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.

 

"This Is Why There Are No Jobs In America", by Porter Stansberry

page: 3
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
So why does business thrive in China then? China is ridiculously command and control, in fact, though they do allow companies to a) pay crap wages and b) permanently mess up the environment. Seriously, what is your point? That American companies should start, in America, the practices that happen in China? Also, do you think there are no entrepreneurs in America? Most of the entrepreneurs ARE here and they are outsourcing their work to China and India because it's cheaper. That's where the jobs are going. Most Americans are sure that 'free trade' is good, then complain when free trade takes away our jobs. Job loss is NOT because of business taxes, or all businesses would have headquarters in China and India, where the workers are. Job loss is because of free trade and decent wages inside of this country. If you want to take away minimum wage and bring back acid rain and dirty water, then by all means, continue making the point you are making. What you fail to see is that the freedom we DO give businesses is what drives the labor away, not the freedom we DON'T give them.
edit on 2/22/2012 by spacekc929 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Unfortunately there is a lot wrong with they way we do business unfortunately. It can not be troubleshot to one fault or another. Everyone is right in their own way.

Corruption in the government allows corporations to make their own rules. With corporations injected our politics with so much money, it ends up drowning the voices of the workers and consumers, there must be a balance of sorts.

Regulations that protect consumers, workers, and environment are definitely good, but regulations that impede competition are what needs to go. Laws that impede the average joe from starting their own business need to go. Competition is what will set the economy free. When their are a lot more choices, the decision to buy will not just come down to price. the consumer can be more picky about such things as quality, where its made, and materials that its made of. Unfortunately, a lot of our products share the same defects as in made out of the country, poorly made, and made of unsafe materials, its just that they have different brand names. When left up to the people with many choices, the businesses that thrive will be the ones whom are most agreeable with the people.

Taxation is as much as a problem as is greed within the corporations. It has gotten to the point where its all about the profits and how to maximize and not the quality or reputation of a company. The American consumer could fix this if there were more options available, a.k.a. competition. Taxes wouldn't be as much as a problem if A) tax laws were made simpler, B) weren't obviously corrupted by money that it is suppose to govern, and C) the costs of starting businesses or creating competition wasn't such a complicated and expensive venture.

Moral conscience of the consumer is a must as well. They should understand the need for quality and now the purchasing that product affects their local and national economies. I'm not saying we should buy a piece of # because of its American made, but every effort must be made to recycle the money into its local community. Again, continuous competition will always bring about lower prices, new innovations and technology, and better quality in the end.

Unions in some cases are extreme problems too. We must understand that a job done is only worth so much. The workers must also have some accountability. I do feel bad many of the vehicle manufacturing workers lost their jobs, but the benefits they received did contribute to downfall of American automobiles. Businesses cannot afford to pay janitors and technicians the same wage just because they are both apart of the same union. Unions by the workers are good thing, but when outside entities represent these unions, it only takes money out of the pockets of both the business and workers at the same time. There must be some fiscal responsibility on both the workers and businesses to keep costs down.

There also be some understanding by the corporations that if people do not have the money to buy their products, then cutting jobs is not the best fix. It just worsens the situation and puts strain on other companies. Also, if corporations would focus on the local communities that they provide to in more positive ways then reputation and buyer's loyalty would help them stay afloat. Paying millions of dollars to CEOs does not help either. I believe a CEOs should be directly proportional to the number of workers he governs and their average salary. That way, he would have to balance competition, consumer loyalty, quality, and workers comforts that might make them actually earn their paychecks. If businesses were focused on longevity and reputation rather than short-term profits, then we may have businesses that truly would be successful.

Just like water, money needs to flow through the system consistently in order not to become stagnant and harmful to the environment around it. When money is stagnant and not doing work, then it serves only as a way to enslave its population.

If consumers, business, and workers became more aware of the way they affect the system, capitalism truly could be a great system. Sadly we are not at that level of thinking of society in which could facilitate the best conditions in which capitalism could thrive and benefit all three parties.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacekc929
So why does business thrive in China then? China is ridiculously command and control, in fact, though they do allow companies to a) pay crap wages and b) permanently mess up the environment. Seriously, what is your point? That American companies should start, in America, the practices that happen in China? Also, do you think there are no entrepreneurs in America? Most of the entrepreneurs ARE here and they are outsourcing their work to China and India because it's cheaper. That's where the jobs are going. Most Americans are sure that 'free trade' is good, then complain when free trade takes away our jobs. Job loss is NOT because of business taxes, or all businesses would have headquarters in China and India, where the workers are. Job loss is because of free trade and decent wages inside of this country. If you want to take away minimum wage and bring back acid rain and dirty water, then by all means, continue making the point you are making. What you fail to see is that the freedom we DO give businesses is what drives the labor away, not the freedom we DON'T give them.
edit on 2/22/2012 by spacekc929 because: (no reason given)


I just posted a link showing that Hong Kong has more economic freedom than the US.

Mainland China is still pretty bad, but it's really not that much worse than the US is at the present moment. The Chinese government controls all industry just as the American State does.

