Encountering corrupt capitalists in the wild - part two
This next part is a long hypothetical that they use to try and explain why social hierarchies are good and everyone but him and his 20% male counterparts are the good guys that shouldn't be "punished" for what they do - and that living in a society that dictates "work like a slave or die" is good. So we'll break that down step by step.
[Them] Question for you: imagine you were an absolutely genius chemist, and had the ability to come up with powerful new drugs for people that were immensely helpful. However, it is extremely hard work, and while you recognize that you're very good at it, you much prefer painting with water colors, playing with your dog, and playing video games. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Now, please put yourself in the mind of this individual and imagine the following: [Them] You have worked hard for 10 years of your young life and make several discoveries, important new drugs to help people, etc. You were able to make enough money through those 10 years that you probably don't have to work anymore. In the eyes of a young college student learning about Marxist theory, this chemist has more money than he deserves. He is right over the limit for total net worth that begins exposing him to wealth taxes.
First - let's cut this off at the pass. Let me intrduce to you Sir Fredrick Banting, MD. Developed and patented insulin - and subsequently - "Banting sold the patent rights for insulin to The University of Toronto for $1, claiming that the discovery belonged to the world, not to him. This allowed insulin to be mass-produced, making it widely available to the public for the treatment of Diabetes. Although not a cure, this breakthrough would save millions of lives and, to this day, provides treatment for a disease that was previously considered a death sentence." So by your view - he's stupid. He's a bad businessman and there is absolutley no reason why someone should put forth months of research (time, effort, skill, knowledge) - to produce something that they would sell the patent for only $1. He's not earning "what he deserves" - because he created something that is a goldmine. According to you - it's then perfectly acceptable for those who control that product - to then charge whatever they want for it because they control the supply, incuding up to $300 for a single 10mm vial. That isn't greed or corruption - it's just acting in your best economic self-interest. Because of capitalism - Diabetes has again became a death sentence - but you keep ignorantly defending that system, dumbass.
[Them] Now, there are a few different ways the story can go. In a Marxist world, he is deeply penalized for any more wealth he creates. He will be taxed, called a capitalist, a profiteer, and an abuser. No one will believe he earned his money honestly, and they will only be bitter and angry.
Again with the "I have the right to make more money than I can ever rationally do with." Imagine thinking that earning millions and millions of dollars per year is even rationally possible. The PRESIDENT earns $1.6 in a TERM - four years - and you think you earned more than that by whatever the fuck you "provided" to society - through the work of others? Nah - you're just a narcissist.
[Them] If he attempts to start a chemical company and hire other researchers and scientists to assist in his endeavors, so that he doesn't have to do the grunt work of mixing up solutions and mopping floors and etc., he will be derided as a capitalist, an exploiter, an owner, as you put it. Any money his company makes will be considered bad, and subject to redistribution. Redistribution, specifically, to people with less intelligence, less skills, and less desire to work. Specifically, by nature, less productive people.
If the CEO makes well over 200 times more than his lowest paid employee - yeah, he's an "exploiter" and an "abuser". They are not doing 80% of the work, so why are they recieving 80% of the profits? See capitalists just can't see through their greed and narcissim. They can't wrap their heads around anything other than "Every penny of profit this company makes should go to me, because I own it and fulfilled my requirements of paying the labor neccessary the absolute minimum by law. Since I price my services accordingly, I get to pay myself whatever the fuck I personally feel I'm worth out of all of the profits - which is up to 250 times more than them. I'm worth 250 of these peasants."
[Them] Because he didn't get any of his money through theft or exploitation, in any scenario. The scientists he hired chose to work for him voluntarily. Yet, you want to cripple his business before it even starts.
And this dumbass thinks that those worker contributions are worth 250 times less than the lead/owner - yeah I understand your greed. However you seem to think that limiting personal and corporate profits in any way will just like - destroy every single business in the world. Could it maybe be that our entire society revolves around the concept of producing profits and not solving problems?!?!?! Fucking neaderthal.
[Them] And so what is more likely? That that amazing chemist will start a company and lead the world in a new series of discoveries of life changing medicines? Or that he will grow bitter and angry at being called an exploiter and an evil capitalist simply because he is more productive than many others?
Let me explain something to you: You don't want the healthcare worker that's only doing their job for the money. They have less empathy and concern for people, and they aren't in that job for the job. Absolutely no chemist in the world became a chemist because it is a profitable career - they did it for the content of the career - If you're only doing something for the money, you're going to do it worse than someone who does it with a passion. That's just a fact. So fo you to try and insinuate that someone is going to stop doing a specific job because they aren't allowed to be a billionaire - is absolutely ridiculous.
[Them] Do you think it more likely that he will try to start the company, or simply retire and paint watercolors with his dog? Which is better for the world? As you say: [Me] If everything you make over a certain point is going to be redistributed to society, you aren't going to spend time and energy trying to make money you'll never see.
This idiot is sitting here telling me that the only reason people do things is for profit - and if you limit those profits they're not going to want to do things. And yet again - at the very start of this - he prefaced it by trying to insinuate I was "looking down on people from my ivory tower" because I'm saying that the only reason people do things is for profit. You see how these right-wingers contradict themselves? They pivot their points and perspectives based on how it benefits them. They have no set values - they have no set beliefs - all they care about is benefitting themselves and pushing their narrative.
[Them] And I agree. I think you're right. I think if everything he makes over a certain point is going to be redistributed, he isn't going to spend any time and energy trying to make money he'll never see. But is that a good thing? To have that skilled chemist give up his craft in favor of watercolors and dogs? Is that smart for humanity?
Again - saying someone is going to give up their "skilled craft" that they have a passion for becasue they can't make billions off of it - proves that you've never given a shit about anything in your life except money. Again - if someone is only doing something for the money then they probably shouldn't be the ones doing it - that's literally how corruption starts. Also - he's insinuating that what's best for the world is to have a society that demands you contribute immense amounts of your time and labor into contrinuting into society. If you have free time AT ALL - you're not going to help society AT ALL - so those "80%" need to be threatened with life-threatening poverty in order to "motivate" them. Starting to see more and more how fucked up conservative capitalist viewpoints are, huh?
[Me] Second, what this does, is ensure that the profits that are actually generated by society, actually go back into society. "Trickle-down economics is exactly what Bush (though I hate him) said: "Voodoo Economics." It's a bunch of bullshit. [Them] If the chemist in my example uses the profits to hire researchers, chenmists, scientists, and increase the size of his factory, is there no benefit for society? Are those not "going back into society" because they are not being directly stolen, given to a politician, and then rerouted to poor people directly? Do you think the money you steal from him is worth the medicines his factory might be producing?
Look at this dumbass, disengenuous knuckle-dragger attempting to say that non-profit business tactics are "trickledown economics". Non-profit distributing characteristic means that – contrary to the common belief – nonprofits can generate profit but they cannot distribute it to owners or directors. The profit must all be used to support the operation of the organization. Which is exactly what "hiring employees and increasing the factory size" IS. Also - imagine thinking that the profits generated BY YOUR WORKERS are being stolen from you by the government. And further thinking that non-profit revenue would be included in personal income ceilings. The selfishness and stupidity here is astounding - but hey - that's capitalism (and this guy).
[Them] I ask you: what good is all the money in the world if there are no high quality medicines (or any other good or service) to buy with it? What will all these stolen dollars do for you, if the chemist packs up his bags and is nowhere to be found?
"The world will stop producing insulin if the manufactures don't make billions!!!!!" - that's his argument.
[Them] I'm not siding with Bush here and his personal politics and his description of them, which was admittedly quite a bad PR move. But, rationally, surely we can agree that wealth trickles everywhere. Up, down, sideways. That is of course how life works - it's virtually impossible to win a million dollars and then not have it "trickle down" to your community. Every time you spend money, it is leaving your hands, and entering the hands of, likely, someone with less.
OOF - here's the crux of the bad faith "trickle-down" economics explanation. "it's virtually impossible to win a million dollars and then not have it "trickle down" to your community." - well, if you're already a millionaire then it's just going to sit in your fucking bank and not do anything - or worse (in a nationalist mindset like yours), they could fly overseas and spend it elsewhere. On the other hand, if you're dirt fucking poor, that's going first and foremost to debts - then probably to a house, a few cars, furnishings, ect. The issue is - the way that profits are stuctured into society - 80% of that 1 million goes to THE OWNERS (who, statistically, horde it) and only 20% actually goes back to the consumers - or otherwise back into the community. See again how they switch back and forth between opposing arguments? Are you smart enough to understand what happens in an enconomy when the consumers don't have the ability (monetarily or otherwise) to consume?!? The ignorance you radiate is fucking staggering.
[Them] Similarly, while Bush was very dumb to try to sell this economic concept the way he did, you can perhaps understand how it applies to the chemist example. If we simply don't steal from the chemist (which is my entire position by the way, if it was unclear, simply a lack of theft), he will be able to produce so much value that others will benefit.
Apparently, according to this dumbass, taxes are theft but wage slavery isn't.
[Them] Who would you rather have $100,000? A genius chemist, with the ability to start a research factory and produce medicines that might cure cancer, or 100,000 different randomly selected people all getting $1? Which will have more positive impact on society, do you think?
Aside from the obvious fear of welfare ("giving 100k to differently randomly selected people") Let me use a different example: What's better for the economy, 1 person who has a car worth $11,000 or 10 people with cars worth $1,000? According to the GDP - it is much better for "the economy" if one person hordes more wealth than other people can accumulate - despite it actually negatively affecting the economy as a whole - because now those people can't adequately contribute or commute to their work. In another example: For the sake of simplicity, let's say cost of living is $5. And we have a total of 100 people, right? 99 of them have $10, and 1 of them has $10,000. We impose a flat tax of 50% on all of them. Suddenly, 99 people have $5 - and it's $5 CoL. So they're left with essentially nothing (and in a society like America where school and medical costs aren't exactly included...). Meanwhile, the 1 person still has $5,000. Now lets compare their tax revenues. $5 x 99 = $495. Obviously, $495 is less than the contribution of $5,000 by that one person. But that one person still has FIVE THOUSAND TIMES the cost of living left - while the people who actually contribute to society, have nothing. So the 99 gave literally everything they had that wasn't used for their CoL - to taxes, while the 1 person still has five thousand times that.
3/7 [Me] Another idea is limiting owner income to a percentage of their lowest paid employee. Like saying an owner can't legally make more than 5x what they pay their lowest paid employee. [Them] Why do we need the government involved? The beauty of capitalism that solves so many problems people imagine there to be is competition. The problems of capitalism almost always center around governments restricting competition. To be clear: if a company decides to pay its employees garbage and its owner inflated sums for no particular reason, in a healthy market, that company simply goes out of business quite quickly to competitors.
"The problems of capitalism almost always center around governments restricting competition."
Bruh. Deregulation directly led to the crash of 08' - My state is talking about forcibly breaking up the electric company because the company just kept buying more and more companies until there was hardly any competition - now they jack up the prices and reduce the cost of labor by restricting service times. Do I need to keep bringing up examples about what happens when Capitalism isn't fucking regulated? Do I need to show you more sources about how they rob people dependent on insulin?
[Them] The reason you do not make such inane arbitrary restrictions as a 5x salary cap is because it has unintended consequences that neither you nor I are smart enough to imagine all of. I'll get you started though: ownership has enormous risks, which your professor seems to have entirely neglected to teach you.
First part: "We don't know what might happen so we shouldn't try to change something that is clearly broken, or try to innovate. ...Unless it's in the free market for owner benefit." Second part: "Blah, Blah, Blah - I have money and losing that initial investment THAT I AM CONCSIOUSLY CHOOSING TO MAKE is more important than the fact that people are being paid so little they can't afford basic qualities of life - nevermind things like INSULIN. Also, I don't understand what a co-operative business model is, which distributes liabilities and risk equally to all participants."
Can I take a wild and crazy guess? Neither you nor your professor(s) have ever started or maintained a substantial business from an ownership standpoint. You imagine the owner to be some moneybags sitting in the office collecting a portion of everyone's check. To the extent that seems to be the case, it is because of risk. Opening a factory is a risk. A very expensive and time consuming risk. Can you even imagine it? Really, start to walk yourself through the steps involved. The building, the machinery, the employees, the loans. The risk. What if you pick wrong? What if the town you are setting up doesn't actually need a chemical plant as much as you think? What if your products aren't as desired as you imagine? What if a competitor can produce it cheaper? What if someone else is starting a factory just like yours on the other side of town right now?
Translation: "I'm a narcissistic business owner that doesn't understand basic humanity or self-accountability and am choosing to insult your professors to try and self-validate my shitty moral stance - and also I don't understand the point where Philosophy (ethics) and Economics clash" "What if you picked wrong? Town doesn't want it? Products aren't wanted?" All your mistakes - so fucking WHAT?! That doesn't entitle you to profits that YOU AREN'T PRODUCING - why is 20% of the company making 80% of the profits?!? "ThE rIsK!" OF WHAT?! Going out of business?! Is the profits you make THIS YEAR supposed to hold you over until you die in case your business goes under next year?! NO. "I have a risk of not making profits so I'm entitled to all of them." Yeah - you're not a vile human being or anything.. Furthermore - it doesn't entitle you to more money than you physically need. The only thing driving your rationale is greed.
How many wealthy people start ventures that end in ruin with them losing al their money? Any idea what the turnover rate for generational wealth is, and how unlikely people are to hold on to inherited money? You may be interested to peruse some studies on the subject, and may be pleasantly surprised at how extremely quickly wealth tends to redistribute itself out of stupid people's hands. If an undeserving person becomes wealthy, they almost always lose it all within a year or two.
Translation: "Sole-proprietorships are the only type of business model - because I'm a fucking moron." But lets dive into this thing you brought up, yeah? "If an undeserving person becomes wealthy, they almost always lose it all within a year or two." The amount of narcissim it takes to have the mindset that you do is absolutely baffling. So someone who has worked on a humble apple farm like in your original example - who doesn't understand how to properly maintain immense amounts of wealth (because their entire life has been about spendingand working just to survive), and loses it in a relatively short amount of time (by putting it back into the economy) - is undeserving? But the people who take the slightest bit of deregulation as extreme as they can, destroy the global fucking stock market - get bailouts and help? Theydeserve it? What about Donald Trump? Born with a crystal spoon up his ass, and managed to be further in debt than he had money to begin with by age 30 - and yet he keeps getting breaks from the government because he was "reporting losses"... wait - isn't that communism?!?! -gasp- Capitalism has risks, and he made all the wrong decisions. So why is he being helped?! Why are other people being punished for his bad business decisions?!
[Me] Whether people like it or not, the fact that we do not have any policies that limit the practice of greed - perpetuates a lot of our issues. [Them] I appreciate the way you attempt to make your position somewhat concise, and I at least get enough hints of real honesty from your post that I get the impression you are open to having these things challenged. Do you really think that policies can stop the emotion of greed? Do you truly, honestly, believe that? That a certain policy on paper will be able to turn the tides of this perpetual human emotion? Or is it perhaps more likely that the greed will not go away, and will be ever present in the humans running the system and enacting the policies? I say the latter, of course.
