Conspiracy Theory World Economic Forum

Remove this Banner Ad

zill said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it was irrelevant to your assertion that they came from wealthy families.

The people who are mega-wealthy because of extreme family wealth are the likes of the Rothschilds, Kochs, Packers, Trumps, Royal families, etc.

The people that we have been discussing came from comfortable backgrounds, at best, like hundreds of thousands of others. Like hundreds of thousands of others, some went to expensive schools, and some were given some cash to start a business. But a large proportion of people that have had these 'advantages' are unheard of (in the sense of having so much wealth that they are well-known). Just that handful of people we discussed and a few more are mega-wealthy, and in each case that's due to being self-made and not as a result of family wealth and privilege.

But I suspect you still don't or won't accept that.
 
LuvtheKangas said:
No, it was irrelevant to your assertion that they came from wealthy families.

The people who are mega-wealthy because of extreme family wealth are the likes of the Rothschilds, Kochs, Packers, Trumps, Royal families, etc.

The people that we have been discussing came from comfortable backgrounds, at best, like hundreds of thousands of others. Like hundreds of thousands of others, some went to expensive schools, and some were given some cash to start a business. But a large proportion of people that have had these 'advantages' are unheard of (in the sense of having so much wealth that they are well-known). Just that handful of people we discussed and a few more are mega-wealthy, and in each case that's due to being self-made and not as a result of family wealth and privilege.

But I suspect you still don't or won't accept that.
Click to expand...
The whole conversation was that the wealthy like regulation, because they can afford lawyers and/or fines. That these people came from wealthy families was just a part of the conversation.
 
zill said:
The whole conversation was that the wealthy like regulation, because they can afford lawyers and/or fines. That these people came from wealthy families was just a part of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nah.

zill said:
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.
Click to expand...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

zill said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're aware it was the Menzies Government that put into place the Health Act (1953) where those laws originate right?

Was Menzies secretly a socialist as well?
 
Malifice said:
You're aware it was the Menzies Government that put into place the Health Act (1953) where those laws originate right?

Was Menzies secretly a socialist as well?
Click to expand...
You asked about regulations, i gave an example. It's hard to build a pharma empire if the regulations prohibit you from opening a shopfront.
 
Malifice You should really be asking yourself why a capitalist like Menzies allowed such regulations at all, surely he wanted everything unregulated as you have suggested that is what capitalists desire.
 
zill said:
Malifice You should really be asking yourself why a capitalist like Menzies allowed such regulations at all, surely he wanted everything unregulated as you have suggested that is what capitalists desire.
Click to expand...

Conservatives are not all free market Capitalists.

The National Party in Australia are pro tariffs and anti free markets for example. It's a constant source of friction between themselves and their coalition partners the Liberals.

As a general rule though white collar corporate types hitch their wagons to the Conservative parties.

Surely you are not arguing otherwise?
 
I'm only arguing that regulations are desired by the wealthy. If you have enough money it is bettet to break the law then pay a paltry fine, like i said it is a business decision. Pfizer is a company to look at, i believe they have paid the most in fines settlements etc... an upstart conpetitor couldn't use the same tactics as the really big corporations can.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

zill said:
Why does the WEF support carbon taxes?
Click to expand...

The WEF 'support' a ton of environmental causes, sustainability, LGBTI+ issues, feminist causes and so forth.

So do Chevron:

https://carboncredits.com/chevron-finds-global-carbon-pricing-key-for-low-carbon-investments/

https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2022/q2/lgbtq-plus-equality-in-our-workplace-earns-honors

https://www.chevron.com/sustainability

Yes, that's right; Chevron supports LGBTI+ inclusion, carbon tax and environmental issues. ****ing Chevron.

Do you honestly think Chevron give a flying **** about any of those issues they publicly support?

Chevron Corporation has been one of the most widely-criticized companies in the world, mostly stemming from its activities and involving climate change. Chevron's most widely-known scandal involves Texaco's activities in the Lago Agrio oil field, which Chevron is deemed responsible for due to its acquisition of Texaco in 2001. Chevron has been most widely criticized for its handling of litigation against it filed by residents of the Lago Agrio region, which included what activists see as the "jailing" of Lago Agrio lawyer Steven Donziger.

