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.
To understand its position, you must first understand that the government is not managing the economy for the people of this nation. It is managing it for a tiny transnational elite, a kind of global gated community. To the people inside the gates, who fund the Conservative party, who own our politics, the media and the banks, the rest of us are an inconvenience, to be bribed, threatened or fooled.
....Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration's relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called "junk bond" innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals.... www.econlib.org...
Today's global food crisis shows "we all blew it, including me when I was president," by treating food crops as commodities instead of as a vital right of the world's poor, Bill Clinton told a U.N. gathering on Thursday. UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 23, 2008
President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient. www.democracynow.org...
So Where Do Anti-Hoarding Laws Come In?
These ideas of anti-hoarding legislation may have stemmed from two areas of confusion:
First is from Executive Orders in place dating back to 1939 which Clinton has grouped together under one order, EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. The following EOs all fall under EO#12919:
10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the US;
10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private;
10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment;
10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways;
11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires;
11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private;
11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US
11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft;
11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;
11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private;
11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control incase of "National Emergency").
These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items... www.millennium-ark.net...
Even though many homeowners are put into trial Making Home Affordable Programs, thousands of homeowners complain that a few months after making reduced monthly mortgage payments their banks avoid permanent loan modifications. By now, it's no secret that home loan servicers are making money on foreclosures rather than approving home loan modifications. www.suite101.com...
“To ensure that the mortgage servicer pushes default instead of workout, the servicer is paid double (50 basis points versus 25 basis points) by the MBS to service a loan in default. Why do you think your servicer tells you that you must be in default before it will consider a mortgage modification, a practice known as invited default?
“Simply put,” says Parker, “the government bailout of AIG has actually encouraged foreclosures because the taxpayers continue to fill AIG’s coffers with enough cash to pay out insurance on defaulted home loans.”
...CDS premium revenue is not restricted to those who might have actual losses or real assets to protect. You can bet as much as you want and create as many CDS as you want....
www.realtytrac.com...
The economic disparity between industrial farms and those that retain locally owned and controlled farms may be due in part, to the degree in which money stays in the community. Locally owned and controlled farms tend to buy their supplies and services locally, thus supporting a variety of local businesses. This phenomenon is known as the economic “multiplier” effect, estimated at approximately seven dollars per dollar earned by the locally owned farm. PEW REPORT
Wealth from the poor???
Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Today I came upon a very interesting article in what I think was "Business Week". The article was from 2009, but the information within is very telling even for today.
The article talked about Mexican banks finding a very profitable niche; lending to the poor. While here in the U.S. you will see APR financing at about 28%-30% for bad credit, in Mexico banks lend at up to 150% APR, and they are not required to disclose the rate to the person applying for the loan! Although poor Mexicans will borrow very small amounts of money (anywhere from $150 - $1,000.00), the high APR percentage over long periods of time will accumulate to a large amount of profit for the banks. It proved to be so profitable, that Walmart decided to open their own branch of lending in Mexico (lending at about 80%APR), something they couldn't get away with in the U.S. Since poor Mexicans can't afford to buy TVs, washers, phones and the like outright, they like to finance everything they buy. The stores advertise items as "Only $23.00 per week!" which makes the poor feel like it's a more manageable amount. When they stop making payments, the bank sends out collectors on motorcycles. If the person can't pay, the bank/store will take back the item to repay the loan, even if the person had already paid the full price of the item, but didn't pay back the interest. By taking back the item the store has now essentially made free money.
I can look at this in two ways. By lending money to the poor and making more expensive items accessible even to the poor, the poor benefit by being able to buy whatever it is they need. On the other hand it is absolutely clear that these Mexican banks and Walmart are completely taking advantage of the poor, and making them pay twice the amount for an item that a more wealthy person can buy for far less money. These banks lobbied their Government, and the Mexican Government basically rolled over and allowed them to do whatever the hell they want to do. They don't have to disclose anything to the consumer, and they can change the APR whenever they feel like it. It is completely unregulated and insane. Let's be glad that stuff isn't happening here in the U.S. and let's make sure it never does happen. Banks should be able to charge interest on a loan, that's one way of how they make their money, it's a fair practice, but that practice must be bridled and balanced. To rape poor people simply because they are poor is unethical and unjust.
Here's a link to a similar article: Microfinance Goes Awry: Case Study of Bank Compartamos’ Interest Ratesedit on 15-2-2011 by 2manyquestions because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by doom27
I don't know guys, it doesn't make sense that a me, a 20 year old, who makes less than 25k a year had to pay over 400 dollars in taxes to poor people on unemployment in the US.
Originally posted by 2manyquestions
To rape poor people simply because they are poor is unethical and unjust.
Originally posted by 2manyquestions
The stores advertise items as "Only $23.00 per week!" which makes the poor feel like it's a more manageable amount.
Originally posted by 2manyquestions
When they stop making payments, the bank sends out collectors on motorcycles. If the person can't pay, the bank/store will take back the item to repay the loan, even if the person had already paid the full price of the item, but didn't pay back the interest. By taking back the item the store has now essentially made free money.