6 ms·

I really wish posters on HN would be forced to specify who they are talking about when they say "the elites" because it's often so vague as to be meaningless gr

I really wish posters on HN would be forced to specify who they are talking about when they say "the elites" because it's often so vague as to be meaningless grandstanding and allows people to engage in goalpost shifting. No one can even have a meaningful interaction with this comment. It's also trivial to come up with 'elites' who were not okay with mass death and debilitation.

aaomidi 4y ago
There isn’t a single person though. How about the ones that are actively wanting wage labor to keep going so they can keep getting richer? I do legitimately wonder, after you’ve earned your first few hundred million, why tf do you keep going.
- TheCowboy 4y ago
  We are likely considered 'the elites' by wage labor. Even though neither one of us have made a hundred million. There exist many working class people who wanted to get back to normal (polling demonstrates this), or at the very least wanted policies that tried to keep schools open. They also believe the things you're saying make you one of the elites. It's also easier for 'established elites' to want perpetual work-from-home since they're in work that best positions them to experience little economic pain doing that. It might even be somewhat elitist to dismiss this POV. That's the problem with using such a vague term.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    Arguably what people “want” is also extremely impacted by the “elite”. The way we consume media and culture is controlled by a very small group of people.
  - spicymaki 4y ago
    When looking at class we would be called the archaic term bourgeoisie. We can live comfortably and buy things we want, but are not part of the elites (noblesse) who have privileges and influence beyond money. We should define new terms to clarify the class strata.
Uehreka 4y ago
Yeah, elites really feel like a sort of “Schroedinger’s enemy”. If people oppose the argument you can claim that they’re standing up for billionaires who don’t care about them and don’t need their support. If the reception is friendly it might turn out that the “elites” are actually middle class college activists who are “elite” because they went to college. Like, some people’s definitions are so warped that a millionaire small business owner (think someone who owns a successful downtown restaurant in a mid-sized city) is “the common man” while an artist who works at a coffee shop and lives in a rundown studio apartment is somehow “elite”.
- pydry 4y ago
  Elite pretty much means anyone with political and economic power. Politicians, billionaires, lobbyists, CEOs, etc. It's not a particularly fuzzy honorific. Of course they dont like all the negative attention so sometimes they will try to designate elites as "anybody with a college degree" as one of many means of rhetorically disguising their power. For example, the economist does here: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/10/22/can-too-many-brainy-people-be-a-dangerous-thing https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/10/22/c...
paganel 4y ago
> who they are talking about when they say "the elites" b Not the OP but I understand as "the elites" the people who hold the reins of power in the West (I don't know that much about the Chinese or Indian elites, to be honest). That would be multi-billionaires, some national-level politicians, the higher-ups of some supra-state entities (things like the World Bank, the IMF, even the European Union), some recognisable "artists" who are used mostly for propaganda material (think Hollywood actors like Matthew McConaughey, Di Caprio and the like) and last but definitely not least, members of the defence and security apparatus (even though I have lately started having my doubts about anyone higher-up at the Pentagon or at NATO actually thinking for himself). Ah, I had forgotten, also some media people, too many to name, the most recent that comes to mind is this marvellous Guardian journo named Simon Tisdall that just this weekend had proposed that the West should attack Russia [1] so that we'd all get, well, blasted by nuclear strikes. But the journos are mostly tools, truth be told. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/17/putin-is-already-at-war-with-europe-there-is-only-one-way-to-stop-him https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/17/putin-...
bko 4y ago
Elite is a loosely formed group of individuals that has a lot of influence on culture and government. There's concentration everywhere you look. For instance there's 6 companies that control almost all of media [0]. There are 10 companies that own nearly all global food products [1]. Look at ETFs and you'll see they own the majority of all stocks (on behalf of others), but they exert a lot of influence on corporate governance. If you look at the board of directors of any of these firms, you'll see the same people and more importantly the same general thinking. There really aren't any firebrands or unconventional thinkers, so when someone like Musk came around and wanted to wield control over a tiny sliver of the media, people were freaking out. Think about it, even the former president voiced concern[2]. If you look at political donations of the major influential orgs, they're all highly skewed to D [3]. In fact, if you do donate ($534) to R at a large org (Goldman), you'll risk having some editor in the NYT choose to publish your name and donation which could get you fired [4]. You have to admit, something is weird. Everywhere you look you'll see the same kind of people saying the same ideas. It's not so much that it's centrally organized. It's just that you wouldn't ascend in any of these organizations without holding completely orthodox views on the topic-du-jur. [0] https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/ https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own... [1] https://www.good.is/money/food-brands-owners https://www.good.is/money/food-brands-owners [2] https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3463150-musk-buying-twitter-alarms-democrats/ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3463150-musk-buying-twit... [3] https://www.businessinsider.in/this-graph-shows-90-political-donations-from-big-tech-workers-went-to-the-democrats-with-googlers-leading-the-charge/articleshow/67010538.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/this-graph-shows-90-political... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/nyregion/donald-trump-nyc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/nyregion/donald-trump-nyc...
- throw8383833jj 4y ago
  but elite's aren't really the ones calling the shots. Everytime I investigate some political issue, no matter how disgusting or crazy the idea (housing issues, transportation, prop 13, zoning/building regulations, etc, etc), you'll find huge swaths of the voting population that agree with what's going on. Politicians are mainly just responding to voter demand, as it turns out. If anything, the issue is the voting masses. And, it seems to be like that at all levels of government, from federal, to state to city, all way down to my insane HOA (not technically govt I know).
narrator 4y ago
I think the WEF (World Economic Forum) is who I think of when I think of "the elites.". They have Xi Jinping give key notes and most recently had Henry Kissinger debate Soros over what to do with Ukraine at their annual private jet fueled get together in Davos. Many major government leaders like Trudeau are listed on their website as "WEF Young Global Leaders.". Vladimir Putin was even in there, but his page got deleted when the Ukraine war started. I struggled through Klaus Schwab's "Covid-19: The Great Reset." Klaus talks about Degrowth as a future economic model. He also talks about the Doughnut which is the gap between abject poverty and the limits of the Earth's resources as determined by earth system scientists that everyone must live between. He also says that workers will not be advantaged due to large numbers of them dying during COVID as they were advantaged after the bubonic plague because they will be replaced with automation. I'll say that none of their programs and goals would be benefited by there being more people around.

