Real World Event Discussions

Harvard study: America is an oligarchy

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, June 2, 2024 12:59
VIEWED: 19307
PAGE 5 of 6

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:46 AM

I sometimes think the main reason why some democracies work better than others is about size. It seems to me the the US is just too big to be governed effectively.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to talk about the pros and cons of our different systems but I do know that you do not have to be rich to be elected to government here. However, Parliament is still dominated by a certain socio economic group, gender and ethnicity although the latter two are changing.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parli
amentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/43rdParl

so often I think its just out size that means that government can be a bit more representative and accountable.

Like everywhere else, we've been influenced/bullied http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wto/services away from taxpayer funded services to more user pays systems. When I got my first university qualification, higher education was free. Utilities were state government owned and cheap, but you had no choice. Hooray, now I have choice about which expensive power company I get to use. I still dont understand the reason behind private ownership of utilities except that the government made a shit load of money when they sold off these amazing investments, but I'm an old fashioned gal.

I have to admit I dont share the despair/hopelessness/cynacism that is demonstrated by many American posters on these boards. Maybe its because we've never seen ourselves as either a global power or the greatest country on earth, so there's not that despair at feeling knocked off one's perch.

I tend to see the current system as somewhat flawed, but not without redemption. Livable, but I'm not sure for how long.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I have to admit I dont share the despair/hopelessness/cynacism that is demonstrated by many American posters on these boards. Maybe its because we've never seen ourselves as either a global power or the greatest country on earth, so there's not that despair at feeling knocked off one's perch.

If I display any of those feelings it's NOT because of the reasons you postulate; I welcome not being 'the' global power, and I've never seen us the greatest country on Earth. It's because the poor will soon have the middle class joining their ranks to keep the 1% up there. And that means revolution.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10:10 AM

I was thinking more of your ideals and sense of being the shining light of democracy rather than global imperialists.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:28 AM

Quote:
Harder to get them to sign documents or type in their PIN when they can't move their hand.
I don't think you can't threaten the rich well successfully, especially if they own the rings of power as you suggest. You might guilt them into it, or annoy them into it, "Begone peasants! Here's a weeks wages, scurry off to do you muddy buggering you call life!" But lasting contributions? Again, do you want to see blood or money?

You have a limited imagination!!!

SECOND

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
So, seems like trying to strike a deal makes the most sense to me. I understand The Rich like deals too. Hey, maybe we could sell them shares in infrastructure projects?

You are thinking too small. There will be no little deal. It will be a BIG deal.

The ratio of wealth to income is rising in all developed countries. Absent extraordinary interventions, expect that trend to continue. If it continues, the future will look like the 19th century, where economic elites have predominantly inherited their wealth rather than working for it.

Visualize a class-ridden, neo-Victorian society dominated by the unearned wealth of a hereditary elite. And old-Victorian society didn't end with a deal; it ended with WWI and the Great Depression.

See Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century, the #1 best-selling book on Amazon for some calculations about how wealth (and power proportional to that wealth) will end up in very few hands. www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/06744300
0X/

Or read the free www.vox.com/2014/4/8/5592198/the-short-guide-to-capital-in-the-21st-ce
ntury

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

REAVERFAN

Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:03 AM

This conversation is getting interesting.

1KIKI

Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:10 AM

"... more intent on punishing than resolving ..."

There are two things that can't be satisfied at the same time: endless economic expansion and living within the finite planet resources.

You could keep the system that generates extreme wealth discrepancies (where wealth is skimmed off at every turn of the cycle) and still avoid driving most of the people in starvation-level poverty if you expand the economy endlessly.

But resources are limited. They are a zero-sum environment.

That means that the only way to avoid global mass poverty is to redistribute wealth. You think of it as 'punishment' but it's a necessity.

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."

1KIKI

Friday, April 25, 2014 10:21 AM

Thanks for your reply.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 25, 2014 11:30 AM

Quote:
I proposed voluntary, non-violent redistribution.

It'll never happen. But, it's a great fantasy!

As to the question, "Do you want blood or money?" the question is... what I REALLY want is a system in which a 1% will never rise again.

It's possible to get rid of any particular 1%. Seen any Bourbon kings prancing around France lately? Any Romanovs in charge of Russia at this point? Any Knights Templar at your local bank?

The problem is, you can effectively get rid of "a" 1%, but another 1% will rise up to take its place. So we have Gateses and Soroses and Heluses instead of Romanovs and Templars and Bourbons.

Under the right circumstances, POWER CONCENTRATES. The idea that power and money seeks a level, like water, is one of the memes I got rid of decades ago as completely unrealistic and unworkable. Power concentrates. It's like a friggin' law of nature, like the viral nature of life. A small imbalance of power is springboarded into a greater imbalance of power. Multiple efforts by multiple people over decades and decades under the right circumstances ensures that it happens.

There have been a few societies where this DIDN'T happen: Mohenjo-Daro and its sister-cities, for example. Cities rebuilt over and over, through 500 years, without (apparently) slums, temples, palaces, ramparts, armories, or war: no signs of death by fire, no mass graves, no death by violence. Unfortunately, we have no idea how they achieved this.

If I can't figure out how to re-create the initial conditions, I'll be happy with redistributing money. It takes a powerful mental pathology to think that one is "better than" everyone else when one is deprived of excessive wealth. Punishment isn't necessary. However, it amy take violence to achieve the redistribution.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 25, 2014 8:58 PM

Quote:
mine is related to the other discussion about evolving Man.

The "man" who needs to evolve is the 99.999%, not the 0.001% who've learned to parasitize the remainder.

Seriously, unless that 99.999% learns to stand up on its hind legs ... to activate the social immune system, so to speak, and reject that parastitical 0.001% and make it ineffective... we're doomed to experience revolution after revolution, until our environment gives out and we're ALL just plain doomed. It's not like we have endless iterations to figure this out. We're working against the clock, so to speak.