Robin Hood giving to the rich

[Firestarter]

We have all heard of the legendary Robin Hood, who “stole from the rich to give to the poor”.
So in our Brave New World, the rich in 1988 founded the Robin Hood Foundation so they can continue robbing the poor, while claiming to end poverty...

Robin Hood has raised more than $3 billion in its existence.
None other than the controversial Harvey Weinstein was a co-founder, who was forced to resign from its board after some women complained that he sexually abused them.

On its boards serve a bunch of wonderful “philanthropists”, including:
Lloyd Blankfein (CEO Goldman Sachs)
Glenn Dubin
Laurence D. Fink (CEO BlackRock)

Lachlan Murdoch
Jes Staley
Jeff Zucker (CNN president): https://www.robinhood.org/about-us/governance/index.html
(http://archive.is/GuIms)


Besides the Robin Hood Foundation there is also the “Robin Hood Tax”, supposedly founded to push for a tax on corporations.

One of the largest donors to the “Robin Hood Tax” is the Open Society Foundation of none other than Trump/Kushner/Clinton funder George Soros (also a large donor to Tides).
From January 2009 to April 2014 the Open Society Foundation donated $50 million to the Robin Hood Tax.

Warren Buffett has tried to sell himself as a “tax reform hero” and pushed Robin Hood to the frontline as the “ultimate tax hero”.
In 2011, the Tides Foundation donated $537,673 to groups supporting the “Robin Hood Tax”: https://www.mrc.org/articles/robin-hood-tax-gains-support-soros-moyers-tides-and-media
(http://archive.is/GEXDb)


For more on the Tides Foundation: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?548059-The-Tides-Foundation-NWO


The yearly gala of the Robin Hood Foundation is one of those events where the rich and famous want to be seen...
See for example New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, David Saltzman (Executive Director Robin Hood) and Oprah Winfrey at the Robin Hood Foundation's 2015 gala.

Earlier this year Robin Hood staged a gala to get us to donate, so they will “help” those poor New Yorkers, whose lives have been destroyed by the COVID-19 lockdown.

Robin Hood has been supported by corporate donors (that have profited from the coronavirus “pandemic”), including Barclays, BlackRock, Capital One, Goldman Sachs Gives, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Jane and Daniel Och Family Foundation.

Karlie Kloss, the sister-in-law of Ivanka’s husband Jared Kushner, was one of the celebrities at this gala: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...kers-most-impacted-by-covid-19-301057130.html
(http://archive.is/KFmpe)


In 2018, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $5 million to Robin Hood: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2018/05/OPP1194273


While the Robin Hood Foundation makes all sorts of wild claims about how incredibly successful its efforts are to end poverty in New York, it doesn’t provide any evidence for its impact (of course we can trust those wonderful billionaires, who keep getting richer, while the poor get poorer): https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/08/what-we-know-about-robin-hood-almost-nothing/
(http://archive.is/1wbQ3

 

[Firestarter]

Following is a huge overview on some of the large slush funds that support “philanthropy”, including the Robin Hood Foundation (Tides features prominently and it also includes some of the other NGO’s mentioned in this thread) and the media controlled through these “philanthropic” organisations: https://isgp-studies.com/liberal-cia-ngo-network
(http://archive.is/pz9k3)

 

[Valli6]

Where do they get off calling themselves 'Robin Hood'?
It's like antifa calling themselves anti-fascists.

 

[Krugminator2]

The poor have not gotten poorer in the United States. The lowest incomes are much better off. There is literally no data to suggest the poor have gotten poorer. None. The economists on the left pushing income inequality don't even say the poor are poorer. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-15/wage-stagnation-was-mostly-a-myth

[FONT=open_sansregular]"the wages of a typical worker have increased by 32% over the past three decades. That’s a significant increase in purchasing power.”

[/FONT][FONT=open_sansregular]“Wages for the bottom 20% of workers grew by more than one-third.”

The Robin Hood foundation has nothing to do the the Robin Hood tax.

