Does Anyone Think the Uber-Rich are Usually on Their Side?

[suncowiam]

Given how obvious it is that ownership can -- and often does -- translate directly into how much power and influence you have over other people, your government, and society, would you be prepared to say that any one person should be able to have enormous power and influence over others, the government, and society, while most everyone else has relatively tiny power and influence?

If so, do you value "representative democracy", or would you prefer some other form of government, such as some sort of dictatorship?

I do value democracy, of course.

But that doesn't necessarily answer how much power each individual can have? What is inherent about a democracy that suggests we're all equal in every term? Concerning power, couldn't abilities and skills be considered a power? An oncologist can probably save his own life concerning cancer, but is he required to save everyone's life. Some of us have professions that are very valuable, but we are not required to share this profession with the rest of society.

Again, I just find this a big arbitrary mess.

As I mentioned earlier, in theory, the poor has the numerical advantage in a democracy. Yet, they can't decide on policies to favor themselves. The tools are there for the poor to change society. Or maybe I'm just being naive?

 

[Jumi]

I'd guess a minority of them are on my side, but since I don't know them personally I wouldn't judge them as a group.

 

[YmirGF]

And I've more and more come to support confiscating the wealth of any one person or family that's over $10,000,000.

Does anyone else find this to be a particularly disgusting suggestion? If such an idea was ever enacted does anyone really believe it would stop there? Seriously?

 

[Sunstone]

The idea behind the thread seems to be little more than drumming up hatred against the wealthy.

That should be beneath you, Paul. Thoughtlessly parroting the oft-repeated slanders of folks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity just isn't the real you -- so far as I'm willing to guess.

 

[Sunstone]

I suppose, but are we seriously expected to drill through each damned billionaire's positions, on a host of issues, analyze their stock profiles to follow the money, rather than their mouths and then score card that with our own, often fuzzy, perceptions?

Such information is readily available these days thanks to search engines and the internet. See, for instance: The 10 most influential billionaires in politics

 

[Sunstone]

But that doesn't necessarily answer how much power each individual can have? What is inherent about a democracy that suggests we're all equal in every term? Concerning power, couldn't abilities and skills be considered a power? An oncologist can probably save his own life concerning cancer, but is he required to save everyone's life. Some of us have professions that are very valuable, but we are not required to share this profession with the rest of society.

I was hoping to keep the conversation focused on political, social, and economic power.

As I mentioned earlier, in theory, the poor has the numerical advantage in a democracy. Yet, they can't decide on policies to favor themselves. The tools are there for the poor to change society. Or maybe I'm just being naive?

The Century of the Self is an excellent, award winning documentary on how elites control the masses in the US and UK. Before one speaks of any alleged numerical advantage the poor have, one should watch the documentary, I think.

 

[Sunstone]

Does anyone else find this to be a particularly disgusting suggestion? If such an idea was ever enacted does anyone really believe it would stop there? Seriously?

I find dictatorships and oligarchies far more disgusting than the notion of confiscating capital.

 

[BSM1]

I don't know about him much.

It would behoove you to learn about him.

 

[Sunstone]

Bill Gates business practices have been entirely predatory, anyone that's used Microsoft knows what an *** he is, as to Warren Buffet, he invests in oil companies and Apple, another entirely predatory business, they may not be as bad as the Koch Bros, but they're bad nonetheless

The uber-rich aren't demons, Lyndon. They have virtues and vices both, just like the rest of us. What makes them remarkably different is that they can -- and often do -- exercise enormous power and influence over their societies, including you and me. For instance, it isn't most of us Americans who have been stopping the US from adopting universal health insurance.

 

[suncowiam]

I was hoping to keep the conversation focused on political, social, and economic power.



The Century of the Self is an excellent, award winning documentary on how elites control the masses in the US and UK. Before one speaks of any alleged numerical advantage the poor have, one should watch the documentary, I think.

Lets continue with the notion of how the rich controls the poor. I have yet to see that documentary, of course, so I'll have to make some assumptions as to how the rich is controlling the poor.

The rich is marketing to the poor, which really is a form of expression. I'm sure there's a lot of dishonesty and misdirection, but it's still a form of expression. Whoever feeds on this expression needs to bare the responsibility of filtering it. I'm sure there are other methods being deployed to control the poor, but if its to persuade votes, then I believe fundamentally it becomes expression from the rich targeting the poor. Objectively, any expression is legal as mandated by our constitution (well, most that doesn't cause civil unrest). Subjectively, I would say the expression should be honest but that's not really a requirement...

