World’s 8 Richest People Mostly Progressive, Own More $$ than Half the World Population

[Anonymous]

Most billionaire are progressives who control the agenda in the West.

The world's eight richest people own as much as half the world's population, according to an analysis by the charity Oxfam.

Yet the same people who own more than the bottom half of the world's population are also the same people who tout progressive, globalist philosophies championed by the very people who claim that there is income inequality.



Here are the eight people who made the list:



1. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. Net worth: $75 billion. Gates leads the list with a total net worth of $75 billion, but his foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, spent $170 million to create and implement Common Core standards, and said socialism was the only thing that can save us from climate change.



2. Amancio Ortega Gaona, the Spanish founder of the fashion company Inditex, best known for its oldest and biggest brand, Zara. Net worth: $67 billion. Ortega keeps a low profile compared to most of the people on this list, but his foundation, Fundacion Amancio Ortega, promotes funding for many social programs.



3. Warren E. Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Net worth: $60.8 billion. Buffett may be one of the richest people on this list, but he isn't against greater regulations for businesses and higher taxes. Yet despite his personal convictions, his business, Berkshire Hathaway, received $95 billion in TARP funds during the banking bailout.



4. Carlos Slim Helú, the Mexican telecommunications magnate. Net worth: $50 billion. In addition to dominating the Mexican telecom industry, he is also the largest investor in the New York Times and is part owner of the historically liberal paper. He is also a fierce proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States.



5. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon. Net worth: $45.2 billion. Bezos is owner of the Washington Post, which penned an editorial saying that foreign workers should replace Americans. His company Amazon is also working to cut labor costs by hiring robots to help ship packages.



6. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's creator. Net worth: $44.6 billion. Zuckerberg has been very vocal about his support for progressive, globalist policies, publicly praising Germany's open-door refugee policies as "inspiring." He has also reprimanded those at Facebook who crossed out "Black Lives Matter" in favor of "All Lives Matter."



7. Lawrence J. Ellison, the founder of Oracle. Net worth: $43.6 billion. Ellison, like Zuckerberg, supports comprehensive immigration reform. His company is also one of the biggest users of H1-B visas, which have been criticized for replacing American workers with foreign replacements.



8. Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York and founder of the media and financial-data giant Bloomberg L.L.P. Net worth: $40 billion. Bloomberg may be one of the richest men in the world, but he also was the mastermind behind New York City's ban on large containers of soda and spent $50 million funding the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/16/worlds-8-richest-people-mostly-progressive-own-more-than-half-the-world-population/">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... opulation/">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/16/worlds-8-richest-people-mostly-progressive-own-more-than-half-the-world-population/

[Anonymous]

It may not seem very democratic, but I would like to see the political activities of the super rich curtailed..



They own the media and the internet and that gives them the powers of absolute monarchs.

[cc]

Well put!!!



In effect

"that gives them the powers of absolute monarchs"

It is true in today's world

[Anonymous]

It may not seem very democratic, but I would like to see the political activities of the super rich curtailed..



They own the media and the internet and that gives them the powers of absolute monarchs.

Their power will only increase.

[Anonymous]

They do  wield a disproportionate amount of power.

[Wazzzup]

It may not seem very democratic, but I would like to see the political activities of the super rich curtailed..



They own the media and the internet and that gives them the powers of absolute monarchs.

No, actually what you are advocating IS democracy.  Why should someone have more say than you or I because they have more money? They shouldn't, but they often do.



One man, oops... I mean one person (sorry Justin ) one vote, that's democracy.

[Anonymous]

It may not seem very democratic, but I would like to see the political activities of the super rich curtailed..



They own the media and the internet and that gives them the powers of absolute monarchs.

No, actually what you are advocating IS democracy.  Why should someone have more say than you or I because they have more money? They shouldn't, but they often do.



One man, oops... I mean one person (sorry Justin ) one vote, that's democracy.

I agree, but they seem to think their money is building democracy..



I say they are buying power.

[Angry White Male]

Here's the problem...



Some of those names have produced things that we use.  That we have bought.



If there was a better alternative, spend your money elsewhere.  Money always does the talking.



I try to spend my money appropriately, but when a product is there, that works, and that the masses use, what can be done?



I like my Windows 7 O/S.  I do not have Berkshire Hathaway investments, but many do, and have seen good returns.  Many items that I want, I cannot purchase here directly, but Amazon will deliver them to me.  And I dislike FaceBook, but many like it.  I use it very sparingly...

[Anonymous]

Here's the problem...



Some of those names have produced things that we use.  That we have bought.



If there was a better alternative, spend your money elsewhere.  Money always does the talking.



I try to spend my money appropriately, but when a product is there, that works, and that the masses use, what can be done?



I like my Windows 7 O/S.  I do not have Berkshire Hathaway investments, but many do, and have seen good returns.  Many items that I want, I cannot purchase here directly, but Amazon will deliver them to me.  And I dislike FaceBook, but many like it.  I use it very sparingly...

It's not about the products their businesses have produced that most people want.

[Anonymous]

There is no oposition from Trudeau about news it doesn't seem to like.

[size=150]Liberals shouldn't even think about regulating social media

[/size]

It's one thing to upset a special interest group. It's another to turn many millions of people against you. The Trudeau Liberals raised the ire of progressives when they backed away from electoral reform. They faced stiff opposition from small business groups when they started monkeying around with tax issues. But all of this will look like small potatoes if they try to clamp down on what people get up to on social media platforms like Facebook. The Liberals have been ever so softly publicly toying with the notion of somehow regulating social media. If they proceed with this, the blowback will be immense. "Trudeau has warned social networking giant Facebook it needs to fix its 'fake news' problems or face stronger regulations from Ottawa," the Toronto Star reported earlier this month. "Trudeau told Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg in November he was concerned the company wasn't doing enough to stop the spread of misleading information on their platform." We'd be curious to learn Trudeau's working definition of "fake news." So far, his office has declined to offer one up. Karina Gould, the Liberal minister of democratic institutions, is keeping this ball in the air. "Are we going to see something more robust in the next six months?" she said to CBC concerning self-regulation on the part of social media giants. "If we don't see something more robust in the next six months, then we need to take action." This is dangerous territory. The government has no business regulating what is and isn't "truth" online. Are there people and companies and those much-discussed bots out there online, posting things that just aren't true? Sure. Does this sometimes mislead and confuse others? No doubt. Would it be ideal if this didn't happen? Sure. Is this the end of the world? Of course not. Does the government need to wade in and do something about it? Absolutely not. Of all the problems out there right now, for the Liberals to try to ban whatever fits their definition of fake news is a waste of resources, political capital and a slippery slope to head down. Stick to the real issues. The people on social media will be just fine.