Translation: "I appreciate you having consistent values, morals and viewpoints - as it insinuates you are honest and open to discussion. I however, will continually pivot - contradict myself, and declare myself the winner due to that fact."
"Do you really think that policies can stop the emotion of greed?"
Cost of Insulin in Austrailia - $6.94. Cost of Insulin in America - $98.70. Cost to produce - $6.16. Also: "Additionally, the report found that the US accounted for 31.6 percent of insulin consumption and 83.8 percent of sales in 2018." Hmmmm, there's that fucked up Pareto principle again....
will be ever present in the humans running the system and enacting the policies
That's why you remove the problem at the source. The "food pyramid" was factually incorrect - it was directly affected by food industry lobbies that simply wanted to produce more profits. They didn't care about what was best for the consumer, they didn't care about what was best for the environment, all they give a shit about is profits - which is the fucking problem. How about we remove the abilities for corporations to lobby at all - because they will never work for the best interest of anyone other than their profits - and the average person will never be able to compete with the financial sway of a corporation or conglomerate of them. You just sound like a triggered boomer (or Gen X) who was terrified of the propoganda from the cold war - and just think of any type of governmental oversight as some big bad boogyman that's going to take every last penny you have and force you into slave labor - while you force slave wages upon others and try to explain why it's "good for them". We already have laws that limit what is "okay" with greed. Theft is a version of this, Extorsion is a version of this, but "exploitation" is not. Creating artificial scarcity to drive up price, is not. Planned obsolecence, is not. Stop getting triggered because someone is coming after your form of greed through exploitation.
[Me] Solar power is perfect out there (Africa), and they have started to widely utilize it - additionally, there is a large (like, stupid large) amount of land that isn't being utilized. That land can be used to install hydroponic buildings to supplement the food crisis and hunger that the continent regularly sees. [Them] This seems like a bit of a tangent. I'm not anti-solar or anti-hydro, but it seems a bit odd to me for you to include. If no one makes more than $1 million a year, how will anyone open a solar panel production factory or a hydroelectric project?
"HoW wIlL AnYoNe StArT a BuSiNeSs ThAt'S sUbSiDiZeD bY tHe GoVeRnMeNt If tHeY CaN'T bE a BiLliOnAiRe?!?" - I want to say your stupidity and triggered fear is amusing, however it's really just sad. Just a reminder of the types of people I'm going to need to play a role in re-educating along my life path - and how adamantly they cling to false information and skewed statistics - coupled with the propoganda they were fed their entire lives.
[Them] You are aware it would cost well in excess of $1mm I'm sure. You don't think the African politicians are somehow less corrupt or smarter or wiser than the average African, do you? I mean that sincerely,
Really - moving on from sexism and getting into racism now, okay. Keep waving those true colors proudly! LOL. "You don't think African politicans are somehow less corrupt or smarter or wiser than the average African, Do you? I mean that sincerely. Translation: "The average African is corrupt and stupid. Do you really think their politicians are any better? I don't mean any offense by that, I'm genuinely curious." It really doesn't take much objective scruitiny to see just how blatantly fucking racist that comment was. And of course a racist will reply: "I never said that - I only asked if you believe African politicians were any less corrupt or smarter than the average African!" Why does it fucking matter if they're African at all? Are you insinuating that becasue of their skin color they're just more 'stupid and bad' by nature? Or are you alluding to the fact that underdeveloped countries have lower qualities and access of education - thus meaning that politicians would of course be smarter than the average citizen - in which case, why even ask the question?? If you're going to be a business owner - you might want to check your sexism and racism first. Also - notice how he still is ignoring the whole GLOBAL part? "African politicians are corrupt and stupid!" The batteries we produce are starting to catch up to our energy production capabilities. Except this guy is going to tell you that it's more important for private firms to produce this research in the pursuits of profits (because apparently companies can't be corrupt according to this dumbass), than for a governmental body (that would have its own restrictions to prevent greed and corruption) to perform the research funded by taxpayers - that would directly benefit their qualities of life. Nevermind the fact that Energy production in one area with the capabilities of being transported around the world via battery - is something that would revolutionize the world. Like deep-sea wind turbines constantly pumping out recharchable batteries instead of fucking oil that they spill into the ocean killing everything. Hmmmmmmm...
[Them] perhaps you subscribe to the idea of philosopher kings, and think that politicians are genuinely smarter, or should be.
A Philosohper King is a concept brought forth by Plato which states: a ruler who possesses both a love of wisdom, as well as intelligence, reliability, and a willingness to live a simple life. Such are the rulers of his utopian city Kallipolis. For such a community to ever come into being, "philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize" And yes - I do subscribe to that notion that those in power should have a willingness to live a simple life as well as posses intellectial and ethical qualities, though again, I am not in favor of a one-person rule government. I don't even want a President. The most I want is a person appointed to break ties (if the system allows ties to happen) and speak on behalf of the government - basically a figurehead. I believe all politicians should have to have at least a bachelors in philosophy, as well as adequate schooling for whatever postitions they may hold. Again - I gave you a tiny fraction of what my overall conceptual ideas are - and frankly for some areas I don't have an answer yet - I just know we need change.
[Me] it's that it isn't profitable to help another country unless you're exploiting the help you give for profits somehow. [Them] Profit is not exploitation.
Yes it is - by definition. If you pay your worker the minimum required by law (instead of their actual worth and contribution in relation to the final service/good), pay your overhead, pay your taxes, pay yourself and then take all of the profits above that from that process, and keep them to yourself - you're exploiting everyone else in that process. You are exploiting their contribution in the production process. "But I payed them the minimum required by law!" and if you could pay them less to increase your profits - you would - hence why certain levels of government restrictions are goooooooood. Taking 80% of the profits when you're doing less than 20% of the work is pretty fucked up - isn't it? Why should you be rewarded for work you didn't do?
[Them] If I choose to only give apples to my neighbor for his chickens, that's not exploitation, it's just trading value for value.
[Them] If I were to tell that neighbor I can't exploit him, and instead only give my apples away for free and to people who can't offer anything in return, I would soon go bankrupt, have no apples, no money, and no food for my family. I would not be able to water my trees, and the entire orchard would die. Profit != exploitation.
Profits are not the same as adequate compensation for labor or work. If a CEO/board has a salary of $100k and the lowest paid employee makes a salary of $40K - that's pretty fucking fair in my mind. That's a 2.2x increase. If the CEO/board then takes the $900K in profits at the end of the year - and divides it between the CEO's and board as a "bonus" and not the workers - that's exploitation of labor. The workers produced those profits - not the CEO's. The workers have just as much (if not arguably more) of a right to those profits than the CEO or board does. Please try to wrap your head around that fact.
[Them] In a true capitalist interaction, please understand, there is profit on both sides by necessity. If I offer to sell you a pencil for $1, and you agree to buy it, there is no exploitation, only mutual gain.
Translation: "Receiving too little income in a full time job means that you are benefitting - even if that situation doesn't provide you with healthcare, education, or adequate access to other neccessities of life. You should be happy."
[Them] You wanted the pencil more than you wanted your $1, and I wanted your $1 more than I wanted the pencil.
Translation: "You wanted to not starve to death more than you wanted to work at this place 10 hours a day, 5 days a week - not earning enough to achieve class mobility and barely making ends meet enough to satisfy the limited wants that your pitiful savings can afford you to enjoy within this predatory and exploitative market system."
[Them] The only way capitalism can be exploitative is when people are forced to do things with violence or threat of violence.
"Buy this Insulin that cost us $7 for $300 every month - or die."
[Them] For example, when the government threatens to take away all of their possessions or throw them in jail. If your boss is holding a gun to your head while you work, he is definitely an exploiter and a greedy fat cat, and he deserves an uprising of the proletariat or whatever you want to call it. [Them] But he's not. You can just quit, and find another job. So why call it exploitation? It's simply the wrong word.
"You can just quit and find another job that also won't pay you adequately because the other companies in America also attempt to pay you as little as possible. You have FrEeDuMb!! Also - I don't understand the definition or concept of exploitation." (use or utilization, especially for profit) You don't think employers always trying to pay their employees as little as legally possible for their labor - despite the revenues and profits it can produce - isn't exploitation by definition?!?! Bruh - go back to primary school and do some flashcards or something holy fuck.
[Me] Another thing people hate when I say it: distribution tech and abilities like Amazon should be prioritized not for profit, but for the service to be at the lowest cost possible to the user.. [Them] And how are you going to do that, other than through competition? That is normally how businesses are encouraged to be cost effective and consumer friendly.
Monopolization with price ceilings and non-profit business models (insert triggered boomer pearl-clutching here with flashbacks of the USSR). You see, if the "government" (really society) had a "monopoly" on certain industries that were directly attributable to survival and basic human life and contribution to society, and those 'companies' were organized in a co-operative risk and non-profit fasion - than the services needed for basic human life would be cheaper and more accessable to the public. Lets take agriculture for example: I believe that every single person should be garuenteed the basic amount of food required to not starve. In order to facilitate that sort of production and cost - it needs to be automated as much as possible (think back to my link about automated verticle farming) - and distrubuted properly amongst the populace for as cheap as possible. Anything over that amount - as in, if you personally want to eat more than the minimum amount required to not starve - then you pay extra for whatever amount extra you consume - and let the free market take it from there. Again - there is no technological or monetary reason why these things can not be done - except that it is not profitable. Beneficial? 100% It garuentees people aren't starving, ending our hunger problem. It helps to cut back on the all-too American habit of gorging oneself and contributing to the 20% of people that take up 80% of medical costs (would you look at that... greed and that pareto principle going hand in hand, again...), which would benefit a universal health care system - which we need to adopt. Unfortunately - you hear "mixed economy" and "governmental restrictions" and you just immediately think of the USSR because you're a stupid clup of carbon molecules that doesn't realize that America IS TECHNICALLY A MIXED ECONOMY. However I hear "mixed economy" and I think of places like Ireland, and the UK, and Switzerland, and Denmark. You hear that and think "Stalin" - I hear that and think "healthcare".
[Them] Will you mandate that businesses offer the lowest cost, and perhaps hire an army of government inspectors with my tax money to attempt to police the businesses? Will those inspectors all be incorruptible perfectly moral people, or will they be open to being bribed? Will the businesses and inspectors that collude with each other do better, or the businesses that are actually best for the consumer, in such a system? There are many working examples of this in practice, both in modern times and throughout history, if you wanted to check.
Translation: "Those in power will always collude and be corrupt in order to keep it - so lets continue to give businesses and owners the power in our marketplace unchecked - with the lie that consumers have the control. That's our best solution." And yes - we should 100% increase the amount of people that are employed in the IRS and similar agencies (and possibly create more) and double down on making sure corporations and the wealthy are taxed accordingly and correctly. Those audits should also be as transparent to the public as possible - further reducing the chances for corruption to happen. Again - the amount of stupidty you posses is absolutely astounding. Maybe you'd be a millionaire by now if you mad videos of yourself saying this kind of shit and posting it online.
[Me] Like the internet, it has surpassed just a good service or company, and it has revolutionized society. It should be controlled by society. [Them] Who do you suppose controls it now?
There are many organizations, corporations, governments, schools, private citizens and service providers that all own pieces of the infrastructure, but there is no "one body" that owns or controls it all. Which is partially the problem. Not a single one of those people is "individual citizens". Furthermore - the internet allowed people to better buy a good for one price, then sell it to someone else for a higher price and in drastically more volume. You think that person who simply spent about 3 months of their life building an automated website that links buyers with customers (without the builders input) and skims money off the top deserves that income? You think they're contributing to society by being a fucking middle-man? Internet companies have already started influencing the service in order to affect the information that is taught to the public. This is the age of disinformation because there is no significant amount of regulation on certain services. You know, like how Google purchased over 200 companies in order to reduce their number of competitors (which you keep saying is a good thing), and then guided users to the information that was paid for the most by companies that wanted to advertise? Less regulation and letting the companies control things is always the best idea according to you - even though their only priorities are profits.
4/7 [Me] The USPS, FedEx, and Amazon (as well as things like trucking companies) should all fall under one hat - "distribution of goods" and get streamlined into a single, efficient "business". [Them] That's...insane. Why do you suppose there are so many options currently? Do you ever stop to look at the prices between UPS and FedEx for different services? Have you ever considered that the competition is good for the consumer? If I have to ship a package with UPS, and they just recently decided to double their rates, you know what I can do? I can go to FedEx and get it done cheaper.
"Compition reduces the chance of shady business practices - even though policy would cut right at the source with something called price ceilings that can limit the amount someone charges for a good or service correlated to it's cost to produce." Have you ever considered that a monopoly could be a good thing? As in - it forces prices down as low as possible because ***it is a service that society is dependent upon. "***Competition is good! It means Schools can charge increasingly more and more for the knowledge needed to adequately maneuver in the social hierarchy and prohibits the poor from being anything other than working class! Also - it now allows people to receive an education if they can afford it even if they don't deserve it." Sounds like a waste of resources to educate a wealthy window-licker, to me. Or are you under the belief that everyone deserves education?
Guns, the medical profession, and bad history Part 2: The Wild West, the medical establishment and gun control, and Guns in peacetime
Continued fromPart 1 Continuing from where we left off, we enter the arena of crime from the Wild West to the present day. Faria points to the Wild West, as well as Kennesaw and Orlando's gun approaches as ideal while castigating (again) other countries for gun laws that enabled crime. He also lashes out at the medical community (specifically the CDC) for bias against guns, and brings back the gun-free zone tropes, among many others. The Wild West and US Crime Faria and his colleague Dr. Robert Young first point to the Wild West, Young stating that:
He easily debunks the myth of the Old West as territories terrorized by non-stop gunfights, when the greatest role of firearms was their use by citizens to suppress outlaw violence.
Ironically, in taking on one common misconception, the two fall into another. While the Old West certainly was not as violent as the countless John Wayne, Gary Cooper, and Clint Eastwood films would have people believe, it was not due to light gun restrictions at all. Adam Winkler, a Professor of Law at UCLA, claims that
Frontier towns — places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge — actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s. ... A check? That’s right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
Frontier towns like those in Arizona and Kansas actually had stricter laws then than they do today. The result? As many as two murders per year. Winkler even mentions how the first law passed in Dodge City was a gun control law, and that in many frontier towns, only law enforcement could carry weapons around. Young and Faria, however, would have their audiences believe the opposite, that every citizen carried a gun (never mind that most arrests were for illegal gun ownership) and stopped criminals. Applying the same lessons to the modern day, the doctors mention cases on the local level. In Orlando Florida, for instance, they allege that after a gun training program for women was heavily publicized from 1966-1967, that rape dropped to near-zero levels. Another example is Kennesaw, Georgia, which saw a drastic decline in burglaries after requiring each citizen own a gun in 1982. In both these cases, however, they omit important details. For starters, in Orlando, recorded rapes reached 0 in 1963 (before the program) and declined sharply in 1965, again before the program. As for the 1967 drop, keep in mind that these are recorded rapes. There could be more that occurred. I would mention some more research done by the guys at Science Blogs, but I'm not sure how trustworthy it is, so feel free to look at it and come to your own conclusions. Kennesaw is also used as an example of why high gun ownership deters crime. In 1982, the city passed a law requiring that every household be armed. Fast forward a few years and burglaries dropped, with an 80% decline by 1985. Of course, what some proponents of the Kennesaw approach forget to mention is that 1981, the year before the law was passed, saw a 75% spike in burglaries. The years before were far lower in burglaries. Could Kennesaw's approach have prevented a burglary increase? Perhaps. But to simply promote this approach when placed into the grand scheme of things is a tad irresponsible. Gun restrictions and crime abroad Faria and his fellow doctors then scorn Europe for essentially enabling gun laws. Australia and Europe have seen many mass shootings (the Norway massacre coming to mind), Dr Young stating
Rising violent crime in Great Britain and Europe tells the tale of their increasingly restrictive gun control laws, even to forbidding self-defense.
