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.

 

A newfound 'right' for American workers

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


That's the idea of insurance, silly!
Everyone collectively pays for everyone. Comfort yourself that you will a die a saint.




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are talking about Detroit's Big 3!!!
These overcharging, union fatasses, err, employee controlled companies almost died because money that was better spent on R&D, and hedging against downturns, takeovers, debt repayments, and for future acquisitions and luring of brilliant engineering talent, went instead to workers being paid $55 an hour for simple repetitive movements (ie, wages that are not commensurate with their skill level.). Long live the workers of the world!!!


Actually no that wasn't what I was talking about. Just because unions can become corrupt in a system that is based on power and control, capitalism, it doesn't mean unions are not needed. Workers in this system have to have a voice, without unions they have none. Unions are the only legal way for workers to organize. And we need to organize just like the capitalists do.

The ONLY reason you are not working for a dollar a day in some sweat shop, like the Chinese, is because your country had a strong labour movement.

Why are Mexicans poor when they have the same capitalists system you do? Why are they poor when they have higher employment rates than the US does? It's because the capitalists are fewer than in the US (less people owning the means of production), they pay their workers next to nothing, and get away with it because they have no unions. Workers have no way to legally address the problem.

Why is it you Americans always seem to support the minority class that is taking wealth from your pocket in order to live a privileged life? Is it the illusion that you may one day be in their shoes? It's worth giving up rights and excepting crap pay for a dream? We can have a better life NOW, ALL of us.

Who's world is this, the capitalists? Or does it belong to all of us? What would Jesus say?


edit on 7/29/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And who told you I'm from Amerika? I'm from a 3rd world country. Unions were needed in the early days of manufacturing. Now it's the government's responsiblity to set minimum wage and impose safety standards. If a worker is not happy with what they earn doing simple repetitive movement and not a whole of brain power involve, then should find another employer, acquire a skill or better yet, grow a brain.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I agree with you that Unions ARE needed .. and most Unions are very beneficial and cause no issues, especially the Trade Unions.

There are a few Unions that have way to much power, power that exceeds what's needed for on the job representation and into a force of it's own creation. There should be a system in place to monitor Unions very closely that have this much power (like the UAW) because there is often crime and corruption. It seems where ever money concentrates corruption follows, Unions will continue getting a bad rap from the very few that actually cause issues.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by ANOK
 


And who told you I'm from Amerika? I'm from a 3rd world country.


Sorry an assumption as you mentioned the Detroit unions. Did you assume I was Amerikan? I'm not.

Zionist Republican, Israel? That's not a 3rd world country.


Unions were needed in the early days of manufacturing.


They are still needed. Do you think workers no longer need a collective voice? Early days of manufacturing where? Do you think the Chinese could use a union or two?


Now it's the government's responsiblity to set minimum wage and impose safety standards.


And that is OK with you, the government representing the workers? How naive can you be? The government represents capitalism because it's ran mostly by capitalists. The government can not be trusted to represent anyone but themselves.


If a worker is not happy with what they earn doing simple repetitive movement and not a whole of brain power involve, then should find another employer, acquire a skill or better yet, grow a brain.


Again how naive. Wake up my dear, there are not a whole lot of jobs out there to choose from. But that is not the point is it? The point is workers could be earning more, and not be at the mercy of a private owner as to whether they can work or not. Lack of jobs is not because people are stupid, it's because there are no jobs. All the jobs are going overseas to countries that are easier to exploit, because they have no labour movement to protect them. But guess what? Those workers will eventually organize and start demanding decent wages and working conditions, why shouldn't they?

www.taipeitimes.com...

No one wants to be exploited but they have no choice, the only thing you can do is organize and demand better conditions. The capitalists exploit until they can longer exploit, and they move on often leaving devastation in their wake.

When the economy goes to crap through bad management by the capitalists, it's the worker who loses while the private owner continues to benefit...


Oil companies poised to unveil huge profits
Britain's three biggest oil companies are set to reveal huge profits totalling almost $15bn (£9.2bn) for the past three months, with market leader Royal Dutch Shell making around $75m (£46m) per day.


