Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Basic solution to economic problem.


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 gardener

gardener

    Realistic Humanist

  • Members
  • 10,044 posts

Posted March 07 2009 - 09:45 AM

Develop a product and control it's prodution globally. Why is that a hard concept to grasp? The US came up with the Personal Computor, why didn't that lead us into stability and global control? The biggest innovation since the telephone or railroads. Perhaps we should look at what lead us to giving up that leverage. Selling out our advantage...and for what personal gain of a few for a few years? Think about it Hollywood used to be a medai power, but what does it buy this country? Home computers they reap more benefits for Asia than they do the US, sneakers...Nike made the huge inroads, but who benefits? Autos...Ford made their mass production a consumer success, a fact of life...but who owns it now? And in animation Disney was the power in the industry but who animates their films now: Indonesian and India. I think it's time to protect the innovations of this country and protect the employment, productivity and innovation of the people that live there.

#2 Tsurugi_Oni

Tsurugi_Oni

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 582 posts

Posted March 07 2009 - 11:41 AM

Nobody intrinstically "owns" any idea or resource that the world gives us. If foreign companies make better cars than us, than it's our fault for not being competitive. What you're talking about is akin to exploitation, or power tripping. What if we charged Europe for every potato they grew because it came from "America", or China charged us for bullet we made because gunpowder was a Chinese invention?

#3 gardener

gardener

    Realistic Humanist

  • Members
  • 10,044 posts

Posted March 07 2009 - 12:43 PM

If no one owns any idea or resource then what are royalty and copyright laws all about? What are patents and trademarks all about?

I don't know where you've been living but certain things are protected and exploited. You can't call your firm Mickey Mouse Plumbing and use a picture of Disney's mouse to advertise it, without inviting a lawsuit.

Some things are worth protecting from exploitation.

And without Luther Burbanks hybridizing of the potato, we probably wouldn't be eating potatos today.

#4 Tsurugi_Oni

Tsurugi_Oni

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 582 posts

Posted March 07 2009 - 03:44 PM

You must not know what "intrinsic" means. That means "from within", patents/laws come are imposed from the outside.

Just because somebody thought of the idea of a car, does it mean that they own that idea and any related concepts for the next 20 years? What if I patented a scientific formula so that I was the only person who could use it?

How do you propose "protecting innovation"? The only way to protect an idea is through an artificial system called law. And when you start talking about protecting your ideas from the world, you can get into some very dangerous territory.

Nearly all cultures have exchanged technologies with each other throughout history, it's just what happens. What you want is to be king, to have all the power. Intrinsically power is not a bad thing, but it's much better in today's world if no one government/country has all the power. We have everything we need in the U.S. to be happy and healthy, it's just power that's kept us from realizing it.

#5 Aristartle

Aristartle

    Snow Falling on Cedars

  • Super Moderator
  • 13,884 posts

Posted March 09 2009 - 05:50 PM

Develop a product and control it's prodution globally. Why is that a hard concept to grasp? The US came up with the Personal Computor, why didn't that lead us into stability and global control? The biggest innovation since the telephone or railroads. Perhaps we should look at what lead us to giving up that leverage. Selling out our advantage...and for what personal gain of a few for a few years? Think about it Hollywood used to be a medai power, but what does it buy this country? Home computers they reap more benefits for Asia than they do the US, sneakers...Nike made the huge inroads, but who benefits? Autos...Ford made their mass production a consumer success, a fact of life...but who owns it now? And in animation Disney was the power in the industry but who animates their films now: Indonesian and India. I think it's time to protect the innovations of this country and protect the employment, productivity and innovation of the people that live there.


The USA essentially did come up with a product that would control its production globally; that's what the Bretton Woods discussions were, the Uruguay Round talks which spawned the GATT, then it became the WTO, the IMF and World Bank alike from those same talks. The point was to secure global resources, manage them and control them for the benefit of the USA trade industries.
Quand les temps auront changés, qu'on sera complètement démodés
Quand toutes les bombes auront sautées, que la paix sera la pour rester
Quand sans boussoles sans plan, au partira au gré du vent
Quand on levera les voiles devenues de la poussières d'étoiles

On va s'aimer encore, au travers des doutes, des travers de la route et de plus en plus fort
On va s'aimer encore, au travers des bons coups, au travers des déboires, de la vie à la mort
On va s'aimer encore

#6 gardener

gardener

    Realistic Humanist

  • Members
  • 10,044 posts

Posted March 09 2009 - 09:50 PM

Trade industries or global corporate interests who have no loyalty or sense of responsibility for the good any society? Their only interest is profit.

