5 ms·

Just call them oligarchs and have done with the whole argument. Wait, what happened to the robber barons? I guess they didn't have PACs.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
The administrative state as we now know it didn't exist yet so there was nothing for the robber barons to capture to cement their place. Oligarchs depend on the administrative state for their security. The oligarch pays (bribes, political donations, what have you) the state $5 so that the state will spend $10 screwing the competition and then the oligarch's business will make $10. Of course I made these numbers up but the system by which these people hold power doesn't work if there isn't an administrative state with the power to fairly capriciously regulate the oligarch's business. The whole game is predicated on being able to buy unfair access state muscle. If the state is sitting on its ass there's no advantage to buying favor.
ggm 4y ago
Sorry? you think "tammany hall" didn't exist?
- cafard 4y ago
  Tammany Hall had plenty of crooks, and no doubt was happy to make terms with robber barons. But it was far from consisting of classic "robber barons".
  - ggm 4y ago
    Tammany Hall was part of a world which started with the Robber Barons and ended with the Bosses distributing the funds to the ward heelers. Jay Gould funded Tammany Hall. Sure, it was also self-perpetuating corruption, but it had linkage. It didn't consist "of" robber barons. It was a tool they used when it suited them. I call that cronyism.
emodendroket 4y ago
The term "robber baron" sounds so impossibly dated it's hard to take it seriously, and "oligarch" seems to be the favored term for when people have corrupt business relations in enemy states, so perhaps using "oligarch" is more illuminating for a modern audience.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  It can be argued that the United States government is at war with its citizens...
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    Oh, come on, you know what I mean. Russia or other places with unfavorable relationships with the West we hear about “oligarchs” regularly.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      Of course, because you're listening to American media owned by American oligarchs
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  You have Andrew Carnegie to thank for expensive marketing campaigns that retired that term in popular usage and rebranding robber barony under the philanthropist label. Now we have robber barons that look like they're trying to be nice.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    “Captains of industry” also sounds faintly ridiculous for what it’s worth.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  It seems hard to call big us ceos oligarchs, I would find it hard to believe for example Sundar pichai interacts even say weekly with Joe Biden, if for no other reason that there are so many potentially "influential" CEOs in the US and (at least there is a perception) they generally have better things to do than try to influence the president.
moose_is_loose 4y ago
[flagged]
mc32 4y ago
Oligarchs usually have deep ties to top people in Government and they do each other favors. Some aspect of that probably happens at some level with some SV (and elsewhere) big-wigs and Government but not to the extent it becomes too shady. Of course there are whispers it does happen especially as it concerns family members of high gov officials seeming to have beneficial relationships and businesses getting a friendly ear. Or executives having a direct lines to gov officials. I wouldn't be mad at Bernie if he called executives out for behaving like Oligarchs.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

The administrative state as we now know it didn't exist yet so there was nothing for the robber barons to capture to cement their place. Oligarchs depend on the administrative state for their security. The oligarch pays (bribes, political donations, what have you) the state $5 so that the state will spend $10 screwing the competition and then the oligarch's business will make $10. Of course I made these numbers up but the system by which these people hold power doesn't work if there isn't an administrative state with the power to fairly capriciously regulate the oligarch's business. The whole game is predicated on being able to buy unfair access state muscle. If the state is sitting on its ass there's no advantage to buying favor.

ggm 4y ago

Sorry? you think "tammany hall" didn't exist?

cafard 4y ago
Tammany Hall had plenty of crooks, and no doubt was happy to make terms with robber barons. But it was far from consisting of classic "robber barons".
- ggm 4y ago
  Tammany Hall was part of a world which started with the Robber Barons and ended with the Bosses distributing the funds to the ward heelers. Jay Gould funded Tammany Hall. Sure, it was also self-perpetuating corruption, but it had linkage. It didn't consist "of" robber barons. It was a tool they used when it suited them. I call that cronyism.

emodendroket 4y ago

The term "robber baron" sounds so impossibly dated it's hard to take it seriously, and "oligarch" seems to be the favored term for when people have corrupt business relations in enemy states, so perhaps using "oligarch" is more illuminating for a modern audience.

readthenotes1 4y ago
It can be argued that the United States government is at war with its citizens...
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Oh, come on, you know what I mean. Russia or other places with unfavorable relationships with the West we hear about “oligarchs” regularly.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    Of course, because you're listening to American media owned by American oligarchs
wahnfrieden 4y ago
You have Andrew Carnegie to thank for expensive marketing campaigns that retired that term in popular usage and rebranding robber barony under the philanthropist label. Now we have robber barons that look like they're trying to be nice.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  “Captains of industry” also sounds faintly ridiculous for what it’s worth.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
It seems hard to call big us ceos oligarchs, I would find it hard to believe for example Sundar pichai interacts even say weekly with Joe Biden, if for no other reason that there are so many potentially "influential" CEOs in the US and (at least there is a perception) they generally have better things to do than try to influence the president.

moose_is_loose 4y ago

[flagged]

mc32 4y ago

Oligarchs usually have deep ties to top people in Government and they do each other favors. Some aspect of that probably happens at some level with some SV (and elsewhere) big-wigs and Government but not to the extent it becomes too shady. Of course there are whispers it does happen especially as it concerns family members of high gov officials seeming to have beneficial relationships and businesses getting a friendly ear. Or executives having a direct lines to gov officials. I wouldn't be mad at Bernie if he called executives out for behaving like Oligarchs.