Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy

[Goodfella]

Is the ACLU a lobbying group? I thought they mostly sued.

It consists of two sub organizations, a 501(c)4 and a 501(c)3. The 501(c)4 is involved in lobbying efforts while the 501(c)3 (by law) does not.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000031473

 

[Core Imposter]

I think there's an upper limit on the size of any efficient community. Frankly, there are too many people and groups in the US with no common interests or ties that are constantly pulling in opposite directions while the plutocracy wins at everyone else's expense. No matter what policy is enacted or decision made, at least half the country will always be up in arms about it. If we're going to try to give as many people what they want as possible and truly represent everyone, the country may have to split up into different parts that respectfully go their separate ways.

But that's not viable, so my solutions are to either emigrate or disappear into some rural area and quietly live out my days minding my own business.

I feel your pain.

There is a guy in Nevada might need a ranch hand...

 

[Akka]

USA always had an unhealthy fascination for material gains and success, and a whole culture of "winners vs losers".

The average US voter will tend to vote more for "sucessful" rich people and will have some contempt for someone who didn't manage to elevates himself above others. No surprise that the person they vote for tend to be the kind of economic elite which think of themselves first.

 

[Kozmos]

You would have to kick the rotten structure down sooner or later, whether it's against the governments or corporations it doesn't matter. One has to be rebooted. While the federal governments and democracies and such are great at getting a lot of big things done(science, health, infrastructure, norms and standards, etc), they are never at the best interests of people. Failing an AI overseen universal democracy or benevolent tyranny I will just leave this, as a favourite passage of mine:

"What you said about government and business is absurd," he stated coldly. It wasa tone of voice that had not been heard much at the congress so far, contemptuous and dismissive. "Governments always regulate the kinds of business they allow.Economics is a legal matter, a system of laws. So far, we have been saying in the Martian underground that as a matter of law, democracy and self-government are the innate rights of every person, and that these rights are not to be suspended when a person goes to work. You"-he waved a hand to indicate he did not know Antar's name-"do you believe in democracy and self-rule?"
"Yes!" Antar said defensively.
"Do you believe in democracy and self-rule as the fundamental values that
government ought to encourage?"
"Yes!" Antar repeated, looking more and more annoyed.
"Very well. If democracy and self-rule are the fundamentals, then why should
people give up these rights when they enter their workplace? In politics we fight like
tigers for freedom, for the right to elect our leaders, for freedom of movement, choice
of residence, choice of what work to pursue- control of our lives, in short. And then
we wake up in the morning and go to work, and all those rights disappear. We no
longer insist on them. And so for most of the day we return to feudalism. That is what
capitalism is-a version of feudalism in which capital replaces land, and business
leaders replace kings. But the hierarchy remains. And so we still hand over our lives'
labor, under duress, to feed rulers who do no real work."
"Business leaders work," Antar said sharply. "And they take the financial risks-"
"The so-called risk of the capitalist is merely one of the privileges of capital."
"Management-"
"Yes yes. Don't interrupt me. Management is a real thing, a technical matter. But it
can be controlled by labor just as well as by capital. Capital itself is simply the useful
residue of the work of past laborers, and it could belong to everyone as well as to a
few. There is no reason why a tiny nobility should own the capital, and everyone else
therefore be in service to them. There is no reason they should give us a living wage
and take all the rest that we produce. No! The system called capitalist democracy was
not really democratic at all. That is why it was able to turn so quickly into the
metanational system, in which democracy grew ever weaker and capitalism ever
stronger. In which one percent of the population owned half of the wealth, and five
percent of the population owned ninety-five percent of the wealth. History has shown
which values were real in that system. And the sad thing is that the injustice and
suffering caused by it were not at all necessary, in that the technical means have
existed since the eighteenth century to provide the basics of life to all.