Paul Tudor Jones founded the Robin Hood Foundation. He is a hero. He didn't get rich through cronyism. He got rich through voluntary trade. Demonizing legitimate success has no place for a Ron Paul supporter. If he wants to raise a ton of money for things like charter schools, good for him. [/FONT]

 

[Krugminator2]

Where do they get off calling themselves 'Robin Hood'?
It's like antifa calling themselves anti-fascists.

The people who founded the Robin Hood Foundation are heroes who have made a lot of money through voluntary exchange and have chosen to give money away through voluntary exchange, instead of using government coercion.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich and give it to the poor. He stole from the government and gave it back to the people.

 

[devil21]

The poor have not gotten poorer in the United States. The lowest incomes are much better off. There is literally no data to suggest the poor have gotten poorer. None. The economists on the left pushing income inequality don't even say the poor are poorer. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-15/wage-stagnation-was-mostly-a-myth

[FONT=open_sansregular]"the wages of a typical worker have increased by 32% over the past three decades. That’s a significant increase in purchasing power.”

[/FONT][FONT=open_sansregular]“Wages for the bottom 20% of workers grew by more than one-third.”

The Robin Hood foundation has nothing to do the the Robin Hood tax.

Paul Tudor Jones founded the Robin Hood Foundation. He is a hero. He didn't get rich through cronyism. He got rich through voluntary trade. Demonizing legitimate success has no place for a Ron Paul supporter. If he wants to raise a ton of money for things like charter schools, good for him. [/FONT]

....and he quotes a Bloomberg article as proof! Someone that was most certainly at the Robin Hood galas lolllll

"the wages of a typical worker have increased by 32% over the past three decades. That’s a significant increase in purchasing power.”

[/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=open_sansregular]“Wages for the bottom 20% of workers grew by more than one-third.”

Yeah that may be true but has the cost of goods and services, including things like shrinkflation of food, stayed the same in that 30 years? No need to answer since we already know the answer to that question. A Big Mac sandwich is literally half the size today that it was 30 years ago and costs twice as much. How many more people are on welfare services now than 30 years ago? Quoting nominal wage increases is irrelevant if they're not real-world price inflation adjusted.

 

[Krugminator2]

....and he quotes a Bloomberg article as proof! Someone that was most certainly at the Robin Hood galas lolllll

The article was about income inequality. Had nothing to do with the Robin Hood Foundation.

Yeah that may be true but has the cost of goods and services, including things like shrinkflation of food, stayed the same in that 30 years? No need to answer since we already know the answer to that question. A Big Mac sandwich is literally half the size today that it was 30 years ago and costs twice as much. How many more people are on welfare services now than 30 years ago? Quoting nominal wage increases is irrelevant if they're not real-world price inflation adjusted.

Actually we don't know. The overwhelming majority of food, cars, housing costs, utilities and consumer products that make up a person's standard of living have become much more affordable to the average person.

I have no effing idea what universe people are living in when they babble about high inflation and wages not keeping up. That is just wrong.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, spending by households on many of modern life's "basics"—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566

The reality is contrary to all of the dooming on this site, inflation is much LOWER than the government statistics say. That is the consensus view of most free market economists. And that says nothing of all of the modern conveniences that actually subtract from GDP Google Maps that dramatically raise standards of living.

[h=1]CPI Overstates Inflation Even More than We Thought[/h]https://www.econlib.org/cpi-overstates-inflation-even-more-than-we-thought/

 

[Firestarter]

[FONT=open_sansregular]The Robin Hood foundation has nothing to do the the Robin Hood tax.[/FONT]

As far as I can tell I haven’t claimed that there is any more connection between the Robin Hood Foundation and Robin Hood Tax than its name and that some of its backers are the same wealthy crooks...

The poor have not gotten poorer in the United States. The lowest incomes are much better off. There is literally no data to suggest the poor have gotten poorer. None. The economists on the left pushing income inequality don't even say the poor are poorer. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-15/wage-stagnation-was-mostly-a-myth

Rich and poor are relative to each other.
Over the last decades the rich have gotten richer, compared to the poor...

