Mike Bloomberg Once Said He Could 'Teach Anyone to Be a Farmer' Because Farming Needs Less 'Gray Matter' Than Modern Work
Classic case of an out of touch, big city, coastal elitist
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
ike Bloomberg drew ire on social media on Sunday night after resurfaced footage of the billionaire saying farming required less "gray matter" than modern work went viral.
The ex-New York City mayor was called "condescending" and an "enormous clown" after his comments at a university event in 2016 re-emerged.
A federal official appointed by President Donald Trump also took a jab at the Democratic primary candidate, saying farming equipment contained "far more tech than a Bloomberg Terminal."
In a clip from his November 2016 talk at the Saïd Business School of the University of Oxford in England, Bloomberg said: "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, to be a farmer. It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn."
Mike Bloomberg delivers remarks during a campaign rally on February 12, 2020 in Nashville, Tennessee. Brett Carlsen/Getty Images
"Now comes the information economy, and the information economy is fundamentally different, because it's built around replacing people with technology," Bloomberg added. "And the skillsets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
523 visitors
I didn't watch the video, but if the quotes in the article came from the video...in the immortal words of The Jerk, "all I can say is wow."
Just know, you are beneath a liberal in every way possible.
This could ultimately cost him quite a few votes in rural and/or farming communities. I certainly hope it does with a moronic statement like that.
Seems the focus is being placed on farmers to divert attention from what Michael Bloomberg actually said. In a backhanded way, Bloomberg is stating that not everyone can be taught to be an information tech worker. That's the meaning behind Bloomberg's claim that it takes more gray matter to work with automation and information technology.
Bloomberg is saying that if someone doesn't have the smarts then they are SOL. There won't be a place in the future economy for those who have inadequate gray matter. Bloomberg is making a class distinction which shouldn't be surprising for someone who believes they represent the elite.
Lol i see how this works.
Bloomberg sez something questionable and he automatically gets the benefit of the doubt. Think Trump will ever get the same consideration? Doubtful, very doubtful.
I have little doubt Bloomberg looks down his nose at certain people. Thinks he's better than them. If nothing else his propensity to try to control other peoples behavior is proof of that imo. He thinks he knows what's better for them than they do themselves and of course he doesn't.
Republicans don't need to scrutinize Bloomberg at all. His fellow Democrats are doing a fine job of that already.
I know a republican and conservative and a member of the party attempting to freely run the table on political outcomes in our society, did not just write this. I am going to automatically give you the benefit of the doubt!
Obviously neither you or Bloomberg know what it takes to be a farmer.
Bloomberg said he could train anyone to be a farmer or a machinist. And he is correct. Most people could learn to be a farmer or a machinist if that is what they want to do. That doesn't mean that farming and machining are easy occupations or that those occupation don't require knowing quite a bit. Farming and machining are teachable skills that provide opportunities to more people. Bloomberg is dismissing farming because that is an occupation that is easier to learn.
Bloomberg also said that replacing humans with automation requires more gray matter. Not everyone can be be taught how to do that. What Bloomberg is saying that people with inadequate gray matter are shit outta luck. Bloomberg is making a class distinction; there are winners and losers in the gray matter lottery. And there's no need to waste time and money on losers.
Bloomberg is basically saying that those who lack the gray matter to replace humans with automation are excess population. Why should we waste public resources on those who don't have the gray matter to learn how to replace humans with automation? Bloomberg declared that those with inadequate gray matter are disposable and don't deserve attention.
I just notice this.
This is going to go over great with the Automotive and Trade Unions.
He just lost all their votes.
Yeah, I might be more on board if he'd simply said that man power is being replaced with technology. He didn't, he said that the 90% of farmers and industrial workers were morons, and now you have to have skills that nobody in those days did, thinking and analyzing. Bloomberg has never hung a split pitch roof, or cut it, or laid it out. According to his thinking, you buy the lumber, cut, nail, and boom, roof. Not saying it is rocket science, but I know some computer guys, and they are not rocket scientists either.
Tech guy came in the other day. Worked on my machine for 2 hours, trying to connect to the new office printer. When I asked him what was taking so long, he said I needed to update. He had his computer hooked up to mine, communicating with the printer, for two hours, and came to the conclusion that I needed to update, which had been done 2 weeks prior. Idiot tried to update an additional 2 times to see if that would change anything. Nope...its not on my end honcho, its your shitty printer. Sure, man power is being replaced by technology. As the tech guy showed, his critical thinking and analyzing skill sets were, to put it bluntly, shit. If farming is a process of digging a hole, throwing a seed in, covering it with dirt, then boom, corn. Then technology is the new learned process of plugging in your computer, hitting a button to run diagnostics, reading the results, and hitting another button to execute whatever command is recommended. Failing that, go fish.
NO, NO, NO. That's not what Bloomberg was talking about. Bloomberg said that farming and industrial work are PROCESSES and he can train anyone to perform a process. Programming a self driving tractor is a process and anyone can be trained to program a self driving tractor. Even a robot can be taught to perform a process; being human isn't important.
