Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lagslayer]

Here's an interesting interview that 60 Minutes did with Soros in the nineties.

https://vid.me/4wZ5

Is the link working? My phone is slow, so can't tell.

[Sergarr]

>financial market manipulation is good

Lol wut? Remember a few years ago? The whole OWS thing? Remember how everyone hated the banks and other financial institutions, and now those same people are talking like they are the greatest thing ever?

You fell for the controlled opposition HARD!!!.

Occupy Wall Street was because of financial institutions fucking up and having to be bailed out by the government as "too big to fail".

Soros, as far as I could tell, did not fuck up, and, really, using your good foresight about how the world will change - and the good knowledge about how your actions will affect that change, too - to increase your ability to affect the world even further sounds like a really universally great idea.

An economics professor by definition thinks someone who made tons of money playing the markets is good.

It's kind of funny, actually, because they were specialized in nuclear reactor kind of economics (basically the opposite of financial market manipulation, with them taking 30-40 years accounting for inflation until they pay off and the overall market of raw and enriched nuclear fuel not really being a market in the classical sense of the world), and the subject of Soros really came in quite randomly.

[Shadowlord]

If you want some good insights, look for the interviews that Michael Moore has done since election day.

[Reelya]

Although that thing about Soros causing the asian financial crisis has been thoroughly debunked. The president of that nation blamed Soros's Jewish conspiracy at the time, but it turns out Soros was actually buying the currency at the time it started falling, not selling it. But it's much easier to blame some shadowy figure than research the real reasons the asian crisis happened.

On that video they claim one man's currency speculation destroyed 10 countries' economies. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, because if one currency is falling, others are rising against it. And if one currency falls, then it's undervalued and other investors will then buy it, pulling the price back up.

[Crashmaster]

..using your good foresight about how the world will change - and the good knowledge about how your actions will affect that change, too - to increase your ability to affect the world even further sounds like a really universally great idea...

B,but, isn't that what Trump did?

[Frumple]

To all appearances, no. Far as I've heard he was about as surprised as anyone he took the EC. One off thing's not nearly the same as a persistent pattern, and so far as previous efforts go foresight and trump were not words that went together very well.

[Vilanat]

I believe Soros is the kind of jew who grew up during the holocaust and came with the conclusion that religious identity, racial identity, national identity, cultural identity and everything else that separates and differentiate human beings from other human beings should be abolished, no matter the cost. by itself, it is a genuinely profound goal and ideology which i can understand even if i don't always agree with, but the problems arise when it conflicts with said inevitable costs.

For it to work in the U.S, for example, it basically means destroying a lot of what being American means to a lot of Americans, which naturally can result in the election of people like Trump as a counter movement

it also results in people who can't stand up to evil forces from "outside", and sadly, there are still multitudes of evil forces outside:
Do you think abolishing nationalism in Ukraine would be smart? that becoming pacifists will help South Koreans? that abolishing cultural identity in Europe would work against deeply rooted traditionalists from the middle east? i think that in some cases, it will lead to their utter destruction by said outer forces and in other cases it would lead to a counter movement which will result in electing people like La Pen in france.

[Reelya]

Trump's sudden u-turn on policies might be because he fully expected to lose, and go on to a lucrative series of book deals, convention circuits, FOX News appearances etc. But now, he has to be president, so he has to actually be responsible for policies, and it also means he has to divest some of his business holdings while he's president too, I think. Which, if he wasn't expecting to win, might actually screw him over.

The only positive lulz out of this might be that Trump didn't actually want or expect any of this.

[Sergarr]

..using your good foresight about how the world will change - and the good knowledge about how your actions will affect that change, too - to increase your ability to affect the world even further sounds like a really universally great idea...

B,but, isn't that what Trump did?

In a sense, yes, which is why my opinion of him has rose somewhat after the election, especially since he appears to have immediately dropped his pre-election rhetoric, maaaaybe indicating that it was just an act...

