3 ms·
The only sentence I disagree is this one > We are allowing too much power to be concentrated in the hands of a few people, whose ultimate goal is this relentle
by maerF0x0 4y ago
The only sentence I disagree is this one
> We are allowing too much power to be concentrated in the hands of a few people, whose ultimate goal is this relentless pursuit of money, not a human project for society.
Swap "power" and "money" and I agree.
> We are allowing too much MONEY to be concentrated in the hands of a few people, whose ultimate goal is this relentless pursuit of POWER
First step, stop giving them your money. 2nd, take away what they've illegally or otherwise ill gotten.
- effingwewt 4y agomoney is power. they are interchangable. money==power.
- corbulo 4y agoIf this were true then why are there countless examples of rich people losing power throughout history?
- tasuki 4y agoDo you have many examples of people who have lost significant power and stayed as rich as before? I'm sure there are some, but think it rather rare: usually, loss of power is accompanied by loss of money.
- corbulo 4y agoBut if they have the money, how could they lose the power in the first place? If money=power it should be impossible. I would say it is the majority of cases that people who lose power retain their wealth. Violent ends to power is exceedingly rare comparatively.
- tasuki 4y ago> But if they have the money, how could they lose the power in the first place? If money=power it should be impossible. I don't see why this should be true. If money=power, surely that has nothing to do with whether you can lose it or not? Generally, when you have something, you can lose it sometimes, no?
- corbulo 4y agoWell yes in reality I completely agree. But if money is power then someone with money can't lose power (then money/=power). Otherwise there has to be more variables to power than just money.
- hinkley 4y agopower is money. Old money is power. New money is only influence.