Eisenhower Warns of New World Order, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria?

[SabreSaint]

Hello again, not sure if this has already been covered but I wanted to put it here to see if any bunk/sensationalism can be removed from this particular claim.

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/09/50-years-ago-eisenhower-warned-us-iraq-afghanistan-syria-video/

The gist of it is that Eisenhower's speech about the Military-Industrial Complex was really a coded warning about the NWO, and that it is predicting the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria. My personal take on it is that hindsight is 20/20 and combined with irrelevant dot-connecting you could splice absolutely anything vaguely political into the gargantuan NWO narrative. How about your thoughts/debunking?

 

[jvnk08]

I largely agree with your assessment. The military industrial complex verifiably exists and exerts influence on all parts of government and all governments throughout the world - why then do we need to escalate to the notion of a "NWO" which makes so many more assumptions and thus demands so much more extraordinary proof? I'm going by the popular NWO theories, at least, along the lines that there is a concerted pan-global effort to (take your pick): round us up in camps, turn us into slaves, kill us off, martial law, so on. Apparently, these secretive, all-powerful folks "running the show" are in it for the long game and don't want to upset anybody in the process of subversively dominating the world, all despite their existing and immense influence over public affairs. Seeing as these conspiracies have existed for years, if not decades at this point, during which time significant advances in human rights have been had in many of the countries supposedly leading the whole she-bang, I'm left wondering why these omniscient, power-hungry oligarchs don't have stormtroopers stomping down my door just for discussing this subject at all.

 

[xenon]

... I'm going by the popular NWO theories, at least, along the lines that there is a concerted pan-global effort to (take your pick): round us up in camps, turn us into slaves, kill us off, martial law, so on. Apparently, these secretive, all-powerful folks "running the show" are in it for the long game and don't want to upset anybody in the process of subversively dominating the world, all despite their existing and immense influence over public affairs. Seeing as these conspiracies have existed for years, if not decades at this point, during which time significant advances in human rights have been had in many of the countries supposedly leading the whole she-bang, I'm left wondering why these omniscient, power-hungry oligarchs don't have stormtroopers stomping down my door just for discussing this subject at all.

Current Vice President of the United States Joe Biden on 4/5/2013:

"The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order..."
​

Current United States Secretary of State John Kerry during confirmation hearings in January 2013:

"...With the end of the Cold War, Henry Kissinger pointed out in his superb book on Diplomacy: "None of the most important countries which must build a new world order have had any experience with the multistate system that is emerging. Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global a scale.

Nor has any previous order had to combine the attributes of the historic balance-of-power system with global democratic opinion and the exploding technology of the contemporary period." That was written in 1994. It may be more relevant today..."

​

You can watch these men say what is quoted above in the video below. Joe Biden at start and John Kerry at 1:04



I don't think it would be asking too much of them to tell us all just exactly what they are talking about, since they are our employees and they are spending our money to do whatever "New World Order" they are describing. It's outrageous that they haven't been forced to answer this question before, but when the "media" is filled with numbskulls and barely literate high school type cheerleaders, it's no wonder.

Is toppling Syria's existing government part of what Joe Biden and John Kerry said needed to be created?

 

[jvnk08]

Current Vice President of the United States Joe Biden on 4/5/2013:

"The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order..."
​

Current United States Secretary of State John Kerry during confirmation hearings in January 2013:

"...With the end of the Cold War, Henry Kissinger pointed out in his superb book on Diplomacy: "None of the most important countries which must build a new world order have had any experience with the multistate system that is emerging. Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global a scale.

Nor has any previous order had to combine the attributes of the historic balance-of-power system with global democratic opinion and the exploding technology of the contemporary period." That was written in 1994. It may be more relevant today..."

​

You can watch these men say what is quoted above in the video below. Joe Biden at start and John Kerry at 1:04

I don't think it would be asking too much of them to tell us all just exactly what they are talking about, since they are our employees and they are spending our money to do whatever "New World Order" they are describing. It's outrageous that they haven't been forced to answer this question before, but when the "media" is filled with numbskulls and barely literate high school type cheerleaders, it's no wonder.

Is toppling Syria's existing government part of what Joe Biden and John Kerry said needed to be created?

So let me get this straight, these all-powerful people who control the world from behind the scenes call themselves the "New World Order"(it's a proper name you know, not a phrase) and the methodical, scientifically rigorous Internet conspiracy theory community has figured it out?

They casually drop the name into speeches, because they're cocky and want to flaunt their impending domination of all free people on earth. Oh, but actually, they don't want to upset anyone with any overt actions, instead playing the long game. And oh, even though they're definitely up to something evil, they'll allow all sorts of progress in human rights, justice, and equality over the last few decades. But that's just the price they have to pay for the subjugation of humanity and imposition of worldwide eternal martial law that is seemingly always just around the corner.

Heaven forbid some political figure use the term "new world order", it's obviously a sly reference meant only for those in the know. It couldn't be the literal definition of the phrase, a "new world order" in the sense that there is a new geopolitical and social climate emerging in the world. No, it's the name chosen by the simultaneously shady but totally public, all-powerful but incredibly slow-moving organization at the highest levels of government and enterprise conspiring to... do something evil, varying greatly depending on who you ask. Those bastards took the term for something that humanity should legitimately want and corrupted it(though wait, did the shady pan-global conspiracy pick that name or the conspiracy theorists?).

 

[Mick West]

It seems Eisenhower was being very direct and speaking plainly about the Military Industrial Complex.

Now naturally a Military Industrial Complex would lead to a higher likelihood of foreign wars. But that not the same as a "New World Order", just a continuation of the existing order.

The world is in a new world order every few years. After the Berlin Wall fell there was a new world order. With the rise of China there's a new world order.

The world changes, and after the world has changed a bit, then it's new.

 

[Noblelox]

The phrase "New World Order" was coined in the 1920's by one of the politicians involved in forming The League of Nations which, after it's collapse, was reborn as the United Nations. It basically refers to a new paradigm. I find it annoying that the CT's freak everytime they hear it.