Stop being so naive and wake up.


edit on 7/30/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


How about Ronald Reagan. He was the president of a union befor he was president of the US. Ronald Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild.
en.wikipedia.org...



The pistol-packing president of SAG – future United States President Ronald Reagan – also known to the FBI as Confidential Informant "T-10", testified before the committee but never publicly named names. Instead, according to an FBI memorandum in 1947: "T-10 advised Special Agent [name deleted] that he has been made a member of a committee headed by Mayer, the purpose of which is allegedly is to 'purge' the motion-picture industry of Communist party members, which committee was an outgrowth of the Thomas committee hearings in Washington and subsequent meetings . . . He felt that lacking a definite stand on the part of the government, it would be very difficult for any committee of motion-picture people to conduct any type of cleansing of their own household".[



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ANOK
 


I agree with you that Unions ARE needed .. and most Unions are very beneficial and cause no issues, especially the Trade Unions.

There are a few Unions that have way to much power, power that exceeds what's needed for on the job representation and into a force of it's own creation. There should be a system in place to monitor Unions very closely that have this much power (like the UAW) because there is often crime and corruption. It seems where ever money concentrates corruption follows, Unions will continue getting a bad rap from the very few that actually cause issues.


Power always corrupts. That is why we need a socialist economy. Then we wouldn't need unions, or governments, or welfare etc. Those are all results of an unfair distribution of wealth, caused by private ownership of the means of production. The power game starts with capitalism, and it coerces others to compete for power. Just like it forces people to compete for 'jobs'.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   


Zionist Republican, Israel? That's not a 3rd world country.


Gee, that's because I put something like that in my avatar you assume I'm from the land of thieves?



They are still needed. Do you think workers no longer need a collective voice? Early days of manufacturing where? Do you think the Chinese could use a union or two?


They could. But manufacturing will shift to Bangladesh and Vietnam and they'll have to return to their rice fields.


And that is OK with you, the government representing the workers? How naive can you be?


How naive can you be to think that I'm talking about representation? I'm talking about regulation.


Again how naive. Wake up my dear, there are not a whole lot of jobs out there to choose from. But that is not the point is it?


1) then move
2) sell flesh




The point is workers could be earning more, and not be at the mercy of a private owner as to whether they can work or not.


But they are at the mercy of the private owner. That's just the way the world works. Or they can move to France where they can't be fired but they'll have to remit half of their income to the state.


Lack of jobs is not because people are stupid, it's because there are no jobs. All the jobs are going overseas to countries that are easier to exploit, because they have no labour movement to protect them. But guess what? Those workers will eventually organize and start demanding decent wages and working conditions, why shouldn't they?


And guess what? Companies will just move elsewhere.


No one wants to be exploited but they have no choice, the only thing you can do is organize and demand better conditions. The capitalists exploit until they can longer exploit, and they move on often leaving devastation in their wake.


Or the capitalists can speed up the development of robots to replace workers?


When the economy goes to crap through bad management by the capitalists, it's the worker who loses while the private owner continues to benefit...


That's the way the world works, hunnybun.


Stop being so naive and wake up.


You're the one who needs to wake up. The world is not about kumbaya and unicorns. No one starts a business for altruistic reasons.
edit on 7/31/2011 by eldard because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/31/2011 by eldard because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/31/2011 by eldard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The 3 Branches of the Federal Government no longer define "American" as a citizen of a State.

2000 GMAC was giving new car loans to illegal immigrants with just a utility bill and a little down...they drove across the Border with their new SUV's/Trucks never to be seen again.

2005 Banks were forced by Congress to start giving mortgages to illegal aliens. 12 million illegals bought and sold homes between themselves and fled south of the border with TRILLIONS.

EMTALA Act force Hospitals to provide 100% free healthcare to illegals...which bankrupted many hospitals and caused them all to shut down...

And that's why America is dead.