aaomidi 4y ago

There isn’t a single person though. How about the ones that are actively wanting wage labor to keep going so they can keep getting richer? I do legitimately wonder, after you’ve earned your first few hundred million, why tf do you keep going.

TheCowboy 4y ago
We are likely considered 'the elites' by wage labor. Even though neither one of us have made a hundred million. There exist many working class people who wanted to get back to normal (polling demonstrates this), or at the very least wanted policies that tried to keep schools open. They also believe the things you're saying make you one of the elites. It's also easier for 'established elites' to want perpetual work-from-home since they're in work that best positions them to experience little economic pain doing that. It might even be somewhat elitist to dismiss this POV. That's the problem with using such a vague term.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  Arguably what people “want” is also extremely impacted by the “elite”. The way we consume media and culture is controlled by a very small group of people.
- spicymaki 4y ago
  When looking at class we would be called the archaic term bourgeoisie. We can live comfortably and buy things we want, but are not part of the elites (noblesse) who have privileges and influence beyond money. We should define new terms to clarify the class strata.

Uehreka 4y ago

Yeah, elites really feel like a sort of “Schroedinger’s enemy”. If people oppose the argument you can claim that they’re standing up for billionaires who don’t care about them and don’t need their support. If the reception is friendly it might turn out that the “elites” are actually middle class college activists who are “elite” because they went to college. Like, some people’s definitions are so warped that a millionaire small business owner (think someone who owns a successful downtown restaurant in a mid-sized city) is “the common man” while an artist who works at a coffee shop and lives in a rundown studio apartment is somehow “elite”.

pydry 4y ago
Elite pretty much means anyone with political and economic power. Politicians, billionaires, lobbyists, CEOs, etc. It's not a particularly fuzzy honorific. Of course they dont like all the negative attention so sometimes they will try to designate elites as "anybody with a college degree" as one of many means of rhetorically disguising their power. For example, the economist does here: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/10/22/can-too-many-brainy-people-be-a-dangerous-thing https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/10/22/c...

