That Was A Point Of Interest What George Soro Said As He Answered Different Questions From The Audience And It Is Basicly That Very Strongly That '' THE DOOR SWINGS BOTH WAYS '' !!
What a bunch of silly questions. And these people are supposed to be at the height of the speaker (Mr. Soros) in order to create a fulfilling debate. What a disappointment (with this audience).
To participants who are encapsulated and disillusioned by the global environment and subsequent markets; defining such on the level of reflexivity ensures erroneous behavior which in turn outlines trickling framework including governments, participants, and outcomes. The "emotions" portion of participants obviously dictates how, where, why, and when they invest their assets, control their liabilities, and tailor equity. Such things are basics of principles in market fundamentalism and are themselves reflexive in nature. Reality itself has rules, sacred geometry and synchronicity,which alludes to the Theory of Reflexivity in that the unpredictability of the participants directly effect the reality/environment of the participants and is paradoxical in nature.
Why did the host pull such miserable expressions, he shouldn't have done interviewing is such a strain. Soros is a heavy weight - his history, intellect and enormous success are very inspiring.
The problem with this format is that Mr Soros is far more intelligent and well read than his questioners. Those are philosophy questions with a logical bent, it would be more interesting if he were talking to philosophy professors or students, they might at least understand some of his comments on freda or popper.
It would be just as convoluted. Don’t think that philosophers are anymore intelligent than their last philosophy. They tend to wander in their own heads. Most of Soros theory here is based on macro economic theory and math theory terms
This is rude! I am the one who asked the question at 11:50 and I thought it was a good question! I was only 23 at the time and this was a long time ago! I was very nervous and I am not thrilled this made it onto RU-vid, I did not consent!
Another point He makes is directly attuned to the audience in his presence. They themselves believe themselves to be right because of success in the markets which creates wealth for themselves (and others) without thought for the true consequences of making such transactions which have lasting effects on the participants of the market which is felt in most severe degree by the lowest common denominators in the markets. It ties directly into the Open Society Foundation's core objectives. If only Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, or Phillup Kadoorie would produce literature and open lectures.....
my question for Mr. Soros, would be, in a society of free trade, how does one nation keep its own nations industry alive? The U.S. for example. Our manufacturing industry is being outsourced a great deal. How do we keep jobs here, without driving our industries costs dramatically up, while helping keep people's wages high enough to buy the very things they manufacture, and food, necessities, etc. I would think eliminating corporate taxes, would be the more feasible option. I am no economic heavyweight, but taxes are a huge burden on everyone, especially business owners. they have taxes, plus many other requirements they must meet to stay within the laws. By eliminating a corporate tax, Could you keep jobs and industry in nations, while maintaining a healthy free market? The free market is indeed fundamentally the most important thing for a thriving economy. How can we maintain free trade, and fair wages, while not making our labor unavailable in the US, and more developed nations, that tend to price themselves higher?
ユノが最後 I too am no economic heavyweight, but if I may attempt to answer your question, I shall. The first thing that comes to my mind would be to wipe much of the administrative slate clean, over time of course. Modern technology has the ability to remove a lot of the deadweight loss of the administrative state, of which the foundations were built in the early-mid 20th Century. For example, we could easily do away with many of the burdensome aspects of the welfare state. Why have a series of means tested social programs which cause massive administrative burdens because of the many different bureaucracies required to run them? Instead of these programs, why not have a universal basic income to replace them? Canada is experimenting with such a policy in the form of negative income taxes for those earning under a certain amount, which is all done through filing taxes, which is streamlined through the internet. With such a program, we could do away with the minimum wage as well, which is artificially increasing the cost of labour. Also, while the manufacturing jobs have been slowly disappearing due to innovation and outsourcing, tech firms who export pay some of the highest wages. An educational policy which emphasizes teaching about software and hardware creation and innovation would better prepare the next generation for future labour markets.
You can’t keep corps in one area alive when Corp pimps sacrifice patriotism for personal greed. It’s a game of the shell and pea. It sounds good yet it ignores morality, human nature, religion, personal opportunities. Only few winners.
Educate the population to fill the very real labor shortages for skilled technological workers. That requires tax dollars spent on education in the proper way.
don't. improve education and training by not stiffling them with HMO styled schools, inflated college tuition thanks to bleeding heart liberals' "correlation = causation" to get more people into college... That way, people can adapt to changing circunstances, instead of desperately clinging to the past status quos that result in negative sum games such as increasing tariffs.
q & a 4 related responsibles by www.retrogamesmart.com'$ ... $!? if is 4 financials disagreed resolutions related of disputed business closures as officially seen if any denies the recognitions of financial and civil real right'$ ?
Think of the WEF as the CCP and the Open Society is one of the factions within the CCP. The WEF is bigger and is loosely alligned in terms of values and objectives with Open Society. But they may have diverging interests from time to time. In other words, they are both Malthusian cults and they seek money/power. Soros is a bit like Pelosi: he will invest in a company, then promote the need for laws that could benefit the company e.g. invest in a solar power firm, then promote tougher environmental regulations. In his mind, this is all win/win.
Hello" great fan thanks for the comments. congratulations🎉 you have been choosing among our prize giveaway contests🎁🎊 quickly text the name above to claim👆👆
@@christophersurnname9967 they never say. they blame him for countries' market collapses. But they ignore several key facts: things would have gone that way anyway. Soros just pops bubbles early. that's arguably a saving kindness over letting it grow bigger and having an even more painful collapse. But the simple and dumb will not understand the financial arguments or theories, and just condemn Soros on their eneducated emotional intuitions of their own moral standards.
Hello" great fan thanks for the comments. congratulations🎉 you have been choosing among our prize giveaway contests🎁🎊 quickly text the name above to claim👆👆
1. Jesus is God 2. Since this world is terminal, it is not and cannot be real.... 3. It is contingent, with the only reality carried forward to the real world (pluperfect paradise of Eden + Jesus' Love) being a.) Individual decisions yea/nay Jesus, and b.) Sub-creative efforts toward the Good empowered and enabled by the Holy Spirit's work in those first reborn as novations in Christ Jesus.
