|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 9:02:15 GMT -5
Post by rentedmule on Jan 24, 2015 9:02:15 GMT -5
Ah, another conference. It's nice that the wealthy can attend these forums and pontificate for us guys in the cheap seats. Are you listening? news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012315-736184-davos-big-wigs-tell-hoi-polloi-to-expect-less-in-future.htm"The purpose," said former vice president and climate-change entrepreneur Al Gore, standing with hip-hop star Pharrell Williams, "is to have a billion voices with one message, to demand climate action now."
OK, so how about you flying commercial, for a start?
This year's ration of ridiculousness and hypocrisy is so prominent, even the media have noticed.
It's pretty obvious that people who can pay $40,000 to attend Davos and fork over $43 for a hot dog, $47 for a burger or $55 for a Caesar salad — all actual prices at this year's World Economic Forum — would seem to be in a poor position to lecture the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 24, 2015 10:42:44 GMT -5
Seems like the kind of event meant to separate the credulous from their money. More power to a guy who can get someone to pay him $43 for a hot dog!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 11:22:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 11:22:08 GMT -5
Seems like the kind of event meant to separate the credulous from their money. More power to a guy who can get someone to pay him $43 for a hot dog! Pretty much a captive audience in Davos, if you can get a pitch, you'll make money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 11:39:00 GMT -5
Forty-seven bucks for a burger. I take it there's no McDonald's nearby?
I'm lovin' it.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 12:27:02 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 24, 2015 12:27:02 GMT -5
Maybe he should be attending the conference on the West Coast this weekend with all the Republicans and the Koch brothers, huh?... wonder how much a hot dog costs there?...
Hey... I've eaten at McDonalds many times in places like LA, Boston, Miami, Washington DC, Dallas, Detroit, Toronto, Chicago, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and other high priced towns... when I was spending somebody else's money... while others didn't... to each his own...
Hey... you ever had a "Baby Huey"(?) at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C.?...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 14:22:25 GMT -5
Post by rentedmule on Jan 24, 2015 14:22:25 GMT -5
Seems like the kind of event meant to separate the credulous from their money. More power to a guy who can get someone to pay him $43 for a hot dog! Pretty much a captive audience in Davos, if you can get a pitch, you'll make money. The Swiss do OK at adapting to a changing world! For fun check out their Bank for International Settlements.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 14:24:50 GMT -5
Post by rocketwolf on Jan 24, 2015 14:24:50 GMT -5
Dayum I just got off a cruise ship and the steaks in the upscale dining didnt cost $55
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 18:53:13 GMT -5
Post by rentedmule on Jan 24, 2015 18:53:13 GMT -5
Dayum I just got off a cruise ship and the steaks in the upscale dining didnt cost $55 Not a currency guy here, but the recent Swiss Central Bank move to drop it's peg to the Euro has upset markets and caused the Swiss Franc to soar. Which may be a better explanation than just a venue exploitation. George Soros could better explain it than I can.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 19:18:20 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 24, 2015 19:18:20 GMT -5
Ah, another conference. It's nice that the wealthy can attend these forums and pontificate for us guys in the cheap seats. Are you listening? news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012315-736184-davos-big-wigs-tell-hoi-polloi-to-expect-less-in-future.htm"The purpose," said former vice president and climate-change entrepreneur Al Gore, standing with hip-hop star Pharrell Williams, "is to have a billion voices with one message, to demand climate action now."
OK, so how about you flying commercial, for a start?
This year's ration of ridiculousness and hypocrisy is so prominent, even the media have noticed.
It's pretty obvious that people who can pay $40,000 to attend Davos and fork over $43 for a hot dog, $47 for a burger or $55 for a Caesar salad — all actual prices at this year's World Economic Forum — would seem to be in a poor position to lecture the rest of us.None of these people is interested in the Environment. All they want to do is consolidate power. That's the core of the problem with the global climate change theory - they're trying to dress up their world domination pig in saving humanity clothing.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 20:39:09 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 24, 2015 20:39:09 GMT -5
They have an idea how they want the world to work, as do most people. The difference is that folks with a great deal of money can actually try to give the world the shape they want it to have. What these folks are doing is little different in principle than what their opposite numbers, such as the Koch brothers, are doing.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 24, 2015 20:44:27 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 24, 2015 20:44:27 GMT -5
They have an idea how they want the world to work, as do most people. The difference is that folks with a great deal of money can actually try to give the world the shape they want it to have. What these folks are doing is little different in principle than what their opposite numbers, such as the Koch brothers, are doing. Have the Koch brothers suggested regulating everything from coal to CO2? No. The Koch brothers have suggested de-regulating a lot of things. Is there really little difference in principle? Or are their opposite numbers, doing opposite things?
