The United States has collapsed economically, socially, politically, legally, constitutionally, and

page: 4
45
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 


I know people who lost a lot of what they made keeping their company afloat through a small depression. I know others that have been selling off their assets over the years to pay to keep their doors open to supply a convenience to their community and employ a few people. This is years I am talking about, not a month or so. Paying no taxes for a few years doesn't replace losing what you built up over the years.

I addressed the fact that most big businesses wont do this, choosing to look at the bottom line on a monthly basis and laying of people at the drop of a hat. I also stated there are good big corporations that will do good for their workers. Nobody really wants to be an employer, they want to subcontract labor. This frees them from personal ties with people and makes them feel guiltless if they get rid of them. This subcontract labor is going to increase in the years to come. Another creation of big business that has gone awry. Blame can be shuffled to the subcontractor easily releasing the business of liability. I actually am kind of proud of BP for accepting responsibility on the disaster, they weren't liable for the damage that occurred by law over a set point regulated by the government but paid for much of the problems that they caused to smaller businesses.

I saw these big corporations buying factories and tearing them down. I saw big corporations destroy their factory instead of selling it to someone who might be in competition with them later on. Either way, the needs of the people in the community who would have preferred to keep working were set aside for profits. I guess it is cheaper to get paper from other countries than to supply work for our citizens. Who is going to buy this paper from them in the future if nobody is working? They are cutting their own throats in the future. Oh I forgot, they are corporations, the stockholders will lose their money and not the execs, they can retire as fat cats.




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 





Poverty and debilitation effects of Reaganomics? The U.S. economy thrived as a result of Reagan's economic policies....


The national debt went up 186% under Reagan. Because Reagan had to borrow money like crazy to make up for the huge tax cuts he gave the wealthy. Not to mention they had to raise the debt ceiling 17 times while he was in office. When Reagan went into office the national debt was 800 billion when he left office it was 3 trillion. Reagan's voodoo economics was a failure.
not to mention oil dropped to ten dollars a barrel.Or was it five?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by okyouwin
 


I know people who lost a lot of what they made keeping their company afloat through a small depression. I know others that have been selling off their assets over the years to pay to keep their doors open to supply a convenience to their community and employ a few people. This is years I am talking about, not a month or so. Paying no taxes for a few years doesn't replace losing what you built up over the years.

I addressed the fact that most big businesses wont do this, choosing to look at the bottom line on a monthly basis and laying of people at the drop of a hat. I also stated there are good big corporations that will do good for their workers. Nobody really wants to be an employer, they want to subcontract labor. This frees them from personal ties with people and makes them feel guiltless if they get rid of them. This subcontract labor is going to increase in the years to come. Another creation of big business that has gone awry. Blame can be shuffled to the subcontractor easily releasing the business of liability. I actually am kind of proud of BP for accepting responsibility on the disaster, they weren't liable for the damage that occurred by law over a set point regulated by the government but paid for much of the problems that they caused to smaller businesses.

I saw these big corporations buying factories and tearing them down. I saw big corporations destroy their factory instead of selling it to someone who might be in competition with them later on. Either way, the needs of the people in the community who would have preferred to keep working were set aside for profits. I guess it is cheaper to get paper from other countries than to supply work for our citizens. Who is going to buy this paper from them in the future if nobody is working? They are cutting their own throats in the future. Oh I forgot, they are corporations, the stockholders will lose their money and not the execs, they can retire as fat cats.


So what's your point?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Capitalism is economic system where the means of production is privately owned. It can be owned by an individual or by a collective of individuals in agreement. That leaves few options for ownership if not individuals,. I'm thinking either God or the government. I don't believe God's interested. so that leaves the government.

Means of production doesn't necessarily mean bridge construction, or airplane factory. It could mean blacksmith, gardener, or stamping out the same piece of plastic door part, 5,000 times a day.

Each of these producers operate within a society based on exchange. The desire of each individual, involved in the exchange, is freely felt and exercised: how badly do you want something and how badly do I want to get rid of it. That I believe is a free market. You are right excess capital does come from labor. This excess capital is key in the growth, complexity, and size of production I personally don't think this is inherently wrong. It does, in it's purest form result in greater production and that means more jobs for labor.

