Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please. The elite are our friends, and choosing the best decisions for all of us? Thats delusional at best. The elite are looking out for themselves at the expense of everyone else.
1% own 80% of the wealth.
i agree with greywar on this. the elites are not our friends. but lets look at some of the elites in history shall we?
fidel castro, and his family. the elites of cuba. while the rest of the country suffered with food, fuel, and other shortages, castro lived like a king.
stalin was the elite of russia when he ruled, again while the rest of russia suffered, he didnt.
and a number of other elites in history, mao zedong, the kims of korea, pol pot, hitler, every king of france, every czar of russia, every dictator of russia, in fact every dictator that has ever lived, most every president that has ever lived, they all have one thing in common, they all profited from their time in the leadership.
even in the US congressmen get elected, and they may have high ideals, and may be the common man going in, but once in congress they become the elite through the use of "campaign donations", insider trading that is illegal for the average person, but not for congress. these people also do everything they can to waste as much federal tax payer money as possible to get as much benefit for their state as possible, and all the while making money off the effort.
no OP, the elites are not our friends, they are power hungry, greedy bastards who would sell their own mothers down the river to make a buck and gain some power. in fact if it wasnt for the 13th and 14th amendments, they would in fact buy and sell slaves to make money.
You're not using the same usage of "elite" which myself and everyone else here has been referring to. Jeff Bezos is an "elite." I would not put Fidel Castro in that category any more than I would put Cesar Chavez in that category. Just because someone has power does not mean they are an "elite" of the type we're referring to.
The ones we're referring to are the "liberal coastal elites" of the type so many people here complain about (and not all of them are liberals, I might add). The ones with money, power and ambition. The George Soro's, Bill Gates's, Jeff Bezos's, Rockefellers, and so on, of the world. Plus all the "lesser" people who think like them and generally support them. Third world dictators aren't usually in that category.
even in the US congressmen get elected, and they may have high ideals, and may be the common man going in, but once in congress they become the elite through ...
You don't seem to understand why that is so. Let me ask you this: Whenever someone of the anti-elite, populous rebellious type gets elected to congress, do they ever actually accomplish much? No. Why? Because in their zeal to try "stick it to the elite" they end up marginalizing themselves and become nothing more than freak side shows. If Roy Moore gets elected that's exactly what's going to happen to him, too. Pretty predictable. The same thing would happen if, say, a devout communist got elected to congress. And the reason why people like that invariably end up as freak side shows is because most people understand that their views are unworkable and unrealistic, yet these people continue to push for these views, so people basically start ignoring them, and deservedly so. The ones in this position who wisen up and realize that they can't accomplish anything while continuing to espouse their unworkable, unrealistic positions are eventually labeled as traitors by their devout followers. Imagine Steve Bannon getting elected to congress, realizing he can't fight globalism, and then caving in and deciding to push for TPP rather than oppose it, just to be able to accomplish something. At that point this imaginary Steve Bannon would be labeled a traitor by his disciples. On the other hand, if this imaginary Steve Bannon got elected to congress and continued to fight against TPP, he would eventually become marginalized because, sorry to say, TPP (or something like it) is inevitable.
If you go with the flow you can accomplish something. If you fight against the flow you will drown. But no matter what you do, you cannot change the flow of the river.
You're not using the same usage of "elite" which myself and everyone else here has been referring to. Jeff Bezos is an "elite." I would not put Fidel Castro in that category any more than I would put Cesar Chavez in that category. Just because someone has power does not mean they are an "elite" of the type we're referring to.
The ones we're referring to are the "liberal coastal elites" of the type so many people here complain about (and not all of them are liberals, I might add). The ones with money, power and ambition. The George Soro's, Bill Gates's, Jeff Bezos's, Rockefellers, and so on, of the world. Plus all the "lesser" people who think like them and generally support them. Third world dictators aren't usually in that category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
You don't seem to understand why that is so. Let me ask you this: Whenever someone of the anti-elite, populous rebellious type gets elected to congress, do they ever actually accomplish much? No. Why? Because in their zeal to try "stick it to the elite" they end up marginalizing themselves and become nothing more than freak side shows. If Roy Moore gets elected that's exactly what's going to happen to him, too. Pretty predictable. The same thing would happen if, say, a devout communist got elected to congress. And the reason why people like that invariably end up as freak side shows is because most people understand that their views are unworkable and unrealistic, yet these people continue to push for these views, so people basically start ignoring them, and deservedly so. The ones in this position who wisen up and realize that they can't accomplish anything while continuing to espouse their unworkable, unrealistic positions are eventually labeled as traitors by their devout followers. Imagine Steve Bannon getting elected to congress, realizing he can't fight globalism, and then caving in and deciding to push for TPP rather than oppose it, just to be able to accomplish something. At that point this imaginary Steve Bannon would be labeled a traitor by his disciples. On the other hand, if this imaginary Steve Bannon got elected to congress and continued to fight against TPP, he would eventually become marginalized because, sorry to say, TPP (or something like it) is inevitable.
