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.

 

Millions Dead And People Accept It As Perfectly Normal

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Natural monopolies do not exist.

They are a fiction promoted by Keynesian looters - the same people who brought you the Federal Reserve.

Competition always negates monopolies in a free market.





edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


This comment from that article should be added:

# Ed New Dec 31, 2009 6:56 PM GMT PS,

in case anybody doubts what's happening: That this year has been a tough one for small business is no surprise. But just how tough it has been continues to astound.

In the first quarter alone, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 400,000 businesses with fewer than 100 employees ceased operations, eliminating one million jobs.

And it didn't get much better as the year went on. "This is arguably the worst year for small business since the Great Depression," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com. When the numbers get that big, it can be easy to forget the human beings behind the numbers.
www.businessweek.com...


ONE MILLION JOBS in one quarter!!!!



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Government has brought you ... roads that kill 40,000 people a year.


So when people ask you about personal accountability instead of responding you just ignore them?
Or when people point out that there are better solutions through new technology like Google's autonomous passenger cars. You'd rather point fingers at the state and the roads themselves rather than the drivers and the fallibility of all humans? What a sound and well-reasoned argument.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mishmashum
 


Google is not government, so trying to inject them into a debate about government road management makes me


In fact, you just made my point for me.

I suppose I should thank you.



edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Google is not government ...

And roads don't kill people. So what's your point? Let me guess all the benefits of roads are the results of capitalism whereas all the deaths that happen on them are the fault of the evil guberment? The fact is technology solves problems, ideologies don't. Technology and innovation occur independently and agnostic of the private and public sector. Based on the rhetoric I'd guess you're probably some old blowhard who didn't even graduate from high school. How's that electric universe theory panning out?

edit on 18-8-2011 by Mishmashum because: clarifying the point, didn't intend it to sound so vitriolic



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Don't you support "tort reform"? i.e., measures to make it vastly more difficult to file suits?

...Privatize the courts. Really. You really just said that. Wow.

And still waiting to hear who doesn't use roads, Mnmeth.


I support making courts "loser pays" private courts, whereby the loser of a court case pays the legal fees of the winner.

This would automatically limit frivolous lawsuits.


edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


then the corporate collectives can get away with anything, provided the individual doesn't
posses a 25 million dollar legal team



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mishmashum
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Let me guess roads as a technology were invented by the state? You're probably some old blowhard who didn't even graduate from high school. How's that electric universe theory panning out?


The first major roads in America were pay-for-use turnpikes.

The operators of those roads went out of business because government refused to enforce the toll operators properties rights. People would simply go around the toll booth and not pay, and the State would do nothing about it because the State wanted to take over the roadways.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The first major roads in America were pay-for-use turnpikes.


So I guess the Native Americans don't count? No one's arguing that economies and government don't interact. The argument is more that it's wrong headed to say all the benefits and fruits of a system are the results of private industry, whereas all the negatives are a direct manifestation of government. Trying to argue this as true is just so mind-numbingly daft it almost doesn't warrant comment. Here's a book about roads and the interaction between societies. Governments were often the innovators of roads or do you intend to interject some revisionist history?
edit on 18-8-2011 by Mishmashum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Why is it you assume that all accidents are caused by road mismanagement, and not by faulty drivers? What about the thousands of crashes caused by drunk drivers, talking on phones and texting, etc?

I have never seen an insurance investigator put the road at fault, instead of one of the drivers.

You can easily change my mind by giving me an example of what a private company would do that would actually prevent any deaths. Potholes aren't killing people.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Natural monopolies do not exist.

They are a fiction promoted by Keynesian looters - the same people who brought you the Federal Reserve.

Competition always negates monopolies in a free market.

(Wish I could see the video)

I was wondering about that. The optimum size principle is violated by large corporations.

Large corporations are always going to be inefficient because of all the layers of management combined with the peter principle. Once the owner(s) do not have direct contact with the employees and customers you have someone else's "Agenda" creeping into the picture as well. With layers of management you get reams of paperwork and paper pushing which is highly ineffective and nothing but a waste of money.

