4 ms·

Sort of like if the serfs consent by not revolting, then the aristocrats must have a mandate to rule?

by dv_dt 7y ago

doubleunplussed 7y ago
Sort of. I forget where I read it, but some rich guy wrote an article along the lines of "hey other rich guys, we gotta deal with this inequality thing, otherwise the pitchforks are coming for us"
- dv_dt 7y ago
  I think certain pragmatic rich people do say that including Warren Buffet and Ray Dalio to name a couple. Those two have their faults, but IMHO are more directly connected and thoughtful about how actual value is made a little more deeply than your average making money via financial engineering.
simplecomplex 7y ago
Nope. Not really. CEOs don’t rule anyone. We elect representatives who vote and make laws. But you know all this, so the feudal comparison is pretty melodramatic and ridiculous. You can be a CEO if you want. Give it a try!
- dv_dt 7y ago
  And studies have show that the laws that are made in the US correlate to the desires of the economic aristocracy not the broad electorate... this is why I say the representation of the current order as "fact", or a meritocratic, looks a lot like historical justification of aristocratic order as "divine right".
  - simplecomplex 7y ago
    Which study would that be? This one [1] concludes “both the “ideological sorting” and “vote-buying” hypotheses are able to explain the positive correlations observed between PAC contributions and voting behavior.” In other words, vote buying is not necessarily why votes correlate with contributions along policy lines. Fact: You can be a CEO. Fact: You can be elected to vote on laws. Fact: There is no financial or divine right requirement to run for office or be a CEO. [1] https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-Money-And-Votes.pdf https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-...
    - dv_dt 7y ago
      https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." And have you seen any discussion of who exactly ends up as CEO of say fortune 500 companies. There is a distinct lack of women, and of the women who are represented there is a slant to those with wealthy family backgrounds.
      - simplecomplex 7y ago
        There is no gender or financial requirement to be a CEO. Everyone can be a CEO. Here’s some job ads for CEO: https://www.indeed.com/m/jobs?q=CEO https://www.indeed.com/m/jobs?q=CEO You’ll notice there’s nothing about gender in any of them, or being born to wealthy parents. Consider that maybe the limiting factor to becoming a CEO is yourself, and not society, men, rich people, discrimination, etc.

Sort of like if the serfs consent by not revolting, then the aristocrats must have a mandate to rule?

by dv_dt 7y ago

Sort of like if the serfs consent by not revolting, then the aristocrats must have a mandate to rule?

Sort of. I forget where I read it, but some rich guy wrote an article along the lines of "hey other rich guys, we gotta deal with this inequality thing, otherwise the pitchforks are coming for us"

dv_dt 7y ago
I think certain pragmatic rich people do say that including Warren Buffet and Ray Dalio to name a couple. Those two have their faults, but IMHO are more directly connected and thoughtful about how actual value is made a little more deeply than your average making money via financial engineering.

simplecomplex 7y ago

Nope. Not really. CEOs don’t rule anyone. We elect representatives who vote and make laws. But you know all this, so the feudal comparison is pretty melodramatic and ridiculous. You can be a CEO if you want. Give it a try!

dv_dt 7y ago
And studies have show that the laws that are made in the US correlate to the desires of the economic aristocracy not the broad electorate... this is why I say the representation of the current order as "fact", or a meritocratic, looks a lot like historical justification of aristocratic order as "divine right".
- simplecomplex 7y ago
  Which study would that be? This one [1] concludes “both the “ideological sorting” and “vote-buying” hypotheses are able to explain the positive correlations observed between PAC contributions and voting behavior.” In other words, vote buying is not necessarily why votes correlate with contributions along policy lines. Fact: You can be a CEO. Fact: You can be elected to vote on laws. Fact: There is no financial or divine right requirement to run for office or be a CEO. [1] https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-Money-And-Votes.pdf https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-...
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." And have you seen any discussion of who exactly ends up as CEO of say fortune 500 companies. There is a distinct lack of women, and of the women who are represented there is a slant to those with wealthy family backgrounds.
    - simplecomplex 7y ago
      There is no gender or financial requirement to be a CEO. Everyone can be a CEO. Here’s some job ads for CEO: https://www.indeed.com/m/jobs?q=CEO https://www.indeed.com/m/jobs?q=CEO You’ll notice there’s nothing about gender in any of them, or being born to wealthy parents. Consider that maybe the limiting factor to becoming a CEO is yourself, and not society, men, rich people, discrimination, etc.