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: 5
71
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
It is a result of globalization. Basically the General agreement on tariffs and trade and the modifications made to it in 1994, and the free trade agreements, allowed the big corporations to start outsourcing production.

I suggest for anyone who's interested in the subject to go lend a book called "The Trap" by Sir James Goldsmith from the library.

Also, I suggest you watch this "prophetic interview with Sir James Goldsmith in 1994" about the consequences of free trade and globalization, who wins, who loses.



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




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't know if you watch the maim stream media (spelling intentional) but ABC World News has jumped on the "Made in America: tripe for a series. Gallop polls came out and not too long ago our real unemployment rate was at 19%. Oil keeps getting higher and that particulaly due to the Middle East and partially due to our weakening dollar. What I'd like to ask.....

What's the gimmick with ABC World News besides the obvious with the election what are they looking at that's so different from where I sit.
Are they

A. Seeing the parrellel universe and what should be happening if we weren't so deeply in debt from the past two administrations.
B. Are they that uncaring that they would delibretly give ...never mind figured it out they're that uncaring to give false information, they probably know as well, we're headed for a shtf event too.

So what are your thoughts you're article was well written.

edit on 22-2-2012 by 1loserel2 because: typo



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Here is my proposal for a business agreement:

I have 1 million dollars and I'm going to open a chain of lemonade stands. I will staff them with dirt-cheap, minimum wage labor and get all of my supplies on the cheap. I will get a slew of "exemptions" from various taxes and get special grants to expand my business.

You will have 100 dollars to work with. You will need to build the lemonade stand, hire union help, abide by OSHA regulations, purchase your supplies from USDA approved sources. Any time you sell your product in my district, you have to pay a tax to my district. I however, am free to sell my product in your district without such penalties.

Whoever makes the most profit at the end of the year wins.

This is the scenario we have set up when we compete with China, Japan, Korea or any other foreign import. This is precisely why the Japanese have taken over the auto industry. This is why China and Asia in general basically own semiconductor manufacturing. When you purchase a Japanese car, any tariffs paid are offset by rebates or other perks, keeping the cost down. When we export to Japan, we don't get that same luxury.

I don't believe this has come to be by accident. I don't believe for one minute that we "let manufacturing slip away". No, I believe TPTB had an agenda that necessitated giving away the industrial revolution that we, the USA, created and mastered. If you believe in the "One World Government", then you have to believe that there must be some level of balance. In other words, with a One World Government/NWO, other countries would not buy into it if only one country was "winning", ie; the US. I believe we intentionally gave away specific industries. In order for a One World Government to work, there has to be something in it for everybody, otherwise, why get on-board? Nobody in their right mind would believe that we inadvertently let it slip away. No, we had the power, skill, technology and dominance to make sure we maintained control of those industries.

Which leads us to another Truth. The countries you see us invading? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and others we have our eye on, like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc...they are all countries that have no need or use for the New World Order. They are largely self-sufficient and are content to maintain their sovereignty and that pisses off TPTB.

This is just my own theory, mind you. I could be wrong.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Americans are CONSUMERS! We consume even if we don't have the money for it. Here's an idea...don't buy anything from Nike, Apple, Toyota, Volvo, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Sanyo, Samsung, Sony, Comcast, DiretTV, ext. Your throwing your money away. Those of you who are getting tax returns...PAY OFF BILLS AND SAVE THE REST!!!! We buy all of this worthless garbage to make ourselves feel better. Then, we blame the big corporations and the government. Well, shouldn't the consumers take accountability? How many of us are buying from local merchants and farmer's markets? Save your money and don't buy the imported trash, buy local. When local businesses are supported, it's a good thing for the community. We the consumers fuel these multinational corporations. Cut up your credit cards while your at it. Your only making them richer while you suffer in a financial hell.
Remember: Fix it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without!



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Absolutely 100% the truth.

I loved it. Very good work my friend. ~SheopleNation



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:50 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.


Unfortuantely, you're correct as well my friend.

Which is exactly what the masters of puppets intentions are. Which is, keep the sheople divided by domestic issues while you take them to meaningless wars through blind foreign policy.

It would be great if one day so called left and so called right believing citizens here in America would just forget about the small change and actually suck it up and compromise for all of our childrens, and grandchildrens future.

Unfortuantely, there are too many stupid people for that to ever happen. Sad, but true. ~SheopleNation
edit on 22-2-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Dannijca
 

....
Although, I wouldn't be surprised in the future their will be one country where all the top multinational corporate investors,ceo, top gov't officials ,and bankers of the world would live while exempt from their own laws. Hey maybe that is what happened to Atlantis


....

edit on 22-2-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)


Outstanding -- and the Bank of International Settlements is in Switzerland, right?
Hey guys and gals let's all bore townhouses into the side of the Alps and kick back.
third line, here's yer star.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Dannijca
 



There isnt jobs in USA because they dont have factories. All the big USA companies have their factories in poor countries, where they can enslave people.