 

[anna layloria]

be offend

The phrase "New World Order" was coined in the 1920's by one of the politicians involved in forming The League of Nations which, after it's collapse, was reborn as the United Nations. It basically refers to a new paradigm. I find it annoying that the CT's freak everytime they hear it.

New World Order is a scary term to many, why get annoyed when they find it as proof of larger agenda?

 

[Noblelox]

be offend

New World Order is a scary term to many, why get annoyed when they find it as proof of larger agenda?

If it "was proof of a larger agenda" then you might have a point. Until that point is made proven I'll stick with the original meaning and being somewhat peeved.

 

[Grieves]

It couldn't be the literal definition of the phrase, a "new world order" in the sense that there is a new geopolitical and social climate emerging in the world.

And if it is?
Take a long hard look at the currently emerging geopolitical, social and economic climate and tell me you don't see massively conspiratorial behavior often criminal in nature consolidating wealth, power and culture to an extreme scale and at an alarming rate. Whatever brush you paint it with; Satanic cadre of sex-fiends bent on an ancient plot of world domination to one extreme, or to another extreme just bunch of high-powered businessmen all scrabbling for as much as they can get for themselves with no collaboration whatsoever in the 'age-old' way of social-Darwinism that just happens to lead to these massive consolidations... it's still happening.

 

[Mick West]

And if it is?
Take a long hard look at the currently emerging geopolitical, social and economic climate and tell me you don't see massively conspiratorial behavior often criminal in nature consolidating wealth, power and culture to an extreme scale and at an alarming rate. Whatever brush you paint it with; Satanic cadre of sex-fiends bent on an ancient plot of world domination to one extreme, or to another extreme just bunch of high-powered businessmen all scrabbling for as much as they can get for themselves with no collaboration whatsoever in the 'age-old' way of social-Darwinism that just happens to lead to these massive consolidations... it's still happening.

Something is happening. Wealth inequality is growing. But is that what "New World Order" refers to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

[Grieves]

Something is happening. Wealth inequality is growing. But is that what "New World Order" refers to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

As this thread points out, 'new world order' is something of a general term. It's fair to say that it's not likely the code-word for planetary rule by a Moloch worshiping cult of elites, as some might suggest.What it refers to by those who espouse it can probably best be gauged by the shape it's taking. Wealth inequality has certainly grown, but to leave it at that understates the issue. The increase in wealth inequality the whole world over, and the unprecedented concentration of wealth that makes the elite/ruling class of any other time-period seem downright modest in their means even considering inflation, can't be claimed in informed honesty to be a mistake, can it? It's not an accidental quandary we find ourselves stumbling into. It's the planned and by some much enjoyed result of the 'new world order' as it's being established; a system which gives inordinate freedoms, powers, and immunities to business, banking, and other financial interests, extending their reach and influence while actively curtailing or subverting the authority of civilian governments, often at the grave expense of their citizens; citizens who have no real avenue through which to oppose that system, only to oppose the increasingly powerless governments beholden to it.

Before I go on, would you judge me wrong in this assessment of the 'new world order', not as a cult-conspiracy but as the emerging geopolitical and economic system?

 

[Mick West]

As this thread points out, 'new world order' is something of a general term. It's fair to say that it's not likely the code-word for planetary rule by a Moloch worshiping cult of elites, as some might suggest.What it refers to by those who espouse it can probably best be gauged by the shape it's taking. Wealth inequality has certainly grown, but to leave it at that understates the issue. The increase in wealth inequality the whole world over, and the unprecedented concentration of wealth that makes the elite/ruling class of any other time-period seem downright modest in their means even considering inflation, can't be claimed in informed honesty to be a mistake, can it? It's not an accidental quandary we find ourselves stumbling into. It's the planned and by some much enjoyed result of the 'new world order' as it's being established; a system which gives inordinate freedoms, powers, and immunities to business, banking, and other financial interests, extending their reach and influence while actively curtailing or subverting the authority of civilian governments, often at the grave expense of their citizens; citizens who have no real avenue through which to oppose that system, only to oppose the increasingly powerless governments beholden to it.

Before I go on, would you judge me wrong in this assessment of the 'new world order', not as a cult-conspiracy but as the emerging geopolitical and economic system?

Partially. I think when HW Bush used the term he was mostly referring to the geopolitical landscape. The same with most other political leaders.

Clearly the growth in wealth inequality is the result of deliberate actions. But then you could say the South Sea Bubble or Tulip Mania, or Justin Beiber were the results of deliberate actions. It does not mean that the eventual outcomes were anticipated or desired.

People like the Koch Brothers act to further their personal ideology, and for their own self interests. They favor a laissez-faire objectivist free market that inevitably concentrates wealth and power. They get away with it because the general populace gets just enough trickle-down to keep them happy. It does not need any great conspiracy.

 

[jvnk08]

And if it is?
Take a long hard look at the currently emerging geopolitical, social and economic climate and tell me you don't see massively conspiratorial behavior often criminal in nature consolidating wealth, power and culture to an extreme scale and at an alarming rate. Whatever brush you paint it with; Satanic cadre of sex-fiends bent on an ancient plot of world domination to one extreme, or to another extreme just bunch of high-powered businessmen all scrabbling for as much as they can get for themselves with no collaboration whatsoever in the 'age-old' way of social-Darwinism that just happens to lead to these massive consolidations... it's still happening.

There's no denying that wealth inequality is a problem and is growing. But the emerging geopolitical, social, and yes, economic climate I was talking about is actually an incredibly positive thing for the 'masses', and it has nothing to do with that inequality other than emerging as a direct result of it. The true paradigm shift in modern society being wrought by the digital age has barely begun, though it is gaining steam. With the Internet, crowdsourcing/crowdsharing, hackerspaces, decentralized payment/currency systems, as well as dramatic improvement in various technologies in the last decade, the means of production and coordination are already becoming increasingly decentralized. The "power" is being put back in the hands of the people. Old-world capitalism is readily supplying the noose with which to hang itself, as the saying goes.

