This is why there are no jobs in America

when banks and investment houses can borrow billions at 0.25% interest from the federal reserve and the equivalant european reserves, and then buy federal treasury bonds paying at least 1.00% guaranteed by the taxpayers, why would they invest in you or any business.

the real truth is that we are now going through a period where large capital institutions, that lost billions and billions in derivitives worldwide, are being paid back with western countries federal tax reciepts.

when scapegoating....always follow the money.

One of the basic problems that we are facing today is the collapse of a flawed business model that began in the 1980s. Before that, most businesses had to collect capitol BEFORE starting a new venture. After the loosening of credit regulations that occurred in the '80s, businesses were encouraged to take out loans in place of contacting investors to begin ventures. Now, the credit crisis has hit that business model a death blow and, in addition, the stock market has become "high risk" for most investors. People got use to not keeping lots of cash available and relying on credit for most purchases thus savings declined so banks don't have the actual assets they once controlled so everyone is afraid of runs on banks so they aren't giving out loans, even though they have higher liquidity than they did three years ago.

So, what we are seeing is a breakdown in the money cycle. Banks aren't giving loans, businesses don't have capitol to invest on new projects, people are having a hard time finding jobs. It's basic economics and caused by one thing. Fear of government regulation and taxation combined with fear of further economic collapse.

This is a really hard thread to get involved in as I kind of have the same view as the original poster and also the complete opposite view at the same time.

As far as I can see Capitalism basically works through exploitation. i.e. you pay someone less then their labor is worth in order to make a profit from that labor.

In the past when countries that are now considered developed had large amounts of people living below the poverty line and no rules at all about working conditions, social care, minimum standards of living and the like then it was pretty easy to start a business from exploiting people in your own country.

In the Victorian period in the UK you could employ people to make matches for you, not give a damn about whether or not they died from the chemicals that were used in the manufacturing process, pay them so little that they could barely afford to buy a loaf of bread and not care about them at all when they died. Thus the cost of employing them was extremely low and you could make a reasonable profit from their labor.

Now that rules are in place about the fair treatment of employees, minimum wages etc etc companies just farm out the work to countries that still have the working conditions that most society's would find unacceptable.

If you are trying to start a company that manufactures clothes for example, there is just no way to compete if you want to employ Americans / Europeans and have to pay them a living wage, give them a pension, pay for their dental work etc
It's much easier and cheaper to get your clothes manufactured in a place where poverty is still rife (Indian, Philippines) and you don't have a legal obligation to worry about how badly the person that is making things for you is being treated. If they die you just pick another starving person up from the streets and sit them in front of a sewing machine.

The only way that a company can survive by manufacturing things with American / European labor is if they go for the "luxury branding" option where they can charge a premium for their goods precisely because they are "Made in the USA" and unfortunately consumers just don't seems to be bothered about where their products are made, as long as they are cheap.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower


I disagree

the reason there are no jobs is because there are people who can do the same work for a 1/10th of the cost. In order to compete and remain competitive more and more business's
outsource jobs to save money and maximize profit.

This government refuses to address the need for tariffs which could help facilitate EQUITABLE trade agreements.

What is certain my friend is the big industries that suck this countries wealth dry have a friend in you. Under the same banner they perpetrated the largest theft of wealth in history if you recall. I suggest YOU draw a line in the sand and differentiate between
a small chain store and CHASE, BP, BOFA and the rest... This is how they sneak in and screw us, remove a few pertinent obstacles and go daddy go, cries of freedom often
proceed great folly and have seen how this "freedom" manifests.

We are in a binary age now sire, 1's and 0's + no rules =

remember you will have to live in that world too, we are very close









[edit on 7-9-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Janky Red]

The OP is incorrect. While the USA does have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, they have the lowest rate of tax collection from corporations in the world as well.

This is because there are so many LEGAL loopholes that corporations use to get out of paying taxes, that if ANY business, small or large, is paying taxes of any kind, then they need better lawyers and better accountants.

Corporate and Small Business America contributes very little to the overall tax collection by Governments at ANY level, other than campaign funds to politicians.

If corporations paid their fair share of taxes, the USA probably wouldn't have a budget deficit.

You know which corporations (amongst others) paid ZERO taxes this year?

