3 ms·

do you think Tech companies don't lobby and participate in municipal governments? The interests in favor of ignoring systemic societal problems are much more po

do you think Tech companies don't lobby and participate in municipal governments? The interests in favor of ignoring systemic societal problems are much more powerful than the people who are being crushed and forced out of participating in society. Politics are ruled by the interests of the rich. Everything that has been gained to the detriment of the rich has been through popular struggle and oftentimes bloodshed. There is in liberal democracy always a constant pressure to roll back such gains and subdue populism. This has been the momentum in the United States for decades. It might be shifting now, perhaps too late to avoid a serious glitch of the system. It's not ridiculous to think that the powerful and influential have a responsibility to the society that supports them. have we so fallen down the neoliberalism hole that civic duty is a completely alien concept? If the rich have no responsibility to society, liberal democracies will break down.

convexfunction 11y ago
My friend had another post on this subject that you might find interesting. http://rationalconspiracy.com/2014/04/17/money-doesnt-matter-in-politics/ http://rationalconspiracy.com/2014/04/17/money-doesnt-matter...
- danharaj 11y ago
  http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... Abstract Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. Martin Gilens is Professor of Politics at Princeton University (mgilens@princeton.edu). His research examines representation, public opinion, and mass media, especially in relation to inequality and public policy. Professor Gilens is the author of Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012, Princeton University Press). Benjamin I. Page is Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University (b-page@northwestern.edu). His research interests include public opinion, policy making, the mass media, and U.S. foreign policy. He is currently engaged in a large collaborative project to study Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good. For helpful comments the authors are indebted to Larry Bartels and Jeff Isaac, to the anonymous reviewers from Perspectives on Politics, and to seminar participants at Harvard University and the University of Rochester.
- convexfunction 11y ago
  "Those with political power are also often wealthy or represent business interests" is different from "being wealthy or representing a business interest offers you political power"; the abstract seems to support the former (which I'm sure is true, you'd be stupid not to turn some of your power into money) but not really the latter.

convexfunction 11y ago

My friend had another post on this subject that you might find interesting. http://rationalconspiracy.com/2014/04/17/money-doesnt-matter-in-politics/ http://rationalconspiracy.com/2014/04/17/money-doesnt-matter...

danharaj 11y ago
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... Abstract Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. Martin Gilens is Professor of Politics at Princeton University (mgilens@princeton.edu). His research examines representation, public opinion, and mass media, especially in relation to inequality and public policy. Professor Gilens is the author of Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012, Princeton University Press). Benjamin I. Page is Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University (b-page@northwestern.edu). His research interests include public opinion, policy making, the mass media, and U.S. foreign policy. He is currently engaged in a large collaborative project to study Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good. For helpful comments the authors are indebted to Larry Bartels and Jeff Isaac, to the anonymous reviewers from Perspectives on Politics, and to seminar participants at Harvard University and the University of Rochester.
convexfunction 11y ago
"Those with political power are also often wealthy or represent business interests" is different from "being wealthy or representing a business interest offers you political power"; the abstract seems to support the former (which I'm sure is true, you'd be stupid not to turn some of your power into money) but not really the latter.