Attached: 1 image
The Hyperloop was never meant to be built. Elon Musk admitted it was all about fueling opposition to California’s high-speed rail project so it would get canceled.
He never planned to improve transportation; he just wants to keep people trapped in cars.
https://newrepublic.com/article/174089/big-tech-watching-drive
#tech #transport #elonmusk #transportation #hyperloop #trains
They never were. You only think that because philanthropy has always just been an exercise in PR. If you dig deeper into the life and actions of those individuals, you will notice they all suffer from the same pathology.
This is it. If you Google Andrew Carnegie, he’s listed as a philanthropist who built libraries. If you Google the Battle of Homestead, you can see how people literally died to fight for labor rights against him. These people were never good people. We just forgot the bad.
Then let it be PR. It’s still better than whatever is happening right now. They had at least some dignity and somewhat cared about their image, now it’s just all greed
I think the point is that as long as certain services or fundamentals for living are based on good-will and philanthropy, they are in the end at the mercy of whims or calculated actions of those doing well.
It is PR in the sense that it does not only make the philanthropist look good, it also ties the subjects of the philanthrophy into a bond between the giver and receiver: as a receiver you are forever thankful to the philanthropist and in some perverted way constantly reminded of your subordinate status towards the giver. This strengthens the societal structures that benefit the rich and helps them stay powerful compared to massess. While I am sure that most rich people genuinely donate money to make things better and help others, it is still them who get to choose where the money is spent.
More equal and transparent option is to make sure that there is enough tax revenue to cover these kinds of costs from public spending.
I have also been playing with an idea of a philanthropic fund that allows anyone to donate, but not to decide where the money is spent. If the target for philanthropy could be decided by a group of experts/public poll, money could probably be allocated to places where it is needed the most. However, I am sure there would be a lack of bigger donations as the PR effect would be smaller…
It isn’t bro, go read about the pinkertons, robber barons, etc. It’s not great now, but it is infinitely better than company towns, protestor massacres,pinkertons, and jimmy hoffa. Go read history it is amazing, I’m not calling you dumb, just ignorant of history and how bad things can really get if we don’t hold the line.
It’s not that they had dignity or cared, it’s that news sources were so limited that if they did something shitty they just paid off the papers and nobody was ever the wiser
They never were. You only think that because philanthropy has always just been an exercise in PR. If you dig deeper into the life and actions of those individuals, you will notice they all suffer from the same pathology.
This is it. If you Google Andrew Carnegie, he’s listed as a philanthropist who built libraries. If you Google the Battle of Homestead, you can see how people literally died to fight for labor rights against him. These people were never good people. We just forgot the bad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike
Then let it be PR. It’s still better than whatever is happening right now. They had at least some dignity and somewhat cared about their image, now it’s just all greed
They literally hired mercenaries to murder striking workers. It has always been greed. It can only be greed. A library doesn’t change that.
I think the point is that as long as certain services or fundamentals for living are based on good-will and philanthropy, they are in the end at the mercy of whims or calculated actions of those doing well.
It is PR in the sense that it does not only make the philanthropist look good, it also ties the subjects of the philanthrophy into a bond between the giver and receiver: as a receiver you are forever thankful to the philanthropist and in some perverted way constantly reminded of your subordinate status towards the giver. This strengthens the societal structures that benefit the rich and helps them stay powerful compared to massess. While I am sure that most rich people genuinely donate money to make things better and help others, it is still them who get to choose where the money is spent.
More equal and transparent option is to make sure that there is enough tax revenue to cover these kinds of costs from public spending.
I have also been playing with an idea of a philanthropic fund that allows anyone to donate, but not to decide where the money is spent. If the target for philanthropy could be decided by a group of experts/public poll, money could probably be allocated to places where it is needed the most. However, I am sure there would be a lack of bigger donations as the PR effect would be smaller…
It isn’t bro, go read about the pinkertons, robber barons, etc. It’s not great now, but it is infinitely better than company towns, protestor massacres,pinkertons, and jimmy hoffa. Go read history it is amazing, I’m not calling you dumb, just ignorant of history and how bad things can really get if we don’t hold the line.
It’s not that they had dignity or cared, it’s that news sources were so limited that if they did something shitty they just paid off the papers and nobody was ever the wiser