Bloomberg is saying that anyone can be taught a process. Just because it involves a computer doesn't make any difference. Anyone can be taught to be an F9 monkey; even farmers.
Bloomberg is making a class distinction between users of automation and creators of automation. Those capable of replacing humans with automation to perform processes are an elite class.
Michael Bloomberg has consumed a lot of labor to perform processes that created his wealth. Bloomberg believes anyone can be taught to perform those processes. To Bloomberg workers performing those processes aren't any different than machines; disposable, easily replaced, and of little value.
A journalist tosses out some tripe to pull people's chains and they go stand in the corner to pick dingle berries. But that journalism is a smoke screen to hide Bloomberg's real meaning.
Farming is a complex business that requires many skillsets and Bloomberg's comments prove he doesn't know a thing about farming. Bloomberg obviously doesn't know that farmers were the originators of replacing humans with automation and the equipment they use, maintain, modify, and repair everyday does the work that would have taken hundreds of humans. It was farmers who invented that stuff not people like Bloomberg.
Zuksam,
That was a misrepresentation of what Bloomberg said. To see what he said, go to this comment: 8 and watch from 41:50. That is what he said in whole and it was hardly an insult to farmers.
You wanna talk about farmers (like the journalist wanted)? Okey dokey, let's go.
A farmer must know and understand horticulture, animal science, veterinary medicine, meteorology, environmental engineering, mechanics, truck driving, heavy equipment operation, contract law, banking, and commodity trading. And that's just the basics. There ain't a keyboard jockey on the planet that has to know as much as a farmer. There won't ever be a robot that will treat a calf with maggots in its navel.
And after all that, everyone is letting Michael Bloomberg off the hook for displaying an elitist attitude that dissed 99 pct of country's population. Bloomberg's comments are a thousand times worse than a journalist has tricked you into believing.
Thing is automation is a big part of farming now. Making the argument for cheap foreign/illegal labor not as valid as it was.
That is surely part of it, but there is something that Bloomberg touched on which can't be denied. Somewhere between the tech boom of the 90's and now the American economy became heavily tilted towards technology. In the beginning graduates in the field were walking right into exorbitant high paying jobs. Now we have so many graduating in the tech field that they have trouble finding work.
As far as the class distinction goes, it is one that flatters the blue collar worker. They work harder for less and as we see every day in the news, they are more trustworthy. Beware of those with smooth hands, smooth tongues and the uncanny ability to get away with just about anything. (another college lesson).
Blue Collar workers get disrespected regularly by obtuse elitists. Show me a city like NYC without truckers, garbage collectors, plumbers and electricians and i'll show you anarchy.
People won't be worried about their lawyer, banker or IT guys if that happens. Not in the least.
Blue collar work won't be going away anytime in the foreseeable future. Coding software is blue collar work; workers are preforming process oriented tasks. A programmer is doing the same type of work as someone on an assembly line.
Michael Bloomberg is making a class distinction to justify his wealth. Bloomberg is claiming that he can train anyone to perform process oriented tasks. That's not far from the truth, people can be trained to use specialized tools and perform a complex process. Even a robot can be trained to perform a process. Bloomberg has made a class distinction that relegates most people to the status of robots. Robots are disposable, easily replaced, and their value depends on the task they have been trained to perform.
Farmers learn to not make pets of their livestock. A kid learns that their blue ribbon steer in the 4H competition is going to be killed and eaten. All the kid's hopes, dreams, effort, and success are going to be destroyed and savored by the highest bidder. It's a hard lesson to learn. Michael Bloomberg is applying that same lesson to people; blue collar workers are the livestock of the elite. Don't turn blue collar workers into pets.
I don't think Bloomberg is smart enough to be a farmer. That's such an ignorant statement.
I wonder how long it will take for one of our NT elites to explain to us common types what Bloomberg really meant.
What is it with people that live with cockroaches and rats that makes them think they are better than everyone else?
Already done. See #2 above.
Just the other day, I called this guy a rich snob and some took issue with it. I stand by that assessment.
There is a cabal of NYers here that seem to think he is great. Maybe he is but i ain't seeing it yet.
Not for me and mine anyways.
I'm not voting for him.
You a New Yorker?
Minnesotan living in Wisconsin
And it wasn't even to say the guy is a piece of trash and no one should ever vote for him. I was talking about image and voter perceptions. But Heaven forbid anyone should be the slightest bit critical of the great city or anyone in it - unless we're talking about Trump, of course. Or Giuliani, I guess.
Sparty what does that mean? Why should it matter if you are a New Yorker or not?
The urban bi coastal elites the limousine liberals with their ivory tower residences and offices will love him. They share with him a sheer and utter contempt for fly over Heartland America and all the people and values residing within. This is just so typical of them. They can have him.
It was just a simple question. New Yorkers have direct experience with the guy and some here seem rather enamored with him.
I don't deny I like him (hardly enamored), but I still don't see what that has to do with being a New Yorker.
People who had him so long as Mayor will likely have a better read on him than say a farmer in Ohio.
Not sure why that premise might be confusing.
Yes, it was obvious that you hated all New Yorkers.
