|
vincentML -> RE: Far Left Puppeteer Jeff Bezos Worth $81 Billion (5/13/2017 11:27:30 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Libertarian robber barons are leftists now?
You seem to have missed the complaints about Amazon's treatment of its employees and business practices in the leftist media, but I suppose you're not allowed to watch anything but Fox or read any of the papers.
Respectfully, allow me to supply the accepted titled for this fucked up globalist, labor-commoditized, laizze faire economic philosophy that has been afoot in the world for 30-40 years is Neo-Liberalism. It has nothing to do with today's FDR Liberals but everything to do with Ayn Rand's wet dreams and the 18th Century wanking of Mr. John Locke. That the OP has been out of touch with the rage or that he attributes it erroneously is not surprising. If only he would read a book now and then. sighs [:'(]
Incidently and most importantly, I am not blaming Jeff Bezos, who with his clownish giggles, saw the future and jumped in without hesitation. Nor do I think we can possibly return to FDR Liberalism. NEO-LIBERALISM is a natural outcome of the revolution in digital communications (internet, mobile phone) and just in time product assembly logistics. What is needed is a way to marry compassion for human health and welfare to the cold, unfeeling robotics that are upon us. We are unlikely to have any success in smashing machines like frenzied Luddites. The future is now and we have to adapt to it.
NEOLIBERALISM, people NEOLIBERALISM and ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Get over it, deal with it.
Yes, of course but it's not all there is with Neo-Liberalism, it's that the results distorts people’s sympathies, leading them to admire and emulate the very rich and to neglect and even scorn the poor.
As a result, people sympathize more fully and readily with the rich than the poor. Neo-Liberalism finds the rich man glories in his riches, because they naturally draw upon him the attention of the masses. (world) while the poor come and go unheeded, and when in politics, is the obscure, discounted.
Thus Neo-liberalism changes our moral sentiments, a distortion of people’s sympathies having profound consequences. It undermines both morality and happiness. First, morality. Rather society at large see the widespread admiration of the rich as morally problematic because the rich do not in fact tend to be terribly admirable people. So almost as if preordained, it becomes rich versus the poor.
The accumulation of wealth has them believe the rich occupy a superior station in society but are most often suffused with vice and play, presumption and vanity, flattery and believing their own bullshit with pride, ambition and ostentatious greed.
That's the real result and problem of Neo-Liberalism. It's cultural as well as economic and political.
Look at Romney, 'doesn't care about the 47% who are poor, takers rather than makers.' (another fallacy)
That the rich are job creators and innovators. More bullshit. They are the biggest (richest) freeloaders in society. The rich do very little of anything for society, making more money, rather then earning it and do not improve but as often...degrade society's standard of living.
The right's policies have created over 2,000 billionaires with 60 % of all wealth since 1977 going to the top 1% and I am supposed to decry the leanings of 1 ?
The poor are still being jailed for the crime of being poor and many who were in the middle class are able to emulate the accumulation of goods of the wealthy using credit cards that carry usury rates which destroy their lives. It is madness and doubly so because their political candidates are dumb to the problem or have no practical solution, and still they vote for them.
|
|
|
|
