I’ve written only a bit about Chrystia Freeland. It was something to do with the War in the Donbass, and I couldn’t get over how yellow this broads teeth were.
She looks like she spends all her free time doing heroin. She looks worse than Emma Watson after her life force was drained from her.
I had really no idea who this broad was. She has some cabinet position, but the Liberal Party just shifts everybody around every so often. No real expertise is required, so I didn’t even bother learning what position she had specifically.
WTF is going on in this picture anyway?
Well apparently she’s the finance minister, and this isn’t as random as many of the other positions in the Liberal Cabinet. Chrystia has some experience with finance, or at least being a propagandist for finance.
She even has a little biography on GoodReads.
Chrystia Freeland is the Global Editor-at-Large of Reuters news since March 1, 2010, having formerly been the United States managing editor at the Financial Times, based in New York City. Freeland received her undergraduate education from Harvard University, going onto St Antony’s at University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. She attended the United World College of the Adriatic, Italy, 1984-86.
A Ukrainian-Canadian, Freeland has worked in Kiev, Moscow, London, Toronto and currently in New York. She is the author of Sale of the Century, a 2000 book about Russia’s journey from communism to capitalism.
A Globalist’s Globalist, you’d sort of think that someone who has that impressive of a resume would be a little bit more impressive of an interview. To anyone who has ever seen her interviewed she comes across as some floozy ditz. Frankly, before I read her resume I have to tell you I would have never guessed she hopped around at these prestigious universities on scholarships. Instead I would have guessed that she started out as some political intern and worked her way up from there, probably from a kneeling position.
I’m not doing a book review of Sale of the Century right now, because it’s her next book that caught my eye. In 2012 she wrote “Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else”. You might think that this would be a critical book, from the title. You’d be wrong.
You keep thinking that she’s going to be condemning this, and she almost gets there when talking about the percent of wealth owned by the 0.1%. And then she just… never really gets there. She does some weird anecdote about some “superstars,” and the “global tech revolution.” She then talks about “Crony Capitalism.”
I’m even more of a fan of globalization. – Chrystia Freeland.
The rest of it is just retarded nothings. In fact, I think I have to go through it on a line by line basis in another article, but it’s this bizarre thing where she brings up anecdote after anecdote of some random business, like Amazon, or some random plutocrat, like Zuckerberg, and then basically says “they’re brilliant, but they might be a little bad,” and then moves on to the next bit.
Although there is one thing in particular that she says that really annoys the shit out of me.
And why stop at just playing the global political and economic system as it exists, to your own maximum advantage? Once you have the tremendous economic power that we’re seeing at the very very top of the income distribution, and the political power that inevitably entails, it becomes tempting as well to start trying to change the rules of the game in your own favour.
This is the standard LOLbertarian/Cuckservative critique of “crony capitalism,” or whatever. I’ll remind you that Facebook’s number one goal of political lobbying is not to get special favours from the government, it’s to have the government not regulate them. They’re the winners of a trillion dollar winner takes all market. They don’t need to rig the game, the game is already rigged.
Freelund states repeatedly that all these billionaire cunts earned their wealth honestly, but then they might be doing some bad things with government lobbying on the side. And yet, the idea that someone could possibly have earned a billion is so laughably stupid, that to even engage with the premise is to on some level legitimize it. It’s not even wrong. They are simply the owners of businesses in winner takes all markets.
In any case, the reviews of her book paint a similar picture.
Vince,
The author definitely knows her subjects well, including knowing many of the plutocrats by name. This is a positive because she doesn’t have to speak in the abstract but, it also has its down sides. Many of the chapters just read as a series of very short anecdotes, often no more than a few paragraphs in length.
She introduces a theme and then uses the anecdotes as examples. Each new person introduced gets a mini-bio including anything unique about them before proceeding to give the theme supporting details. This goes on in series, making for long, much too long, chapters. We really don’t need that many examples of how plutocrats hire top lawyers, or consultants, or whatever thus skewing income in support industries too. A couple would have sufficed, but then the chapters would have been much shorter I suppose.
It might have been forgivable if there had been some deep insight on offer but there wasn’t much of that; just endless examples.
Her book appears to be her 15 minute TED talk stretched out to a couple hundred pages.
Blaise Lucey,
First, readers need to understand one thing: the cover, the name, and the back of the book are a marketing gimmick. For the first hundred pages, at least, there is nothing insightful about plutocrats themselves. Indeed, for many pages, Freeland excitingly glorifies capitalism and its winners. She enjoys referencing herself on many occasions, and just how many people she has talked to who have money, the revelations given to her from people who are celebrities for wealth alone. No crime, of course, but also not what I had in mind when I got the book.
No, I bought “Plutocrats” to hear from the mysterious and oft-maligned 1%. I wanted to know what they had to say about the rest of us. Instead, I got a lot of pages about the ecoystem of business, what “premium talent” means in an economy where the best talent can is instantly accessible to millions, and a comparison between Lady Gaga and a century-old soul singer.
The verdict? Lady Gaga is more successful and more “talented” because she has made more money.
At the core of this book are interesting insights about how the global elite now identifies more with fellow elites, instead of fellow countrymen. How more Harvard students are going into finance than anything else, because that’s where money is. How finance people make a much, much more money than the rest of us, because in America it pays more to shuffle other people’s money around than make it yourself.
And how, if you’re super-talented, you can still excel in an increasingly globalized economy. But if you’re not… well, I’ll let highlight about one of very few quotes in the book that are actually from a plutocrat:
“The American worker is the most overpaid worker in the world.”
That’s interesting. I was of the opinion that billionaires are the most overpaid people in the world, but I guess that’s just me.
Light weight? But, but, but, she’s a rhodes scholar! She’s graduated from Harvard! She’s lived a life of globetrotting luxury riding the coattails of people who exploit the inherent unfairness of winner takes all markets! She’s one of the “elite,” and definitely not just a privileged little cunt. How could she have anything other than cutting, insightful analysis?
Stephie Jane Rexroth,
This book would have benefited from a second author, a sociologist, political scientist or economist, to transform Chrystia Freeland’s interviews into a cohesive thesis. The chapters and subheadings were arbitrary; the book read more like an anthology of short articles on the subject of super-elites.
…
Most of these reviews are from 2012-2013, just after the book was released, and long before Freeland went into politics, which she did in 2015. So these people shitting all over this trite nothing garbage aren’t doing so because they have a political axe to grind. They’re do so because she’s a dumb, vapid whore.
Seriously WTF is wrong with her teeth?
These are the sort of airhead fake “elites,” that we are supposed to call elites. She has an impressive resume, and yet her analysis of plutocrats is incorrect when it even exists in the first place. She doesn’t give a shit about the little peasants who these parasites leech off of, and she enjoys hobnobbing around with some billionaire cunts and cuntesses, all while merely commenting matter of factly that they have a lot of money.
The teeth look somewhat better here, but even still.
She’s a spoilt little cunt with no particular insight or critique to offer anyone, and her anecdotes and asides don’t actually go anywhere. She’ll namedrop Warren Buffet and then Bill Gates and then Jeff Bezos and never actually, you know, say anything other than that they’re really rich. We know you stupid cunt, what should we do about policy?
And after getting into politics we can see that the policy she and the Liberal party prefer is to… do everything for international finance capital and absolutely nothing for the little peasants.
BRUSH YOUR FUCKING TEETH YOU GROSS CUNT
In short, what a cunt.
Those teeth, that ass – my guess is she’s a hard core diabetic.