Not all. Many upstate and western NYers outside the NYC to Albany corridor are fine people just as Californians outside of the urban coastal areas are. Yes we have lots of farming in inland Ca.
Funny, I don't judge people by where they live. I think everyone is fine until proven otherwise.
Bloomberg said he could train anyone to be a farmer or a machinist.
Is Bloomberg a farmer of machinist? Can he teach the physical skills and conditioning needed to run a farm along with everything else? Can he teach what it takes to work outside in the heat and cold? Fix a collapsed roof in a snowstorm so 7,000 turkeys don't freeze to death?
Analyzing soil, deciding which seeds and crops to plant, what fertilizer to use, what pesticides to use, when to apply fertilizer …..You get the gist.
I just charged a IT guy 150 bucks for hooking his p-trap back up under his sink, All that gray matter must have pushed out common sense.
"It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn.""
"Now comes the information economy, and the information economy is fundamentally different, because it's built around replacing people with technology," Bloomberg added. "And the skillsets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze."
It seems like he started out harmlessly contrasting following a procedure with reasoning a new course. I don't think anybody will be able to teach him how to keep his feet out of his mouth.
Installed a ground-sensing automatic head leveling system on my brother's combine last year that lets it cut beans to ground level without harvesting dirt. Farming technology just keeps getting better and better.
Successful family farmers tend to have college degrees that are heavy on math, economics, meteorology/climatology, soil science, mechanical engineering, etc....
The classes it takes to learn how to ranch correctly verge on medical degrees. Knowing cows inside and out and how to keep them healthy is paramount.
Grew up farming and ranching and a lot of knowledge was passed down by my elders. Decided many years ago that I didn't want to go pro.
It's all I can do to plant a small garden and keep a cat alive these days. I'm retired from driving combines and tractors from dawn till dusk and getting stuck to my knees in manure and being kicked by cows!
Indeed. Farming itself is as complex / sophisticated as any other business. And Bloomberg knows this.
He was talking about skill sets of farm workers. Knowing how to properly care for land, crops, animals, equipment and facilities are skills. But those skills do not translate well to knowledge worker jobs (and vice-versa). A person who is a field expert in soil (e.g. deep experience in knowing which crops to plant and when, ...) is not necessarily armed with the skills / aptitude that will translate well into a programming, accounting, paralegal, writing, etc. type of job.
Bloomberg was particularly focused on the problem of retraining low-skilled workers such as laborers (he used a farm laborer planting seeds as an example). He could have used a manufacturing laborer (assembly line) or a coal laborer or a construction laborer as an example. It is a challenging problem to figure out how to transition those whose jobs are drying up into jobs that are more abundant in the USA. The difficulty going from working with one's hands to a job where one largely works with one's mind is what he was noting. (And note, the opposite would be true too ... obviously not everyone in a more cognitive job will be physically capable of taking on physical labor jobs.)
So we're to have a nature V nurture discussion?
I do not see that. It really boils down to the fact that we all have different strengths and weaknesses. Just because someone is good at one job does not mean they will be good at another (or that they could stand doing the other).
So when faced with a large displacement of low-skilled labor jobs we (society) will face the problem that many will simply not be able to (or want to) make the transition. To reference Biden as an example, I disagree with his notion that if one can throw coal into a furnace one can learn how to program. That is like saying if one can roll paint on a wall then one should be able to do design a bridge.
OK how about the real unedited version of this story:
Edited video of Mike Bloomberg appears to insult farmers, factory workers, but there's more to the story
A video circulated by President Donald Trump’s supporters on Monday, with more than a million views, attempts to show presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg making disparaging remarks about farmers and manufacturing workers.
But the short, edited clip from a 2016 appearance by Bloomberg at the University of Oxford, doesn't provide the full context of the presentation.
In the video circulated on Twitter, Bloomberg says: “I could teach anybody, even people in this room so no offense intended, to be a farmer. It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that.”
But the video deleted the first part of that statement, in which Bloomberg says, “if you think about the agrarian society (that) lasted 3,000 years, we could teach processes.”
In the full video , the Democrat presidential candidate wasn't referring to modern agriculture at all, and "Team Trump is deliberately misleading Americans,” said Bloomberg spokesman Brandon Weathersby.
In the video, Bloomberg went on to address U.S. manufacturing and more about agriculture, saying: “Then you have 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job. And we created a lot of jobs. At one point, 98% of the world worked in agriculture; today it’s 2% in the United States. Now comes the information economy, and the information economy is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology … You have to have a lot more gray matter.”
The Twitter reaction to the edited version of the video was visceral, with farmers and others saying the billionaire former New York mayor was out of touch with modern agriculture and manufacturing.
“He just insulted every farmer and every blue collar worker because they don't have as much 'gray matter' as smart people in the info tech biz," was one response.
“The man has no clue how much information and technology goes into agriculture and skilled trades careers. Humans flipped from 98% to less than 2% agricultural in a couple of centuries for a reason,” was another response.