If you go with the flow you can accomplish something. If you fight against the flow you will drown. But no matter what you do, you cannot change the flow of the river.
be careful, if the elites decide to come to a sudden stop, yu may end up with your head stuck so far up where the sun doesnt shine that you will be talking out of their mouths.
sorry but guys like soros and gates are not in it for the rest of the world, they are in it for themselves. in fact soros is the one constantly trying to kill currencies around the world just so he can make a few more dollars. in fact he has done it to 5 or 6 currencies already.
and while the gates foundation sounds beneficial, there is a reason the very rich set up foundations, and that is to get a huge tax advantage, among other advantages. dont kid yourself, tehy are not in it for all of mankind, as they would tell you on the surface.
When we are out of fuel to move products around the world we will have no Globalism
This example sums up the reality that the expanding economy of any nation or that of the world, has a limit. And the vast consumption of resources, the resulting pollution and environmental destruction, puts this limit into our foreseeable future. Globalism is just an expansion of what goes on in individual countries and it is not sustainable.
Regardless of how well a global system of commerce might work for a certain amount of time, it will self-destruct, unless our economy and population is cut way back. Does anyone see signs that this will happen, while it's still voluntary?
Theories about the best forms of government and their economic structures, can float above the reality of physical limitations. But when applied down on earth, these theories inevitably crash into the Great Wall of Finite Capacity. The earth has no more frontier lands to occupy. And continuing on our current pathway, we will crash and burn, before we are ever able to colonize space.
This example sums up the reality that the expanding economy of any nation or that of the world, has a limit. And the vast consumption of resources, the resulting pollution and environmental destruction, puts this limit into our foreseeable future. Globalism is just an expansion of what goes on in individual countries and it is not sustainable.
Regardless of how well a global system of commerce might work for a certain amount of time, it will self-destruct, unless our economy and population is cut way back. Does anyone see signs that this will happen, while it's still voluntary?
Theories about the best forms of government and their economic structures, can float above the reality of physical limitations. But when applied down on earth, these theories inevitably crash into the Great Wall of Finite Capacity. The earth has no more frontier lands to occupy. And continuing on our current pathway, we will crash and burn, before we are ever able to colonize space.
We will probably self destruct by 2050 (Run out of key elements by many estimates). It really doesn't matter what we do other than losing 80% of the worlds population. Other than that we will use it all up. "Enjoy yourself while the time lasts!"
We will probably self destruct by 2050 (Run out of key elements by many estimates). It really doesn't matter what we do other than losing 80% of the worlds population. Other than that we will use it all up. "Enjoy yourself while the time lasts!"
Modern humans are so consumptive and destructive to their environment, that probably no more than 10% of our current population could sustain itself for an indefinite period. If that 10% were from villages in undeveloped countries, they'd last much longer, than if they were from places like the United States. In the end, our civilization and technology will carry us to oblivion.
Some people keep talking about the "pie in the sky" of travel and colonization in space. But the earth is the only mortal home we will have. It's been proven that the solar and cosmic rays outside of our protective atmosphere and radiation belts, will fry our brains. We'll never send anyone even to Mars, who would survive, unless we invented effective and dependable magnetic shields to surround space vehicles. And expanding any significant population there would not be feasible and certainly not economically advantageous.
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 11-08-2017 at 02:13 AM..
People don't really get the "elite" thing. The reason why "the elite" seem like "an elite" is because they advocate and espouse policies and solutions that are as optimal as you're going to get. I know that's a hard concept for many here to swallow, but whether you like it or not, it's true. Globalism, for example, is an unstoppable force of economics that, contrary to popular belief, actually works, over the long run, for the general welfare of everybody. Read Ricardo, for starters. "The elites" understand this and thus, promote it. Since they are correct, they profit. That makes them look like some devious greedy robber barons, but unawares to much of the populace, it is actually working to their benefit.
The corollary of that is that anyone who fights these forces is, one way or another, going to get slaughtered. Cesar Chavez is a great recent example. Populism and anti-globalism run amok. Look where it got them? The Donald Trumps and Steve Bannons of the world are early in the process of learning the same. If you "drain the swamp," what you're really doing is removing the people who actually understand how things really work in the world. When those people are removed, they are replaced with people who don't have a clue how things work, and the inevitable result will be chaos, of one sort or another. Once the chaos kicks in, the people who voted in those swamp-drainers will change their mind once again and realize that maybe "the swamp" wasn't such a bad thing after all.
I agree, globalism is an unstoppable force... the world is your marketplace.. hence there is money to be made. So what matters to globalist? Making more money of course.
I think, you are erroneously trying to separate capitalism and globalism.
Capitalism is business people, corporations, and workers manufacturing, buying, and selling around the world.
Globalism is the politicians and bureaucrats doing there level best to syphon off as much money and power they can from the capitalist and working class.
RR
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
