Elite fear class war

[waauw]

Elite gathering reveals anxiety over ‘class war’ and ‘revolution’

The Milken Institute’s annual gathering of the investment, business and political elites this week featured big names from US Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin to David Solomon, chief executive of Goldman Sachs.

But the biggest applause from the 4,000-strong crowd in Beverly Hills was for a guest appearance by Margaret Thatcher.

Despite widespread optimism about the outlook for the US economy and financial markets, some of the biggest names on Wall Street and in corporate America revealed their anxiety about the health of the economic model that made them millionaires and billionaires.

Mr Milken himself, whose conference was known as the predators’ ball when he ruled over the booming junk bond market of the 1980s, was among those fretfully revisiting a debate that has not loomed so large since before the fall of the Berlin Wall: whether capitalism’s supremacy is threatened by creeping socialism.

Mr Milken played a video of Thatcher from two years before she became UK prime minister. “Capitalism has a moral basis,” she declared, and “to be free, you have to be capitalist”. Applause rippled through the ballroom.

In the run-up to the conference, essays by Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates and Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase about the case for reforming capitalism to sustain it have been widely shared. Executives are paying close attention to what one investment company CEO called “the shift left of the Democratic party”, personified by 2020 presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the social media success of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the democratic socialist elected to Congress last year.

Former Alphabet chairman Eric Schmidt issued his own rallying cry as he sat beside Ivanka Trump to discuss the conference theme of “driving shared prosperity”.

“I’m concerned with this notion that somehow socialism’s going to creep back in, because capitalism is the source of our collective wealth as a country,” Mr Schmidt said, urging his fellow capitalists to get the message out that “it’s working”.

Mr Milken asked Ken Griffin, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Citadel, why young Americans seemed to have lost faith in the free market, flashing up a poll on the screen behind them which showed 44 per cent of millennials saying they would prefer to live in a socialist country.

“You and I grew up in a different era, where the cold war was waking up and there was a great debate in America about the strengths and weaknesses of socialism as compared to the economic freedom that we enjoy in our country,” Mr Griffin replied, saying that they had “seen that question answered” with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The younger generation that support socialism are “people who don’t know history”, he said.

Guggenheim Partners’ Alan Schwartz put the risks of rising income inequality more starkly. “You take the average person . . . they’re just basically saying something that used to be 50:50 is now 60:40; it’s not working for me,” he told another conference session, pointing to the gap between wage growth and the growth of corporate profits.

“If you look at the rightwing and the leftwing, what’s really coming is class warfare,” he warned. “Throughout centuries what we’ve seen when the masses think the elites have too much, one of two things happens: legislation to redistribute the wealth . . . or revolution to redistribute poverty. Those are the two choices historically and debating it back and forth, saying ‘no, it’s capitalism; no, it’s socialism’ is what creates revolution.”

There was less discussion of the prospect of higher taxes on America’s wealthiest, which some Democrats have proposed to finance an agenda many executives support, such as investing in education, infrastructure and retraining a workforce threatened by technological disruption and globalisation.

One top investment company executive echoed the common view among the conference’s wealthy speakers: “Punitive redistribution won’t work.”

But another financial services executive, who donated to Hillary Clinton’s US presidential campaign in 2016, told the Financial Times: “I’d pay 5 per cent more in tax to make the world a slightly less scary place.”

The quote from Alan Schwartz has been adjusted to say “redistribute poverty” instead of “distribute property”.

https://www.ft.com/content/0f9cf638-6c28-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d

[jimboston]

Listen you elite fool. We can’t all afford subscriptions to The Financial Times!

So if you want us normal blokes to read the article a link won’t cut it, you’re gonna have to cut & paste the whole article.

[tzor]

In a nutshell, "class warfare" is bullshit. To call it that is to accept the lie.
In a nutshell, those without moral principles use "Hate" as a way to get the many on their side. (Poor people - The Masses - Lower classes tend to be many)
To use hate they use a method later defined by Saul Lewinsky, find a target, isolate it, and focus hatred towards it.
Some (oddly enough who tend to be rich, but all power hungry bastards tend to be) focus it on "the rich."
Some (this is Holocaust Remembrance Day) focus it on a specific people, a race or gender, or better yet the combination of the two.
Sadly people fall for this shit all the time.

Who do the "elite" fear? They fear the "Mule." The one who can break their model for how people behave and though sheer charisma get people to go against their plans. In short they fear Trump.

[jimboston]

In a nutshell, "class warfare" is bullshit. To call it that is to accept the lie.
In a nutshell, those without moral principles use "Hate" as a way to get the many on their side. (Poor people - The Masses - Lower classes tend to be many)

You’re right... and you’re wrong.