Really? Because according to the EU, police-recorded murders and robberies have declined by 30% and 34%, respectively, between 2008 and 2018. Another canard that rears it's ugly head is
Australians learned the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens. As a result, there was a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who, in small communities and particularly in rural areas, were now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, for example, there was a 300% increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased by almost 60% in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased by almost 20% in New South Wales. 2 years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies had risen by 73%, unarmed robberies by 28%, kidnappings by 38%, assaults by 17%, and manslaughter by 29%, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.”
Oh yeah? Because the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that:
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
“In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
“In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
“[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”
In fact, this chart actually speaks for itself. The claim that Australians were assailed by crime after losing their guns is indeed bullshit. Crime did rise in the immediate aftermath for certain, yet in 2002, more restrictions were passed, and crime declined. You cannot argue that crime grew due to the gun ban when in the long run (and after more restrictions) it is lower than it was before the restrictions. Swtizerland is used as an example of a safe country where gun ownership is legal. Yet Faria fails to mention some important details. Laws and referendums passed in 1999 and 2011 actually strengthened restrictions. From 1999-2010, Swiss gun laws were passed/amended that resembled those of their European neighbors. Since 1997, people with a "violent or dangerous attitude" are forbidden from owning firearms. Licensing is also implemented. Another claim that pops up is that Europe has higher mass shooting rates than the US:
“In fact, America is not the worst country for mass shootings and does not even make it to the top ten, despite the record number of guns in the hands of Americans. For example France, Norway, Belgium, Finland, and the Czech Republic, all have more deaths from mass shootings than the U.S., and in fact, from 2009 to 2015, the European Union had 27 percent more casualties per mass shooting incidents than the U.S.
This would work, yet Faria likely included the Paris massacre of 2015, committed by members of a terror cell (as opposed to lone wolves). According to gun rights advocate John Lott, the countries listed had higher per capita shooting deaths, not total deaths (except for Norway and France). Of course, this methodology has come under fire. Adam Lankford argues that according to Lott:
the Northern Mariana Islands has a mass shooting rate more than 100 times greater than that of the United States, even though the Northern Mariana Islands had only one qualifying incident from 1998–2012, according to their findings (2019, 66). By Lott and Moody’s view, the smaller the population of the place where a mass shooting occurs, the larger the rate, and presumably the risk. The same logic would suggest that Sutherland Springs, Texas—which is the home of approximately 600 people but saw 26 killed in a terrible 2017 church shooting—must be one of the most dangerous places in the world, rather than the spot of a tragic aberration.
True, Norway and France did have deadlier tragedies than the US, but how often do they happen? To Norway, the very idea of such an incident was unheard of. The 2011 shooting rampage was no doubt infamous in part because of just how out-of-left-field it was. Lott also earned criticism from Lankford for other issues. While his studies insist that the US has more mass murders, Lankford has published a study pointing out that the US produces more mass killers worldwide, criticizing Lott for placing terrorist organizations (an each member involved in an attack) in the same category as individual mass killers:
Studying attacks by the Lord’s Resistance Army will not help us understand and prevent the next Virginia Tech shooting, or vice versa. If all participants in group violence were counted, that would also result in the inclusion of many people who were far less lethal than public mass shooters who personally killed four or more victims themselves. Should all 28 guardsmen who were reportedly involved in four deaths at Kent State in 1970 be labeled public mass shooters, even though they averaged killing 0.14 victims each? Should they all be put in the same category as mass shooters from Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Las Vegas who personally killed 17, 27, and 58 victims, respectively? To analyze these distinct forms of violence together would be a textbook example of comparing apples and oranges.
Overall, to compare the actions of the Virginia Tech, Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Las Vegas killers, individuals driven by mental illness, infamy, violent personalities, and other factors, to the Lord's Resistance Army, a terrorist organization lead by a religious extremist that is a party to a military conflict, is more than likely to skew the results. The Medical Establishment and Other claims One area where Faria, Young, and their ilk also lambast the CDC as partisan and biased. Yet while the CDC before the Dickey Amendment did have some PR issues (and perhaps some honesty troubles). Yet to throw the baby out with the bathwater would be absurd. While the CDC certainly came off as partisan in interviews (such as wanting guns to be as frowned on as smoking), the fact that these interviews in 1994 occurred when the US has a record-high homicide rate omits the context needed. They criticize Arthur Kellerman as fallacious for finding that gun ownership increases likelihood of being killed, yet neglect that scores of peer-reviewed materials that corroborate Kellerman's research. Many of these doctors have also insisted that they are not trying to ban guns, yet DRGO insists the opposite. Instead, they praise the research of Gary Kleck, who is best known for a 1995 study that projected around 2 million defensive gun uses per year. While the CDC's staff were certainly biased, Faria seems too willing to overlook the flaws in Kleck's research. Furthermore, an analysis of Kleck's 1995 study was done by David Hemenway of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and it stated that many criminals would have to have been sent to the hospital or testify that they were shot by someone in self-defense. He also recorded multiple uses that were "socially undesirable" and even illegal escalations. If millions of Americans did in fact defend themselves, scores of criminals would be dead or injured, yet interviews found that most were harmed by other criminals. Also attacked is the use of "children as victims of gun violence" argument. Dr. Young states that such wording is used to elicit sympathy for victims who are often 14+ in age and often involved in gang shootings. Yet from 1980-2000, 42% of juvenile firearm deaths were aged 12 or under. Furthermore, While teens had higher rates, those who were younger also had high chances of death by firearm.For example, 10-year-old victims in this period actually had a 50% chance of death by firearm. Gun Free-Zones and defensive gun use Faria throws around some more nonsense, like the claim that television caused a massive crime boom in Canada, South Africa, the USA, etc. However, I'm not really going to cover it here (maybe-emphasis on maybe-in another post, although I'm sure most people will agree with the outcome). Instead, I'm going to focus on Faria's claims regarding Concealed Carry and related subject matter. I already touched on the claim of millions of Americans use guns in self-defense. As such, my focus will be on the myth of the "gun-free zone" and other defensive gun use myths. Faria points to Chicago as an example, even though the past 10 years have seen these laws loosened and concealed carry legalized, yet crime has spiked (although not without decreasing first in other years). Los Angeles and New York City have stricter laws and for the most part have had lower murder rates. He also insists that before the Civil War, states enabled "constitutional carry". This has partial basis, yet states such as Tennessee, as far back as 1821, penalized people who would "degrade themselves by carrying around a banned weapon such as a pistol". Alabama and Georgia also had gun control legislation enacted as far back as 1837 and 1839, and some have done so for even longer. As far back as colonial times, bans on conceal carry have been in various states. Constitutional carry has always been a part Vermont since it's founding, yet that was the only state, and the concept itself only really experienced a revival in the early 21st century, starting with the state of Alaska in 2003. Faria argues in favor of the claim that gun-free zones attract killers, blaming tragedies on lack of armed intervention. He celebrates numerous figures for thwarting crimes:
In November 1990, Brian Rigsby and his friend Tom Styer left their home in Atlanta, Georgia, and went camping near...they were assaulted by two madmen, who had been taking cocaine and who fired at them using shotguns killing Styer. Rigsby returned fire with a Ruger Mini-14, a semiautomatic weapon frequently characterized as an assault weapon. It saved his life. In January 1994, Travis Dean Neel was cited as citizen of the year in Houston, Texas. He had saved a police officer and helped the police arrest three dangerous criminals in a gunfight, street shooting incident. Neel had helped stop the potential mass shooters using once again a semiautomatic, so-called assault weapon with a high capacity magazine. He provided cover for the police who otherwise were outgunned and would have been killed. What would have happened if these citizens did not have the “assault weapons” to save their lives and others from these mentally unstable assailants or outright criminals?
Faria's arguments would hold water, yet for each claim of heroism, there are also plenty of failures/overemphasized incidents:
John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week. Parker and other student veterans (perhaps also armed) thought about intervening. “Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” Parker [told MSNBC](mailto:http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/umpqua-student-talks-about-what-he-witnessed-537437763914). “We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves.” Parker’s story changedwhen he spoke to Fox News' Sean Hannity. Instead of saying he “made the choice” not to get involved, Parker said school staff prevented him from helping.... There’s the story of Joel Myrick, an assistant principal who “stopped” a shooting at Pearl High School—but only after it was already over and the shooter was leaving. There’s the story of James Strand, the armed banquet-hall proprietor who “stopped” a shooting at a school dance he was hosting—but only after the student gunman had exhausted all of his ammunition. There’s Nick Meli, a shopper who drew his weapon in self-defense during an attack at Clackamas Mall—but Meli’s story has changed repeatedly, and local police say that his role in causing the shooter’s suicide is “inconclusive” and “speculation.” There’s Mark Kram, who shot a gunman fleeing on a bicycle from the scene of a shooting. Kram also ran down the gunman with a car. There’s Joe Zamudio, who came running to help when he heard the gunfire that injured Gabby Giffords and killed six others in Tucson. But by the time Zamudio was on the scene, unarmed civilians had already tackled and disarmed the perpetrator. Zamudio later said that, in his confusion, he was within seconds of shooting the wrong person. There’s Joseph Robert Wilcox, who drew his concealed handgun in a Las Vegas Walmart to confront gunmen who had executed police officers nearby. Wilcox was himself killed by one of the two assailants, both of whom then engaged police in a firefight. And then there are the fifth wheels—armed civilians who have confronted mass shooters simultaneously with police, such as Allen Crum, who accompanied three law enforcement officers onto the observation deck of the UT Main Building to end the 1966 sniper attack. That doesn’t mean there aren’t also instances of legitimate civilian gun use. The NRA points to phone surveys from the 1990s that suggest Americans might use their guns defensively millions of times every year, though even the most charitable efforts to actually document such incidents come up with fewer than 2,000 per year.
Overall, while there are cases of conceal carry saving lives, there are plenty of stories and anecdotes that contradict the narrative. Furthermore, many incidents also occurred after the criminal had ended their attack. Overall, the idea that there are millions of crimes stopped by gun owners when in fact there are as many as 2,000 recorded instances per year illustrates how flawed the thinking is. One model, even demonstrated that right to carry laws, as analyzed from 1970-2010, did not help stop most crimes. The As for factors that do lead to mass shootings, the FBI found that most attackers had a relationship to the area they attacked. Out of 23 workplace killers, 22 were current/former employees. School attackers yielded similar results. In fact, the study even concluded that more shootings (like the aforementioned Tucson) were stopped by unarmed civilians than by armed ones. Another study found that 36% of such incidents were often during the commission of another felony. Another popular myth that gets parroted is that “Since 1950, 97.8 Percent of Mass Shootings have occurred in “Gun-Free Zones”. This, however, would include the aforementioned Oregon school, even though individuals with a state permit could bring them on-campus. Some criminologists disagree:
Klarevas uses three definitions: he refers to "gun-free zones" as places where civilians are not allowed to carry guns, and there aren’t armed personnel stationed on the property. He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present -- such as military facilities or certain college campuses. He refers to places that allow civilians to carry guns as "gun-allowing zones." Using these categories, Klarevas examined 111 shootings since 1966 in which six or more people had been killed in each incident -- regardless of whether it occurred in a public or private location or if it was in the commission of another crime. He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited. Since Klarevas includes mass shootings in private residences or during the commission of another crime, that means that he counts several additional incidents that aren’t factored in by Lott. ... Lott says that the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon was in a gun-free zone and points to a school policy that bans possession of firearms "except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations." Umpqua Community College spokeswoman Anne Marie Levis previously told PolitiFact Floridathe school’s gun-free policy didn’t apply to students with a valid permit. "UCC was never designated as a ‘gun-free zone’ by any signage or policy," she said. "Umpqua Community College does comply with state law by allowing students with concealed carry licenses to bring firearms on campus."
Klaveras certainly is worth debating as a trustworthy source (for instance, he cites the Waco diner shooting of 2015 even though it was two gangs, not one or two people). However, his research was able to point out that the gun-free zone canard was just that: an empty canard. Klaveras points to Ft Hood and the Washington Navy Yard, both locations where armed guards were present, as examples of mass shootings where defenders carried guns. Peter Langmann, a psychologist who studies these kinds of tragedies, has pointed out that most of the perpetrators often do not care about their own well-being. As such, simply removing gun-free zone signs would not have any impact whatsoever. Indeed, as mentioned before, the FBI found that most shooters have some link with the location they attack, with most workplace or school shooters being formecurrent staff/students. In fact, for all the claims made of firearms being an "equalizer" for women, it was found that 43% of women killed in workplace shootings in 2015 were murdered by intimate partners/spouses, while men made up only 2% of the victims of such perpetrators. The study even went so far as to suggest a positive correlation between increased homicide and RTC laws. Faria cites controversial criminologist John Lott in his claim that right-to-carry laws are responsible for crime drops. Is this the case? One study concluded that RTC laws stopping crime as calculated by Lott were discredited by a look at year-by-year crime rates. While rape certainly declined, robberies, murders, and assaults either increased or went back-and-forth. Some states saw a decline in murder, yet other crimes did not decline (some even increased after RTC was opened in several states). Another study, this time in the American Journal of Public Health, found that states with RTC had a higher rate of workplace homicides from 1992-2017 than those that did not have such laws. Faria and Young also try to point out that other means of murder can lead to countless deaths:
Do they have any grasp on how blunt force trauma can be as or more deadly as gun and knife attacks? ... If they can’t do it with guns, they do it with explosives (Oklahoma City), trucks (Nice), airplanes (9/11), poison (Tokyo), arson (Kyoto) or any other of a thousand other ways.
