3 ms·

It has been extremely instructive to watch the worlds richest people line up to kiss the ring of the new administration. I hope people remember this in the fut

It has been extremely instructive to watch the worlds richest people line up to kiss the ring of the new administration. I hope people remember this in the future when they talk about the rich controlling our government and the population being just along for the ride.

sho_hn 2y ago
As a European observer, it's been an interesting lesson in how much power and sway the US presidency is invested with, despite ostensibly existing in a system that is less centralized and puts more power (and elected offices) at the state level than our flavor of democracies. You may not be able to bend the will of state officials, but if you can bend the will of national-level companies this easily, "the Feds" are effectively a much larger operation than it otherwise would be.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Since the 1950s, more and more power has been claimed by the executive, sometimes as a consequence of legislature dysfunction, more often by unchecked supremacy clause execution. The US was envisioned to look a lot more like the EU. The US Civil War required a stronger federal response, and unfortunately reconstruction failed to sufficiently address the primary economic differences in industrialization, resulting in deep geographical divides. Further propaganda machines set up by one party due to embarrassment over Nixon's resignation has resulted in one effective party; the other is primarily controlled by corporations.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    "more often by unchecked supremacy clause execution." Which is also quite often legistrature dysfunction.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  There’s always been disgusting amounts of money involved with US presidential elections. Its just never been so blatant. Their whole system is not really geared towards a fair election. Gerrymandering, millions of dollars in political donations, optional voting and you don’t need to give time to employees to vote, voting system specifically designed to maintain a duopoly.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Wait until you hear about the French presidency ;)
saghm 2y ago
How do you think "the rich controlling our government" would look? I can think of two possibilities: either someone rich and corrupt being elected and using the office to their own advantage and that of other rich people, or the rich influencing the government to enact the policies they want despite the people in control not also being rich. I'm not sure about you, but watching "worlds richest people line up to kiss the ring" of the new Trump administration is impossible for me to differentiate from either of those scenarios, let alone both of them. Yes, most Trump voters are not nearly as wealthy as him (or the other executives kissing the ring), but when taxes are lowered and government services are cut due to the reduced budget, they're the ones losing more than the rich compared to a higher progressive tax rate. If the theory you're trying to disprove is that the government couldn't possibly be caused to enact policies that benefit the rich to the expense of everyone else, the fact that someone is elected by a large number of non-wealthy people doesn't demonstrate anything that would make your argument more convincing.
- fallinghawks 2y ago
  You're assuming that those non-wealthy people have objectively studied both candidates, weighed their platforms, and chosen the one they have determined will make their lives better. As opposed to, say, the one who promises to hurt they people they want to see hurt, or the one who claims they will protect them from whatever out-group they consider dangerous.
  - saghm 2y ago
    How am I assuming that? If those non-wealthy people haven't objectively studied both candidates, how does that make it less likely that the wealthy are able to exert outsized influence on government policy (either by directly taking part or lobbying)? Trying to distract people by redirecting their unhappiness towards convenient targets that are unrelated to wealth is pretty much exactly what I'd expect from someone wanting to enact a pro-wealthy agenda that doesn't actually help the average voter at all.
nkurz 2y ago
> It has been extremely instructive to watch the worlds richest people line up to kiss the ring of the new administration. Definitely instructive, but I think also important is how it recharacterizes the past. We should not assume that "kissing the ring" is new starting with this administration. Instead, it's probably fairer to conclude that rich successful tech companies will almost always adopt whatever stance they think will be most to their benefit. It's generally safer to presume that their actions are based on exigency rather than deeply held beliefs.
sottol 2y ago
This _is_ the rich controlling our government! Except it's more openly visible in this case than usual. Going forward they'll have a good deal of say in the policies they care about, by donating and attending and show of loyalty.
aydyn 2y ago
To me, it's very interesting that you're only noticing now that it happens to be someone outside your Political Tribe who is in charge. But anyway, agreed.
Sparyjerry 2y ago
I find it interesting how they were afraid before Trump to say their feelings. Seems like one side is much more threatening and hateful. Left do not fear to express their feelings right now or in Trumps first term.