The newfound "Right" was when the 3 Branches of the Federal Government no longer defined "American" as a citizen of a State.....and it ended up bankrupting the Republic. The worlds LAUGHING!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Thumbs up, mate!
If that's not proof that the West is being dismantled on purpose I don't know what is.
Yeah. Keep on wondering why, folks. Like that's gonna help.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard


Zionist Republican, Israel? That's not a 3rd world country.


Gee, that's because I put something like that in my avatar you assume I'm from the land of thieves?


Well what do you expect my dear? You made an assumption I was talking about Detroit, so you obviously made an assumption I was Amerikan, so please stop.


They could. But manufacturing will shift to Bangladesh and Vietnam and they'll have to return to their rice fields.


And then when they become organized, who are you going to exploit then?


How naive can you be to think that I'm talking about representation? I'm talking about regulation.


What? No you/we were talking about worker representation. Regulation is not representation.


1) then move
2) sell flesh



You really are being so naive, how old are you? Have you even tried getting a job yet?


But they are at the mercy of the private owner. That's just the way the world works. Or they can move to France where they can't be fired but they'll have to remit half of their income to the state.


No, that is the way the world is not the way the world works. To just accept what we are given is ridiculous. Using your logic we would still be working every hour of the day for no money, and no safety in the work place.


And guess what? Companies will just move elsewhere.


Until they have nowhere else to go. Then maybe the world will wake up to the reality of capitalist exploitation.


Or the capitalists can speed up the development of robots to replace workers?


That is a possibility. But then they'll be shooting their own foot, if no one is working and making money then no one is buying the crap they produce. See how that works?


That's the way the world works, hunnybun.


You keep saying that but it is not the way the world works, it is the way capitalists have made the economy work, exploitation of the masses for their personal benefit. Capitalism doesn't benefit the world, it benefits itself.

The world could work a whole different way, it's up to us.


You're the one who needs to wake up. The world is not about kumbaya and unicorns.


LOL I never said it was. What a ridiculous claim. Under socialism you have to actually be responsible for your own life, unlike under capitalism where all you need is money and life is easy. But money is a scarce resource controlled by the few, and most peoples life are crap because resources have been taken to be sold at profit to someone else. People used to live off the land, but that land has been taken to produce goods for the wealthy.


No one starts a business for altruistic reasons.


And no one needs to. You are not reading what I'm saying, you are making assumptions based on what you think I'm saying. The only difference is socialism uses the cooperative method of business, because it creates a more fair distribution of wealth, which creates a better society free of the many problems of poverty. This 'individual it's all about me' attitude is tearing communities apart. Communities are much more successful if they cooperate instead of compete. Artificial scarcity of resources keeps us competing unnecessarily.


Which works better, competition or cooperation? The answer, without equivocation, is cooperation. Although most people are surprised by this, scientists have repeatedly verified it in hundreds of studies since the late 1800s. Yet big business, the educational system, the health-care community, and most parents continue to encourage competition, almost totally neglecting the power of cooperation. None of these groups realizes that unabated competition may be costing billions of dollars in sales and overall decreases in human achievement.

www.charleswarner.us...


edit on 7/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   


Well what do you expect my dear? You made an assumption I was talking about Detroit, so you obviously made an assumption I was Amerikan, so please stop.


I did not make an assumption. I made a jesting example of the Detroit's Big 3 dying because of overpaid labor force.


And then when they become organized, who are you going to exploit then?


1) Africa?
2) Robots?
3) return to China since those workers would kiss the capitalists' shoes just to have their jobs back?


What? No you/we were talking about worker representation. Regulation is not representation.


I was not. I said the governments set wages and safety standards now i.e. they regulate.


You really are being so naive, how old are you? Have you even tried getting a job yet?


Irrelevant to this discussion. Stop calling me naive since you obviously don't know what it means.


No, that is the way the world is not the way the world works. To just accept what we are given is ridiculous. Using your logic we would still be working every hour of the day for no money, and no safety in the work place.


Yes. If you are low skilled who can be easiily replaced, then you'll working every hour of the day for little money and no safety in the work place if your employer is the greedy type.


Until they have nowhere else to go. Then maybe the world will wake up to the reality of capitalist exploitation.


See second response.
And replace it with what?


