5 ms·

3 people out of many. barely a mafia, barely a takeover

by seydor 2y ago

pixelatedindex 2y ago
Don’t underestimate the power of three people. Strategically done, they can create great harm.
commandlinefan 2y ago
I didn't click through the paywall, but did the article address how Biden's election was bought and paid for by the other 97% of silicon valley?
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  That doesn't count because they're defending "Our Democracy" from those who don't agree with them. Such noble people. Snark aside, it really is interesting to see how much people are now cheering on authoritarianism as long as they think it will service their ideology (which is the only one true ideology). Of course, monsters usually get tired of being told what to do and turn on those foolish enough to create the monster in the first place... along with most everyone else. They do get to feel wonderful about their virtue in creating the monster they think will destroy anything in the way of their utopia. The feeling isn't so wonderful once their creation that they empowered turns on them (and most everyone else) and delivers misery instead of the promised nirvana.
notTooFarGone 2y ago
that 3 people hold more wealth than the bottom 10% (or ~33 million people). With how the US works, money is worth more than being a person.
- naming_the_user 2y ago
  This is a daft statement though. I almost certainly have more wealth than the bottom 10% in my country because a lot of people either have 10 quid or are in debt. It makes more sense to compare to the median.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    They most likely meant "more than 10% of the population own combined". That's a level of wealth inequality last seen in the old medieval fiefdom ages, and more than a few rulers met a premature end...
    - naming_the_user 2y ago
      My point is that this isn't uncommon at all. I know tons of people who have nothing. Literally nothing other than things like, I dunno, their cell phone and clothes. _Anyone_ has more than a thousand of them combined. If you choose the correct group of "the least well off" then it's like trying to divide by zero.
      - exceptione 2y ago
        This point is futile though. Changes are high that your country is a kleptocracy or dictatorship, or has a very weak system. Huge wealth imbalance is a STRONG MARKER of malformed governance. A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Desperate people do not have the "luxury" of being a democratic participant. That is why autocracies love miserable, poor people.
        9rx 2y ago
        > A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Income inequality isn't that high though, is it? The rich generally try to do everything they can to avoid income as income is taxed. In the US, somewhere around 20% of the population are in the top 1% when observed over time.
        exceptione 2y ago
        > Income inequality isn't that high though Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. Why would we continue to fool ourself? 20% of the population in the top 1% sounds really bad for the other 80%. But then again, what share of the USA do the top 100 wealthy people own? And this all still sidesteps the question why does one distract themself while the democratic system that should protect them is being eaten alive? Neither False Balance nor Binary Belief Trap is going to save them.
- rsanek 2y ago
  this is a meaningless metric. if you have a positive net worth, you hold more wealth than the bottom 25% combined. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/whats-your-net-worth-25-of-americans-say-theirs-is-$0-or-less https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/whats-your-net-worth-25-of-a...
  - r00fus 2y ago
    Even that sounds really problematic, societally speaking. Is it good that 25% of the population has a zero or negative net worth?
    - edanm 2y ago
      That's why it's a meaningless statistic. Because zero net worth is the status many people are in when young - which makes sense, you haven't had time to build any net worth! And negative net worth happens when you take on debt, most commonly in the US student debt. Maybe there is a valid metric worth talking about, but this metric rates the average student in med school as extremely badly off, despite them very likely going on to become one of the top 10% when they're older. So this statistic is just not a very good way to look at this.
- wdr1 2y ago
  > With how the US works, money is worth more than being a person. [citation needed] If anything recent elections in the US have shown money is not the most important factor.
racl101 2y ago
"The Paypal Triumvirate"?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
benopal64 2y ago
Well, those three people have billions of dollars between them. So they count for something.
libertine 2y ago
Well if you take into account that Peter Thiel invested heavily to fund the Vice President, and Elon Musk funded Donald Trump and optimized Twitter to promote Donald Trump (that cost is not factored in the funding I believe), and now will have a direct say on government bodies not to mention influence and direct access to the President. So it's not a takeover, but direct government access and influence, out in the open. This is all under the conspiratorial premise that the "deep state" was captured by private interests... all to be replaced by the private interests of the richest men alive. It's a highly confusing narrative, and I'd love to understand those who see this in a positive light.
- exceptione 2y ago
  > I'd love to understand those who see this in a positive light. Those who see this in a positive light cannot provide you with understanding. They have been catered to on deep beliefs and fears, not been messaged to on a rational level. The messaging is highly irrational and full of discrepancies, and so we all have been boarded with streams of fake news, bothsidisms, false balance, nihilism, sane washing, what not. I say they... But we all rather reason with our guts than with our brains, it is less effort. We as humans are all prone to fallacies.
exceptione 2y ago
What does make you think these people with their $$$$$$$$$$$$ have no friends? Your problem is not that there are only 3, but that the networks in which they operate think they would be better of without democracy. Thiel wants to end democracy and has immense influence. If it was only just about money.... More info via lemma Accelerationism. Musk just bought the White House for himself after having bought Twitter, he is a Thiel protege. Bezos had to swear allegiance. There might come a time were these kind of background information articles aren´t just flagged directly, but will not even appear anymore in the first place.
- seydor 2y ago
  In the past, pretty much all the tech CEOs supported democrats, and certainly got access, but it wasn't considered strange or newsworthy
  - exceptione 2y ago
    In the past even Trump tried to get a foot in the door by the Dems. Depending on ones information environment, the unwillingness to protect the market from monopolistic practices, the hereditary lines in government and the outsized power of oligarchies are definitively "considered strange or newsworthy". The heat has been steadily going up, taking a huge upward turn the last 15 years. What you are witnessing now is that the glacier is making rumbling sounds and people starting to notice that the thing is coming down. Many people have the feeling the atmosphere is odd, but can still be distracted with outrage over transgenders or dog eating Haitians. So yes, the issues are systematic. But do not make a mistake, a tipping point has been passed. The GOP clan does not respect limits, institutions, truth, the rule of law, democracy, separation of powers. They don't even think they need to fake decency anymore. Nobody can predict the future, but if you hear a thundering sound, you better should not act like nothing has changed. It is a system where people think in terms of eating or being eaten.