I'm not familiar with the land rights issue in the 17th century. But I would guess that before that, participants in the free market were pretty satisfied if they felt they got the better deal. Then comes along industry, tools, and invention, all resulting in an increase in an individual's productivity. Bada Bing. You got surplus capital.

It is not the divine rights of kings that gets you access to this capital. No a good idea, hard work and a can do attitude, went a long way in getting that loan.

Over the years, complexity grew, and a predilection for gaming the system, became a popular past time.

We are now at a time where we can clearly see what a capitalistic system operating within a totally free market can do. It looks like to me it's eating it's self.

Capital accumulation no longer goes to increased production. No, we've gotten very smart. Capital accumulation is use to accumulate more capital. sidestepping that messy production thing and all those inconvenient laborers.

I personally see a problem here.I hope you do to.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 


Tax the hell out of the businesses exporting jobs. Give credits to businesses creating livable wage jobs that people with a high school education and average IQ can do. People living in poverty don't pay taxes because they can't afford to. Service oriented jobs can't afford to pay a livable wage and be competitive. Factory workers creations of things we need can create a real economy along with farm worker jobs. This system isn't working and needs fixing.
edit on 28-8-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by okyouwin
Capitalism is economic system where the means of production is privately owned. It can be owned by an individual or by a collective of individuals in agreement. That leaves few options for ownership if not individuals,. I'm thinking either God or the government. I don't believe God's interested. so that leaves the government.


The workers? You and me? No government is necessary.


Means of production doesn't necessarily mean bridge construction, or airplane factory. It could mean blacksmith, gardener, or stamping out the same piece of plastic door part, 5,000 times a day.


The means of production are the factories, the land, the tools etc., needed to produce for our needs.


Each of these producers operate within a society based on exchange. The desire of each individual, involved in the exchange, is freely felt and exercised: how badly do you want something and how badly do I want to get rid of it. That I believe is a free market. You are right excess capital does come from labor. This excess capital is key in the growth, complexity, and size of production I personally don't think this is inherently wrong. It does, in it's purest form result in greater production and that means more jobs for labor.


Only if you have something to exchange. If you only have your labour to sell you are exploited, and not fairly compensated for that labour. Worker ownership would ensure those that work receive the full fruits of their labour.

In a needs based system we only have to produce as much as we use. Markets do not have to expand when profit is not the reason for production.


I'm not familiar with the land rights issue in the 17th century. But I would guess that before that, participants in the free market were pretty satisfied if they felt they got the better deal. Then comes along industry, tools, and invention, all resulting in an increase in an individual's productivity. Bada Bing. You got surplus capital.


The commoners, as non-land owners were called, used to have the right to use land to live off. We were autonomous, and were mostly farmers and craftsmen. The law changed allowing land owners to sell off parcels of land. Land became privately owned, and common land laws were changed allowing those owners to deny the use of that land. This forced the commoners into the towns looking for work. The commoners lost their autonomy and became reliant on the 'private owner' for their existence.

The land owners took advantage of this and created the system of wealth by surplus value, created by paying workers less than they produce. Labour was divided so the skills of the working person was reduced and couldn't be autonomous. That is how capitalism started. It wasn't called capitalism until the 1840's. The wealthy land owners created a system that enslaved the workers to that system.


We are now at a time where we can clearly see what a capitalistic system operating within a totally free market can do. It looks like to me it's eating it's self.


What free market?


Capital accumulation no longer goes to increased production. No, we've gotten very smart. Capital accumulation is use to accumulate more capital. sidestepping that messy production thing and all those inconvenient laborers.

I personally see a problem here.I hope you do to.


