4 ms·

America is called a constitutional democracy. It started out as a constitutional republic. In practice, it's closer to a plutocracy and has been for some time.

by ferdo 13y ago

America is called a constitutional democracy. It started out as a constitutional republic. In practice, it's closer to a plutocracy and has been for some time. The average net worth of a US Senator is ~$10 million. Political solutions will only come about in reaction to technical solutions that we come up with. I'd posit that the political classes are an evolutionary obstacle for the technical community to solve. If successful, we thrive. If unsuccessful, technology will be owned by the political classes and we're beholden to them until we solve the problem.

rayiner 13y ago
> In practice, it's closer to a plutocracy and has been for some time. You mean since the founding of the republic? http://www.businessinsider.com/american-presidents-republican-candidates-net-worth-2012-1?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/american-presidents-republica.... George Washington was worth an estimated $500 million. Adams was a pauper at only $20 million. Jefferson was $200m+ before he went broke. Madison was $100m+. The average net worth of senators is skewed up by a few wealthy businessmen. The median is around $2.5 million, which is actually not even top 1%. The top 5% mark is at $1.8m. And don't forget: Senators skew married, skew older, skew white, skew educated relative to overall households, and all of those characteristics are correlated with higher income and net worth. The median senator might not even crack the top 5% if you look only at households with white married 60-year olds who all have college degrees and 60% of whom have a JD or MD. $2.5 million net worth is rich, but it's not "plutocracy" rich. It's "two Google engineers marrying and buying a house and putting money into their 401ks for 30 years" rich.
- ferdo 13y ago
  Whatever you want to call it, this form of government plainly doesn't represent the general population of the country.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    What evidence do you have that the general population cares much at all about these revelations? As rayiner pointed out, President Obama could end any of these programs with a phone call, but even though he hasn't, his supporters overwhelmingly still support him.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      >>As rayiner pointed out, President Obama could end any of these programs with a phone call At least the ones he's aware of. The US government is an extremely massive and complex entity with multiple layers of compartmentalization and secrecy. I bet there are programs that even the POTUS doesn't know about.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The typical voter is a churchgoing middle aged woman. I'm going to paint with a broad brush, but what about the American government do you think is inconsistent with that fact? NSA surveillance? The drug war? The war on terror?
malandrew 13y ago
I imagine that technological solutions to the plutocracy would be more effective if aimed at creating mechanisms that prevent the plutocrats from acting against the will of the citizens they are tasked with representing, instead of making it possible for non-plutocrats to become politicians. Tools that force transparency or promote it by changing the social norms in political offices are valuable, and are most likely to be effective at the city and state level, where it is much much harder to hide behind policies of national security. We're never going to get Congress, POTUS and SCOTUS to be transparent first, especially when any transparency solution will be disparaged as disadvantaging us against other countries. At the national level, people will claim that attempts at transparency are unpatriotic. At the city and state level, it's much harder to make claims against transparency.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Senators aren't supposed to represent the will of the people in the first place. The Senate is composed of elitists by design; if anything, they're supposed to represent the interests of the States.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    For that reason Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. It's only been 100 years, since 1913, that senators have been directly elected.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    That covers senators, but what about representatives?
windexh8er 13y ago
<< This. I don't care if the number is wrong on the net worth of a sitting US senator based on the comment that the actual average is less. If you're net worth is $2.5M because of your position in the Senate and not because you were a smart business person prior too then you're paid for and bought. I heard Senator Franken vehemently avoiding NSA questions on MPR the other week. He claims to be a proponent of Internet neutrality and privacy, yet his voting and "amendments" he coauthored day otherwise. He's an actor and a comedian first which is why he plays well in the political realm until he's asked direct questions outside of his box of comfort that is the hand that feeds him. I'm definitely glad to see Schneier in the position he's weaving into. He's a great advocate and I support his views, perspectives and ideals to revert the damage and system that is now in place. I hope that I can tell my grandchildren Alexander and the posse under and around him were publicly shamed and stripped of all honors and decorations the United States of America has unfortunately afforded these puppets. Many of these traitors (of the American people) need to be made public examples and placed into the same solitude and torture the whistle-blowers have been subject to.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Why do you say you have to be a successful businessman or else be bought and paid for to accumulate that much? We're at the tail end of a decades long stock market boom and a decades long boom in housing prices. My parents have a $1.5m house in Virginia. My dad started with a $120k house and traded up a couple of times over 25 years. It was just a great time to be a professional with a little bit of cash flow. No need to sell a startup to Yahoo or take any bribes! Looking at it another way, the median net worth of freshman congressmen is $1m. Do you think you need to take bribes and engage in dirty insider trading to double that in 10-15 years?
- torkins 13y ago
  Median senator age is 62. Most Senators are highly educated (many from highly-paid professions such as legal before they became highly-paid senators) and married. Thirty years of high income (100-150K family income in today's dollars) with 10-15% saving and investing in the market can easily result in a net worth in the low millions, not including inherited investments, long-term real estate property appreciation, etc. People in their 60s have seen an incredible appreciation over the past 30 years in most sectors (Just the S&P Index itself is over 9% annualized over that time frame). Long story, short, $2.5M is not by any means exorbitant for retirement age people with an educated and successful life. It would be a bizarro world where we would want idiot paupers to be Senators, or even a socio-economically equivalent demographic. I think most government workers, elected or not, would find the idea that you work in government for the money amusing to say the least.