 

[YmirGF]

I find dictatorships and oligarchies far more disgusting than the notion of confiscating capital.

How would you feel if this threshold ceiling were say around $250,000? That is a LOT of money to the vast majority of people on the planet! $100,000? $50,000? The thing is, who decides?

 

[Quintessence]

This topic makes me think of an article I read today about how one particular ultra-rich person announced they'd invest their fortune. Their choice of investment was disappointing in that it does little to nothing to serve the people, human or otherwise.

There's something really off about it making as much sense (possibly more sense) to lobby the ultra-wealthy than your own government to affect change. Really, really off.

 

[suncowiam]

This topic makes me think of an article I read today about how one particular ultra-rich person announced they'd invest their fortune. Their choice of investment was disappointing in that it does little to nothing to serve the people, human or otherwise.

There's something really off about it making as much sense (possibly more sense) to lobby the ultra-wealthy than your own government to affect change. Really, really off.

And this illustrates my point concerning how the rich markets to the poor.

Don't trust them. Filter everything that is being said and asserted.

 

[David1967]

Does anyone think the uber-rich (people worth a billion or more) are usually politically or economically aligned with one's own best interests? Why or why not?

Uh...no. Not unless it greatly benefits them.

 

[Sunstone]

Uh...no. Not unless it greatly benefits them.

I have a handful of friends who are millionaires. One of them complained to me last election cycle that he no longer could afford to buy access to his senator because the price had gone up due to the billionaires spending so much more on it than he could!

Now, I've always known that access to politicians is often bought -- you want them to listen to you, really listen to you? Fine, cut a check for their campaign fund -- and I even long ago came to realize and accept that it's all just human nature. So it doesn't alarm me to hear that access to politicians is bought.

But I am alarmed to hear that the local millionaires are being priced out of the market by billionaires. I mean, who is most in touch with the community and is most likely to have the interests of the community at heart -- a local millionaire, or a remote billionaire?

 

[Sunstone]

How would you feel if this threshold ceiling were say around $250,000? That is a LOT of money to the vast majority of people on the planet! $100,000? $50,000? The thing is, who decides?

I'd set it at 100 million. That's enough to inspire the relatively few who actually need such inspiration. Who really would just give up and become homeless if there weren't millions to be made. But it's low enough to limit the power of any one person to grossly outweigh the power of the majority of people united. The principle here is allow people to have as much wealth as is safe for the Republic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd set it at 100 million. That's enough to inspire the relatively few who actually need such inspiration. Who really would just give up and become homeless if there weren't millions to be made. But it's low enough to limit the power of any one person to grossly outweigh the power of the majority of people united. The principle here is allow people to have as much wealth as is safe for the Republic.

Since money is a way of "keeping score", perhaps a replacement needs to be found for it for people above that level. There is always a drive to be the richest man alive or one of the richest men, or women, alive. What would tickle a person's ego and give them incentive to carry on?

 

[savagewind]

Does anyone think the uber-rich (people worth a billion or more) are usually politically or economically aligned with one's own best interests? Why or why not?

No. It seems to me that uber-rich people are about making more money. How they make more money is sometimes or most of the time bad news for Earth. I am for the Earth and so I have to say that they are not for my own best interest.

 

[Sunstone]

Since money is a way of "keeping score", perhaps a replacement needs to be found for it for people above that level. There is always a drive to be the richest man alive or one of the richest men, or women, alive. What would tickle a person's ego and give them incentive to carry on?

Good question. As I mentioned in an early post, for at least one person, their love for their work is enough to keep them going.

I know that was part of it for me when I employed people. There were other non-monetary rewards in it for me too. I learned, for instance, how much it meant to me to make things happen. Nothing more complicated than that. I just get a huge kick at seeing my plans come to fruition.

 

[Valjean]

I see Koch Bros donations as more ideologically directed than others.

I agree, but their 1ry ideology seems to be the establishment of Gilded Age 2.0. They believe the only role of government is national security and enforcement of property rights.

Yes, they give to a lot of good causes -- they can afford a top notch PR department. I see them credited on a lot of PBS shows, for example, though one wonders if this had anything to do with the cancellation of the Citizen Koch documentary.

Their donations to philanthropic organizations are well publicized (and tax deductible). Those to legislators supporting corporate deregulation, control of courts, academic institutions, &c, which dwarf their charitable contributions, are hidden, with Dark Money funneled through dozens of innocuous sounding organizations like Americans for Prosperity.