I recently got this comment, it didn't have much to do with the post in question, so here it is....
Anonymous said...
Big surprise. Another TV show has been produced with an agenda. MORE CALCULATED PR CRAP FOR THE RICH. 'The Philanthropist' hasn't even premiered yet. But I know what to expect. More brainwash plots: 'The rich are good'. 'The rich are smart'. 'The rich are sexy'. 'The rich create jobs'. 'The rich pay more taxes'. 'The rich give back'. 'The rich want to make the world a better place'. Of course, they will villianize the occasional rich 'outlaw' or 'scumbag'. But the group as a whole will be shown in a positive light. More caring, more compassionate, more generous, ect. At least those who take up 'philanthropy' or 'good will'. Which in the real world, as they know, as they plan, as they deliberately publicize, includes ALL OF THEM. What a sham. Its already quite evident that the lead character will be another filthy rich 'good guy'. Of course, the same old plugs for medical testing, pharmaceuticals, universities, credit cards, and world travel will be thrown in. EVERY SINGLE EPISODE. Afterall, NBC has greedy coorporate sponsors and a juggernaut parent company to cater to. Go ahead and watch. But don't be their little puppet. DON'T FALL FOR THE CALCULATED PR CRAP. REMEMBER: EVERY SINGLE TOP EXECUTIVE ON THE PLANET HAS TAKEN UP 'PHILANTHROPY' OR 'GOOD WILL'. INCLUDING THOSE WHO WORK IN THE ENERGY, FINANCE, AND PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTIBLE PR CRAP. THE RICH DO NOT WANT TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. THEY WANT TO APPEAR AS IF THEY DO. OTHERWISE, THEY WOULDN'T CONCENTRATE THE WORLD'S WEALTH AND RESOURCES TO BEGIN WITH. THIS TV SHOW IS JUST ANOTHER CALCULATED TRICK TO SHOW THEM IN A MORE POSITIVE LIGHT. DON'T FALL FOR IT. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN. EXTREME WEALTH MAKES WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL.
Okay, Anonymous, if that is your real name, why don't you tell us what you really feel about rich people?
So this show The Philanthropist is the same as all the "pro-wealthy" shows on TV where millionaires and billionaires kill their wives/mistresses/business partners, screw investors, and burn down the widows and orphans homes on an almost daily basis. I mean when I watch a crime show where the rich guy isn't the killer, it's usually done either as a wild plot twist, or he's just gone broke.
Now while I'm no fan of the uber-rich, I find those who indulge, and not invest, a waste of time, money, and oxygen, I'm different from you where I'm not going to post pre-fab comments on random blogs screaming for forced wealth redistribution in ALL CAPS.
The rich are not all good, evil, smart, dumb, whatever, they are all of those things because they are people. People do good things, bad things, and all things in between. The generalization of Balzac that behind every great fortune lies a crime, just means that Balzac probably owed money to someone better off than him.
Yeah, some are bastards, probably the majority are bastards, but to deny even a scintilla of humanity is the class-version of racism.
Now I come to the issue of uber-rich philanthropy.
I'm actually sort of iffy on the issue of the super-rich and charity. Sure, it's good to feed and clothe the poor for a day, but I would prefer that they follow the model of building industries, jobs, and spreading wealth by actually creating new wealth instead of just giving it away.
Because, if you're a rich person who invests wisely, in concrete things that create goods and services with real value, then not only will you do better, but the people below you will enjoy an increased standard of living.
You see the problem with Anonymous' theory is that there is only one proverbial pie, and that if you don't force even pieces at gun-point then only the super-rich will get anything. The problem with forced redistribution is that you do not get WORLD PROSPERITY, instead: everyone gets nothing but crumbs, and even then it's only if they're lucky and the government officials who run the redistribution programs want to buy their support.
The secret to real capitalism is to use investment capital to make new, fresher, and bigger pies. Workers get better pay, benefits, and can afford to buy their own homes, send their kids to good schools, who then go on to either work for, or build other new businesses, which then make their own pies.
Now you can go on about the "exploitation of the 3rd world" and such, but remember something about those 3rd world countries. All the real basket cases are run on the premise of forced redistribution of wealth. They make all the right noises about socialism and spreading the wealth, but they are all nothing more than scams to provide for their own politically connected inner clique. They take, they do not create, which is feudalism, not capitalism.
Real capitalists want everyone to walk away happy. Because people who make good livings, spend money, and real capitalists like that because it also makes them richer.