paganel 4y ago

> who they are talking about when they say "the elites" b Not the OP but I understand as "the elites" the people who hold the reins of power in the West (I don't know that much about the Chinese or Indian elites, to be honest). That would be multi-billionaires, some national-level politicians, the higher-ups of some supra-state entities (things like the World Bank, the IMF, even the European Union), some recognisable "artists" who are used mostly for propaganda material (think Hollywood actors like Matthew McConaughey, Di Caprio and the like) and last but definitely not least, members of the defence and security apparatus (even though I have lately started having my doubts about anyone higher-up at the Pentagon or at NATO actually thinking for himself). Ah, I had forgotten, also some media people, too many to name, the most recent that comes to mind is this marvellous Guardian journo named Simon Tisdall that just this weekend had proposed that the West should attack Russia [1] so that we'd all get, well, blasted by nuclear strikes. But the journos are mostly tools, truth be told. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/17/putin-is-already-at-war-with-europe-there-is-only-one-way-to-stop-him https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/17/putin-...

bko 4y ago

Elite is a loosely formed group of individuals that has a lot of influence on culture and government. There's concentration everywhere you look. For instance there's 6 companies that control almost all of media [0]. There are 10 companies that own nearly all global food products [1]. Look at ETFs and you'll see they own the majority of all stocks (on behalf of others), but they exert a lot of influence on corporate governance. If you look at the board of directors of any of these firms, you'll see the same people and more importantly the same general thinking. There really aren't any firebrands or unconventional thinkers, so when someone like Musk came around and wanted to wield control over a tiny sliver of the media, people were freaking out. Think about it, even the former president voiced concern[2]. If you look at political donations of the major influential orgs, they're all highly skewed to D [3]. In fact, if you do donate ($534) to R at a large org (Goldman), you'll risk having some editor in the NYT choose to publish your name and donation which could get you fired [4]. You have to admit, something is weird. Everywhere you look you'll see the same kind of people saying the same ideas. It's not so much that it's centrally organized. It's just that you wouldn't ascend in any of these organizations without holding completely orthodox views on the topic-du-jur. [0] https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/ https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own... [1] https://www.good.is/money/food-brands-owners https://www.good.is/money/food-brands-owners [2] https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3463150-musk-buying-twitter-alarms-democrats/ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3463150-musk-buying-twit... [3] https://www.businessinsider.in/this-graph-shows-90-political-donations-from-big-tech-workers-went-to-the-democrats-with-googlers-leading-the-charge/articleshow/67010538.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/this-graph-shows-90-political... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/nyregion/donald-trump-nyc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/nyregion/donald-trump-nyc...

throw8383833jj 4y ago
but elite's aren't really the ones calling the shots. Everytime I investigate some political issue, no matter how disgusting or crazy the idea (housing issues, transportation, prop 13, zoning/building regulations, etc, etc), you'll find huge swaths of the voting population that agree with what's going on. Politicians are mainly just responding to voter demand, as it turns out. If anything, the issue is the voting masses. And, it seems to be like that at all levels of government, from federal, to state to city, all way down to my insane HOA (not technically govt I know).

narrator 4y ago

I think the WEF (World Economic Forum) is who I think of when I think of "the elites.". They have Xi Jinping give key notes and most recently had Henry Kissinger debate Soros over what to do with Ukraine at their annual private jet fueled get together in Davos. Many major government leaders like Trudeau are listed on their website as "WEF Young Global Leaders.". Vladimir Putin was even in there, but his page got deleted when the Ukraine war started. I struggled through Klaus Schwab's "Covid-19: The Great Reset." Klaus talks about Degrowth as a future economic model. He also talks about the Doughnut which is the gap between abject poverty and the limits of the Earth's resources as determined by earth system scientists that everyone must live between. He also says that workers will not be advantaged due to large numbers of them dying during COVID as they were advantaged after the bubonic plague because they will be replaced with automation. I'll say that none of their programs and goals would be benefited by there being more people around.