5 ms·

Right, it obfuscates class distinctions between those who control capital and policy versus those who just have money. I'm somewhat cynical but I think this is

Right, it obfuscates class distinctions between those who control capital and policy versus those who just have money. I'm somewhat cynical but I think this is an intended obfuscation. It's important for petit bourgeois and wealthy skilled workers to understand their position in the class hierarchy, but calling a class whose power is dwarfed by the capitalist class an aristocracy is fluffy rhetoric.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nordsieck 8y ago
> those who control capital and policy versus those who just have money Controlling policy is one thing. Who "just has money" and doesn't control capital? Anyone who has money actually has some sort of capital or an equivalently powerful financial instrument be it stocks, loans to other companies, government bonds, a house, etc.
- danharaj 8y ago
  Just because you own, e.g. stock doesn't mean you control the underlying means of production it represents a share of. Most people who own stock do so as part of a retirement fund. Those institutional investors, banks, managers, politicians, corporate board members, CEO's, etc. Are the ones who actually control capital. It should be emphasized that a lot of how capitalism runs these days is in the hands of huge bureaucracies that comprise people but don't quite act like people. There is a small class of people who operate at that level as individuals: these are the capitalist class. This is an important distinction, don't you think?
  - djajshgsjja 8y ago
    All those people you listed are still cogs in the machine, to varying degrees. The CEOs are beholden to the boards, who are beholden to the institutional investors, who manage my 401k. Certainly, the CEOs have higher leverage over the system on an individual basis. But anyone whose wealth is increasing mainly through return on capital is a member, if not a leader, of the capitalist class.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      Sure, they're all beholden to each other but they're the ones who make the decisions about how to allocate the means of production and which labor power to buy. People who derive their income primarily from investments but don't really decide anything or buy labor power are a rung below those who do. Taxonomize it however you want provided the distinction remains.
      - nostrademons 8y ago
        Who would you consider more of a capitalist, the apartment block owner who contracts with a property manager or the property manager who decides who to rent it to? The high-net-worth individual who deposits his capital with an asset manager, or the salaried fund manager who determines which securities to buy with it? The angel investor who puts $1M of his own money into a fledgling startup, or the entrepreneur who decides how it's spent? The hedge fund manager who has bought 40% of the company on Wall Street, or the CEO entrusted to make the daily decisions on company operation? I'm surprised the grandparent post has been downvoted, because when you get close to how capital is actually managed and invested, it's clear that it's a lot less clear than it looks from the outside. Even people who nominally have "control" over capital expenditures are subject to market returns. If they don't invest that capital correctly, they will lose the ability to manage more capital.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > Who "just has money" and doesn't control capital? 1. The vast majority of middle class wealth is locked up in (non-investment) housing. That money provides a roof and access to quality education, but in almost all cases, it's not being efficiently deployed as capital. 2. Whatever remaining money that is deployed as capital, is not done so in a way that implies control over their chosen investments. Think "majority shareholder" vs. "just another investor". That's the difference between "controlling capital" and merely having a bit of skin in the game.
  - nordsieck 8y ago
    > The vast majority of middle class wealth is locked up in (non-investment) housing. There are literally 0 people I know who think owning a house is not an investment. If you're trying to make a distinction between income generating assets and assets that don't generate income, you're just digging yourself into a hole - housing doesn't generate income, but it does save cost - namely rental cost. In that sense, it is a better investment because the return is less risky. > 2. Whatever remaining money that is deployed as capital, is not done so in a way that implies control over their chosen investments. Think "majority shareholder" vs. "just another investor". That's the difference between "controlling capital" and merely having a bit of skin in the game. That's well and good, but it's just as true for most people above the 10% line as for those below. You have to get to some truly lofty heights before you find the activist investors.
    - gshubert17 8y ago
      > There are literally 0 people I know who think owning a house is not an investment. I thought of my house as a "use asset", like a car. It's nice when the house appreciates. But I couldn't sell it and "cash out" if I had to use the proceeds to buy another house. But, as you said, it saved on rental costs.
      - Rotten194 8y ago
        Owning a house is an intergenerational investment -- your kids can sell it and make a tidy unearned profit on what you spent, or live in it and pocket that amount of money in not having to pay for another living arrangement. It contributes to the high IGE of the US the author was talking about.
- Zigurd 8y ago
  There is a big difference between being in the target market for discretionary investments and small-time political fundraising, and being able to buy influence.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nordsieck 8y ago