MICROSOFT
APPLE
GOLDMAN SACHS
EXXON MOBIL
BP
GENERAL MOTORS
HALLIBURTON

The list goes on, and on, and on. You can pretty much guarantee that all of the car companies and banks that received taxpayer money in bailouts have rarely paid ANY corporate income tax, ever.

Well how can it be possible to ship products from the other side of the world to your location and not be able to compete against that.

Now, here is the thing that I would suggest.

If our government, wants free trade and also the ability to enforce regulations. They can do this.

If the government requires certain regulations of business in their own country, then that government MUST either require the countries we do business with to do the same, or install tariffs to equalize the competition.

Is that TOO MUCH to ask?

Funny how the government, especially the Clinton Administration that implemented these NAFTA and GATT economy killers, does not attempt to equalize the very restrictions they place on our businesses.

Almost as if the MEANT to destroy the US.

I myself believe it is on purpose.

Cannot implement a Global government if one country's standard of living is higher than other countries.

Just my common sense and trends research shining through.

reply to post by soontide


You've nailed it. It makes me shiver to think that companies now have to rely on loans to make payroll every two weeks.

In our grandfathers day, capital was raised through PROFIT, then invested back into the company. Most companies ran on zero debt at all times, and only borrowed money in extreme circumstances.

In the current business environment, you have President Obama on TV saying things like "we have to get banks lending again so that small businesses can hire more people".

Countries are in debt, corporations are in debt, small businesses are in debt, families are in debt, individuals are in debt. Pretty soon they will figure out how to lend to our pets.

It's borrowing money that got those small businesses (and several large ones) into trouble in the first place.

If you can't run a business within your profit margins, then you should not be in business, this should be capitalism lesson 101, first day in business school.

reply to post by babybunnies


That is the debt based society that the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Rothschilds and the other REAL controllers envisioned long ago.

Our currency is a DEBT vehicle. It is NOT a commodity.

Wealth is debt, so to speak.

I know exactly what you are saying.

It use to be to actually purchase something, you actually had to save.

Or when getting a loan, you actually borrowed another entity or person's assets that were in the bank.

Now, we go to the bank, you fill out a loan application, the bank puts the note into the computer as an asset. To balance the equation, they give you dollars as the debit to their account.

They just created currency out of NOTHING.

That is another component to the problem.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Well how can it be possible to ship products from the other side of the world to your location and not be able to compete against that.

Now, here is the thing that I would suggest.

If our government, wants free trade and also the ability to enforce regulations. They can do this.

If the government requires certain regulations of business in their own country, then that government MUST either require the countries we do business with to do the same, or install tariffs to equalize the competition.

Is that TOO MUCH to ask?

Funny how the government, especially the Clinton Administration that implemented these NAFTA and GATT economy killers, does not attempt to equalize the very restrictions they place on our businesses.

Almost as if the MEANT to destroy the US.

I myself believe it is on purpose.

Cannot implement a Global government if one country's standard of living is higher than other countries.

Just my common sense and trends research shining through.

Tariffs!!!

I believe the left and right can rally around this and find a united front -

Instead of this bickering we should grassroots this one idea until it is achieved

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by babybunnies

 

That is the debt based society that the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Rothschilds and the other REAL controllers envisioned long ago.

Our currency is a DEBT vehicle. It is NOT a commodity.

Wealth is debt, so to speak.

I know exactly what you are saying.

It use to be to actually purchase something, you actually had to save.

Or when getting a loan, you actually borrowed another entity or person's assets that were in the bank.

Now, we go to the bank, you fill out a loan application, the bank puts the note into the computer as an asset. To balance the equation, they give you dollars as the debit to their account.

They just created currency out of NOTHING.

That is another component to the problem.

this is the binary nature of our problem...

However I do not think we could remain a nation if we actually tried to return to the days of actual wealth such as gold.

How do you propose to manage a system which is primarily digital in nature without regulation?

reply to post by Janky Red


Well first off, we cannot allow signature creation of currency.

We cannot allow banks to loan out illusory money, or I mean signature created debt vehicles.

The derivatives created with these signature created debt vehicles was one of the main problems that created this whole mess. Bubbles are created by this very credit creation.