There are only two reasons I can see why large corporations can exist

First because the Corporations run the Bureaucracies writing the regs and they are effectively exempted. SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA's “Don't Look, Don't Know” Policy - THAT article will change your mind about who the regs. actually benefit and it isn't the customer. Just make sure you read it on an empty stomach....

Second the bureaucracies saddle small businesses with the same paperwork large Corporations have to have to run, effectively negating the advantage of the smaller company.

Third because the large Corporations are funded by wealth stolen via "Fractional Reserve Banking" or the printing of bank script.


EXPLANATION for those not familiar with how "Fractional Reserve Banking" is actually a sophisticated form of theft.

Mises concluded that money is neither a consumption good nor a capital good....

Money facilitates both production and consumption, but it is neither a production good nor a consumption good.

Money is therefore a separate analytical category.

Because money is not capital [real wealth], he concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value if you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises's theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges. [with the doubling of the money supply we can certainly see the truth of the above statement cv]

.... Because the free market always maximizes the utility of the existing money supply, changes in the money supply inescapably have the characteristic features of a zero-sum game.... The existing money is an example of a "fixed pie of social value." Adding to the money supply does not add to its value.

Mises argued that the losses of the late-coming losers are the source of income for the early arrival winners. This inescapably identifies the monetary system as a zero-sum game....

New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money

It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of profits [of those who receive early access to the new money cv]

Mises on Money: www.lewrockwell.com...



Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. He declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:


"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit. "



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




I just happen to notice in the comparative photos, the Disney Road appears to be pedestrian, while the Detroit road seems to be in a mostly abandoned part of town. Two extremes.

Anyhoo. Certainly let private roads be built! Build away. I just don't think many people would use them.
(For reasons mentioned by myself and others above).


Yeah I love how the Disney picture is a bright, sunny day, with high contrast and lots of pedestrians. The other photo it is cloudy, raining, underpopulated and under saturated. That's bias photo selection for ya right there. Let's find the one picture of public roads that illustrates our point, and ignore the thousands of other pictures were the roads are in great condition.

Also, OP, you realize Disneyland primarily only accommodates pedestrian traffic? I wonder how much easier it would be to keep roads in repair of no one ever drove on them.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Hmmm...

Some guy who's steering with his knee whilst eating a Big Mac, sipping a hot coffee, trying to tune in the radio to find the latest baseball scores, and checking out the hot blonde walking down the sidewalk suddenly drives over a pothole...

Hmmm...

Yup, damn those dangerous potholes !!



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Akasirus
 





I have never seen an insurance investigator put the road at fault, instead of one of the drivers.


TOO bad you were not there when the other driver and I jumped all over the cop because it was the TOWN's fault the accident occurred...

The is a VERY good reason why you need the governments "PERMISSION"
to sue them.

Oh and my best buddy won his suit against the city of Rochester for causing his accident.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Privatization is not the answer to make roads safer. Some toll roads are fine, but no way in hell i would agree to make all the major highways for-profit. If you allow privatization on all roads they could make rules/laws like no vehicle over 8yrs old allow to drive on these roads. They could get away with crap like that since the state no longer owns the roads.

We already paid for the highways, no way we should hand it over to a private corporation to bend us over a barrel to drive on.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akasirus

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




I just happen to notice in the comparative photos, the Disney Road appears to be pedestrian, while the Detroit road seems to be in a mostly abandoned part of town. Two extremes.

Anyhoo. Certainly let private roads be built! Build away. I just don't think many people would use them.
(For reasons mentioned by myself and others above).


Yeah I love how the Disney picture is a bright, sunny day, with high contrast and lots of pedestrians. The other photo it is cloudy, raining, underpopulated and under saturated. That's bias photo selection for ya right there. Let's find the one picture of public roads that illustrates our point, and ignore the thousands of other pictures were the roads are in great condition.

