Apple/Jobs and FB/Zuck hold tremendous power over us in terms of money and influence, and even more importantly they control our data. Apple, facebook and Amazon are the modern oligarchs.
There's a difference between being rich and being a billionaire. They never earned their billions.
But the implication in your post was that we don't (and we shouldn't) castigate Jobs and Zuck in the same way. I'm saying that we do (and we should) castigate them. And gave you reasons why we should.
Our natural state is poverty. It doesn't mean we shouldn't care to reduce poverty in our societies, but you can't say the the first poor man appeared when the first rich one did too.
You need rich people to exist for poor people to exist. Poverty is a more recent thing in all of human history. Our natural state (referring to hunter-gatherer/agricultural societies) before all of that was complete freedom.
Define recent. Rich and poor have been there ever since civilization started.
I meant recent in terms of human history, which is a long time. I just read that 90% of human history was the hunter-gatherer stage so that’s the context I’m working with.
Damned if you do damned if you don’t. However it’s still hypocritical considering what she’s said before.
It's always been there. Even in hunting gathering stage, best Hunter lived well. Poor Hunter starved. Sick or injured Hunter died. Survival of the fittest and all that. It's just a variation of rich vs poor.
Flexible propoganda will be called out. She got on the high horse before and wimping out now. If this was her stance from before I'd say it's ok.
Yes, and objectively poor. Scarce food, no medicine, no security. That life is still available to any human by the way. We are still free in that sense.
Rich and poor belong in the context of money and currency. It was also still a true free society. And besides, the better hunter-gatherers weren’t rigging it against the “poor” ones. They just hunted well. And then slept and feck al day and night when they weren’t hunting.
This study seems to suggest otherwise.
I was being generous but if her goal is to continue her campaign, then she really has no choice because she ain’t getting the grassroots money like Bernie. I do agree with you by the way.
You cannot just throw all big tech companies, you've heard of, into the same bucket. Apple is extremely different from Facebook and Google. The latter two offer "free" services and make money on harvesting + selling your data, thinly disguised as "advertising". Apple's business model is radically different and is not about selling your data - they sell actual products (hardware).
How many of these billionaires are vested in companies that profit off of cheap labor in countries where extreme poverty exists? They could pay them great wages if they wanted to but they don’t. How many of these billionaires are buying up politicians to make laws in their favor and disregards the needs of the working class? Think of all the millions and perhaps billions that folks like Bloomberg gave to the GOP, a party who clearly try to feck over the poor.
Basic economics 101. Wealth is not finite. There is no fixed amount of money in economy that needs to be distributed. It's an absurd myth with no basis in reality.
If billionaires buy governments who make policy that negatively affect the poor, then it definitely correlates and that’s just one example.
Liberalism is an illness.
Bankers will never turn on their overlords.
You can't just throw google in there with crooks like Appe, willy nilly. Their entire ethos is Do Not Do An Evil Thing.
