James DiEugenio Posted June 16 Author Share Posted June 16 One last point, after Hammarskjold was killed, and I think that is a certainty today, it was Kennedy who went to the UN twice in order to make a priority of restoring Katanga into Congo. And it was JFK who approved the final UN military operation, Grand Slam, that finally quelled the rebellion. Compare this to what Ike did before and LBJ after. Ike authorized the assassination plots through Dulles to murder Lumumba. Johnson sent Cuban exile pilots to eliminate the last of Lumumba's followers and said this was due to a Red China plot! And now the White House all but abandoned the UN (Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies, p. 79) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: One last point, after Hammarskjold was killed, and I think that is a certainty today, it was Kennedy who went to the UN twice in order to make a priority of restoring Katanga into Congo. And it was JFK who approved the final UN military operation, Grand Slam, that finally quelled the rebellion. Compare this to what Ike did before and LBJ after. Ike authorized the assassination plots through Dulles to murder Lumumba. Johnson sent Cuban exile pilots to eliminate the last of Lumumba's followers and said this was due to a Red China plot! And now the White House all but abandoned the UN (Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies, p. 79) Anyone can watch this documentary and see that David Talbot is incorrect about what he says to Chris Hedges about Lumumba. Anyone can see that JFK Revisited didn't include the information that shows that Lumumba got himself killed by his actions. I am not saying that ZR/Rifle wasn't tried but anyone can see from the Dutch documentary above that there is objective facts that show that Dulles didn't kill Lumumba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 They're all just excitable boys. "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner" Warren Zevon-Excitable Boy In Sitges, Spain there is a drinking hole called The Dubliner Bar owned by an ex mercenary named David Lindell. One of the regular acts at The Dubliner Bar in the mid-seventies was an expatriated American who fled the states for a lack of money and a career on the road to nowhere. That young man was Warren Zevon and with Lindell they wrote an improbable song that typifies Zevon's surreal approach to songwriting. I adore the imagery in this song, and Zevon's singing style gives the feel of proclamation to every verse uttered. The locations: Mombasa, Biafra, Johnnesburg, hints of a life encompassed by sweaty, unsavory men engaging in the dirty acts of killing for money. It is no coincidence that all three locations at one time where British principalities and this song has a definite British feel to it. The background singers "Time, time, time, for another peaceful war" would be just as comfortable singing a Schweppes advertisement. The story itself is something out of Old World legends. It speaks of Roland leaving Denmark for Africa: "Through '66 and 7, they fought the Congo war With their fingers on their triggers, knee deep in gore" Because of his adept skill with the Thompson Gun Roland was a marked man by the CIA who contracted one of his mates to execute Roland and his head was blown off. For the remainder of the song Roland searches the world headless looking to avenge his murder. http://songsyoushouldknowbutprobablydont.blogspot.com/2009_12_02_archive.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 16 Author Share Posted June 16 (edited) So this idea that somehow Kennedy was really a conservative and an isolationist type America Firster simply has no foundation in fact. Kennedy had an activist foreign policy, which he himself ran, sometimes through his brother. Since he found out with the Bay of Pigs operation that the people around him could not be trusted. One of the ways he was activist was his encouragement of the decolonization waves that were occurring at the time, particularly in regards to France. He even did this after France titularly gave up its holdings in Africa. Kennedy did not think the commonwealth colonies were free enough. This is a really fascinating subject that you can only find in one book that I know of, namely Philip Muehlenbeck's Betting on the Africans. (Chapter 8) Imagine doing something like that with Pat Buchanan? I mean please. Edited June 16 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 (edited) 17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: So this idea that somehow Kennedy was really a conservative and an isolationist type America Firster simply has no foundation in fact. Kennedy had an activist foreign policy, which he himself ran, sometimes through his brother. Since he found out with the Bay of Pigs operation that the people around him could not be trusted. One of the ways he was activist was his encouragement of the decolonization waves that were occurring at the