 

[Krugminator2]

As far as I can tell I haven’t claimed that there is any more connection between the Robin Hood Foundation and Robin Hood Tax than its name and that some of its backers are the same wealthy crooks...

It is nonsensical to include the Robin Hood Tax in a post about the Robin Hood Foundation. They are completely unrelated.

Rich and poor are relative to each other.
Over the last decades the rich have gotten richer, compared to the poor...

That, of course, isn't what you said. And why should I or you care if the top 1% of wage earners has increased income at a faster rate the lowest income workers? The income someone else makes is not my concern and shouldn't be your concern either.

And the economists who make income inequality a big deal don't attribute to finance either, which is what you are doing with the Robin Hood stuff. From Comrade Piketty.

What explains the changes in top-earning occupations over the past four decades? Perhaps the most intriguing argument about the current state of income inequality in the English speaking economies that Thomas Piketty makes in his bestseller “Capital in the 21st Century” is this—“the vast majority (60 to 70 percent, depending on what definitions one chooses) of the top 0.1 percent of the income hierarchy in 2000-2010 consists of top managers.” He goes on to argue on page 302 of his book that the rise in labor income “primarily reflects the advent of ‘supermanagers,’ that is, top executives of large firms who have managed to obtain extremely high, historically unprecedented compensation packages for their labor.”

 

[Firestarter]

That, of course, isn't what you said. And why should I or you care if the top 1% of wage earners has increased income at a faster rate the lowest income workers? The income someone else makes is not my concern and shouldn't be your concern either.

I'm not surprised that you don't care about the fact that the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer...

You repeatedly show to support BS propaganda that the economy in our Brave New World is supposedly a great example of "freedom" and "democrazy".

Obviously you support a corrupt system where the whole economy is rigged with the support of the media that you love to selectively quote!

 

[Krugminator2]

I'm not surprised that you don't care about the fact that the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer...

You literally said in your previous response

Rich and poor are relative to each other.
Over the last decades the rich have gotten richer, compared to the poor...

The then you go to spout (again) that the poor are getting poorer. No credible person across the political spectrum thinks that. The lowest quintile of income earners when you account for benefits provided by employers like health care add in government transfer payments and take into account what money actually buys, are significantly better off than they were 40 years ago.

And no. I don't care that the highest income earners are making more. Good for them. I am not a Communist. My worldview isn't rooted in jealously and hatred toward the most productive. A small number of people like Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs and Charles Koch push the human race forward. They are underpaid relative to their value.

You repeatedly show to support BS propaganda that the economy in our Brave New World is supposedly a great example of "freedom" and "democrazy".

Obviously you support a corrupt system where the whole economy is rigged with the support of the media that you love to selectively quote!

I have no idea what most of that means and what little I can understand doesn't represent my views at all.

 

[devil21]

I always laugh at Wall St officialdom being quoted to prove that Wall St officialdom is blameless but I'll bite any way.

Actually we don't know. The overwhelming majority of food, cars, housing costs, utilities and consumer products that make up a person's standard of living have become much more affordable to the average person.

That's a very generous way to phrase it since 72 and 84 month car loans were not the norm three decades ago, which cost people a lot more currency over the life of the loan. Paying much higher prices for much less food product, much of which is now soy filler instead of actual food and requires "chemical taste enhancements" in order to be edible, was not the norm three decades ago. 50 million people on food stamps was not the norm three decades ago. Federal housing subsidies, government backed mortgages/student loans etc was not the norm three decades ago. If we still used the same lighting technology as we did three decades ago, everyone's power bills would be $500 a month. Granted, for power, the nominal cost of a power bill may not have changed drastically but that is only because of changes in technology. It's pretty clear that the currency has lost a tremendous amount of purchasing power over that three decades, while wages haven't risen much. The only thing that they've managed to do is HIDE IT really well. These days, the poor are only backstopped by the rest of us through the expansion of socialism (see, for example: universal service fees on utilities, which charge us to subsidize others). Without that, it would be much, much worse and closer to reality. Never mind the huge expansion in credit card usage (and subsequent defaults) from three decades ago required to maintain the appearance of prosperity.