#7 Pressed_Rat

Pressed_Rat

    In a state of ketosis

  • Members
  • 28,673 posts

Posted March 09 2009 - 10:42 PM

The Bretton Woods agreement was the product of serveral nations (acting on behalf of the globalists) to come up with a way to regulate the international monetary system. It was not soley to do with the US or any other country. The leading architect of Bretton Woods was Keyenes, who was a British economist representing the British government at Bretton Woods. It had no more to do with the US than it did Britain, the USSR, or any other allied nation involved, though it did establish the US dollar as the world reserve currency.

Bretton Woods was not really about production or anything like that. It dealt with monetary policy. The Bretton Woods conference did introduce the idea of an organization to regulate trade, which later became GATT (now the WTO) in 1947, but that was not the primary purpose of the meeting. The IMF and World Bank (established in 1945) have to do with the regulation of the global financial system, and that was the primary purpose of Bretton Woods. GATT came a few years later, though it did dovetail with and was part of the same agenda that was proposed at Bretton Woods. It has nothing to do with benefiting the USA because big business has no borders or allegiance to any particular country. That's why they're called transnational corporations and not US corporations. The US has been affected in a terrible way by trade agreements like NAFTA anf GATT, which have sent the majority of production overseas, to countries where slave labor is rampant.

MI0000018559.jpg?partner=allrovi.com


#8 wally m

wally m

    14

  • Members
  • 2,602 posts

Posted March 09 2009 - 10:54 PM

To get really simple. When we stopped producing the stuff we are buying we ran out of jobs.
.com

#9 Pressed_Rat

Pressed_Rat

    In a state of ketosis

  • Members
  • 28,673 posts

Posted March 09 2009 - 10:59 PM

To get really simple. When we stopped producing the stuff we are buying we ran out of jobs.


That is why the US cannot -- will not -- recover from this crisis. From this point forward the US will never be what it was before, but neither will most countries which are also going through this.

MI0000018559.jpg?partner=allrovi.com


#10 Balbus

Balbus

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • 6,999 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 04:36 AM

Rat

It was not soley to do with the US or any other country. The leading architect of Bretton Woods was Keyenes, who was a British economist representing the British government at Bretton Woods. It had no more to do with the US than it did Britain, the USSR, or any other allied nation involved, though it did establish the US dollar as the world reserve currency.



Oh Rat you must know this is complete rubbish I mean you’ve read the article I’ve linked for you quite a number of times now and you’ve never put any arguments against it, Oh accept to hint that the person who wrote it must be a member of ‘the conspiracy’

For those that might have missed it -
Clearing Up This Mess : John Maynard Keynes had the answer to the crisis we’re now facing; but it was blocked and then forgotten.

http://www.monbiot.c...g-up-this-mess/

Poor old Lord Keynes. The world’s press has spent the past week blackening his name. Not intentionally: most of the dunderheads reporting the G20 summit which took place over the weekend really do believe that he proposed and founded the International Monetary Fund. It’s one of those stories that passes unchecked from one journalist to another.

The truth is more interesting. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, John Maynard Keynes put forward a much better idea. After it was thrown out, Geoffrey Crowther - then the editor of the Economist magazine - warned that “Lord Keynes was right … the world will bitterly regret the fact that his arguments were rejected.”(1) But the world does not regret it, for almost everyone - the Economist included - has forgotten what he proposed.

[My bold]
Got that Rat?

BLOCKED

THROWN OUT

REJECTED

*

It has nothing to do with benefiting the USA because big business has no borders or allegiance to any particular country. That's why they're called transnational corporations and not US corporations. The US has been affected in a terrible way by trade agreements like NAFTA anf GATT, which have sent the majority of production overseas, to countries where slave labor is rampant.



And yet more rubbish

Harry Dexter White ensured that the US could never lose. He awarded it special veto powers over any major decision made by the IMF or the World Bank, which means that it will never be subject to the Fund’s unwelcome demands. The IMF insists that the foreign exchange reserves maintained by other nations are held in the form of dollars. This is one of the reasons why the US economy doesn’t collapse, no matter how much debt it accumulates(9,10).



Basically the US had tried to shape the Bretton Wood agreement to give it an economic advantage, that in turned gave an advantage to US businesses.

