Live data from Hacker News

David Rockefeller has died

bloomberg.com

181–190 of 242 posts

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#181

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, they channel it for their purposes" This is really just a troll comment where you put everyone in a group group under one umbrella. Now others will need to waste their timé feeding the troll. This really is not a constructive or educational way for people to spend their afternoon.

> This is really just a troll comment where you put everyone in a group group under one umbrella.

There is criticism of the Gates Foundation too: http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critiq...

David Rockefeller certainly did some good things with his influence. But he was also a globalist, which has had the effect of allowing 1st world companies to replace expensive workers through offshoring.

Some people do good work with their foundations. But a lot of it is cover for tax planning.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#182
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you should make yourself aware of the regular taxation laws in force at the time those fortunes were amassed. The difference I guess is that in the US the rich give away most of their money (often for favorable tax treatment on the remainder of their estate) and in Europe they just pass it along to their children to maintain the nominal level of Eurotrash the world seems to require.

I wasn't claiming rich Europeans are any better. :) I'm simply claiming that this insanely rich american guy a) percentage-wise gave away quite a bit less of his fortune than e.g. myself has given away in taxes/wealth-distribution in Sweden. b) get's to be called a "philantrophist".

The difference is that the money was given away willingly, was personally directed to beneficial causes, and was orders of magnitude more than you have "donated."

You're not doing the same thing - and, while we can debate how the meaning of the word "philanthropist" has changed, this is the widely understood modern definition.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about how they go about it, putting the Middle East into so much turmoil for example, hurting people over there in an ends justifies the means manner. It's the wrong way to go about it and therefore at its core its rotten and therefore the sought outcome will never be positive in terms of the biggest picture for all. It's a dangerous track they now have us on and the people aren't happy. I'm not sure we could su…

> Just read the Wikipedia article on the Gulf War. It's clear GH Bush pursued it to keep the oil price stable. ... Have you made any effort to try to learn foreign policy? Or are you relying only on piecemeal reading of events and your predisposed biases to determine your worldview? Most politicians read a lot (Trump is an exception, and he's terrifying for it), and much of what they read is public policy theory book…

You're going to have to rely on A) "piecemeal reading of events" and B) the lens that someone is pulling the strings to see anything other than what the powers that be put out through the media and foreign policy authors. So no, I'm no master of foreign policy, but I've done plenty of my own research, and reading between the lines I've determined there is a high likelihood that there are hidden actors doing major things, and therefore that the conspiracies are the bread crumb trail to something big, specifically within the United States Intelligence Community and the Military Industrial Complex. The school of thought you seem to be representing likely never acknowledges such--so it's like: who cares how much foreign policy knowledge you have when it's all geared away from so called "conspiracy theories."

All you need to do is use personal logic. Take JFK as an example: a man killed JFK. Then he was killed. And then within 3 years that guy was dead too. Is that not extremely fishy. Gun to my head and I have to make a split second decision whether that was a plot or not--the logical answer, for me at least, is that it's a plot. There are too many things like that. And all those events will never be proven until they are, at which point we'll be living in a very different world. That was their whole point--to hide and obscure what really happened and true intents. All these so called conspiracies were carried out by extremely powerful and formidable people with the sole aim of keeping them secret--do you think it will easily come out. Of course not. But with too many discrepancies it's become increasingly difficult to believe anymore.

All you really need to do is watch this short interview of General Wesley Clark on his shock about our pre-planned strategy to invade a bunch of Middle Eastern countries and--provided this guy is real--you know something is up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojcoKnTGf4s&feature=share