by ferdo 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> In practice, it's closer to a plutocracy and has been for some time. You mean since the founding of the republic? http://www.businessinsider.com/american-presidents-republican-candidates-net-worth-2012-1?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/american-presidents-republica.... George Washington was worth an estimated $500 million. Adams was a pauper at only $20 million. Jefferson was $200m+ before he went broke. Madison was $100m+. The average net worth of senators is skewed up by a few wealthy businessmen. The median is around $2.5 million, which is actually not even top 1%. The top 5% mark is at $1.8m. And don't forget: Senators skew married, skew older, skew white, skew educated relative to overall households, and all of those characteristics are correlated with higher income and net worth. The median senator might not even crack the top 5% if you look only at households with white married 60-year olds who all have college degrees and 60% of whom have a JD or MD. $2.5 million net worth is rich, but it's not "plutocracy" rich. It's "two Google engineers marrying and buying a house and putting money into their 401ks for 30 years" rich.

ferdo 13y ago
Whatever you want to call it, this form of government plainly doesn't represent the general population of the country.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  What evidence do you have that the general population cares much at all about these revelations? As rayiner pointed out, President Obama could end any of these programs with a phone call, but even though he hasn't, his supporters overwhelmingly still support him.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    >>As rayiner pointed out, President Obama could end any of these programs with a phone call At least the ones he's aware of. The US government is an extremely massive and complex entity with multiple layers of compartmentalization and secrecy. I bet there are programs that even the POTUS doesn't know about.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The typical voter is a churchgoing middle aged woman. I'm going to paint with a broad brush, but what about the American government do you think is inconsistent with that fact? NSA surveillance? The drug war? The war on terror?

malandrew 13y ago

I imagine that technological solutions to the plutocracy would be more effective if aimed at creating mechanisms that prevent the plutocrats from acting against the will of the citizens they are tasked with representing, instead of making it possible for non-plutocrats to become politicians. Tools that force transparency or promote it by changing the social norms in political offices are valuable, and are most likely to be effective at the city and state level, where it is much much harder to hide behind policies of national security. We're never going to get Congress, POTUS and SCOTUS to be transparent first, especially when any transparency solution will be disparaged as disadvantaging us against other countries. At the national level, people will claim that attempts at transparency are unpatriotic. At the city and state level, it's much harder to make claims against transparency.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Senators aren't supposed to represent the will of the people in the first place. The Senate is composed of elitists by design; if anything, they're supposed to represent the interests of the States.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  For that reason Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. It's only been 100 years, since 1913, that senators have been directly elected.
- malandrew 13y ago
  That covers senators, but what about representatives?

windexh8er 13y ago

<< This. I don't care if the number is wrong on the net worth of a sitting US senator based on the comment that the actual average is less. If you're net worth is $2.5M because of your position in the Senate and not because you were a smart business person prior too then you're paid for and bought. I heard Senator Franken vehemently avoiding NSA questions on MPR the other week. He claims to be a proponent of Internet neutrality and privacy, yet his voting and "amendments" he coauthored day otherwise. He's an actor and a comedian first which is why he plays well in the political realm until he's asked direct questions outside of his box of comfort that is the hand that feeds him. I'm definitely glad to see Schneier in the position he's weaving into. He's a great advocate and I support his views, perspectives and ideals to revert the damage and system that is now in place. I hope that I can tell my grandchildren Alexander and the posse under and around him were publicly shamed and stripped of all honors and decorations the United States of America has unfortunately afforded these puppets. Many of these traitors (of the American people) need to be made public examples and placed into the same solitude and torture the whistle-blowers have been subject to.

rayiner 13y ago
Why do you say you have to be a successful businessman or else be bought and paid for to accumulate that much? We're at the tail end of a decades long stock market boom and a decades long boom in housing prices. My parents have a $1.5m house in Virginia. My dad started with a $120k house and traded up a couple of times over 25 years. It was just a great time to be a professional with a little bit of cash flow. No need to sell a startup to Yahoo or take any bribes! Looking at it another way, the median net worth of freshman congressmen is $1m. Do you think you need to take bribes and engage in dirty insider trading to double that in 10-15 years?
torkins 13y ago
Median senator age is 62. Most Senators are highly educated (many from highly-paid professions such as legal before they became highly-paid senators) and married. Thirty years of high income (100-150K family income in today's dollars) with 10-15% saving and investing in the market can easily result in a net worth in the low millions, not including inherited investments, long-term real estate property appreciation, etc. People in their 60s have seen an incredible appreciation over the past 30 years in most sectors (Just the S&P Index itself is over 9% annualized over that time frame). Long story, short, $2.5M is not by any means exorbitant for retirement age people with an educated and successful life. It would be a bizarro world where we would want idiot paupers to be Senators, or even a socio-economically equivalent demographic. I think most government workers, elected or not, would find the idea that you work in government for the money amusing to say the least.