How Did the United States Become an Oligarchy?

[Audie]

Isn't it? The idea that the strong dominate the weak and that the rich rule over the poor is not exactly new.



I'm not sure. It seems it has the effect of increasing the amount of overall debt and reducing savings. I think some members of the Fed wanted to increase interest rates, but Trump balked against that idea. I haven't checked recently as to where that issue stands right now.

I'm not so much concerned about the wealth inequality gap within the USA itself, not at present. The greater concern might be the wealth inequality gap on a global scale.

You are correct, it is not new. Everyone has had it
front and center obvious for mullenis.

That is not at issue. What is was your peculiar
comment that the ivory tower sorts dont get it.

As you essentially contradicted that, above, I
will assume you dont really think the academics
dont understand the obvious.

Regarding interest rates, if you are interested-

It is similar worldvwide. Low.

So-rich people can borrow millions, essentially for
free, build an apartment block or hospital, enjoy a
substantial profit.

Poor / middle class have no access to that; you need money
to make money.

Side note that credit card and paycheck advance, the
common loan of lower income is of course disasterously
expensive.

 

[Audie]

Sometimes, wherever the wealth is, needs to be accounted for and implemented , wherever us as a society decide to put it all, and that's in fact called accounting. I have a degree in it. crAAAaazy

Huh?

 

[Brickjectivity]

What happened to turn America in an oligarchy? Was it our high R low G economy? Was it government policies? Did the tax code play a decisive hand in the creation of our oligarchy?

Is our oligarchy becoming hereditary? What percentage of the people on the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans inherited their wealth?

Similar things have happened before, multiple times. My main objection is that the corporations don't die. Eventually we need to start breaking them up like we did with the huge trusts. A lot depends upon whether new technologies and methods shake them up enough so that it becomes unnecessary, but such large corporations are dangerous. They seem to gobble up startups, and its by no means clear that they understand their responsibility to keep the economy going --> the income/spend cycle. They seem, instead, to be complacent and perfectly willing to cause the economy to grind to a halt. The banks, too; seem perfectly happy to let the economy crash.

 

[Stevicus]

You are correct, it is not new. Everyone has had it
front and center obvious for mullenis.

That is not at issue. What is was your peculiar
comment that the ivory tower sorts dont get it.

As you essentially contradicted that, above, I
will assume you dont really think the academics
dont understand the obvious.

Well, admittedly, I was being a bit facetious. It's just that when watching the Bill Moyers video, it seemed like they were treating like it was some sort of monumental discovery. Of course, not everyone goes into all the mechanics and methods of how it happens, as that might take a more academic level of understanding.

But the basic principle is what it is. However, I'm not really that upset about it. After all, in the long run, we are all dead anyway, so it's not something that's going to personally affect me that much.

The only real tragedy here is that this will likely lead to a cultural, scientific, and technological stagnation. The progress of humanity will stand still - and perhaps even go backwards. We're already seeing signs of that already, with some people worried about a resurgence of nationalism and older ideas which were better left in the past.

If the "oligarchs" or "leaders" (or whoever the heck is running this railroad) want to revert back to their baser, more primitive instincts, then it stands to reason that their atavism will trickle down to the masses, who will follow their example.

 

[Revoltingest]

Regarding interest rates, if you are interested-

It is similar worldvwide. Low.

So-rich people can borrow millions, essentially for
free, build an apartment block or hospital, enjoy a
substantial profit.

Poor / middle class have no access to that; you need money
to make money.

The middle class also benefits greatly from low
interest rates, eg, home loans, business loans.

 

[Audie]

The middle class also benefits greatly from low
interest rates, eg, home loans, business loans.

Yes, very true, tho it might be interesting to see where
most of the debt is.

Disirregardless, my main observationality was that
low interest rate is a driver of the widening gap.

 

[Audie]

Well, admittedly, I was being a bit facetious. It's just that when watching the Bill Moyers video, it seemed like they were treating like it was some sort of monumental discovery. Of course, not everyone goes into all the mechanics and methods of how it happens, as that might take a more academic level of understanding.

But the basic principle is what it is. However, I'm not really that upset about it. After all, in the long run, we are all dead anyway, so it's not something that's going to personally affect me that much.

The only real tragedy here is that this will likely lead to a cultural, scientific, and technological stagnation. The progress of humanity will stand still - and perhaps even go backwards. We're already seeing signs of that already, with some people worried about a resurgence of nationalism and older ideas which were better left in the past.

If the "oligarchs" or "leaders" (or whoever the heck is running this railroad) want to revert back to their baser, more primitive instincts, then it stands to reason that their atavism will trickle down to the masses, who will follow their example.

Did you know that Maoism is resurgent in China?

Reasons are fairly obvious and predictable.

That the "communist" govt is discomfited by
this is also no surprise.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, very true, tho it might be interesting to see where
most of the debt is.

Disirregardless, my main observationality was that
low interest rate is a driver of the widening gap.

You're either having a stroke or a lot of fun.

