Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How Every American Seeking Work Can be Employed: Redistribution of Wealth from the 1%

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


If you support the status quo, then you already support wealth redistribution in this country.
Please see my post above on how it works




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by Sharpenmycleats
 



You have it backwards Sharp.
Sorry to be blunt.

Is it the CEO and his policies that are responsible for the companies success, or is it the assembler on line 13?
Is it the policies of the US Government and those embedded in it that are responsible for the current condition we
find ourselves in, or because citizen number 13,433,344 bought at Walmart instead of Sears?


In the 1980's, consumers bought higher priced items, than the ones today at Walmart, because that was what was available. Consumers will buy whatever is available and whatever they can afford.

They have no uniting nor controlling power like the elite at the top do.







We have all the power. We are the buyers. If we decide to hang onto (what little money we have left) prices will plummet.

As for keeping it more local. Look at restaurants buying from local organic farms, that work with local distributors and local small banks. Very effective. Money is dumped back into the local economy, products are fresher, less transport cost, less big gov control. I am far from an economist and therefore I might be full of dirt, so you may be right. Doubt we will ever know.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Dear OP,

I admire your empathy to share wealth, but the way to take wealth from the top earners and distribute it the bottom earners is not an economic sustainable solution.

Rather, the top should pay the workers who had helped them achieve their dreams and success with reasonable and life sustainable wages to live and love. Workers are not slaves nor should they be taken advantage of, from the VP to the tea lady. Each plays a part.

There is no such thing as 'market rates' when it comes to workers wage for labour perform. When the company is doing poorly, due to the poor performance of the CEO or market forces, wages can come down, but if it is doing well, it is only right to share that wealth with the workers whom had made it possible.

CEOs are economic leaders of societies. With leadership comes responsibilities to others, more so to his sweaty followers, not just the indolent shareholders whom have a buck to spare to gamble. CEOs will have to provide and care for the workers whom had given their labour and efforts to succeed together.

If the leader indulges himself with luxuries, while his workers struggles withbasic bills to pay, then something is wrong. The entire social contract became slavery. The CEO is no longer a societal leader, but a slave manager.

Thus, CEOs, be it a mom and pop shop or Multi National Corporation, must honor their social obligations as leaders, or they are nothing more than scam artistes that will destory nations. Even a roadsweeper can be CEO if taking advantage of others is the way to rise to the top, instead of manufacturing or service ingenuity to beat competition.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by TKDRL

And that again reinforces my belief that what we truly need are anti-trust laws enforced, to prevent these huge mega-corporations from existing and to encourage competition, and less regulation otherwise to allow small businesses to start up and keep competition, innovation, and improvement alive and well.

TheRedneck


I'm sure you're at least my age - do you remember back in the 70s and 80s when companies wanted to merge? It was a big deal. The FTC got involved and often times disallowed it because it created too much of a monopoly in the market. In fact, they broke up AT&T to form all the baby bells.

Those days are long gone. Now mergers are allowed and encouraged to consolidate corporate power. Why? Because that is where the real power base lives - not in the government. The government policymakers are promised board positions and boatloads of stock options with many of these mega corporations, so they play ball until they quietly ease out of public service into the 1%.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 

It goes back farther bro. For one example, look into the metal industry in the US. We had antitrust laws, but those mamoths subverted them. The rules are only for the little guys, it's been that way for a long time.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


If you support the status quo, then you already support wealth redistribution in this country.
Please see my post above on how it works


I do not support the status quo. Do not make presumptions.

I was against just about everything that Bush did. I am against almost everything that Obama does. I am against socialism or the other labels it's known as. I am for a constitutional republic like we had for a few short years after 1776. Like we were supposed to have all along. I am for small government, strong defense. Libertarian leanings with the acknowledgment that we can't live in a lawless society with no regulations whatsoever.

In this constitutional republic, people with ambition and intellect will drive the economy for everyone, and if the government stays out of their way, everyone would benefit. So these people get wealthy - what is the problem with that? As long as they play by the rules set forth, no problem. The problem we have right now is that no one is playing by the rules, and no one is enforcing the rules. That's because the people who make the rules and the people who break the rules are the SAME people.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 

It goes back farther bro. For one example, look into the metal industry in the US. We had antitrust laws, but those mamoths subverted them. The rules are only for the little guys, it's been that way for a long time.


The government responsible for enforcing the laws failed to do so. They were not held accountable.

People have been dumbed down over generations so that they don't understand how things like that happen or even that they DO happen. If everyone knew what was going on, there would be a whole lot more accountability. But since you and I are in the minority of people who actually know what is going on, all we can do is sit here and complain.

The huge herd of sheep keeps voting in the wolves.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


That is part of it, but not really the whole of it. We let law, speak a whole different language, that is the beginning of the problem. Then we let the "priest class lawyers" write them laws, that was the real downfall.

Like hackers, who leave backdoors in our OS, the lawyers left backdoors in their laws as well. And they sell those loopholes to the highest bidder. Does that make sense? Or do I sound like a retard?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
In this constitutional republic, people with ambition and intellect will drive the economy for everyone, and if the government stays out of their way, everyone would benefit. So these people get wealthy - what is the problem with that? As long as they play by the rules set forth, no problem.


Ok so you want rules but you don't want the government to get in the way?

I think you are smart enough to re-read and think and see that it just doesn't make sense.