For anyone not familiar with today's farming and manufacturing, the controversy is a “teachable moment,” dairy farmer Sarah Lloyd, from Sauk County said in a Journal Sentinel interview.
Today’s farmers are at the mercy of world market s as well as areas such as agronomy, climate change and new technologies. Likewise, manufacturing jobs have changed to become much more skilled.
“We have people here in the Midwest working really hard in high-tech areas across the economy. Come visit us in Wisconsin, is what I would say,” said Lloyd, who in 2018 made an unsuccessful bid, as a Democrat, for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Actual video
So fake news.
So liberal Newsweek is pedaling in fake news? Who’d have thunk it? 🤣
Don't you check links? That was not Newsweek. It was the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
I did check the link to the seeded story we are all here talking about. It’s Newsweek.
This journalistic piece on Bloomberg misses far more than it reveals. Besides, Trump digs coal too, right?
This too, the vast majority of so called farmers in America are corporate types, controlling thousands of acres repossessed by banks from smaller farmers, who wear three piece suits, have connections with Wall Street, The Big Banking Industry and have never ran their hands through the soil they control.
Then you need to visit where i live in Northern Michigan. Virtually all Farms are small family owned farms, some on their third and fourth generations. Apples, Cherries, Wine Grapes, Milk Cows and now Hop farms in their first generation. That and more and i know our small community is just like thousands of others with the same infrastructure of a small farm base.
People need to stop watching CNN and Fox so much, get in their cars and travel around America a little to see what is really out there.
You will be surprised as it ain't all what CNN is trying to tell you it is.
WI has the highest rate of farmer suicide in the nation because of revenue loss. These 3rd and 4th generation farms are disappearing at a rapid rate.
Or could that be because of the collapse of Milk prices starting around 2014?
That, is mainly a import/export, supply and demand thing.
That said if there is one industry we should be subsidizing as tax payers it should be our small farmers. With oversight of course to insure against fraud but a better use of our tax dollars there is not imo.
Many adults can't handle lactose very well. It's actually our natural state to be lactose intolerant as adults, as are other animals.
forget lactose, how about reality, or as Jack stated, 'the truth'.
We are omnivores. The healthiest populations consume very little meat in comparison with whole grains and vegetables.
The collapse of milk prices was because of big businesses like Dean Foods. They bought milk contracts and then cut them when they became big enough to out compete small farms. Milk prices dropped and other small farms couldn't compete - needed loans for repairs and equipment and prices never recovered. In 2019 over 800 small dairy farmers closed doors in WI alone.
Nope, according to my Dairy Farmer friends here it was more of a supply and demand thing.
Supply was going up, better productivity etc, and demand was going down.
A simple supply and demand situation. Good for consumers but bad for producers.
I'm pretty sure I said that. LOL.
Lol ... no, not very well you didn't ...... big business had nothing to do with a decrease in demand or did they?
Did they have some kind of alien mind control thing going to hurt their own business demand?
Ingenious!
They did and they do. The milk processors went into the milk cow business after they consolidated control. They did this down south and more recently up here.
Source from 2018
Source from 2019
Looks like the Dairy Farmers of America (a co-op) is trying to buy part of Dean Meals, but not everyone is happy with that either ( bolding mine ) -
Source from yesterday
No actually, they're simply pointing out that eating less red meat is both healthier for people and better than the environment.
Why do you hate people who point out facts? You may not like knowing that too much red meat is bad for you, but intelligent people want to be informed so they can make better decisions.
None of that has anything to do with demand.
They can't control if i chose to buy a gallon of regular milk, a gallon of Almond Milk or no milk at all ..... unless of course the devious bastards are alien mind controlling me ....
If anything the lower prices will force demand to go up not down ...... a simple lesson in supply and demand .... as prices go down, demand usually goes up.
I don't actually drink milk; I prefer boring old water (or Pinot Grigio). I do prefer almond milk if I'm having cereal. I use cream or half-and-half in my coffee, though - almond milk and even whole milk don't have enough fat. And I love Greek yogurt.
When it comes to cheese, I can't bring myself to try almond cheese. My name is Katrix, and I am a cheeseoholic. Cheese. Cheese. Cow cheese. Goat cheese. Sheep cheese. Hard cheese. Soft cheese. Um. I may have a slight problem.
That is happening here in NY, too, EG. People keep thinking that we are not a farming state but we are. The family farm up the road from me has been in operation since the early 1800's and they are worried.
Wally,
There is a difference between dairy cows and cattle.
There is nothing debatable about my points - not to anyone who actually reads facts, and researches science, etc.
But to the willfully ignorant, anything is debatable if it's something they don't want to believe. Their orange god has taught them that screeching "Fake News" will fool the gullible every time. You go on eating tons of red meat and drinking sodas - diet or otherwise - and enjoy your future health.
Blame the "media" for concentrating on NYC for that !
Even "Humble" ME knows that NYS is big on Farming. Lot's and Lot's of "Grape" growing near Lake Erie.
Where the heck did climate change come into this? I was talking about how eating less red meat is healthier for people and for the environment, and wondering why you claim those are debatable when they are not. And no, climate change really isn't debatable either. The earth is warming, and whether or not you want to believe that humans are accelerating the warming, it's warming either way.
