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.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by neo96
Thanks for the laugh and want to explain to me why it is that no other economic model known in world history has lifted billions of people out of poverty, and advanced the world to the current technological progress?
Capitalism has put more people into poverty than it has made rich.
You have a twisted perspective of reality because you have been conditioned that way by the lies we are taught, and you in a wealthy country.
What other economic model do you want to compare with? Capitalism has been the dominant economic system since we were forced off the land in the 1700's. It doesn't mean we would not have developed without it. In fact at the end of feudalism the 'commoners' (none-land owners) were doing quite well and their wealth was approaching that of the land owners. This is why the land owners had the enclosure laws enacted, because they felt their power, and control, was being threatened. The enclosure laws forced the commoners off the land, and were forced into factories and mills in order to survive. So instead of autonomy and liberty the commoners became the working class, and exploited to make the land owners incredibly wealthy. We went from working our own plots of land to wage poverty.
Yes capitalism has brought us wealth, but it also bought us global war, poverty, breakdown of society, property crime, the modern state system, wealth for a minority class who control the rest through economic control of politics. If capitalism worked so well then why does the rich poor divide keep getting wider?
There is nothing wrong with money, making money, the problem is in the ownership of the means to produce, and the mass inequality in wealth it causes. Its the mass inequality in wealth that makes the majority slaves, and minority privileged class. In reality we have the infrastructure capable of making us all fat and happy.
edit on 3/24/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by steven2977
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by neo96
Thanks for the laugh and want to explain to me why it is that no other economic model known in world history has lifted billions of people out of poverty, and advanced the world to the current technological progress?
Capitalism has put more people into poverty than it has made rich.
You have a twisted perspective of reality because you have been conditioned that way by the lies we are taught, and you in a wealthy country.
What other economic model do you want to compare with? Capitalism has been the dominant economic system since we were forced off the land in the 1700's. It doesn't mean we would not have developed without it. In fact at the end of feudalism the 'commoners' (none-land owners) were doing quite well and their wealth was approaching that of the land owners. This is why the land owners had the enclosure laws enacted, because they felt their power, and control, was being threatened. The enclosure laws forced the commoners off the land, and were forced into factories and mills in order to survive. So instead of autonomy and liberty the commoners became the working class, and exploited to make the land owners incredibly wealthy. We went from working our own plots of land to wage poverty.
Yes capitalism has brought us wealth, but it also bought us global war, poverty, breakdown of society, property crime, the modern state system, wealth for a minority class who control the rest through economic control of politics. If capitalism worked so well then why does the rich poor divide keep getting wider?
There is nothing wrong with money, making money, the problem is in the ownership of the means to produce, and the mass inequality in wealth it causes. Its the mass inequality in wealth that makes the majority slaves, and minority privileged class. In reality we have the infrastructure capable of making us all fat and happy.
edit on 3/24/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Straight out of the marxist playbook.
You can't stand next to a communist country and a capitalist country and claim that communism is better.
You do however demostrate that the driving engine of communism is envy.
Like Obama, who grew up hating this country, full of envy.
Of course its not about communism or capitalism, communism is a stalking hourse for the elite, whose real
intent is a worldwide system of fudalism, with themselves at the top.
The elites lost control for awhile, with the opening of the free world, but they are regaining it, and the system they always prefer is fudalism.
And if you think the last dark age was bad, imagine one with high tech controlled by a elite few
Originally posted by WP4YT
I have a gut feeling they are going to replace the nations police forces with the DHS, nation wide. I think they are just giving it a trial run in the already oppressive state of NY, first.
Originally posted by coltcall
When Gubbmint ordered an extravagant 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, that means Gubbmint can pick and choose when they want to confiscate the orders of ammo coming off the assembly lines.
That means Gubbmint....who has first choice of whatever comes off the assembly line....can shut down the assembly line at any time they wish.
As of now, Gubbmint is keeping the flow of ammo off the assembly lines to a trickle. They can shut down the entire ammo distribution in a Spider Man's Flash.
To make it worse for the ammo consumer, Gubbmint can order another 12 billion rounds of ammo to keep the assembly lines permanently shut down to the citizen.
How can Gubbmint do this and you can't? Gubbmint is using your tax dollars to confiscate the ammo.
Originally posted by Ikema
I'm going to go out on a limb here and call total bull sh!t. These fear mongering threads are a dime a dozen, so why should I take this more serious than the others? We couldn't even control Afghanistan. The government, tried to overthrow the people? Really? I think you'll find more factual stuff to read in the prophets area. Seriously though, I hope they go after all the people with guns. That would be very entertaining not to mention amusing.
Originally posted by vtr99
Originally posted by Ikema
I'm going to go out on a limb here and call total bull sh!t. These fear mongering threads are a dime a dozen, so why should I take this more serious than the others? We couldn't even control Afghanistan. The government, tried to overthrow the people? Really? I think you'll find more factual stuff to read in the prophets area. Seriously though, I hope they go after all the people with guns. That would be very entertaining not to mention amusing.
Fear mongering? So you are saying the facts don't count? But history has shown many times the majority fail to see the truth until it's too late. What you need to ask yourself is what percentage do you give those of us who say there is something to worry about? Looking at the facts, any logical person would say the odds of another financial meltdown are 100%. But let's say you're really skeptical, and give it only a 10% chance. What will you do if you're wrong?
It won't be the people who prepared and have guns that will be the problem. It will be all the lemmings who didn't see it coming that will riot and need to be controlled. The 47% living off government handouts will be the first to suffer. There is currently a run on guns and ammo. Next it will be banks, and then food.
Originally posted by coltcall
A billion is a thousand million.
1.6 billion rounds of ammo is a thousand six hundred million rounds of ammo.
1.6 billion rounds owed to the Gubbmint means the Gubbmint can shut down ALL sales to the public whenever the Gubbmint wants to start collecting on their 1.6 billion rounds.
If the Gubbmint needs to buy another billion rounds....or a thousand million rounds....the Gubbmint will continue to use taxpayer dollars to further shut down the sale of ammo across the board to American citizens.
On a moment's notice.
A moment being sixty seconds or less.
Originally posted by AceWombat04
So, I've asked this question once, and then a second time, and have yet to receive a single reply. So I'll ask one last time.
Who is the author of this Before It's News piece? Why are they credible? Who is their high level source? Is there any evidence the latter exists and is credible?
If the answer to this question is, "I don't know," can someone find it within themselves to say so at least?
Peace.