Climate change activists have also held an Anti Chevron Day since 2013, which is held on or around May 21 of every year to coincide with the general period of time that Chevron holds its annual meeting of shareholders.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Chevron#:~:text=Chevron was found to have,6,000 /-9.4% y-o-y).

It's all a load of aspirational horseshit, to keep investors, governments and the public happy, and to greenwash the actual practices by a company that literally doesn't actually care one iota about any of the above topics, and exists solely to make money for its shareholders, while dumping tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, polluting like a boss, and with a vested financial interest in continuing to do so.

If you actually think that the billionaires that attend Davos actually give a **** about 'helping the world' and the whole thing isn't textbook greenwashing by capitalists you're quite the sucker.
 
Malifice said:
If you actually think that the billionaires that attend Davos actually give a heck about 'helping the world' and the whole thing isn't textbook greenwashing by capitalists you're quite the sucker.
Click to expand...
That's quite the 180 you have pulled there. I've said the whole time they don't give a frig.
 
Malifice said:
Yeah. All they care about is making more money.

Because they're capitalists. Not socialists.
Click to expand...
You're still thinking that socialist are socialists. They can be "socialists" while not actually doing anything that would fall within the text book definition of socialist. It's just a veil to make more money and alienate the middle class more.

I suppose the proper term is neo-marxist.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
You're still thinking that socialist are socialists. They can be "socialists" while not actually doing anything that would fall within the text book definition of socialist.
Click to expand...

Dude, you cant be a socialist without being a ****ing socialist.

You conflate leftist political thought with socialism. Not all socialists are leftists. Not all leftists are socialists.

But all socialists are socialists.
 
Malifice said:
Dude, you cant be a socialist without being a ******* socialist.

You conflate leftist political thought with socialism. Not all socialists are leftists. Not all leftists are socialists.

But all socialists are socialists.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, I conflate leftist political thought with evil. Socialism is a part of that.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
Incorrect, I conflate leftist political thought with evil. Socialism is a part of that.
Click to expand...

Socialism is not necessarily left wing. The Nazis (far Right) were (partly) socialist, and they were anything but left wing.

And you define the following as 'evil':

Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole[1][2][3][4] or certain social hierarchies.[5] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished[1] through radical means that change the nature of the society they are implemented in.[5] According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, supporters of left-wing politics "claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated."
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics#:~:text=Left-wing politics describes the,whole or certain social hierarchies.

That's what you consider to be 'evil'?

A few questions for you; firstly what about Right wing politics appeals to you:

Right-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property, religion, biology or tradition.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences[11][12] or competition in market economies
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Secondly; why do you support hierarchies over egalitarianism?
 
Malifice said:
Socialism is not necessarily left wing. The Nazis (far Right) were (partly) socialist, and they were anything but left wing.

And you define the following as 'evil':



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics#:~:text=Left-wing politics describes the,whole or certain social hierarchies.

That's what you consider to be 'evil'?

A few questions for you; firstly what about Right wing politics appeals to you:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Secondly; why do you support hierarchies over egalitarianism?
Click to expand...
Correct, left wing ideology is founded in oppression, tyranny and theft. It cannot survive without destroying others. Right wing ideology promotes the natural order and meritocracy. Nature is hierarchical. Right wing ideologies are a form of nature. The left is inherently unnatural.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
Right wing ideology promotes the natural order and meritocracy.
Click to expand...

Questions for you:

1) What is the natural order?

2) Who is at the top of this natural order, and who is at the bottom?

3) How did those at the top (and the bottom) get there?

4) Where do you sit in this natural order, and where does Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg sit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Welcome to East Germany COVID 19 WAS PLANNED TO BRING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER. ** DEBUNKED
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
341
Views
17K
Nebula1971
Nebula1971

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top