And the groundwater pollution caused by fracking has nothing to do with climate change. Yes, some contamination might occur - as you just admitted - and lots of people get their water from wells near those fracking sites. And there are always fractures in those "sealed" rocks. Ask the people in PA whose wells have been contaminated. Or ask folks in Wyoming. Those fracking companies inject the wastewater and chemicals back into the ground; maybe you weren't aware of that.
Well, neither are really on topic.
This article has gone the way of most articles here on NT in that they morph out into something else entirely and i'm not judging since i'm guilty of doing the same thing as well .....
True, but at least the milk and red meat comments had to do with farming.
Ice Wines !!!!!!
Yep .... up state NY is not Bloomberg country .... very, very red up there in farm country. It's just like Michigan. Find a bigger city .... its probably blue. Everywhere else?
Pretty much red .....
You have had three of my comments deleted as "off topic" , when there are many other comments on this seed that are off topic and are still here.
Oh you did judge.
Oh well,l I may have to do the same thing on some of my seeds.
"You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn."
Even Us "Backyard Farmers" know......that's just "BULLSHIT" !
I wish it was that easy !
To Heavy on the Fertilizer there igknorantzrulz !
Don't you know how to "Farm" ?
Get with Bloomberg. He can teach you.
And even though I've shown that the whole video was edited and a lie, you continue on as if it was the truth. Wow.
I watched the "Real thing" waaaaay before I spoke. He was STILL condescending in his words.
Just like he was during his "Friskie" Coulda woulda shoulda speech.
Then that is just your perception. I found nothing to be condescending.
And no it was nothing like the stop and frisk... but I love how you managed to bring that off topic comment into the discussion.
He was talking at Oxford about economics and such.
Interesting. Must not have "Personally" effected you.
"And no it was nothing like the stop and frisk"
Sure it is. It's just another of his "For It" before "Against it" typical Political "I want to be President" Thingies he's spouting now.
His : “You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn.”, is simplistic at best. Don't know a "Farmer" supplying world foods, to think that way, AT ALL. The "Simple" farmer already knows there is an actual science to producing well. They didn't need condescending Bloomy to tell them that.
Bernie's gonna be pissed with "Bloomy" being able to buy his way into the debate, after all the work Bernie had to do to stay in it.
If Bloomy makes it as the "Democrat Candidate", will Bernie folks support a "Buy-in" billionaire guy ?
You know I really hate it when you keep misrepresenting what he said. Do I need to find a transcript for you? I hate dishonest discussion. So there was nothing condescending about what he said. And I don't care what Bernie thinks. He didn't buy his way into the debate... he had to make the polls like everyone else. Sorry if you don't like that the DNC changed their rules.
Seems to be far too prevalent nowadays.
Am I really misrepresenting what YOU thought he said, or what he actually was saying ?
"He didn't buy his way into the debate... he had to make the polls like everyone else."
He spends Millions and Millions of personal monies in commercial time purchases, as the other candidates actually "Pounded the Ground", using donation money for months and months for what they got.
Did the Democrat Party change their own policy and debate rules for ONE person, for "Free" ?
Noooooo....he didn't buy his way into a debate at all.
$417million so far he has spent.............and the TV and radio ads are really getting old. Especially the ones touting his and Mr. Obama's "relationship". And Steyer, rather unsuccessfully, is doing the same.
Well they say money can't buy you happiness but in this case, and if what you say comes to fruition, his money will make this Trump voter very happy.
Bloomberg has been to many states already, so I am not sure what you are talking about.
TV time of those ….. "Town Halls"
….. seems to be "Lacking" !
Amazing.
Some will take what he says out of context and all scream he is out of touch and an elitist. Worthy of condemnation.
Yet anything donald does or says is overlooked as him just telling the truth.
The outright hypocrisy is blinding.
i see
.
this also
What was THE ….. "Context" ….. he was going for ?
Watch the video. Here to post 8 and start at around 40:00 on the video. Then you can get the context.
See comment 13.1.3 It Is ME !
Nice quote.
And as I have shown, it has nothing to do with this topic.
You've dumped Biden for Bloomberg! Biden is left with a "Dear Joe" letter. He was your guy once!
Vic,
First of all, I am not sure why you care about who I support. I did and do like Biden. I happen to also like Bloomberg and Klobuchar, but I prefer Bloomberg. I like what he did for the city when I lived there.
But here is something that everyone is missing with most of the indies here. We are looking for a sensible centrist. That is why no one is going with Bernie...
First of all an independent wouldn't hate the President. Might not vote for him, but wouldn't go nuts denouncing somebody that promotes Peace & Prosperity!
We are looking for a sensible centrist.
You are looking for anybody capable of beating Trump. So far the Messiah has not appeared!
[deleted]
MUVA,
I keep reminding you that you can't talk about racist and still vote for Trump.
Bloomberg has to grovel and apologize.
Dems call him a racist!
Dems vote for him.
Trump wins!
Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
That's a lot of animosity for one woman!