Now we're actually coming up to some things where Anonymous and me might agree, although for different reasons.
The Wall Street crash of recent days was brought on because a lot of wealthy people got conned into putting their money into devices designed to create a bubble, then burst, destroying wealth, not creating it. Sub-prime securities, hedge-funds, derivatives, are not about putting money in to create a specific and concrete good or service that makes money, they are instead putting their money on overly complex mathematical theorems that no one outside of a select few truly understand. And the sub-prime market was rife with confusion, corruption, and political interference, which is a recipe for trouble.
As I always say, things are better done simply, and those who put their money on things they couldn't comprehend, that didn't create, were only asking for trouble, because that's all you're going to get in the end.
They, and everyone else, would have been better off investing in manufacturing, new services, new products, and new modes of production. Something simple and concrete, but instead they fell for the promise of easy money, guaranteed by science and state fiat, and it burned them and everyone else.
Now back to where we agree on philanthropy.
A lot of charities run by the uber-rich are bullshit, and many are used as cover for for-profit operations. Global warming and environmental lobby groups were heavily funded by Enron during its peak in the 1990s. Why? Because these charities pressure the governments to pour billions in subsidies for business that Enron, and others, created just to collect these subsidies.
But that's a story all on its own.
An easy way to tell if a plutocrat or celebrity charity is bullshit is to look for these two magic words: "PROMOTE AWARENESS."
Promote awareness is code for: "Make you give them money to pay for them to travel first class, and collect big speaking fees for them to tell you to give them more money."
It's just that simple. Nobody gets fed, clothed, or immunised, but at least people feel better because they gave $50 to Bono to make them aware that there are hungry, naked, and sick people in the world.
These "awareness" groups inspire governments to give billions in aid to poor countries, which is then stolen by the feudalist governments of the poor countries, usually in the name of socialism, and then distributed among their inner circle, and to hell with the actual poor people. Which perpetuates the problem, which calls for more awareness, more aid, more corruption, and hence the need for more awareness.
Not all charities are like that...
Some charities completely circumvent the governments and go directly to the people, helping them start small businesses, make their farms profitable, and other ventures to promote self-sufficiency, free from the state, are the ones that I support and think might actually succeed.
Now back to the TV show in question. Personally, I won't be watching The Philanthropist, and since it's on NBC, it's highly unlikely if anyone will actually watch the show. So the fear of it brainwashing the unwashed masses into falling at the feet of Bill Gates is highly unlikely.
Ironically, in the Gilded Age, before the Great Society, the New Deal, or even income tax, when America was under the sway of demonised robber barons, the country saw an exponential rise in the standard of living, as well as an unprecedented, and as yet unmatched giving to charity, through the founding of hospitals, schools, and other socially uplifting organisations. All paid for by the same robber barons who were considered devils because they could also be pricks when it came to business.
So please, no more broad generalisations, conspiracy theories, or ALL CAPS in your comments. Especially the ALL CAPS part, they make my eyes bleed.
So this show The Philanthropist is the same as all the "pro-wealthy" shows on TV where millionaires and billionaires kill their wives/mistresses/business partners, screw investors, and burn down the widows and orphans homes on an almost daily basis. I mean when I watch a crime show where the rich guy isn't the killer, it's usually done either as a wild plot twist, or he's just gone broke.Now while I'm no fan of the uber-rich, I find those who indulge, and not invest, a waste of time, money, and oxygen, I'm different from you where I'm not going to post pre-fab comments on random blogs screaming for forced wealth redistribution in ALL CAPS.
The rich are not all good, evil, smart, dumb, whatever, they are all of those things because they are people. People do good things, bad things, and all things in between. The generalization of Balzac that behind every great fortune lies a crime, just means that Balzac probably owed money to someone better off than him.
Yeah, some are bastards, probably the majority are bastards, but to deny even a scintilla of humanity is the class-version of racism.
Now I come to the issue of uber-rich philanthropy.
I'm actually sort of iffy on the issue of the super-rich and charity. Sure, it's good to feed and clothe the poor for a day, but I would prefer that they follow the model of building industries, jobs, and spreading wealth by actually creating new wealth instead of just giving it away.
Because, if you're a rich person who invests wisely, in concrete things that create goods and services with real value, then not only will you do better, but the people below you will enjoy an increased standard of living.