"So. We must change. It is time. If self-rule is a fundamental value, if simple
justice is a value, then they are values everywhere, including in the workplace where
we spend so much of our lives. That was what was said in point four of the Dorsa
Brevia agreement. It says everyone's work is their own, and the worth of it cannot be
taken away. It says that the various modes of production belong to those who created
them, and to the common good of the future generations. It says that the world is
something we all steward together. That is what it says. And in our years on Mars, we
have developed an economic system that can keep all those promises. That has been
our work these last fifty years. In the system we have developed, all economic
enterprises are to be small cooperatives, owned by their workers and by no one else.
They hire their management, or manage themselves. Industry guilds and co-op
associations will form the larger structures necessary to regulate trade and the market,
share capital, and create credit."
Antar said scornfully, "These are nothing but ideas. It is utopianism and nothing
more."
"Not at all." Again Vlad waved him away. "The system is based on models from
Terran history, and its various parts have all been tested on both worlds, and have
succeeded very well. You don't know about this partly because you are ignorant, and
partly because metanationalism itself steadfastly ignored and denied all alternatives to
it. But most of our microeconomy has been in successful operation for centuries in the
Mondragon region of Spain. The different parts of the macroeconomy have been used
in the pseudo-metanat Praxis, in Switzerland, in India's state of Kerala, in Bhutan, in
Bologna Italy, and in many other places, including the Martian underground itself.
These organizations were the precursors to our economy, which will be democratic in
a way capitalism never even tried to be."

A synthesis of systems. And Vladimir Taneev was a very great synthesist; it was
said that all the components of the longevity treatment had already been there, for
instance, and that Vlad and Ursula had simply put them together. Now in his
economic work with Marina he was claiming to have done the same kind of thing.
And although he had not mentioned the longevity treatment in this discussion,
nevertheless it lay there like the table itself, a big cobbled-together achievement, part
of everyone's lives. Art looked around and thought he could see people thinking, well,
he did it once in biology and it worked; could economics be more difficult?
Against this unspoken thought, this unthought feeling, Antar's objections did not
seem like much. Metanational capitalism's track record at this point did little to
support it; in the last century it had precipitated a massive war, chewed up the Earth,
and torn its societies apart. Why should they not try something new, given that
record?
Someone from Hiranyagarba stood and made an objection from the opposite
direction, noting that they seemed to be abandoning the gift economy by which the
Mars underground had lived.
Vlad shook his head impatiently. "I believe in the underground economy, I assure
you, but it has always been a mixed economy. Pure gift exchange coexisted with a
monetary exchange, in which neoclassical market rationality, that is to say the profit
mechanism, was bracketed and contained by society to direct it to serve higher values,
such as justice and freedom. Economic rationality is simply not the highest value. It is
a tool to calculate costs and benefits, only one part of a larger equation concerning
human welfare. The larger equation is called a mixed economy, and that is what we
are constructing here. We are proposing a complex system, with public and private
spheres of economic activity. It may be that we ask people to give, throughout their
lives, about a year of their work to the public good, as in Switzerland's national
service. That labor pool, plus taxes on private co-ops for use of the land and its
resources, will enable us to guarantee the so-called social rights we have been
discussing-housing, health care, food, education- things that should not be at the
mercy of market rationality. Because la salute non si paga, as the Italian workers used
to say. Health is not for sale!"
This was especially important to Vlad, Art could see. Which made sense-for in the
metanational order, health most certainly had been for sale, not only medical care and
food and housing, but preeminently the longevity treatment itself, which so far had
been going only to those who could afford it. Vlad's greatest invention, in other
words, had become the property of the privileged, the ultimate class distinction-long
life or early death-a physicaliza-tion of class that almost resembled divergent species.
No wonder he was angry; no wonder he had turned all his efforts to devising an
economic system that would transform the longevity treatment from a catastrophic
possession to a blessing available to all.
"So nothing will be left to the market," Antar said.
"No no no," Vlad said, waving at Antar more irritably than ever. "The market will
always exist. It is the mechanism by which things and services are exchanged.