So, does this consolidation of wealth have a direct negative impact on the living standards of the masses? To me, the continuing success in eradication of preventable diseases and poverty in the developing world fueled by (continually record) contributions from the 'developed' world demonstrates that, at the least, the positive or negative impact of such consolidation is not black-and-white.

Anyways, the most important question in discussions of equality is whether a significant portion of humanity is seeing their living standards improve. In many countries, the answer is overwhelmingly Yes - at least, as long as you consider stable access to food, clean water, shelter, clothing, electricity and Internet to be an improvement over mud huts and scavenging. It matters little if one guy is driving a Jaguar and everyone else has a jalopy, the fact that everyone has jalopies is itself profound with respect to history. Of course, there are still areas where the difference is more extreme, such as the ability to travel and afford medical expenses(particularly in the US). There is also still extreme poverty. But the statistics back the assertion that things are improving across the board for disenfranchised peoples.

There are more people today enjoying a higher standard of living than ever before in the history of mankind. That alone is a feat of logistics and collaboration on a monumental scale over the 20th century. I've yet to see a solid case that specific, well-defined changes to economic models followed over the course of the 20th century would have made things dramatically better for everyone. I've also yet to see a well constructed argument demonstrating that the wealth disparity in the 20th century is the result of a concerted effort on the part of the wealthy to cause that suffering because it directly translates to their enrichment.

If such a thing exists, please share.

 

[Joe]

Partially. I think when HW Bush used the term he was mostly referring to the geopolitical landscape. The same with most other political leaders.

Clearly the growth in wealth inequality is the result of deliberate actions. But then you could say the South Sea Bubble or Tulip Mania, or Justin Beiber were the results of deliberate actions. It does not mean that the eventual outcomes were anticipated or desired.

People like the Koch Brothers act to further their personal ideology, and for their own self interests. They favor a laissez-faire objectivist free market that inevitably concentrates wealth and power. They get away with it because the general populace gets just enough trickle-down to keep them happy. It does not need any great conspiracy.

What is it with the left and the KOCH brothers ? Iv never knew who they were until a bunch of leftist said that was being used by them ? Soros is I guess the lefts version of the Koch brothers ?

 

[Mick West]

What is it with the left and the KOCH brothers ? Iv never knew who they were until a bunch of leftist said that was being used by them ? Soros is I guess the lefts version of the Koch brothers ?

The Koch brothers are strongly anti-left, and spend a lot of money fighting against what they perceive as creeping communism. So of course any left-leaning person is going to be concerned about the things they do.

 

[SR1419]

What is it with the left and the KOCH brothers ? Iv never knew who they were until a bunch of leftist said that was being used by them ? Soros is I guess the lefts version of the Koch brothers ?

Thats pretty accurate...and one reason why the idea of a elite cabal of NWO protagonists seems unlikely when there are such a wide range of philosophies and beliefs.

Koch Brothers do seem pretty agro- they make Bill Gates look pretty tame.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

 

[jvnk08]

What is it with the left and the KOCH brothers ? Iv never knew who they were until a bunch of leftist said that was being used by them ? Soros is I guess the lefts version of the Koch brothers ?

Soros has an extensive history in philanthropy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Philanthropy

Contrast this with the efforts of the Koch brothers, who have notoriously astroturfed political movements that really end up only hurting the "little guy" they supposedly represent.

Charles seems to be spending a lot of money making sure he pays as little taxes as possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch#Philanthropic_and_political_activities

David Koch's efforts, which, while substantial, are almost entirely driven by his diagnosis with cancer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch#Philanthropy

Koch Brothers do seem pretty agro- they make Bill Gates look pretty tame.

That's an understatement! The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is the second largest philanthropy in the world, contributing to a vast array of causes.

 

[SR1419]

Soros has an extensive history in philanthropy:

To be fair...the Koch Brothers also give away a lot of money to arts, education, and medical research...

here is an interesting comparison between the Kochs and Soros:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle---koch-brothers.html

I can't imagine these guys agreeing on how to implement the NWO.

 

[jvnk08]

To be fair...the Koch Brothers also give away a lot of money to arts, education, and medical research...

here is an interesting comparison between the Kochs and Soros:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle---koch-brothers.html

I can't imagine these guys agreeing on how to implement the NWO.

Well, one of them does. Still dwarfed by Soros' philanthropy. I think they get their bad rap from "donating" so much money to clearly partisan political organizations which lobby for less taxes and less business regulations.

But yeah, agreed. Not only that, we're talking about a few people here. There are many people in various positions of relative power out there, and many of them have conflicting beliefs just like Soros and the Kochs.

 

[Grieves]

What is it with the left and the KOCH brothers ? Iv never knew who they were until a bunch of leftist said that was being used by them ? Soros is I guess the lefts version of the Koch brothers ?

The Koch brothers are those delightful gentlemen who want to abolish minimum wage, to give the American employee 'more options'. The job market in America, they argue, would be far more vibrant and much more work would be available if there weren't a pesky requirement to provide a more-or-less livable wage. "Just look at the job market in China", they insist.

Clearly the growth in wealth inequality is the result of deliberate actions... ...It does not mean that the eventual outcomes were anticipated or desired.

The system which facilitates this growth in inequality and the dominance of corporate/financial interests over national interests took planning and coordination to establish. Governments and organizations who oppose this system, either actively or unknowingly, have been removed, often through violence of the most brutal sort, with the sanction and support of 'developed' nations. East Timor is an excellent example of this, as it's one instance where, in thinking it could be kept largely secret, little effort was made to compose a go-to excuse for the massacre there... a massacre that was quite simply about opening Indonesia and it's resources up to international business interests from the perspective of the western nations supporting it.