time, particularly in regards to France. He even did this after France titularly gave up its holdings in Africa. Kennedy did not think the commonwealth colonies were free enough. This is a really fascinating subject that you can only find in one book that I know of, namely Philip Muehlenbeck's Betting on the Africans. (Chapter 😎 Imagine doing something like that with Pat Buchanan? I mean please. I should include this video of Lumumba's tooth being officially returned to the Congo because as the documentary I posted above shows. Belgium troops working for Katanga executed Lumumba on orders of Moise Tshombe. [Emphasis added] Interestingly, James can't understand that LBJ was a Democrat. JFK approved the Bay of Pigs operation and cited "Bloody" Budapest when criticized by the Soviets (which I cited the speech on page 1 or 2) James still can't understand or answer historical facts regarding Soviet Union strategy of Wars of Liberation and that JFK was countering that. The Word "Free" is used by JFK in an American Constitutional sense. [Emphasis added] James uses the Term "Imagine" alot because he has to imagine arguments that no on made like Pat Buchanan? Last I checked the America Isolationism of American First mentioned was Joe Kennedy [Emphasis Added] Edited June 16 by Matthew Koch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 (edited) 37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: So this idea that somehow Kennedy was really a conservative and an isolationist type America Firster simply has no foundation in fact. Kennedy had an activist foreign policy, which he himself ran, sometimes through his brother. Since he found out with the Bay of Pigs operation that the people around him could not be trusted. One of the ways he was activist was his encouragement of the decolonization waves that were occurring at the time, particularly in regards to France. He even did this after France titularly gave up its holdings in Africa. Kennedy did not think the commonwealth colonies were free enough. This is a really fascinating subject that you can only find in one book that I know of, namely Philip Muehlenbeck's Betting on the Africans. (Chapter 😎 Imagine doing something like that with Pat Buchanan? I mean please. False dichotomy 101. I'll take Bundy's recollections and impressions first, and as primary, as I easily imagine young Pat Buchanan not long out of Gonzaga High, seething with Catholic grievance for his grandmother being snubbed by the WASPS of Chevy Chase, taking up rather naturally in a West Wing office next to O'Donnell, Powers, and sharing his disdain of American empire along with his disgust of the immorality of Camelot with Gore Vidal. The Ford Foundation November 12, 1973 Dear Pat: The marvelously efficient mails have just brought me the copy of yours of October 15 to Pat Buchanan. It is a wonderful letter in all sorts of ways, and you were kind indeed to take the time to detail the number of ways in which this place has acted differently from what Buchanan might have assumed. But the best part of all is your exposition of the problem we all have of finding good conservatives in the marketplace. This is the heart of the problem, and I have wrestled with it for years in many different situations. The only full-scale politician who ever understood it was himself a genuine conservative, although he was too smart to admit it publicly -- namely JFK. But he had an absolutely Moynihanian distaste for orthodox liberals, and an intelligent man's contempt for the willful mindlessness of politicians who call themselves conservatives. Your letter shows the same temper, and it makes me wonder wether this whole point of view has somehow been passed from that unlikely Irishman, Edmund Burke to the rest of you. Andrew Greeley fits somewhere in this mold too. I am annoyed to see that you were in Washington and did not make time for your friends in New York, but because I am not a grudge-bearing type, I am moving from this dictation directly into a session devoted to planning a February expedition to South Asia. We had quite a formal and cordial visit from Subramaniam the other day, and Dave Bell brings back a reinforcing impression that the Indians want continued cordial relations and perhaps a closer cooperation than we have had in recent years. I gather that you have been talking to the great lady, and we are grateful. As ever, McGeorge Bundy The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan The Ambassador of the United States of america New Delhi, India Edited June 16 by Matt Cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cloud Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 "As a St. Albanian, I look down from our huge social height in the seedy old Fairfax Hotel upon Pat Buchanan from Gonzaga High, a center of Catholic grievance and furious acne in my youth. Yet of all the candidates, Pat has a comprehensive view of the US and its highly un-American imperial history during the