Of course I see a problem. Yes you are correct, it is about simply gaining capital, not meeting the needs of the people. Worker ownership is the only way to ensure that doesn't happen.

edit on 8/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by leosnake
 


Bumped, Leo... and thank you for the thread.
I'm so glad Dr. Roberts ' signed off '' for only a very short period..
we need exactly his brand of insight to wake people up. For my
two cents, and at this point in our steady degeneration I would
rather lose three friends in order to save just one. But I will NOT
shut up about how bad things really are-- and are unsettlingly
going unadvertised by the pablum pushers most of them watch.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
This country really reminds me of the Roman Empire right before it collapsed on itself. The people couldn't work, most were fed by the Government and nobody really cared about politics. The only thing people did was go to the games and act as if nothing was wrong. It makes you think, if the people actually did something about their oppression, the true Roman Republic may still be around today. But as Rome, I think our people will sit there and suck their thumbs until it all comes crashing down. The questions is, how bad will be the dark age?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by starseedflower
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


The more you cut spending on people' s welfare in a country, the more people are not going to be able to spend because poor and hence more recession is going to come from it. Interesting enough there is enough money to keep the military industrial war machine in place, bail out the banks, feed the privately owned prisons. It is a vicious circle and people especially from the educated middle class need to speak up and point out the wrongs.


And of course, lets not forget that those who scream about cutting - or even ending completely - the social welfare system have no response at all to the fact that crime will rise, disease outbreak will rise, child poverty will rise, national stability will crumble...

If you cut the social safety net those people will fall through it, they don't magically disappear. They become more desperate, find other means of survival.

All the people on ATS I have seen preaching about the social welfare system always ignore the fact that they will be paying more in policing, imprisonment, emergency medical aid, policing protest, fighting domestic terrorism... the list is never ending.

It's a false economy preached by those who are simply greedy and want to keep everything they earn for themselves without contributing at all to the society they need for their own prosperity and survival.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBlood
This country really reminds me of the Roman Empire right before it collapsed on itself. The people couldn't work, most were fed by the Government and nobody really cared about politics. The only thing people did was go to the games and act as if nothing was wrong. It makes you think, if the people actually did something about their oppression, the true Roman Republic may still be around today. But as Rome, I think our people will sit there and suck their thumbs until it all comes crashing down. The questions is, how bad will be the dark age?


i don't even know why we study history when it's obvious nothing is every truly learned from it. people may disagree with you.........but they would be wrong wouldn't they?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by solongandgoodnight
 


When I was in school, most kids thought history sucked. Studying history, especially history full of lies and one sided stories, doesn't help. Maybe kids didn't like it because of the propaganda the history contained. I like studying history on the net, a person can get many peoples perception of it. This is crucial when searching for the truth. Truth is not the basis of this country anymore, deception is. Coverups of mistakes made in the past causes so many misconceptions. I say get everything out in the open.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 
well put.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Obviously most of you do not understand the real cause of the problem.

I could explain it, but it would probably just confuse you.

Try the Creature from Jekyll Island for starters, as pointed out above.

Watch the Wizard of Oz and try to understand it.


Communism took over America and most Americans had too good a life and where too entertained to see it coming,40 out of 45 communist goals have been completed and are in ful effect and you dont even notice it,the communist police state is in place should you resist the final collapse,once America goes then the whole world is screwed,the western world that is.

pick,pick picking away for years until we were all ground down too this existance.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight

Originally posted by TrueBlood
This country really reminds me of the Roman Empire right before it collapsed on itself. The people couldn't work, most were fed by the Government and nobody really cared about politics. The only thing people did was go to the games and act as if nothing was wrong. It makes you think, if the people actually did something about their oppression, the true Roman Republic may still be around today. But as Rome, I think our people will sit there and suck their thumbs until it all comes crashing down. The questions is, how bad will be the dark age?


i don't even know why we study history when it's obvious nothing is every truly learned from it. people may disagree with you.........but they would be wrong wouldn't they?


The point I was trying to make is that when a country (or empire) falls, it doesn't always fall with a bang. There isn't always a revolution or "last stand". Sometimes, as seen with Rome, the people suck their thumbs and never draw a line in the sand. I think alot of people use the "wait till this happens" excuse to not do anything politically. In Rome, the games continued even while the city starved and the people still could care less even as they turned to cannibalism. Could it get that bad here? Absolutely, and I don't think the people would even bat an eye lash. The United States, the entire system and just the way the people act, seems more like Rome than France or 1776.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by brice
reply to post by leosnake
 


Don't be confusing the the U.S. voters with facts!
***********************************************************
brice


Don't worry, facts don't matter to them!



