What is the New World Order?

chris180682

julieq wrote: »

I know of no conspiracy theories that haven't been fully debunked. But can we stick to the NWO here, or we'll be off into all sorts of weeds.

Depends what you call "fully debunked" really, there are hundreds of "unsolved" theories and conspiracies. I do admit though that you can type virtually anything into google with the word conspiracy after it and something will come up, it's just down to the sense of the reader to decide whether there might be any cred to it. To say there is no truth in any conspiracy is ridiculous but as you say I'm straying off topic here!

cgk1

smeagold wrote: »

Following the 2009 G20 summit...SNIP

Meta-commentary:

and the Gish Gallop continues -

Anyone reading who is new to internet debate should understand the power of this technique, notice how instead of dealing with the fact that many of his quotes are either straight fabrications or misquotes, he simply continues to throw them out there (They will all be cut and pastes rather than his own work. The irony that he's being mislead by material he's simply taking on trust will be lost on him.).

This will continue, at no time will he acknowledge that many of his quotes are misleading because that is an admission that he's not actually doing any research or thinking of his own, he's simply parroting something he read on a talk-board. At some stage, smeagold, after the rest of us get bored of dealing with multiple cut and pastes of made-up misquotes and stop posting, he will declare himself 'victorious'.

chris180682

julieq wrote: »

So I repeat, how does this lead to mass slavery?

Again you coud say we are already slaves as some people do, it depends what you actually consider to be slavery I suppose.

Heyman_2

cgk1 wrote: »

And here it is! The Gish Gallop has begun!

Still going.....

Heyman_2

julieq wrote: »

So I repeat, how does this lead to mass slavery?

You won't get an answer Julie. As cgk1 says -

cgk1 wrote: »

This will continue, at no time will he acknowledge that many of his quotes are misleading because that is an admission that he's not actually doing any research or thinking of his own, he's simply parroting something he read on a talk-board. At some stage, smeagold, after the rest of us get bored of dealing with multiple cut and pastes of made-up misquotes and stop posting, he will declare himself 'victorious'.

julieq

chris180682 wrote: »

Again you coud say we are already slaves as some people do, it depends what you actually consider to be slavery I suppose.

rhetorical trick alert: widen definitions arbitrarily to include assertion. FAIL

chris180682

Heyman wrote: »

You won't get an answer Julie. As cgk1 says -

Isn't reading newspaper atricles, etc part of "research"? Just to point out I can see both parts of this argument and I agree with a lot of both sides, it's not neccesarily a yes or no debate.

[Deleted User]

julieq wrote: »

Alan Sugar wasn't born into money. Neither was Bill Gates, or the woman who founded Ebay or the guys who created google. City traders are resolutely non blue blooded. Many if not most of the corporate overlords these days come from developing countries and not traditional networks of wealth and influence. If I have a complaint it's about the primacy of the MBA - which is a purely theoretical qualification - against common sense and entrepreneurial spirit. Many CEOs have never built a company.

Success is largely a question of hard work, application, talent and opportunity. By definition it can't come to everyone. It is far harder today to coast into a position of influence and power on the basis of connections than it has ever been. Jealousy is very often misplaced.

And yes, big business has influence, though as BP are discovering, this is less than previously enjoyed. But consider this: profits from our businesses overwhelmingly go towards pension income in the general population, not to fill the coffers of fat cats. It is quite right that the interests of business are represented to those framing public and social policy, because if the latter dominates, the ability to generate the wealth needed to pay for them is diminished. That's not to support excess, but the tendency to bash the corporate world is ridiculous and excessive. We all benefit if business prospers.

I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying that there is no opportunity. I'm not saying big business is all bad, just the amount of influence they have is disproportionate.

It is a well reported that social mobility in Britain is much lower than many other western countries. There is plenty of scope to improve and we do not live in a true meritocracy.

Any businesses that are on balance beneficial to the UK should be looked after within reason. There are many examples of where this has gone too far.

ie does anyone think that more than half the funding of a mainstream political party should come from the financial sector?

Could there be a connection between this and say Barclays paying less than 1% Corporation tax?

Even though they were not bailed out directly they benefited significantly from the taxpayer funded measures that benefited the whole sector. The amount passed on to shareholders is very low compared to most other big businesses so no great benefit to shareholders/pension schemes. The only people who seem to be benefiting are the recipients of bonuses that work there. This is hardly a justification for the preferential treatment they have enjoyed.

One (thats one not the whole argument) example of a social mobility issue is the solicitors an under talented and overpaid profession if ever there was one. Anyone wanting to become a solicitor, once qualified, needs a work placement which are hard to get hold of. The majority of these placements go to people who's parents are in the profession already. Many other placements go to people who's parents can offer placements as a trade in the same or other professions (this genuinely happens). To get through the whole process also requires money beyond the means of those from poorer backgrounds.

The same things happens in the medical and other professions. Ability is only a small part of the overall requirement to get into some of the best paid positions. Once in there is nothing like the commercial risk faced by the likes of Branson and Sugar. For every Branson there are many many more that tried and failed due to the real risks in the small business world. I am not a jealous loser either (I didn't like that implied insult btw), I have been reasonably successful, but to achieve I had to face more risk.

cgk1

chris180682 wrote: »

Isn't reading newspaper atricles, etc part of "research"? Just to point out I can see both parts of this argument and I agree with a lot of both sides, it's not neccesarily a yes or no debate.

Would you agree that when you quote someone, you should quote what they actually said not something you've made up or changed? How is making up something 'research'? Where I'm from it's known as "lying".

chris180682

julieq wrote: »

rhetorical trick alert: widen definitions arbitrarily to include assertion. FAIL

No. I'm not arguing for or against I'm simply saying that it depends what the author or indeed the reader sees as slavery. Some people today could easily be seen as slaves to the system but not in the same sense as say black people were used as slaves until not too long ago.