IMF considers abandoning fractional reserve system!

[Banano]

But I don't see what tariffs have to do with keeping American corps. from outsourcing jobs. Are the tariffs he proposes going to be on American companies manufacturing abroad, as well as foreign companies? The tariffs would have to be almost prohibitively high to offset the cheaper cost of labor abroad. I'm all for a bit of protectionism; I just don't know if it will bring back the defecting companies. And mainly what I'm hearing from Romney is more "trade agreements," which means the opposite of tariffs.[/quote]


American corps? What American corps? hmm..you see globalization screwed up everything, who is to say that Apple is american, if you try to tax them more they will simply register in some other country where tax rules are favorable to them, just like many bookmakers did to avoid strict rules and taxes

Corps have $$ to bribe and lobby politicians, Romney just talks, there is no way he could change anything to bring business back unless we elect Hugo Chavez as president

US had G Bush Republican for 8 years and wht has he done to economy?
Amazes me how people believe that after elections things will get better if their candidate wins? How much of a sheep you gotta be to believe that
cant they see trend, trend is your friend

[Jester]

Amazes me how people believe that after elections things will get better if their candidate wins? How much of a sheep you gotta be to believe that
cant they see trend, trend is your friend

Well-said.

[Jester]

But I don't see what tariffs have to do with keeping American corps. from outsourcing jobs. Are the tariffs he proposes going to be on American companies manufacturing abroad, as well as foreign companies?

Tariffs fall on products, not companies. So manufacturing jobs would come back, regardless of who owns factories here or overseas.

Outsourcing of call centers, engineering services etc is a separate matter. Good point, I never thought about that. It could be addressed by the income tax code. Or by graduating some damn engineers here. I think curriculums, guidance counselors and student financial aid should all be geared to useful tech skills. That would help some. Plus we could ban datasharing about customer data between corporations or across borders without explicit, large-print customer permission. That would cut way down on utsourcing I think.

The tariffs would have to be almost prohibitively high to offset the cheaper cost of labor abroad.

That's the point. And it works.

And mainly what I'm hearing from Romney is more "trade agreements," which means the opposite of tariffs.

Yup. Romney will not bring prosperity.

[Teal Lantern]

http://www.infowars.com/what-if-we-adop ... our-money/

Riiiight.
Banksters: "Now that we've stolen .. er .. 'rehypothecated' everything that wasn't nailed down, let's re-imagine a world without theft."

[Jester]

http://www.infowars.com/what-if-we-adop ... our-money/

Riiiight.
Banksters: "Now that we've stolen .. er .. 'rehypothecated' everything that wasn't nailed down, let's re-imagine a world without theft."

Exactly!

Maybe we should do business in scalps.

"I'll give you twenty Fannie Mae loan packagers for one Illuminati..."

"OK, throw in an NSA eavesdropper and you gotta deal!"

[golgi]

Think about it like this:

What if everything that you thought that you knew, including conspiracy theories that get any significant traction on the net, was/were designed and planted to become eventually become widespread as accepted doctrine?

Than would mean that the entire 'end-the-fed' movement is designed so that it eventually comes to pass. Why? Well, if you think about it, doing so would take care of a large elite perceived problem: overpopulation. On one hand, bringing a one world government into existence (it's here, the only obstacle now being ethnic/nationalistic associations of people and some shithole country hold-outs that are being toppled one-by-one - everything else is theater, imo) would have been impossible without the fractional reserve system. No one political entity would be able to wield enough power to do so without almost unlimited resources that were able to be created out of thin-air. No one government would have had enough assets/production to fund a campaign to politically overpower every other political entity in the world. The unfortunate side effect of printable resources (money) is that it fosters greatly accelerated population growth. Getting rid of the fractional reserve system would cause a violent deleveraging of the artificial support system that keeps all of the excess people in the world alive. You would see starvation on mass scale, as jobs and income would bottom out. This is why they can't get rid of the fractional reserve system, at least not until they are fully confident that they can handle the ruckus and death that follows. I don't see a logical continued need for it, from their perspective, and I think that they now likely view it as primarily supporting the undesirable side-effect of continued over-population. The end-the-fed movement was put in place so that they can credibly stage the revolution necessary to switch out of the fractional reserve system when it's time. All 'revolutions' are fake/staged, btw, in this day in age. People don't: a. have the organizational capability b. the financial capability c. the large scale risk taking impulse necessary to even cause a moderate disturbance these days, especially when they would have to go up against modern police forces. It's a fact that revolutions are now all fake / staged, including the one that will eventually end the fed.