate of 50% or more (which stifles domestic consumption) and heavy government borrowing.


Not true. Look at the Scandinavian model. High tax rates, but no substantial government borrowing. I attended a guest lecture by the Nobel Laureate winner professor Stiglitz and he provided a long list of argument as for why the American model is not sustainable (which is currently being shown) while the Scandinavian model is. I'll provide my notes later on as I need to go now.


Scandinavia = low population, very rich resources = same with Canada

ALL socialist countries DEPEND on trading with other nations.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
It's REALLY simple when you think about it.. When MORE people have disposable income, they spend MORE, creating a demand for MORE goods, creating a demand for MORE jobs/services/etc. When all that "wealth" that normally went to a majority of a population now goes to a small minority, there is a great reduction in the needs for goods, blammo, less jobs.

$10,000,000 in the hands of 100,000 will create a stronger "economy" then $10,000,000 in the hands of only 10. Sure, the "super rich" will splurge now and again, but those 10 will never come close to creating the needed jobs/services/etc that the 100,000 people will.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
It's REALLY simple when you think about it.. When MORE people have disposable income, they spend MORE, creating a demand for MORE goods, creating a demand for MORE jobs/services/etc. When all that "wealth" that normally went to a majority of a population now goes to a small minority, there is a great reduction in the needs for goods, blammo, less jobs.

$10,000,000 in the hands of 100,000 will create a stronger "economy" then $10,000,000 in the hands of only 10. Sure, the "super rich" will splurge now and again, but those 10 will never come close to creating the needed jobs/services/etc that the 100,000 people will.



So to get the money in 100,000 peoples hands, how do you suggest that happens? Let me guess, you tax the wealthy and hand out the money to the poor. Boy that sounds allot like socialism to me.

How about you allow the free market to work with out regulations that hamper them to the point where they send their companies overseas. Maybe then corporations will set up manufacturing in the US and actually provide employment for those 100,000 people. Then the money would be in their hands through earning it instead of taxing (stealing) from all off us so a social safety net can entice the lower and middle class to not work and leech off the tax payers who do work.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by eldard
 


Yea !

The socialism like we had in the early 1950's with tax rates at over 90%.


Been there, done that: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Did you learn anything about this in your school in China ??

Or maybe you were to busy walking everywhere you went because we didn't have the Chinese, or much Japanese, copies of the American cars available.


You betcha. I'd rather walk than ride in an inferior American car.



Almost everything which you can find made overseas and imported into the states was invented or innovated here and most of the companies and plants which now make these things there was once located here.


Who. Gives. A. Sh!t.

What matters is who makes the better versions now.


If you are serious about not driving an American car I hope you will use one of those great Chinese guns, an American gun would actually be reliable.


Yes. Because uncomplicated non-electronic stuff is what Americans do best.



I can't help you about the cute part. If I could I would help my self first.
edit on 28-6-2011 by hdutton because: after thought


Boring! and irrelevant to this discussion.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


And try increasing Sweden's population to 100 million and we'll see what happens. They'll probably sell their golden hairs on the precious metals markets.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


No, I do not believe in simply "handing out money" to the poor. What needs to change is multifaceted. Handing out money will not "fix" our situation. We need to relearn how to care about others. We actually have to give a crap about those in our communities. People seem to be getting caught up in their own egos, and only care about #1. We have a completely self-involved, self-absorbed culture. Greed is good, dog eat dog, whatever. I don't believe in handouts, but I think people should be payed fair wages for fair labor. I don't believe in serfdom, where a majority works for the benefit of a very small minority.

Things are out of whack, and have been for a long time, and it continues exponentially in that direction. Welfare is not going to help, but good paying jobs will. We need to wake up and realize what's really important in life. In the end, it's not about money, or wealth, but about power and control. Those with the power and control want more of it at the subjugation of everyone else around them.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
reply to post by robwerden
 

I don't believe in handouts, but I think people should be payed fair wages for fair labor.


True. But business is not about altruism. And people will do business wherever they'll earn the most. You can be the most hardworking or patriotic people (whatever that means) but if no one wants to invest in your backwater state or nation it all means nothing. Unless you're content with what you have.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by robwerden
Here is the real truth.

The economy is based on spending. The more people spend the better the economy.
Why are people not spending?
A: Because the devaluation of the currency through inflation drives prices up on things people need to survive so they are less likely to spend money.

How do you fix the economy?
A: You stop inflation by removing the cause of the devaluation of the currency. In the case of the USA the culprit is the federal reserve. So step 1 is to end the FED. Second you base the currency on commodity metals like gold and silver to prevent the treasury from diluting the money supply.