Competition to provide the best product at the best price, this is inevitable and
healthy. But on Mars it will be directed by society in a more active way. There will be
not-for-profit status to vital life-support matters, and then the freest part of the market
will be directed away from the basics of existence toward nonessentials, where
venture enterprises can be undertaken by worker-owned co-ops, who will be free to
try what they like. When the basics are secured and when the workers own their own
businesses, why not? It is the process of creation we are talking about."
Jackie, looking annoyed at Vlad's dismissals of Antar, and perhaps intending to
divert the old man, or trip him up, said, "What about the ecological aspects of this
economy that you used to emphasize?"
"They are fundamental," Vlad said. "Point three of Dorsa Brevia states that the
land, air, and water of Mars belong to no one, that we are the stewards of it for all the
future generations. This stewardship will be everyone's responsibility, but in case of
conflicts we propose strong environmental courts, perhaps as part of the constitutional
court, which will estimate the real and complete environmental costs of economic
activities, and help to coordinate plans that impact the environment."
"But this is simply a planned economy!" Antar cried.
"Economies are plans. Capitalism planned just as much as this, and
metanationalism tried to plan everything. No, an economy is a plan."
Antar, frustrated and angry, said, "It's simply socialism returned."
Vlad shrugged. "Mars is a new totality. Names from earlier totalities are deceptive.
They become little more than theological terms. There are elements one could call
socialist in this system, of course. How else remove injustice from economy? But
private enterprises will be owned by their workers rather than being nationalized, and
this is not socialism, at least not socialism as it was usually attempted on Earth. And
all the co-ops are businesses-small democracies devoted to some work of other, all
needing capital. There will be a market, there will be capital. But in our system
workers will hire capital rather than the other way around. It's more democratic that
way, more just. Understand me- we have tried to evaluate each feature of this
economy by how well it aids us to reach the goals of more justice and more freedom.
And justice and freedom do not contradict each other as much as has been claimed,
because freedom in an injust system is no freedom at all. They both emerge together.
And so it is not so impossible, really. It is only a matter of enacting a better system,
by combining elements that have been tested and shown to work. This is the moment
for that. We have been preparing for this opportunity for seventy years. And now that
the chance has come, I see no reason to back off just because someone is afraid of
some old words. If you have any specific suggestions for improvements, we'll be
happy to hear them."
He stared long and hard at Antar. But Antar did not speak; he had no specific
suggestions.

A pipe dream I know.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Solutions?

Party Democracy

 

[Tahuti]

Well, the candidate with the most money is also the one with the best PR, the best speechwriters and the best advisers. Should we not vote for the best-looking candidate, because he's obviously better-paid? More to the point, should we set nothing in store by the fact that the country's industries support a candidate? Supporting the party that nobody is willing to pay to assist to win seems like a recipe for disaster: corporations, after all, have an interest in a healthy economy and prosperous consumers. To me, the problem is more that people are allowed to donate in large quantities without sufficient accountability - what people really need is the information to see whose money is going where.

Except that the candidates without the money aren't able to do the things necessary to win an election such as pay for advertisements, pay for travel, hire qualified speechwriters, etc. I could run for president but since I'm relatively poor I won't be able to get my name out there as much and not get as many votes.

Don't know any candidates who do not represent monied interest? Then don't vote. There is no compulsory voting in the USA AFAIK.

Democracy and plutocracy are intimately tied: In democracies left-or-right, the people rule, and they are ruled by money. Every voter has a responsibility to be well-informed. Simply saying "the rich control the media" is not a valid excuse, since every human being has the power of filtering his or her media consumption and judging whether to take the media at face value or not.

That said, the USA is simply too big to be a working democracy, if we define democracy as a system of directly elected representatives. It may be a sensible (but politically impossible) option to have Congress and the Senate elected by the electoral college as well or else break up the US.

USA always had an unhealthy fascination for material gains and success, and a whole culture of "winners vs losers".

The average US voter will tend to vote more for "sucessful" rich people and will have some contempt for someone who didn't manage to elevates himself above others. No surprise that the person they vote for tend to be the kind of economic elite which think of themselves first.

That's a stereotypical view that considers America to be nothing more but Pamela Anderson, Hollywood and McDonalds. America is a lot more to offer than that.

Though if your general point is that it is a cultural problem rather than a political problem, I think I might actually agree with you here.

 

[El_Machinae]

Party Democracy

I think that this, and Warpus's highlight of the 'first past the post' system as being where it could be fixed.

In Canada, we effectively have three parties. In a lot of ridings, you'll get someone winning with 38% of the vote, lamented as being due to 'vote splitting'. So, 62% of people did NOT want that MP or MLA. Vote splitting is a serious issue, because it's a strategy.

In the States, it's even worse, because you cannot tell who voted for a candidate or against the other candidate.

 

[metatron]

I think that this, and Warpus's highlight of the 'first past the post' system as being where it could be fixed.