You can't start a business without permission here and you must comply with 5 billion regulations to boot. Entrepreneurs are not allowed to simply open up a business and start producing things here in the US.

Go try it once. Let me know how far you get before the State shuts you down.



edit on 2/22/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





Of course, paying for a CPA to do your taxes is also a tax in itself because if there were no taxes or if the tax code wasn't the size of an encyclopedia, you wouldn't have to pay a CPA to do them in the first place.




Look, it's a FACT that all of the Fortune 500 companies pay approximately half of the stated corporate tax rate in real taxes....which is nowhere near the 50% that lunatic pastor claims companies have to pay. And regulations are obviously necessary or else you end up with people destroying the environment (like in China) and harming people who work (like in China). Too much bureaucracy is obviously bad, but stating regulations are useless is so beyond laughable, I'm not sure whether you're joking or not



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Look, it's a FACT that all of the Fortune 500 companies pay approximately half of the stated corporate tax rate in real taxes....which is nowhere near the 50% that lunatic pastor claims companies have to pay. And regulations are obviously necessary or else you end up with people destroying the environment (like in China) and harming people who work (like in China). Too much bureaucracy is obviously bad, but stating regulations are useless is so beyond laughable, I'm not sure whether you're joking or not


Ok.

So take all the profits from the Fortune 500.

That wouldn't even cover the federal government's spending bill for a month.

And let's keep all those insane regulations too! Meanwhile, we can all sit back and watch the river of jobs flow to places where people can keep what they earn and not have to comply with 5 billion regulations.

So you have a choice:

1. You can take everything from people who are productive and impose insane amounts of regulations on startup businesses that have no chance of actually being able to afford all of those fixed costs, which will inevitably lead to an economy that has no jobs and no consumer goods to speak of.

or

2. You can support deregulation and let people keep what they earn. In which case we will have an abundance of jobs and consumer goods.


I can tell you one thing for certain. Taxes and regulations do not create productive jobs.



edit on 2/22/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





So you have a choice:

1. You can take everything from people who are productive and impose insane amounts of regulations on startup businesses that have no chance of actually being able to afford all of those fixed costs, which will inevitably lead to an economy that has no jobs and no consumer goods to speak of. or

2. You can support deregulation and let people keep what they earn. In which case we will have an abundance of jobs and consumer goods.


Yes, let's pull a Glenn Beck and always list 2 extremes


In case you're wondering what caused this financial crisis...it was DEREGULATION!!



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





So you have a choice:

1. You can take everything from people who are productive and impose insane amounts of regulations on startup businesses that have no chance of actually being able to afford all of those fixed costs, which will inevitably lead to an economy that has no jobs and no consumer goods to speak of. or

2. You can support deregulation and let people keep what they earn. In which case we will have an abundance of jobs and consumer goods.


Yes, let's pull a Glenn Beck and always list 2 extremes


In case you're wondering what caused this financial crisis...it was DEREGULATION!!


If things do not change rather quickly, the only jobs left will be government jobs.

You will get to experience the joys of an inflationary default spiral first hand.

But I guess you enjoy that sort of thing, so more power to you.

In other news, the US just broke 100% of GDP in accumulated debt. Most nations do not recover from this position until their monetary system implodes and they start over.

edit on 2/22/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morgenstern89
The unfortunate thing is that articles like this lead to a Left/Right debate, instead of a "The System is Broken" debate.


That's the point of everything nowadays. How else do you keep everybody distracted?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Deregulation didn't cause this. Poor ethics caused this. Those at the top knew what they were doing. Just because we make something legal, doesn't mean its going to happen. If we legalized assault and battery, it doesn't mean that we would wake up to see Thunderdome en masse tomorrow morning. Its the corruption at the top that is the problem. If deregulation didn't occur, they would have found other ways to work the system, we just unfortunately took out some of the obstacles in their way. We have figure out a way to enforce ethics in the market. If only there were a group of people out there living in a country where one has the right to protest and vote..........



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Yes...and the largest single policy contributor to the deficit is...wait for it...waaaaaait for it: TAX GIFTS TO COMPANIES THAT DON'T NEED IT (aka Exxon & Co.)


And in case you're wondering why GDP growth is stagnating: It's because DEREGULATION allowed the financial industry to run the entire economy into the ground!
edit on 22-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Yes...and the largest single policy contributor to the deficit is...wait for it...waaaaaait for it: TAX GIFTS TO COMPANIES THAT DON'T NEED IT (aka Exxon & Co.)


And in case you're wondering why GDP growth is stagnating: It's because DEREGULATION allowed the financial industry to run the entire economy into the ground!
edit on 22-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Companies "that don't need it" - by "it" I assume you mean profits.

You know what motivates me to work really hard? Not being paid for it.

And your comment on deregulation being the cause of the financial industry to run the entire economy into the ground makes me LOL my pants off.

You do realize that the entire financial system is controlled by the Fed, which centrally plans the interest rates just like the Soviet central bank did before it imploded, right?