3 people out of many. barely a mafia, barely a takeover

by seydor 2y ago

3 people out of many. barely a mafia, barely a takeover

pixelatedindex 2y ago

Don’t underestimate the power of three people. Strategically done, they can create great harm.

commandlinefan 2y ago

I didn't click through the paywall, but did the article address how Biden's election was bought and paid for by the other 97% of silicon valley?

Mountain_Skies 2y ago
That doesn't count because they're defending "Our Democracy" from those who don't agree with them. Such noble people. Snark aside, it really is interesting to see how much people are now cheering on authoritarianism as long as they think it will service their ideology (which is the only one true ideology). Of course, monsters usually get tired of being told what to do and turn on those foolish enough to create the monster in the first place... along with most everyone else. They do get to feel wonderful about their virtue in creating the monster they think will destroy anything in the way of their utopia. The feeling isn't so wonderful once their creation that they empowered turns on them (and most everyone else) and delivers misery instead of the promised nirvana.

notTooFarGone 2y ago

that 3 people hold more wealth than the bottom 10% (or ~33 million people). With how the US works, money is worth more than being a person.

naming_the_user 2y ago
This is a daft statement though. I almost certainly have more wealth than the bottom 10% in my country because a lot of people either have 10 quid or are in debt. It makes more sense to compare to the median.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  They most likely meant "more than 10% of the population own combined". That's a level of wealth inequality last seen in the old medieval fiefdom ages, and more than a few rulers met a premature end...
  - naming_the_user 2y ago
    My point is that this isn't uncommon at all. I know tons of people who have nothing. Literally nothing other than things like, I dunno, their cell phone and clothes. _Anyone_ has more than a thousand of them combined. If you choose the correct group of "the least well off" then it's like trying to divide by zero.
    - exceptione 2y ago
      This point is futile though. Changes are high that your country is a kleptocracy or dictatorship, or has a very weak system. Huge wealth imbalance is a STRONG MARKER of malformed governance. A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Desperate people do not have the "luxury" of being a democratic participant. That is why autocracies love miserable, poor people.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Income inequality isn't that high though, is it? The rich generally try to do everything they can to avoid income as income is taxed. In the US, somewhere around 20% of the population are in the top 1% when observed over time.
        exceptione 2y ago
        > Income inequality isn't that high though Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. Why would we continue to fool ourself? 20% of the population in the top 1% sounds really bad for the other 80%. But then again, what share of the USA do the top 100 wealthy people own? And this all still sidesteps the question why does one distract themself while the democratic system that should protect them is being eaten alive? Neither False Balance nor Binary Belief Trap is going to save them.
rsanek 2y ago
this is a meaningless metric. if you have a positive net worth, you hold more wealth than the bottom 25% combined. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/whats-your-net-worth-25-of-americans-say-theirs-is-$0-or-less https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/whats-your-net-worth-25-of-a...
- r00fus 2y ago
  Even that sounds really problematic, societally speaking. Is it good that 25% of the population has a zero or negative net worth?
  - edanm 2y ago
