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: 7
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Cassius666
 

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.


Andy Grove, the retired chairman of Intel Corp wrote a paper that addressed this point directly.

".....Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves increase tech employment. Equally important is what comes after that mythical moment of creation in the garage, as technology goes from prototype to mass production. This is the phase where companies scale up. They work out design details, figure out how to make things affordably, build factories, and hire people by the thousands. Scaling is hard work but necessary to make innovation matter.

The scaling process is no longer happening in the U.S. And as long as that's the case, plowing capital into young companies that build their factories elsewhere will continue to yield a bad return in terms of American jobs......"

".... More importantly, the U.S. had not yet forgotten that scaling was crucial to its economic future.

How could the U.S. have forgotten? I believe the answer has to do with a general undervaluing of manufacturing—the idea that as long as "knowledge work" stays in the U.S., it doesn't matter what happens to factory jobs. It's not just newspaper commentators who spread this idea. Consider this passage by Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder: "The TV manufacturing industry really started here, and at one point employed many workers. But as TV sets became 'just a commodity,' their production moved offshore to locations with much lower wages. And nowadays the number of television sets manufactured in the U.S. is zero. A failure? No, a success."

I disagree. Not only did we lose an untold number of jobs, we broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution. As happened with batteries, abandoning today's "commodity" manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow's emerging industry....."

It goes on...

www.businessweek.com...




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Spot on and very poignant OP! S&F!

LOL at all the ignorant fools who have never run a business repeating media and marxist rhetoric. They are why America has allowed it's government to get away with this crap. They produce nothing, they don't know history, they refuse to do research, they call socialism capitalism, they repeat ignorant lies and rhetoric over and over and have no clue what they are talking about, they point to the banks being deregulated as proof deregulation doesn't work. They don't recognize that regulation only stifles fair competition and the banks are politically connected and regulators look the other way to protect their cronies. That's not deregulation that is fascism protecting markets for the politically connected.They refuse to look at the facts that we are more regulated then ever in history AND ITS NOT WORKING because it is used to protect cronies and stifle fair competition.

Many of them will not get it till they are living under a bridge and some still won't get it even then. Socialism/fascism is responsible for the devastation of America.

I got news for them; WE WILL HAVE FREE MARKETS! The market always wins in the end. You can't stop it however they will not be free till your precious socialism has completely destroyed every last vestige of a once vibrant free economy The market correction will come out of necessity when men are desperate and there will be no regulation! So keep opining for more regulation and watch what happens it gonna be the wild wild west again with better guns and technology.
edit on 23-2-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
marxist rhetoric??????? Are you nuts?

Today we can legitmately claim to have the majority of the planet's "new ideas" and feel we can safely outsource manufacturing to Asia. Yet, look what this has created. A country where 1% reap the benefits of our 'new economy' and the rest working for peanuts.

Asia is sending their children to Cal Tech, MIT, Harvard and anywhere else they can. They will have their fair share of the next generation's 'new ideas' and own all the manufacturing. Where will America be then? Looking to Goldman Sachs next offering of derivatives as our sole reason for existing? What's happened is we've been lead en mass like lemings into a box canyon.

This entire experiment is a failure and as it unravels in front of us, none of our leaders will speak the obvious, leaving millions unemployed while destroying the American dream.

This is not a political argument, it's an economic one. Free Trade never existed, just ask our auto execs how many cars they are allowed to ship into Korea, Japan or china. Yet while chasing this rainbow, Main Street American has been thrown under the bus.

America is playing checkers while our competitors are Chess masters. You think that when we finally realize this, it's makes us Marxists?

You're crazy.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If you think that's bad, there are plenty of bigger businesses that pay NO taxes every year.

You see, the U.S is friendly to bigger businesses because they can afford to hire lobbyists to brown-nose congress critters until they get what they want.

If you want to fix the system for all businesses, you need to rein in the ones that aren't paying taxes and reduce taxes on businesses that don't hire a lot of people (



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The taxes are a killer thats for sure.

Ive thought of plenty small business I wanted to start up, or even playing in the stock market as a day trader, but the problem is after ALL that HUGE risk of the little money I have, if I did somehow manage to be successful the government would take almost all the profit that I made, making it pointless.