And through its grip on the international institutions (that it forced through and established at Bretton Wood) it imposed the so called ‘Washington Consensus’

The consequences, especially for the poorest indebted countries, have been catastrophic. Acting on behalf of the rich world, imposing conditions which no free country would tolerate, the IMF has bled them dry. As Joseph Stiglitz has shown, the Fund compounds existing economic crises and creates crises where none existed before. It has destabilised exchange rates, exacerbated balance of payments problems, forced countries into debt and recession, wrecked public services and destroyed the jobs and incomes of tens of millions of people(7).



And as documented in such books as ‘The Shock Doctrine’ by Naomi Klein US firms were at the forefront of helping (and profiting) from the bleeding of those places dry.

**

PS:

(acting on behalf of the globalists)



This is conspiracy theory – in future if not strictly relevant to the issue being discussed such asides may be edited out of your posts or the whole post deleted.

Keep conspiracy in Conspiracy.

**

Posted Image

#11 Aristartle

Aristartle

    Snow Falling on Cedars

  • Super Moderator
  • 13,884 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 08:05 AM

Trade industries or global corporate interests who have no loyalty or sense of responsibility for the good any society? Their only interest is profit.


Indeed.
Quand les temps auront changés, qu'on sera complètement démodés
Quand toutes les bombes auront sautées, que la paix sera la pour rester
Quand sans boussoles sans plan, au partira au gré du vent
Quand on levera les voiles devenues de la poussières d'étoiles

On va s'aimer encore, au travers des doutes, des travers de la route et de plus en plus fort
On va s'aimer encore, au travers des bons coups, au travers des déboires, de la vie à la mort
On va s'aimer encore

#12 Aristartle

Aristartle

    Snow Falling on Cedars

  • Super Moderator
  • 13,884 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 08:07 AM

The Bretton Woods agreement was the product of serveral nations (acting on behalf of the globalists) to come up with a way to regulate the international monetary system. It was not soley to do with the US or any other country. The leading architect of Bretton Woods was Keyenes, who was a British economist representing the British government at Bretton Woods. It had no more to do with the US than it did Britain, the USSR, or any other allied nation involved, though it did establish the US dollar as the world reserve currency.

Bretton Woods was not really about production or anything like that. It dealt with monetary policy. The Bretton Woods conference did introduce the idea of an organization to regulate trade, which later became GATT (now the WTO) in 1947, but that was not the primary purpose of the meeting. The IMF and World Bank (established in 1945) have to do with the regulation of the global financial system, and that was the primary purpose of Bretton Woods. GATT came a few years later, though it did dovetail with and was part of the same agenda that was proposed at Bretton Woods. It has nothing to do with benefiting the USA because big business has no borders or allegiance to any particular country. That's why they're called transnational corporations and not US corporations. The US has been affected in a terrible way by trade agreements like NAFTA anf GATT, which have sent the majority of production overseas, to countries where slave labor is rampant.


LOL.

So it's just a coincidence that the USA makes up 70% of the GATT from the get-go and has more authority in the World Bank and the IMF?

It's like the USA was the lame duck of the globalist agenda, eh?

LOL.
Quand les temps auront changés, qu'on sera complètement démodés
Quand toutes les bombes auront sautées, que la paix sera la pour rester
Quand sans boussoles sans plan, au partira au gré du vent
Quand on levera les voiles devenues de la poussières d'étoiles

On va s'aimer encore, au travers des doutes, des travers de la route et de plus en plus fort
On va s'aimer encore, au travers des bons coups, au travers des déboires, de la vie à la mort
On va s'aimer encore

#13 Elijah

Elijah

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,630 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 08:07 AM

they could try bringing back the gold standard. so that way paper money will be valuable again, and it could work provided they weren't printing up retarded quantities of cash.

#14 Elijah

Elijah

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,630 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 08:09 AM

if you think there's no upcoming global economic collapse. go back to sleep, everything's just fine


Rat



Oh Rat you must know this is complete rubbish I mean you’ve read the article I’ve linked for you quite a number of times now and you’ve never put any arguments against it, Oh accept to hint that the person who wrote it must be a member of ‘the conspiracy’

For those that might have missed it -
Clearing Up This Mess : John Maynard Keynes had the answer to the crisis we’re now facing; but it was blocked and then forgotten.

http://www.monbiot.c...g-up-this-mess/

[My bold]
Got that Rat?

BLOCKED

THROWN OUT

REJECTED

*



And yet more rubbish



Basically the US had tried to shape the Bretton Wood agreement to give it an economic advantage, that in turned gave an advantage to US businesses.