People like the Koch Brothers act to further their personal ideology, and for their own self interests. They favor a laissez-faire objectivist free market that inevitably concentrates wealth and power.

Surely you don't believe this ideology is exclusive to them? Surely you can fathom how people of similar ideologies and similar means could conspire with one another to achieve similar goals? I'm not saying the Koch brothers have special seats in the League of Super-Evil, I didn't even bring them up. But they're as fine an example as any of members of the unofficial 'global congress' of business and banking interests, who's decisions and conflicts hold more sway over Governments than Governments hold over them.

But the emerging geopolitical, social, and yes, economic climate I was talking about is actually an incredibly positive thing for the 'masses', and it has nothing to do with that inequality other than emerging as a direct result of it.

I'm having a bit of difficulty wrapping my head around this. Has nothing to do with it other than emerging as a direct result of it...?

The true paradigm shift in modern society being wrought by the digital age has barely begun, though it is gaining steam. With the Internet, crowdsourcing/crowdsharing, hackerspaces, decentralized payment/currency systems, as well as dramatic improvement in various technologies in the last decade, the means of production and coordination are already becoming increasingly decentralized. The "power" is being put back in the hands of the people.

In what respect is the 'power' being returned to the people? Where unions, wages, social security, privacy, rights, ease of education and government representation are concerned, the people seem to be losing their power at a rather rapid pace.

So, does this consolidation of wealth have a direct negative impact on the living standards of the masses? To me, the continuing success in eradication of preventable diseases and poverty in the developing world fueled by (continually record) contributions from the 'developed' world demonstrates that, at the least, the positive or negative impact of such consolidation is not black-and-white.

I'd agree, the information age and its technological advances are by no means anathema to positive human development. Many good things have come of the 'shrinking' world. The claim was never that all things 'globalized' are things evil. I none the less maintain that the system of global management being established in this day and age, the 'new world order', is one constructed around the support and protection of massive business and financial interests; a role it plays, as recent history clearly indicates, at the often tremendous expense of people.

But the statistics back the assertion that things are improving across the board for disenfranchised peoples.

Are things improving across the board for the people of Detroit?

There are more people today enjoying a higher standard of living than ever before in the history of mankind. That alone is a feat of logistics and collaboration on a monumental scale over the 20th century.

There are also almost certainly more people suffering a lower standard of living than ever before in the history of mankind. There are also most definitely more people sleeping in till noon than ever before in the history of mankind, and more people waking up at dawn than ever before in the history of mankind. That's because there's more people on the planet right now than ever before in the history of mankind. That the progress of our species, technology, and the advancement of ideas has improved many life-styles shouldn't serve as a justification for the system described above, especially given we know it is within our capacity to end poverty outright.

I've yet to see a solid case that specific, well-defined changes to economic models followed over the course of the 20th century would have made things dramatically better for everyone. I've also yet to see a well constructed argument demonstrating that the wealth disparity in the 20th century is the result of a concerted effort on the part of the wealthy to cause that suffering because it directly translates to their enrichment.

If such a thing exists, please share.

There's a really informative documentary on the subject of modern financial models called 'Quants: The Alchemists of Wallstreet' that you might find worth a watch, which can be found here.
It discusses the inherent flaws in economic modeling, and how the belief that economic models are designed to gauge reality rather than distort it is a flawed one. It points out how the job of many 'Quants', the label used for the mathematicians and programers of financial powerhouses, is to create models that excuse risk rather than reduce it, to justify behavior that puts clients of and investors in these banks/institutions in extreme jeopardy, as happened with so many during the last financial crisis.

 

[SR1419]

the 'new world order', is one constructed around the support and protection of massive business and financial interests

How is that any different than...ever?

Doesn't sound very "new".

 

[Grieves]

How is that any different than...ever?

Doesn't sound very "new".

Not going to have this asinine argument with you again. See the post from JVNK to which I first replied to understand the usage of the term 'new world order' in the context of this discussion.

 

[jvnk08]

I'm having a bit of difficulty wrapping my head around this. Has nothing to do with it other than emerging as a direct result of it...?

Fair enough, it was confusing.

In what respect is the 'power' being returned to the people? Where unions, wages, social security, privacy, rights, ease of education and government representation are concerned, the people seem to be losing their power at a rather rapid pace.

A fair point, though it can be argued that in each of those issues the decentralization properties of the Internet are going to help. In many cases, decentralization may indeed subvert the need for the institutions entirely - or at least, in their present form.

In terms of raw capitalism though, the barriers to entry of production and logistical coordination have never been lower. This is happening through a variety of means - newer tools like 3D printing as well as social models of sharing and cooperation like hackerspaces and crowd-sharing. By no means is the need for massive industry vanishing before our eyes, but we are just seeing the beginning after all.

Are things improving across the board for the people of Detroit?

Things aren't looking good for them, no - but let's remember the context here. They've had roughly as much time at the trough as any other city in the developed world(not saying the people there caused their own problem).

In contrast, there's millions of people in India who are just now shitting in actual toilets for the first time.

There are also almost certainly more people suffering a lower standard of living than ever before in the history of mankind. There are also most definitely more people sleeping in till noon than ever before in the history of mankind, and more people waking up at dawn than ever before in the history of mankind. That's because there's more people on the planet right now than ever before in the history of mankind. That the progress of our species, technology, and the advancement of ideas has improved many life-styles shouldn't serve as a justification for the system described above, especially given we know it is within our capacity to end poverty outright.

I fully acknowledged there are still problems. However, the human condition is much better today than ever. None of the examples you listed are noteworthy in the same sense, and the one that is actually relevant one is not true. There are less people living in squalor today than previously in the 20th century. Just look at the developing world 10, 15, 30 years ago. In the past decade things have dramatically improved as their economies take off. I share this link too often, but it is backed by statistics if you dive in into it:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/half-a-billion-people-escaped-poverty-2005-2010/

They estimate that between 2005 and 2010, the total number of poor people around the world fell by nearly half a
billion, from over 1.3 billion in 2005 to under 900 million in 2010. Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled
in history: never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of t ime. And using
forecasts of per capita consumption growth, they estimate that by 2015 fewer than 600 million people will remain in
poverty.