Or the capitalists can speed up the development of robots to replace workers?



a possibility. But then they'll be shooting their own foot, if no one is working and making money then no one is buying the crap they produce. See how that works?


And who told you no one would be working and making money? There's always someone somewhere making a killing. Producers will simply go after that


You keep saying that but it is not the way the world works, it is the way capitalists have made the economy work, exploitation of the masses for their personal benefit. Capitalism doesn't benefit the world, it benefits itself.


That is the way the world works whether you like or not. That had been the system before you were born and will remain so long after you die.


LOL I never said it was. What a ridiculous claim. Under socialism you have to actually be responsible for your own life,


And notice how socialist countries have to depend on trading with capitalists countries?


unlike under capitalism where all you need is money and life is easy. But money is a scarce resource controlled by the few, and most peoples life are crap because resources have been taken to be sold at profit to someone else.


There's always Cuba and North Korea.



People used to live off the land, but that land has been taken to produce goods for the wealthy.


Eh, there's a lot of unused land in the world. Most people are too lazy to farm and prefer to move to cities even if they have to live under deplorable conditions..


And no one needs to. You are not reading what I'm saying, you are making assumptions based on what you think I'm saying. The only difference is socialism uses the cooperative method of business, because it creates a more fair distribution of wealth, which creates a better society free of the many problems of poverty.


1) how many communist countries have failed now?
2) you cannot distribute non-existent wealth

edit on 8/1/2011 by eldard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
1) Africa?
2) Robots?
3) return to China since those workers would kiss the capitalists' shoes just to have their jobs back?


Capitalists are not required to create jobs, if the means of production are available people will use them to better their lives, no one needs to own the means. So again robots? Who is going to buy your products if no one is making money?

BTW Africa has been raped and exploited for couple of hundred years already.


While images of Africa’s poverty and disease are regularly shown in western media, the corporations responsible for the continuous exploitation of the land’s mineral and human resources resulting in Africa’s dreadful condition see the world’s largest continent as the land of opportunity...


And you wonder why I call you naive?


I was not. I said the governments set wages and safety standards now i.e. they regulate.


I said unions are needed to represent workers, you said no government does that. Government does not represent the workers. You might naively think it does but it doesn't. Government is ran by and for the capitalists.


Irrelevant to this discussion. Stop calling me naive since you obviously don't know what it means.


Yes it is relevant, because if you've never competed for a job then you are in no position to claim workers can simply find new work. You have no idea how hard it is to find a job. So yes your position is based on naivety.


Yes. If you are low skilled who can be easiily replaced, then you'll working every hour of the day for little money and no safety in the work place if your employer is the greedy type.


And you think that is the way it should be? You think there is no alternative, and we just have to put up with it?

Again that logic would mean YOU would still be working like they did in the 1800's. Unless of course you are a private owner and that is what you want?


See second response.
And replace it with what?


What do you think, did you read my post? Socialism. Or preferably Libertarian Socialism.



And who told you no one would be working and making money? There's always someone somewhere making a killing. Producers will simply go after that.


Oh boy, if you use robots then no one is going to be working are they? You are being completely naive again, you think all people can make money without a job? Seriously?


That is the way the world works whether you like or not. That had been the system before you were born and will remain so long after you die.


You keep repeating the same nonsense. The 1800's industrial revolution was the way things were then, but guess what? We changed it. Things can change for the better. Are you afraid of change?


And notice how socialist countries have to depend on trading with capitalists countries?


What socialist countries? There are no socialist countries. National health care does not make a country socialist, the workers ownership of the means of production does.


There's always Cuba and North Korea.


Sorry but they are not socialist countries.


Eh, there's a lot of unused land in the world. Most people are too lazy to farm and prefer to move to cities even if they have to live under deplorable conditions..


More naivety. Yes there are lots of unused land, but try claiming that land and living on it. You will find pretty quick that someone owns that land. laziness had nothing to do with it, lack of resources does.


1) how many communist countries have failed now?
2) you cannot distribute non-existent wealth


What communist countries, and who the hell is talking about communism? There has been no communist countries. Be specific, name a country you think is/was communist and we can discus it. I guess all left wing systems are communism to you? You don't even have the education to understand the differences, and you think you can convince me I'm wrong?

