161–170 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Globalization has caused the largest transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor countries in the history of mankind, reducing inequality between countries on an unprecedented scale.
This is true, but it has also strengthened inequality significantly within countries: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlodonnell/2014/07/11/the-roc... "That young man was John Davison Rockefeller in 1855, who in 25 years would become the wealthiest man of his time, and arguably the wealthiest in history, reigning over a monopoly that refined as much as 90 percent of America’s oil. His flag…
They're talking about net worth. You're talking about income. Kind of silly either way though - why don't you just come out and say that you think he should have donated more?
For people who create our the net worth by means of income (that is the most of us) the end result is pretty much the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're talking about net worth. You're talking about income. Kind of silly either way though - why don't you just come out and say that you think he should have donated more?
No, I prefer just to point out the hypocrisy surrounding getting acclaims for "philantrophy" in the US. Seems like even those who have the most give out back less to others than they would have done just by the regular taxation laws, living in a typical European country.
Not to mention that you're comparing the donations of a single person to the collective net worth of 200 people. More fair would be to compare that $900M to David Rockefeller's net worth, not that and all his very-extended family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, but it has also strengthened inequality significantly within countries: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf
Yes, that is bad, but eliminating extreme poverty is really, really good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But you're describing some kind of theoretical ideal world. We don't live in that world. Everything is "theoretical" and "ideal" and "impossible" before it actually happens. Electronic computers were an impossibility to James Watt era engineers. Steam engines were an impossibility to the architects of the Parthenon. Raising large stone edifices was an impossibility to hunter-gatherers roaming the savanna. Yet all t…
So you're telling me I should support TPP, globalization efforts, and the subsequent concentration of economic and political power because you have a good feeling that humanity is heading in the right direction and we can invent some effective control on inequality because nothing is impossible the same way we invented the electronic computer?
Shifting the center of this discussion would take too long. I'm not here to write a dissertation about the evolution of human society. I think I've hinted at how things could possibly unfold, if we make a consistent effort to better the future of the Earth. Read what I've said and that should provide some indication - unless your mind is set on "winning" a contest of punditry, in which case I wish you good luck.
TLDR: I think the best of all possible futures could be achieved through some measure of unity on a global scale, at a higher order of magnitude compared to what we have now. Inequality is one of the many obstacles on the way there. Narrow-minded nationalism is another. It would require massive changes on multiple levels, and it will not happen in a day or two. Call the end result whatever you like. But anything that could bring that future closer is a good cause to support.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-...
this cartel is behind many wars, false flags to make the government need more money for weapons, so they would borrow it from the federal reserve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For my own curiosity could you point out a single low tax country that has well maintained infrastructure?
Estonia may be a decent example here. Not every tax is low, but corporate income tax is 0% and personal income tax is a flat 20%. However lots of infrastructure upgrades have been done with EU money. So the tax is still there, just not being paid by the locals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > Rockefeller upheld the family’s philanthropic tradition, giving away more than $900 million during his lifetime. In 1940, he joined the board of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, established in 1901 by his grandfather, and a decade later succeeded his father as board chairman, serving for 25 years. Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached, they channel it for their purpo…
>Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached.. Why not?
This isn't meant to be calling out the "bourgeoisie" to put at best, but there is an emotional response to uncertainty here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't be both? Isn't that the least comforting? Not that it proves anything; People often believe what they fear is true. All you need to know is that MKUltra existed. The people responsible were never brought to justice. Maybe some of you have loose morals but I could never join this shit.
> It can't be both? But that introduces complexity in your thought process. Most people are far too lazy for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of them were White Christians for the longest time. Are people of that even temperament that you can't see differences between them?
Certainly I see differences in people's culture. I don't damn them for it.
Given that in most countries that are purely Muslim have reason to resent the West and see their struggle as being in part ideological, as Western materialist culture is antithetical to Islamic theocracy, should we not be a little bit wary?
I don't think culture is the only variable, but even if it was, there is still cause for concern.