You see the problem with Anonymous' theory is that there is only one proverbial pie, and that if you don't force even pieces at gun-point then only the super-rich will get anything. The problem with forced redistribution is that you do not get WORLD PROSPERITY, instead: everyone gets nothing but crumbs, and even then it's only if they're lucky and the government officials who run the redistribution programs want to buy their support.
The secret to real capitalism is to use investment capital to make new, fresher, and bigger pies. Workers get better pay, benefits, and can afford to buy their own homes, send their kids to good schools, who then go on to either work for, or build other new businesses, which then make their own pies.
Now you can go on about the "exploitation of the 3rd world" and such, but remember something about those 3rd world countries. All the real basket cases are run on the premise of forced redistribution of wealth. They make all the right noises about socialism and spreading the wealth, but they are all nothing more than scams to provide for their own politically connected inner clique. They take, they do not create, which is feudalism, not capitalism.
Real capitalists want everyone to walk away happy. Because people who make good livings, spend money, and real capitalists like that because it also makes them richer.
Now we're actually coming up to some things where Anonymous and me might agree, although for different reasons.
The Wall Street crash of recent days was brought on because a lot of wealthy people got conned into putting their money into devices designed to create a bubble, then burst, destroying wealth, not creating it. Sub-prime securities, hedge-funds, derivatives, are not about putting money in to create a specific and concrete good or service that makes money, they are instead putting their money on overly complex mathematical theorems that no one outside of a select few truly understand. And the sub-prime market was rife with confusion, corruption, and political interference, which is a recipe for trouble.
As I always say, things are better done simply, and those who put their money on things they couldn't comprehend, that didn't create, were only asking for trouble, because that's all you're going to get in the end.
They, and everyone else, would have been better off investing in manufacturing, new services, new products, and new modes of production. Something simple and concrete, but instead they fell for the promise of easy money, guaranteed by science and state fiat, and it burned them and everyone else.
Now back to where we agree on philanthropy.
A lot of charities run by the uber-rich are bullshit, and many are used as cover for for-profit operations. Global warming and environmental lobby groups were heavily funded by Enron during its peak in the 1990s. Why? Because these charities pressure the governments to pour billions in subsidies for business that Enron, and others, created just to collect these subsidies.
But that's a story all on its own.
An easy way to tell if a plutocrat or celebrity charity is bullshit is to look for these two magic words: "PROMOTE AWARENESS."
Promote awareness is code for: "Make you give them money to pay for them to travel first class, and collect big speaking fees for them to tell you to give them more money."
It's just that simple. Nobody gets fed, clothed, or immunised, but at least people feel better because they gave $50 to Bono to make them aware that there are hungry, naked, and sick people in the world.
These "awareness" groups inspire governments to give billions in aid to poor countries, which is then stolen by the feudalist governments of the poor countries, usually in the name of socialism, and then distributed among their inner circle, and to hell with the actual poor people. Which perpetuates the problem, which calls for more awareness, more aid, more corruption, and hence the need for more awareness.
Not all charities are like that...
Some charities completely circumvent the governments and go directly to the people, helping them start small businesses, make their farms profitable, and other ventures to promote self-sufficiency, free from the state, are the ones that I support and think might actually succeed.
Now back to the TV show in question. Personally, I won't be watching The Philanthropist, and since it's on NBC, it's highly unlikely if anyone will actually watch the show. So the fear of it brainwashing the unwashed masses into falling at the feet of Bill Gates is highly unlikely.
Ironically, in the Gilded Age, before the Great Society, the New Deal, or even income tax, when America was under the sway of demonised robber barons, the country saw an exponential rise in the standard of living, as well as an unprecedented, and as yet unmatched giving to charity, through the founding of hospitals, schools, and other socially uplifting organisations. All paid for by the same robber barons who were considered devils because they could also be pricks when it came to business.
So please, no more broad generalisations, conspiracy theories, or ALL CAPS in your comments. Especially the ALL CAPS part, they make my eyes bleed.