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 6:38:56 GMT -5
Post by rentedmule on Jan 25, 2015 6:38:56 GMT -5
They have an idea how they want the world to work, as do most people. The difference is that folks with a great deal of money can actually try to give the world the shape they want it to have. What these folks are doing is little different in principle than what their opposite numbers, such as the Koch brothers, are doing. Yes, we all in this era of brief communication use contemporaneous speech to define complex things! I also prefer a simplistic explanation. TWO types of people; those who wish to mess with others and those who do not. The first to understand and express the gift of the "nation state" was Adam Smith. The creator was NOT the rich, but the middle class. And the intent was NOT to shape the world but to have a functioning government that did not have the power to mess with them, the creators. It may be worth a small note that middle class is used as it always has been - a category of people who are not feudal rent seekers nor working class wage earners. Because some folk are "rich" does not diminish their status as middle class. They still serve the same function. Sam Walton was always a merchant. Warren Buffet still a businessman. The Koch brothers still producers.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 25, 2015 11:49:17 GMT -5
Have the Koch brothers suggested regulating everything from coal to CO2? No. The Koch brothers have suggested de-regulating a lot of things. Sure. Because it's easier for them to make money with things deregulated. That's the shape they want the world in. They have supported various attempts to make rooftop solar power unattractive, for example, forbidding utilities from purchasing surplus power from those with such installations. They do that to slow the rate of adoption, which favors them. Is there really little difference in principle? Or are their opposite numbers, doing opposite things? You support them because you think they are exemplars of capitalism, when what they really are is exemplars of crony capitalism and/or predatory capitalism: established businesses and technologies are to be preferred to upstarts, for example.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 12:20:05 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 12:20:05 GMT -5
They have an idea how they want the world to work, as do most people. The difference is that folks with a great deal of money can actually try to give the world the shape they want it to have. What these folks are doing is little different in principle than what their opposite numbers, such as the Koch brothers, are doing. Have the Koch brothers suggested regulating everything from coal to CO2? No. The Koch brothers have suggested de-regulating a lot of things. Is there really little difference in principle? Or are their opposite numbers, doing opposite things? No, they haven't... they don't give a damn what happens to the atmosphere and/or environment... there $$$ in that coal and oil... and even though they will never be able to spend what $$$ they have accumulated... their blind greed makes them want to make even more... Yes, there is a big difference... they only care about themselves... the other group cares about us all... I like what my friend, Rickey Cole, said... the Democrats are the Party of "WE"... the Republicans are the Party of "ME"... He's right...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 12:22:27 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 12:22:27 GMT -5
Have the Koch brothers suggested regulating everything from coal to CO2? No. The Koch brothers have suggested de-regulating a lot of things. Sure. Because it's easier for them to make money with things deregulated. That's the shape they want the world in. They have supported various attempts to make rooftop solar power unattractive, for example, forbidding utilities from purchasing surplus power from those with such installations. They do that to slow the rate of adoption, which favors them. See Ken Lay and Enron...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 12:34:54 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 12:34:54 GMT -5
Have the Koch brothers suggested regulating everything from coal to CO2? No. The Koch brothers have suggested de-regulating a lot of things. Is there really little difference in principle? Or are their opposite numbers, doing opposite things? No, they haven't... they don't give a damn what happens to the atmosphere and/or environment... there $$$ in that coal and oil... and even though they will never be able to spend what $$$ they have accumulated... their blind greed makes them want to make even more... Yes, there is a big difference... they only care about themselves... the other group cares about us all... I like what my friend, Rickey Cole, said... the Democrats are the Party of "WE"... the Republicans are the Party of "ME"... He's right... Niether do the people at Davos give a damn what happens to the atmosphere and/or environment. Otherwise they'd be holding their meeting via Skype rather than climbing aboard private jets to get there. The Democrats are only the party of "WE" if by that, you mean the party of 'do what WE tell you, not what WE do.'