last 50 years. In fact, many of his better arias on the crimes of corporate America against the people at large could spell out the basis for a powerful party of a majority of the nation--the 80 percent: from poverty, to poor, to the middle class that is now skidding down the economic slopes. He could have made a major party for the next century as Bryan almost did in 1900. But Pat's Gonzaga lip lost him Jews, gays, blacks and left him open for total distortion by cynical corporate America who, every time a populist leader emerges, quickly smear him. Remember Jesse Jackson, a real contender until "Hymietown" was hung around his neck and that was that? If Pat were to drop his lumpen Christian rhetoric, he might pick up the various groups he has offended. Most people understand the nature and extent of the money that governs us, distorts our history, buys our politics. Anyway, there is always Crossfire for him and nothing for the few who vote. He could have been a true national voice, not a showbiz snarl." Copyright 2003 William Dunlap. All rights reserved. http://www.williamdunlap.com/page10.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 18 hours ago, Matthew Koch said: Sachs' 'Shock Economics' is responsible for the Russian Oligarchs because the country had to sell off it's industries on the cheap. Everything that happened under Yeltsin is what created the space that Putin filled by restoring national pride. So, IMO I think Sachs plays both sides and I don't respect people who do that. Kennedy is America first and Sachs uses JFK's death to further his lame American Empire thesis Not to my knowledge and he had a stroke at the end of his life which prevented him from working with Jeffery Sachs on his book. Sorenson was one of the finalists to run the CIA under Carter. You can pick and choose on whether John Kennedy was a liberal or conservative by cherry picking examples all day, but I come down firmly on the conclusion that JFK was a LIBERAL. Heck the conservatives of his day thought he was a communist, race mixing traitor to the USA. Here is a good article on JFK being a liberal, which is what he was: https://newrepublic.com/article/115522/jfk-was-unapologetic-liberal David Greenberg/ November 11, 2013 JFK Was an Unapologetic Liberal His underrated career as ideological warrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said: You can pick and choose on whether John Kennedy was a liberal or conservative by cherry picking examples all day, but I come down firmly on the conclusion that JFK was a LIBERAL. Heck the conservatives of his day thought he was a communist, race mixing traitor to the USA. Here is a good article on JFK being a liberal, which is what he was: https://newrepublic.com/article/115522/jfk-was-unapologetic-liberal David Greenberg/ November 11, 2013 JFK Was an Unapologetic Liberal His underrated career as ideological warrior The point made that seems to be too nuanced in this thread, is that JFK was Liberal by a 1960's World. In today's world JFK is not Liberal in today's world's standards which people like Jeffery Sachs who was a Bernie Sanders adviser are. Which is why the Overton Window was mentioned because it has shifted left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window The point made by Ira Stoll which I think ten years later can better be made is that JFK being Religious (anti abortion) Pro Tax Cut, Pro Military and Country that he is not a Liberal by today's definition of a Progressive like Bernie Sanders. Edited June 16 by Matthew Koch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Ben, why even talk to this guy? He has an agenda a mile wide and about an inch deep. On 6/10/2024 at 9:49 PM, Matthew Koch said: I joined the forum because I felt like you guys bullied Ben, and I have said that before on the Forum. If that bs 56yrs later thread that has largely been debunked is also why I joined to counter the politics that was very biased and one sided. Interesting of the 128 posts in this thread currently 43 of them are by Matthew, over 1/3. He does seem a bit obsessed with discrediting Sachs, and you. Keep us posted on when Sachs will have Monica on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 7 hours ago, Matt Cloud said: "As a St. Albanian, I look down from our huge social height in the seedy old Fairfax Hotel upon Pat Buchanan from Gonzaga High, a center of Catholic grievance and furious acne in my youth. Yet of all the candidates, Pat has a comprehensive view of the US and its highly un-American imperial history during the last 50 years. In fact, many of his better arias on the crimes of corporate America against the people at large could spell out the basis for a powerful party of a majority of the nation--the 80 percent: from poverty, to poor, to the middle class that is now skidding down the economic slopes. He could have made a major party for the next century as Bryan almost did in 1900. But Pat's Gonzaga lip lost him Jews, gays, blacks