Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WEF deliberately destroying the world’s food supply
He was a socialist, he was infatuated with Lenin whilst at college. Food shortages and starvation are a favourite pastime of those sorts of people.How?
And why would Rupert Murdoch want to destroy the worlds food supply?
He was a socialist, he was infatuated with Lenin whilst at college.
1. Why would socialists desire mass global starvation?
2. You're telling me that Rupert Murdoch has a 'secret Socialist agenda?
Rupert ******* Murdoch. The closet socialist.
Lol.
I have absolutely zero idea if Murdoch is a socialist but its so funny seeing leftists confused about why rich people in power want socialism. It's cute, because they think socialism actually works and think that those in power do to. When in fact it's the exact opposite. Putting the middle class into socialism and living as an oligarchical ruling class above the rules of the masses and developing a private utopia feeding constantly on an increased cattle class subject to socialist laws is the easiest way for billionaires to convert their current wealth and power that is subject to attack and competition in a free market system to a form of permanent legally-backed protection. Socialism for the many is Eden for the few.1. Why would socialists desire mass global starvation?
2. You're telling me that Rupert Murdoch has a 'secret Socialist agenda?
Rupert ******* Murdoch. The closet socialist.
Lol.
I don't know, it always ends up like that though. I tend to think it isn't a bug, but a feature.1. Why would socialists desire mass global starvation?
I don't know, it always ends up like that though.
I have absolutely zero idea if Murdoch is a socialist
but its so funny seeing leftists confused about why rich people in power want socialism. It's cute, because they think socialism actually works and think that those in power do to. When in fact it's the exact opposite. Putting the middle class into socialism and living as an oligarchical ruling class above the rules of the masses and developing a private utopia feeding constantly on an increased cattle class subject to socialist laws is the easiest way for billionaires to convert their current wealth and power that is subject to attack and competition in a free market system to a form of permanent legally-backed protection. Socialism for the many is Eden for the few.
That's the only reason any one with money or power supports socialism
You are dead wrong in saying unregulated capitalism is desired. Regulations serve as a barrier to entry, thus maintaining the status quo.
Most individuals on the Forbes 400 list did not inherit the family business but rather made their own fortune. Kaplan and Rauh found that 69 percent of those on the list in 2011 started their own business, compared with only 40 percent in 1982. In other words, there are fewer people on the Forbes 400 list who came from an affluent background and eventually took over the family business, such as brothers David and Charles Koch (Koch Industries) and the Walton siblings (Wal-Mart), and more self-made people such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway), Philip Knight (Nike), and Stephen Schwarzman (Blackstone Group), who had an upper middle-class upbringing and eventually built their own successful companies.
There are regulations about how many pharmacies there can be in a given area, for example. There are all sorts of rules regarding how close they can be together, definitions of what a large shopping centre is, whether they can supply PBS medications and recieve the govt handout. It is absolutely a barrier to entry to anyone wanting to open a pharmacy. I'm sure similar regulations exist in other industries.Name a single regulation that stops you from becoming a billionaire.
It's not regulations stopping you. It's talent.
Attend private school, have rich influential parents...Take a risk, get a good idea, start a business, and make some money. Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Buffet, Sugar etc. all did it.
Every year the % of self made billionaires increases, and the % of inherited billionaires drops.
Attend private school, have rich influential parents...
The beginnings of those guys are well documented. None of them could be said to have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, they received significant advantages due to being born wealthy.
In what what way were they not wealthy? Besides Sugar who i don't know, they were all from wealthy families.You're good at missing or denying the point that refutes your argument. Of Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Buffet, and Sugar, only one was born into a wealthy family (Gates).
A 3-minute google exercise could prevent your ignorance from being so obvious next time.
In what what way were they not wealthy? Besides Sugar who i don't know, they were all from wealthy families.
You need to take your own advice and know that just because you assert it, it doesn't make it true.How hard is this to understand? Just because you assert it, doesn't make it true - their families were NOT wealthy. Each of them has earned their own significant wealth.
You need to take your own advice and know that just because you assert it, it doesn't make it true.
Zuckers attended a very expensive private school, Bezos got ~250k from his parents to start his business, Buffets dad was a congressman.
In addition to that, Zuckers stole the facebook idea, and was successfully sued to that effect. The paltry settlement he paid pales in comparison to his current wealth. Gates business practices are well known, with the end result being no competitor to the OS.
LuvtheKangas take your own advice and google them. Buffets father was a stockbroker and congressman, bezos family was wealthy, they literally funded him for $250k to start amazon and owned a large ranch, zuckers family were wealthy. His very expensive private school is only year 9-12, he had to go somewhere before that. That school currently charges $50k a year tuition, hardly within the means of even middle class families.
Not wealthy? I already outlined the reasons they were wealthy. Buffet living in poverty up to the age of 6 during the great depression can be offset by his father becoming a congressman and earning 5-6 times the average salary by the time he would be finishing primary school.You're splitting hairs and you know it. None of these were "wealthy" families.
And which bit of Buffett living in poverty as a child do you not get?
My assertion that the wealthy love regulation? In this example zuck committed ip theft and profited handsomely from it. Reverse the roles and you can be sure zucko will deploy an army of lawyers to protect his ip. The phrase 'pulling up the ladder behind you' comes to mind.The Facebook story is irrelevant to your assertion.