China's 5 year plan

Salmo_g

WFF Supporter
and we don't like the 1%ers.
Why don't you like the 1%ers? I'm truly curious.

I use the term 1%er a bit, and they are a fantastically well off segment of the population. However, when it comes to using wealth to influence financial structure to further widen their economic advantage, it is most likely the 0.01%ers who are leveraging their wealth and power to screw the lower upper, middle, and lower economic classes. IMO of course. They probably have a very different take on the matter.
 

DimeBrite

5X Celebrity Jeopardy Champion
Why don't you like the 1%ers? I'm truly curious.

I use the term 1%er a bit, and they are a fantastically well off segment of the population. However, when it comes to using wealth to influence financial structure to further widen their economic advantage, it is most likely the 0.01%ers who are leveraging their wealth and power to screw the lower upper, middle, and lower economic classes. IMO of course. They probably have a very different take on the matter.

The wealthy have a simple time tested plan. They own businesses, purchase a portfolio of assets, they reinvest the excess wealth. These are not devious activities, and most of the 99% find it boring or too much work or responsibility. The 1% are not employees dependent upon a biweekly paycheck to pay the mortgage. When one sector in their portfolio starts losing money it is sold off and the money is invested in a more promising area. The day that fossil fuels have no value to humanity and no longer have a market is the day they will naturally disappear due to lack of investment interest. The only way to accelerate this is to invent truly viable and scalable technological alternatives. Most energy alternatives thus far are limited in scalability, but the 1% are already investing their money into them.
 

girlfisher

Active Member
I'm an equal opportunity critic. No matter what side or facet you stand on of we can't agree to certain facts no headway will be made politically, environmentally, or socially. This business of alternative facts ect is both disturbing and idiotic. 2+2 must equal four and we all need to swallow that. Granted many things up for debate are not so black and white but we all need to police our own and others to use hard facts and honour them as such. I can assure you I am just as disgusted by alternative facts or fake news no matter the slant or bias. Parties and people of all stripes are guilty of cooking data and yes, lying. Even so called fact checkers are not immune to this. I also refrain from reading trash as time is the most valuable asset I know so consevapedia or whatever that is there has not made the list of items I'll be spending time on. Do you feel I would defend or stick up for such a wiki type publication?
Even so called fact checkers are not immune to this. Exactly.
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
The wealthy have a simple time tested plan. They own businesses, purchase a portfolio of assets, they reinvest the excess wealth. These are not devious activities, and most of the 99% find it boring or too much work or responsibility. The 1% are not employees dependent upon a biweekly paycheck to pay the mortgage. When one sector in their portfolio starts losing money it is sold off and the money is invested in a more promising area. The day that fossil fuels have no value to humanity and no longer have a market is the day they will naturally disappear due to lack of investment interest. The only way to accelerate this is to invent truly viable and scalable technological alternatives. Most energy alternatives thus far are limited in scalability, but the 1% are already investing their money into them.
It's not right that the 1% gets to decide what to do with their money. We need to tax the shit out of them and let the politicians and the bureaucratic machine decide how that money gets invested.
 

dustinchromers

Active Member
Even so called fact checkers are not immune to this. Exactly.

So you've never seen a correction in a news paper or other source? You've never seen a correction on some back page after the sensational headline has been widely spread as fact? Context is always important when verifying facts or quotations of individuals. In a media world where people reduce a complex concept to an elementary meme without context and that gets perpetuated you have to search out the context. Lots of sources slant things on both sides to fulfill a bias. You yourself said Snopes is a liberal site. I don't think fact checking should not be a partisan issue. Facts are the referee of truth when anyone on either side of an issue gets out of line. Telling sensational falsehoods to get a reaction is out of line in my book.
 

dustinchromers

Active Member
The wealthy have a simple time tested plan. They own businesses, purchase a portfolio of assets, they reinvest the excess wealth. These are not devious activities, and most of the 99% find it boring or too much work or responsibility. The 1% are not employees dependent upon a biweekly paycheck to pay the mortgage. When one sector in their portfolio starts losing money it is sold off and the money is invested in a more promising area. The day that fossil fuels have no value to humanity and no longer have a market is the day they will naturally disappear due to lack of investment interest. The only way to accelerate this is to invent truly viable and scalable technological alternatives. Most energy alternatives thus far are limited in scalability, but the 1% are already investing their money into them.