Also, OP, you realize Disneyland primarily only accommodates pedestrian traffic? I wonder how much easier it would be to keep roads in repair of no one ever drove on them.




I'd change the OP photos to this one, but the 4 hour window has passed.

If you would like me to create a thousand more examples, I'm capable of doing so.




edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I had a good laugh reading this one

Hey OP, how about we privatize healthcare, since the corporations have acted ethically to keep the costs low and level of care high for everyone. Oh wait.

How about we privatize the police and fire departments? That way instead of your taxes being used to pay for these services, you can be charged a monthly fee by one of these corporations that you're worshiping. If you miss payment, the FD won't bother to show up at your home if an electrical fire happens to break out. Or the police won't bother to respond to your 911 call.

It's baffling how someone can swear that government is 100% waste and evil, while these bloodsucking corps are the knight riding a white horse. Spare me


Screaming 'privatize everything!!' is naive.
edit on 18-8-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I had a good laugh reading this one

Hey OP, how about we privatize healthcare, since the corporations have acted ethically to keep the costs low and level of care high for everyone. Oh wait.


I take that statement to mean you don't believe medicare spending ($793B) plays any roll at all in driving up healthcare costs.

Nor do you believe that State insurance regulations, which prohibit cross state competition in insurance contracts, play any roll in driving up healthcare costs.

Nor do you believe patents on medical devices or drugs play any roll at all in driving up healthcare costs.

Clearly the high cost of medical care is purely because corporations are greedy pigs.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You honestly think a corporation will only act ethically to gain profits?

That's la la land.


Considering that private corporations could face civil suits if they don't, I tend to think the vast majority of private corporations act more far responsibly than government.



you mean like BP being nearly bankrupted because of the abomination it perpetrated in the GOM recently.

oops wrong parralel earth sorry.

i'm with the Fox on this one:

you need to drop the capitalist
or the anarchist, as they are mutually exclusive.

let every community/city/state handle the upkeep of their own roads and collect tolls/taxes to pay for them. the interstates can be held in common to permit freedom of movement throughout the country. that sounds more like a happy medium to me.

also the vast majority of people who are allowed to drive should not be doing so, hence all the deaths, add alcohol and you've got a hecatombe, cause it would affect all those poor workers in the auto industry
if greater restrictions on who can drive were imposed.

and don't get me started on the 30 years the "enlightened capitalists" took to use safety glass in autos.

don't get me wrong, i'm an enemy of the state and all government, but the corporations and their merchant princes are an even bigger threat to the human race at present.

and nothing wrong with making a buck/profit either, but there are lines that were crossed over 100 yrs ago.

capitalism and communism are political paradigms and have very little to due with the pseudoscience of economics.

i remember reading in philip wylie's "the magic animal"
how ridiculous a phrase like "the economy of abundance" translates to: "the saving of waste"

just so you don't think i'm some unlettered troll my dear fellow.


like unityemissions and the fox are saying you are way smarter than this.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


if you think that is funny
i've got pictures that show very nasty stuff concerning waste management and toxic working conditions at disneyland, on my computer some dude i know used to work there and is planning a law suit [hence no pics] haven't heard from him in months if a year and a day go by and he never shows up i'll post them here.
edit on 18-8-2011 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Are you refering to this site?

www.boatus.com...


In the 1980's, a German developer constructed a short-lived cruiseship destination there, named it Treasure Island, and leased it to Premier Cruise Lines for its Disney cruises. For various reasons, including uncertain weather, the cruiseships abandoned the stop in 1993. Until Discovery came on the scene last year, the legacy of that earlier failed development was a dredged 30' deep channel, a dilapidated dock, some broken dolphin pens, and several overgrown timber structures on shore (see the description in our January 15, 2004 entry "Phantom Vacation").


If you read this report it goes into more detail about the ecology.
henge.bio.miami.edu...

It is interesting to note that a PRIVATE corporation that wants to use the land will be the one to clean it up.

As for your other comments, they are so wrong on so many levels I don't have the time to even begin refuting all of the nonsense you just spewed.


edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join