I disagree. I agree that the system shouldn't be creating so many billionaires. It's a flaw in the system. But Musk is among the best of them IMO and his contrarian position makes him essential, even if you disagree with him and his politics. There needs to be opposing forces among the elite or else we're sure to walk down the path of totalitarianism.
I generally agree with Musk's politics but I wouldn't want all billionaires to share his politics because that would be dangerous. Unfortunately those on the left do not seem to understand this; they keep trying to force total consensus. Which is the biggest evil, total consensus is more evil than any idea you could come up with.
Most ideologies are distractions to get people upset over specific unimportant ideas so that they don't get upset over the massive evil, creeping ideology; the ideology of "total consensus over important ideas."
Full consensus is evil incarnate, no matter the specifics. Its stickiness; inability to adapt to reality is what makes it evil. Without opposition, there is no room for independent thought.
No, they're dying because of a global financial system which systematically steals from them by corrupting their governments into making decisions which benefit large western corporations at their expense, while depriving them of resource royalties and opportunities to work for themselves.
International trade agreements and political over-engineering of the global order are to blame.
Where are all the other concerned countries stepping in to help since the US has left? Why is the US the only country that is considered responsible for the problems of foreign countries while every other country is given the luxury of focusing only on their domestic affairs?
If that's what you want to happen, you say "in a year, we're going to cut off this aid" so that there is time for someone else to step in.
But they just cut it off from one day to the next in a place with challenging logistics, ensuring that some of the world's poorest people are likely to die so the world's wealthiest man can muck around in politics as a hobby.
The desired outcome isn't capturing hearts and minds, it's preventing easily preventable diseases and deaths for what amount to pennies in the federal budget.
No, we've been hated since Vietnam. There was a brief period after 9/11.
From my prospective everyone hates America, but weirdly wants to migrate here at he same time. (Except for the online minority who threaten to leave but never do)
Why should we send $240 million to Zambia? Is it the United States taxpayers' responsibility to treat all of the developing world's problems? How much foreign aid is enough?
The United States is approaching 37 trillion dollars of debt. There will be no aid to Zambia or any other country if we default on that debt.
I’m struck by how some still seem unable to grasp the power of soft influence. Africa now has even fewer incentives to side with anyone but China. America’s strength has long rested on its deep alliances and its knack for creating prosperity abroad—but that advantage is eroding fast.
Are you struck at the possibility of a inner-city family on welfare, or poor rural areas thinking that the US should be spending fungible dollars on them and not someone half way across the world?
They do by lowering taxes. This money can be used to keep local communities funded.
We will probably never be in agreement with government having more money to inefficiently distribute vs keeping it in the pockets of the earners. Sorry.
Well they are not doing that they actually planned to cut local welfare even more. So you make your poorer people poorer and lost influence over the world. I'm honestly struck with that.
Politicians which are drastically cutting foreign aid usually doesn't increase it locally because they do not agree with the whole concept.
They do by lowering taxes. This money can be used to keep local communities funded.
We will probably never be in agreement with government having more money to inefficiently distribute vs keeping it in the pockets of the earners. Sorry.
Your link does not say that. It says that there have been models predicting an increase in deaths over the next 'x' years while giving stories of numerous people who are facing bureaucratic hurdles moving over to the alternative clinics. The death projections assume there will be no replacement for USAID which is not a reasonable assumption. As the article emphasizes, they are already being replaced - though it's taking some time to get over the hurdles and get the bureaucracy working more effectively.
But this is part of the reason I am quite happy with USAID being ended. The goal of effective charity should be to make itself obsolete. We can see both that that was entirely possible here, but also in no meaningful way pursued at all. They could have spent those years and millions of dollars funding the infrastructure and other pipelines necessary make sure people were aware of and could easily access these state (or other private charity) clinics. Instead they just acted as a dependency creating drug distributor. In one case having a guy literally just handing out drugs, at his discretion, at a truck stop.
You mean fascism? Absolute control over media and speech? Racism? White supremacy?
And what is your definition of consensus? If everyone strikes a compromise, is that evil ? If majority strike a consensus, is that not consensus; that is, does it have to be total in order to be called consensus?
Is majority a consensus? Of course people agitate for getting full victory
So when there’s broad agreement that something is a good idea like, I don’t know, making sure the water is drinkable, your reaction to that is it’s “evil incarnate”?
> There needs to be opposing forces among the elite or else we're sure to walk down the path of totalitarianism.
This is false dichotomy. Our only options are not either a single consensus, or a balance between good and evil. We can have a balance of reasonably good intentions, too.
Most billionaires are pretty bad, and Musk is among the worst of them.
I had a think for a while about the least bad billionaire, and I'm going to go with Taylor Swift. The worst thing she does is have an astronomical personal carbon footprint, which is true of all billionaires.
So if a full consensus says that Nazis are bad, then they are themselves bad, not the Nazis ? And if Musk is the best of the billionaires, that says an awful lot about the others, which paints a very, very hideous world that I definitely don't want a consensus on.
The guy paves the way towards totalitarianism, but please, tell me about we should have people like him because it prevents totalitarianism.
I generally agree with Musk's politics but I wouldn't want all billionaires to share his politics because that would be dangerous. Unfortunately those on the left do not seem to understand this; they keep trying to force total consensus. Which is the biggest evil, total consensus is more evil than any idea you could come up with.
Most ideologies are distractions to get people upset over specific unimportant ideas so that they don't get upset over the massive evil, creeping ideology; the ideology of "total consensus over important ideas."
Full consensus is evil incarnate, no matter the specifics. Its stickiness; inability to adapt to reality is what makes it evil. Without opposition, there is no room for independent thought.