...

The first Millennium Development Goal target – to halve the rate of global poverty by 2015 from its 1990
level - has probably already been met, approximately three years ago. By 2015, we will likely not only have
halved the global poverty rate, but will have halved it again.

...

Nevertheless, Sub-Saharan Africa's poverty rate has now fallen below 50 percent for the first time. By
2015, its poverty rate is expected to fall below 40 percent—a feat China did not achieve until the mid-90s.

Even a few centuries ago, royalty and peasants alike lived in what would amount to squalor today. It was not uncommon for a street to be devoted to storing piles of rotting human waste. Fun fact:

At about the time of Louis XIV's death in 1715, a new rule was put in place requiring that the corridors in the palace at Versailles be cleaned of feces once a week.

(source)

Certainly it is within the realm of technical feasibility to end poverty outright. What do you think is going on? It's not something that is accomplished overnight, or even in a span of a few years. Sure, if the organizational prowess and monetary clout of large companies like Apple or IBM were devoting the entire scope of their operation to such a thing, it might come more quickly. But that's not to say there isn't a monumental effort being made as it is. In fact there are quite a few such endeavors, and they are seeing results.

There's a really informative documentary on the subject of modern financial models called 'Quants: The Alchemists of Wallstreet' that you might find worth a watch, which can be found here.
It discusses the inherent flaws in economic modeling, and how the belief that economic models are designed to gauge reality rather than distort it is a flawed one. It points out how the job of many 'Quants', the label used for the mathematicians and programers of financial powerhouses, is to create models that excuse risk rather than reduce it, to justify behavior that puts clients of and investors in these banks/institutions in extreme jeopardy, as happened with so many during the last financial crisis.

I'll give it a watch, though to be honest what I was really looking for is anything from "tweaks" to entire alternative economic systems that would at the least break even with what we have today but ideally surpass it. How could the 20th century have gone differently, economy-wise, such that there was less suffering in the developing world and less wealth disparity overall? For example, I'm not sure we can say definitively something along the lines of "Well if we had done this instead of that it would have led to demonstrably less suffering", without an accompanying caveat along the lines of "but that means we would not have had X".

Anyways, the larger question posited in the thread is whether those problems are the direct result of a concerted effort on the part of a few rich folks. I don't think they are, but rather an emergent property of a "free market" instead of a sensibly regulated one. I can see some rich people directly benefiting from literally exploiting the poor, but I can't see the poverty of the world today being explicitly proven to be the result of the wealthy of the world getting together and determining the best way for them to make gobs of money is to do everything they can to force the rest of the world into squalor. It isn't working if that's the case.

 

[Grieves]

Things aren't looking good for them, no - but let's remember the context here. They've had roughly as much time at the trough as any other city in the developed world(not saying the people there caused their own problem).

In contrast, there's millions of people in India who are just now shitting in actual toilets for the first time.

Sanitation is great. Communication is great. Technology, when it isn't killing people, is generally pretty fantastic. But the advancement of knowledge at the global scale and the philanthropic efforts of individuals/groups of individuals can't be said to be mutually exclusive with the 'new world order' as we're discussing it. Flush toilets in the third world doesn't excuse how a city in the United States of America, the unquestionable powerhouse of the planet, a country which spent billions and billions of dollars bailing out banks that weren't even in peril just to hide the banks that were, which gives more in many millions a year to many major corporations as incentives than it collects from them in taxes, in which military spending is ludicrous to the extreme, has gone bankrupt with little but a patronizing pat on the shoulder from the federal government. That's the context I feel is worth remembering.

Certainly it is within the realm of technical feasibility to end poverty outright. What do you think is going on?

I honestly think it's being delayed quite effectively by those who'd much rather not see it happen. Not unlike the electric car, and for no more or less nefarious intentions.

Anyways, the larger question posited in the thread is whether those problems are the direct result of a concerted effort on the part of a few rich folks.

I'd say it's more likely the direct result of a loosely concerted effort on the part of many 'rich folk'.

I don't think they are, but rather an emergent property of a "free market" instead of a sensibly regulated one.

You put "free market" in quotes for a reason. It's a system conceived, composed, and exploited by people, a set of rules you play by or miss out, not some open global bazaar. To call the consequences of that system an 'emergent property' seems overly forgiving.

 

[xenon]

The Koch brothers are strongly anti-left, and spend a lot of money fighting against what they perceive as creeping communism. So of course any left-leaning person is going to be concerned about the things they do.

Clinton wasn't too concerned. But he isn't really "left leaning" is he. When he wasn't using 22 year old interns to satisfy himself.

Because the Koch brothers helped to fund the Democratic Leadership Council and served on its "Executive" board.

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC -- article from '06
posted by CrossChris Thu Feb-24-11 11:32 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

I saw this posted elsewhere recently, and thought this was very interesting to revisit:

Democrats.com: The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
February 09, 2006
http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

Do deep-pocketed "philanthropists" necessarily control the organizations they fund? That has certainly been the contention of those who truck in conspiracy theories about the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations funding liberal and neo-liberal organizations. As for the rightwing, journalists such as Joe Conason and Gene Lyons uncovered that the "vast right wing conspiracy" -- or the New Right network of think tanks, media outlets and pressure groups -- was marshalled under rightwing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife for his Get-Clinton campaign. Prior to the work of Conason and Lyons, Russ Bellant extensively documented in "The Coors Connection" how the Coors Family, Scaife and other wealthy rightwingers have funded the New Right movement since the early '70's. Among these rightwing benefactors are the Koch brothers. But the Kochs have been working both sides of the fence. As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition. (continued)...

