No, he was actually telling EU that regulating social media was anti-free speech. EU was planning the censorship laws, specially targeting Musk's twitter.
Billionaires should be able to censor government, but government should not be able to censor billionaire owned media platforms, that is free speech. So rich people can control public opinions, that is a fundamental part of liberal democracy.
As a liberalist what he said was actually right. If billionaires could not influence public opinions, then they could lose control of politicians, and in the end governments, so EU was on a dangerous path.
Musk taking side in German election was considered foreign influence, Vance was saying if people are that easily influenced than your democracy is too weak, you need to have more confidence in people, Trump was also accused winning election through Russian influence, so Vance was trying to play down the seriousness of foreign electoral influence.
Romanian government annulled the election result based on alleged Russian influence, that must have been a chilling thought for republicans. Just think if democrats could do that ...
It was all about his party's position.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
"As a liberalist what he said was actually right. If billionaires could not influence public opinions, then they could lose control of politicians, and in the end governments, so EU was on a dangerous path."
Not sure what you read between those lines.
I read there something like "if billionaires could not control politicians, they'd lose the option to bribe potitics into giving them ever larger tax breaks while cutting social programs on the other side".
Seen from another angle it also reads "if billionaires could not censor the platforms they own as they want, but would let politics get a say in it, the people might actually discover that all of the social media platforms owned by corporation are nothing more than propaganda for the interests of rich people".
Try posting anything left leaning in the comments of a political video on YT, nothing about socialism or anything, just some general statement, like "Roosevelt taxed the rich" with an explanation how Republicans had printed insane amounts of government debt from 1929 to 1932 without getting out of the depression, and you'll see how "free" your speech is on social media, because you'll see YT either delete or at least ghost your comment so others won't see it.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
You got to understand rich people, any government, whatever kind they are, their first instinct is always robbing rich people, because they have a lot of money, and small in numbers.
Just think the Jewish people in Nazi Germany, the fact they were rich I don't think was an coincidence.
So billionaires must control government, or they don't feel safe, especially the Jewish billionaires.
Why do you think they target Russia and China? I think partially because in those 2 countries, billionaires have no control, they have influence, but no control of government.
And when rich people control government, of course they will help themselves.
They wouldn't be billionaires without relentless focus on their self interests, would they?
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
While your last sentence is true, Jewish people in Nazi Germany weren't all rich.
How could they have been? There were 561,000 Jews in Germany in the beginning of 1933, the total population of Germany was 65 million, where less than 0.01% of the population were millionaires (let alone billionaires).
Even if ALL the millionaires in Germany had been Jews, that would still have been only 6,500 people and left 554,500 non rich Jews in Germany, meaning even if all the rich people in Germany had been Jews, 98.85% of all German Jews still weren't rich.
The proof that billionaires do not need control over the people nor over the government, pay their fair share of taxes and still remain rich is always Switzerland, where direct democracy gives the people the liberal freedom to demand a referendum on any political decision they don't like and the rich are still the rich.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
Well, you can't just target rich people without a pretext.
And the Jewish had, let's just say, high percentage of wealthy individuals at the time.
I think Hitler couldn't just say he targeted those people because they were rich, not on a large scale anyway, so I think that is why he used the racial targeting.
He needed a large amount of money to re-industrialise Germany, and I think robbing all of the Jewish just about doing it. The average Jewish people I don't think he really cared, but once you start a policy, you need to follow through, otherwise people would see through it, anyway there was at least some money, it was better than nothing.
Also he himself was backed by German industrialists, he still needed them, he probably did not want them to think they were next.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Still not true, the combined wealth of all Germany Jews in 1932 was by a German saying "just a drop on a hot stone".
Hitler financed his politics with simple economics.
He hired half of all the unemployed Germans as soldiers in the army and the other half got hired by private enterprises producing equipment for the soldiers.
All these formerly unemployed earned wages, boosting demand for consumer products by so much that Hitler was in the early 30s able to print insane amounts of money without causing inflation, because the economy grew even faster than the national debt.
The Jews were just scapegoats, alongside homosexuals and other minorities, alongside neighboring countries like Poland, creating propaganda about a freely invented enemy as an excuse of what he needed all the soldiers for.
From an economic point of view what Hitler did in Germany wasn't much different from what Roosevelt did in the US when he hired 15 million Americans and paid them wages, only difference was, Hitler used the people he hired to launch war against neighboring countries, while Roosevelt used the workforce of the people he hired to build infrastructure, such as many of the big parks in the big cities.
The short term result was identical, state employed workers earning wages, creating increasing demand for consumer goods which boosted the economy, only in the long run war mongering in Germany led to hyper inflation while the big parks in American cities exist to this day.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
I am not in anyway historian, but what you said is not convincing me, the economic part is especially shaky, let's not pretend we are actual historians, and end that part of discussion here.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Maybe from your point of view, I've spent about a decade with research about it and I know what I'm talking about, but ok, I guess everything has been said, so we can end this thread here.