You do realize that a free market would never allow fractional reserve banking, right?

You do realize that a free market would never allow corporations to be bailed out with tax payer money, right?

You do realize that a free market would not have financial regulations stacked so thick that no one human could ever read all of them in a single life time, right?

You do realize that the federal government pumps out 70,000 pages of new legal code every year, right?



edit on 2/22/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Yes, and if you studied economics, you'd also know that a "free market" (totally theoretical concept by the way) would also lead to the total exploitation of the majority with only a minority benefiting....yes, even worse than the situation we're in now.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Yes, and if you studied economics, you'd also know that a "free market" (totally theoretical concept by the way) would also lead to the total exploitation of the majority with only a minority benefiting....yes, even worse than the situation we're in now.


There is nothing theoretical about voluntary trade, which is all a free market is.

And I can guarantee that I've studied more economics than you have.

Do you know what the money multiplier is? How about explaining what the Fed does at the discount window with tax payer money?

The only people that benefit from our current system are large multi-national corporations and politicians. Ergo, I don't understand what you think is so great about it.

I don't see more toasters, ovens, refrigerators, or televisions being produced here in America.




edit on 2/22/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


I don't know you, so I don't know how much economics you studied...in my case, it's 14 years of working directly in the investment industry. I'm working for a company that is at the very heart of the issue, and we all laughed our assess off at how watered down Dodd/Frank was


PS: Entertain us, how many years have you studied economics. In my case, it's over 6 years studying alone...and that's not counting work experience. Judging from your comments I'm also pretty sure I paid more taxes than you last year...in nominal terms





I don't see more toasters, ovens, refrigerators, or televisions being produced here in America.


That's because labour is cheaper elsewhere...like in China. But hey, at least we don't have to install nets around our buildings to catch all those suicide jumpers who can't take working for peanuts 18 hours per day (often more). Sounds like a pretty good trade off...that is...unless you wanna turn the US into China


edit on 22-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


I don't know you, so I don't know how much economics you studied...in my case, it's 14 years of working directly in the investment industry. I'm working for a company that is at the very heart of the issue, and we all laughed our assess off at how watered down Dodd/Frank was


PS: Judging from your comments I'm also pretty sure I paid more taxes than you last year...in nominal terms



Great, so you are in on the scam.

I can see why you are in favor of keeping the Fed around now.

For the rest of us common folk, we don't appreciate keeping your insolvent Ponzi scheme afloat with our tax money.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Yes, and if you studied economics, you'd also know that a "free market" (totally theoretical concept by the way) would also lead to the total exploitation of the majority with only a minority benefiting....yes, even worse than the situation we're in now.


Finally someone with a brain.

Thanks, really.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by interupt42
 


Some people didn't notice that it's not a right-left thing did they? Both sides make laws in Congress.


Well the OP was a curve ball out of the fringe right, and how you expect things to be balanced in this thread? Then maybe you should have designed it differently



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Wealth means the abundance of available goods and services. Poverty is lack of same.
Production of goods and services is being severely punished by taxation and regulation in the USA.
Non-production is being rewarded though the Welfare-State.
The inevitable rapid decline of the US into an impoverished nation is plain to see.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
PS: Entertain us, how many years have you studied economics. In my case, it's over 6 years studying alone


Excellent, then you can explain to us just what the money multiplier represents and how it came to be that the "free market" created it.

You are the direct beneficiary of the Ponzi, so it will be fun to hear your explanation of where the "free market" fits into this fraud. Perhaps you could further explain why financial institutions are shielded against lending out more notes than they have in real reserves while any other industry would have been hauled before a judge.

If a grain warehouse operator issued more receipts for grain than he had in his warehouse, he would not only be sued to the moon, he would be facing criminal fraud charges.

I started studying Austrian economics in 2007, so its been around 5 years of learning for myself.

By the way, see my avatar? He's an economist.





edit on 2/22/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Yes, and if you studied economics, you'd also know that a "free market" (totally theoretical concept by the way) would also lead to the total exploitation of the majority with only a minority benefiting....yes, even worse than the situation we're in now.


You were having your ass handed to you, but I thought you might not have recognized it, so I thought I might join the discussion.

What we have NOW, is "the total exploitation of the majority with only a minority benefiting" ...so, how did this happen when we didn't have a free market? I think we are going to see it get much worse, but "free market" will not have anything to do with it. Try CRONY CAPITALISM.

You say by "deregulating", we have this mess, but who did the deregulating? Let me tell you, it was the paid stooges otherwise known as Democrats and Republicans that made it not only possible to game the system, it made it possible to destroy the system. So, what does this have to do with ECONOMICS?

You claim to have this educations and experience, and that is all well and good. Surely you can offer more to the discussion and recognize that what is happening to our country has little to do with the flaws of a free market system, or capitalism, and everything to do with corruption, crony capitalism aka corporatism.

It really irritates me when people act like a free market is so horrible, when they cannot recognize the enemy when the enemy has a damn gun to their head and steals their money. For this reason alone, I think we as a society are more than likely doomed until we get some real knowledge.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join