You’re correct in pointing out that it’s often true (in history) ‘fear mongers’ without principle who use hate and other emotions to rile up the poor masses... and that these fear mongers often use these emotions and tactics not to the benefit of the poor masses but to ultimately benefit themselves.

Smarter people than I can point out many instances of this happening, but for me I’m thinking about the Roman Empire. I recently finished a book titled “The Storm Before the Storm”, written by a podcaster I like Mike Duncan.
(https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beg ... 1610397215)

This sounds a lot like why the Gracchi Brothers (or at least the second brother) were doing.
—-

You’re wrong in denying the term ‘class warfare’. In doing so you are denying the feelings and experiences of the poor masses. Denial of the problem does not solve the problem. If a significant portion of the population feels left-out, unable to get ahead, ignored, marginalized, etc... you ignore this at your own peril. The problem won’t go away and eventually it will burst. If you stop one fear monger you don’t solve the problem, the problem remains and some other person will step in. You only solve the problem by addressing the concerns of the people and finding a way to make them feel invested in society.

[waauw]

Listen you elite fool. We can’t all afford subscriptions to The Financial Times!

So if you want us normal blokes to read the article a link won’t cut it, you’re gonna have to cut & paste the whole article.

Done.

[jimboston]

Listen you elite fool. We can’t all afford subscriptions to The Financial Times!

So if you want us normal blokes to read the article a link won’t cut it, you’re gonna have to cut & paste the whole article.

Done.

Thanks. I don’t feel like reading it anymore though!

Just kidding.

I didn’t think you’d do it, but I did try to click the link and was annoyed the story was behind some elite electronic firewall.

[mrswdk]

"capitalism is the source of our collective wealth as a country,” Mr Schmidt said

Exactly. What are all those families living in poverty complaining about? Can't they see that America's GDP grew by more than 2% last year?

[HitRed]

"capitalism is the source of the military industrial complex,” Mr Schmidt said

[jimboston]

You can view the article many different ways.

One way to look at it that these ultra-elites are at least talking about the problem.
It’s seems most don’t understand it, but how could they most of them have no experience with poverty.

Still talking is the first step, right?

[jimboston]

You can view the article many different ways.

One way to look at it that these ultra-elites are at least talking about the problem.
It’s seems most don’t understand it, but how could they most of them have no experience with poverty.

Still talking is the first step, right?

[armati]

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats - POLITICO Magazine
https://www.politico.com/.../06/the-pit ... ats-108014
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any ... If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the ... ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too.

[waauw]

What I find quite striking is that some of these people still seem to think in cold war terms. As if all forms of socialism are bad.

[Bernie Sanders]

Have you not heard? The elite won the class warfare thingy.....

[jimboston]

Have you not heard? The elite won the class warfare thingy.

The ‘elite’ are definitely ‘on top’, but that’s the definition of elite.

It is less likely for a revolution to be successful in the modern ere, because the disparity of power between ‘the state’ (which generally is on the side of ‘the elite’) and the people is much greater than in past eras.

In the French Revolution the King’s Troops and the people had essentially the same weaponry. The gov’t troops were more organized and had cannon, but you can get organized and steal cannon. In the modern era a citizen in a first world democracy cannot match the armament of his gov’t in any reasonable way.

I don’t think this will stop any pending revolution, but it does change the dynamics, No?
-> It makes early revolutions less likely to be successful?
-> Or perhaps it will force the boiling point to increase to a point where the bulk of the troops (who are generally NOT the elites) to switch sides and revolt. This could be bad if military leadership then assumes power.
-> Or maybe this shift gives ‘the elite’ more time to see a problem, and therefore a better chance to react and change policies to address underlying issues.

IDK

[jimboston]

What I find quite striking is that some of these people still seem to think in cold war terms. As if all forms of socialism are bad.

We (the USA) already have social programs that would’ve been defined as ‘socialism’ 70 years ago.

It’s a spectrum of policies that are not always mutually exclusive from capitalism.

[mrswdk]

Have you not heard? The elite won the class warfare thingy.

The ‘elite’ are definitely ‘on top’, but that’s the definition of elite.

It is less likely for a revolution to be successful in the modern ere, because the disparity of power between ‘the state’ (which generally is on the side of ‘the elite’) and the people is much greater than in past eras.

In the French Revolution the King’s Troops and the people had essentially the same weaponry. The gov’t troops were more organized and had cannon, but you can get organized and steal cannon. In the modern era a citizen in a first world democracy cannot match the armament of his gov’t in any reasonable way.

I like how you threw in 'first world democracy' there, like armies in developing countries are all still running around with muskets and little copper shields.

[jimboston]

Have you not heard? The elite won the class warfare thingy.