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 12:36:26 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 12:36:26 GMT -5
Have the Koch brothers suggested regulating everything from coal to CO2? No. The Koch brothers have suggested de-regulating a lot of things. Sure. Because it's easier for them to make money with things deregulated. That's the shape they want the world in. They have supported various attempts to make rooftop solar power unattractive, for example, forbidding utilities from purchasing surplus power from those with such installations. They do that to slow the rate of adoption, which favors them. Is there really little difference in principle? Or are their opposite numbers, doing opposite things? You support them because you think they are exemplars of capitalism, when what they really are is exemplars of crony capitalism and/or predatory capitalism: established businesses and technologies are to be preferred to upstarts, for example. Exemplars of 'crony capitalism'? When did they start sucking up to the Obama machine? A deregulated world is the opposite of crony capitalism.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 12:50:31 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 12:50:31 GMT -5
No, they haven't... they don't give a damn what happens to the atmosphere and/or environment... there $$$ in that coal and oil... and even though they will never be able to spend what $$$ they have accumulated... their blind greed makes them want to make even more... Yes, there is a big difference... they only care about themselves... the other group cares about us all... I like what my friend, Rickey Cole, said... the Democrats are the Party of "WE"... the Republicans are the Party of "ME"... He's right... Niether do the people at Davos give a damn what happens to the atmosphere and/or environment. Otherwise they'd be holding their meeting via Skype rather than climbing aboard private jets to get there. The Democrats are only the party of "WE" if by that, you mean the party of 'do what WE tell you, not what WE do.' And how many Republicans are in California as I type right now?... meeting with the Koch brothers?... and how did they get there... Skype, you say?...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 12:52:35 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 12:52:35 GMT -5
Niether do the people at Davos give a damn what happens to the atmosphere and/or environment. Otherwise they'd be holding their meeting via Skype rather than climbing aboard private jets to get there. The Democrats are only the party of "WE" if by that, you mean the party of 'do what WE tell you, not what WE do.' And how many Republicans are in California as I type right now?... meeting with the Koch brothers?... and how did they get there... Skype, you say?... Who cares? The people meeting with the Koch brothers aren't pretending they care about the environment. The people in Davos are.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 12:57:06 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 12:57:06 GMT -5
And how many Republicans are in California as I type right now?... meeting with the Koch brothers?... and how did they get there... Skype, you say?... Who cares? The people meeting with the Koch brothers aren't pretending they care about the environment. The people in Davos are. You're right... they don't give a damn about the environment... they only care about $$$...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 13:04:28 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 13:04:28 GMT -5
Who cares? The people meeting with the Koch brothers aren't pretending they care about the environment. The people in Davos are. You're right... they don't give a damn about the environment... they only care about $$$... Which means the only difference between the Koch brothers and the folks in Davos is the raging hypocrisy in Davos.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 13:11:38 GMT -5
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 25, 2015 13:11:38 GMT -5
Exemplars of 'crony capitalism'? When did they start sucking up to the Obama machine? A deregulated world is the opposite of crony capitalism. Do you really believe the "Obama Machine" is the only facet of government that wealthy people exploit?
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 13:15:44 GMT -5
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 13:15:44 GMT -5
Exemplars of 'crony capitalism'? When did they start sucking up to the Obama machine? A deregulated world is the opposite of crony capitalism. Do you really believe the "Obama Machine" is the only facet of government that wealthy people exploit? No, of course not. But it's probably the only facet of government that would be worth exploiting for the Kochs. State level machines aren't much worth the effort, as the Kochs can simply re-locate to a more favorable state, and the GOP congress lacks the ability to provide them with a lot of what they seek. Either way, the Kochs have demonstrated they're far more interested in fighting big-government than exploiting it.
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 13:43:18 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 13:43:18 GMT -5
You're right... they don't give a damn about the environment... they only care about $$$... Which means the only difference between the Koch brothers and the folks in Davos is the raging hypocrisy in Davos. IYHO...
|
|
|
Davos
Jan 25, 2015 21:34:53 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Jan 25, 2015 21:34:53 GMT -5
Have the Koch brothers suggested regulating everything from coal to CO2? No. The Koch brothers have suggested de-regulating a lot of things. Sure. Because it's easier for them to make money with things deregulated. That's the shape they want the world in. It also favors us, because utilities that are forced to buy the miniscule amounts of energy, and provide the hookups for it, are having to pay far more per kilowatt hour than those that don't have to buy it. And the consumer at the end of the chain is the one that has to pay for those increased prices. Is there really little difference in principle? Or are their opposite numbers, doing opposite things? You support them because you think they are exemplars of capitalism, when what they really are is exemplars of crony capitalism and/or predatory capitalism: established businesses and technologies are to be preferred to upstarts, for example.
|
|