I strongly disagree. Look, I understand that it is a safe line to take that the government is just inept, apathetic, etc, but that simply doesn't match the fact

I strongly disagree. Look, I understand that it is a safe line to take that the government is just inept, apathetic, etc, but that simply doesn't match the facts, and it has nothing to do with whats an easier explanation. Don't get me wrong, having been inside the system first hand there is quite a bit of ineptitude, lumbering bureaucratic systems, etc. I'm not saying thats not also true, but when you say there is no evidence this is part of some coordinated effort you are absolutely wrong. I really try hard not to get into "conspiracy theory territory" too much on HN because the conversation usually devolves, so I really don't want to get into a long list of evidence, but I could recommend The Anglo-American Establishment by Carrol Quigley as a good starting point for understanding how over-time agendas can be propagated and enacted. Perhaps the interview by Norman Dodd with G Edward Griffin about the tax exempt foundations. You are correct however when you say the powers that be don't have complete influence, but I would say that influence has grown vastly, mostly through consolidation of media and banking, and that to say it is extremely powerful influence is still an understatement. Also I would say it's a mischaracterization to say "Why would corporate execs hand pick officials that would break them up", one, because they aren't the real oligarchs behind the scenes, and two, because I highly doubt that any rhetoric about anti-trust/monopoly is real given the track record in that arena. [1] I strongly dislike this far too often used rhetorical clip used to dismiss any conspiracy you use: "form narratives that don’t exist to explain the world in a way that makes sense." How about we follow the evidence to the truth however ugly it may be. It often feels to me rather like when presented with darker narratives that do exist people would rather dismiss this like this as a way of burying their head in the sand to pretend things are better than they are. You aren't looking very hard then to be frank when you say "the only conspiracy I really see is..." Also, while I do think the voters take a large amount of responsibility, I don't think that is a good analysis of how entrenched the oligarchy are in electoral systems via the two party duopoly they control. Just take a look at your secretary of states website and look at how asinine the rules are for any party or person not a part of the duopoly. If the oligarchs control both parties, which they do, then the real threat would be from anybody outside that system and thats why you can see the evidence of how hard they have worked to stop the people from having any real mechanisms of influence themselves. Voting in primaries can help if another person gets on the ballot, but good luck actually doing that. Look, one of the most powerful tools the oligarchs have is that they think and operate on much longer timelines than the rest of us. They setup mechanisms, plans, etc that don't come to fruition until their children or grandchildren are at the helm. Until the people interested in this topic understand that, much of what is going on the world won't make much sense. In that note, I will leave you with a quote from Michael Parenti about this idea of absent minded empire. "Empires are even sometimes represented as unintentional. That's when it really starts to get cute. This should have been called maybe the funnier myths of empire, this part of it. The product of unconcious circumstance. When I was a youth, ... I used to hear that the British Empire was put together in a fit of absent mindedness. ... In fact, ladies and gentlemen, I think a moments reflection would tell you that empires are products of deliberate contrivance, of deliberate confection, planning, calculation, and manipulation. No social order can maintain itself in the long run, no social order can maintain itself without concious human agency. In fact that's why you have a state, the state is the concious human agency of coercion to maintain that particular set of interests and order, which don't necessarily always look out for our interests." - Michael Parenti 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YTrqq0HwXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YTrqq0HwXc