> those who control capital and policy versus those who just have money Controlling policy is one thing. Who "just has money" and doesn't control capital? Anyone who has money actually has some sort of capital or an equivalently powerful financial instrument be it stocks, loans to other companies, government bonds, a house, etc.

danharaj 8y ago
Just because you own, e.g. stock doesn't mean you control the underlying means of production it represents a share of. Most people who own stock do so as part of a retirement fund. Those institutional investors, banks, managers, politicians, corporate board members, CEO's, etc. Are the ones who actually control capital. It should be emphasized that a lot of how capitalism runs these days is in the hands of huge bureaucracies that comprise people but don't quite act like people. There is a small class of people who operate at that level as individuals: these are the capitalist class. This is an important distinction, don't you think?
- djajshgsjja 8y ago
  All those people you listed are still cogs in the machine, to varying degrees. The CEOs are beholden to the boards, who are beholden to the institutional investors, who manage my 401k. Certainly, the CEOs have higher leverage over the system on an individual basis. But anyone whose wealth is increasing mainly through return on capital is a member, if not a leader, of the capitalist class.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    Sure, they're all beholden to each other but they're the ones who make the decisions about how to allocate the means of production and which labor power to buy. People who derive their income primarily from investments but don't really decide anything or buy labor power are a rung below those who do. Taxonomize it however you want provided the distinction remains.
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      Who would you consider more of a capitalist, the apartment block owner who contracts with a property manager or the property manager who decides who to rent it to? The high-net-worth individual who deposits his capital with an asset manager, or the salaried fund manager who determines which securities to buy with it? The angel investor who puts $1M of his own money into a fledgling startup, or the entrepreneur who decides how it's spent? The hedge fund manager who has bought 40% of the company on Wall Street, or the CEO entrusted to make the daily decisions on company operation? I'm surprised the grandparent post has been downvoted, because when you get close to how capital is actually managed and invested, it's clear that it's a lot less clear than it looks from the outside. Even people who nominally have "control" over capital expenditures are subject to market returns. If they don't invest that capital correctly, they will lose the ability to manage more capital.
throwawayjava 8y ago
> Who "just has money" and doesn't control capital? 1. The vast majority of middle class wealth is locked up in (non-investment) housing. That money provides a roof and access to quality education, but in almost all cases, it's not being efficiently deployed as capital. 2. Whatever remaining money that is deployed as capital, is not done so in a way that implies control over their chosen investments. Think "majority shareholder" vs. "just another investor". That's the difference between "controlling capital" and merely having a bit of skin in the game.
- nordsieck 8y ago
  > The vast majority of middle class wealth is locked up in (non-investment) housing. There are literally 0 people I know who think owning a house is not an investment. If you're trying to make a distinction between income generating assets and assets that don't generate income, you're just digging yourself into a hole - housing doesn't generate income, but it does save cost - namely rental cost. In that sense, it is a better investment because the return is less risky. > 2. Whatever remaining money that is deployed as capital, is not done so in a way that implies control over their chosen investments. Think "majority shareholder" vs. "just another investor". That's the difference between "controlling capital" and merely having a bit of skin in the game. That's well and good, but it's just as true for most people above the 10% line as for those below. You have to get to some truly lofty heights before you find the activist investors.
  - gshubert17 8y ago
    > There are literally 0 people I know who think owning a house is not an investment. I thought of my house as a "use asset", like a car. It's nice when the house appreciates. But I couldn't sell it and "cash out" if I had to use the proceeds to buy another house. But, as you said, it saved on rental costs.
    - Rotten194 8y ago
      Owning a house is an intergenerational investment -- your kids can sell it and make a tidy unearned profit on what you spent, or live in it and pocket that amount of money in not having to pay for another living arrangement. It contributes to the high IGE of the US the author was talking about.
Zigurd 8y ago
There is a big difference between being in the target market for discretionary investments and small-time political fundraising, and being able to buy influence.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]