Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

In my opinion, the problem isn't the rich being scared shitless. They've been that scared in our lifetimes (my ultra-critical-of-wall-street-former-wallstreet-lawyer economics teacher in highschool said that during the crisis, the banks would've accepted any deal they were given, and that the government coulda pushed much harder). The problem is that there are people in government that are absolutely determined to object to anything whatsoever that doesn't fit with their shitty economic doctrines. And even beyond the ideologues, there's a bigger problem: The Republican party's entire attitude to economics right now can't be reformed because it's not policy-based: its just shit. When Obama was in charge they screamed bloody murder about debt and the deficit (Remember?!? Pepperidge farm remembers...). Now in power, they completely dumped that position and moved on to passing a shitty tax bill that will balloon the deficit for unclear gain to anyone but the rich.

The problem is the government isn't even run by thieves, it's run by idiots.

Hard for me to believe... considering there are also insiders who claim the ultra-wealthy fit all the stereotypes of clueless/spoiled/delusional senses of self-worth.  And their response to Occupy was quite confirming, also.  I remember reading reports from the marches through literal Wall St.  People in suits watched from the balconies, sipping their martinis, laughing, taunting, and throwing stuff at the protesters.  Doesn't sound to me like people who fear the pitchforks.

And I'm not a fan of hand-waving the government as idiots.  Because if they're not, then we're hamstringing our ability to respond appropriately.  Their behavior fits with the incentives you'd expect according to lobbies and donors, so I have no reason to believe stupidity is the explanation.

[RedKing]

I don't want to be the guy that tries to play advocate for the mega-rich, cause god they don't need it, but I don't think angry mobs and pitchforks makes for either a healthy democracy or a healthy capitalistic system.

You can only have one of those two. Healthy democracy tends to stifle capitalism. Healthy capitalism tends to stifle democracy. Because they have rather conflicting goals.

Wait what? That sounds like a confusion of concepts.  Democracy is simply "power is proportional to population that shares a common idea" and I'm assuming your defining capitalism to mean "power is proportional to wealth".  They are just vote-allocation schemes, and they aren't entirely independent.

Neither democracy nor capitalism as systems say anything about what decisions are made - they just determine the weighting mechanism used to make decisions.  It's debatable whether the fact that neither of those weighting mechanisms has any kind of moral quality to it is a feature or flaw.

That is, nothing about either method says anything about if a decision is "right or wrong".  For instance - you can't really say a population that does vote for something "voted wrong" - you can only say you don't like the result of the vote.  You need something in addition to democracy or capitalism (or any other socioeconomic -ism) to make value judgments.

Except that capitalism concentrates wealth (and ergo, power) into the hands of a few, which is inherently inimical to democracy.
Citizens United blurred the fuck out of the line between capitalism and democracy by enshrining the notion that money = speech.

I'm with the pitchfork crowd myself. And the sooner, the better. The longer this goes on, the harder (and messier) it's going to be to undo. You think shit is bad now, wait till we get to Shadowrun-level dystopia and corporations start fielding private armies.

[misko27]

I don't agree at all, especially given how poorly designed some of the stuff they've done is. Where in the health bill they made do you see lobbyist influence? Hell, from what I heard most lobbyists were against it (particularly hospital lobbyists), and it still almost passed. And things like getting rid of a tax exemption for people who live in high-tax states; who the hell lobbied for that? How is that anything but a "fuck you" to people living in blue states?

Admittedly, there are things like the tax cuts sunsetting for individuals but staying for corporations, but part of that is just legal hoops Republicans have to jump through to jam through these things (and I think I can safely say Republican, given the totally partisan nature of the votes). And of course, there are obvious influences like the attack on Dodd-Frank. But it just seems strange to attribute things which seem so arbitrary to the plotting of lobbyists and the ultra-rich. I'm not denying they have influence, and indeed, entirely too much; but not all of it is them, and what isn't them appears to be sheer... something.

As for what that something is, I don't know. Republicans have an amazing ability to dredge up some ridiculous idealogues whenever it comes time to object to something new, make them important for a while, and then forget they exist when they no longer need them. When's the last time you heard about those "Fiscal Hawks" from 2010? Those "Fiscal Hawks" who went out of their way to stop Obama from spending, complained about everything he did as an exorbitant expense and government overreach? Who constantly focused the media and the cultural mindset on debt and deficit? Which lobbyist hired them? What ultra-rich person is served by them? And where the hell have they disappeared to?

Who benefits from cutting welfare? Who benefits from the shitty response to the opioid crises? What happened to all the businesses who rely on cheap labor from immigrants, they sure don't seem to be doing a good job lobbying now do they? What about every other example of blatant shooting-the-economy-in-the-foot-for-no-reason that's been occurring? Rule by the rich should be a lot more coherent than this.

[RedKing]

That's because the donor class don't rule in the way you're thinking. They don't dictate every facet of what occurs. They use influence to bend rules and trends in their favor, and in ways that they can then capitalize on favorably.

It's like playing a board game -- if you're dictating the rules too overtly, everyone knows it and will protest. But if you can get rules put into place that seem sorta fair, but which you know are going to play out well for you, then that's the ticket. And it's just good luck and your keen business acumen that's behind it.

The thing that scares me is that increasingly (as with net neutrality), corporations and donors are becoming more brazen about giving the shaft to democracy. They're not even trying to astroturf movements in their favor anymore, they just fucking ignore popular outcry or claim it's all 'fake news'.

As someone said above, we're not ruled by clever thieves, we're ruled by short-sighted, greedy idiots. Instead of stealing half the golden eggs, they'll cut the goose open. And then we're all fucked.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Who benefits from cutting welfare?