What's gonna stop the wealthy? You see, making wealth is a great thing, it's just that most people that want a lot of wealth are rarely thinking about the majority. It's 100% sure that all the bad values close to greed will come out and corrupt the minds of the rich, which would then create an elite...which is disgusting IMO.

Other than small cities, free markets are a complete utopia if you think the majority will be happy with that system. Of course, if you're just another one of those jerks that don't want the majority to be happy, what I'm saying doesn't really pass trough.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
In this constitutional republic, people with ambition and intellect will drive the economy for everyone, and if the government stays out of their way, everyone would benefit. So these people get wealthy - what is the problem with that? As long as they play by the rules set forth, no problem.


Ok so you want rules but you don't want the government to get in the way?


Yeah, uh, that's not at all what I said. Please stop spinning my posts to support your viewpoint. You know damn well what I mean.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Yeah, uh, that's not at all what I said. Please stop spinning my posts to support your viewpoint. You know damn well what I mean.


Well no, I don't know what you mean
Explain to me clearly who sets forth the rules if the governement is out of the way.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Yeah, uh, that's not at all what I said. Please stop spinning my posts to support your viewpoint. You know damn well what I mean.


Well no, I don't know what you mean
Explain to me clearly who sets forth the rules if the governement is out of the way.


You're such an ass. There is no black and white in government or economics. Knock it off and stop being a troll.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Knock it off and stop being a troll.


Winning


You can also just answer the question, if you can't you should go in politics.
edit on 17-3-2012 by User8911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Knock it off and stop being a troll.


Winning


You can also just answer the question, if you can't you should go in politics.
edit on 17-3-2012 by User8911 because: (no reason given)


Sorry, cupcake. Fresh outta troll chow.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


as soon as i saw the name JT..

i stoped like with air-brakes on the floor..

Illuminati at it's greatest !!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


Robin Hood was an exciting story, but like wealth redistribution and earning caps, it's a fairy tale that has no place in the real world.

Do you really believe that higher income earners will settle with these limitations? I may only be one person, but if something like this were to happen, I'd certainly be headed for friendlier shores overseas.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
We have all the power. We are the buyers. If we decide to hang onto (what little money we have left) prices will plummet.

As for keeping it more local. Look at restaurants buying from local organic farms, that work with local distributors and local small banks. Very effective. Money is dumped back into the local economy, products are fresher, less transport cost, less big gov control. I am far from an economist and therefore I might be full of dirt, so you may be right. Doubt we will ever know.

No, you're not full of dirt. You're spot on in my opinion.

The people who can't see that keeping things local countrywide are the people who think CHANGING the system will work. The current system of mega corporations doing business worldwide while we Americans get the crumbs simply has to stop. To change that you have to change the mindset of the top 1% and that isn't going to happen. You have to DISMANTLE the current system, and we the buyers are the only ones who can do that.

We all simply have to start suppoting local businesses.

Instead of Wal-Mart for food and clothes, go to a local store. You may have to pay a bit more, but you may save on gas in the process. Especially if you live in a rural area.

Instead of a Ford dealership, go to Craigs List or the flyers in the Post Office to buy your next vehicle. Dealerships typically deal with the mega banks like Chase.

The list goes on, but you get the point. After time of not putting money in the wallets of the big boys, they'll start to get the picture that they better lower their prices and change their overall tune if they want to stay competitive.



This is for the 1% who are ruled by greed:




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 


I agree...that on the local level, we can effect change in helping out local business's.

But I don't think we can touch or harm the Big Corporations or Wall Street Banks.
They are all part of the government and not part of the "Free Market System" that my local business's have to put up with.

If I switched from a major bank to a locally owned one for example, and the major bank started bleeding cash, they would look to their buddies in the government to hook them up with contracts, student loans, food stamp distribution, foreign investments etc. There are many avenues they can take to get around the free markets that everyone else has to deal with. Or at worst, they would be deemed "To Big To Fail" and being bailed out with us paying for it.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
In this constitutional republic, people with ambition and intellect will drive the economy for everyone, and if the government stays out of their way, everyone would benefit. So these people get wealthy - what is the problem with that? As long as they play by the rules set forth, no problem.


Ok so you want rules but you don't want the government to get in the way?


Yeah, uh, that's not at all what I said. Please stop spinning my posts to support your viewpoint. You know damn well what I mean.


I think the point being made is simply that absolutism is a fool's game no matter which end of the spectrum you favor. A TOTALLY free market is one without any laws or rules whatsoever...in short...chaos.

Thus, the question becomes WHAT SORTS OF RULES do we want to implement for our markets...not IF we should implement rules for our markets.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Lower minimum wage, get rid of regulations, stop taxing the middle class, remove income taxes, and if your lazy ass wants to sit on unemployment, you can do community service in order to receive a check.

All those on food stamps, give them an empty house that government owns. Now you freed them from that payment so they can afford food.

Remove all benefits from the country such as food stamps and medical until all the illegals run out of the country. Than re institute in an intelligent manner.

Teach capable food stamp recipients how to fish and hunt.

Look towards churches and state governments for funding, not big brother.

The more we rely on them, the more we are going to suffer. One day they will pop the nipple out of leecher's mouths and say No More!!

Course, every system will have its problem. Which is why we need to rely less on the government, so we can be self sufficient as well as caring for our neighbor.

imo....





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join