Remember when someone's success was a source of inspiration rather than a grievance? It's not that certain factions in our system like and want to help poorer people. It's just they really hate the rich.
 

girlfisher

Active Member
So you've never seen a correction in a news paper or other source? You've never seen a correction on some back page after the sensational headline has been widely spread as fact? Context is always important when verifying facts or quotations of individuals. In a media world where people reduce a complex concept to an elementary meme without context and that gets perpetuated you have to search out the context. Lots of sources slant things on both sides to fulfill a bias. You yourself said Snopes is a liberal site. I don't think fact checking should not be a partisan issue. Facts are the referee of truth when anyone on either side of an issue gets out of line. Telling sensational falsehoods to get a reaction is out of line in my book.
"Parties and people of all stripes are guilty of cooking data and yes, lying. Even so called fact checkers are not immune to this."

I agree with what you are saying and you still find the need to be defensive. With all due respect, I believe you are truly over reacting.
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
Remember when the rich through their philanthropic endeavors funded the arts and humanities, and we didn't have pile the funding into a pandemic relief bill.
 

dustinchromers

Active Member
"Parties and people of all stripes are guilty of cooking data and yes, lying. Even so called fact checkers are not immune to this."

I agree with what you are saying and you still find the need to be defensive. With all due respect, I believe you are truly over reacting.


Fair statement. I incorrectly interpreted your quotation as sarcasm.
 

Chromer J

Active Member
So many threads with a root in politics or political agendas and so much disagreement. Ever wonder why? Do you think those with a different opinion are uneducated fools? Venal capitalists? Heartless bastards that don't care for the environment? Bleeding hearts that have no ability to see reality through the distorted lens of mainstream propoganda and clever statistical manipulations? Conspiracy theorists? Ever wonder why? Is there a boogey man? Is it the republicans? Is it the democrats? What if it has been both for much of recent history? Who are the wealthy elite? Are they CEOs? The hard working business owner? ... or someone else? Is there a puppet master? If so, who or what is it? To what end? What ties much of what we see in our national enquirer-quality news cycle together, including relatively recent climate change narratives, into a clear view of direction? Are you open to expanding your world view? I'm sure the Google will tell you why the following books should be ignored if not censored, but I recommend reading them just for fun, then, gasp, form your own opinion from them. It's just my opinion, but engaging in arguments over things on the internet with people you haven't even met is a prodigal waste of time - sort of like tying up a super fancy intruder, when even a woolly bugger takes me 30 minutes to tie. But hey, sometimes it's fun to tie up that time consuming intruder. I think we can all unite and agree that we disapprove of corruption; it just seems many of us disagree where corruption exists and what's at the root of it. Good luck to all in winning the arguments. Tight lines.

1) Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley
Screenshot_20210313-132132_DuckDuckGo.jpg

Quigley's book is rather long and contains a lot of unnecessary detail, so I recommend a condensed version by Plummer which is only about 300 pages.
Tragedy and Hope 101, Joseph Plummer
Screenshot_20210313-132256_DuckDuckGo.jpg

2) The Creature from Jekyll Island,
G Edward Griffin
Screenshot_20210313-132622_DuckDuckGo.jpg

3) Propoganda, Edward Bernays
Screenshot_20210313-163801_Gallery.jpg
 
Last edited:

Salmo_g

WFF Supporter
It's not right that the 1% gets to decide what to do with their money. We need to tax the shit out of them and let the politicians and the bureaucratic machine decide how that money gets invested.
So you really strongly dislike the 1%ers but don't care to share why, is that it?
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info
Top