As an independent, I don't let partisan bullshit convince me that he's somehow now worthy of respect because of the letter beside his name - unlike his supporters, who (presumably) used to actually care about the character of their President and used to think that Congress and the DOJ worked for us, not as the President's personal servants.
Policy trumps character! You want to give up prosperity and personal safety for some feel good persona? Not me!
If you mean hate the person then that would be emotional rather than political; it would not have anything to do with political independence. If you mean hate having that person as PotUS, then of course political independents can reasonably do that based on political reasoning.
I missed where Perrie stated that she hated Trump; does not seem like something she would state.
Tig,
You missed it because I never said it.
And there you have it.
[removed]
Thanks Tig. Actually, it can be both.
it would not have anything to do with political independence.
Correct. A person who hated the President is unlikely to be an independent.
I missed where Perrie stated that she hated Trump
Perrie has never said that. Nor has anyone else, that includes Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters and Andrew Weissmann. I think you catch my drift.
Yes we can!
I have no reason to doubt that. My personal finances were basically the same under both of our controversial Presidents. That doesn't mean that others weren't affected by the policies of either man. Did you see what happened to the 401k's of many after the financial crisis of 2008? Policies matter!
These are terrible qualities in a president. And instead of draining the swamp, he's made it far worse.
I differ 180 degrees with that opinion. That's why we have elections and as Hillary Clinton said - we must respect the results of elections!
Yeah, well, I'm not a fan of scum sucking sociopaths who constantly cheat others and care only about their egos. Never have been. I wasn't when he was a D and I'm not now that he is an R. He deserves every bit of my animosity, and then some.
You sound like your'e getting hot under the Pearls.
Barring an October surprise, it is what it is!
Oh, mine took a huge hit, although it recovered very nicely.
No single President's policies caused that financial crisis. Sure, Clinton/Bush/Obama all played a role - as did the banks, the consumers, and many others. Hell, there isn't even agreement on whether Glass Steagal was a bad thing that made the banks too big to fail, or a good thing that kept banks from taking too many risks.
Policies do matter, and Trump's policy is all for Trump and Trump for none. I don't like that policy.
[removed]
Well if that does happen, at least we've got the last three plus years of how to disrespect a valid election to fashion a response with.
So ..... that will be helpful if that happens i suppose ....
I don't know what Trump would do, but I know what the hate filled left has done - they haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election and that includes Hillary Clinton!
You just concern yourself with fulfilling your bet obligations. We have only 10 months to go!
[deleted]
Vic,
I am not shy. If I hated Trump I would say it. I have no respect for the man's mouth, and how it makes his position as president look.
And I find it insulting to be compared to career politicians. So far, two questionable comments about me. Don't make this personal, since I am not making this personal.
I doubt you will get that lucky again. All the dirt will come out now.
I guess that makes trump an ok racist in your professional opinon, correct?
Hyperbole.
No I seriously doubt that he will take Hillaryious Hillary's and the lefts route. No one could look anymore foolish than that.
He will? Wow, that is quite the left-wing conspiracy there, Do you drink a lot of Kool-ade?
I would suspect that it will treat him better than obama.
I would ask if you think democrats will have another triggered snowflake meltdown if Trumps wins again, but it seems you have it all figured out.
[deleted]
Where is your hot and bother over Trump ( and his father ) pleading no contest to refusing to rent to people of color for decades and violating those agreements repeatedly? His remarks about not wanting black accountants counting his casino monies, but he wanted short guys with yarmulkes instead? How about the $200,000 fine for removing all AA card dealers from the casino floor for a particular high roller?
Trump has attacked Americans of Mexican heritage, a non white Muslim Gold Star family, believes in the birther movement and retweeted this gem
"Blacks killed by whites -- 2%"
"Blacks killed by police -- 1%"
"Whites killed by police -- 3%"
"Whites killed by whites -- 16%"
"Whites killed by blacks -- 81%"
"Blacks killed by blacks -- 97%’
Oh, wait, you and your family's company are having the best year ever economically, so you support the current POTUS and forgive him his racist indecencies but your 1st Amendment privileges allow you to be silent on his racism but call out others for their racist remarks, GOT IT.
There's probably an ancient Greek word for that.
My comment and others are merely pointing out the fact that you have made a choice between what you
cannot deny are two white people with a history of making what can only be construed as stupid comments made over 70 plus years about people based on race.
For whatever reason, you give Trump a major pass while making stupid remarks about Bloomberg's height
and declaring you own blackness.
That is your very public position on this website and doesn't ave a thing to do with the internet or being face to face.
So when you compare the things Trump has said with the things Bloomberg once said, what do you come up with?
And I find it insulting to be compared to career politicians.
When did I do that?
Luck? How so?
Did I say that? I said they were looking for a centrist.
Well, no one looks for a loser to vote for Vic. Let's be real. But if I was interested in just anyone, I would say I would vote for ANY dem, and I never said that did I? As for Messiah, I don't think he will be making an appearance in any party.
You know, I remember when Republicans forced themselves to vote for the candidate they tought could win a general election, while democrats simply voted for the one they fell in love with. Times have really changed!
