d2jsp
d2jsp Forums > General Chat > Political & Religious Discussion > American Entitlement System > The Elephant In The Room
Prev1202122
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Plaguefear
#211 Apr 18 2018 05:27pm
Group: Member
Posts: 34,540
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 0.39
Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 19 2018 09:58am)
either you are moving the goalposts, or i misunderstood " the people with the power and the wealth are already the most unscrupulous people " to be literal, when you actually meant corporations. a fine line i suppose.

but you're also comparing how corporations act in the developing world to how, hypothetically, they would act in the industrialized world if the government disappeared. thats apples and oranges. also apparent by your point, u say they want to deliver for share holders. ok fair enough, but things like the stock market and currency generally require a strict system of controls to work, usually done by a government. Your assumption that they would pillage the places and people that they are trying to help with stock prices seems to contradict yourself. without the government to hold up society economically corporations needs to fill the gap. By raping the population they destroy their customer base, employees, and themselves. it just doesnt make sense. you can claim corporations, if they ran the government, would still fuck people over all the time. newsflash, so does the government, all the time. so what you're really saying is "the new corporation govt would do bad things, like the old govt". to a libertarian. i mean, dont you have paint to watch dry?



i didnt say that's what makes him biased, im basing it off of years of posts on the subject. my overall point was that American philanthropy is actually quite good, which was a secondary point to counter the idea that financial elite are immoral. either way we can't really know unless we do it what corporations would do, but stability is unarguably better for business than chaos.


The shareholders are other wealthy elites and the upper middle class, the poor would simply be wage slaves who no one gave a shit about.
But if as you say it would be more of the same why advocate such a system?
At least in a state we get to vote for who gets the next turn violating us.
GodSmiter
#212 Apr 18 2018 05:29pm
Group: Member
Posts: 1,059
Joined: Mar 16 2009
Gold: 0.00
Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 18 2018 05:58pm)
either you are moving the goalposts, or i misunderstood " the people with the power and the wealth are already the most unscrupulous people " to be literal, when you actually meant corporations. a fine line i suppose.

but you're also comparing how corporations act in the developing world to how, hypothetically, they would act in the industrialized world if the government disappeared. thats apples and oranges. also apparent by your point, u say they want to deliver for share holders. ok fair enough, but things like the stock market and currency generally require a strict system of controls to work, usually done by a government. Your assumption that they would pillage the places and people that they are trying to help with stock prices seems to contradict yourself. without the government to hold up society economically corporations needs to fill the gap. By raping the population they destroy their customer base, employees, and themselves. it just doesnt make sense. you can claim corporations, if they ran the government, would still fuck people over all the time. newsflash, so does the government, all the time. so what you're really saying is "the new corporation govt would do bad things, like the old govt". to a libertarian. i mean, dont you have paint to watch dry?



i didnt say that's what makes him biased, im basing it off of years of posts on the subject. my overall point was that American philanthropy is actually quite good, which was a secondary point to counter the idea that financial elite are immoral. either way we can't really know unless we do it what corporations would do, but stability is unarguably better for business than chaos.


I agree. It is pretty disturbing that Chinese elites didn't even have a concept of philanthropy. That's one place that definitely needs it
Plaguefear
#213 Apr 18 2018 05:32pm
Group: Member
Posts: 34,540
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 0.39
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jun/28/seven-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-chinese-philanthropy
Great article on philanthropy in china, it used to be widespread but when communism took over it became close to illegal.
It is picking up a lot now.
Point 6 is something i can really get behind though, capping admin costs of charities, although 10% seems a bit low, the current 80-90% you see in western countries is disgusting.

As to philanthropy being a counter to wealthy elites being immoral, i counter with a question, if i make a great deal of money from questionable means and then do good with that money does that negate the bad i did to achieve it?
Bill gates still lives a lifestyle any but a few could ever dream of off the back of extreme ruthlessness and greed, in the end him giving away a lot of money is great but that does not lessen the damage he did to others along the way.

Gangs of new york was great, but that does not make harvey weinstien any less of a scumbag.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 18 2018 05:36pm
EndlessSky
#214 Apr 18 2018 05:53pm
Group: Member
Posts: 15,450
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 1,966.00
Warn: 10%
Quote (Plaguefear @ Apr 18 2018 07:32pm)
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jun/28/seven-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-chinese-philanthropy
Great article on philanthropy in china, it used to be widespread but when communism took over it became close to illegal.
It is picking up a lot now.
Point 6 is something i can really get behind though, capping admin costs of charities, although 10% seems a bit low, the current 80-90% you see in western countries is disgusting.

As to philanthropy being a counter to wealthy elites being immoral, i counter with a question, if i make a great deal of money from questionable means and then do good with that money does that negate the bad i did to achieve it?
Bill gates still lives a lifestyle any but a few could ever dream of off the back of extreme ruthlessness and greed, in the end him giving away a lot of money is great but that does not lessen the damage he did to others along the way.

Gangs of new york was great, but that does not make harvey weinstien any less of a scumbag.


I agree with the admin costs thing. A lot of charities are a complete waste

Quote (Plaguefear @ Apr 18 2018 06:30pm)
No it isn't.


Asians also count as white
Plaguefear
#215 Apr 18 2018 06:20pm
Group: Member
Posts: 34,540
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 0.39
Quote (EndlessSky @ Apr 19 2018 10:53am)
I agree with the admin costs thing. A lot of charities are a complete waste



Asians also count as white


Then yeah it would be close, estimates are 85-88% white, asians are about 8%, not sure who else classes as white but i think 92% is the current estimate all inclusive.
Quote (EndlessSky @ Apr 19 2018 10:53am)
I agree with the admin costs thing. A lot of charities are a complete waste



Asians also count as white


A lot of them are complete scams, those kony clowns made millions.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 18 2018 06:42pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Discussion Topic List
Prev1202122
Add Reply New Topic New Poll