Topic 13: George Soros: Spooky rich dude or evil conspiratorial rich dude? 1/30-2/6
Soros doesn't seem powerful enough to actually achieve any goal of New World Order, but nonetheless, it's a conspiracy at best. You take random occurrences, a face for it, and try to combine it into some sort of theory for global dominance. I guarantee you it won't happen. No one man has enough power to do that.
Sure, ONE man.
For the following, consider that in 2010, the world GDP was ~$62 trillion, and the US GDP was ~$14.5 trillion.
How about thousands or millions of men? The list of people who George Soros funds directly or even indirectly is staggering. To start, he donates money to something like 500 organizations.
Compare this to the organizations actually controlled by Rupert Murdoch
, worth ~$56 billion. Billionaires tend to have their fingers in a lot of pies. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are (or are not) using them to advance particular political agendas.
He owns the Open Society Institute (which operates in 70 countries around the world)And spends about half a billion dollars per year, on many things besides political advocacy
. What does it do advance Soros's supposed agenda?
he has donated money to the founding members of the Weather Underground (rage riots
And how did Soros personally contribute to that? Make the connection. Who did Soros give money to, who was responsible for the Days of Rage, and what influence did Soros have?
to ACORN (a working-class advocacy group cited as having its workers commit voter fraud
Note that that was voter REGISTRATION fraud, not actual VOTING fraud
. The idea is that some people who were supposed go around trying to get people to register submitted fake registrations to get money from their employer, ACORN, without actually registering people. How does this implicate the management of ACORN in political shenanigans, let alone Soros?
to the Tides Foundation (who, as we know, wrote the original, wasteful $700 billion stimulus package bill)
How do we know that, and what influence did Soros have in that or other Tides Foundation activities?
he donated $1.8 million dollars to NPR so they could hire more than 100 new journalists (which led in part to Juan Williams being fired
, I might add)
How is that supposed to support you point, and how is Soros supposed to have contributed to Williams being fired?
he funded private and public groups in an attempt to get George Bush out of office in the 2004 election (which, even if you didn't like George Bush, this is still a very questionable act)
Questionable how? It's not like millions of other people didn't also want Bush out of office and funded groups to that end. This indicates that Soros wants to take part in the political system, not overthrow it.
he's also donated millions upon millions of dollars towards getting FoxNews off the air.
Sidestepping for a second, I know some people don't like FoxNews. You might say, "Well, getting FN off the air is a good thing." But what if he had tried to get another news organization off the air? What if he was targeting an organization that you liked? If George Soros says "this news organization is interfering with my agenda" and writes a HUGE check to get it taken down, would you still have no issue with that? It doesn't even matter if you like or dislike FoxNews. Donating money to stifle free speech is not only underhanded, it's evil.
Citation? I see that Soros gave a single million to Media Matters, but that's rather different from what you're accusing.
And regarding the sidestep, what do you think of this
? FOX doesn't seem to like NPR very much (perhaps it interferes with its agenda?), and used its media presence to advocate for the removal of funding for NPR. If you think that donating money to Media Matters is an evil stifling of free speech, what do you think about Fox News using its "news" broadcasts to advocate for the removal of funding for NPR?
And I don't use the word "evil" a lot.Looks like 9 posts in the last month and a half
, of which 5 were claims that others called something evil. I'll grant that you don't often call non-fictional things evil yourself.
Now, back to the Soros Fund. How much of his charitable giving do you think is purely humanitarian aid? For example: I am not what I would call independently wealthy, but I donate a couple thousand dollars a year to certain charities. When I decide to donate, I think to myself, "What would be the best organization to invest my money in? How does it directly affect me or my family?" And because my mother has Multiple Sclerosis, I think to myself, "I want an organization dedicated towards research to cure MS." Essentially this is the same way that someone with "gallons" of liquid assets donates their money; they invest in people or organizations that match their interests.
Now, I'm not saying that just because ACORN does disingenuous things that Soros is in favor of those things (although it boggles me as to why he continues donating to them if that's the case).
You might not be saying it, but you're implying it. So why not say it if that's what you mean?
What I am saying is that Soros' influence is tremendous and that to consider him "only one man" is to completely underestimate him.
You've just been saying that Soros influences various organizations to do things. If Soros is responsible, he's doing it as "only one man" and if the other organizations are doing what they do on their own, you shouldn't be giving credit to Soros for what they do. So, which is it? You seem to want it both ways by being vague about Soros's relationships with various organizations and their activities. That's a false dichotomy, but can your argument resolve it?
He's more than just a wealthy businessman. He may be the biggest political fat cat of all time
Do you want me to critique that, or do you want to make points yourself?
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.
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.
But why is that good? And if insider trading weren't illegal, then what would stop someone from artificially inflating the price of his own stock to a certain point, selling his own stock, and then let his stock drop back down abruptly, then remove all evidence of fraud?