Vic,
I actually do really like Bloomberg. He is my favorite so far, so no things haven't changed or I would be saying something different.
Ok, stick with him then - No Dear John letter
Stand by your man!
Was that a Hillary reference, Vic? If so, kind of low.
And may I remind you, you are standing by your man, too.
No, that was a general critique, which had nothing to do with you personally.
And may I remind you, you are standing by your man, too.
Like Iron! And I always stood by my women too!
I find it interesting, that Newsweek, known to have a pretty damn extreme left-wing bias, allegedly (alleged by some folks here in this discussion) offer a disinformational style hit piece against Bloomberg. I mean what is the purpose? Is this the DNC and Dem swamp trying to torpedo another non-mainstream Dem POTUS candidate? Inquiring mind would like to know.
That said I'm not as as convinced as some others are here that he didn't mean exactly what he said.
I am not. He is not what they wanted. He is right to what they want. This is probably the one thing he has in common with Trump. Neither the left or the right want him, just like how the RNC didn't want Trump either.
Then you didn't watch the whole video, and I truly find that frustrating. Here is the transcript:
Ewen Hollingsworth: Ewen Hollingsworth, doing my MBA here. Mr. Bloomberg, Trump got in on a great sense of inequality, not just in the United States but across the world. There’s been a divide, and there’s an increasing divide, between the haves and the have-nots. What do you think business leaders — what’s their responsibility to addressing that divide and uniting, perhaps, the central America [read: ‘Middle America’] and the coasts?
Mike Bloomberg: Well, number one, I question whether you’re right. We have, in the last four decades, cut poverty in half in the world, if you measure poverty by people who go to bed without a roof over their head, a meal in their stomach and [who] can’t read. So society is making some progress. Life expectancy is going up, we’re [inaudible] cure more diseases, and we’re about to eradicate — thanks to [Bill] Gates and a little bit of money from us — eradicate polio. So we’re doing some things to help.
Number two, the bottom 20% is a lot better off than the bottom 20% in the past. The bottom 20% in America — the bottom 20% in New York City, 80% have cars, 30% have two cars, virtually everybody has a cellphone, they all have 72-inch TV screens and sort of thing. So there is some of this, so you’ve got to be careful in this. And, incidentally, before we address the basic issue, if you measure poverty by the top 1% versus the bottom 20%, you get very different numbers than if you measure it by the two to 20% down from the top here, and the bottom 20%. Because of very low interest rates, you have inflated values of fixed assets, which are almost always owned by the very wealthy, and so, they’ve shot up — maybe it’s the top 5% — but if you adjusted for that, it’s not as disparate as you would think. So that’s what the real world is.
We have a problem of income inequality, nevertheless. I would argue what’s more important is we have educational inequality. There was a story on the front page of the FT [Financial Times] today, I think it was, that said there’s nobody from the poor districts of London that comes to this great school, one of the great universities of the whole world, and zero from poor neighborhoods, at least I assume the statistics are right and they didn’t just cherry-pick one neighborhood. So that is more important than net worth because that says what the future is going to be for the young people.
Having said all of that, you can fix the inequality. You take money from the rich and you give it to the poor. We’ve always done that, we have a tax system, generally, around the world, that is graduated at the top end, progressive tax system, takes more money from the rich per capita and redistributes it. Tuition in a university, in America certainly, is a Robin Hood plan. You want — the kids are always on the wrong side of that, they always want lower tuition, no you don’t, you want to raise tuition in the university, as high as you can, so the wealthy will contribute more money, and then use the extra money to subsidize those kids who have no money. If you reduce the amount of money you take in from the rich, it’s the poor that get hurt, not helped. So some of these things are a little bit counterintuitive. But you take the money from the rich, you give it to the poor, you do it for altruistic reasons, you do it because you don’t want the poor on your doorstep and there are a variety of things.
But I think what you’ve got to understand is the people who are getting the subsidy want the dignity of a job. They want the dignity of being responsible for their family and being able to take care of it. And that’s the conundrum we’re going to have here because technology is reducing the ability to give them the jobs. We just — more and more, if you think about it, the agrarian society lasted 3,000 years, and we could teach processes. I could teach anybody — even people in this room, no offense intended — to be a farmer. It’s a [process]. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that. Then you have 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job. And we created a lot of jobs. [At] one point, 98% of the world worked in agriculture, today it’s 2%, in the United States.
Now comes the information economy. And the information economy is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology, and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze. And that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter. It’s not clear that teachers can teach or the students can learn. So the challenge for society is to find jobs for these people — who we can take care of giving them a roof over their head and a meal in their stomach, and a cellphone and a car and that sort of thing. But the thing that’s the most important, that will stop them from setting up the guillotines some day, is the dignity of a job. And nobody’s yet come up with a simple solution, in this day and age, to how we create jobs, particularly for people already out of school.