And through its grip on the international institutions (that it forced through and established at Bretton Wood) it imposed the so called ‘Washington Consensus’



And as documented in such books as ‘The Shock Doctrine’ by Naomi Klein US firms were at the forefront of helping (and profiting) from the bleeding of those places dry.

**

PS:

This is conspiracy theory – in future if not strictly relevant to the issue being discussed such asides may be edited out of your posts or the whole post deleted.

Keep conspiracy in Conspiracy.

**



#15 Aristartle

Aristartle

    Snow Falling on Cedars

  • Super Moderator
  • 13,884 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 08:10 AM

The Bretton Woods agreement was the product of serveral nations (acting on behalf of the globalists) to come up with a way to regulate the international monetary system. It was not soley to do with the US or any other country. The leading architect of Bretton Woods was Keyenes, who was a British economist representing the British government at Bretton Woods. It had no more to do with the US than it did Britain, the USSR, or any other allied nation involved, though it did establish the US dollar as the world reserve currency.

Bretton Woods was not really about production or anything like that. It dealt with monetary policy. The Bretton Woods conference did introduce the idea of an organization to regulate trade, which later became GATT (now the WTO) in 1947, but that was not the primary purpose of the meeting. The IMF and World Bank (established in 1945) have to do with the regulation of the global financial system, and that was the primary purpose of Bretton Woods. GATT came a few years later, though it did dovetail with and was part of the same agenda that was proposed at Bretton Woods. It has nothing to do with benefiting the USA because big business has no borders or allegiance to any particular country. That's why they're called transnational corporations and not US corporations. The US has been affected in a terrible way by trade agreements like NAFTA anf GATT, which have sent the majority of production overseas, to countries where slave labor is rampant.


Yes it was. Money is made from production. It was about trade agreements and securing resources to extract, produce, and make a monetary profit. It was about the management of secured production to secure a money making market.

Yeah, and 60% of global world transnational corporations are US based corporations. :rolleyes:

Co-incidence??? :D
Quand les temps auront changés, qu'on sera complètement démodés
Quand toutes les bombes auront sautées, que la paix sera la pour rester
Quand sans boussoles sans plan, au partira au gré du vent
Quand on levera les voiles devenues de la poussières d'étoiles

On va s'aimer encore, au travers des doutes, des travers de la route et de plus en plus fort
On va s'aimer encore, au travers des bons coups, au travers des déboires, de la vie à la mort
On va s'aimer encore

#16 Aristartle

Aristartle

    Snow Falling on Cedars

  • Super Moderator
  • 13,884 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 08:15 AM

they could try bringing back the gold standard. so that way paper money will be valuable again, and it could work provided they weren't printing up retarded quantities of cash.


Oh man. A neo-colonial way of enclosing wealth. Thanks, but no thanks.

Besides, the price of gold right now has exceeded the 'standard' so to speak. I don't think it could work the way it was intended to in the past. Ugh. I'm hot and bothered now.
Quand les temps auront changés, qu'on sera complètement démodés
Quand toutes les bombes auront sautées, que la paix sera la pour rester
Quand sans boussoles sans plan, au partira au gré du vent
Quand on levera les voiles devenues de la poussières d'étoiles

On va s'aimer encore, au travers des doutes, des travers de la route et de plus en plus fort
On va s'aimer encore, au travers des bons coups, au travers des déboires, de la vie à la mort
On va s'aimer encore

#17 Elijah

Elijah

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,630 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 08:52 AM

it's better than using worthless paper currency that gets more worthless each time you print a new batch of it. it just makes more sense is all, but god forbid i suggest such a thing. devaluing our money by taking away ti;s gold backing in the late sventies is one major thing that led up to the trouble we are in now. the only reason they did away with the gold standard to begin with was so they could hoard it for themselves.

Oh man. A neo-colonial way of enclosing wealth. Thanks, but no thanks.

Besides, the price of gold right now has exceeded the 'standard' so to speak. I don't think it could work the way it was intended to in the past. Ugh. I'm hot and bothered now.



#18 Elijah

Elijah

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,630 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 08:53 AM

not anymore, they have just as much outside ownership as they do american ownership.


Yes it was. Money is made from production. It was about trade agreements and securing resources to extract, produce, and make a monetary profit. It was about the management of secured production to secure a money making market.