In Canada, we effectively have three parties. In a lot of ridings, you'll get someone winning with 38% of the vote, lamented as being due to 'vote splitting'. So, 62% of people did NOT want that MP or MLA. Vote splitting is a serious issue, because it's a strategy.

In the States, it's even worse, because you cannot tell who voted for a candidate or against the other candidate.

The concrete electoral results in and of themselves are not even the biggest problem.
There's a whole culture that comes with having territories not people vote for you or your policies.
And then there's the whole business about some ridings (weird Canadian thingys, whatever) mattering more than others etc. etc.

 

[Farm Boy]

Except that the Dick the Butcher was a fool in the play. That line is actually the Bard's tribute to the lawyers because he had an idiot read that line.

Don't double down on that argument. Shakespeare's fools were frequently the only people that saw clearly.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's people who vote, though? Unless you're lamenting the fact that States get Senators?

There's nothing like you say in Canada. All of our ridings are equal

 

[metatron]

It's people who vote, though?

Technically. It's just that they largely don't matter.

Unless you're lamenting the fact that States get Senators?

No, it's perfectly fine for regions, territories, whatever to unequally represent people in one body of government. Just not all of them.

There's nothing like you say in Canada. All of our ridings are equal

No, they're not. Some of them matter (from a strategic point of view). Many don't.
As a result you're campaigning for ridings not people and subsequently make policy for ridings not people.
And with fptp you're not even doing that. You're making policy and politics for the most gullible, most stupid, least interested, least informed, least morally centered people in a select group of ridings/states/districts/whatever.
I.e. the derpiest among you by and large have control over your government.

Elites typically like it that way. They like it a lot.
To them fptp really is the next best thing after not having people vote at all.

 

[civver_764]

Solutions?

We just need to convince enough people that participating in the US government is pointless. Don't join the military, don't become a police officer, don't run for office, don't vote, don't follow the law. The government only exists as long as people think it does.

 

[IAM]

People are ignorant of politics because there's no point caring about something that will screw that whatever happens.

yea a agree with that.

 

[classical_hero]

We just need to convince enough people that participating in the US government is pointless. Don't join the military, don't become a police officer, don't run for office, don't vote, don't follow the law. The government only exists as long as people think it does.

So your answer is anarchy, not much of a solution.

 

[Masada]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter

I'd counter with rational ignorance.

I wouldn't know for sure. At least I do not vote on people because of their attractiveness or eating hamburgers at McDonalds.

How is it that you, an otherwise smart dude, is allowed not to know who might fix the problem but can still laugh at other people for giving the voting equivalent of a donkey vote by way of endorsement to the current political elites? Political elites who you don't seem to think can fix the problem. What makes you better than them in this scenario?

 

[Harv]

You have exercised your democratic rights against you. It is your responsibility to vote responsibly and if you vote for monied interests because the media told you it would be alright and you allowed yourself to be tricked, you deserve what you get. Better luck next time.

Don't know any candidates who do not represent monied interest? Then don't vote. There is no compulsory voting in the USA AFAIK.

Democracy and plutocracy are intimately tied: In democracies left-or-right, the people rule, and they are ruled by money. Every voter has a responsibility to be well-informed. Simply saying "the rich control the media" is not a valid excuse, since every human being has the power of filtering his or her media consumption and judging whether to take the media at face value or not.

It sounds like you are trying to tell the American people to WAKE UP and save their country. I am curious about something: What is prompting you at this point in time?

 

[Core Imposter]

Its no secret:

The Obama administration told asset managers last week that it was planning additional sanctions against Russia over the conflict in Ukraine.

Officials from the Treasury Department and the National Security Council met in Washington with mutual-fund and hedge-fund managers, according to a person who attended. Their comments sent a message that more sanctions are on the way and that investors, if they were concerned about the impact, should manage that risk


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-money-managers-of-more-russia-sanctions.html

Individual investors, did you get a call from Obama last week?

 

[Masada]

I'm going to put it out there that most individual investors don't have exposure to Russian stocks. Institutionals might and since they tend to manage things like pension funds, well, that's just responsible governance.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@CI - Because the president shouldn't try and mitigate the potential harm to American investors due to his foreign policy choices???

 

[Berzerker]

the left wants more federal power and the right laughs all the way to their banks