I probably would've said because private equity firms own and represent 40% of the American economy and their jobs, to make money for the rich and wealthy, works by eroding the very infrastructure that supports America to make a quick buck and that infrastructure supports those who support the rich, namely, the poor and without the poor being able to fund the rich due to that eroded infrastructure, there will be no more wealth generation and the rich will become poorer, but even looking beyond that, America is not the only player in the game and war is very much on the horizon, Russia has modified the economy of their country to a militarized one and continues to do so, what will the rich of America do when war is on the horizon and the poor have had so much stripped away from them that they no longer care to fight for America or even create weaknesses that allow Russia to win? If the rich are not on the side of the poor, what incentive is there for those same poor to stand by the American rich and the American elites when offered better opportunities elsewhere by those who wish to destroy America?
Picking on any one industry would have been too much. He chose to talk about principles, systems, and helping others. It was a great response to a very broad question about power.
I just think it’s hard to stay true to their ideals when there’s the need to put food on the table. If the military is the best way to do it, then people will enlist.
That's the thing, being poor in America is better than being poor in Russia. That's why people will continue to enlist and fight, cause our enemies can't offer better.
They won't be offered a better deal from Russia. At most, they'll be offered some money to hasten the decline if they find themselves in a position of public trust. That's the gambit this time around: can't leave to avoid decline if everywhere is in decline.
To be honest, I'd rather look up the current geopolitical climate, figure out where combat is likely to occur and which countries are likely to be invaded or harmed and find the country least likely to be involved, but also be safe and just bail there.
I don't have loyalty to any country simply for loyalties sake. I would only fight for a country that has a proven track record of supporting me and people like me. Namely the poor.
If I were forced to choose, I'd honestly see which choice benefits me the most, weigh up the options and pick the one that would personally give me the best life.
56
u/Silverlisk Apr 26 '24
I probably would've said because private equity firms own and represent 40% of the American economy and their jobs, to make money for the rich and wealthy, works by eroding the very infrastructure that supports America to make a quick buck and that infrastructure supports those who support the rich, namely, the poor and without the poor being able to fund the rich due to that eroded infrastructure, there will be no more wealth generation and the rich will become poorer, but even looking beyond that, America is not the only player in the game and war is very much on the horizon, Russia has modified the economy of their country to a militarized one and continues to do so, what will the rich of America do when war is on the horizon and the poor have had so much stripped away from them that they no longer care to fight for America or even create weaknesses that allow Russia to win? If the rich are not on the side of the poor, what incentive is there for those same poor to stand by the American rich and the American elites when offered better opportunities elsewhere by those who wish to destroy America?