and left him open for total distortion by cynical corporate America who, every time a populist leader emerges, quickly smear him. Remember Jesse Jackson, a real contender until "Hymietown" was hung around his neck and that was that? If Pat were to drop his lumpen Christian rhetoric, he might pick up the various groups he has offended. Most people understand the nature and extent of the money that governs us, distorts our history, buys our politics. Anyway, there is always Crossfire for him and nothing for the few who vote. He could have been a true national voice, not a showbiz snarl." Copyright 2003 William Dunlap. All rights reserved. http://www.williamdunlap.com/page10.html I'm a little too young to remember Pat Buchanan's challenge to HW. Bush in 1992 but his supporters seem awesome! (2:50 mark lols) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 17 Author Share Posted June 17 (edited) That is a really odd rejoinder about Ben. Has Matt Koch made a lot of defenses of Bobby Kennedy Jr.? Did I miss them? And this whole Ira Stoll idea about the Overton Window is typically fruity. But I have to see it when other people post it Kennedy was pushing Medicare and was going to have it passed, he was talking about Universal Healthcare, back in 1962. He submitted an executive order on civil rights within 45 days of being inaugurated. When you add in all those to what he was doing in his foreign policy, I mean get real. Just look what happened after he was killed: in Indonesia, in Vietnam, in the Dominican Republic, in Congo. Concerning the last, as John Newman proved, the CIA was monitoring Lumumba's escape routes so the allies of Belgium could track him as he was running. This was in addition to trying to kill him previously. And when you add in what JFK was doing in the MIddle East with Nasser? Compare that with what Obama did with the secularist leader of Syria, remember Timber Sycamore? Compare that with what Obama and HRC did In Libya: using NATO to bomb Africa? I mean please. Kennedy was pro military? Yeah, that is why he rejected their advice on Laos, Cuba, Berlin and Vietnam. That is why he had profane nicknames for them, which I cannot even repeat on this forum. One of them is two words that both begin with F. Kennedy was the most liberal president since FDR, and no president since has been more liberal than he was. Period. Edited June 17 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: That is a really odd rejoinder about Ben. Has Matt Koch made a lot of defenses of Bobby Kennedy Jr.? Did I miss them? And this whole Ira Stoll idea about the Overton Window is typically fruity. But I have to see it when other people post it Kennedy was pushing Medicare and was going to have it passed, he was talking about Universal Healthcare, back in 1962. He submitted an executive order on civil rights within 45 days of being inaugurated. When you add in all those to what he was doing in his foreign policy, I mean get real. Just look what happened after he was killed: in Indonesia, in Vietnam, in the Dominican Republic, in Congo. Concerning the last, as John Newman proved, the CIA was monitoring Lumumba's escape routes so the allies of Belgium could track him as he was running. This was in addition to trying to kill him previously. And when you add in what JFK was doing in the MIddle East with Nasser? Compare that with what Obama did with the secularist leader of Syria, remember Timber Sycamore? Compare that with what Obama and HRC did In Libya: using NATO to bomb Africa? I mean please. Kennedy was pro military? Yeah, that is why he rejected their advice on Laos, Cuba, Berlin and Vietnam. That is why he had profane nicknames for them, which I cannot even repeat on this forum. One of them is two words that both begin with F. Kennedy was the most liberal president since FDR, and no president since has been more liberal than he was. Period. Please notice Jim doesn't have a response for the points I made and it's getting rather weird at this point that he keeps avoiding them. Here is JFK's last speech forexample which debunks James DiEugenio https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-breakfast-the-fort-worth-chamber-commerce Mr. Buck, Mr. Vice President, Governor Connally, Senator Yarborough, Jim Wright, members of the congressional delegation, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Attorney General, ladies and gentlemen: Two years ago, I introduced myself in Paris by saying that I was the man who had accompanied Mrs. Kennedy to Paris. I am getting somewhat that same sensation as I travel around Texas. Nobody wonders what Lyndon and I wear. I am glad to be here in Jim Wright's city. About 35 years ago, a Congressman from California who had just been elected received a letter from an irate constituent which said: "During the campaign you promised to have the Sierra Madre Mountains reforested. You have been in office one month and you haven't done so." Well, no one in Fort Worth