When a country has a stable currency, then prices are more stable and spending resumes because savers know the money they have in the bank will buy the same goods and services in 20 years as it does today.

The key is stability in the money supply.

This is the way the Constitution demanded we manage our currency and it was socialists and greedy banks who convinced the American public keynesian economics was the solution to the market corrections we were going through in the 20th century. What these scum bags never told us was after 100 years the entire system would fall like a house of cards, and the exodus from the gold standard in 1971 sped up the downfall even faster.

Don't spew your socialist communist economic alice in wonder land theories at me, I will destroy you with my article 1 section 8 laser cannon.
buh by


::Sigh::


The economy is based on spending. The more people spend the better the economy.


Right and wrong. Right in the sense that spending money strengthens an economy because it circulates wealth. Wrong, because in practice.... the more money you spend... the more is taken OUT of circulation.

2% of Americans have over 40% of the money. How did this happen? 98% of American's spend their money but it ultimately ends up stockpiled in the accounts of these 2%.

Spending more money faster will reach the opposite goal of balancing the economy. It exaggerates the problem, since the problem is that 98% of people are fighting over what is factually too little for them to get by on.

The estimated population of America is 300 million. The estimated amount of USD$ in circulation is $575 billion.

2% of 300 million people is 6 million people. 40% of that $575 billion is $230 billion.

6 million people get to share $230 billion dollars. 294 million people get to share $345 billion. Nearly every dollar spent on consumer products, out of that $345B, goes directly to that 2% minority. Hence, growing their $230B, and reducing the share of the 98% majority, the $345B.

So, as we consumers spend, spend, spend... our 345$ billion in curculation dwindles, whilst the $230 billion of the 2% grows.

The problem with the economy is simply put... too much consolidation of money into to small a fraction of the population of the people.

Essentially, the Middle class is broke, and the upper class has almost all of the money. The solution I ASSURE YOU, is not to give the upper class the rest of the money. The only thing this helps is tanking the economy. Not spending your money however, will also tank the economy. The ONLY solution is to reduce the money that the upper class has and return it to the middle class. The only way to do this is to TAX THE F^&@ out of the rich. Period.


A: You stop inflation by removing the cause of the devaluation of the currency. In the case of the USA the culprit is the federal reserve. So step 1 is to end the FED. Second you base the currency on commodity metals like gold and silver to prevent the treasury from diluting the money supply.


Wrong. Inflation is a symptom that is caused by increasing the amount of money in circulation because of the problem I demonstrated above. What happens when the Upper class has all the money? Simply put, you print more money. Printing more money, then devalues the currency in question. This is NOT about getting rich. This is NOT about stealing money. This is not about Greed. This is about bankrupting nations PURPOSEFULLY.

The more money you print, the less value it has, so if you had all of the money, essentially you maintain the same wealth. (I.E. The Super rich stay super rich... even in an inflated economy.) The money doesn't need to be backed by commodity metals. You do NOT need a currency backed by gold. The dollar hasn't been, but it not being backed by commodity is NOT the reason for the inflation. The inflation IS the reason we aren't backed by commodity. So, in that respect.. the opposite is actually true.

In theory it would prevent inflation... but what happens when your money gets consolidated and you don't want to give it back? You create inflation. So you drop your commodity backing. Which is exactly what the U.S. did. The "Gold" standard was only ever used as a metric to weigh if an economy was in proportion... It made sure you had the optimum amount of currency in circulation.

This is it's only function. We do not need a commodity backed dollar, we just need to understand that there is a certain amount of money allowed to be in circulation for any give population. If you exceed money in circulation...the value is then reduced. All that is required here.. is a law that states what the limits must be. (You must consider, we have already established a value for the dollar, independent of commodity.)

Remember though, we wouldn't have this problem of inflation, had the money NOT have been essentially consolidated to the vast minority. What we have now, is, a corporate monopoly. There are way to few companies making way to much money. There is not enough competition and as such... the money ends up sitting in the accounts of these mega corporations. The reason why "Monopoly" is against the law is because it removes money from circulation... which then collapses economies. The problem is, we allow Monopolies to exist, because they bought policy to allow themselves to maintain their positions.


The only way to fix this, is to break up the monopolies, super tax the extreme wealthy.... (read: create a new catagory that is in proportion to the amount that is yearly earned for that 2%.) Give control back to the states, shrink the government and return to mom and pop shops that are privately owned. This is capitalism. What we have now... is essentially corporatocracy.

You would also need to return the ability to print and control the money in circulation back to the government. Essentially you NEED the fed. You can't have an economy without an equal organization. However, the FED is privately owned... and is above the law. The FED needs to be government run... by NON-corrupt politics. This goes hand in hand with the idea of smaller government.

I rest my case.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join