I didn't say it was good. You had given Martha Stewart as an example of someone you could vilify because you "know them to be sinister or whatever." And it's supposedly devious. Anyway, as the link I gave said, there are certain advantages to insider trading, in that it can bring inside knowledge to the market sooner than otherwise, and anti-insider trading laws prevent consenting people from trading something that the seller legally owns. The problems come from the systemic incentives that arise for subverting efficient market operation, like what you said. However, Martha Stewart didn't do something like that. Rather, she sold her stock in a pharmaceutical company whose new drug had been rejected, before that announcement was made public. Like I said, eminently rational and obvious if not for the regulations preventing it. Hence not sinister, devious, or in the same league as murder or conspiracy to overthrow a government.
The idea behind insider trading is that you use advance knowledge to gain an advantage over those who don't have that knowledge and then profit off of it while others lose money. So how is that anything less than wrong?
Rather, that's the idea behind stock trading in general. You realize that real traders do not have perfect information and infinitely powerful number crunchers, right?
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 did he do anything illegal? Or anything obviously immoral? Was he convicted of anything?
What's not immoral about profiting off the destruction of a country's economy? People lost jobs; food prices skyrocketed; the government was damaged in the amount of 3.3 billion Pounds because of this. George Soros got richer
. You don't see any problem with that?
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.
The deal with that is that the UK had, a couple years before that, entered the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. ... So how does this show that Soros was evil rather than just an astute businessman?
I kinda explained it above. Wouldn't you say it takes a cold heart to profit off the misery of thousands of people?
The UK is the 6th largest national economy at ~$2.3 trillion; it was hardly destroyed. As I explained earlier, the Pound fell because of the economic situation - Soros just profited off of it. It's kind of like a guy who cashes his child's college fund and throws the money in the street. It's not good for the guy or his kid, but you might as well pick it up before it blows away. Are you suggesting that the UK wouldn't have had economic troubles if Soros hadn't taken advantage of bad policy? And no, I don't have a particular problem with that. Free market and such. Is your remaining criticism of Soros here that he was cold hearted?
He did the same thing in Thailand, and they consider him an Economic War Criminal
I'd like to hear your explanation for why you think that that's justified. You might find this
interesting. I agree with Soros's statement there that "the responsibility doesn't belong to speculators but to the authorities. The authorities should decide how markets should function."
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.
No, but it does mean they're biased.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the correlation between being right and being biased. Could you perhaps give an example?
Sure. A stopped clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. The clock is biased, as it always displays a particular time regardless of what time it actually is. However, while that does make it an unreliable source of information about the time, it doesn't prevent it from occasionally being right.
In the context of media, suppose that Media Organization X wants to advocate Political Position Y. Organization X could do that with bias of omission, where they don't report on negative aspects of Position Y and don't report on positive aspects of alternatives, never actually lying about particular details, but still presenting a warped view of reality to their consumers. Position Y may indeed have the positive attributes as reported, so Organization X is right about that, but the bias remains.
Stronger than that is a bias of commission, where Organization X makes false or unjustified statements that favor Position Y and disfavor alternatives. This is more blatant and easier to identify as bias than omission because fact checking shows what's wrong with it.
When Beck says that Soros talked about a "New World Order" and an "orderly decline of the Dollar" he is displaying a bias of omission, as while Soros has talked about those things, the context and Soros's actual meaning is omitted. Beck then displays bias of commission when he says that Soros's aforementioned statements mean that Soros wants to overthrow the United States etc., because the omitted context shows that that's clearly not what Soros was talking about. Beck's claim that stem cell research is eugenics (which you defended in the other thread, which petered out) also displays bias of commission.
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?
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.
So they're popular? Which means that although the claim is that it's biased, it still gets the top ratings? What am I to infer about the other news stations?
I would expect you to infer that they are less popular. My point here was that Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, the ones most known for vilifying people they disagree with, are also the most popular. I was implying that, if you're going to make a point about what you see going on, you should check that it is representative of the whole.
Or perhaps you were referring to Fox & Friends? Would you mind giving an example of what you're talking about?
Truly sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to. It was a mid-evening show between (I think) Glenn Beck and Bill O'reilly, though because of the time difference mid-morning here is early-evening there, and I'm not sure what time it was exactly that I saw this. It was a round-table discussion with one host and three or four other people. The host was a blond woman, I remember that much. I just remember the host telling a Conservative to let the Liberal get his whole point out or something along those lines.
Let's grant that. What that means is that at least sometimes, an effort is made to be fair and balanced. It does not mean that there is not significant bias. Now, why was the Conservative permitted to talk over the Liberal, and did the Liberal eventually get his whole point out?
So, to check on where we are, what do you think Soros is up to, given the discussion so far?
he drinks 100% pure science with his toast for breakfast
icha: because this one time some person proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that i should never trust them and i should never trust anyone else because if you trust you will suffer!!!!!
People often act in self interest, so the idea is to establish a system in which self interest overlaps with group interest, so that trusting strangers to act out of kindness is not generally needed.