Anyway brother, just remember one's true intent is extremely easy to conceal if that is your goal. Do you think all the true intents of all the politicians and heads of states are really out out there worn as a pin on their breast? No, it's not. If they are smart they will always find ways to make it seem like the enemy's fault, e.g. Saddam Hussein invading kuwait because what he claims was them lending Iraq money to fight Iran and benefiting from it and therefore should mean the debt is wiped clean. I'm not saying whatever nonsense he had in his head wasn't "nonsense" or that he wasn't working is way through Kuwait to Saudi Arabia. What I'm saying is a power as powerful as the United States can dodge and weave and use any circumstances to its advantage. That's part of the advantage of being the top dog--you can counter punch anything and still come out unscathed. But it doesn't make it right when the powerful intentionally blow things out of proportion to attain an aim the public would otherwise not support. And it's definitely not right if they fabricate lies to do so. I do believe everything is a matter of degree, and do I believe the US is far on the evil side? No. Do I believe they've taken it too far and tipped the see-saw to a very dangerous side. This I know to be true, even if they have been wrongly pegged by conspiracy theorists--their handling of conspiracy theories alone has been egregious in its inability to allow for any perspective other than a hyper patriotic one; no perspective is allowed other than one that thinks America can do no evil. I think it can, and I don't think the thought needs to be the end of us, but rather the beginning of a conversation and hopefully a new era. Either way, it's going to take something big to reverse the dangerous course we're on.

So no I'm not convinced America is a benevolent force operating for the broadest picture of the greater good, and I'm not going to be intimidated by anyone who's read tomb after tomb of perspectives biased toward the anglo-saxon tradition/hierarchy of the west or whatever you wanna call it. The west has been dominating the world in the open for Millenia. With the advent of media and various news networks, it now needs to do so in the shadows. I highly doubt the agenda has changed. I highly doubt those with lots to gain are able to see how ends-justify-the-means-mentality is not in interest of the biggest picture for humanity when they stand to benefit in the immediate short term by such actions. I do believe they think they are doing good. I dont believe in James Bond villains. I believe their perspective is outdated, skewed by self-interest and will not ultimately create a cooperative more integrated world as they hope. We have gun-to-your-head peace in the world now, thanks to the US. History has told us that never lasts. Somebody will creep up behind us and eat our lunch, and use our same aggressive tactics against us, and at this point in history with so much technological progress, it might be catastrophic. In short, America needs to lead by not muscling around so much. Our time will come unless we start to back down. It's as simple as that. We're dealing with people who have the thought process that you can only stay on top by ruling through strength. And I disagree. My opinion is it lasts for a time, but always comes to an end, and that what has far more longevity is a cooperative attitude that sometimes requires backing down, specifically when ur wrong. But America won't back down even when they're wrong--hence we never apologized for Vietnam, hence our approaching 20 years in the middle east that didn't need to happen. I firmly believe we should 100% get out today, and that THAT would be the best decision for humanity, even if it leaves things in a disarray. Most people believe we now have to pick up the pieces for the mess we made. Well, that's about to lead to us in Syria, etc, and all the other countries General Wesley Clark says has been on our list since 2001. Yea, we need to get out immediately. The world doesn't want this. It's only a matter of time before it results in a major conflict. In addition, it's just wrong. It's not the right way to go about it. You can't make a cooperative world through the lack of it. What goes around will eventually come around. America is the Roman Empire and it doesn't need to go down in flames--rather it can be a stepping stone to a more conscious cooperative planet. But our invasions will lead to us going down in flames, regardless of what good intents we can get the media and foreign policy authors to claim it was about.

So unless you're a foreign policy expert trying to see everything through the lens of "who's really pulling the strings," I don't value much what such a writer says. The reality is all the writers that are looking for whose pulling the strings are cast off as conspiracy theorists. So you're basically saying: if you don't trust the consensus the powers that be and the media put out, your point of view is a conspiracy theory or that of a dilettante. That's unfair and nonsense. The good thing is that times are changing--most educated people in their 20s and 30s, that i meet at least, believe the conspiracies or strongly entertain them. The world is changing, and though we may not have proof, we aren't stupid and it's not going to last much longer. Trump is a reflection of that. He may be egregious, but it's a step toward unraveling the powers that be within the Intelligence/Military Industrial Complex.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no deeply liquid markets that span borders, the horror Lets bring back a Europe with 27 different bond and stock markets in 27 different volatile currencies

It's more complex than that... Debt is denominated in currencies ... so with the current system bad borrowing behavior by one member of the currency union (Greece) would lead to devaluation of the currency to other members of the union (Germany). Having multiple currencies is okay as long as there is liquidity between them. That being said, centralizing currency leads to economic growth as long as the money is well s…

> Having multiple currencies is okay as long as there is liquidity between them.