If you havn't noticed the new (by new, I mean whipped up in response to the current economic crisis) trend of calculated PR crap for the rich, then you're not paying enough attention. Another plug for the 'good will' of the super rich was written into one of the latest episodes of 'Law and Order' shown Friday night. Two more on the Sunday morning shows. Half a dozen others during the recent 'making a difference' segments on 'NBC Nightly News'. Mark my words: There will be many more. The story lines are being written as we speak.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mention a word about 'zero sum' economic theory. You made the vague reference. Not me. However, I will say this: When you concentrate the wealth within any economy faster than you 'create' it, that inevitibly results in a net loss for the majority. For example: Between 1983 and 2004, the richest 1% of American households increased their net worth by 78%. That is a fact. Between 1983 and 2004, the bottom 40% of American households lost 59% of their net worth. That is a fact. More than 1 in 6 American households now have a zero or negative net worth. That is a fact. More than 1 in 3, now have less than $10,000 in net worth including home equity. That is a fact. More than 5,000,000 Americans have fallen below the poverty line since the year 2000. That is a fact. The middle and lower classes are further in debt than ever before. That is a fact. Trillions in bottom line US wealth have already been transfered from poor to rich. THAT IS A FACT. Wealth has been concentrated worldwide for over 30 years. THAT IS A FACT.
About the 'style' of my writing. its called plain English. I'm not trying to impress a bunch of econo-junkie, volcabulary-junkie, bookworm snobs. I'm trying to set the record straight. The current generation is already in deep shit. The next generation will grow old in a shattered society. I want a few of them to understand what really caused it. That is my only realistic goal.
http://longlivethevillagegreen.blogspot.com/2009/05/akron-changes.html
Yeah. I'm a jerk. I'm angry. I'm hatefull. I'll admit that. But my attitude is damn well justified. I've had it with greed. Its gone way too far. I will no longer make excuses for those who epitomize it, those who celebrate it, or those who are too stupid to see what an epidemic it has become. It absolutely positively beyond any shadow of a doubt will cause or accelerate the fall of modern society.
L&O had "goodwill" for the rich? That's a twist. I gave up on L&O when you could predict the killer by seeing which character was one or more of the 3 Rs, Rich, Right Wing, or Religious. Maybe since Wall Street put hundreds of millions of dollars into the Obama election campaign, it's now okay to be a rich New Yorker again.
ReplyDeleteAs for the next generation growing up in a shattered society, blame that on the Baby Boomers, who pissed away all that was given to them, and then expect to be entitled to their entitlements at the expense of the future.
Well, start your own blog, where you can be as angry, and hateful as you want. Then you'll be a "blogger" and not an anonymous "comment troll."
This blog isn't about Marxist revolution, nor is it a Rage Against The Machine fan-blog, nor is it about you. It's in fact, all about me, and my own raging, about my own topic, to which I have some expertise.
Wow.
ReplyDeleteFurious D, to inflate your already over-inflated ego: You. ROCK!!!
Sorry about the caps, but there is just no other way to describe your awesomeness in today's early morning (early morning for me) blog.
ReplyDeleteSad to say, I don't think this Anonymous fellow will appreciate the tongue-in-cheek-ness of your reply in this thread.
ReplyDeleteBut, yeah, anyone who wants to get rich quick, without putting in the work required, is too short-sighted to see that such behavior is ultimately against their best interests (for one thing, such behavior tends to foment hatred against them by such people as Anonymous; I admit to having some of these feelings too, but at least I won't demonize them just because of their station).
To Anonymous at the top:
ReplyDeleteWhat I think D is saying is that this transfer of wealth to the top happened because the people at the top became so greedy that they started taking money from those below them instead of investing in new businesses/schools/hospitals/charities/et al., because they wanted more money NOW NOW NOW! (sorry for the caps;)). If they had been patient and less prideful, they could have invested, and would have increased their wealth as well as everyone else's and not have people raging against them.
Furious D hit on the head about those "raise awareness" charities. At this point I am pretty much "aware" of poverty and AIDS in Africa and I am aware that global warming is pretty much bullshit.
ReplyDeleteLook at Wacko Jacko, most of his famous charities were nothing more than huge black hole's to hide cash from the IRS. Only people they "helped" were wealthy investors who needed come tax credits.
Wait until he dies, all the weird crap he was involved in is finally going to come to light.
I am from Detroit, and the auto industry here is collapsing here because the boomer's pretty much squandered that to death. Thinking that the govt and the corporations "owe" them a living.
How about instead getting off your dead ass and getting a education instead demand everyone "pay up" what you think you are entitled too.
I come from a union family most of them are the biggest ignorant uneducated pieces of waste you will ever meet. Peaked in High School on the football team, and now expect a company to pay them a near professional wage for unskilled uneducated labor. This is one of the reasons that my degree holding ass cannot find work here.
If you look at most of the "rich" in this country, majority of them have BS degrees or higher. maybe that is telling you something, like Johnny should put down the Soccer Ball and read a textbook for a change.