Ooooor maybe he just realized in what deep shit he got himself, and he basically lucked out with media playing really dumb for this entire fucking year and his basic movements to break the Blue Wall hitting the fertile ground in the face of poor workers and Hillary failing to grasp their current dire plight and their need of personal reassurance for the better future that these people needed, no matter how false it would be.

And also, it's not just the execution that matters, the ideas that get pushed forward by it matter to me, as well. And what Trump pushes forward is pretty, very, incredibly bad. It's a subjective opinion, of course, but it's a pretty strong opinion backed up by a whole collection of other opinions I have as well (about the superiority of moral behaviour in the long-term, as a major one), so yeah.

[alway]

I believe Soros is the kind of jew who grew up during the holocaust and came with the conclusion that religious identity, racial identity, national identity, cultural identity and everything else that separates and differentiate human beings from other human beings should be abolished, no matter the cost. by itself, it is a genuinely profound goal and ideology which i can understand even if i don't always agree with, but the problems arise when it conflicts with said inevitable costs.

For it to work in the U.S, for example, it basically means destroying a lot of what being American means to a lot of Americans, which naturally can result in the election of people like Trump as a counter movement

it also results in people who can't stand up to evil forces from "outside", and sadly, there are still multitudes of evil forces outside:
Do you think abolishing nationalism in Ukraine would be smart? that becoming pacifists will help South Koreans? that abolishing cultural identity in Europe would work against deeply rooted traditionalists from the middle east? i think that in some cases, it will lead to their utter destruction by said outer forces and in other cases it would lead to a counter movement which will result in electing people like La Pen in france.

So your argument seems to be xenophobia is good because outsiders are evil. And because obviously there is no way to ever deal with military threats aside from xenophobia. And that "culture" consists solely of xenophobia. I reject those arguments.

"Outsiders," regardless of where they come from, are not evil, they are simply people. There may be disagreements between national governments, which may even result in violence. That's what militaries exist for. Xenophobia will not protect you from tank shells. There may be disagreements between people, which may even result in violence. That's what criminal justice and legal systems exist for. Xenophobia will not help you with that, it will only undermine the systems which actually protect you.

Furthermore, what makes you think that a lack of those petty, ancient divisions invented by the long-dead is "culture free?" Is it not a system which is itself a very powerful culture, incorporating all those it touches into itself? Because that's *precisely* the goal for any society when it comes to newcomers; to break down the barriers and accept everyone as part of society.

[Vilanat]

See, now you are putting words in my mouth, so no.

[Criptfeind]

I think it's unfair to paint trump as an idiot after he won. Saying that he got lucky with a random focus right where he needed to win, that it was only because of a shitty media that he bumbled into gaining all the support from. Or even that he never intended to win (as funny as that would be), all seems somewhat insulting both to him and to his supporters to be honest. The you know, Occam's razor in me wants to say he found a winning strategy and executed it.

Maybe it'll eventually come out that this whole thing was a massive comedy of errors. Until then I think it's not a legitimate criticism. Even if he 180s his policies that doesn't mean he's so much a bumbling idiot as a con man. I think there are other criticisms that are legitimate, based on what he does and what he says he's going to do. But, for now, calling him a lucky idiot is... I feel, from what I've seen, somewhat unfounded.

[Crashmaster]

To all appearances, no. Far as I've heard he was about as surprised as anyone he took the EC. One off thing's not nearly the same as a persistent pattern, and so far as previous efforts go foresight and trump were not words that went together very well.

Well I see that he 'foresaw' a chance to win due to continued falling support for the left due to many reasons, campaigned (acted) in a way that caused further loss of democratic support all to gain an office that holds some power over the whole world.

A Trump vs. Soros thing I feel is that there seem to be many more checks and balances on the actions of the president then those on the actions of the wealthy elite who seem to answer to no-one while apparently 'buying' politicians and operating outside of any scrutiny. I only hope that the only things Trump maintains in his plans are;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

[Max™]

Which autocracy would that be?

Had to track it down: http://www2.nybooks.com/daily/s3/nov/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival.html

[Frumple]

You're pretty likely to be SOL, then. The lobbying bits are straight up unconstitutional, heh.