I would say that anyone that makes loans, should be required to have as much assets as they loan out, and not be allowed to sell those debts.

This would make the banks responsible for the loans they give out.

Here is what happened specifically in this crisis.

Banks seeing the profit possible and being forced by the government to make risky loans, created these debt vehicle derivative to cover their backsides. They knew that these mortgages were mostly going to fail so they came up with the idea to create a way out of the problem. Also, you then had the insurance companies like AIG creating insurance to back these crazy debt vehicles.

It was INEVITABLE. It was Ponzei and Madoff rolled into one.

Like I said, we HAVE to go back to actuall asset based loans and wealth savings.

Credit destroys. Now you do not have to go back to gold. You can base your currency on anything of value. The more stable the better. Or even a conglomerate of commodities would be the best.

Say in the US, you could use Corn, Wheat, Oarnges, etc etc etc.

Now places that do not have big agriculture, as an example Saudi Arabia could use oil.

The problem with this is when people attempt to manipulate the currency by manipulating a single commodity. That is why I think a conglomerate of commodities to be the best bet.

That is my suggestion anyway.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Well first off, we cannot allow signature creation of currency.

We cannot allow banks to loan out illusory money, or I mean signature created debt vehicles.

The derivatives created with these signature created debt vehicles was one of the main problems that created this whole mess. Bubbles are created by this very credit creation.

I would say that anyone that makes loans, should be required to have as much assets as they loan out, and not be allowed to sell those debts.

This would make the banks responsible for the loans they give out.

Here is what happened specifically in this crisis.

Banks seeing the profit possible and being forced by the government to make risky loans, created these debt vehicle derivative to cover their backsides. They knew that these mortgages were mostly going to fail so they came up with the idea to create a way out of the problem. Also, you then had the insurance companies like AIG creating insurance to back these crazy debt vehicles.

It was INEVITABLE. It was Ponzei and Madoff rolled into one.

Like I said, we HAVE to go back to actuall asset based loans and wealth savings.

Credit destroys. Now you do not have to go back to gold. You can base your currency on anything of value. The more stable the better. Or even a conglomerate of commodities would be the best.

Say in the US, you could use Corn, Wheat, Oarnges, etc etc etc.

Now places that do not have big agriculture, as an example Saudi Arabia could use oil.

The problem with this is when people attempt to manipulate the currency by manipulating a single commodity. That is why I think a conglomerate of commodities to be the best bet.

That is my suggestion anyway.

sounds good to me

In the case of currency reserve and loans, how on Earth can that be monitored and what would be the incentive for compliance?

A good friend of my family told me a great story a year back-

His son who is a gifted astrophysicist was tapped by Bank of America four months before this mess... He was offered a large sum of money to literally reinterpret BOFA's entire holdings and reassemble it using the very out reaches of human mathematical understanding. This kid assembled a team which included the highest caliber computer students and essentially created such a mess that "no man and no computer in existence" could effectively understand the financials fully. From what I understand the goal was to design a maze of false positives using algorithms that used
the "real financial" to paint an illusion of what the bank desired to portray to the public and the Feds alike. The code was essentially math that very few people can grasp, instead of human based code they used the complexity of nature as a basis, therefore very few people could even detect its employment in the first place.

I really wish I recorded that story, it was probably the most interesting thing I have ever heard.

reply to post by Janky Red


Well, here is the deal with that. I had an accounting class or two. I guess I had it before the rules of these days.

Our professor stated that besides doing things by the rules or law, we would have to do our jobs so that it did not even appear that some shady things could be going on.

I would suggest that accounting rules be brought back to say 30 years ago. This would get rid of the accounting problems and the blatant coverups.

Hell, how can you sell anything that cannot be understood. That is why I found it funny how the banks that got suckered into buying the derivatives these asses created.

Greed I guess. That is the standard format for grifters, use the greed of their marks against them.

Also, never ever bail out ANYONE. If the government states they are too big to fail. Well break em up; YESTERDAY!

Is that not what monopoly laws are all about?

I find it telling that the Financial Reform bill actually allows too big to fail to exist. Does that mean whoever voted for it, wants to destroy the small businesses and incorporate them into the behemoth corporations? I find this to be the case.