So here I am slaving away for someone else still just so I can keep paying my bills.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If you are of foreign descent, you don't have to pay those "fees" for many years too... kinda ruins it for native born Americans doesn't it?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
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)


I would just like to respond to this Chomsky quote by pointing out that here Chomsky is essentially supporting federally controlled socialized healthcare.

Chomsky also claims he is a libertarian socialist anarchist (which to me is oxymoronic, you are either in favor of voluntarism or you are not).

I'm not sure how Chomsky squares his beliefs in anarchism while supporting a coercively imposed socialized healthcare system operated by the State (or some other group with a monopoly on healthcare).

His beliefs are confusing and make no sense to me.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
they repeat ignorant lies and rhetoric over and over and have no clue what they are talking about, they point to the banks being deregulated as proof deregulation doesn't work. They don't recognize that regulation only stifles fair competition and the banks are politically connected and regulators look the other way to protect their cronies. That's not deregulation that is fascism protecting markets for the politically connected


I think "deregulation" is a very appropriate term, I don't know why you chose to use the word "fascism". This is silly.

I spent a few years working in banking industry, so I'm hardly up to any "ignorant lies", having seen how it works. Gradual and stealthy repeal of Glass–Steagall was not "fascism", it was deregulation done in the name of "fair competition" and "free markets". It was fascinating to observe, how there was clearly public interest in having that regulation in place, and yet the "free market" thinking prevailed, fueled by little other than the enormous greed. Sad to watch.

Mortgage backed securities? One could argue that regulating those was "stifling fair competition" and "choking financial markets". But that's a load of cr@p. All these things were just time bombs placed by greedy pigs right in the foundation of out economy.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


You're simply confused because you're using bizarre US-only meanings of the terms.

In the rest of the world, Libertarianism is an extreme left-wing ideology. Only in the US does it mean an extreme advocate of laissez faire capitalism... and it's only meant that in the US since the 70s.

Chomsky explains it here



If it's the term anarchist, well that's a vague term... some anarchists believe in large collectives... a large collective could easily have a single healthcare system, funded by all for all.
edit on 23-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
I would just like to respond to this Chomsky quote by pointing out that here Chomsky is essentially supporting federally controlled socialized healthcare.


For that, I'm willing to mow his lawn for a few years free of charge. That's a human being I'm looking at, not a wingnut like Ron Paul, who's willing to pull the plug on life support of a dying man for monetary reasons, "as a tribute to American freedom". And he's a physician, for God's sake.

I'm not big on religion at all, but for that, Ron is going to hell. Jesus is a peaceful guy but he probably wants to bash him about the head.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


If it's the term anarchist, well that's a vague term... some anarchists believe in large collectives... a large collective could easily have a single healthcare system, funded by all for all.


I understand it, I just find it to be self-contradictory.

There is nothing stopping Chomsky from opening up a commune right now, yet he has not done so.

Why not?

All the communist communes that I know of have failed or have failed to progress into the Utopia claimed by their adherents.

The system is not workable because there are no market incentives for people to participate. What ends up happening in such a situation is that all the free-riders pile in while all the people who contribute end up leaving because they feel they are being taken advantage of (which they are).

I have no problem with voluntary communes, but that is not what Chomsky was suggesting in his original quote. Chomsky was directly advocating for State coercion against the innocent in order to fund healthcare. Otherwise Chomsky would have kept his trap shut and agreed with Paul.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
There is nothing stopping Chomsky from opening up a commune right now, yet he has not done so.
Why not?


Maybe he simply doesn't want to. Why do you prescribe a way of life to person? Is it the inner tyrant in you, just like Chomsky described?


All the communist communes that I know of have failed or have failed to progress into the Utopia claimed by their adherents.


Well any system or society has and will fail to achieve "Utopia". But some communes work well.

Kibbutz

And there are other examples.


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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


I think you've made about 5 logical leaps there...

...state-funded healthcare doesn't mean coercion, it means a system where the pay for the healthcare comes from taxes...

So Chomsky advocating people paying taxes to insure a basic level of healthcare isn't, you know, holding a gun and making doctors help people for free... it's regulating medicine so that doctors are paid, but by tax money, not from individuals and insurance providers...

Btw: forcing people to work, in order to get live saving medicine is coercion.

I know someone, an artist, who has a progressive and eventually fatal disease. He makes enough from art to pay rent, food, etc., but works 40 hours a week doing data entry so that he can have healthcare coverage for his meds, which otherwise would bankrupt him.

