Like RuffDraft said, the top 1000 would about correspond to billionaires. They're certainly rich, but consider it in a historical context. The modern era is enormously wealthier than any other time in history, both overall and for individuals. A median person in the US has in may ways a higher standard of living than kings, emperors, and pharaohs of the past (indoor plumbing, medical care, life expectancy, information/entertainment available, etc.) and controls personal wealth at least comparable to the aristocracy of most past civilizations. A modern billionaire controls resources comparable to small modern nations and past empires. In relative terms, there will always be rich and poor, but that doesn't necessarily say a lot about how they function in society.BeeAre wrote:there are what? like less than 1000 TRULY rich people in the world, and most of them yeah consistently engage in a lot of terrible things, but it is hard to pin down a lot of them as evil, you know i also believe that too. :)
Apparently as of a few years ago, there were about 7 million corporations, 1 million nonprofits, and several tens of millions of other businesses. At any rate, most corporations employ people other than executives. CEOs, say, average several hundred times the pay of their workers. The context of that graph has more to say about wealth concentration and power.RuffDraft wrote:Now consider the sheer number of corporations-...
And now consider how many executives make up the whole of each of those companies.
To some extent, yes, but they and normal news may have "clappy humor" too.BeeAre wrote:satirists do a better job these days because it seems, to be funny, they HAVE to attack logical consistency in policy moves in order to retain their audience.
BeeAre wrote:but let me be specific about my definition as a concession for you: I consider one hundred million to a billion a year in either personal income or total assets in control of moving if not able to be personally indulged in... to be RICH.
I think BeeAre may be be defining "truly rich" as those who individually wield significant economic and political power because of their wealth, and in economy of tens of trillions, I suppose this may be a reasonable line, though it would include rather more than a thousand people. Also, "not truly rich" is not synonymous with "small" or "poor". Those are usually defined in relation to the rest of the economic environment, and BeeAre wasn't talking about where he'd draw THAT line, unless he was being uncharacteristically dichotomous.RuffDraft wrote:Wait. No. Hell no. So everything below $100 million is a small business? Everyone between $1,000,000 and $99,999,999 is poor? Where do you draw the line?
RuffDraft wrote:Good lord, man! Who's attacking you? I don't go out of my way to insult you in these discussions, and it boggles me as to how you can even think that. If I call you out on what I think is a misinformed idea, why does that automatically make it an insult?
See, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the absurdity of your statement. Do you see the difference?
Simplistic misrepresentation of views is a form of rhetorical attack, justified or not.RuffDraft wrote:This coming from a guy who thinks that most Conservatives and rich people are evil?
Sure, but how do you know that your criticisms are accurate? Also, I think that BeeAre was referring to either of two things: a media organization criticizing a person without doing much investigation, including interviewing the person criticized; or a media organization actually interviewing a person, but focusing the discussion on superficial, loaded, controversial, etc. things rather than meaningfully getting at what the interviewee thinks about the topic.RuffDraft wrote:It's hard to take that idea seriously. I can villify someone without ever speaking to them because I know them to be sinister or whatever.
Rather, it's eminently rational, and an extremely obvious thing to do... supposing that government regulations weren't in place to prevent that sort of thing from interfering in socially efficient market operation (or not). And she didn't so much profit from the downfall as she got out before the downfall would have cost her.RuffDraft wrote:Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading. To use one's knowledge of one's own company to profit off her own stock downfall is nothing short of devious.
And did he do anything illegal? Or anything obviously immoral? Was he convicted of anything? And how is he "targeting" America?RuffDraft wrote:George Soros profited about $1 billion (that's $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0, btw) off the downfall of the British Pound in 1992. And this very same man is now targeting America. Jesus fucking Christ.
Who was tried and convicted for multiple murders, which is rather different from insider trading. And being convicted makes it fine for impartial journalists to refer to him as "mass murderer Jeffry Dahmer" "convicted felon Jeffry Dahmer" and such.RuffDraft wrote:Mass murderer Jeffery Dhamer. 'Nuff said.
I think that BeeAre was referring to concerns that he would rhetorically vilify someone he disagreed with rather than literal fears.RuffDraft wrote:*Blink* Fears?BeeAre wrote:Let me lay your fears to rest:
I think that BeeAre might be making a distinction between "talking to" and "talking at" if that's the sense he meant, as above. Note that "vilify" doesn't mean to make factually correct but unflattering statements, it means "speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner". It's the difference between "Person A did X, Y, and Z," and "Person A is the worst person in the world." Or "Cut Person A's mic."RuffDraft wrote:But didn't you just say that they villify people without talking to them? Are they not talking to them to their faces? (lol)
No, but it does mean they're biased.RuffDraft wrote:Jokes aside, the fact that one news group (doesn't matter who they are) might villify someone without talking to them doesn't mean they're wrong.
All journalists are people, but not all people are journalists. So he was referring to people, just not all people.RuffDraft wrote:Ah, so you were simply referring to journalists, and not people. Got it.
As of this, FOX News had all ten of the highest rated "cable news" shows. The most popular star O'Reilley, Hannity, and Beck, and drew about as many viewers as the other six combined. Or perhaps you were referring to Fox & Friends? Would you mind giving an example of what you're talking about?RuffDraft wrote:I don't know, though... I watching FoxNews for a few hours on my boat, and though the time difference did not allow me to see Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, it seemed that those who were on did not simply try to villify the opponent when they had a liberal speaker on... the host gave him more time than the conservative side and stopped one of the others from interrupting him. Are you sure you're watching the right channel?