First off, a look at US murders from 1965-2012 demonstrates that homicide by shooting made up 57.2-60% of all deaths. Blunt force trauma took up a fraction of all deaths for each year, not once reaching 1,000 deaths. Guns, by comparison, killed 5,000 at a minimum. Furthermore, the events Young lists lack context. Oklahoma City, Nice, 9/11, and Tokyo were all done by terrorists/cults. Aside from lone wolves (Nice and OK City), each group was organized, with a clear ideology. Furthermore, Oklahoma City and 9/11 both lead to extra security measures to prevent a repeat, and a there are plenty of other terrorists who used firearms to attack (Orlando, San Bernardino, Ft Hood). From 2002-2014, 85% of deaths in domestic terror attacks in the US were with guns. What does that say about the issue? Terrorism Another approach that's used is to argue that other means of murder exist. Terrorist attacks are cited:
Dr. Faria states, “Before closing on the issue of Islamic terrorism, a word should be said about the most recent incident in New York City, which underscores not only the increasing new terroristic threat to American cities but also the use of cars and trucks to plow into unsuspecting crowds with mass casualties of innocent civilians. A vehicle driven into a crowd is becoming the terrorists’ weapon of choice in Europe, and the sanguinary practice seems to be taking hold in the U.S. as well. “The Halloween truck attack on October 31, 2017, in Manhattan, a few blocks from the site of the Twin Towers [where the largest terrorist attack in the US history occurred on September 11, 2001], is the most recent egregious example. The atrocity also emphasizes the switch from mass shootings caused by deranged citizens to deliberate jihad by foreign and domestic Islamic terrorists. The courts’ disapproval of President Trump’s ban on immigration from seven countries with strong ties to terrorism has permitted dangerous individuals to continue to enter the country. “During the annual Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, two homemade pressure cooker bombs detonated ... killing three people and injuring several hundred others, including 16 who lost limbs… Three days later, the FBI released images of two suspects who were later identified as Chechen Kyrgyzstani-American brothers… They killed an MIT policeman, kidnapped a man in his car, and had a shootout with the police in nearby Watertown, during which two officers were severely injured, one of whom died a year later. One brother terrorist died. The other brother stated that they were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs… Will banning guns stop these crimes?
Meet Brock Pierce, the Presidential Candidate With Ties to Pedophiles Who Wants to End Human Trafficking
thedailybeast.com | Sep. 20, 2020. The “Mighty Ducks” actor is running for president. He clears the air (sort of) to Tarpley Hitt about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and more. In the trailer for First Kid, the forgettable 1996 comedy about a Secret Service agent assigned to protect the president’s son, the title character, played by a teenage Brock Pierce, describes himself as “definitely the most powerful kid in the universe.” Now, the former child star is running to be the most powerful man in the world, as an Independent candidate for President of the United States. Before First Kid, the Minnesota-born actor secured roles in a series of PG-rated comedies, playing a young Emilio Estevez in The Mighty Ducks, before graduating to smaller parts in movies like Problem Child 3: Junior in Love. When his screen time shrunk, Pierce retired from acting for a real executive role: co-founding the video production start-up Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) alongside businessman Marc Collins-Rector. At age 17, Pierce served as its vice president, taking in a base salary of $250,000. DEN became “the poster child for dot-com excesses,” raising more than $60 million in seed investments and plotting a $75 million IPO. But it turned into a shorthand for something else when, in October of 1999, the three co-founders suddenly resigned. That month, a New Jersey man filed a lawsuit alleging Collins-Rector had molested him for three years beginning when he was 13 years old. The following summer, three teens filed a sexual-abuse lawsuit against Pierce, Collins-Rector, and their third co-founder, Chad Shackley. The plaintiffs later dropped their case against Pierce (he made a payment of $21,600 to one of their lawyers) and Shackley. But after a federal grand jury indicted Collins-Rector on criminal charges in 2000, the DEN founders left the country. When Interpol arrested them in 2002, they said they had confiscated “guns, machetes, and child pornography” from the trio’s beach villa in Spain. While abroad, Pierce had pivoted to a new venture: Internet Gaming Entertainment, which sold virtual accessories in multiplayer online role-playing games to those desperate to pay, as one Wired reporter put it, “as much as $1,800 for an eight-piece suit of Skyshatter chain mail” rather than earn it in the games themselves. In 2005, a 25-year-old Pierce hired then-Goldman Sachs banker Steve Bannon—just before he would co-found Breitbart News. Two years later, after a World of Warcraft player sued the company for “diminishing” the fun of the game, Steve Bannon replaced Pierce as CEO. Collins-Rector eventually pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. In the years that followed, Pierce waded into the gonzo economy of cryptocurrencies, where he overlapped more than once with Jeffrey Epstein, and counseled him on crypto. In that world, he founded Tether, a cryptocurrency that bills itself as a “stablecoin,” because its value is allegedly tied to the U.S. dollar, and the blockchain software company Block.one. Like his earlier businesses, Pierce’s crypto projects see-sawed between massive investments and curious deals. When Block.one announced a smart contract software called EOS.IO, the company raised $4 billion almost overnight, setting an all-time record before the product even launched. The Securities and Exchange Commission later fined the company $24 million for violating federal securities law. After John Oliver mocked the ordeal, calling Pierce a “sleepy, creepy cowboy,” Block.one fired him. Tether, meanwhile, is currently under investigation by the New York Attorney General for possible fraud. On July 4, Pierce announced his candidacy for president. His campaign surrogates include a former Cambridge Analytica director and the singer Akon, who recently doubled down on developing an anonymously funded, $6 billion “Wakanda-like” metropolis in Senegal called Akon City. Pierce claims to be bipartisan, and from the 11 paragraphs on the “Policy” section of his website it can be hard to determine where he falls on the political spectrum. He supports legalizing marijuana and abolishing private prisons, but avoids the phrase “climate change.” He wants to end “human trafficking.” His proposal to end police brutality: body cams. His political contributions tell a more one-sided story. Pierce’s sole Democratic contribution went to the short-lived congressional run of crypto candidate Brian Forde. The rest went to Republican campaigns like Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, John McCain, and the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. Last year alone, Pierce gave over $44,000 to the Republican National Committee and more than $55,000 to Trump’s re-election fund. Pierce spoke to The Daily Beast from his tour bus and again over email. Those conversations have been combined and edited for clarity. You’re announcing your presidential candidacy somewhat late, and historically, third-party candidates haven’t had the best luck with the executive office. If you don’t have a strong path to the White House, what do you want out of the race? I announced on July 4, which I think is quite an auspicious date for an Independent candidate, hoping to bring independence to this country. There’s a lot of things that I can do. One is: I’m 39 years old. I turn 40 in November. So I’ve got time on my side. Whatever happens in this election cycle, I’m laying the groundwork for the future. The overall mission is to create a third major party—not another third party—a third major party in this country. I think that is what America needs most. George Washington in his closing address warned us about the threat of political parties. John Adams and the other founding fathers—their fear for our future was two political parties becoming dominant. And look at where we are. We were warned. I believe, having studied systems, any time you have a system of two, what happens is those two things come together, like magnets. They come into collision, or they become polarized and become completely divided. I think we need to rise above partisan politics and find a path forward together. As Albert Einstein is quoted—I’m not sure the line came from him, but he’s quoted in many places—he said that the definition of insanity is making the same mistake or doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. [Ed. note: Einstein never said this.] It feels like that’s what our election cycle is like. Half the country feels like they won, half the country feels like they lost, at least if they voted or participated. Obviously, there’s another late-comer to the presidential race, and that’s Kanye West. He’s received a lot of flak for his candidacy, as he’s openly admitted to trying to siphon votes away from Joe Biden to ensure a Trump victory. Is that something you’re hoping to avoid or is that what you’re going for as well? Oh no. This is a very serious campaign. Our campaign is very serious. You’ll notice I don’t say anything negative about either of the two major political candidates, because I think that’s one of the problems with our political system, instead of people getting on stage, talking about their visionary ideas, inspiring people, informing and educating, talking about problems, mentioning problems, talking about solutions, constructive criticism. That’s why I refuse to run a negative campaign. I am definitely not a spoiler. I’m into data, right? I’m a technologist. I’ve got digital DNA. So does most of our campaign team. We’ve got our finger on the pulse. Most of my major Democratic contacts are really happy to see that we’re running in a red state like Wyoming. Kanye West’s home state is Wyoming. He’s not on the ballot in Wyoming I could say, in part, because he didn’t have Akon on his team. But I could also say that he probably didn’t want to be on the ballot in Wyoming because it’s a red state. He doesn’t want to take additional points in a state where he’s only running against Trump. But we’re on the ballot in Wyoming, and since we’re on the ballot in Wyoming I think it’s safe—more than safe, I think it’s evident—that we are not here to run as a spoiler for the benefit of Donald Trump. In running for president, you’ve opened yourself up to be scrutinized from every angle going back to the beginning of your career. I wanted to ask you about your time at the Digital Entertainment Network. Can you tell me a little bit about how you started there? You became a vice president as a teenager. What were your qualifications and what was your job exactly? Well, I was the co-founder. A lot of it was my idea. I had an idea that people would use the internet to watch videos, and we create content for the internet. The idea was basically YouTube and Hulu and Netflix. Anyone that was around in the ‘90s and has been around digital media since then, they all credit us as the creators of basically those ideas. I was just getting a message from the creator of The Vandals, the punk rock band, right before you called. He’s like, “Brock, looks like we’re going to get the Guinness Book of World Records for having created the first streaming television show.” We did a lot of that stuff. We had 30 television shows. We had the top most prestigious institutions in the world as investors. The biggest names. High-net-worth investors like Terry Semel, who’s chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers, and became the CEO of Yahoo. I did all sorts of things. I helped sell $150,000 worth of advertising contracts to the CEOs of Pepsi and everything else. I was the face of the company, meeting all the major banks and everything else, selling the vision of what the future was. You moved in with Marc Collins-Rector and Chad Shackley at a mansion in Encino. Was that the headquarters of the business? All start-ups, they normally start out in your home. Because it’s just you. The company was first started out of Marc’s house, and it was probably there for the first two or three months, before the company got an office. That’s, like, how it is for all start-ups. were later a co-defendant in the L.A. County case filed against Marc Collins-Rector for plying minors with alcohol and drugs, in order to facilitate sexual abuse. You were dropped from the case, but you settled with one of the men for $21,600. Can you explain that? Okay, well, first of all, that’s not accurate. Two of the plaintiffs in that case asked me if I would be a plaintiff. Because I refused to be a part of the lawsuit, they chose to include me to discredit me, to make their case stronger. They also went and offered 50 percent of what they got to the house management—they went around and offered money to anyone to participate in this. They needed people to corroborate their story. Eventually, because I refused to participate in the lawsuit, they named me. Subsequently, all three of the plaintiffs apologized to me, in front of audiences, in front of many people, saying Brock never did anything. They dismissed their cases. Remember, this is a civil thing. I’ve never been charged with a crime in my life. And the last plaintiff to have his case dismissed, he contacted his lawyer and said, “Dismiss this case against Brock. Brock never did anything. I just apologized. Dismiss his case.” And the lawyer said, “No. I won’t dismiss this case, I have all these out-of-pocket expenses, I refuse to file the paperwork unless you give me my out-of-pocket expenses.” And so the lawyer, I guess, had $21,000 in bills. So I paid his lawyer $21,000—not him, it was not a settlement. That was a payment to his lawyer for his out-of-pocket expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses so that he would file the paperwork to dismiss the case. You’ve said the cases were unfounded, and the plaintiffs eventually apologized. But your boss, Marc Collins-Rector later pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. Were you aware of his behavior? How do you square the fact that later allegations proved to be true, but these ones were not? Well, remember: I was 16 and 17 years old at the time? So, no. I don’t think Marc is the man they made him out to be. But Marc is not a person I would associate with today, and someone I haven’t associated with in a very long time. I was 16 and 17. I chose the wrong business partner. You live and you learn. You’ve pointed out that you were underage when most of these allegations were said to take place. Did you ever feel like you were coerced or in over your head while working at DEN? I mean, I was working 18 hours a day, doing things I’d never done before. It was business school. But I definitely learned a lot in building that company. We raised $88 million. We filed our [form] S-1 to go public. We were the hottest start-up in Los Angeles. In 2000, you left the country with Marc Collins-Rector. Why did you leave? How did you spend those two years abroad? I moved to Spain in 1999 for personal reasons. I spent those two years in Europe working on developing my businesses. Interpol found you in 2002. The house where you were staying reportedly contained guns, machetes, and child pornography. Whose guns and child porn were those? Were you aware they were in the house, and how did those get there? My lawyers have addressed this in 32 pages of documentation showing a complete absence of wrongdoing. Please refer to my webpage for more information. [Ed. Note: The webpage does not mention guns, machetes, or child pornography. It does state:“It is true that when the local police arrested Collins-Rector in Spain in 2002 on an international warrant, Mr. Pierce was also taken into custody, but so was everyone at Collins-Rector’s house in Spain; and it is equally clear that Brock was promptly released, and no charges of any kind were ever filed against Brock concerning this matter.”] What do you make of the allegations against Bryan Singer?[Ed. Note: Bryan Singer, a close friend of Collins-Rector, invested at least $50,000 in DEN. In an Atlantic article outlining Singer’s history of alleged sexual assault and statutory rape, one source claimed that at age 15, Collins-Rector abused him and introduced him to Singer, who then assaulted him in the DEN headquarters.] I am aware of them and I support of all victims of sexual assault. I will let America’s justice system decide on Singer’s outcome.
In 2011, you spoke at the Mindshift conference supported by Jeffrey Epstein. At that point, he had already been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Why did you agree to speak? I had never heard of Jeffrey Epstein. His name was not on the website. I was asked to speak at a conference alongside Nobel Prize winners. It was not a cryptocurrency conference, it was filled with Nobel Prize winners. I was asked to speak alongside Nobel Prize winners on the future of money. I speak at conferences historically, two to three times a week. I was like, “Nobel Prize winners? Sounds great. I’ll happily talk about the future of money with them.” I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was. His name was not listed anywhere on the website. Had I known what I know now? I clearly would have never spoken there. But I spoke at a conference that he cosponsored. What’s your connection to the Clinton Global Initiative? Did you hear about it through Jeffrey Epstein? I joined the Clinton Global Initiative as a philanthropist in 2006 and was a member for one year. My involvement with the Initiative had no connection to Jeffrey Epstein whatsoever.
