The Pros And Cons Of Fox News

Before I am completely encapsulated with my emotions (mostly craze) I would like to make two statements whilst my mind remains somewhat stable… somewhat. The first being that several hundred news websites have published their own versions of this article; however, I chose to write about Fox News’ version. The second statement I am going to make is as follows. Fox news is the bane of my entire existence. Thank you.

I’m going to refer to the world’s richest 62 as “greed” and Fox News as “ambition”. Greed and ambition eat at the same table. They both devour their meal; the delicious lower class.

Fox news is right wing garbage. They are highly subjective and you would do yourself better by not watching the news entirely as opposed to watching

them. Clearly I have a bias against them but the degree in which this article was composed is repulsive to an alarming extent. Oxfam’s latest report was focused on an increasingly obscene wealth inequality and the stranglehold exerted by a global elite. This alarming discovery outlines that 53 men and 9 women have as much wealth as more than 3.6 billion people on this planet. This finding highlights how extreme inequality has bred rapidly since capitalism has tightened its reigns on society. Of the richest 62 people, we have another subcategory; the top 10 richest of the richest 62. A mouthful, I know but bear with me. Amidst these top 10, 7 of them are American corporate owners. Big names, big mouths and most of them are also big crooks. Suddenly, you start to see my point. Rather than outlining the shear horridness of this discovery, Fox News’ gently brushes this story off with such ease you might mistake the brushwork for Monet’s. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you as they say. You know the republican nitwits that support and fund Fox News? Yeah, well a bunch of them are amongst the richest 62, so you know, better safe than sorry. Who cares about the other 3.6 billion people on the planet? As long as the boss is happy, and the ticker tape that so incorrectly reads “fair & balanced” keeps on ticking, the folks at Fox news have no worries at all.

I’m sure the fact that the world’s 62 richest individuals have the same net worth as the Earth’s poorest 3.5 billion inhabitants is as bland of statement as “Honey, we’re out of milk” to them - but for the rest of us, it’s nothing more than the distantly rational consequence of a petrified pile-up of embezzlement, genocide, corruption and deceit. The morbidity and mortality rate are obviously higher amongst the poor than the rich. It is not the average income of society that is the most imperative needle, but the size of the gap between the richest and the poorest in our society.

Unfortunately, I myself don’t have a solution to this wealth gap. I have a hunch though as to why no one seems to care.

Breaking down these billionaire’s possibly trillionaire’s assets could very well do wonders for this world.

The average value of these 62 is over 40 billion dollars. Multiply that by 62 and you get 2.54e+12. Honestly I don’t know what that means but we’ll stick with saying it’s an egregious sum of money. Now why this article and the statistics as a whole are so upsetting to me is due to the power of implication and overall lack of interest in wealth distribution. The reason everyone, especially Fox News is brushing this off is because the entire idea of a functioning capitalist system and the rights of the wealthiest individuals would collapse if anyone acted upon this uneven distribution. If you forcibly took the money from these rich people and redistributed it, what's going to come next? Why not take from the next richest 100 to even further close the gap? Why not just flatten out all inequality? The core of the entire economy of the horrendous corporate/capitalistic society we live in would be destroyed due to the implication that our money, sovereignty of self and assets isn’t safe. This in turn leads us full circle. Likely, all the wealthy people and their businesses would move overseas immediately, and the financial system would grind to a halt as people battled over the right to property and government interference. The capital markets wouldn't work, as intrinsic value means nothing when it can be stripped away without reason. Innovation would slow to a crawl as

people are unsure if they want to invent something that will make them rich, only to have their money stripped away. Basically, the redistribution would add a few dollars to everyone’s bank account, regardless of average income. However, the implications of the redistribution would likely result in massive social unrest, riots, and an exodus of talent and wealth from the country. Transitions to a socialist state would end up being a bloody revolution as laws and ruling parties would be wiped out and those 62 would flee the nation to avoid prosecution. This kind of sounds like the basis for an X-files episode but if you really think about the world we live in, it does hold a lot of truth.

This brings us to the influence of the wealthy.

War is never inadvertent; it’s always a lucid policy choice.

A state doesn’t wage war for humanitarian reasons; the single purpose of any war is to placate the hysterical appetite for new income and to appease supporters of the state. Though, world powers continue to weep over humanitarian crises They can’t seem to figure out why so many people are dying of hunger, diseases etc. in these war ravaged countries. Actually, its not that they can’t figure it out, its more that in dealing with the root of the problem, they would indirectly be taking responsibility for the deaths involved, the wealth gap and the fact that they are being bought off while simultaneously cutting into their own green filled pockets.

Authority and dispensation are being used to rig the structure to continue the slit between the richest and the rest of us to planes that have not been seen before. Wealth is being pulled upwards at an alarming rate and the importance of the lower class becomes less and less each day as the value of money increases. Greed is unmanageable without money; all other kinds of accretion and of mania for it appear as nascent. Greed though, is centered on those little green rectangles that allow one to rule the

world.

Contrary to what Fox News says, it doesn't have to be this way. Life-threatening disparity is not inevitable. It is the consequence and fusion of greed and political corruption. A world where economic growth benefits the poorest people is in fact feasible. We could live in a world where wealth is distributed evenly, but instead we ruin the countries we govern and the people in our care. We slaughter our enemies and sacrifice all our allies. We’ll keep killing till there’s nothing left but to destroy ourselves. It will never be enough, and why? To ensure that those never ending stacks of cash keep flowing to those 62 people who own this worl