I can tell you how to fix the school system so that the kids come out with better skills, more ability to appreciate life and to work collaboratively and collectively and read the instruction manual and follow orders. But it’s very hard to figure out where the jobs they’re going to get will come from, and for those that are already out in the work force, to get them back into the system and teach them new skill sets, is almost impossible. It’s very very hard to do and nobody’s really shown they could it. There’s individual cases where you can retrain them, I don’t want to overstate it. But the coal miner I talked about in West Virginia is not going to move, and his family, out to California where the solar jobs are, and even if he got there he’s not going to get those jobs. Nobody’s going to hire an older person. It’s fascinating to me — older people are always willing to hire younger people; younger people are not willing to hire older people. I think it’s just they’re afraid of older people that may have skill sets they don’t have, and you know, they make fun of them, they say they’re not able to change and think — none of those things are true, there are plenty of older people who are really smart and really can do new things if you gave them the opportunity. But there’s a discrimination from young managers to hire older people. It’s reasonably well documented I think, and certainly observable.
So your basic premise is, it’s not that bad, it’s better than it was before, but it’s a big problem and the problem is not the redistribution of wealth, it is the job where you’re going every day. And you say ‘What’s business’s responsibility?’ It’s not business’s job. Business’s job is to take the investors’ money and to maximize the money by creating products that the public wants and are willing to pay for. And you can’t say to them they should go and create jobs deliberately. You can have a tax policy that encourages that, and that’s one of the things you should do, and then use the collective wisdom of all of the heads of companies, to create small pockets, and it adds up to a lot of jobs.
That’s what I would do right away. Your taxes are lower the more people you hire, and higher the fewer people you hire. And let capitalism work, because government’s not going to be able to solve the problem directly. But short of that, who’s going to create the jobs? Well if it’s not industry, there’s only one group left to do it. And so the next time you want more efficient government, think twice. I’m not so sure you do want more efficient government. Back in the ’30s, we created an inefficient government. We put people to work building infrastructure we needed. They weren’t maybe the — you could have had other people do it more efficiently but we wanted to create jobs and we did, and it took us — World War II was really what took us out of the Depression, but it got us through the Depression. And maybe that is the answer, that we’re going to say ‘government’s got to create no-show jobs,’ or jobs that you have to show but that aren’t needed. We can pass a law that says you’ve got to move all the paper from the left to the right side of the building every day, and back again. Okay. And then the government are going to hire people to do it. But it’s better than people being out on the streets, desperate for a job, not being able to find it, [destabilizing] society.”
The man went out of his way not to be offensive by preferencing his comment with "no offense intended" to something that was not applicable to modern-day farmers but could be taken out of context. Holy witch hunt. Thank goodness that there are still some publications out there that still print the truth.
You are not what? Interesting?
Well, you've heard the saying that the first person to say "no offense intended" clearly does mean to offend. An acid test for this would be if you would accept this comment without offense if Trump had said it. I highly doubt you would have and i know for sure that most of the mass media would be jumping on it with both feet a lot harder than they are with Bloomberg.
Think what you want, as will i. It all boils down to what i've already told you couple times now. You clearly like Bloomberg and i clearly don't. So you give him the benefit of the doubt and i don't. Nothing complicated about that.
You know for a guy who complains to me about tone, this comment was not only unnecessary but nasty. And ironically, throwing in a giggling emoji doesn't mean the comment is any less insulting... kind of like what you said about the comment " no offense".
You are taking this entirely too personal. That comment was intended to be funny .... there was absolutely no malice intended with that comment or emoji. And its also nice to see that you are keeping our private discussions, private ..... classy!
I'm not sure what your issue is with people who see Bloomberg differently than you do but you clearly have a serious issue with it. And i don't mean that in a good way.
I think it is best for you and i disengage on this topic. Next step for me is impasse and i prefer to not use that.
I didn't find it funny. I don't see how it could be taken as anything but personal.
You have complained about this publicly, or I would never have brought it up, so please do not accuse me of an impropriety. It doesn't happen
Ummmm. no. It's a free world. You can like and vote for whoever you like. My issue is complaining about Bloomberg while doing the same thing. And I don't mean that in a good way either.
I agree, I think we should disengage.
And you think YOU are? However, not everyone agrees with you.
[deleted]
I'm reading the same thing you are. Even with the full context it looks to me like there is a whole lot of people that Michael Bloomberg doesn't like.
BUT, As I always say (And I am consistent), as long as he makes for a good president, nobody should care about his character!!!
[deleted]
[removed]
Okay, i would prefer to not go through this article with a fine tooth comb so lets try to keep this on topic. I've already chopped through a part of it and don't really enjoy it, which is one of the reasons i don't post many articles.
The topic is Mike Bloomberg in case anyone was wondering.
My Obama video magnified the comments made by Bloomberg. Maybe you did not bother to view the video and simply saw Obama as a "new shiny object" joining your article, Had you taken interest you would have noticed Obama was talking and using the same venacular as Bloomberg—which was the point of my posting it.
There was the "connective tissue" to this Bloomberg article.
I was even thinking of adding an Andrew Yang video because he is warning the nation as a whole about automation pulling all kinds of jobs away from people (including farmers) and retraining in new industries being the future.
This is being locked for review by RA