Yeah, and 60% of global world transnational corporations are US based corporations. :rolleyes:

Co-incidence??? :D



#19 Pressed_Rat

Pressed_Rat

    In a state of ketosis

  • Members
  • 28,673 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 10:24 AM

Oh man. A neo-colonial way of enclosing wealth. Thanks, but no thanks.


LOL!

Please tell me how is the gold standard any more neo-colonial than the global fiat system we have now, which is designed specifically to rob the little wealth the people have from them? Do you honestly believe that the IMF and World Bank are not neocolonial?

MI0000018559.jpg?partner=allrovi.com


#20 gardener

gardener

    Realistic Humanist

  • Members
  • 10,044 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 10:30 AM

If these assholes that seek to profit off our sweat are told protect our work or work themselves what do you think they will do?

I don't think they know how to produce goods. The worker actually has the upper hand if they stand together. Do you think they can train lower paid workers to take your jobs, without you? But if you agree to train lower paid workers for short term gains, and bet against your fellow workers for a quick buck...what can you expect.

#21 Pressed_Rat

Pressed_Rat

    In a state of ketosis

  • Members
  • 28,673 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 10:32 AM

LOL.

So it's just a coincidence that the USA makes up 70% of the GATT from the get-go and has more authority in the World Bank and the IMF?

It's like the USA was the lame duck of the globalist agenda, eh?

LOL.


Who said the US is the "lame duck" in it? But what exactly is "the US"? Is it the people or the internationalist bankers that control it? There is no lame duck when you're talking about globalism because the same internationalists control the economies of all the countries. The US is simply their trojan horse for bringing this agenda in, at the expense of the American people and their sovereignty (as well as the rest of the world's). The reason the US has the most authority in the World Bank and IMF is because the US pays the most into these institutions.

MI0000018559.jpg?partner=allrovi.com


#22 gardener

gardener

    Realistic Humanist

  • Members
  • 10,044 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 10:43 AM

But it's all your fault you wanted to own a home, you bought something the bank told you could afford the monthly payments for, but they didn't tell you that when the going got tough your job was going overseas. Now it's all your fault you can't afford the payments on your home, and the eonomic world is in turmoil. But their CEOs and brokers earned six or more times what you did on your job. But it's your fault!

#23 gardener

gardener

    Realistic Humanist

  • Members
  • 10,044 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 10:47 AM

Barbara Bush got her hog valve, but many of us can't even get a cardiologist's appointment let alone surgery for our conditions without insurance.

#24 Pressed_Rat

Pressed_Rat

    In a state of ketosis

  • Members
  • 28,673 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 11:59 AM

What are you talking about, Gardener, and who are you addressing? I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say or how it fits into this discussion.

MI0000018559.jpg?partner=allrovi.com


#25 Aristartle

Aristartle

    Snow Falling on Cedars

  • Super Moderator
  • 13,884 posts

Posted March 10 2009 - 03:38 PM

Who said the US is the "lame duck" in it? But what exactly is "the US"? Is it the people or the internationalist bankers that control it? There is no lame duck when you're talking about globalism because the same internationalists control the economies of all the countries. The US is simply their trojan horse for bringing this agenda in, at the expense of the American people and their sovereignty (as well as the rest of the world's). The reason the US has the most authority in the World Bank and IMF is because the US pays the most into these institutions.


Um, not really. Jamaica pays more in interest to these institutions in GDP percentage than the USA does. I could go on.

The reason why the USA has more say in these institutions is because these institutions were organized that way. Duh. The USA behaves more like a gladiator through these institutions than any other country, because it was set up that way in order to have more authority in the world over all over countries.
Quand les temps auront changés, qu'on sera complètement démodés
Quand toutes les bombes auront sautées, que la paix sera la pour rester
Quand sans boussoles sans plan, au partira au gré du vent
Quand on levera les voiles devenues de la poussières d'étoiles

On va s'aimer encore, au travers des doutes, des travers de la route et de plus en plus fort
On va s'aimer encore, au travers des bons coups, au travers des déboires, de la vie à la mort
On va s'aimer encore

#26 guy

guy

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • 2,140 posts

Posted March 12 2009 - 01:26 AM

america destroyed its manufacturing industry because it was realised that by educating the populace in democracies was a very bad thing, it destroyed the established status quo (as was realised in europe).

by shifting manufacturing to totalitarian regimes less people were needed to learn anything. totalitarian regimes just shoot dissenters.

in the end america just produced a lot of crap that didn't work and people stopped buying it. repairing american equipment is a torturous process too.

the status quo remains and america moves backwards.