The politicians themselves, who get "back to work" doners feeling real generous, and most megacorps since they can offer less in exchange for more if there's a real chance you'll up and die on the streets without them.

Who benefits from the shitty response to the opioid crises?

Cops, prison corps, attorneys, judges, and to an extent the military.

What happened to all the businesses who rely on cheap labor from immigrants, they sure don't seem to be doing a good job lobbying now do they?

Don't confuse competing interests tripping over each other for a lack of lobbying.

What about every other example of blatant shooting-the-economy-in-the-foot-for-no-reason that's been occurring? Rule by the rich should be a lot more coherent than this.

It's not for no reason, it's so they can reap the harvest of "their" economy. Capitalism is a maximizer by nature, and most ultra-rich people border on pathological when it comes to getting more money. Shit, just look at Trump. He's fucking loaded, but he can't stand the idea of anyone being able to put an exact number on it if he isn't the richest man in the world, and maybe not even then. There are levels of cred among the ultrarich that look insane to anyone living a normal life, billionaire parties shutting out multi-millionaires for "not being our kind of people".

[Egan_BW]

That's because the donor class don't rule in the way you're thinking. They don't dictate every facet of what occurs. They use influence to bend rules and trends in their favor, and in ways that they can then capitalize on favorably.

It's like playing a board game -- if you're dictating the rules too overtly, everyone knows it and will protest. But if you can get rules put into place that seem sorta fair, but which you know are going to play out well for you, then that's the ticket. And it's just good luck and your keen business acumen that's behind it.

The thing that scares me is that increasingly (as with net neutrality), corporations and donors are becoming more brazen about giving the shaft to democracy. They're not even trying to astroturf movements in their favor anymore, they just fucking ignore popular outcry or claim it's all 'fake news'.

As someone said above, we're not ruled by clever thieves, we're ruled by short-sighted, greedy idiots. Instead of stealing half the golden eggs, they'll cut the goose open. And then we're all fucked.

And then, while the goose is laying bleeding on the ground, we'll replace it with a much sturdier mechanical goose. I wonder what happens then?
((Don't mistake this for optimism, as I'm pretty sure most of us are the goose in this metaphor.))

[RedKing]

That's because the donor class don't rule in the way you're thinking. They don't dictate every facet of what occurs. They use influence to bend rules and trends in their favor, and in ways that they can then capitalize on favorably.

It's like playing a board game -- if you're dictating the rules too overtly, everyone knows it and will protest. But if you can get rules put into place that seem sorta fair, but which you know are going to play out well for you, then that's the ticket. And it's just good luck and your keen business acumen that's behind it.

The thing that scares me is that increasingly (as with net neutrality), corporations and donors are becoming more brazen about giving the shaft to democracy. They're not even trying to astroturf movements in their favor anymore, they just fucking ignore popular outcry or claim it's all 'fake news'.

As someone said above, we're not ruled by clever thieves, we're ruled by short-sighted, greedy idiots. Instead of stealing half the golden eggs, they'll cut the goose open. And then we're all fucked.

And then, while the goose is laying bleeding on the ground, we'll replace it with a much sturdier mechanical goose. I wonder what happens then?
((Don't mistake this for optimism, as I'm pretty sure most of us are the goose in this metaphor.))

I, for one, welcome our pitiless Mechagoose overlord.

[SalmonGod]

Here's a relevant article from everyone's favorite billionaire - Nick Hanauer

He straight up tells his peers that they're responsible, and shames them for it.

[smjjames]

Here's a relevant article from everyone's favorite billionaire - Nick Hanauer

He straight up tells his peers that they're responsible, and shames them for it.

I saw something similar some time back, basically some of them are aware that it's a real problem and the income equality needs to be dealt with because this level of income equality generally sooner or later leads to pitchforks coming for the wealthy, whether that's metaphorically or literally.

[redwallzyl]

I really like that guy. I heard and interview awhile back on NPR.

[SalmonGod]

Here's a relevant article from everyone's favorite billionaire - Nick Hanauer

He straight up tells his peers that they're responsible, and shames them for it.

I saw something similar some time back, basically some of them are aware that it's a real problem and the income equality needs to be dealt with because this level of income equality generally sooner or later leads to pitchforks coming for the wealthy, whether that's metaphorically or literally.

Most became aware of him when his TED talk broke news in 2012.  TED initially refused to publish it, because it was too "partisan" (they've hosted many talks equally or more partisan in nature) and unpopular with the live audience (good portion of TED attendees and speakers are wealthy).

There are enlightened self-interest types among the ultra-rich, but they're an extreme minority, as Nick himself points out.  There's lots of self-proclaimed philanthropists who donate their money to charities that have nothing to do with the root causes of poverty/inequality, and continue to grow in net worth year by year and push for plutocratic legislation/draconic labor laws (look at Amazon's track record), despite whatever dramatic sounding pledges to give away so much of their money.  There's a handful who profess understanding that extreme inequality is unhealthy to society.  But Nick is the only billionaire I'm aware of who is promoting his specific message, and actively trying to do something about it.

[redwallzyl]

It's not surprising he is the only one. Self justification is a specificity of the human brain. It's really easy to think you deserve what you have regardless of how you got it.

[EnigmaticHat]

"If you feel the need to give something back, you took too much."

[SalmonGod]

"If you feel the need to give something back, you took too much."

Different guy, but yeah.  I really liked that talk, too.  That was a great line.

[Maximum Spin]

Statistically, historically, I think a mass value shift back to people liking aristocracy is more likely than pitchforks. That said, don't worry, because it isn't likely to last long.