201–210 of 548 posts
I am failing to see how someone who founded a company that hasn't made > $1B in profit over each of the last twenty years can have a fortune of $75B
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is just crazy. So, in your scenario, HRC wants Gaddafi's money. So she orchestrates an attack on a US embassy nearly a year after he died, as a false flag operation. And then we sent people in get the money. Of course, officially we didn't send anyone in Libya in response to the attacks except some more marines to guard the embassy, so this group that went in to get th…
OK, first, I am not trolling - and I didn't state that this was my belief per-se... I do find all the Benghazi BS to be super weird - but thats just me without all the facts... However, it is a documentable fact that Gaddafi may have been the richest documentable person (clearly we are ignoring the Rothschilds etc...) in the world... He had vast assets and liquid cash all over the place. This is known - so do not acc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument is trivially inconsistent. The state must protect liberty by interfering with one's liberty? State interfence is a direct transgression against an individual's liberty. Thus far the majority has decided that such interfence is a greater evil than the "inequality" that it could reconcile.
That's the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine I find a way to create bread from thin air and don't tell anyone else how to do it. Assume the value of a loaf of bread to a consumer is 1 dollar. I sell 100 loaves for 99 cents each, because that's what the market will bear. How much money have I made? 99 dollars. How much value have I created for everyone else? 1 dollar. Now imagine instead I give away 100 loaves for free. How much value have I created for…
That's not really how consumer surplus works. Just because "the market will bear" a certain price, does not mean the value to a given buyer is that price. In reality, there are probably some who really do only value the loaf at $1, but others would be willing to pay $1.10, $1.20, or even more before the transaction was no longer break-even. You might make an attempt to capture this surplus as well (this is called pri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is just crazy. So, in your scenario, HRC wants Gaddafi's money. So she orchestrates an attack on a US embassy nearly a year after he died, as a false flag operation. And then we sent people in get the money. Of course, officially we didn't send anyone in Libya in response to the attacks except some more marines to guard the embassy, so this group that went in to get th…
Sorry - but you're accusing me of a timeline I had not stated. I said that fuckery was afoot -- I didn't give any timeline or sequence to events... I simply stated that Gaddafi was murdered for his money (and the fact that he refused to bow to the Rothschild central banks, and wanted to run his system on a gold standard) -- I did NOT stand up for anything regarding his character, dictatorship or anything. And yes - I…
That was my best guess at a timeline for your conspiracy theory. Would you care to give an alternative?
You're also kind of all over the road here. First you say "I simply stated that Gaddafi was murdered for his money" but in the next paragraph you say "Gaddafi got killed for a reason we will never know". And you follow that up with "and his ~$70 billion dollars evaporated to who-knows-where" when just before you proposed that the money was taken by HRC. And you seem really certain at least some part of this is true, saying "He was murdered for his money. And anyone who says that is not true is fucking clueless about what the fuck is actually happening in this world" but then respond to someone calling your theory "a rumor". I honestly don't know what you believe or don't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a little hyperbolic. In feudalism the balance of power is enforced by violence, whereas Jeff Bezos got rich because you gave him money in exchange for products. Like, "Hey, here's this cool electronic device called the Amazon Echo for $50." is a markedly different from "Farm here or I'll decapitate you." The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terr…
The negatives need not be so similar for the two to occupy the same space of vast property ownership concerns - namely that a single person has what many consider to be a troubling amount of wealth and power. EDIT: sentence structure change
Also, I think it is extremely problematic to compare any system with large disparities of outcome with an essentially violent system like feudalism (or just defining "inequality = violence", which people do) because what you are doing is basically justifying violence against that system. Violence against capitalism has happened historically, multiple times, and has led to huge injustices, the slaughter of innocent people, and the ruin of every society that has tried it (unless they ease off like China). That alone is a great counterexample to the idea of capitalism = feudalism = violence.
World's two richest men from Seattle tech companies. I hope some of this money translates to venture capital. Number of successful startups in Seattle pale in comparison to SV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina,_Washington
You can kinda see both of their mansions (covered by privacy hedges) when driving across the SR-520.
World's two richest men from Seattle tech companies. I hope some of this money translates to venture capital. Number of successful startups in Seattle pale in comparison to SV
[1] N. Wasserman. The Founder's Dilemmas. 2012.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really meant San Fran. An extreme disproportionate amount of investment dollars go there considering just how much value has come out of Seattle with much less starting capital.
a) "San Fran" is not used by most locals. b) Silicon Valley is 30 miles or so south of San Francisco.
B) 30 miles makes it part of the same metropolitan area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The negatives need not be so similar for the two to occupy the same space of vast property ownership concerns - namely that a single person has what many consider to be a troubling amount of wealth and power. EDIT: sentence structure change
But that's not the important part. The violence is the important part. Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity. Also, I think it is extremely problematic to compare any system with large disparities of outcome with an essentially violent system like feudalism (or just defining "inequality = v…
What if they just inherited it?
How confident are we that everyone who has a lot of monetary power today got to that place originally through productive economic activity vs. illegitimate/criminal activity, or unproductive economic activity, or inheritance, or just being the first to colonise (or often just plain steal) some land, or some other less savory source?