What you're really pointing to is the engineered appearance that wages and expenses have not relatively declined.

 

[Krugminator2]

I always laugh at Wall St officialdom being quoted to prove that Wall St officialdom is blameless but I'll bite any way.

I got the stats from reading Thomas Sowell and Don Boudreaux. Neither one has any connection to Wall Street that I know of.

That's a very generous way to phrase it since 72 and 84 month car loans were not the norm three decades ago, which cost people a lot more currency over the life of the loan. Paying much higher prices for much less food product, much of which is now soy filler instead of actual food and requires "chemical taste enhancements" in order to be edible, was not the norm three decades ago. 50 million people on food stamps was not the norm three decades ago. Federal housing subsidies, government backed mortgages/student loans etc was not the norm three decades ago. If we still used the same lighting technology as we did three decades ago, everyone's power bills would be $500 a month. Granted, for power, the nominal cost of a power bill may not have changed drastically but that is only because of changes in technology. It's pretty clear that the currency has lost a tremendous amount of purchasing power over that three decades, while wages haven't risen much. The only thing that they've managed to do is HIDE IT really well. These days, the poor are only backstopped by the rest of us through the expansion of socialism (see, for example: universal service fees on utilities, which charge us to subsidize others). Without that, it would be much, much worse and closer to reality. Never mind the huge expansion in credit card usage (and subsequent defaults) from three decades ago required to maintain the appearance of prosperity.

What you're really pointing to is the engineered appearance that wages and expenses have not relatively declined.

Welfare transfer payments are more generous now. There is also an Earned Income Tax Credit. If you are talking about income for the lowest earners it makes no sense not to include those. It is money people are getting.

The lower costs are a result of technology getting cheaper. So what? That is part of person's standard of living.

If you take 14 items that make up a person's standard of living from a Sears catalog from 1973 and compare it 2013 prices, they are much more affordable to the median wage earner. It would take the median wage earner 575 hours in 1973 to buy a basket of items like a washing machine, TV, stove, rerfrigerator, freezer, dishwasher cost. That same basket would cost 170 hours of labor for the median earner in 2013

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/when...he-rich-and-the-poor-are-both-getting-richer/

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I have no effing idea what universe people are living in when they babble about high inflation and wages not keeping up. That is just wrong.

This won't age well (it was never true to begin with, but that's another matter, not relevant).

 

[devil21]

I got the stats from reading Thomas Sowell and Don Boudreaux. Neither one has any connection to Wall Street that I know of.

Welfare transfer payments are more generous now. There is also an Earned Income Tax Credit. If you are talking about income for the lowest earners it makes no sense not to include those. It is money people are getting.

The lower costs are a result of technology getting cheaper. So what? That is part of person's standard of living.

If you take 14 items that make up a person's standard of living from a Sears catalog from 1973 and compare it 2013 prices, they are much more affordable to the median wage earner. It would take the median wage earner 575 hours in 1973 to buy a basket of items like a washing machine, TV, stove, rerfrigerator, freezer, dishwasher cost. That same basket would cost 170 hours of labor for the median earner in 2013

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/when...he-rich-and-the-poor-are-both-getting-richer/

Now you quote AEI? Good lord man. Bloomberg, WSJ and AEI are your go-to sources for stats? CFR much, bro?

Practically every appliance you listed requires more service and more often replacement, also. Is anything AFTER the original purchase considered? Same with most every other example in your posts. What's the total cost of ownership of eating HFCS and soy frankenfood? The total-cost-of-ownership, not merely an initial purchase price (which much more often goes on credit instead of cash payment, compared to 1973....credit purchases were practically non-existent in 1973) is the correct measure. It may perhaps be somewhat inaccurate to say that the poor get poorer since they are heavily subsidized now but someone's gettin' poorer and it ain't the rich....

 

[Krugminator2]

Now you quote AEI? Good lord man. Bloomberg, WSJ and AEI are your go-to sources for stats? CFR much, bro?