The ‘elite’ are definitely ‘on top’, but that’s the definition of elite.

It is less likely for a revolution to be successful in the modern ere, because the disparity of power between ‘the state’ (which generally is on the side of ‘the elite’) and the people is much greater than in past eras.

In the French Revolution the King’s Troops and the people had essentially the same weaponry. The gov’t troops were more organized and had cannon, but you can get organized and steal cannon. In the modern era a citizen in a first world democracy cannot match the armament of his gov’t in any reasonable way.

I like how you threw in 'first world democracy' there, like armies in developing countries are all still running around with muskets and little copper shields.

Armies / gov’t forces in developing countries obviously have access to more technology than ‘the people’ and/or potential revolutionary groups... but the disparity in developing countries is less significant than that in ‘first world democracies’.

This is because both the gov’t troops in those countries are less well equipped than first world gov’t troops; and also rebels in developing countries are more likely to have access to powerful armaments. They get this access either because they’re supported by other gov’ts... or because the gov’t in those countries has limited control in some areas/borders... or both.

Obviously there are no absolutes so i’m using words like ‘some’ a lot and making generalizations.

Also, the types of revolutions (I think) this thread is about is more applicable to first-world countries.

... so yes, I did specifically say ‘first world democracies’ for a reason. At no point did I ever imply or suggest that armies in other countries have muskets and shields. I think you’re just trying to be confrontational. Either that or you’re an idiot who doesn’t know how to read.

Which is it?

[mrswdk]

Armies / gov’t forces in developing countries obviously have access to more technology than ‘the people’ and/or potential revolutionary groups... but the disparity in developing countries is less significant than that in ‘first world democracies’.

This is because both the gov’t troops in those countries are less well equipped than first world gov’t troops; and also rebels in developing countries are more likely to have access to powerful armaments. They get this access either because they’re supported by other gov’ts... or because the gov’t in those countries has limited control in some areas/borders... or both.

Obviously there are no absolutes so i’m using words like ‘some’ a lot and making generalizations.

Well, you are speaking entirely in generalisations. How about you make some specific statements about the types of weapons the following groups would have access to, then we can actually

- Governments in developed countries
- Governments in developing countries
- Civilians in developed countries
- Civilians in developing countries

Also, the types of revolutions (I think) this thread is about is more applicable to first-world countries.

Why? If you want to make arbitrary distinctions between developed and developing nations, off the top of my head I can't think of any time a developed nation has experienced a violent revolution.

[jimboston]

Armies / gov’t forces in developing countries obviously have access to more technology than ‘the people’ and/or potential revolutionary groups... but the disparity in developing countries is less significant than that in ‘first world democracies’.

This is because both the gov’t troops in those countries are less well equipped than first world gov’t troops; and also rebels in developing countries are more likely to have access to powerful armaments. They get this access either because they’re supported by other gov’ts... or because the gov’t in those countries has limited control in some areas/borders... or both.

Obviously there are no absolutes so i’m using words like ‘some’ a lot and making generalizations.

Well, you are speaking entirely in generalisations. How about you make some specific statements about the types of weapons the following groups would have access to, then we can actually

- Governments in developed countries
- Governments in developing countries
- Civilians in developed countries
- Civilians in developing countries

Also, the types of revolutions (I think) this thread is about is more applicable to first-world countries.

Why? If you want to make arbitrary distinctions between developed and developing nations, off the top of my head I can't think of any time a developed nation has experienced a violent revolution.

Keeping throwing the bait Troll.

[armati]

I dont think mrswdk is trolling, more like he was after a distinction.

In any case, " top of my head I can't think of any time a developed nation has experienced a violent revolution." Wiemar Germany comes to mind, (not supposed to say the political party name as it upsets some people here) but that was a pretty violent revolution in a modern society.

Another point, about governments being too well equipped for a civilian population to deal with.

Look at Vietnam, the most modern military known to man at the time, crushed by people wearing sandals.
Lots of chemical weapons, used big bombers etc etc etc
Look at whats happening in Afghanistan, same thing, the supposedly most vicious military in the world totally defeated by people wearing sandals.
Heck the yanks even dropped the moab.


The point, an under armed underfed population can defeat the most advanced militaries in the world.

The gov knows full well thats the case, which is why the continual effort to disarm the people.

The political party we can not mention as it hurts peoples feelings in the 30s did the same thing, disarmed the people.

[spurgistan]

The gov knows full well thats the case, which is why the continual effort to disarm the people.

In the United States, there is not nor in our lifetimes will there be an effort to "disarm" the populace, however good that may be. The only serious politicians who actually mention "disarm" policies are Republicans, and whenever they do gun sales go up, so it would just shock me to find that they have ties to the gun industry and the NRA. ]That said, people who think that we need guns as a check on government power probably are and ought to be on a watch-list. Smile!

