Is America a Plutocracy?

[dust1n]

Well it depends entirely upon who the scale is related to doesn't it. If one wants to argue that social mobility is low then choose to relate it to the countries with the highest social mobility and get a scale that supports that argument. If one wants to argue that it is high, then pick a bunch of lower. The accurate person would choose to look at each of the national measures of social mobility and put them all in a scale, and thence say america is xth on that scale.
Perhaps a social mobility of 1% is relatively high.

I'm pretty sure 1% is enough to indicate that if you are poor, you have a 99% chance of not getting rich. You are next to 99 people. One of you will collect wealth. No comparison to other countries needed.

In fact.. the rich have a 22% chance of being rich later in life, in comparison to that 1% for the poor. That means that someone who is already rich has a 2200% of being rich over a poor person. Out of every 23 rich people you meet... one will have came from a low income family. That doesn't really leave much opportunity, does it?

A quick wiki read has revealed that economic mobility is not the only form of mobility, and hence my definition of social mobility based only upon the gansta rapper getting rich or the non uni parents sending their kids to uni is not representative of the complexity of the issue.

Apparently economic capital is merely one of three indicators, the other two being social capital and cultural capital.

Social mobility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - though I don't see it answer the question of america being a plutocracy or not, but it does mention a Meritocracy, which seems to me a more accurate assessment of the small amount of knowledge on america I possess.

Well, since social capital and cultural capital are really big abstractions in comparison to economic capital (which is to say, the only one relevant to a 'plutocracy' and the determining factor of social and cultural capital in this country), I'm going to take those two out.

 

[Peacewise]

We disagree.

 

[dust1n]

We disagree.

We disagree if a rich person is 22 times more likely to be rich than a poor person to be rich qualifies as a plutocracy?

"In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems."

 

[rojse]

We disagree if a rich person is 22 times more likely to be rich than a poor person to be rich qualifies as a plutocracy?

"In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems."

Why bother with facts and figures when you can use unrepresentative anecdotes?

 

[dust1n]

Why bother with facts and figures when you can use unrepresentative anecdotes?

I tried using facts and figures - I received 'we disagree'. Somehow, the fact that the system is relative to other forms of sovereign states (which I thought was assumed the standard as far as determining where we stand) negates America's stance as 'plutocracy', but some how he has another of system of determining America as a me 'meritocracy', and I am just confused as to how he is coming to a conclusion.

 

[rojse]

I tried using facts and figures - I received 'we disagree'. Somehow, the fact that the system is relative to other forms of sovereign states (which I thought was assumed the standard as far as determining where we stand) negates America's stance as 'plutocracy', but some how he has another of system of determining America as a me 'meritocracy', and I am just confused as to how he is coming to a conclusion.

As I said, he's got unrepresentative anecdotes on his side.

 

[Peacewise]

plutocracy
// (say plooh'tokruhsee)
noun (plural plutocracies) 1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth. [Greek ploutokratia. See -CRACY]

I accept the point. America is a plutocracy, despite that some poor can get rich. Thanks for walking me through it.

 

[jimmy button]

So as a plutocracy, which "rules" the state. To what extent does the wealthy class' influence reach?

 

[Revoltingest]

Naw.....I'd say it's a hybrid of a direct democracy & a representative democracy. Certainly America started out as a Constitutional Republic
with representative democracy, but as information flow sped up, politicians are becoming more responsive to by polls & popular opinion on
a day to day basis. The connection appears so direct, that they aren't very independent of the public's whims. Moreover, judges too have
always been affected by popular thought & pressure, & are willing to let this over-ride strict interpretation of law.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm hard-pressed to think of a single non-tribal (and even some tribal societies) which are not ruled by those with more wealth. This is a by-product of humanity, and isn't restricted to particular types of governments or economic systems.

As far as social mobility goes, I'd say it's harder to move upwards than it used to be, but we still have the freedom and opportunity to do so. It's hard to use statistics to argue social mobility, as most of those with no wealth do not, or cannot, do what it takes to move upwards. As someone who comes from abject poverty, and now makes well-above the median income, I can tell you that most poor people are poor because they are comfortable being that way, and even when opportunity presents itself to improve, they don't take it, or squander away what they do get.

I did not want to live my life being poor, and expected a better life, so made it so. And, it wasn't particularly difficult. If I truly worked hard and maximized my potential I could be making much more than I do now.

 

[dust1n]

As I said, he's got unrepresentative anecdotes on his side.

LOL. Sorry, I read it backwards.

 

[Levite]

Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.

In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems.

The word plutocracy (Modern Greek: πλουτοκρατία - ploutokratia) is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratos, meaning to rule or to govern.

Why or why not?

Yeah, right now America's a plutocracy. Nobody's wielding much power who isn't rich, and there's no doubt the poor are getting shafted in order to preserve power for the wealthy. In some ways it's more a corporate plutocracy than anything else: most of the unethical powermongering is being done by corporations rather than individuals, although of course there are major league exceptions, such as the huge problem of media monopolies (90+% of US media is owned by something like six guys-- it's sick).

I don't think America was always this way, though, and I don't believe it always has to be. The people just need to get off their lazy, apathetic a s s e s and reclaim power. It's been done before. It can be done again.

 

[jimmy button]

The range of mobility that is available to the public is not the full range of wealth/power from bottom to top. At best if someone from poverty becomes rich, they are still only halfway up the ladder in terms of how much power and influence they actually have, when compared with the people who run the show sitting at the top. :[