Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

David Rockefeller has died

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 242 posts

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#211

Post by sintaxi »

endisukaj wrote: post #124
aylmao wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a more integrated global political and economic structure" doesn't mean "international cooperation" though, it just means more free trade policies, and international political regulation instead of national. International cooperation can be achieved without an integrated political and economic structure. My country doesn't need to have the same economic policies and regulations as your country to live in harmony wit…

What is wrong with more free trade policies?

To name a few reasons...

- It creates tax havens by allowing corps to claim profits in the country of their choosing. (see Apple Inc.)

- It forces workers in developed countries to compete with workers in countries that don't have adequate human rights/pay. (see Walmart)

- It wreaks havoc on the environment by overproduction and shipping.

- People in underdeveloped countries pay the price for pollution created in developed countries.

- Corporations become huge very quickly and end up having massive influence in politics of several countries.

- Countries ultimately lose their sovereignty to the shareholders of these mega-corps.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#212

Post by henrikschroder »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #164
henrikschroder wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is bad, but eliminating extreme poverty is really, really good.

If the lower and middle classes of a country don't benefit from globalism(like the US right now), political instability and widespread disdain for globalism will result. It may be a net positive overall, but it doesn't mean much if everyone around me is losing their jobs. If globalism is that important to lift other countries out of poverty, then we need to find a more sustainable way to carry it out.

Well, they do benefit from globalisation, they can all afford flatscreen TVs, and a mobile device with internet access, for example. Stuff is incredibly cheap in the US, and is getting cheaper all the time.

The US has a really bad track record when it comes to distributing the gains of globalisation in terms of disposable income, it is absolutely not the case that "a rising tide lifts all boats", because the gains have predominantly gone to the upper and upper-middle classes, screwing the middle and lower classes over.

Other western countries have managed this much better, and redistributed the gains more evenly. That the US sucks at redistribution, is not a case against globalisation, but that unfortunately doesn't stop the uninformed populist-in-chief and his angry supporters from blaming all their woes on globalisation.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#213

Post by [deleted] »

notsofastmister wrote: post #102

He probably wasn't too far from the disgusting coup against Salvador Allende on the 9/11/1973, organized by the CIA. From the guardian : "But the very name of Allende was anathema to the extreme Right in Chile, to certain powerful corporations (notably ITT, Pepsi Cola and the Chase Manhattan Bank) which did business in Chile and the United States, and to the CIA." [0] "He [David Rockerfeller] was both chairman and ch…

[deleted]

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#214

Post by notsofastmister »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #99
notsofastmister wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mao Ze Dong was working with the Yale-China association in the 1920s. So China wasn't as closed as it may seem. And a banker working with all the dictators in the world (and Kissinger!) isn't "most people". [0] Can you find any other example of someone praising China at the same time? Mass killings had already been a part of life in China since 1911. [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale-China_Association [1] ht…

More fake news. China was closed from roughly 1950 - 1972. In 1920 they'd just overthrown the last dynasty and were trying to establish a democracy, so, it makes sense they'd be in contact with the US at that time. Unfortunately there were some assassinations and their multi-party system never got off the ground. There are probably tons of optimistic articles about US-Chinese relationships in the mid-1970s, as well a…

Ok, I finally found a good reference:

"In the 1960s and 1970s, David Rockefeller, then-chairman of Chase Manhattan, frequently visited Hong Kong and opened more branch offices there. In 1973, the bank became the Bank of China's first American correspondent bank." [0]

The guy who wrote the book in 2016 has an M.A. and Ph.D. in economics from Harvard, works for the Congressional Research Service and is an affiliate faculty member at the economics department of George Mason University.

Is this still fake news? Or was David Rockefeller the first American Banker to open a branch in China after numerous trips in Hong Kong?

[0] https://books.google.ch/books?id=Qaa7DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT116&lpg=P...

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#215

Post by jlebrech »

kolbe wrote: post #63
jlebrech wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake news has no trouble convincing people a rich guy is evil.