has been that unreasonable, but in some ways he has had the Sierra Madre Mountains reforested, and here in Fort Worth he has contributed to its growth. He speaks for Fort Worth and he speaks for the country, and I don't know any city that is better represented in the Congress of the United States than Fort Worth. And if there are any Democrats here this morning, I am sure you wouldn't hold that against him. Three years ago last September I came here, with the Vice President, and spoke at Burke Burnett Park, and I called, in that speech, for a national security policy and a national security system which was second to none--a position which said not first, but, if, when and how, but first. That city responded to that call as it has through its history. And we have been putting that pledge into practice ever since. And I want to say a word about that pledge here in Fort Worth, which understands national defense and its importance to the security of the United States. During the days of the Indian War, this city was a fort. During the days of World War I, even before the United States got into the war, Royal Canadian Air Force pilots were training here. During the days of World War II, the great Liberator bombers, in which my brother flew with his co-pilot from this city, were produced here. The first nonstop flight around the world took off and returned here, in a plane built in factories here. The first truly intercontinental bomber, the B-36, was produced here. The B-58, which is the finest weapons system in the world today, which has demonstrated most recently in flying from Tokyo to London, with an average speed of nearly 1,000 miles per hour, is a Fort Worth product. The Iroquois helicopter from Fort Worth is a mainstay in our fight against the guerrillas in South Viet-Nam. The transportation of crews between our missile sites is done in planes produced here in Fort Worth. So wherever the confrontation may occur, and in the last 3 years it has occurred on at least three occasions, in Laos, Berlin, and Cuba, and it will again--wherever it occurs, the products of Fort Worth and the men of Fort Worth provide us with a sense of security. And in the not too distant future a new Fort Worth product--and I am glad that there was a table separating Mr. Hicks and myself--a new Fort Worth product, the TFX Tactical Fighter Experimental--nobody knows what those words mean, but that is what they mean, Tactical Fighter Experimental--will serve the forces of freedom and will be the number one airplane in the world today. There has been a good deal of discussion of the long and hard fought competition to win the TFX contract, but very little discussion about what this plane will do. It will be the first operational aircraft ever produced that can literally spread its wings through the air. It will thus give us a single plane capable of carrying out missions of speed as well as distance, able to fly very far in one form or very fast in another. It can take off from rugged, short airstrips, enormously increasing the Air Force's ability to participate in limited wars. The same basic plane will serve the Navy's carriers, saving the taxpayers at least $1 billion in costs if they built separate planes for the Navy and the Air Force. The Government of Australia, by purchasing $125 million of TFX planes before they are even off the drawing boards, has already testified to the merit of this plane, and at the same time it is confident in the ability of Fort Worth to meet its schedule. In all these ways, the success of our national defense depends upon this city in the western United States, 10,000 miles from Viet-Nam, 5,000 or 6,000 miles from Berlin, thousands of miles from trouble spots in Latin America and Africa or the Middle East. And yet Fort Worth and what it does and what it produces participates in all these great historic events. Texas, as a whole, and Fort Worth bear particular responsibility for this national defense effort, for military procurement in this State totals nearly $1 1/4 billion, fifth highest among all the States of the Union. There are more military personnel on active duty in this State than any in the Nation, save one--and it is not Massachusetts-any in the Nation save one, with a combined military-civilian defense payroll of well over a billion dollars. I don't recite these for any partisan purpose. They are the result of American determination to be second to none, and as a result of the effort which this country has made in the last 3 years we are second to none. In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. I hope those who want a stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next to it. This is not an easy effort. This requires sacrifice by the people of the United States. But this is a very dangerous and uncertain world. As I said earlier, on three occasions in the last 3 years the United States has had a direct confrontation. No one can say when it will come again. No one