​

MORE

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council
8/25/2010 2:01pm by Joe Sudbay
http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch...-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

But, here's a key piece of information: the Kochs haven't just given to right-wingers. Back in April of 2001, The American Prospect's Bob Dreyfuss reported that the Kochs also funded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC):
And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T;, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications.

Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively–meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms–though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included.

​

The DLC is now defunct. But like everything else in DC it's not dead. New names are assigned and the policies go on:

New Democrat Network
New Democrat Coalition​

"Conventional Wisdom" may be "Conventional" but many times the "Wisdom" is not only lacking, it's non- existent.

I don't know how long you've been in the States, Mick, but this country is full of people that don't, won't or can't pay attention. And guess what: US Politicians lie. A lot. In fact almost everything coming out of DC for the past few decades has been either an outright lie or half truths simmered in bald face bollocks. It hasn't been about "Left" vs. "Right" for a long time. It's "Right" vs. "Center" at best. and more like Authoritarian/ Corporatism vs. Freedom and Liberty.

George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties. Who do you know that has read his brilliant farewell address? Ask around a bit. See for yourself. We're a nation of fools, sycophants and un or undereducated morons. By the way, have you ever read Washington's last speech?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address

​

 

[xenon]

So let me get this straight, these all-powerful people who control the world from behind the scenes call themselves the "New World Order"(it's a proper name you know, not a phrase) and the methodical, scientifically rigorous Internet conspiracy theory community has figured it out?

They casually drop the name into speeches, because they're cocky and want to flaunt their impending domination of all free people on earth. .

Wouldn't it be great if some "reporter" or "journalist" could get up the courage to ask.

 

[jvnk08]

Sanitation is great. Communication is great. Technology, when it isn't killing people, is generally pretty fantastic. But the advancement of knowledge at the global scale and the philanthropic efforts of individuals/groups of individuals can't be said to be mutually exclusive with the 'new world order' as we're discussing it. Flush toilets in the third world doesn't excuse how a city in the United States of America, the unquestionable powerhouse of the planet, a country which spent billions and billions of dollars bailing out banks that weren't even in peril just to hide the banks that were, which gives more in many millions a year to many major corporations as incentives than it collects from them in taxes, in which military spending is ludicrous to the extreme, has gone bankrupt with little but a patronizing pat on the shoulder from the federal government. That's the context I feel is worth remembering.

You make a very solid point here, but I think it's worth noting that the issues pointed out are not black and white and have caveats of their own. Certainly there is abuse of the systems put in place under mostly benign pretenses. But I don't think the system as a whole was designed specifically to disenfranchise the majority because that directly translates into income for the minority, instead it makes no restrictions itself on abuse and "someone will always eat that cake" as the saying goes. I'm hoping we'll see the corrupt GOP lose seats in congress over time and some reasonable financial regulations passed. In essence I think Hanlon's razor can more appropriately explain the current state of things more aptly than a concerted effort by government and business. Even without the SEC et. al. being largely stripped of their ability to effectively regulate in the 90's, there would still be the insane levels of income inequality of today.

In the case of the bailouts, everyone who received money is/was required to create a detailed plan for their usage of that money which is then placed under public scrutiny on http://recovery.gov, which if nothing else is a step in the right direction. There is a wealth of information there on how the money has been divied up and/or repaid.

I honestly think it's being delayed quite effectively by those who'd much rather not see it happen.

I can't imagine economic justification for this. More people with more money = more business overall. Sure, immense wealth has already been created while this disenfranchisement exists, but then again there are a lot of people with sums of wealth that greatly surpass that of the equivalent population in centuries past - the middle class. It seems to me that sort of fiscal decision would rely heavily on margins rather than growing the "pie", which doesn't make much sense.

Wouldn't it be great if some "reporter" or "journalist" could get up the courage to ask.

Don't hold your breath. Most people understand that the phrase "a new world order" is just that - a phrase. Do you honestly think this diabolical cabal of elite people are referring to themselves by the same name that the Internet truther community has given them?

 

[Grieves]

I can't imagine economic justification for this. More people with more money = more business overall. Sure, immense wealth has already been created while this disenfranchisement exists, but then again there are a lot of people with sums of wealth that greatly surpass that of the equivalent population in centuries past - the middle class. It seems to me that sort of fiscal decision would rely heavily on margins rather than growing the "pie", which doesn't make much sense.

Excess is the path to a massive profit-margin, not balance. The poverty of one community fuels the excess of another. The uplifting of an impoverished community negatively impacts the excess of a community that poverty was supporting. Take Apple, America's favorite and most lovable corporation, as an example. To my knowledge they're the most profitable corporation on the planet, and their product is the very picture of excess; useful gadgets to be sure that are none the less made to be chucked and re-purchased on an almost annual basis. Their oft-praised business model is wholly dependent on the impoverished. It depends on cheap peasant labor in Asia and highly unsafe and unhealthy mining operations in Africa, both of which have been pointed out as having violated child-labor laws. If there weren't tired-eyed teens slaving away for dollars a day on massive factory floors living with all the luster of worker-bees, if there weren't kids with metal pipes smashing stones and bearing them on their backs across thirsty badlands, these handy gadgets would be way too damn expensive for these annual re-releases.
The whole African continent can be considered a fair example of this truth. The horrors of colonialism and slavery may (debatably) be in the past, but the International community's stance on Africa remains blatantly two-faced; espousing charity and droplet-in-a-lake good-will gestures/programs, while at the same time maintaining a system of tremendous financial oppression in many African nations which sees precious resources like minerals and food bought up at cut-rate prices and sold abroad for a killing. The end of poverty would have to mean the end of these practices, and these practices have made many people extremely wealthy. That these extremely wealthy people/ the corporations and major banking interests who benefit don't always have the same goals and may well often disagree/compete with/combat one another on many issues doesn't change their vested interest in perpetuating or even reinforcing a system in which large-scale poverty is a key component.