None existent wealth? What is wealth to you? If people have food, housing, health care, then they are wealthy.
It takes nothing but human effort to supply what we need, but your system of capitalism creates artificial scarcity of all resources including labour. Money is an illusion for control, nothing more nothing less.


edit on 8/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


My question to the floor was a little more specific. If we decided the government should get out of the safety net business tomorrow, what would the next day look like on the street?

It is well and good to discuss theories but I am concerned about the immediate effects. In 2005 we (I mean we as a collective) gave 2,000,000 people checks through welfare. I am sure that is higher today. Where would 2,000,000 people come looking for their breakfast the day after tomorrow when the well runs dry?

Sure organizations including churches can help, but history does not support this. The poor historically have depended on the goodness of their neighbors. Would we see 2,000,000 beggars on the street corners? How long would they be willing to passively wait for some cash? I believe you underestimate the potential.

I think we have a tiger by the tail on this one. I don't like it, I do not support a free ride, but a ready solution I have not heard. If they have a large voting block on the rolls (let's call it what it is), it is just another tool to remain firmly entrenched at the trough.

The middle class rioting? I agree more Americans need to make a stand but too few understand the pot they are slowly boiling in. In the end it changes nothing anyway. I know many eschew "violent protest" but I offer: what else has ever changed anything? Magna Carta: by force. US Constitution: by revolution. Peaceful anti-war protest circa 2003: Who? What? Really?


www.govspot.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 


I think a lot of people have the false assumption that most people have enough money. They don't realise the extent of poverty, even in the US.

Church's can barely feed the homeless now, let alone if they stopped SSI etc.

This system we have is not sustainable. We need to get serious and look at things like permaculature, sustainable living. But those with the power to change things don't want change for the better, they want to take us back to the pre-labour movement sweatshops.

If the workers owned the means of production we could produce what we need, not produce for the greed of the few. Money is an illusion, all we need is the machinery in order to produce what we need.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Some good thoughts.

The folks on SSI and Welfare do not include those with marginal incomes of which there are probably millions more. I do not want to stereotype these folks but I do not know the percentage of whom would want to or know how to pull themselves up.

People 100 or 200 years ago lived fine on what they could procure from their surroundings. Granted they did not have laptops, cell phones, or other things we consider necessities. Maybe that painful adjustment is what is needed. It would redefine wealth and prosperity.

I do believe the deceleration trauma would be dramatic to many.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Oh come on we all know that WE all pay the taxes according to our buying power. Every dollar that any person spent is taxed. Every item you purchase is taxed, which on top of the item you purchased taxes are passed off to the consumer to pay. Corporations do not really pay ANY taxes, as they pass that off to the purchaser, even if they wrote a billion dollar check to taxes, the corporation passes those costs to the consumer.

The rich taxes are generally sufficiently lower then the average Joe. This is because those that are rich have all kinds of tax deduction loopholes to mitigate their final tax. Middle and lower class generally do not have any deductions and on top of using most of their money to live, paying tax on every red cent, that they earn. So as to the OP's point. The elite influenced the government to fund wars forever, that the nation is firmly against, sucking our country into financial ruins. The rich benefit from government contracts. The middle class benefit from a job. The poor have to rely on public support. And now cutting social security, without reducing the amount of social security being taken out of our checks is a TAX.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Capitalists are not required to create jobs,


Then require them if you want to. Wake me up if they comply.


if the means of production are available people will use them to better their lives, no one needs to own the means.


Starting any production means requires...tadah! Capital!


So again robots? Who is going to buy your products if no one is making money?


Not everyone is engaged in producing. The biggest company in the world, Walmart, does buy and sell i.e. it's a service oriented business. The next biggest companies are the oil companies who again, don't produce. The biggest producing company is Toyota. The wealthiest men in the world didn't get there through manufacturing. They're mostly in the services industry.


BTW Africa has been raped and exploited for couple of hundred years already.