[thegreekdog]

The gov knows full well thats the case, which is why the continual effort to disarm the people.

In the United States, there is not nor in our lifetimes will there be an effort to "disarm" the populace, however good that may be. The only serious politicians who actually mention "disarm" policies are Republicans, and whenever they do gun sales go up, so it would just shock me to find that they have ties to the gun industry and the NRA. ]That said, people who think that we need guns as a check on government power probably are and ought to be on a watch-list. Smile!

Agreed. No Democrats mention disarming people or doing away with the 2nd amendment. They just want to pass laws that... checks notes... already exist. Politicians of both parties use the issue of guns as a political weapon (no pun intended).

In any event, on topic... Trump's election was, at least partially, the result of some version of class warfare (he won a lot of union voters after all), so this is not a standard liberal/conservative thing. Some Fox talking head (Tucker Carlson or Hannity or someone like that) made comments around the positive benefits of class warfare ostensibly in support of Trump. What fascinates me to an extent is how much the concepts of fairness and justice have changed so dramatically in like 10 years. I also remain very cynical about the motivations of people like Sanders, Warren, etc. in the same way I was cynical about the motivations of Trump. So I'm not so sure I'm convinced there is a dangerous class war coming at least in the United States; I'm not so sure about other places.

[armati]

I guess you guys havnt seen the repeated screams for gun control in the U.S.
They generally happen after mass shootings or bombings.

Obama: US gun control laws 'greatest frustration of my presidency'
US President Barack Obama has talked about what he called the lack of sufficient "common-sense gun safety laws" in the US.

In an exclusive interview with the BBC's North America editor Jon Sopel, Mr Obama said a failure to tackle gun control had been the greatest frustration of his presidency.

23 Jul 2015
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-ca ... idencyWhat Are States Doing About Gun Violence After the Florida Shooting ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/g ... -laws.html
Feb 26, 2018 - Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island signed an executive order on Monday to keep guns away from people who ... Still, not all states are moving to toughen gun laws. Some states are considering action to loosen regulations.

'Baby Steps.' Here Are the Gun Control Proposals President Trump and Congress Are Considering
http://time.com/5168608/gun-control-whi ... -congress/

There is more but not much point posting, there are efforts to control guns and efforts to to prevent control.

[waauw]

I dont think mrswdk is trolling, more like he was after a distinction.

In any case, " top of my head I can't think of any time a developed nation has experienced a violent revolution." Wiemar Germany comes to mind, (not supposed to say the political party name as it upsets some people here) but that was a pretty violent revolution in a modern society.

Another point, about governments being too well equipped for a civilian population to deal with.

Look at Vietnam, the most modern military known to man at the time, crushed by people wearing sandals.
Lots of chemical weapons, used big bombers etc etc etc
Look at whats happening in Afghanistan, same thing, the supposedly most vicious military in the world totally defeated by people wearing sandals.
Heck the yanks even dropped the moab.


The point, an under armed underfed population can defeat the most advanced militaries in the world.

The gov knows full well thats the case, which is why the continual effort to disarm the people.

The political party we can not mention as it hurts peoples feelings in the 30s did the same thing, disarmed the people.

In defence of Jim, he did mention the "modern era". It's a vague description, but he has a point that some newer technologies offer governments disproportionate power. New surveillance techniques alone can stop a lot of rebellions before they can even start.

[spurgistan]

I guess you guys havnt seen the repeated screams for gun control in the U.S.
They generally happen after mass shootings or bombings.

Obama: US gun control laws 'greatest frustration of my presidency'
US President Barack Obama has talked about what he called the lack of sufficient "common-sense gun safety laws" in the US.

In an exclusive interview with the BBC's North America editor Jon Sopel, Mr Obama said a failure to tackle gun control had been the greatest frustration of his presidency.

23 Jul 2015
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-ca ... idencyWhat Are States Doing About Gun Violence After the Florida Shooting ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/g ... -laws.html
Feb 26, 2018 - Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island signed an executive order on Monday to keep guns away from people who ... Still, not all states are moving to toughen gun laws. Some states are considering action to loosen regulations.

'Baby Steps.' Here Are the Gun Control Proposals President Trump and Congress Are Considering
http://time.com/5168608/gun-control-whi ... -congress/

There is more but not much point posting, there are efforts to control guns and efforts to to prevent control.

Did you notice the "failure" part of the Obama quote? Like it didn't happen?

What did the Rhode Island bill specify according to the Times article in that part you cleverly edited out? Was it "lawful gun owners who can be trusted to not harm themselves or others?" Did it involve any sort of confiscation effort?

show