The deal with that is that the UK had, a couple years before that, entered the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. As part of that, the UK government was obligated to intervene to prevent the exchange rate of the Pound and Deutsche Mark from varying more than 8%. At the time, the UK had much higher inflation than Germany, so (along with some other factors) the Pound promptly lost value, and the Uk government intervened by buying Pounds and raising interest rates to prevent the exchange rate from falling further. Instead of getting out of the ERM and letting the Pound float, the people in charge of policy tried to sustain the Pound's value past the point where they reasonably should have given up. Soros and other investors saw that the Pound's value was unsustainable and due for a sharp fall when the UK government would soon no longer prop it up, and short sold Pounds, which the UK bought in its attempt to keep the value from falling. The UK then stopped its intervention and withdrew from the ERM, the Pound fell, and Soros and the other speculators made a tidy profit.RuffDraft wrote:Anyway, basically what Soros did was short-sell Sterling. ...
But Soros went short, as they say, so heavily that he made approximately $1 billion. The whole thing cost the United Kingdom about £3.3 billion.
So how does this show that Soros was evil rather than just an astute businessman?
RuffDraft wrote:vI don't have access to YouTube right now so I can't show you Soros talking about it, but I can find a quote in which he says, "The United States must stop resisting the orderly decline of the Dollar, the coming Global Currency and the New World Order."
Except, if you watch the video, by "new world order," he's not referring to what you've been talking about, but a reorganization of global financial markets. As in, China takes a larger role as its economy expands to a larger percentage of world GDP, and the value of the dollar declines as the US economy, though still growing, becomes a smaller percentage of world GDP, and its role as a reserve currency declines. Soros pointed out that with the current economic troubles in the US, a weaker dollar would be expected and not all that undesirable. People save more, spend less, and import less. A declining dollar would help conserve/create domestic jobs as foreign competition becomes effectively more expensive. The orderly decline he's referring to is in contrast to a more sudden prospection-fuelled change, which would change fast enough to cause significant economic disruption. Resisting the "orderly decline" might cause a situation comparable to Black Wednesday if the financial situation does indeed go that way.RuffDraft wrote:Soros has even said, in his own words, that he wishes for a new world order. It's not just a passing idea, it's his whole scheme.
Are you serious? Do you understand what Soros was talking about in the video, and how a number of those seem to be just making stuff up? I could critique those if you want, or you could make a point yourself and provide evidence to support it.RuffDraft wrote:He's said so many, many times. (Please be advised that this is all from a simple google search of "Soros new world order," and though I tried to check every link, some of those pages wouldn't load for me) He's not joking, he's not philosophising, this is what he wants. Listen to him speak, read his books, research as you will.
It's still a conspiracy theory because it involves Soros conspiring to do certain things. The question is whether or not it's correct.RuffDraft wrote:Soros sees America as a threat and wants it and everything it stands for destroyed. This man is not to be trusted. If you knew what this man is, and what he stands for, you wouldn't be calling it a conspiracy theory.
Even though "New World Order" could also reasonably refer to the fall of Communism, as in those Communistic governments he helped overthrow (some of the stuff you linked talked about statements made in 1992, when this would make sense in that context). And you haven't explained why a capitalist like Soros would want socialism like you're accusing.RuffDraft wrote:Soros is not talking about wrestling. He's talking about an extreme Socialist "World Government" with a global currency that everyone in the world is governed and controlled by. You know all those examples I present that you say are unfair and don't represent "real" Socialism (etc.)? That's what he wants, but worldwide.
At which time he was 14, and essentially a gofer. He didn't exterminate the Jews himself. What do you propose he might have done as an alternate course of action?RuffDraft wrote:But he doesn't feel bad about this. In at least two television appearances (1994 and 1998), he has said that he feels no guilt over having evicted his Jewish neighbors, or over the extermination of nearly a half million of his fellow Hungarian Jews. In the introduction of one of his books, he wrote: "It is a sacreligious thing to say, but these ten months [of the Nazi occupation] were the happiest times of my life… We led an adventurous life and we had fun together."
Soros is an international capitalist and secular Jew who never lived there. What would you expect?RuffDraft wrote:He's also said, "I don't deny the Jews right to a national existence--but I don't want to be a part of it."
Of course, he is himself a Semite. But anyway, do you know much about the people tied for 26th richest, John, Jacqueline, and Forrest Mars ? Or, since Soros is currently #14, what about #13, Sheldon Adelson ?RuffDraft wrote:This man is the 28th richest person in America. He is dangerous, and an anti-semite... And yet no one I talk to knows anything about him.
I was following the thread before that, but I appreciate the Butcherede Englishe.BeeAre wrote:i waile upon a mightye axe withe a tyune...
Like FurrDraft's link outlined, the US Dollar is something of a de facto global currency for now. Actually abolishing national currencies so that ONLY one currency is used would cause a lot of problems - fortunately that's not on the table.DaCrum wrote:A global currency sounds nice though. Wouldn't have to get it changed whenever you leave the country. I think the Euro is a good candidate to show the benefits of it.