5 ms·
Hold on. Panama papers. Epstein files. CointelPro -> NSPM-7. There absolutely, without a reasonable doubt, is a conspiracy of the elite -- the billionaire clas
by Varelion 19d ago
Hold on. Panama papers. Epstein files. CointelPro -> NSPM-7.
There absolutely, without a reasonable doubt, is a conspiracy of the elite -- the billionaire class.
- danielmarkbruce 19d agoThe idea that all billionaires work together is hilarious. No real adult could possibly believe such nonsense.
- Varelion 19d agoAny adult who has been paying attention has no doubt that enough of the elite do collude to call the duck a duck.
- danielmarkbruce 19d agoIn the real world it's hard enough to get 5 people on the same page about anything. The idea that dozens/hundreds of people with billions of dollars who are in business against each other in many cases are secretly colluding with any effectiveness is a joke. If they were, zuckerberg, larry and sergey would have been squashed in the 90's/00's by the elite of the time. Sam Altman would have been crushed years ago. Obama or Trump would have been put in their place, probably both. Look at all the billionaires all of a sudden kowtowing to Trump. The billionaires just got beat real bad in NYC. Billionaires just don't have much power. This isn't a movie.
- godelski 19d agoThis seems to contradict itself. You first claim that there's no organization but then you claim billionaires have no power because of the more powerful above them. Hierarchy is organization, so which is it
- danielmarkbruce 19d agoNo, nothing above them. No power. That's the point. In a couple years Trump will be gone and he'll be kowtowing to others and so on. There is no group in charge. No one is in charge.
- godelski 19d agoIf that is true then we all are in charge and it is up to all of us. As you agreed elsewhere, cooperation exists.
- paulryanrogers 19d agoIf there's no power then why did so many line up to bring gifts and kiss the ring of a certain vindictive, convicted felon turned President?
- danielmarkbruce 19d agoJust because no one is in charge, it doesn't mean favors disappear and it doesn't mean no one can throw a wrench in your system.
- godelski 18d agoIt really sounds like you're trying hard to define a square circle. Your argument isn't even self consistent because what you described sure sounds like someone has power...
- danielmarkbruce 18d agoNope. It's perfectly consistent. No one has much power at all. No one is in charge, there is no greater power sitting above us all calling all (or even most) the shots. To use someone else's term, there is no cabal. You seem to conflate "no one is powerful" with "no one has any power in any situation at all".
- paulryanrogers 19d agoHow many billionaires attended Biden's inauguration or donated to Biden's projects? How many for Trump 2?
- danielmarkbruce 19d agoI never said nobody hoped to be powerful, or increase the level of power they have. They just don't have much, and they can't/don't coordinate like some conspiracy theorists believe.
- iamnothere 19d agoAs a class, they steer things through emergent behavior and overlapping self interest in certain areas. As individuals, they can’t afford to trust each other without leverage.
- danielmarkbruce 19d agoSounds clever, makes no sense.
- iamnothere 19d agoAs a class, they have a set of similar incentives (grow/retain resources and power networks) that lead to similar actions (avoid taxation, buy influence, weaken regulators, etc). They may cooperate at times, but they are not a coherent organization with a roster, votes, and leadership. As individuals, they are dangerous competitors, and they can’t afford to trust each other too much without some kind of mutual leverage. This could be in the form of mutual equity holdings, blackmail, complex arrangements where each party has exposure, whatever. But even then, trust has limits. There’s no cabal that runs things with rules and elections at this level. It’s all individuals who are immersed in the systems that made them wealthy. Those systems tend to lead to certain behaviors. That’s it.
- danielmarkbruce 19d agoYou could make this statement about any group at all. And then once you realize people are in multiple groups, the whole thing devolves into chaos.
- iamnothere 19d agoTo a degree, yes, it’s why looking at people on the level of groups is not that useful for predicting individual behavior and beliefs, only aggregate behavior and beliefs. However, some groups do have identifiable leadership, rules, membership rosters, etc. Political parties for instance, or governmental bodies. Decisions from groups like this often have an identifiable lineage (from proposal to vote) and are considered binding. This contrasts with the sort of emergent decisions I was discussing in the context of the very wealthy. There was no vote, there was no formal coordination, and the “decision” is not binding, yet everyone can see its effects. Opposing something like this is like boxing with a shadow.
- suburban_strike 19d agoNobody said anything about ALL billionaires. You are the only person suggesting that. The idea that an aggressive handful of them can't, won't or don't work together is even more preposterous than your strawman that all of them do.
- danielmarkbruce 19d ago"the billionaire class". Whether they meant all or most, those words certainly don't mean a handful.
- latentsea 19d agoPoor people door all the same shit, just on a smaller scale.