4 ms·

I think a story about an ultra wealthy ruling class that stands behind the public political class is not going to get published in mainstream outlets. I mean it

I think a story about an ultra wealthy ruling class that stands behind the public political class is not going to get published in mainstream outlets. I mean it will if it's about Russia or China or historical periods like "the Gilded Age", but I guess you don't see it talked about for modern day West.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smolder 5y ago
Upsetting super wealthy people too much will get you the gawker treatment, or something similarly debilitating.
raincom 5y ago
This has to do with collusion between the ultra wealthy class, the media class, and the political class.
mattmanser 5y ago
Especially not the Economist. I mean they spend paragraphs bashing the 'leftie' DA before admitting the problem is actually the police being rubbish. I knew they were biased, but the article seems especially bad.
- alexanderchr 5y ago
  Not exactly surprising since The Economist is owned by the ultra wealthy ruling class. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group
pasabagi 5y ago
Well, I think there are some good reasons for that. It's traditionally been an antisemetic trope, and often smoothly blends into antisemitism (Rothschilds, etc). It's also one of those things where the evidence is by necessity weak, and you really can't write weakly-evidenced critical articles about rich people without getting sued. Personally, I'm very glad that this isn't a mainstream way of understanding problems. Rich people are kind of fungible, in that they usually don't want to pay taxes, but other than that usually have about the same range of politics as everybody else. Focusing on individual malfeasance tends to protect dysfunctional systems.
- poorjohnmacafee 5y ago
  > about the same range of politics as everybody else We're not talking about "rich people", that's fine and well. We're talking about classes with .5B+ levels of wealth, where it's not about subscribing to politics, it's about literally having the ability to influence politics, should they wish to. Fyi every country and civilization, ever, has had powerful interest groups that seek to control politics to further secure their position and interests. This is not surprising to anyone that this exists. Maybe the main difference today is that in this era of shell companies and the anonymity that comes with mass, global societies, it's able to be less public than before, e.g. way less public than when societies actually had open aristocracies not that long ago.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

smolder 5y ago

Upsetting super wealthy people too much will get you the gawker treatment, or something similarly debilitating.

raincom 5y ago

This has to do with collusion between the ultra wealthy class, the media class, and the political class.

mattmanser 5y ago

Especially not the Economist. I mean they spend paragraphs bashing the 'leftie' DA before admitting the problem is actually the police being rubbish. I knew they were biased, but the article seems especially bad.

alexanderchr 5y ago
Not exactly surprising since The Economist is owned by the ultra wealthy ruling class. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group

pasabagi 5y ago

Well, I think there are some good reasons for that. It's traditionally been an antisemetic trope, and often smoothly blends into antisemitism (Rothschilds, etc). It's also one of those things where the evidence is by necessity weak, and you really can't write weakly-evidenced critical articles about rich people without getting sued. Personally, I'm very glad that this isn't a mainstream way of understanding problems. Rich people are kind of fungible, in that they usually don't want to pay taxes, but other than that usually have about the same range of politics as everybody else. Focusing on individual malfeasance tends to protect dysfunctional systems.

poorjohnmacafee 5y ago
> about the same range of politics as everybody else We're not talking about "rich people", that's fine and well. We're talking about classes with .5B+ levels of wealth, where it's not about subscribing to politics, it's about literally having the ability to influence politics, should they wish to. Fyi every country and civilization, ever, has had powerful interest groups that seek to control politics to further secure their position and interests. This is not surprising to anyone that this exists. Maybe the main difference today is that in this era of shell companies and the anonymity that comes with mass, global societies, it's able to be less public than before, e.g. way less public than when societies actually had open aristocracies not that long ago.