Here we go again. Companies aren't interesting in enslaving people, they are interested in making money. The leave the United States because they can make more money overseas without all the regulation and taxes. If we want to keep companies and the jobs that come with them here in the US we need deregulation and taxes cut. So it's cheaper for the companies and entrepreneurs to do business here in the US rather than move their business abroad.

The PROBLEM IS TAXATION at a 70% clip.


The other posters are correct, and you are wrong. Deregulating or cutting taxes (by the way - the legacy of regulation is one inherited from the industrial revolution, when we decided that workers having arms and legs torn off because machines were not properly constructed and then fired workers without compensation was manifestly unconscionable) is not the solution. It might help re-attract some business, if they can be convinced that American workers can produce better quality - we will never be able to produce higher quantity (realistically speaking). We simply cannot compete with people in India and China (and other nations) who are willing to work for a pittance and a salary that could not realistically support somebody living in our society.

Deregulation isn't the panacea to all ills. Cutting taxation isn't a bad idea, but the problem that you fail to take into account is that a very large number of American businesses which are not formed as Corporations or are not incorporated do not actually pay corporate tax. I can't recall what the percentage was with precision, but I remember reading in the WSJ that it was between 70-90% of all such business in the United States. It will be helpful, maybe more than marginally to cut corporate tax - but it isn't going to make it better overnight. This seems to be some miracle-cure that the Right keeps parroting (PS - how many members of Congress have formal training in or seem passably competent in Economics? Not many - many of their solutions are political, rather than purely economic. Take them at face value.)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Reptius
 



Companies don't move to other countries because they're taxed to hell. You have to be insane to think that. They move there so they can pay poor starving people low wages that wouldn't be acceptable in any fair and correct society. Seriously is it really that hard to figure out?

You have to be insane to believe a company would operate in another country in order to save money on taxation, but not to save money on labor?


By the way, companies are not doing those "poor starving people" a disservice by offering them employment. They are not forcing anyone at gunpoint to work for them. The "poor starving people" accept the offer of employment because it is more attractive than the alternative of unemployment. They are benefiting from their arrangement with the company. If the company is forced by government heavies with automatic weapons to pay a minimum wage that you deem fair by your standards, it is likely the "poor starving people" will be left jobless, with the company either paying the higher wage to more skilled labor (that are attracted by the higher wage) or the company going out of business completely (as turning a profit is no longer feasible with this forced increase in costs).

The "poor starving people" would prefer to be their own judge of what is a fair offer, thanks.


edit on 23-2-2012 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

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.


Because it was deemed a valuable service in the middle ages. Otherwise, banks would charge you to store money, and would have no lending or investment. You could make risky investments only in long term endeavors (such as loaning directly to a shopkeeper) and not have liquidity. A bank is the buffer between the two.



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.


True, but it's because grain can only be eaten or planted once. Money is a boson, not a fermion.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Modern society has become to complex and convoluted. Everyone over looks the simple and obvious solution to ALL these problems.

Simplify.
Competition --IS-- the problem. So many useless products and useless styles and useless trends. So much material and man power and money is being utterly WASTED on serving the useless needs of the masses.


3 nation wide clothing and outer wear stores that supple EVERYTHING a nation of people could need for their bodys. Whats wrong with that??? Why do we need 10 000+ clothing company's all charging 750$ for 12 dollars worth of material?

This concept and idea is of course incomplete but applies to every single facet of our existence.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I'm sick and tired of hearing about no jobs. I got headhunters calling me constantly left and right about openings, and if you check out monster or any other site, it's full of postings.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by cleverhans
 


I agree. The biggest speed bump with hiring anyone these days is trying to strain through who is a complete moron, and who is worth hiring.

They keep reporting how so many folks need jobs, but what I have come to realize is that yes many want jobs, but they don't want to work. Nor, do they have the skills after they lied on their resume and said that they did. It's the result of poor education, upbringing and the just plain "I deserve everything handed to me" ideology.

It's disgusting really, and it's the truth. ~SheopleNation


edit on 23-2-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Cassius666
 



There are no jobs in America because companies can use repressive regimes abroad to keep wages low and workers rights in check.


Companies would not be concerned with moving their businesses to foreign countries, if we provided conditions that were the most favorable for entrepreneurs here in the US. Companies move because they aren't taxed to hell and back in other nations.


what conditions?

Do you mean wages that are comparable to the Far East?

$10 a day?

It doesn't sound like you are thinking it through fully.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Awesome, and as a business owner myself, it really hits home.

Though they forgot one thing.

