3 ms·
... which presumes the dozens of world leaders are doing as told when Bill calls them up, as if they were puppets. this is not how that works.
by froh 5y ago
... which presumes the dozens of world leaders are doing as told when Bill calls them up, as if they were puppets.
this is not how that works.
- the_optimist 5y agoCan you please kindly tell us how it works? I’ve seen some pretty remarkable interactions between wealthy people and, say, for example, the US State Department.
- froh 5y agooh how I wish I could... I agree there is an asymetry in influence of "the wealthy" to "legislation", compared to the influence of "the many", especially in the US. yet it's not as simple as Bill calls Angie and then Angie makes a bill for bill. some things that help "the many" are proportional representation (in contrast to fptp based systems) and popular vote, see Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands... I wonder what it takes short of a war to get such dramatic improvements into an established democracy?
- jmiskovic 5y agoI did not arrive at same presumption after reading the parent comment. Just to be able to get in touch with world leaders is already too much power for a single man, even without the puppetry aspect.
- froh 5y ago> He can tell elected (or not elected) leaders of countries exactly how they should be able to run their countries. how else would you read that?
- jmiskovic 5y agoHe can influence campaigns and election results. He can open channels to most powerful people and have his words heard. If no leader bends to their will, it is still far more influence than what you and I have. Politicians invest whole careers and lives to play the game of politics. They gain power but not much wiggle room, too much is at stake to keep them in positions. Rich people on the other hand can buy the ticket to sit at the table, and they can leave any time they get bored. Having that kind of power without inherent responsibility is dangerous.