You mean Mark Perry and Don Boudreaux, two people who have been on with Tom Woods multiple times and are generally liked by by the Mises crowd? Those Friends of the Illuminati?

It may perhaps be somewhat inaccurate to say that the poor get poorer since they are heavily subsidized now but someone's gettin' poorer and it ain't the rich....

No income group is getting poorer. Anyone who says that is factually wrong and it isn't debatable.

 

[Firestarter]

Besides the Robin Hood Foundation there is also the “Robin Hood Tax”, supposedly founded to push for a tax on corporations.

In 2004, it was reported that the Clinton Foundation partnered with the Robin Hood Foundation: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/2004_AR.pdf

You could call that helping the “poor”...
The Robin Hood Foundation donated $10,000-25,000 in 2014 to the wonderful Clinton Foundation: https://the-truth.blog/category/corruption/


12 of the 19 billionaires leading the Robin Hood Foundation are hedge fund managers.
The bank accounts of the 19 billionaires on the Robin Hood Foundation’s boards have risen with 93% since 2008.

In a strange twist the “Robin Hood Foundation” has close ties to the Managed Funds Association (MFA) that lobbies for tax breaks for hedge fund managers. That’s the opposite of what the “Robin Hood Tax” supposedly lobbies for: https://hedgeclippers.org/hedgepape...edgefund-philanthropists-increase-inequality/
(http://archive.is/a46Lq)


I guess that [MENTION=59651]Krugminator2[/MENTION] won’t “like” this video as much as I do! For the short summary of the previous article (less than 2 ½ minutes).
Founder of the Robin Hood Foundation, hedge fund billionaire Paul Tudor Jones is “The Reverse Robin Hood”.

 

[Krugminator2]

You are right. I don't like that video. I sympathize with nothing that video says.

I

I guess that @Krugminator2 won’t “like” this video as much as I do! For the short summary of the previous article (less than 2 ½ minutes).
Founder of the Robin Hood Foundation, hedge fund billionaire Paul Tudor Jones is “The Reverse Robin Hood”.

The video has multiple outright lies. And multiple distortions. The criticisms are so over the top and insane that it takes a special kind of stupid to find anything redeeming in that video.

Presumably the one thing that was factual was how much money he made. He has made a lot of money in fees. The video says $4 billion. He has returned investors 20% after fees with no losing years since 1983. How is that stealing from poor? Seriously. People voluntarily invest with him. He gets them double the returns of the market. And he gets paid for it. Yeah. He makes a lot of money doing that. And for some reason people not only want to give money to him, he has to turn money away despite those fees. Wonder why?

Videos like that are the worst kind of propaganda that hate the good for being good. Instead of celebrating achievement, it is an ugly, envious attempt to chop anyone down who rises above mediocrity.

 

[Firestarter]

The video has multiple outright lies. And multiple distortions. The criticisms are so over the top and insane that it takes a special kind of stupid to find anything redeeming in that video.

While you claim outright lies, you don’t even mention a single one!
Congratulations, this appears to be your first post in this thread that’s actually on topic...

Are you also insinuating that “charities” aren’t used by the rich and corrupt to make policy changes?!?

Videos like that are the worst kind of propaganda that hate the good for being good.

That’s a (almost) like a description of the average post by [MENTION=59651]Krugminator2[/MENTION]!!!

Maybe you’ve forgotten that the coronavirus crisis, bailout plan was written by BlackRock in August 2019.
BlacRock CEO Larry Fink isn’t only on the board of the Robin Hood Foundation, but also a trustee of the World Economic Forum: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ed-the-Bailout-Plan-Before-There-Was-a-Crisis


I guess that you will claim that is also not another “coincidence” that the billionaires have gotten even richer because of the coronavirus crisis and the BlackRock “going direct” plan, but that it’s just another case of “geniuses” making a bundle of the suffering of others, simply because of their skills.

From 18 March to the end of June, the combined wealth of America's billionaires has grown from $2.948 trillion to $3.531 trillion: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...orona-crisis&p=6961939&viewfull=1#post6961939