China was raped by countless foreign powers, too. Yet they're progressing.


While images of Africa’s poverty and disease are regularly shown in western media, the corporations responsible for the continuous exploitation of the land’s mineral and human resources resulting in Africa’s dreadful condition see the world’s largest continent as the land of opportunity...

And you wonder why I call you naive?


Even if everyone leaves Africa alone, it will still be the exact same place. And AFrica's biggest problem are the warlords, who you know, are Africans themselves? Naive, much?



I was not. I said the governments set wages and safety standards now i.e. they regulate.


I said unions are needed to represent workers, you said no government does that. Government does not represent the workers. You might naively think it does but it doesn't. Government is ran by and for the capitalists.

I said unions are no longer needed because they've become superflous because of the government.


Irrelevant to this discussion. Stop calling me naive since you obviously don't know what it means.



Yes it is relevant, because if you've never competed for a job then you are in no position to claim workers can simply find new work. You have no idea how hard it is to find a job. So yes your position is based on naivety.


With brain power like mine, I don't need to compete.
I'm actually about to start my own business.


Yes. If you are low skilled who can be easiily replaced, then you'll working every hour of the day for little money and no safety in the work place if your employer is the greedy type.


And you think that is the way it should be? You think there is no alternative, and we just have to put up with it?

Let's put this way. If I were an employee, of course I'd want to unionize. If I were an employer, I wouldn't want unions. Let's leave it at that.

Choose the alternative you want from the ff:

1) communism
2) socialism
3) absolute monarchy
4) Feudalism
5) hunter-gathering
6) Star Trek style world (not available til 2450)


Again that logic would mean YOU would still be working like they did in the 1800's. Unless of course you are a private owner and that is what you want?


What you or i want won't change a thing.



What do you think, did you read my post? Socialism. Or preferably Libertarian Socialism.


And do you know how Socialist countries make their income?


Oh boy, if you use robots then no one is going to be working are they? You are being completely naive again, you think all people can make money without a job? Seriously?


Already answered.


You keep repeating the same nonsense. The 1800's industrial revolution was the way things were then, but guess what? We changed it. Things can change for the better. Are you afraid of change?


No. But fact is, capitalists will invest and divest according to their desire for profit.


What socialist countries? There are no socialist countries. National health care does not make a country socialist, the workers ownership of the means of production does.


That must be why German and Jap car makers are moving production to countries where workers don't own the means of production?



Sorry but they are not socialist countries.


If you say so.


More naivety. Yes there are lots of unused land, but try claiming that land and living on it. You will find pretty quick that someone owns that land. laziness had nothing to do with it, lack of resources does.


I come from such a country where millions abandoned land they own, selling them for cheap, because they'd rather be in cities, thinking it's easier there.


What communist countries, and who the hell is talking about communism? There has been no communist countries. Be specific, name a country you think is/was communist and we can discus it. I guess all left wing systems are communism to you? You don't even have the education to understand the differences, and you think you can convince me I'm wrong?


Oh, you love semantics. You must either from New York or Canada.



None existent wealth? What is wealth to you? If people have food, housing, health care, then they are wealthy.


If hard work = wealth. Then all those hard working Haitian farmers shoud be millionaires by now. No?


It takes nothing but human effort to supply what we need, but your system of capitalism creates artificial scarcity of all resources including labour. Money is an illusion for control, nothing more nothing less.


As I've said, choose another system. Or better yet, invent another one.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 


False flag? Problem solved.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard

Originally posted by ANOK
Capitalists are not required to create jobs,


Then require them if you want to. Wake me up if they comply.


My mistake, that should say capitalism is not requited, not needed, to create jobs as you claimed.

'Jobs' are really not what we want anyway, we want to be able to provide ourselves with resources we need for life, but your system takes those resources away, and hordes them, making them artificially scarce in order to make us work for you, to get money, to give back to you for the resources we need.

The system only benefits you, not me and the rest of the world. Your kind belong in the 1800's, your system is dying, but you're taking us with you, and we have NO CHOICE, because your system has taken away that choice.

It's not YOUR land it's OURS.


edit on 8/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join