3 ms·

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 th

by 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).
- bko 4y ago
  I don't know. There are some huge disconnects between what you see in media and popular opinion. Consider newspaper endorsements of the former guy. There was 10. One was the National Enquirer, another was owned by his son in law, and another is the official newspaper of the KKK. This was a candidate that ended up winning the election (although lost popular vote, but not by that much). There's a big disconnect if 99% of publications are on one side while the country is split 50-50. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements#Newspapers,_magazines,_and_other_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_2016_pres...
  - throw8383833jj 4y ago
    50% is still a LOT of people. the point is, It's not like policy decisions are made in favor of like less than 5% of the population. Just as a crazy example, here in CA shelter is one of the biggest issues. I was shocked to discover that local politicians were bragging about how much housing development they were blocking. that tells you nearly half or more of the population is in support of that.
    - bko 4y ago
      As a counter, what percentage of San Fran residents think open air drug markets and homelessness is okay?
      - throw8383833jj 4y ago
        i haven't seen any polls on it specifically but I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to half the population. my point is, you'd be surpised at what the majority is in favor of. of course, they'll say otherwise, but look at how people vote.
- int_19h 4y ago
  > you'll find huge swaths of the voting population that agree with what's going on Did those huge swaths of the voting population that agree existed before the issue became political, or did they spring up after? To see what I mean, look at abortion. Anti-abortion stance was not common for evangelicals until 1980s; if anything, most of them saw it as some kind of crypto-Catholicism. The rapid swing in public opinion was manufactured. It doesn't make those voters any less real, of course - but the point is that those votes don't guide policy in this model, they're merely a stick to beat your opponents with.

by bko 4y ago

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).

bko 4y ago
I don't know. There are some huge disconnects between what you see in media and popular opinion. Consider newspaper endorsements of the former guy. There was 10. One was the National Enquirer, another was owned by his son in law, and another is the official newspaper of the KKK. This was a candidate that ended up winning the election (although lost popular vote, but not by that much). There's a big disconnect if 99% of publications are on one side while the country is split 50-50. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements#Newspapers,_magazines,_and_other_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_2016_pres...
- throw8383833jj 4y ago
  50% is still a LOT of people. the point is, It's not like policy decisions are made in favor of like less than 5% of the population. Just as a crazy example, here in CA shelter is one of the biggest issues. I was shocked to discover that local politicians were bragging about how much housing development they were blocking. that tells you nearly half or more of the population is in support of that.
  - bko 4y ago
    As a counter, what percentage of San Fran residents think open air drug markets and homelessness is okay?
    - throw8383833jj 4y ago
      i haven't seen any polls on it specifically but I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to half the population. my point is, you'd be surpised at what the majority is in favor of. of course, they'll say otherwise, but look at how people vote.
int_19h 4y ago
> you'll find huge swaths of the voting population that agree with what's going on Did those huge swaths of the voting population that agree existed before the issue became political, or did they spring up after? To see what I mean, look at abortion. Anti-abortion stance was not common for evangelicals until 1980s; if anything, most of them saw it as some kind of crypto-Catholicism. The rapid swing in public opinion was manufactured. It doesn't make those voters any less real, of course - but the point is that those votes don't guide policy in this model, they're merely a stick to beat your opponents with.