4 ms·

For clarity: you saying the source of the laws are wealthy "elites" that aren't in office? Meaning sone lobbyists and their patrons? Otherwise I'm confused as

For clarity: you saying the source of the laws are wealthy "elites" that aren't in office? Meaning sone lobbyists and their patrons? Otherwise I'm confused as one can both be a selfish rich person AND a (american-style or noy) democratically elected official.

andrepd 9y ago
Ask any American this question: "Knowing that some people are responsible for _knowingly_ enriching themselves off of messing with the global economy leading to the global economic crisis of 2009 and, for example, hundreds of thousands to millions of excess deaths, would you support: (A) jail time and criminal accountability for all involved; or (B) a $700,000,000,000 bailout for, among other things, their next yacht fund? If the majority answer is (A) then there's your evidence we live in a plutocracy.
- ergothus 9y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree - I was trying to establish what position the above poster had. (i.e. where they saying the decisions are being made by the officials in office or by the lobbyists or by the people hiring the lobbyists). None of those options deny a plutocracy, they just describe the means.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
There are three groups. - The Elites. In current parlance The 1%. - Their enablers. They're the next 14%. We really don't have an acknowledgement of the existence of this group. Examples would be politicians, the majoriry of the media, etc. - Everyone else. In 1984 this was The Proles. The 1% v 99% lens is __all wrong__. Any discussion via that lens is all but pointless. It puts the 14% on the wrong side of the line.
- ergothus 9y ago
  I really hate the use of "elites" in this context (you're using a common usage, I just don't like it). To be elite is something to aspire to, to admire. To be truly elite includes concepts like benevolence, compassion, a larger awareness, and a long-term perspective. Being rich and/or educated alone isn't enough to be elite. Having power is definitely not part of being elite. A malevolent dictator is not an elite, they are just a powerful jerk. This may be yelling to hold back the tide, but I think it's a bad idea to connect concepts of "good" with concepts of "asshole"
  - mathgeek 9y ago
    Per Wikipedia: "In political and sociological theory, the elite (French élite, from Latin eligere) are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society."
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Call it whatever you want. The key takeaway is the awareness of The 14% is nonexistent. The 14% is not part of the so called 99%, the 14% is on the wrong side of divide.

andrepd 9y ago

Ask any American this question: "Knowing that some people are responsible for _knowingly_ enriching themselves off of messing with the global economy leading to the global economic crisis of 2009 and, for example, hundreds of thousands to millions of excess deaths, would you support: (A) jail time and criminal accountability for all involved; or (B) a $700,000,000,000 bailout for, among other things, their next yacht fund? If the majority answer is (A) then there's your evidence we live in a plutocracy.

ergothus 9y ago
I don't necessarily disagree - I was trying to establish what position the above poster had. (i.e. where they saying the decisions are being made by the officials in office or by the lobbyists or by the people hiring the lobbyists). None of those options deny a plutocracy, they just describe the means.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

There are three groups. - The Elites. In current parlance The 1%. - Their enablers. They're the next 14%. We really don't have an acknowledgement of the existence of this group. Examples would be politicians, the majoriry of the media, etc. - Everyone else. In 1984 this was The Proles. The 1% v 99% lens is __all wrong__. Any discussion via that lens is all but pointless. It puts the 14% on the wrong side of the line.

ergothus 9y ago
I really hate the use of "elites" in this context (you're using a common usage, I just don't like it). To be elite is something to aspire to, to admire. To be truly elite includes concepts like benevolence, compassion, a larger awareness, and a long-term perspective. Being rich and/or educated alone isn't enough to be elite. Having power is definitely not part of being elite. A malevolent dictator is not an elite, they are just a powerful jerk. This may be yelling to hold back the tide, but I think it's a bad idea to connect concepts of "good" with concepts of "asshole"
- mathgeek 9y ago
  Per Wikipedia: "In political and sociological theory, the elite (French élite, from Latin eligere) are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society."
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Call it whatever you want. The key takeaway is the awareness of The 14% is nonexistent. The 14% is not part of the so called 99%, the 14% is on the wrong side of divide.