sho_hn 2y ago

As a European observer, it's been an interesting lesson in how much power and sway the US presidency is invested with, despite ostensibly existing in a system that is less centralized and puts more power (and elected offices) at the state level than our flavor of democracies. You may not be able to bend the will of state officials, but if you can bend the will of national-level companies this easily, "the Feds" are effectively a much larger operation than it otherwise would be.

tomrod 2y ago
Since the 1950s, more and more power has been claimed by the executive, sometimes as a consequence of legislature dysfunction, more often by unchecked supremacy clause execution. The US was envisioned to look a lot more like the EU. The US Civil War required a stronger federal response, and unfortunately reconstruction failed to sufficiently address the primary economic differences in industrialization, resulting in deep geographical divides. Further propaganda machines set up by one party due to embarrassment over Nixon's resignation has resulted in one effective party; the other is primarily controlled by corporations.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  "more often by unchecked supremacy clause execution." Which is also quite often legistrature dysfunction.
2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
There’s always been disgusting amounts of money involved with US presidential elections. Its just never been so blatant. Their whole system is not really geared towards a fair election. Gerrymandering, millions of dollars in political donations, optional voting and you don’t need to give time to employees to vote, voting system specifically designed to maintain a duopoly.
mardifoufs 2y ago
Wait until you hear about the French presidency ;)

saghm 2y ago

How do you think "the rich controlling our government" would look? I can think of two possibilities: either someone rich and corrupt being elected and using the office to their own advantage and that of other rich people, or the rich influencing the government to enact the policies they want despite the people in control not also being rich. I'm not sure about you, but watching "worlds richest people line up to kiss the ring" of the new Trump administration is impossible for me to differentiate from either of those scenarios, let alone both of them. Yes, most Trump voters are not nearly as wealthy as him (or the other executives kissing the ring), but when taxes are lowered and government services are cut due to the reduced budget, they're the ones losing more than the rich compared to a higher progressive tax rate. If the theory you're trying to disprove is that the government couldn't possibly be caused to enact policies that benefit the rich to the expense of everyone else, the fact that someone is elected by a large number of non-wealthy people doesn't demonstrate anything that would make your argument more convincing.

fallinghawks 2y ago
You're assuming that those non-wealthy people have objectively studied both candidates, weighed their platforms, and chosen the one they have determined will make their lives better. As opposed to, say, the one who promises to hurt they people they want to see hurt, or the one who claims they will protect them from whatever out-group they consider dangerous.
- saghm 2y ago
  How am I assuming that? If those non-wealthy people haven't objectively studied both candidates, how does that make it less likely that the wealthy are able to exert outsized influence on government policy (either by directly taking part or lobbying)? Trying to distract people by redirecting their unhappiness towards convenient targets that are unrelated to wealth is pretty much exactly what I'd expect from someone wanting to enact a pro-wealthy agenda that doesn't actually help the average voter at all.

nkurz 2y ago

> It has been extremely instructive to watch the worlds richest people line up to kiss the ring of the new administration. Definitely instructive, but I think also important is how it recharacterizes the past. We should not assume that "kissing the ring" is new starting with this administration. Instead, it's probably fairer to conclude that rich successful tech companies will almost always adopt whatever stance they think will be most to their benefit. It's generally safer to presume that their actions are based on exigency rather than deeply held beliefs.

sottol 2y ago

This _is_ the rich controlling our government! Except it's more openly visible in this case than usual. Going forward they'll have a good deal of say in the policies they care about, by donating and attending and show of loyalty.

aydyn 2y ago

To me, it's very interesting that you're only noticing now that it happens to be someone outside your Political Tribe who is in charge. But anyway, agreed.

Sparyjerry 2y ago

I find it interesting how they were afraid before Trump to say their feelings. Seems like one side is much more threatening and hateful. Left do not fear to express their feelings right now or in Trumps first term.