They prey on prejudices. In my case, all I remember is seeing it on reddit a long time ago. I don't think I even read the article, but I remembered the headline. Then, when I saw he died, I just googled it real quick, picked out the closest link, and reposted AQAP.

people hate the 1% as much as anyone else. i'm he's had plenty of time to do evil tho.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#216

Post by piva00 »

curun1r wrote: post #209
xd360 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really need to learn about Bill Gates before you judge him and publicly express your misguided views. Bill Gates has committed to give all of his wealth to philanthropy over his lifetime, leaving only $10 million for each of his 3 children after his demise. That means $30 million of his (current) $80 billion networth is all that will be left for his family whereas the rest goes to charity. That's philanthropy of…

> You really need to learn about Bill Gates before you judge him and publicly express your misguided views I don't care about any of his philanthropic deeds. As far as I'm concerned, they're all "fruit of the poisoned tree." Without his misdeeds, he'd never be in position to be the philanthropist he's become. If you want to talk misguided, you seem to think that he can atone for his past misdeeds. You're wrong. He se…

Your kind of world view is too black or white, you are lacking the continuum spectrum of gray that permeates all of human existence.

I'm not the one to defend Bill Gates, I think his business practices were atrocious for a lot of industries and we are going to feel the wake of it for a while. With that said, I still think you have too much of a romanticized view of how the world "should be", the world isn't that and it has already happened, that ship has sailed and now Bill Gates tries to pay back to society with the value he created (or siphoned if that's your view), it is what it is.

It's impossible to tell whatever would happen if there was no Bill Gates business practices in the world, you can't say "every bit of good that he's doing could have been done by others", that's an impossible statement to assert.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#217

Post by dracht »

hwillis wrote: post #96
Exofunctor wrote: post #33

I am, by most metrics, an ardent globalist; I advocate absolute free trade and absolute free movement. However, it's not very hard to recognize that many people's definition of globalism effectively includes such things as forced immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states, which are conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation.

>forced immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states, which are conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation. We have had all of those things for over a century in the US. You don't even have to be a citizen to be able to immigrate to any state in the union from any other state. "Cultural erasure" is even more nonsensical than "cultural appropriation". Overburdening of welfa…

You're arguing from the arrogant point of view that the USA is the pinnacle of civilization and other nations should strive to emulate it.

European countries, and most other nations in the world, have/had native populations that enjoy cohesion through a common culture, history and ethnicity. Being American is a loose concept that a newcomer can easily adopt. Being Japanese or German carries with it more than just having the appropriate passport, and for that reason the integration of immigrants in Europe has failed completely. Turks in Germany identify as Turks despite being born on German soil. Who is to blame - the Turks, for sticking to their tribe, the Germans for sticking to theirs, or the people who forced this idea of multiculturalism on them both?

A quarter of the population in the Netherlands is of non-Dutch origin and that number will grow significantly in the foreseeable future. That change happened in a mere 30 years or so. To say the Dutch people (and Belgians, Swedes, etc) should not worry about being displaced and made a minority in their own country is to tell them to stick their heads in the sand.

Reducing peoples' thoughts and emotions to "they don't want immigration because they're racist proletarians" is inflammatory, intended to silence opposition to failed social experiments. Keeping immigration at a level that doesn't cause unnecessary friction does not mean you want to shove people into ovens. This whole debate is a battle between ideology and pragmatism.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#219

Post by macspoofing »

thrillgore wrote: post #168
macspoofing wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Rich people don't give money away no-strings-attached.. Why not?

Greed is a response to insecurity and doubt. They don't want to fear the idea of a life where their exceeds needs aren't met by wealth, so they retain it. This isn't meant to be calling out the "bourgeoisie" to put at best, but there is an emotional response to uncertainty here.

You're talking out of your ass, aren't you.

Re: David Rockefeller has died

#220

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

henrikschroder wrote: post #212
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the lower and middle classes of a country don't benefit from globalism(like the US right now), political instability and widespread disdain for globalism will result. It may be a net positive overall, but it doesn't mean much if everyone around me is losing their jobs. If globalism is that important to lift other countries out of poverty, then we need to find a more sustainable way to carry it out.

Well, they do benefit from globalisation, they can all afford flatscreen TVs, and a mobile device with internet access, for example. Stuff is incredibly cheap in the US, and is getting cheaper all the time. The US has a really bad track record when it comes to distributing the gains of globalisation in terms of disposable income, it is absolutely not the case that "a rising tide lifts all boats", because the gains ha…

It is true that some electronics are cheaper, but much of the lower class is becoming unable to purchase a house or afford an education. Plus there are other expenses that didn't exist in the past, such as internet and cell phone bills. Edit: The quality of life for the lower class has also gone down, since wages have gone down & both people of a family are basically required to work nowadays.

How have other western countries managed this better? Can any of the methods used by those countries you speak of be used in the US?

Post reply on HN