The bond market in that entire economic region was comparatively underdeveloped and has attracted massive liquidity improvements since 1999 stretch far out down the yield and risk curve

But yes we can write a whole dissertation on various aspects of the monetary union

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#185
post #4

"Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- One World, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 4…

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…

There's also the Rockefellar medical drug connection: https://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=rockefeller+drugs+med...

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why globalization must necessarily mean total domination by the "elites". Yes, it's a significant risk factor in that scenario, but the two don't come in a package, bound together with epoxy. It would only happen if we continue to refuse to address the issue of inequality - this time on a global scale. Some form of globalization is actually the best case scenario, the golden path for this world. It must i…

i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization. if you look at the poor countries, you'll find a multitude of structural problems. until these structural problems are dealt with, globalization is likely to feed corruption. i agree that globalization would reduce the risk of global conflict - there would only be one side. thus, if the wrong people were in power there would be no way to fight them. that's scar…

Take something like Climate Change. Pretty good example if any that global cooperation is needed to solve. Also ultimately the biggest inequality issue looming as it will disproportionately hurt the world's poorest.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#187
post #92

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?

> They're talking about net worth. You're talking about income. 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.

That's a stupid statement. Net worth is not income. Surely you understand the difference between the money you deposit in a checking account and the interest the bank pays on your deposit. Furthermore, net worth are just estimates of the monetary worth of all property belonging to someone.

Just admit you were wrong.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#188
post #92

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.

> 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.

You're somehow confusing money that someone intentionally gave away to philanthropic causes with money that a state takes away forcefully from anyone's income, as if everyone would wilfully give it away to charitable causes even if the state didn't took it from them, and also somehow assuming that Americans don't pay taxes as well.

Tell me, when was the last time you gave away over 10% of your income to philanthropic causes?

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In charitable work, we often say that you either give your time or your money. The younger tend to give their time; the older tend to give their money. Similarly, people have visions for how the world should be. The young and of-less-means tend to give their time, engaging in grassroots efforts or marches. The old and rich tend to give their money. Both use their resources to shape the world towards what they believe…

In addition to this, there really is an almost fetish-like following behind the ideas that the Rockefeller's in particular secretly 'rule' or 'ruin' the world. John D. Rockefeller Sr. stated many times that he believed that it was God's plan for him to: (paraphrasing) 1) Acquire as mush wealth as he could through business. 2) Donate this money to help humanity in the best ways possible. And he did exactly that. And h…

[deleted]

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#190
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, that's why we trust doctors, because the bar is that high. Two thoughts: 1. The old joke, "What do you call the person who graduated from medical school at the bottom of their class?" "Doctor." 2. The ordeal of residency isn't about setting the bar "high", nearly so much as it's about, "well, I went through this shit, so you have to, too". (Source: I have several doctor friends. All of them think it's bulls…

> Two thoughts... "What do you call the person who graduated from medical school at the bottom of their class?" What do you call an engineer who graduated from the bottom of their class? The ordeal of residency isn't about setting the bar "high", nearly so much as it's about, "well, I went through this shit, so you have to, too". (Source: I have several doctor friends. Medical doctors are trained to exhibit a level o…

> The 'bootcamp' approach is what we know at the present time to work best.

What other approaches have even been tried? I don't think, in the absence of meaningfully tried alternatives that have been shown to be lacking, that a proclamation of "best-ness" is particularly warranted. ("It's the best!" "Oh? What else have you tried?" "It's the best." cycles aren't responsive.)

I note you're a physician, as well. How much of your perspective on the matter is a result of your having been through a similar process?

I'm not. But I take the word of my physician friends — one of whom, a perinatologist, recently accepted a position at a prestigious teaching university — very seriously. They aren't just speaking from their experience. They're, if their explicit statements are to be believed, relating the experience of nearly every other physician they know.

Sure, that's still a vanishingly small fraction of the total physician population. At what point, then, does this chorus of, "This is not the best way to do this" become worth listening to, and not merely writing off as griping by the uninformed, or a minority of slackers with sour grapes?

Post reply on HN