You’ve launched your campaign in Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed by a police officer. How do you feel about the civil uprising against police brutality? I’m from Minnesota. Born and raised. We just had a press conference there, announcing that we’re on the ballot. Former U.S. Senator Dean Barkley was there. So that tells you, when former U.S. Senators are endorsing the candidate, right? [Ed. note: Barkley was never elected to the United States Senate. In November of 2002, he was appointed by then Minnesota Governor Jesse Venture to fill the seat after Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. Barkley’s term ended on Jan. 3, 2003—two months later.] Yes, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis. My vice-presidential running mate Karla Ballard and I, on our last trip to Minnesota together, went to visit the George Floyd Memorial. I believe in law and order. I believe that law and order is foundational to any functioning society. But there is no doubt in my mind that we need reform. These types of events—this is not an isolated incident. This has happened many times before. It’s time for change. We have a lot of detail around policy on this issue that we will be publishing next week. Not just high-level what we think, not just a summary, but detailed policy. You said that you support “law and order.” What does that mean? “Law and order” means creating a fair and just legal system where our number one priority is protecting the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for all people. This means reforming how our police intervene in emergency situations, abolishing private prisons that incentivize mass incarceration, and creating new educational and economic opportunities for our most vulnerable communities. I am dedicated to preventing crime by eliminating the socioeconomic conditions that encourage it. I support accountability and transparency in government and law enforcement. Some of the key policies I support are requiring body-cams on all law enforcement officers who engage with the public, curtailing the 1033 program that provides local law enforcement agencies with access to military equipment, and abolishing private prisons. Rather than simply defund the police, my administration will take a holistic approach to heal and unite America by ending mass incarceration, police brutality, and racial injustice. Did you attend any Black Lives Matter protests? I support all movements aimed at ending racial injustice and inequality. I have not attended any Black Lives Matter protests. My running-mate, Karla Ballard, attended the March on Washington in support of racial justice and equality. Your platform doesn’t mention the words “climate change.” Is there a reason for that? I’m not sure what you mean. Our policy platform specifically references human-caused climate change and we have a plan to restabilize the climate, address environmental degradation, and ensure environmental sustainability. [Ed. Note: As of writing the Pierce campaign’s policy platform does not specifically reference human-caused climate change.] You’ve recently brought on Akon as a campaign surrogate. How did that happen? Tell me about that. Akon and I have been friends for quite some time. I was one of the guys that taught him about Bitcoin. I helped make some videogames for him, I think in 2012. We were talking about Bitcoin, teaching him the ropes, back in 2013. And in 2014, we were both speaking at the Milken Global Conference, and I encouraged him to talk about how Bitcoin, Africa, changed the world. He became the biggest celebrity in the world, talking about Bitcoin at the time. I’m an adviser to his Akoin project, very interested in the work that he’s doing to build a city in Africa. I think we need a government that’s of, for, and by the people. Akon has huge political aspirations. He obviously was a hugely successful artist. But he also discovered artists like Lady Gaga. So not only is he, himself, a great artist, but he’s also a great identifier and builder of other artists. And he’s been a great businessman, philanthropist. He’s pushing the limits of what can be done. We’re like-minded individuals in that regard. I think he’ll be running for political office one day, because he sees what I see: that we need real change, and we need a government that is of, for, and by the people. You mentioned that you’re an adviser on Akoin. Do you have any financial investments in Akoin or Akon City? I don’t believe so. I’d have to check. I have so much stuff. But I don’t believe that I have any economic interests in his stuff. I’d have to verify that. We’ll get back to you. I don’t believe that I have any economic interests. My interest is in helping him. He’s a visionary with big ideas that wants to help things in the world. If I can be of assistance in helping him make the world a better place, I’m all for it. I’m not motivated by money. I’m not running for office because I’m motivated by power. I’m running for office because I’m deeply, deeply concerned about our collective future. You’ve said you’re running on a pro-technology platform. One week into your campaign last month, a New York appeals court approved the state Attorney General’s attempt to investigate the stablecoin Tether for potentially fraudulent activity. Do you think this will impact your ability to sell people on your tech entrepreneurship? No, I think my role in Tether is as awesome as it gets. It was my idea. I put it together. But I’ve had no involvement in the company since 2015. I gave all of my equity to the other shareholders. I’ve had zero involvement in the company for almost six years. It was just my idea. I put the initial team together. But I think Tether is one of the most important innovations in the world, certainly. The idea is, I digitized the U.S. dollar. I used technology to digitize currency—existing currency. The U.S. dollar in particular. It’s doing $10 trillion a year. Ten trillion dollars a year of transactional volume. It’s probably the most important innovation in currency since the advent of fiat money. The people that took on the business and ran the business in years to come, they’ve done things I’m not proud of. I’m not sure they’ve done anything criminal. But they certainly did things differently than I would do. But it’s like, you have kids, they turn 18, they go out into the world, and sometimes you’re proud of the things they do, and sometimes you shake your head and go, “Ugh, why did you do that?” I have zero concerns as it relates to me personally. I wish they made better decisions. What do you think the investigation will find? I have no idea. The problem that was raised is that there was a $5 million loan between two entities and whether or not they had the right to do that, did they disclose it correctly. There’s been no accusations of, like, embezzlement or anything that bad. [Ed. Note: The Attorney General’s press release on the investigation reads: “Our investigation has determined that the operators of the ‘Bitfinex’ trading platform, who also control the ‘tether’ virtual currency, have engaged in a cover-up to hide the apparent loss of $850 million dollars of co-mingled client and corporate funds.”] But there’s been some disclosure things, that is the issue. No one is making any outrageous claims that these are people that have done a bunch of bad—well, on the internet, the media has said that the people behind the business may have been manipulating the price of Bitcoin, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the New York investigation. Again, I’m so not involved, and so not at risk, that I’m not even up to speed on the details. [Ed note: A representative of the New York State Attorney General told Forbes that he “cannot confirm or deny that the investigation” includes Pierce.] We’ve recently witnessed the rise of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that Hollywood is an evil cabal of Satanic pedophiles and Trump is the person waging war on them. You mentioned human trafficking, which has become a cause for them. What are your thoughts on that? I’ve watched some of the content. I think it’s an interesting phenomenon. I’m an internet person, so Anonymous is obviously an organization that has been doing interesting stuff. It’s interesting. I don’t have a big—conspiracy theory stuff is—I guess I have a question for you: What do you think of all of it, since you’re the expert? You know, I think it’s not true, but I’m not running for president. I do wonder what this politician [Georgia congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene], who’s just won her primary, is going to do on day one, once she finds out there’s no satanic cabal room. Wait, someone was running for office and won on a QAnon platform, saying that Hollywood did—say what? You’re the expert here. She won a primary. But I want to push on if we only have a few minutes. In 2006, your gaming company IGE brought on Steve Bannon as an investor. Goldman later bought out most of your stock. Bannon eventually replaced you as CEO of Affinity. You’ve described him as your “right-hand man for, like, seven years.” How well did you know Bannon during that time? Yes, so this is in my mid-twenties. He wasn’t an investor. He worked for me. He was my banker. He worked for me for three years as my yield guide. And then he was my CEO running the company for another four years. So I haven’t worked with Steve for a decade or so. We worked in videogame stuff and banking. He was at Goldman Sachs. He was not in the political area at the time. But he was a pretty successful banker. He set up Goldman Sachs Los Angeles. So for me, I’d say he did a pretty good job. During your business relationship, Steve Bannon founded Breitbart News, which has pretty consistently published racist material. How do you feel about Breitbart? I had no involvement with Breitbart News. As for how I feel about such material, I’m not pleased by any form of hate-mongering. I strongly support the equality of all Americans. Did you have qualms about Bannon’s role in the 2016 election? Bannon’s role in the Trump campaign got me to pay closer attention to what he was doing but that’s about it. Whenever you find out that one of your former employees has taken on a role like that, you pay attention. Bannon served on the board of Cambridge Analytica. A staffer on your campaign, Brittany Kaiser, also served as a business director for them. What are your thoughts on their use of illicitly-obtained Facebook data for campaign promotional material? Yes, so this will be the last question I can answer because I’ve got to be off for this 5:00 pm. But Brittany Kaiser is a friend of mine. She was the whistleblower of Cambridge Analytica. She came to me and said, “What do I do?” And I said, “Tell the truth. The truth will set you free.” [Ed. Note: Investigations in Cambridge Analytica took place as early as Nov. 2017, when a U.K. reporter at Channel 4 News recorded their CEO boasting about using “beautiful Ukranian girls” and offers of bribes to discredit political officials. The first whistleblower was Christopher Wylie, who disclosed a cache of documents to The Guardian, published on Mar. 17, 2018. Kaiser’s confession ran five days later, after the scandal made national news. Her association with Cambridge Analytica is not mentioned anywhere on Pierce’s campaign website.] So I’m glad that people—I’m a supporter of whistleblowers, people that see injustice in the world and something not right happening, and who put themselves in harm’s way to stand up for what they believe in. So I stand up for Brittany Kaiser. Who do you think [anonymous inventor of Bitcoin] Satoshi Nakamoto is? We all are Satoshi Nakamoto. You got married at Burning Man. Have you been attending virtual Burning Man? I’m running a presidential campaign. So, while I was there in spirit, unfortunately my schedule did not permit me to attend. OP note: please refer to the original article for reference links within text (as I've not added them here!)
A not-so-brief rundown of the letter ‘S’ in Jeffrey Epstein's 'Little Black Book'
Below is a rundown of the letter ‘S’ under Epstein's contacts. Last year, I wrote about letters A-C. You can check that out here (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/cpis3n/a_brief_rundown_of_the_first_ten_pages_of_jeffrey/). I also wrote about letters D-F on July 5, 2020. You can check that out here (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/hlrba8/a_notsobrief_rundown_of_letters_df_in_jeffrey/). I posted letters G-I on July 13, 2020. You can check that out here (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/hqko0y/a_notsobrief_rundown_of_letters_gi_in_jeffrey/). I posted letters J-L on July 15, 2020. You can check that out here (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/hrq9bg/a_notsobrief_rundown_of_letters_jl_of_jeffrey/). I posted letter M on July 20, 2020. You can check that out here (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/huw0yt/a_notsobrief_rundown_of_the_letter_m_in_jeffrey/). I posted letters N-Q on July 27, 2020. You can check that out here (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/hyudbz/a_notsobrief_rundown_of_the_letters_nq_in_jeffrey/). There are some misspelled names. Epstein entered their names like this. I posted letter R on July 29, 2020. You can check that out here (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/i0aqxd/a_notsobrief_rundown_of_the_letter_r_in_jeffrey/) I have bolded some of the more interesting connections and information, but there could be much more that I overlooked. I hope something here strikes an interest in someone and maybe we can get more investigations out of this. Please, if you know anything more about any of these people than what is presented here, post below. I am working off of the unredacted black book found here: https://www.coreysdigs.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Jeffrey-Epsteins-Little-Black-Book-unredacted.pdf S Sacco, Amy: Nightclub mastermind behind Bungalow 8 and many other clubs. Listing her list of connections would take too long because her clubs are always hot spots for celebrities and the elite. The NY Times wrote a decent article (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/fashion/the-empress-is-in-amy-sacco-holds-court-at-another-new-york-nightspot.html) about Sacco’s clubs and clientele. Sacco has been photographed with Ghislaine, India Hicks, and Sophie Dahl, all of whom appear in Epstein’s black book (https://www.patrickmcmullan.com/photo/1563479). Sachs, Jeffrey: Naming all of his titles would be an endeavor in itself. Sachs is a very influential figure who is best known for being an economist, an adviser to the United Nations, and a University Professor at Columbia University. Sachs serves on the Council on Foreign Relations, where Epstein served from 1995-2009. It is unclear whether he was there at the same time as Epstein, although given his popularity and influence, especially in the early 2000s, I would be surprised if he wasn’t around then. Saffra, Edmund: Billionaire banker and alleged money launderer with tons of enemies who died under very mysterious circumstances in 1999. The official story was that one of his nurses - in an attempt to gain favor with Safra by saving him from danger - intentionally started a small fire in Safra’s home, which soon spiraled out of control, causing Safra to lock himself in the bathroom and suffocate to death. This article (https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2000/12/dunne200012) does a good job of pointing out that Safra had many enemies, was a shady character, and was absolutely obsessed with security for himself and his family. It seems odd that Safra would allow his security detail (Mossad vets) to leave his home that night. This article (https://www.theguardian.com/theobserve2000/oct/29/features.magazine47) from The Guardian includes a statement from Ted Maher’s (the nurse who was convicted of starting the fire) wife, stating that he was coerced into signing a confession. Elie Wiesel, the author ofNightwho is also listed in Epstein’s contacts, was a good friend of Safra’s. Safro, Wayne: Financial advisor. Said, Wafic: Financier and businessman. Said is the Chairman of a children’s charity called the Said Foundation, where Prince Charles’s former private secretary, Sir Michael Peat GVCO, serves on the board of trustees (https://www.saidfoundation.org/pages/33-trustees-and-staff). The charity helps underprivileged children from the Middle East. Said has also contributed a lot of money to Prince Charles’s The Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund, which, among other things, is dedicated to helping children. Sainsbury, Mr Jamie: Descendant of the founder of the Sainsbury grocery chain. Old friend of Ghislaine Maxwell (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8466853/What-girls-frolicked-Bullingdon-boys-Oxfords-brightest-young-women-rose-top.html). James’s sister, Camilla, was married to British MP, Shaun Woodward, for 28 years. Camilla and Shaun are Trustees of The Woodward Charitable Trust, which helps disadvantaged children, women, and families (http://woodwardcharitabletrust.org.uk/portfolio/about_us/). Salama, Eric: Former CEO of Kantar consulting firm. Also served as a Trustee for the British Museum (2000-2008). Survived a carjacking after getting stabbed last year (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6618395/Government-adviser-stabbed-carjacking-reveals-fine-punctured-lung.html). Saltzman, Elizabeth: Contributing editor to Vanity Fair and Vogue, two of the three publications (along with Tatler) that continuously show up among Epstein’s contacts. Saltzman is also a celebrity fashion stylist with clients such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Saoirse Ronan, Stella McCartney, and Uma Thurman, the ex-wife of Arpad Busson, who is possibly one of the key players in this pedophile ring (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/cl34ju/arpad_busson_billionaire_businessman_or_possible/). Andre Balazs, the hotelier who also seems to be embroiled in this whole fiasco held a party in 1995. Those in attendance included Ghislaine Maxwell, Katie Ford, and Elizabeth Saltzman (https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/taming-liz-fortensky-rumors-article-1.686445), all of whom appear in Epstein’s black book. In fact, Saltzman is a long-time friend of Ghislaine (https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Mysterious-business-of-the-queen-of-NY-Lon-1.pdf). This article also reveals that Ghislaine was introduced to Prince Andrew by the Duchess of York (Sarah Ferguson), and, even more telling, that Epstein was suspected of having Mossad ties when the article was written in 2000. In addition to all this, Saltzman is the ex-wife of hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin (https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/14/style/miss-saltzman-editor-is-wed-to-glenn-dubin.html), one of the most heavily implicated people in Epstein’s pedophilia and child trafficking ring. I implore you to read more about Dubin (and his wife) in my D-F black book thread (https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/hlrba8/a_notsobrief_rundown_of_letters_df_in_jeffrey/). Saltzman can also be seen here, sitting next to Prince Andrew in 2010 (https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/world/4780114-Britains-Prince-Andrew-is-stepping-back-from-public-duties-after-Epstein-controversy). The lists of celebrities and well-known figures that Saltzman has been photographed with is unending. Samuels, Mia: Actually Maia Samuel, former Producer of ABC Primetime (1989-1994). Went on to work for NBC, Bloomberg, and CNBC in various producer roles over the years. Now works as Director, Content Studios for Reuters (https://www.linkedin.com/in/maia-samuel-92172a10). Epstein has quite a few television ties, most notably to ABC news programs. Sandelman, Jon & Corrie: Jonathan is a hedge fund manager and former Managing Director of Bank of America Securities. Corrie is his wife. Sangster, Guy & Fi: Son of racing tycoon Robert Sangster, Guy is Managing Director at Sangster Group, which is involved in the Horse Racing industry. He also works as an investment adviser with Hambro Perks, a venture capitalist company. Prince Andrew is a close friend of Guy and his wife, Fiona. Prince Andrew even attended Sangster’s 40th birthday party (https://www.the-sun.com/news/136709/prince-andrews-pals-claims-witness-who-saw-him-with-sex-slave-is-confused-as-he-was-in-club-3-days-late). Sangster, Mr Ben: Guy Sangster’s brother and fellow racing heir. Long-time acquaintance/friend(?) of the Royal Family. According to this article, the Sangsters are “one of the most high profile society families in London and often hang out with the royals (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5008073/Robert-Sangster-s-son-marries-Princess-Eugenie-s-friend.html). Santo Domingo, Julio Mario: Unsure if this is the father or the son. Either way, this is a billionaire Colombian businessman whose company has controlling stock in Bavaria Brewery and is the 2nd highest stockholder of Anheuser Busch (15%). The senior Julio Mario Santo Domingo died in 2011. His son died from cancer in 2009. Santo, Mr & Mrs M Espirito: Likely the former owners (or high-ranking family) of the Espirito Santo banking dynasty., which was forced to shutter due to charges of fraud, money laundering, and falsifying documents (https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/30/how-a-portuguese-banking-mess-took-down-a-dynasty.html). Banco Espirito Santo was Portugal’s second-largest bank. Saud Prince Solman: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was a close friend of Epstein’s and met with him many times. Epstein even had a photograph of bin Salman hanging on his wall. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has been linked to the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident who was lured to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and subsequently killed. The Crown Prince, said to have ordered the murder, and those who were physically involved with the murder, ultimately went unpunished. According to this article (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/jeffrey-epstein-what-we-know-about-paedophile-businessmans-ties-middle-east), the numbers listed likely belong to the Crown Prince’s father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia. Epstein’s Austrian passport had a fake name and Saudi address. This passport was to have been given to him by “a friend.” In November 2016, one day before the election, Epstein flew to Riyadh. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos were in Riyadh at the same time, leading some to believe that the three may have met up (https://www.insider.com/epstein-riyadh-saudi-arabia-private-jet-2019-9). Scerbo, Randall: A female (despite the name) fashion stylist and costume designer who eventually went into consulting. Randall also has credits as a producer and content creator for the Miss USA and Miss Universe beauty pageants. Schiatti, Gianmarco: Creative director who helped several fashion companies (Gucci, Chanel, Coach, Ralph Lauren, Prada, etc.) with rebranding. Schifter, Helen & Tim: Helen is a former arbitrage trader on Wall Street, as well as a socialite and a former editor at Hearst and Conde Nast (publisher of Tatler and Vogue), making this the 9000th Epstein-Conde Nast connection. Helen’s father is a businessman and has served as a consultant for the Du Pont Company. She runs in the same circles as Ghislaine Maxwell and has been at several of the same parties (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/helen-lee-schifter-ghislaine-maxwell-teddy-wong-and-news-photo/1169681659). Tim is CEO of LeSportsac, the luggage and tote bag manufacturer. Tim can be seen attending a Private Screening with Ghislaine Maxwell here (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tim-schifter-and-ghislaine-maxwell-attend-private-screening-news-photo/590659962). Sebag Montefiore Simon & Santa: Simon Montefiore is a British historian, television presenter, and author of history books and novels. Ghislaine attended the launch of Montefiore’s book, “The Court of the Red Tsar” (https://deepclips.com/clip/3225/exclusive-i-fear-i-saw-virginia-roberts-inside-jeffrey-epstein-s-creepy-new-mexico-ranch-contractor-claims). Santa is his wife and sister of Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, who died of an ulcer in 2017. The Palmer-Tomkinson family is so close with the Royal Family that Prince Charles was named Tara’s godfather. As such, Simon and Santa are good friends of Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4721868/The-lit-girl.html). Simon’s great-great-uncle was an international financier who worked for the Rothschilds in the 1800s. Siimon and his family are still close to the Rothschilds to this day (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/01/montefiore200801). Seitern, Christine: Architect. Sejournet, Isabel de: Belgian arts consultant and wife of French Count Eric d’Hauteville. Isabelle was photographed at an annual charity dinner hosted by The AEM Association Children of the World for Rwanda (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/isabelle-de-sejournet-and-caroline-sarkozy-attend-the-news-photo/157832558). Shabtai, Benny: Israeli businessman who specializes in watches and telecommunications. Served as Chair for Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF) and has helped raise millions for the charity (https://electronicintifada.net/content/manhattans-friends-israel-defense-forces/5526). Epstein toured Israeli military bases with Shabtai in 2008 after being convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution (https://pagesix.com/2008/04/24/just-visiting/). Shabtai also served three years in the Israeli army and is a former bodyguard for the Israeli ambassador in Paris, France. Shad, Brenda: Lingerie model who has known Epstein since the ‘90s (https://www.reddit.com/EpsteinAndFriends/comments/hbiwye/epstein_with_lingerie_model_brenda_schad_in_1997/). Almost married Robert Hanson (listed in my Epstein G-H thread) in 1996, the billionaire financier who was accused of raping Anouska de Georgiou when she was a teenager. She first met him when he was dating Naomi Campbell. Pictured with Maxwell here in 2005 (https://www.the-sun.com/news/103520/is-jeffrey-epsteins-unholy-alliance-with-the-victorias-secret-boss-the-real-reason-the-show-was-scrapped/). Shearer Andre & Angie: Andre is a South African wine importer through his business, Cape Classics. Angie is his wife. Shore Chris and Maura: Chris is a bankruptcy litigator. Mara is his wife, a licensed lawyer. Shriver, Bobby: Nephew of JFK, RFK, and Ted Kennedy. His mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founded the Special Olympics. Bobby now serves on the Board of Directors for the Special Olympics (https://www.specialolympics.org/about/board-of-directors/bobby-shriver). Epstein has several phone numbers listed for Shriver’s Special Olympics office in California. Shriver, Maria: Bobby Shriver’s sister and niece of JFK, RFK, and Ted Kennedy. TV journalist and former ex-wife of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Shuster, Susie: Suzy is a sportscaster who is married to long-time ESPN and NFL Network anchor, Rich Eisen. Siegal, Peggy: Famous NYC publicist and close friend of Epstein who helped him out by continuously getting him into elite parties even after he was convicted of procuring an underage girl for prostitution in 2008 (https://nymag.com/intelligence2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html). Her career in Hollywood has been obliterated, although many still secretly think she has been a scapegoat (https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-powea29643007/peggy-siegal-jeffrey-epstein-connection/), which once again proves the depravity of Hollywood. Siegel, William (Bill): President of Chris-Craft Industries (1996-2001), a broadcasting company that owned several television channels across the U.S. Chris-Craft was eventually purchased by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation for $5.3 billion. Sieghart, William: British entrepreneur and publisher. In 1986, he co-founded Forward Publishing with partner Neil Mendoza, who serves on the board of several children’s charities and is the current Provost of Oriel College. Mendoza appeared earlier in Epstein’s black book. Check out the letter ‘M’ thread for more information. Silver, Ron: Silver (1946-2009), was a famous actor who also served on the Council on Foreign Relations. Co-founder of pro-Israeli organization, One Jerusalem, which organized a rally in 2001 to protest Palestinian sovereignty. Flipped political affiliations to vote for George W. Bush post-9/11. As a result, Bush appointed him to several posts, including one in which he worked under Scooter Libby, adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Silverman, Nancy & Henry: Henry is an entrepreneur and private equity investor. Henry helped build Cendant Corporation, which specializes in car rentals, travel reservations, and real estate brokerage services. Nancy and Henry divorced in 2012 after 30 years of marriage. They literally lived around the block from Jeffrey Epstein. Simon, Bren: Bren was the President of MBS Associates, a property management company. She and her husband (now deceased), support many children’s charities. Bren directs the Mel and Bren Simon Charitable Trust, which works closely with the Clinton Foundation (Haiti), the Clinton Global Initiative, and the Clinton School of Public Service (https://brensimon.com/our-work/). Bren is co-founder of The Family Support Center, a 24-hour child abuse care center. She also serves on the board of advisers for the Indiana Children’s Wish Fund. In 1998, Bren began working with the Mission International Rescue Foundation (MIR), which serves the children and young women of La Romana, Dominican Republic. Bren also created the Centro de Promocion Rural Max Simon, an orphanage that provides a safe environment for boys who have been abandoned, abused, or are living in extreme poverty. She also created the Bren Simon MIR Foundation Girls’ Vocational School (https://cancer.iu.edu/giving/simon/bren-bio.php). Bren Simon used to be a member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Bill Clinton read a eulogy at her husband’s funeral (https://www.ibj.com/articles/67913-simon-sisters-among-top-political-donors-nationwide). Simpson (Caruth), Sophie: Former literary agent at William Morris Agency. Serves as a Trustee for Rambert School of Ballet and Contemporary Dance. Sindi, Rena & Sami: Rena is a socialite and daughter of Nemar A. Kirdar, who founded Investcorp bank in the ‘80s with Arab oil money (https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/style/put-on-your-toga-bring-castanets-rena-sindi-is-giving-a-party.html). In 2007, Rena attended a party for Allegra Hicks at Ghislaine Maxwell’s house (https://medium.com/@the_war_economy/investigation-jeffrey-epstein-d2ad68e2e845). Her husband, Sami, is a venture capitalist. Slayton, Bobby: Actocomedian who admits to seeing Epstein in West Palm Beach a few times over the years. Slayton says that “they weren’t friends,” although he once went to Epstein’s Manhattan mansion for coffee (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article234312632.html). Smith Osborne: Not enough info. Smith Peterson, Noona: Public relations officer and consultant who has worked for Tom Ford, Armani, Valentino, Calvin Klein, Michael Kors, and Tod’s. She now has her own PR agency. In 2015, Forbes named her one of the 12 women who have changed Italian fashion (https://www.forbes.com/sites/declaneytan/2015/02/06/the-12-women-whove-changed-italian-fashion/#553827046f86). Noona is married to Enrico Erba, who is a client manager for Giorgio Armani. Smith, James: Co-founder and CEO of Aegis Trust, an organization focused at stopping genocide in Rwanda. Aegis “enables students, professionals, decision-makers and a wider public to meet survivors and learn from their experiences” (https://www.aegistrust.org/what-we-do/). Snyder, Maria: Model, designer, artist, and entrepreneur who has worked for the likes of Armani, Versace, Valentino, Calvin Klein, and Karl Lagerfield. Snyder attended a ‘Free the Slaves’ benefit in 2010 where she was photographed with hotelier Andre Balazs, who is mired in Epstein/Maxwell stink, and Brenda Schad, who appears just above (last name incorrectly spelled ‘Shad’). Soames, Rupert & Milly: Rupert is a British businessman and CEO of Serco, a government contractor that provides health, transport, justice, immigration, defense, and citizen services. Soames and his company is heavily involved in many aspects of government (he is very close with former British Prime Minister David Cameron), and as such, has a huge impact on the public. For example, Serco has been contracted to work on a Coronavirus track-and-trace system for the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/04/nhs-track-and-trace-system-not-expected-to-be-operating-fully-until-september-coronavirus). Soames’s family is very close with the Royal Family (https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/photo-gallery/44913948/image/44914915/Camilla-Dunne-Honorable-Rupert-Soames-1988). Prince William served as a pageboy at Rupert and Camilla’s wedding in 1988. Soames is the grandson of Winston Churchill and his brother, Nicholas Soames, served as a British MP from 1983-2019. Nicholas has been accused of being sexist and making inappropriate remarks by several female MPs. Nicholas is also a very close friend of Prince Charles (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-charless-biggest-buddy-nicholas-soames-royalist-minister-for-food-1466703.html). Milly (Camilla) is Rupert’s wife and High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire. Milly is a Patron/Trustee for Pace Centre, a children’s charity dedicated to providing education for children with sensory motor disorders (https://thepacecentre.org/about-pace/mission-values-vision/), Heart of Bucks (https://heartofbucks.org/committees-patrons/), an all-purpose charity that divvies up money to many causes, several of which involve children (https://heartofbucks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/hob-annual-report-2018-2019-web.pdf), Action4Youth (https://www.action4youth.org/trustees/), which “partners with government, schools, youth clubs, businesses, trusts and foundations, and others (https://www.action4youth.org/about-action4youth/vision-mission-values/). Camilla is also the daughter of Sir Thomas Raymond Dunne, who served as a Lord Lieutenant of Hereford and Worcester, Worcestershire, and Herefordshire. Her brother, Phillip, has been a British Conservative MP since 2005. Sobrino, Esperanza: Director of Acquavella art gallery. Solomon, Andrew: Writer for The New York Times, The New Yorker, and other publications. Member of Council on Foreign Relations where Epstein once served. Soros Peter: Nephew of George Soros. Works as an investment banker. Soros’s name is circled in Epstein’s black book. It turns out that Epstein’s former house manager circled the names of all material witnesses before he died in 2014 (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-black-book-nick-bryant). Soros, Peter: Same as above. Soto, Fernando de: Real estate consultant. Soto, Jaime & Marina de: No info found. South, Hamilton: Founder of HL Group, a large marketing firm. Former Chief Marketing Officer for Ralph Lauren. South was a good friend of Carolyn Besette Kennedy (wife of JFK Jr) before she died. He was also a good friend of Lee Radziwill, mother-in-law of Carole Radziwill, listed earlier in Epstein’s book (check out the letter ‘R’ thread), before Lee’s passing. Souza, Carlos: Works in public relations for Valentino. Spacey, Kevin: Famous actor who has been accused of sexual assault by actor Anthony Rapp and 14 others (https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2017/11/07/kevin-spacey-scandal-complete-list-13-accusers/835739001/). He was on the infamous Epstein Africa flight with Clinton and Chris Tucker. Spacey also made this chilling video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZveA-NAIDI), which many think was a direct threat to the Royal Family. As a lot of you know, Spacey was close with the Royal Family and Ghislaine Maxwell. Just last month, a picture surfaced of Spacey and Ghislaine sitting on the British throne (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/04/uk/maxwell-spacey-throne-gbr-intl/index.html). Squire, Hugo: See Hugo Swire below. St. Bris, Edward: International license manager at Pierre Cardin. Stanburry, Caroline: Reality TV star from the show Ladies of London. Stanbury has also worked in public relations and as a stylist. Ex-girlfriend of Prince Andrew (after his divorce from the Duchess of York) and actor Hugh Grant. Stark, Koo: Famous photographer who dated Prince Andrew for nearly two years in the early ‘80s. Stark eventually married (and divorced) Tim Jefferies, who was listed earlier in Epstein’s book (check the J-L thread). Stark went on to have a daughter with someone else. Prince Andrew is the godfather. Starzewski Thomas: Famous British fashion designer whose clothes have been worn by the Royal Family. Steenkamp, Chris: Not enough info. Possibly the artist responsible for these lovely drawings (https://www.instagram.com/christophersteenkamp.art/?hl=en), but I cannot confirm. Steiner, Jeffrey: Not enough info. Probably the co-managing partner of MWE real estate group. I could be wrong, though. Steinkampf, Chris & Nina: No info found. Stengel, Andrew: Former director of acquisitions for Miramax. Former aide to Governor Mario Cuomo (father of Andrew and Chris). Stengel, Rick & Mary: Richard is an editor, author, and government official (Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs) under Barack Obama. Richard is now a Senior Advisor at Snapchat and serves on the board of CARE, a charity that caters to women and children (https://care.org/about-us/leadership/richard-stengel/). Mary is his South African wife. Nelson Mandela was the godfather to their son, Gabriel. Stern, Allison & Leonard: Allison (nee Maher) is a former model and TV producer. Her husband, Leonard, is a billionaire businessman involved in real estate. Leonard founded Homes for the Homeless, a charity that aims to help the financially disadvantaged. A large focus of the charity is children and youth (https://www.hfhnyc.org/). Leonard is also quite the heartless bastard. He announced that he was selling a Homes for the Homeless apartment building in midtown Manhattan, forcing its inhabitants to move out (https://thejewishvoice.com/2019/12/billionaires-nyc-homeless-facility-boots-out-elderly-tenants-before-holidays/). Just to show an example of how all these wealthy people truly do know each other, here is a link with pictures of Malcolm Forbes’s 70th birthday party in Morocco in 1989. Forbes flew out 800 guests (https://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/this-was-then-malcolm-forbes-70th-birthday-part-i/), including Leonard and Allison Stern, Robert Maxwell (Ghislaine’s father), Rupert Murdoch, Ronald Perelman, Barbara Walters, Robert and Blaine Trump, Diane von Furstenberg, King Constantine, Henry Kissinger, James Goldsmith, Hamish Bowles, Gianni Agnelli, Kay Graham, Elizabeth Taylor, Calvin Klein, Oscar de la Renta, Walter Cronkite, Ann Getty, Fran Lebowitz, and more. Not only are these people rich, famous, and powerful, but many of them also appear in Epstein’s black book. Stevens Michael: Not enough info. Stopford-Sackville, Charlie &: Charles works in finance and securities. Owner of Drayton House (https://www.northamptonshiresurprise.com/organisation/drayton/) in Northamptonshire, England. Married to Shona McKinney, who I am guessing is the name that got cut off in Epstein’s black book. Shona is a good friend of Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-317052/Marks-married-maiden.html, who is a key figure in this whole Jeffrey Epstein saga. Stracher Kate: Kate is an artist who went to Oxford with Ghislaine, but claims that she hasn’t seen her since then. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365733/How-Prince-Andrew-shared-room-Epsteins-Caribbean-hideaway-busty-blonde-claimed-brain-surgeon.html). Sundlun, Stuart: Managing director of BMB Advisors, a private equity firm. Son of Governor Bruce Sundlun of Rhode Island (1991-1995). Stuart’s father also served as director of the National Security Education Board (NSEB) for four years under Clinton. Bruce is a great friend of Clinton right hand man (and multiple-time passenger on Epstein’s flight log), Ira Magaziner. Magaziner also appeared in Epstein’s black book (check out the ‘M’ thread for more info). Sunley, Mr James & Amanda: James is CEO of Sunley Holdings, an investment company. Sutherland, Harry: Likely refers to the investment banker who is Chairman of CrossInvest, an offshore corporate service company. Svenlinson, Peter: Venture capitalist and founder of The Column Group. Served as Chairman for several pharmaceutical companies (Aragon, which was sold to Johnson & Johnson and Seragon, until it was solid to Genentech/Roche). Swire, Sophie: English fashion entrepreneur who established a school for jewelers and gem-cutters in Afghanistan at Prince Charles’s request (https://adventurersclub.org/archives/calendanov2015.php). Co-founder of Learning for Life, an educational charity. She was a Trustee and Chairperson from 1995-2000. Learning for Life has established over 250 schools for girls in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Swire, Hugo: Swire is a British Conservative Party politician who served as a Member of Parliament (MP) from 2001-2019. Son of Roger, director of Sotheby’s. Swire, Jenny: Former Miss South Africa. Fashion director for Wedding Magazine and TV personality. Contributing editor for Tatler, a publication which has appeared more than ten times amongst Epstein’s contacts. Swire, Mark: Involved in real estate. Sykes, Lucy Ewen: Entrepreneur, fashion executive, and socialite. Fashion director of Marie Claire magazine. Former consultant for Ralph Lauren, T. J. Maxx, and Tommy Hilfiger. Good friend of nightclub guru Amy Sacco, who is one of the contacts listed earlier in this thread. Lucy and her husband attended a dinner for Prince Andrew at Epstein’s house in the early 2000s (https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/ghislaine-maxwell-the-socialite-on-jeffrey-epsteins-arm.html). Lucy’s husband, Euan Rellie, has been a friend of Ghislaine Maxwell’s for years.
Good morning from the UK. It’s Thursday 23rd April.
Virus news in depth
North Korea was swift to close its borders at the end of January when coronavirus cases in neighboring China began to skyrocket but by the beginning of April North Korea was issuing a firm denial that it had no cases of Covid-19 with Pak Myong-su, a director at North Korea's Central Emergency Anti-epidemic headquarters, telling news agency AFP on Friday 3rd April: "Not one single person has been infected with the novel coronavirus in our country so far. We have carried out pre-emptive and scientific measures such as inspections and quarantine for all personnel entering our country and thoroughly disinfecting all goods, as well as closing borders and blocking sea and air lanes." The claims were flatly rejected by the four star US army general Robert Adams who commented "I can tell you that is an impossible claim based on all of the intel that we have seen," in a joint interview he held with news sites CNN and VOA. Fast forward three weeks and panic buying is reported to have broken out in North Korea according to a report picked up on the well regarded NK News (and consequently repeated on Bloomberg). One source in the report describes empty shelves and a sudden absence of staples like vegetables, flour, and sugar. Locals have been buying “whatever is there,” an expat said, saying that “you can hardly get in” to some stores. Both the expat and another person in Pyongyang said the surge was particularly notable on Wednesday whilst another source said large groups of locals were seen buying big amounts of mostly-imported products in some grocery stores, resulting in abrupt shortages. Demand sharply increased this week, yet another person confirmed, saying they had been told on Tuesday to purchase supplies of some key products. The range of items offered in shops aimed at diplomats has also diminished, they added, noting that in particular, “imported goods (are) running out.” The situation in North Korea is complicated at the best of times but even more so now with persistent rumours swirling about Kim Jong Un’s health following a heart procedure (he is known to be obese, a heavy smoker and reports suggest ill health has been brought on by overwork). Should he die Kim's demise would risk unwelcome instability in North Korea and with no clear succession plan, his death or incapacitation could cause chaos in a heavily armed and secretive country. Their neighbours to the North are China who already have their hands full with Covid-19 as well as soothing diplomatic relationships with several Western countries over initially denying the outbreak and then failing to maintain quality control on the badly needed PPE exports pouring out of China. A destabilising North Korea is going to be the last thing Chinese President Xi Jinping needs. North Korea may be one to watch over the coming weeks and months. Over in the USAForbes is reporting that three states with Republic governors are set to loosen Covid-19 restrictions. South Carolina will allow some retail stores, as well as flea markets, to reopen Monday, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee said the “vast majority” of his state’s businesses can reopen May 1, 2020, and Georgia will permit businesses such as gyms, barber shops and tattoo parlors to resume business on Friday. Forbes points out that common among the states, though, is a lack of strict protocols for businesses to follow, or a way to enforce a given mandate, even as health officials warn the virus could spread rapidly again if stringent restrictions on economic activity and a widespread testing system aren’t in place. On the same topic, Fox News is reporting that Oklahaoma will follow suit too and also partially reopen, in their case hair salons, spas, nail salons and pet groomers will be allowed to open their doors. Exploring Georgia’s decision a bit further, Forbes says that Governor Brian Kemp has endorsed a free market philosophy that sees the businesses and residents—not the government—as having the ultimate power to decide how to proceed during the pandemic, though the state did order businesses to follow social distancing practices and screen employees for signs of illness; “It is not going to be government that is going to solve the problem; it is the community at large,” Kemp said earlier this month. Not everyone agrees with him; “We need to, as government leaders, step up and give people an incentive to stay home. But there’s nothing essential about going to a bowling alley in the middle of a pandemic,” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said Tuesday on MSNBC (Atlanta is in Georgia). Kemp responded to the criticism on Fox News saying, “If people don’t want to open the gym, they don’t have to. But when you close somebody’s business down and take their livelihoods . . . I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.” It remains to be seen how convinced local residents will be as to how safe it would be to recommence their normal lifestyles. I flagged a Wuhan restauranteer’s story earlier this week - now their lockdown is lifted and people can come and go, he’s finding that whilst his restaurants might be open very few people are venturing out. Forbes for their part highlights a Gallup survey released last Tuesday that showed that just 20 percent of U.S. adults would resume normal activity right away once shelter-in-place orders are lifted. Lifting lockdowns is one thing, recreating the pre-outbreak circular economy quite another it seems. But what about America’s doctor-in-chief Anthony Fauci’s opinion? Forbes helpfully has that answer: “That could be setting us back,” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the New York Times NYT on Tuesday, referring to Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina. “It certainly isn’t going to be helpful”, he added. Patrice Harris, the president of the American Medical Association, said she too was worried about a possible second wave of infections in the fall on the lines of Redfield's warning to The Washington Post. "I'm worried about a second wave to come sooner. I'm really worried about those states who are relaxing some of the stay-at-home regulations earlier. We could get a second wave even earlier than the fall. That's very concerning," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. As for President Trump’s stance on the matter, the president reiterated that his administration has established benchmarks that states should clear before they begin the reopening process. The rules recommend 14 days of declining new infections, as well as 14 days of decling covid-like syndromic cases and influenza-like illnesses, before moving to the reopening phase Kemp has called for. "I told the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, that I disagree strongly with his decision to open certain facilities which are in violation of the Phase I guidelines for the incredible people of Georgia," Trump said. "At the same time, he must do what he thinks is right," Trump continued. "But I disagree with him on what he's doing." Were a significant spike to come about through the fall (autumn) it could have serious implications for the upcoming elections in November 2020. As well as the election for the office of the President of the United States, all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate are being contested. Notably, the governorships for the four states mentioned above are not being contested this time around but there may be a question whether it’s safe enough to even physically hold the elections if there were a severe outbreak at the time. If interested in the situation around that scenario, try this article here. Back to the economy to finish this bit off; the best-case scenario following aggressive reopening in Southern states, in contrast with more hard-hit epicenters in the North like New York and Michigan, is that it could create test cases of how to reignite the economy while keeping the disease at bay. That would require most warnings by medical and public health experts to be wrong. Opening up now is a huge risk. Just because the curve of infections is flattened does not mean it cannot rise again since the disease has no proven therapies and there is so far no vaccine. If you’re American and want to know more about your own state’s position on reopening, CNN has a breakdown here.
Virus news in brief
Today’s sources: The Guardian, CNN, BBC (unless stated otherwise).
The Disney heiress Abigail Disney (who does not hold a role in the company) has attacked executives at the Walt Disney Corporation after they stopped paying 100,000 operational employees this week and furloughed them. Employees will still receive health insurance from Disney but have been added to the millions more filing for unemployment across the United States. The decision comes after the company paid dividends to shareholders and gave executives big bonuses last July totalling $1.5bn USD. Whilst former chief executive Bob Iger has given up the remainder of his $3million salary for this year and his replacement Bob Chapek said he'd only take half of his $2.5million base salary, as a show of solidarity, Ms. Disney however has flagged up that the bonuses these executives could still receive greatly exceed their salaries. Iger got $65.6million in incentives in 2018 and $46million in 2019. Chapek's bonus is expected to be about 300 percent of his salary. In addition, he could bring home 'not less than $15 million' in long-term incentives; last year he was paid $47.5m in bonuses. 'This is why I was quiet in March when executives at the company made a big pr push to call attention to the fact that they were giving up a portion of their salaries for the year,' Disney wrote. 'I told people to wait until we heard about the rest of the compensation package, since salary is a drop in the bucket to these guys. 'Iger's comp will still be 900 times median wage,' she added, claiming that Disney front line workers fought for years for a $15 an hour minimum pay which would leave them with $31,200 a year if they worked full time. Source (Daily Mail)
Photos have been published by CNN which show seven bodies in the open back of a pick-up truck in Philadelphia being transported from a local hospital to the medical examiner’s office last Sunday. The Philadelphia Department of Health has confirmed the incident and the number of bodies in the truck. “The transportation of the bodies in that manner is a breach of protocol,” said James Garrow, spokesman for the Department of Public Health. "The Medical Examiner’s Office regularly works with hospitals throughout Philadelphia to ensure that bodies are treated with the utmost dignity and respect," Garrow told CNN on behalf of the Medical Examiner's Office. "The Health Department is appalled that this happened, and strongly reminded the referring hospital of the existing protocols. This is not normal or acceptable."
A senior US government doctor who worked on the search for a coronavirus vaccine has claimed he was fired after resisting Donald Trump’s push to use the unproven drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, the New York Times reported on Wednesday. Rick Bright was this week ousted as director of the US health department’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or Barda, and as the deputy assistant secretary for preparedness and response. Bright highlighted his refusal to embrace hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug relentlessly promoted by the president and Fox News despite a lack of scientific studies. He said “Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit. While I am prepared to look at all options and to think ‘outside the box’ for effective treatments, I rightly resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public.”
Finland's Prime Minister Sanna Marin is self-isolating after a person working at her official residence came into close contact with a confirmed coronavirus case.
New Zealand nurse Jenny McGee, who was crediting with helping to save the life of Boris Johnson, has been speaking about her experience of treating the UK prime minister for coronavirus. In an interview with TVNZ, she said she wasn't expecting to be singled out for praise by Mr Johnson. "He was just another patient we were trying to do our best for," she said.
Some Conservative MPs have been raising concerns about the impact of the UK lockdown on businesses.
One of them, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, treasurer of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the UK needed to start a discussion "about how we get back to normality" or some businesses would have to cease trading. In response, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said while some businesses were able to reopen with social distancing measures in place, the best way to protect the public and the NHS was to stay at home as much as possible. “One of the most damaging things for our economy would be if we came out of lockdown too early," he said, adding that this would risk a second peak.
The earliest "realistic" point by which schools in England could re-open is 1 June, head teachers' leader Geoff Barton has said. "We cannot see any realistic way that schools could be reopened to more pupils before the second half of the summer term," he said. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson has said no date has been set.
Germany's Bundesliga could take a step closer to becoming the first major football league to resume. The German Football League is meeting at 10:00 BST (09:00 GMT) to discuss Germany's top two divisions returning on either 9 or 16 May. Final approval would be needed by Chancellor Angela Merkel and state leaders on 30 April.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged the nation to remain "clever and cautious" in handling the next phase of the coronavirus epidemic. Speaking in parliament, she said "it's not the end phase but still just the beginning. We will be with it for a long time". She said "I know how difficult the restrictions are, it’s a challenge to democracy, it limits our democratic rights". But she said democratic transparency, such as a free press, helped to make the situation tolerable. "It's amazing how much understanding people have shown for each other," she said. MPs frequently applauded her.