 

[Audie]

Similar things have happened before, multiple times. My main objection is that the corporations don't die. Eventually we need to start breaking them up like we did with the huge trusts. A lot depends upon whether new technologies and methods shake them up enough so that it becomes unnecessary, but such large corporations are dangerous. They seem to gobble up startups, and its by no means clear that they understand their responsibility to keep the economy going --> the income/spend cycle. They seem, instead, to be complacent and perfectly willing to cause the economy to grind to a halt. The banks, too; seem perfectly happy to let the economy crash.

Large corporations are suicidal? Surely you are joking.

 

[Audie]

You're either having a stroke or a lot of fun.

Who owes to who, I wonder.

Low interest helps the rich.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who owes to who, I wonder.

Low interest helps the rich.

It helps them the most because they invest the most.
But it helps everyone.

High interest rates really hurt the lower level wealthholders.
Borrowing gets spendy....home prices fall...& interest
income pushes people into higher income tax brackets.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Large corporations are suicidal? Surely you are joking.

Historically? I think they soak up market share until they control price and supply. For that reason US Congress has occasionally made a law to break the large ones, and there are regulators operating under the executive branch here which can investigate and prevent mergers of companies.

 

[Audie]

Historically? I think they soak up market share until they control price and supply. For that reason US Congress has occasionally made a law to break the large ones, and there are regulators operating under the executive branch here which can investigate and prevent mergers of companies.

That sure is not corporate suicide.

 

[Sunstone]

Isn't it? The idea that the ... the rich rule over the poor is not exactly new.

Once again, it is important in this context not to muddle the distinction between a plutocracy and an oligarchy.

 

[Sunstone]

I wouldn't say they came from nothing, especially Gates.

Bezos's family had some money but was not as notably wealthy as Gate's family. Gates, for instance, had the advantage of a family rich enough to buy him his own mainframe computer when he was a kid so that he could pursue his interest in computer science. Obviously, his story is not an Horatio Alger story.

However, these are individuals. By themselves, they prove nothing of interest. The more significant thing to know would be the general trends. For instance, is the proportion of people in the top 1% who have inherited their wealth increasing or decreasing over time? That would be far more interesting to know than the fact Jeff Bezos initial capitalization of Amazon was one million dollars from 22 investors.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That sure is not corporate suicide.

Correct. There are several benefits for individuals when we break up large corporate entities. The resulting entities can be forced to compete on price, and they have less control of supply. For example this happens in the US when we break up Bill into the 'Baby Bells'. They no longer control all telephony and are forced to innovate. As result telephone services improve both technologically and in efficiency. The most important result for this thread though is that they potentially become competitors in lobbying. They may not all throw their influence behind the same politicians. With the Baby Bells we split their influence geographically.

 

[Revoltingest]

That sure is not corporate suicide.

It's more like biological cell division.
The Federal Dept Of Meiosis sends special signal proteins
(courtorderoids) to the corporation, whereupon it divides
into components which then become fully functioning
corporations. It's how they reproduce.

 

[PureX]

I am sure this is historically accurate, but is it not a feature of all democracies in history that they start this way, and then the franchise and the routes to gaining power gradually become widened?

No, they do not start this way, generally. That's true. But in every society of human beings there will be found a certain percentage of individuals who live to gain and wield power over everything and everyone else. And when money was invented, this gave the power that they desire both a concrete and an abstract reality for them to focus all their energy and desire on. Such that every human society has sooner or later succumbed to the subjugation of this percentage of humans living within it that sought power by whatever means were available, and through the mechanism of money = power.

In the UK we can trace the development by which the power of the monarch was gradually constrained by, and transferred to, wider and wider circles, from Magna Carta to the Civil War, the so-called Glorious Revolution, the Great Reform Bill and finally universal suffrage and the rise of the Labour party, specifically formed to represent the working class and in part drawn from their number.

However, those who gain high political office are nearly always drawn from the more educated classes of people, just as is true in commerce, or the arts, or anything else. The reasons for this are fairly obvious - such people are equipped with the tools required to succeed: they have knowledge, have been taught how to learn and analyse, and can communicate well. (John Major is a rare modern exception - he can do all of these things supremely well, in spite of leaving school at 16. )

However if one defines educated people - pejoratively - as an "elite", as people like Trump and Boris Johnson like to do, then it is an easy step to portraying this as also an oligarchy.

It's important to understand, I think, that being educated does not translate to wanting to rule over others. It merely makes those who do want to rule over others better at attaining and holding the authority and/or ability to do so. The reason I used the term "elite" is because that's what wealth and power ascribe to people within a society. Those who have wealth, have power, and those who have power use it to increase and protect their wealth. Which then creates an insular "elite" class within the society as a whole that are acting antithetically to the well-being of the whole, by acting in favor of themselves. This is the "elite" that is always threatening the whole of any society, and that must be reigned in by some mechanism or other or it will eventually destroy the society that creates and sustains it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

All countries are oligarchies when you think about it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

OK. I don't do videos -too timewasting, shallow and often of doubtful provenance. I'm certainly not spending 25 mins on this.

What about Obama's presidency though? Who were the oligarchs running the country?

Obama motors

Obama solar

Obama 2019....


The Obamas Just Announced They're Building a Business Empire on 1 Simple Thing (You Can Too)