The "partner" also asks for personal donations, and those companies that "donate" the most will have the rules altered for them, and will have to pay less in their fees, and in some cases he will actually pay the company from the fees your company and other small companies pay, as long as he keeps getting those "non reported personal donations".

But over time he will have to make up for the "fee break" so he will raise the rates the other smaller companies have to pay in order to make up for the "loss", causing them to fail because of lack of "success" which ensures the bigger companies will have a monopoly in the field of business.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
This hits home for me as well, as I was also a business owner. In fact, I would say you should be a business owner or had a business in order to respond to this post, since you experience it first hand.

My business lasted 3 years. It started out very successful, but ultimately failed for most of the reasons given in the OP post. I blame it totally on my governments "support" of my business. By keeping my books honest, the government wound up making more from by business then I did and I had to give it up, and let go of the 4 employees that I had created jobs for.

The environment that this government presents to small business is appalling and most of them should lose their jobs until it gets under control. That is something I can do, not much, but if every small business person showed the government how they feel about this with their vote, there will be a lot of new faces up there, and a solid avenue will be paved for change.
edit on 23-2-2012 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught

edit on 23-2-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The whole point was that without regulation, corporations do whatever they want. Hence the derivatives crisis that we are in right now.

Unregulated derivatives caused the housing crisis of 2008. The housing crisis screwed everyone but profited the banks. Even without the bail-out the CEOs and higher ups that caused the mess still would have profited.

So what does this show? People will destroy a whole countries economy as long as they get short term gain. Take a look at Greece.......

Centralized banking had nothing to do with this in itself even though it is a huge problem as well.

Do you want to work in a sweat shop for $1.00 an hour? Or your kids? Or anyone? Because that is what you are advocating.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Even though I consider myself a socialist/anarchist, I agree that this is ludicrous. Surely in my opinion this is the result of capitalism itself, this situation in which a core of financial and corporate elites have hijacked and overrun the system to function in their monopolistic benefit, but yeah, this doesn't really help at all, especially since wealthy elites don't pay any taxes, but hide their money.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by Reptius
 



Companies don't move to other countries because they're taxed to hell. You have to be insane to think that. They move there so they can pay poor starving people low wages that wouldn't be acceptable in any fair and correct society. Seriously is it really that hard to figure out?

You have to be insane to believe a company would operate in another country in order to save money on taxation, but not to save money on labor?


By the way, companies are not doing those "poor starving people" a disservice by offering them employment. They are not forcing anyone at gunpoint to work for them. The "poor starving people" accept the offer of employment because it is more attractive than the alternative of unemployment. They are benefiting from their arrangement with the company. If the company is forced by government heavies with automatic weapons to pay a minimum wage that you deem fair by your standards, it is likely the "poor starving people" will be left jobless, with the company either paying the higher wage to more skilled labor (that are attracted by the higher wage) or the company going out of business completely (as turning a profit is no longer feasible with this forced increase in costs).

The "poor starving people" would prefer to be their own judge of what is a fair offer, thanks.


edit on 23-2-2012 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)


Actually they do. Many Latin-American countries have undergone that treatment. I suggest you read the confessions by John Perkins. They usually follow a steady pattern. First try to arrange lucrative contracts, usually that doesn't work. Then they try to bribe, when that doesn't work, they destroy the country, and they have various ways of doing, they're very good at it. From instigating coups, to outright invasion. In the end they get what they want. Huge loans at interest. The pay-off means giving away land and resources to big corporations. And the citizens may work for them, at extremely low wages in extremely low standard circumstances.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Most ATS'ers see Ron Paul as the solution to this problem, but I have always disagreed with. I found a piece in which Chomsky comments on it, I couldn't agree more.


CHOMSKY: Ron Paul's a nice guy. If I had to have dinner with one of the Republican candidates, I'd prefer to have it with him - but, his policies are off the wall.

I mean, sometimes I agree with him. I think we have to end the war in Afghanistan. But, if you look at the other policies, I mean, it's kind of shocking and principles that lie behind them (shakes head).... I don't know what to say about them.

In the Republican debates, at one point - and this kind of brought out who he is - he is against Federal involvement in health, in anything. He was asked something like, "Well, what if some guy's in a coma, and ... uh ... he's going to die and he never took out insurance. What should happen?" Well, his first answer was something like, "It's a tribute to our liberty." So, if he dies, that's a tribute to how free we are? He kinda backed off from that, actually. There was a huge applause for when he said that. But later, reactions were elsewhere. He backed up and said, "Well, the church will take care of him ... or charities or something or other.... so, it's not a problem."

I mean, this is just savagery. And it goes across the board. In fact, it goes through the whole so-called Libertarian ideology.

It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny. But, it's all academic. The business world would never permit it to happen because it would destroy the economy. They can't live without a powerful state, and they know it.



edit on 23-2-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
71
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join