expects that our life will be easy, certainly not in this decade, and perhaps not in this century. But we should realize what a burden and responsibility the people of the United States have borne for so many years. Here, a country which lived in isolation, divided and protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific, uninterested in the struggles of the world around it, here in the short space of 18 years after the Second World War, we put ourselves, by our own will and by necessity, into defense of alliances with countries all around the globe. Without the United States, South Viet-Nam would collapse overnight. Without the United States, the SEATO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States the CENTO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States there would be no NATO. And gradually Europe would drift into neutralism and indifference. Without the efforts of the United States in the Alliance for Progress, the Communist advance onto the mainland of South America would long ago have taken place. So this country, which desires only to be free, which desires to be secure, which desired to live at peace for 18 years under three different administrations, has borne more than its share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its number of years. I don't think we are fatigued or tired. We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The Communist balance of power is still strong. The balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead. So I am glad to come to this State which has played such a significant role in so many efforts in this century, and to say that here in Fort Worth you people will be playing a major role in the maintenance of the security of the United States for the next 10 years. I am confident, as I look to the future, that our chances for security, our chances for peace, are better than they have been in the past. And the reason is because we are stronger. And with that strength is a determination to not only maintain the peace, but also the vital interests of the United States. To that great cause, Texas and the United States are committed. Thank you. Edited June 17 by Matthew Koch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 17 Author Share Posted June 17 (edited) BTW, how far out there was Kennedy in his foreign policy? Roger Hilsman, who worked for him in the Far East department, said in his book To Move a Nation, that things changed after he died, for example in Indonesia, for the simple reason that he was the only one supporting those positions. In the case of Indonesia, everyone was surprised when Johnson did not sign the support bill which was on Kennedy's desk at the time of his murder. Because they all knew JFK would have signed it as a matter of routine. Therefore, Hilsman and others now realized that a big change was coming for Sukarno. What an understatement. Edited June 17 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) On 6/13/2024 at 10:46 PM, Benjamin Cole said: JD- Yes, I should credit that aspect of Sachs. He is willing to speak the truth about the JFK and RFK1A. Few enough people are. I knew there was something about Sachs I didn't like but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until reading this article by Naomi Klein where she brings up Sachs' "rebrand". I'm interested to see what is discussed in the upcoming interview with Monika Wiesak. Because she is more like Whitney Webb and is closer to a Libertarian than a Liberal Progressive, both those ideologies ven diagram with being anti war. https://tsd.naomiklein.org/meet-naomi/interviews/red-pepper.html You mention the shift from shock therapy to shock-and-awe, but there are also attempts to soften the image of neoliberalism. Jeffrey Sachs, the economist who pioneered shock therapy, wrote his latest book on The End of Poverty. Is there any more to this than a rebranding exercise? A lot of people are under the impression that Jeffrey Sachs has renounced his past as a shock therapist and is doing penance now. But if you read The End of Poverty more closely he continues to defend these policies, but simply says there should be a greater cushion for the people at the bottom. The real legacy of neoliberalism is the story of the income gap. It destroyed the tools that narrowed the gap between rich and poor. The very people who opened up this violent divide might now be saying that we have to do something for the people at the very bottom, but they still have nothing to say for the people in the middle who’ve lost everything. This is really just a charity model. Jeffrey Sachs says he defines poverty as those whose lives are at risk, the people living on a dollar a day, the same people discussed in the Millennium Development Goals. Of course that needs to be addressed, but let us be clear that we’re talking here about noblesse oblige, that’s all. Edited June 17 by Matthew Koch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now