In the UK, in Europe, he'd be a full-time artist. In the US, he's a full-time artist AND a full-time data entry guy.

His standard of living would be so much better in Europe as well...

He def feels as if he's being forced to work, due to the cost of medication and healthcare.

The final point is that Paul could also create a little objectivist "utopia" if he wanted, but he doesn't. People don't judge him for that, even though his vision for America is just about as different from reality as a Anarchist Kibbutz.
edit on 23-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
You spelled America wrong.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well any system or society has and will fail to achieve "Utopia". But some communes work well.

Kibbutz



The Kibbutz is not a communist collective.

Managers are paid salaries as are members. For the most part, they operate as private enterprises today.

They were originally formed in the vein of communist collectives, but have since reformed themselves to be much more free enterprise, which is precisely why they work today.

From the link YOU provided me:

some kibbutzim have been privatized and changes have been made in the communal lifestyle


www.haaretz.com...

Only a quarter of kibbutzim still function as equalized cooperatives, while the rest have begun paying salaries to their members.


Of course, anyone familiar with Austrian economics could have predicted this from the start. Communism is not a viable economic model. Market incentives are necessary to get people to produce without free-riding. Further, it is impossible to efficiently allocate resources without a price mechanism in place.



edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


I think you've made about 5 logical leaps there...

...state-funded healthcare doesn't mean coercion, it means a system where the pay for the healthcare comes from taxes...


Because taxes are entirely voluntary - no coercion there at all.



So Chomsky advocating people paying taxes to insure a basic level of healthcare isn't, you know, holding a gun and making doctors help people for free... it's regulating medicine so that doctors are paid, but by tax money, not from individuals and insurance providers...


Because people who refuse to pay taxes are never threatened with violence, nor do they ever have their property taken from them by force.


Btw: forcing people to work, in order to get live saving medicine is coercion.


Because everyone should have food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc.. handed to them on a silver platter without having to lift a finger to acquire those things.




edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


If you're gonna go that far out into the fringes than this conversation will be very short. Taxes are not voluntary, but very little is in a society. Advocating for a tax-less society is a non-starter.

That's just reality.

the idea that you think that society has some other purpose than raising the basic standard of living of those involved shows how fringe your beliefs are. People choose to organise because it benefits them all, more or less.

Most people in America, and in most places in the world would say that access to clean water is a basic human right. Pure and simple. Claiming that basic human rights must be earned is an extremely fringe belief and one that contradicts the basic principles of even the most primitive societies.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


If you're gonna go that far out into the fringes than this conversation will be very short. Taxes are not voluntary, but very little is in a society. Advocating for a tax-less society is a non-starter.

That's just reality.

the idea that you think that society has some other purpose than raising the basic standard of living of those involved shows how fringe your beliefs are. People choose to organise because it benefits them all, more or less.

Most people in America, and in most places in the world would say that access to clean water is a basic human right. Pure and simple. Claiming that basic human rights must be earned is an extremely fringe belief and one that contradicts the basic principles of even the most primitive societies.



Yeah "I'm going out on the fringe" by pointing out that taxes are collected at the point of a gun.

Clearly this is a fringe belief that has no basis in reality.

You can be mad at me for pointing out the gun in the room, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a gun in the room.

I am advocating peace, you are advocating violence against the innocent. Violence can not solve social problems. It can only take from some and give to others, while creating no new material goods or services in the process.

Violence does not create more healthcare. Violence does not cause food to grow in abundance. Violence does not increase prosperity for society.



edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


That's not the fringe belief I'm referring to and I suspect you're well aware of that.

The fringe belief is that a democratic society with hundreds of millions of people can operate without taxes.

Most people know where their roads and schools come from, and most people like the idea of a government protecting them from people who would do them harm.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 

The fringe belief is that a democratic society with hundreds of millions of people can operate without taxes.
Most people know where their roads and schools come from, and most people like the idea of a government protecting them from people who would do them harm.


A star to you.

The "road" argument comes up in threads like this once in a while, and not once I heard a coherent answer from the fringe people. Same about fire fighters, or nurse in your school. People have created a fairy world in their heads where everything just clicks, roads pave themselves, libraries magically fill up with books and fires automatically extinguish their own flames.

La la land, anarcho-caps.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join