After all neither of us planned to move the other to his position, we were just exchanging our points of view, so it's all good.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
No, the economic part was not right at all, when you hire soldiers you need to pay them, when you buy tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc. you need a lot of money.
German military was very modern, and much better equipped than all other European military, that is why Germany annihilated them, those things were not cheap, where did the money come from? When Germany was almost broke from the previous war.
I did not ask because that would be way too much details.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
"... , where did the money come from?"
I actually explained that.
"All these formerly unemployed earned wages, boosting demand for consumer products by so much that Hitler was in the early 30s able to print insane amounts of money without causing inflation, because the economy grew even faster than the national debt."
Only when the war machine required ever larger parts of the raw materials available and the army began to recruit average workers, pulling them out of the production of consumer products, consumer goods became scarce and that then caused runaway inflation.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
No, that is not convincing at all.
It is like Hitler was some sort of economic genius, which I doubt very much, because he was just not the type.
The simply answer is he robbed the Jewish.
Occam's razor: One should prefer the theory that requires the fewest assumptions.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Ok, let's take Occam's razor.
How many assumptions do you have to make to get to "half a million jews had such an overload of money, that robbing them could finance a war against the entire rest of Europe"?
How many assumptions do I have to make to get to "if the government hires people and pays them wages, they will increase the demand for consumer goods, where the production and sales of those consumer goods boosts the economy by so much that all the wages the government pays and finances by printing money offsets the debt to gdp ratio"?
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
if the government hires people and pays them wages
And ordering a large amount of military equipment, that of course will boost economy.
BUT, where did the money come from?
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
https://www.geschichte-abitur.de/lexikon/uebersicht-drittes-reich/ns-wirtschaftspolitik
(Google will translate it for you)
Key sentence there is
Die Aufrüstung war durch Kredite finanziert worden ...
which translated to English reads "The rearmament was financed by loans ...."
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
Yeah, right, when you are broke, that is when the banks come to help, because that is what the bankers were known for, helping people.
By the way the banks were largely owned by the Jewish, I am sure they were super excited their people were being slaughtered.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Ask Google yourself, you won't find one single trustworthy source that doesn't say Hitler financed his army on credit, just the opposite, I'm sure even on English websites you'll find 100s confirmin that the German national debt massively increased in the 1930s.
Here's the data, nearly quadrupled in 6 years.
https://www.bpb.de/system/files/dokument_pdf/01_reichsschuld_0.pdf
Who the creditors were is another question, but given the favt you yourself say Hitler robbed the Jews, which is correct, where do you think the Jews would have found 30 billion after being robbed?
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
But it was the Jewish wrote the history, wasn't it?
Sometimes things are not so complex.
I think the obvious answer was right there.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Yes, the obvious answer is, after the Jews got robbed, which didn't increase the national debt, there cannot have been Jews left who the German gouvernment would have borrowed 30 bln from.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
Think about what you said.
You basically just agreed with me.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Ok, WHERE did I agree?
Where's the agreement between your "robbing the Jews financed the war" and my "robbing the Jews was just a drop on a hot stone, while the war was financed by loans"?
There's no doubt the Jews got robbed, but what the Nazis got out of that in value was next to meaningless compared to their needs for their war machine.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
Like I said before no historian would tell you robbing the Jewish was the key to Nazi Germany's success.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
Or do you think they would say robbing the Jewish was the key to Nazi Germany's success?
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Ok, let's see ...... after 1945 when the history about the war was written, Germany was occupied by the winners of the war, Americans, Russians, etc.
There were just a few 1,000 Jews left in Germany, while politics was ruled by Americans and Russians.
Do you REALLY believe those few 1,000 Jews wrote the German history after the war, or is it more likely Americans and Russians wrote it?
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
Trump just agreed to take over Gaza, do all the dirty work, for Israel, and receive no benefit whatsoever.
Why?
Don't just accept what you are told, think about it.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Because Trump is a VERY simple minded fool.
Trump heard someone saying the land at the coast of Gaza would be extremely valuable if it weren't for the Palestinians living there.
You can picture the $ signs in Trumps eyes when he heard that and thought he could use the American military to clear the land and then give the land to himself, so he would after the end of his presidency be the owner of all that extremely valuable land.
reply
share
fc31 (6099)
4 days ago
I know from his simply languages and from times crude way of expressions people assume he is foolish.
But no, his success was not by chance, not twice anyway.
And Gaza will always be back in the hands of Israel, it is never going to be American territory.
I don't know if you are just saying that because you are trying to win an argument, or you really believe that.
But that is the end I am willing to discuss this topic.
It is late, 1AM in Australia, even I am retired I still need to sleep.
Bye now.
reply
share
MarkPh (1019)
4 days ago
Not trying to win anything, just exchanging points of views.
Trump doesn't want the whole of Gaza, he just wants the properties at the coast, where getting the Palestinians out of there is the first condition and giving the land outside the coast to Israel is just a welcome excuse behind which he can hide what he wants and why he wants to use the American military paid by American tax dollars to get it.
Have a good night.
reply
share