As you said, to my complete agreement, before:

if the organizational prowess and monetary clout of large companies like Apple or IBM were devoting the entire scope of their operation to such a thing, it might come more quickly.

If major corporate and financial interests believed working to end poverty would, as you suggest, boost business and profits, they'd be pushing that agenda in a major way.That this is a plate that hasn't been stepped up too, 'individually' or communally, is as clear an indication as any that increased profits would not be the expected result.

 

[Cairenn]

Businesses, both large and small, need customers. Poor folks don't buy anything but necessities. If you are in the business of selling refrigerators, washers, TVs, computers and lots of other items, then it is to Your benefit to see folks move into the middle class. If you figure in that the population of developed countries is fairly stagnant, and that most folks have reached the limit of those items that they need to own. (I remember when a family had one TV and maybe 2 radios---now I have a radio or 2 in every room, including the smallest room in the house).

 

[Grieves]

Businesses, both large and small, need customers. Poor folks don't buy anything but necessities.

This simply isn't true. Even the poorest of people often spend large portions of their wages on entertainment, relaxation, and what 'luxuries' are available to them, whether that means a cellphone, a stereo-system, or just the occasional bottle.

If you are in the business of selling refrigerators, washers, TVs, computers and lots of other items, then it is to Your benefit to see folks move into the middle class.

Unless those same folks are building your refrigerators, washers, TVs, computers, and lots of other items, at extremely low wages... which allows you to sell your refrigerators, washers, TVs, computers, and lots of other items for prices that make planned obsolescence tolerable and highly profitable to other folks in distant lands. If they found their way into the middle-class then, you couldn't afford to hire them without raising prices, the folks in distant lands would have to think twice about your products, and your entire business-model is fucked.

If you figure in that the population of developed countries is fairly stagnant, and that most folks have reached the limit of those items that they need to own. (I remember when a family had one TV and maybe 2 radios---now I have a radio or 2 in every room, including the smallest room in the house).

Limit? This is the first world. There's no such thing as a 'limit'. Already got 4 TV's? Well shit, you don't have the 46 incher. Got the 46 incher? Well shit, it's not 3D. Corporations and major financial interests neither need nor want a balanced system removed of poverty. Though such a system may be hugely beneficial to the species as a whole, an end to financial exploitation would mean the end of the massive short-term rewards that result, and it's these massive short-term rewards that are at the very backbone of the 'new world order' as we're discussing it.

Also: That's a whole lot of radios. What gives there, if you don't mind my asking? I don't think I've owned a single radio since my old alarm-clock was busted.

 

[SR1419]

Excess is the path to a massive profit-margin, not balance. The poverty of one community fuels the excess of another. The uplifting of an impoverished community negatively impacts the excess of a community that poverty was supporting. Take Apple, America's favorite and most lovable corporation, as an example. To my knowledge they're the most profitable corporation on the planet, and their product is the very picture of excess; useful gadgets to be sure that are none the less made to be chucked and re-purchased on an almost annual basis. Their oft-praised business model is wholly dependent on the impoverished. It depends on cheap peasant labor in Asia and highly unsafe and unhealthy mining operations in Africa, both of which have been pointed out as having violated child-labor laws. If there weren't tired-eyed teens slaving away for dollars a day on massive factory floors living with all the luster of worker-bees,

What a load of bunk.

We have been down this road before- you wax rhetorically about all these "tired-eyed teens slaving" away (minimum hiring age at FXCN is 23)...and yet haven't considered what they would being doing if Apple didn't create the demand for their labor? What were they doing before Foxconn? What was their standard of living before moving to the city to take these jobs?

Clearly, they do not view themselves as "slaves" - Foxconn wages are above the national average...fully a third of them would like to work more hours...and they took these jobs of their own free will. Foxconn certainly had some labor issues but it is precisely because Apple uses them that those practices became exposed and addressed:

http://www.fairlabor.org/sites/default/files/documents/reports/foxconn_investigation_report.pdf

Never mind that China has seen the greatest uplifting from poverty the World has ever seen precisely because of the drive for profit- approximately a half a BILLION people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 25yrs.

http://thediplomat.com/pacific-money/2013/05/30/half-a-billion-chinas-middle-class-consumers/

If major corporate and financial interests believed working to end poverty would, as you suggest, boost business and profits, they'd be pushing that agenda in a major way.That this is a plate that hasn't been stepped up too, 'individually' or communally, is as clear an indication as any that increased profits would not be the expected result.

This is illogical.

How can impoverished people supply the demand to keep corporations in business?

If people have more money, they buy more things...if they buy more things companies make more profits.

 

[Cairenn]

Yes there is limit on the number of manufactured goods a person will buy. How many folks will buy more than one clothes washer? Or dish washer? TVs a limited also, den, play room and bedrooms. I don't really expect anyone to buy a TV for kitchen or bathroom or for a formal living room or dining room. Most folks don't need more than one cell phone. BTW, not everyone buys the fancy new TVs, my TV is heading toward 20 years old, my computer is over 8 years old now.

I see that you have a poor concept of poor folks. Maybe the poor in the US do buy a nice TV or stereo system, but they do that instead of going out to movies and such, in other words, they save money with it.

It is odd that you seem to dislike radio. Both my hubby and I often prefer what is there to the crap on TV. We both listen to NPR, a lot and he enjoys our local classical music station and I will sometimes turn on the local alternative music station.

 

[SR1419]

This simply isn't true. Even the poorest of people often spend large portions of their wages on entertainment, relaxation, and what 'luxuries' are available to them, whether that means a cellphone, a stereo-system, or just the occasional bottle.

If its not true then perhaps you could provide some source data or studies to back up you broad generalization?

Its well understood that increasing incomes leads to greater consumption...and indeed that "consumption" can even be the desire for cleaner air and water, better working conditions, greater political representation etc...

Its only when you are not worried about your next meal than you can begin to focus on your environment around you.