The Spanish parliament has voted to approve the extension of the state of emergency for the third time until May 9, prolonging the country’s stay-at-home order to eight weeks in total.
Leading doctors in Pakistan have urged officials and clerics to reverse their decision to allow prayers at mosques during Ramadan, as it could instigate a spread that would be hard to control. “Unfortunately, our rulers have made a wrong decision; our clerics have shown a non-serious attitude,” Dr Qaiser Sajjad of the Pakistan Medical Association said. Coronavirus has infected more than 10,000 and killed 212 people in the country.
Western attitudes towards China’s handling of the outbreak are hardening says the BBC. Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison has called for all members of the WHO to co-operate with an independent inquiry into the spread of the virus whilst his agriculture minister is pushing for members of the G20 group of advanced economies - which includes China - to ban wildlife markets (one of which in Wuhan is where the virus is thought to have emerged). This looks like a concerted push back against Beijing says the BBC, noting that the criticism has been coming thick and fast this week from London, Paris and Washington. The UK’s Foreign Secretary has said there could be no "business as usual" with China now and with Donald Trump turning his fire on the WHO, stopping US funding of the world’s health policeman claiming it was soft on China, the pressure is undeniably mounting.
China said on Thursday it would donate a further $30 million to the World Health Organization (WHO), which is seeking more than $1 billion to fund its battle against the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 180,000 people worldwide, Reuters reports. The pledge comes about a week after U.S. President Donald Trump suspended funding to the WHO and accused the Geneva-based organisation of promoting Chinese “disinformation” about the virus, which emerged in the central city of Wuhan last year.
The Deutsche Welle reporter William Yang is reporting that Harbin (population 10.6m, it’s in NW China) is becoming the latest epicentre of the Covid-19 outbreak with an 87 year old super spreader infecting 78 more people, 23 of whom have been hospitalised (Twitter).
A New Zealand man who tried to sue Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern arguing he had been unlawfully detained by the lockdown has had his court case dismissed. Everyone in New Zealand currently has to remain at home with the exception of essential movement, though some restrictions will be eased next week. The man, who cannot be identified, asked for a writ of habeas corpus, which declares that someone's detention is unlawful. Justice Mary Peters dismissed this, saying he did not consider the man and his family to be detained. "In my view, the freedom to exercise whenever they wish, to go to the supermarket whenever they wish, to talk to whomever they wish, and to access the internet whenever they wish is quite different from being held in custody," she said, according to local media.
Supply chain news in depth
Failure to extend Brexit talks ‘very risky’, say UK forwarders - Aircargonews reports that UK freight forwarder association BIFA has said that the government’s refusal to extend trade deal talks with the European Union is “very risky” given the coronavirus outbreak. BIFA said that even before the pandemic, there were concerns among BIFA members that the 11-month transition wouldn’t leave enough time to prepare for a potential no deal, with talks between the UK and the EU only getting back underway this week. Robert Keen, BIFA director general, said: “In light of the huge issues involved with a sharp change in trading conditions at the start of 2021, particularly if that were to coincide with another Covid-19 outbreak, we think an extension looks increasingly likely. “There has been little meaningful consultation with UK trade regarding the policies and procedures required in order to ensure that trade with the EU can continue relatively uninterrupted post December 31st 2020. “Trade deals are typically multi-year exercises, but in this case, the UK and EU realistically have until October to agree on terms, allowing time for ratification. And while formal talks are continuing, many of the civil service resources previously assigned to support negotiations have been reallocated to deal with the coronavirus emergency response.” (Cont’d) Keen explained: “Having had their businesses knocked sideways by the virus, many of our members have furloughed staff whilst they work out how they can keep their businesses afloat. “It is unlikely that their companies and the clients they serve will have the capacity to increase readiness for a sharp change in trading conditions in 2021. “In light of those things and with very little information from government on when restrictions on key sectors of the economy are likely to be lifted, and the as yet unknown economic damage done to the sector and wider economy, BIFA members are in no position to respond to a second massive shock if there is significant change in the terms of trade with the EU at the end of the year, because the government has stuck to its guns over the transition period.” “We believe that refusing to even consider extending the transition period is very risky and together with a growing chorus of Brexit commentators, think an extension to the transition period remains likely, and it is really only a question of ‘when’.” The Loadstar has picked up the same story here.
Supply chain news in brief
Danish ferry group DFDS has laid up around 20% of its capacity – 12 of its 50-strong fleet – in response to the coronavirus pandemic says The Loadstar. And it has revealed that it expects first-quarter profits to have fallen 10%, year on year. In addition to closing two routes last month – Oslo-Copenhagen and Newcastle-Amsterdam, which were more reliant on passenger revenues – chief executive Torben Carlsen said some 25% of its cross-Channel departures had been suspended. He believed this was a similar amount to Dover-Calais rival P&O Ferries.
Splash247 reports that the South Korean President has presided over the naming of the world’s largest containership in the world, the first of 12 recordbreaking ships to be delivered to HMM. HMM Algeciras has a capacity of 23,964 TEU. (Personal note: How long it’ll take before it has enough cargo to carry full capacity remains to be seen).
Splash247: Six Chinese government units including Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, National Health Commission, General Administration of Customs, National Immigration Administration and Civil Aviation Administration of China, have jointly released a notice to further guide and facilitate Chinese crew changes at domestic ports as part of efforts to normalise the transport sector. Under the new guidance, Chinese crews can sign on to ships at domestic ports after testing negative for coronavirus. Ports are asked to provide the necessary facilities for Chinese crews onboard foreign ships to sign off if they can provide a 14-day normal health record when arriving at Chinese ports. Chinese embassies around the world have also been told to assist Chinese crew overseas to return home once their contracts are up. Additionally, authorities have agreed to remove the 14-day quarantine procedure for ships operating on international-domestic combination routes so long as all crew test negative for coronavirus and promise not to disembark at domestic ports.
Japanese carrier ONE’s vessels from Asia to Europe sailed full last month, as bookings delayed by the extended Chinese New Year holiday were finally shipped out says The Loadstar but the magazine warns that due to a collapse in demand via Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, ONE will be challenged to reach anywhere near maximum load factors in April and May, despite the high number of blanked sailings already announced. At 128,000 teu, ONE’s March Asia-Europe headhaul liftings were some 6% below last year, when vessel utilisation hit 82%, suggesting there was tighter capacity management by THE Alliance members. According to eeSea data, THE Alliance members appear to have taken a more judicious strategy with Asia-Europe blankings in March, cancelling 18% or six of its 46 advertised sailings, compared to voiding 10% of its 66 transpacific voyages. Commenting on ONE’s operational numbers container shipping analyst Lars Jensen noted that the figures were measured at the time of loading, thus cargo booked at the end of March would not be included. “The pandemic impact only gathered pace in late March,” said Mr Jensen. “The early part of March was the short period where China was getting back up, and the pandemic impact had not yet manifested itself strongly in the rest of the world.” He added that notwithstanding the “positive” utilisation levels for ONE in March they should not be taken as an indicator as they only reflected the “short window” between the easing of the virus lockdowns in China and the global pandemic. “We should expect April and May to be much worse for all carriers, which is why we are seeing all the blank sailings,” said Mr Jensen.
Kraft Heinz will extend for two weeks a $100 per week stipend for factory workers producing its packaged foods during the COVID-19 pandemic, the company has said. "Kraft Heinz has made the decision to extend the $100 per week stipend for another two weeks and we will continue to evaluate this special compensation program as the situation evolves," a spokesman for the US-based maker of Heinz ketchup and Kraft Macaroni & Cheese said in an emailed statement. The stipend covers factories in the United States, Canada and Europe. (Source: ESM Magazine)
Also ESM Magazine: Tyson Foods Inc will indefinitely suspend operations at its largest US pork plant to contain the spread of the coronavirus, the company said, further tightening meat supplies after other major slaughterhouse shutdowns. The closures are limiting the amount of meat the United States can produce during the outbreak and adding stress on farmers who are losing markets for their pigs. Lockdowns that aim to stop the spread of the coronavirus have also prevented farmers around the globe from delivering food products to consumers. Millions of labourers cannot get to the fields for harvesting and planting, and there are too few truckers to keep goods moving. Tyson Foods, the largest US meat supplier, said its largest pork plant in Waterloo, Iowa, was closing after operating at reduced capacity. The plant supplies approximately 5% of the US pork supply.
Air Canada has announced it’s suspending all flights to the US until at least May 22nd (provided governments allow it to recommence flights by that date). Airlive.net
Qatar Airways Cargo has partnered with the Australian Government to restore critical global supply chains through the International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM). The IFAM is an initiative by the Australian Government that has been launched to help restorecritical global supply chains for high-value Australian agricultural and fisheries producers, which have been heavily impacted by Covid-19 containment measures around the world. Through this initiative, the Australian Government is partially offsetting the cost of airfreight – reducing airfreight and freight forwarding costs for exporters and ensuring businesses and exporters in the country can swiftly transport their produce on flights and to international customers. (Source: Aircargonews).
Digital supply chain - Netflix says it’s got enough backlog to not run out of new TV shows during the Pandemic reports Bloomberg with fan favourite The Crown already in post production for season 4.
US land freight - The Loadstar reports significant drops are now occurring in intermodal freight in the US. “Since 1988, when our data began, total US railcar loads were lower than last week only during a few Christmas and new year’s weeks, when rail operations are seasonally low,” said AAR (Association of American Railroads) senior vice-president John Gray. “Part of the problem now is sustained weakness in coal loads, but even excluding coal, carloads last week were down 13.1%. We haven’t seen sustained declines of that magnitude since the great recession.” In the week ending 11 April, AAR figures showed a 23.8% drop in overall carloads, with intermodal units down 20%. One of the worst-hit sectors was motor vehicles and parts, with a drop of 15,521 units to 2,185. Truckers have fared better. The American Trucking Association (ATA) reported a 4.3% rise in volumes for March. However, the numbers conceal significant differences between various types of freight. ATA chief economist Bob Costello called last month “the storm before the calm”, particularly for carriers of consumer staples. He said: “There was a huge divergence among freight types. While freight to grocery stores and big box retailers was strong due to surge-buying by households, freight was anaemic in other supply chains, like gasoline, restaurants and auto factories. Because of this, and the continued shuttering of many parts of the economy, I would expect April tonnage to be very soft.”
I hope to publish them today, but being very honest it’s pretty unlikely and if I do get time it won’t be until late evening UK time (so around 10 hrs from now). I'd like to throw up the graphs for both infections and death rates for the four states that want to open because gut instinct tells me they haven't peaked yet so why they'd want to reopen is beyond my understanding.
The FORBES AFRICA 30 Under 30 list is the most-anticipated list of game-changers on the continent and this year, we are on the hunt for 30 of Africa’s brightest achievers under the age of 30... FORBES AFRICA is on the hunt for Africans under the age of 30, who are building brands, creating jobs and transforming the continent, to join our... Under 30 1 year ago Making Of The 2019 Forbes Africa #30Under30 Cover This year marks the fifth milestone annual FORBES AFRICA 30 under 30 list, and we have introduced a new category of game-changers. Celebrating six years of the FORBES AFRICA 30 Under 30 list, they are the continent’s revolutionary thinkers revitalizing ideas and industries with fresh business models and innovative leadership. Single Digital Issue: Forbes Africa April 2020 – 30 Under 30. R 50.00. Add to cart. Forbes Africa Subscription . R 225.00 – R 800.00. Select options. Single Digital Issue: James Mwangi Cover ... Applications for FORBES AFRICA’s 30 Under 30 Class Of 2021 are open. This is an opportunity for entrepreneurs, creatives, sports stars and technology geeks. Each year, FORBES AFRICA looks for resilient self-starters, innovators, entrepreneurs and disruptors who have the acumen to stay the course in their chosen field, come what may. Forbes released its “30 Under 30” list for 2020 on the 2nd of this month. This marked its tenth annual Under 30 list. It is interesting to note that of the 30 entrepreneurs who made the list, nine of them are Nigerians. This is indeed a big deal because over 3,000 persons were nominated from different parts of africa. In 2019, a total of 120 finalists (30 each in all four categories) made it to the Under 30 list. However, this year Forbes decided to shrink the list even further ... Forbes Africa has released its fifth edition of its 30 under 30 list, honouring some of the continent’s most accomplished young artists, entrepreneurs and tech stars. The popular magazine, this year, has released the names of 120 young African game-changers, all under the age of 30, in each of the four sectors – business, technology, creatives and sport. Ten Nigerian celebrities have top Forbes 30 under 30 list for 2020: DJ Cuppy, Mr Eazi, Patoranking, Tracy Batta, Olajumoke Oduwole, DaviesOkeowo, Swanky Jerry, Maryam Gwadabe & Asisat Oshoala on FORBES AFRICA 30 Under 30 list. According to Forbes, they are the Africa revolutionary thinkers revitalizing ideas and industries with fresh business models and innovative […] The FORBES AFRICA 30 Under 30 list is the most-anticipated list of game-changers on the continent and this year, they are on the hunt for 30 of Africa’s brightest achievers under the age of 30 spanning these categories: Business, Technology, Creatives, and Sport. The FORBES AFRICA 30 Under 30 list is the most-anticipated list of game-changers on the continent and this year, we are on the hunt for 30 of Africa’s brightest achievers under the age of 30 spanning these categories: Business, Technology, Creatives, and Sport. Past honorees include Mr Eazi, Lloyd Harris, Sho Madjozi, Bruce Diale, Karabo Poppy, Thuso Mbedu, Nomzamo Mbatha, Burna Boy, Nthabiseng Mosia, Davido, Shamim Nabuuma Kaliisa, Nasty C and WizKid. Continuing with a final list of 30 ...
Bruce Diale, 29, South AfricaFounder and Managing Director: Brucol Global DevelopmentBruce Diale went from living on R10 a day to founding a million-rand bus... Forbes Africa has released its 30 Under 30 list for 2019 in Johannesburg. The 5th annual Forbes Africa 30 Under 30 list features 120 young African change-ma... Forbes Africa releases its '30 Under 30' list for 2019 - Duration: 10:42. SABC News 3,626 views. 10:42. Negotiation Skills: Former FBI Negotiator Chris Voss At The Australia Real Estate Conference ... We go behind the scenes with Forbes Africa 30 UNDER 30 2019 cover stars. THE FORBES AFRICA 30 UNDER 30 LIST IS THE most-anticipated list of game-changers on ... Here it is, the most talked about FORBES AFRICA list; 30 of the brightest, hungriest and most successful entrepreneurs under the age of 30. These are our cov... For the past five years Forbes Africa has been highlighting young achievers in various categories who are under the age of 30. 120 young people were awarded ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. This special from the Forbes Africa Under 30 Meet-up brings you highlights from four of the day’s panel discussions - Where Are They Now? – Forbes Africa 30 ... As North America settles in for a long pandemic winter, there are bright spots on the horizon. Hundreds of them. The 600 young entrepreneurs, activists, scie... Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry Hon. Peggy Serame this morning addressed the media about the forthcoming Forbes 30 Under 30 Africa Summit schedule...