    That's why it's a meaningless statistic. Because zero net worth is the status many people are in when young - which makes sense, you haven't had time to build any net worth! And negative net worth happens when you take on debt, most commonly in the US student debt. Maybe there is a valid metric worth talking about, but this metric rates the average student in med school as extremely badly off, despite them very likely going on to become one of the top 10% when they're older. So this statistic is just not a very good way to look at this.
wdr1 2y ago
> With how the US works, money is worth more than being a person. [citation needed] If anything recent elections in the US have shown money is not the most important factor.

racl101 2y ago

"The Paypal Triumvirate"?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

benopal64 2y ago

Well, those three people have billions of dollars between them. So they count for something.

libertine 2y ago

Well if you take into account that Peter Thiel invested heavily to fund the Vice President, and Elon Musk funded Donald Trump and optimized Twitter to promote Donald Trump (that cost is not factored in the funding I believe), and now will have a direct say on government bodies not to mention influence and direct access to the President. So it's not a takeover, but direct government access and influence, out in the open. This is all under the conspiratorial premise that the "deep state" was captured by private interests... all to be replaced by the private interests of the richest men alive. It's a highly confusing narrative, and I'd love to understand those who see this in a positive light.

exceptione 2y ago
> I'd love to understand those who see this in a positive light. Those who see this in a positive light cannot provide you with understanding. They have been catered to on deep beliefs and fears, not been messaged to on a rational level. The messaging is highly irrational and full of discrepancies, and so we all have been boarded with streams of fake news, bothsidisms, false balance, nihilism, sane washing, what not. I say they... But we all rather reason with our guts than with our brains, it is less effort. We as humans are all prone to fallacies.

exceptione 2y ago

What does make you think these people with their $$$$$$$$$$$$ have no friends? Your problem is not that there are only 3, but that the networks in which they operate think they would be better of without democracy. Thiel wants to end democracy and has immense influence. If it was only just about money.... More info via lemma Accelerationism. Musk just bought the White House for himself after having bought Twitter, he is a Thiel protege. Bezos had to swear allegiance. There might come a time were these kind of background information articles aren´t just flagged directly, but will not even appear anymore in the first place.

seydor 2y ago
In the past, pretty much all the tech CEOs supported democrats, and certainly got access, but it wasn't considered strange or newsworthy
- exceptione 2y ago
  In the past even Trump tried to get a foot in the door by the Dems. Depending on ones information environment, the unwillingness to protect the market from monopolistic practices, the hereditary lines in government and the outsized power of oligarchies are definitively "considered strange or newsworthy". The heat has been steadily going up, taking a huge upward turn the last 15 years. What you are witnessing now is that the glacier is making rumbling sounds and people starting to notice that the thing is coming down. Many people have the feeling the atmosphere is odd, but can still be distracted with outrage over transgenders or dog eating Haitians. So yes, the issues are systematic. But do not make a mistake, a tipping point has been passed. The GOP clan does not respect limits, institutions, truth, the rule of law, democracy, separation of powers. They don't even think they need to fake decency anymore. Nobody can predict the future, but if you hear a thundering sound, you better should not act like nothing has changed. It is a system where people think in terms of eating or being eaten.