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
[i don't even know why we study history when it's obvious nothing is every truly learned from it. people may disagree with you.........but they would be wrong wouldn't they?

Who's history we talking about? Have you read a history Textbook? How much BS is in there that's just plain not true.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The US collapsed. Now its the time for the true "We The People" to take over



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by okyouwin
 


Tax the hell out of the businesses exporting jobs. Give credits to businesses creating livable wage jobs that people with a high school education and average IQ can do. People living in poverty don't pay taxes because they can't afford to. Service oriented jobs can't afford to pay a livable wage and be competitive. Factory workers creations of things we need can create a real economy along with farm worker jobs. This system isn't working and needs fixing.
edit on 28-8-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


You and I are thinking alike.

So let me see if I got this. A guy has a company or starts a company. He hires 1000 people. at a "living wage", what you say twenty, twenty five an hour with benefits. His competition in China is paying three dollars and hour. no benefits. Your suggestion is that this company in the United States paying a living wage should have a tax credit in an amount that wold make his product competitive with his Asian counterpart. I assume you also believe that if that credit isn't large enough this local employer would receive a subsidy, and thereby insure the continuation of his enterprise. Now let's suppose we could calculate this down to the finest point, dollars and cents wise. Then we would have a government input into this business that would lower the cost of his product in the market place. to the exact price point of his Chinese competitor. Competing favorably his business would thrive.Our entrepreneur would become fabulously wealthy. Now does he have to pay taxes?

It's a good story, not likely though. The American companies operating in China would not allow this situation.

There is a simple way to do this. It's called tariffs Global capitalists say tariffs are bad. They restrict trade. You and I know what they really restrict are profits.

This a very delicate problem. How do we rein in these profit machines, that have no thought, concern, nor any legal or moral obligation, for human living conditions or life.

Our friend on this thread, I believe it's ANOK, Thinks that the ownership of the means of production should be turned over to the ones actually doing the work to produce. The workers in the mill should own the mill. Well this has it's problems to, It's been tried and that the workers can make the company competitive or successful is not a certainty. And to para phrase " meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

To my way of thinking, the system we have has worked petty well, and only recently has begun to fail us. The main reason for this failure, in my mind is the tremendous growth in size and influence of corporations. Too big to fail is not just a catch phrase. The outsized control these behemoths have are a danger to the markets and the very lives of the humans dependent on these markets.

In my opinion, the big failure has been that of government. I maintain that government is the only entity with the size and power to control and limit the activities of business and to remedy the inevitable progression of free market capitalism. The greatest success of big business is to have convinced the people that government is the enemy.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
There's still a delusional part of me that thinks that this can all be solved if we can quickly find a way away from oil and gas. If we can find a stable, near-inexhaustable energy (like hydrogen cells), the prices of just about EVERYTHING drops again. I think oil is the root of all evil in this. But as it is, we're not even concerned with finding alternative fuels that can be used on a global scale. We're putting all our money into finding ways to maximize the efficiency of our current energy sources, which in the end turns out to be counter-productive. The hydrogen age could already be here if we weren't busy spending trillions of dollars every year to get oil over here in the US. Just my 2 cents.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
and morally.

Oh but we make up 80% of the arms trade in the world, selling death to all sides.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We also I bet are tops in drugs and slave trade...................America's top leader is lucifer not Obama.

Obama or what ever puppet the Bohemian Grove Campers place into office all follow the same general that Hitler followed.

Our leaders have no scruples, no moral decency - profit over people and that means you dear reader as well as me and your neighbor if we don't make a profit for this master will have no qualms in mowing us down like a lawn mower mows grass.

We have become a Godless nation - a nation of people that have allowed our corrupt leaders to flourish and do not hold them accountable although there are more of us than them.

So be it.

Wonder what the elite leaders planned for the rest of us useless eaters this July at the Bohemian Grove while worshiping molach????



Man's ways suck, we have blindly allowed evilness via hate, bloodshed and murder to rule over us. Like Harry Potter???? Well with your silent compliance you support the dark lord, except the real deal makes HKR's dark lord look like a boy scout.

And most of you don't even see it, those that do sit quietly back and try to remain under the radar.

Well, nobody is gonna get out of this alive unless they get rid of our corrupt leaders.





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join