 

[Grieves]

Never mind that China has seen the greatest uplifting from poverty the World has ever seen precisely because of the drive for profit- approximately a half a BILLION people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 25yrs.

and what effect has the reduction of poverty and the rising of wages in China had on the United States Economy?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703849204576302972415758878.html
http://economics.mit.edu/files/6613
http://www.epi.org/press/globalization-lowered-wages-american-workers/
remember what I said?

The uplifting of an impoverished community negatively impacts the excess of a community that poverty was supporting.

Isn't it interesting that as China begins to achieve a reasonable middle-class and starts to offer somewhat more reasonable wages, America experiences increasing financial uncertainty, rising prices, and a great deal of anti-China sentiment is tossed around by its politicians. Seems pretty indicative.

This is illogical.

How can impoverished people supply the demand to keep corporations in business?

There are markets within impoverished communities corporations are all too happy to exploit. Coca-Cola is an old pro at appealing to these. That said, corporations obviously don't need to consider supplying the impoverished in order to remain profitable. The impoverished are more profitably utilized as part of the supply-chain, in the form of cheap labor in the gathering of materials/assembling of products.

If people have more money, they buy more things...if they buy more things companies make more profits.

If people have more money, they don't feel the need to work like dogs for pennies. If no one's working like dogs for pennies, and everyone's getting a fair shake, than either prices go up or profits shrink. The product may also sell less if prices go up, shrinking the profit margin even further. Big business greatly benefits from paying people pennies to work like dogs. Remember slavery? That travesty on which America's great wealth was built? You understand why slaves were kept, yes? Why they weren't paid wages/allowed to own property and the like? Because it was extremely profitable to do so. If it were otherwise, those people brought against their will would have been paid and allowed to purchase property, as 'If people have more money, they buy more things... if they buy more things companies make more profits.'. The financial success of slavery is a direct contradiction of the assertion that it's more profitable, and thus more desirable from a corporate perspective, to uplift rather than to exploit.

 

[Grieves]

If its not true then perhaps you could provide some source data or studies to back up you broad generalization?

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-poverty-people-focus-short-term.html decent place to start, but Google is your friend.

 

[Grieves]

Yes there is limit on the number of manufactured goods a person will buy. How many folks will buy more than one clothes washer? Or dish washer?

Most will, unless they've got one of those gems from the early 80's that will last a bloody lifetime. In my stint as a telemarketer, I booked service-calls for Direct Energy's repair-service of household appliances. You'd be surprised at how many of these things seem designed to break down. Microwaves and Fridges with Ice-dispensers were the worst offenders. A word of advice to anyone reading this: AVOID modern over-the-range microwaves. They cost about a few hundred dollars more than a counter-top version, and the modern magnetrons are seemingly designed to pop in a matter of just a few years, if even that.

I see that you have a poor concept of poor folks. Maybe the poor in the US do buy a nice TV or stereo system, but they do that instead of going out to movies and such, in other words, they save money with it.

Actually, if you look at the link above and do a bit of searching about, there's a fairly large body of scientific evidence and statistics backing up my assertion.

It is odd that you seem to dislike radio. Both my hubby and I often prefer what is there to the crap on TV. We both listen to NPR, a lot and he enjoys our local classical music station and I will sometimes turn on the local alternative music station.

I don't 'dislike' it per-say, it's just a somewhat antiquated medium, and I couldn't understand the object of having multiple radios in a single room. If anything I could imagine that getting highly distracting. The internet is typically my source of music/news, and I actually find television is in something of a Golden Age as it approaches its own obsolescence. Sure, there's a whole lot of crap as ever, some of it even crappier than ever before... but there's also a lot of really fantastic programming that's making the film industry look bad. Breaking Bad, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Hell on Wheels, Homeland.... fantastic miniseries from the BBC like The Crimson Petal and the White and Southcliffe... there's a lot of programming on television these days that's far better than anything that's ever been on it before. It leaves me a bit conflicted, as I can hardly stand actually sitting down in front of a TV for any length of time due to all the damn advertisements. Why I find HBO is worth it.

 

[Cairenn]

to sell, then I will not have money.

Of course that is part of the difference between us, I understand what it takes to run a business, whereas you just take advantage of the products that businesses provide, from that computer you are using, to the software on it to the TV you watch the shows produced by businesses.

 

[Grieves]

to sell, then I will not have money.

Not sure what this means/relates too.

Of course that is part of the difference between us, I understand what it takes to run a business, whereas you just take advantage of the products that businesses provide, from that computer you are using, to the software on it to the TV you watch the shows produced by businesses.

Sooooo because I have a computer that functions decently and watch TV occasionally, my opinion is somehow less valid than yours? Because you make and sell jewelry...?

 

[Cairenn]

My computer lost most of that post, I will be editing it .

You are not on the business side of any business. You want and enjoy what they provide, but you don't them to benefit from their work. You resent them making money, but of course if they didn't they couldn't pay folks like you to telemarket their products to others. Sorry, I have a low opinion of telemarketers. I tried that job, a couple of times and I decided that my morals would not allow be to work as one. And I was good at it, also. It is a job and it does provide for some folks. I happen to have other skills and talents that are worthwhile.

 

[Grieves]

My computer lost most of that post, I will be editing it .

You are not on the business side of any business. You want and enjoy what they provide, but you don't them to benefit from their work. You resent them making money, but of course if they didn't they couldn't pay folks like you to telemarket their products to others. Sorry, I have a low opinion of telemarketers. I tried that job, a couple of times and I decided that my morals would not allow be to work as one. And I was good at it, also. It is a job and it does provide for some folks. I happen to have other skills and talents that are worthwhile.

I got a really, really big laugh out of your last sentence, so thanks for that. As it happens, I stopped telemarketing some years ago on the same grounds, so you needn't apologize for your low opinion, given it applies to yourself as much as to me... perhaps more-so, as I've only done it once. Though my skills and talents are surely no where near as numerous and extensive as yours, I have managed to find work in other fields, most small businesses.