[thegmanifesto]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/03/gov...l-process/

[Kitsune]

This isn't really anything new though.

Power has never been concentrated in the hands of the many n all of human history, and I don't really think it ever can be.
All we can do is create our own spheres of influence where our own laws apply.

[scorpio]

For the top 0.01%, that's the best ROI on their money.

Better than their business dealings.
Better than their portfolio returns.

Guaranteed money.

Imagine how much more the top 1% would contribute if there weren't any campaign contribution limits on individuals? Or better yet, how much do they really contribute if the analysis factored all the money they contributed to the shadow PACs that clown American elections?

[Taciturning]

I'm instantly suspicious of any talk of "fair shares", like at the bottom of that graphic. Better idea: less government. Then the rich can influence it all they want, it'll be a paper tiger.

[Cincinnatus]

I wonder how the figures work out if you figure in lobbying. Probably even moreso in 1% control. According to a 2004 study by the University of Kansas, the Return On Investment (ROI) for lobbying was $220 for every $1 spent.

[thekid]

By fair share I think he means: http://www.publicampaign.org/

The claim that these elections are being twisted by corporate, wealthy interests is not debatable. Newt Gingrich is only in the race because Sheldon Adelson has given millions to his campaign (some think as a way to hand the election to Romney, as Santorum would get most of Gingrich's votes).

US elections are only fair in the sense that fraud is negligible.

[assman]

One of the problems we have is the Constitution never intended for the House members to represent so many people. Since there are far fewer representatives than there should be, the power is concentrated and the members can easily be bought off. If you're a big company, you can put some of your business in half of the Congressional districts and have huge influence over the key issues that impact your business. If there are 10x as many districts that becomes a much more expensive proposition. Plus, House members would have a tougher time turning this into a career and would have to go back and work normal jobs.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

I have to ask: Was the USA ever not dominated by the rich?

The colonies revolted after a bunch of rich white men got fed up of British interference in their business affairs. Most Americans at the time of the revolt didn't care about independence one way or the other. The average American was given propaganda about liberty and such.

Despite French assistance in the American war of independence/American revolution, the American rich deliberately snubbed close ties with the French and gave preferential trading rights to the British only a few years after independence. The average American was given propaganda about economic benefit and such.

The civil war was started by rich white men defending their property rights and economic interests against encroaching federalism. Since most white people did not own slaves, the southern government of rich white men had to convince poor white men to go out and defend the rich white men's right to own cheap black men so that rich white men would not have to pay poor white men a living wage for agricultural work. (Importing slaves had the same effect as globalisation - labour substitution causing genuine job losses.) Although corporate interests suffered a setback by losing the civil war, this did not prevent rich white men from attempting to continue their influence of government and society. The average American was made to believe that the war was about race.

Rich white men overruled the USA justice system, and ignored laws protecting the rights of Native Americans to their land; a small elite got access to cheap expropriated land. The average American was given propaganda about manifest destiny.

Rich white men pushed the US colonisation of Hawaii and the Philippines. Both involved a great deal of violence done unto the locals, and a great deal of benefit to a selected few colonisers. The average American was given propaganda about the US's civilising role in the world.

Rich white men pushed for aggressive control of Pacific oil supply and for the establishment of a US sphere of influence in Asia, for no tangible benefit except to make a few US oil barons rich. This strategy backfired at Pearl Harbour, which was basically a Japanese declaration that they will buy oil from whomever the hell they want to buy it from, and not from an American monopoly. The average American was given propaganda that the yellow people needed to be contained.

Rich white men pushed for an invasion of Iraq, making a lot weapons dealers and big time contractors very happy. The average American was given propaganda that this was about containing world terrorism.

Rich white American men, having run out of people to screw, are now turning their guns on screwing their own American people. Both Democrats and Republicans are in the pocket of Corporate interests. Campaign issues revolve around non-issues like gay marriage, contraception, religion, revealing tax returns, the personality and character of politicians. These things stimulate lively debate but detract from the underlying structural exploitation of the American public.

The history of the USA seems to be very much a chronicle of 'By the oligarchs, for the oligarchs.' Exceptions to this trend only come at times of great stress and challenge where social cohesion is necessary for final victory: the depression, the world wars, the cold war, the 'afghanistan' phase of the war on terror. In the absence of an external threat, the rich forget about social cohesion and get on with exploitation like they always have. American democracy was from its very beginning a beast that was fed by the rich and served the interests of the rich. The United States was founded as a limited democracy, and still is a limited democracy, and to change the role of the rich in American society would require transforming the USA into a full social democracy. But I've noticed that whenever someone suggests such a change, it's labelled as 'communism' or 'socialism' in such a way as to suggest that religious freedom would be affected, which is nonsense but propaganda has always been part of the American political landscape.

Admittedly, I'm an outsider; I've never even been to the USA. I've drawn my conclusions based on my personal understanding of US and world history. My feeling about reading history is that you should always read between the lines and ask 'Where's the money? Who benefits financially?', because money talks louder than so-called truth. But I'm hardly an expert, so feel free to disagree with me.

[T and A Man]

This thread needs more Brian.

[Aliblahba]

(03-07-2012 02:47 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

I have to ask: Was the USA ever not dominated by the rich?

The colonies revolted after a bunch of rich white men got fed up of British interference in their business affairs. Most Americans at the time of the revolt didn't care about independence one way or the other. The average American was given propaganda about liberty and such.

Despite French assistance in the American war of independence/American revolution, the American rich deliberately snubbed close ties with the French and gave preferential trading rights to the British only a few years after independence. The average American was given propaganda about economic benefit and such.

The civil war was started by rich white men defending their property rights and economic interests against encroaching federalism. Since most white people did not own slaves, the southern government of rich white men had to convince poor white men to go out and defend the rich white men's right to own cheap black men so that rich white men would not have to pay poor white men a living wage for agricultural work. (Importing slaves had the same effect as globalisation - labour substitution causing genuine job losses.) Although corporate interests suffered a setback by losing the civil war, this did not prevent rich white men from attempting to continue their influence of government and society. The average American was made to believe that the war was about race.

Rich white men overruled the USA justice system, and ignored laws protecting the rights of Native Americans to their land; a small elite got access to cheap expropriated land. The average American was given propaganda about manifest destiny.

Rich white men pushed the US colonisation of Hawaii and the Philippines. Both involved a great deal of violence done unto the locals, and a great deal of benefit to a selected few colonisers. The average American was given propaganda about the US's civilising role in the world.

Rich white men pushed for aggressive control of Pacific oil supply and for the establishment of a US sphere of influence in Asia, for no tangible benefit except to make a few US oil barons rich. This strategy backfired at Pearl Harbour, which was basically a Japanese declaration that they will buy oil from whomever the hell they want to buy it from, and not from an American monopoly. The average American was given propaganda that the yellow people needed to be contained.

Rich white men pushed for an invasion of Iraq, making a lot weapons dealers and big time contractors very happy. The average American was given propaganda that this was about containing world terrorism.

Rich white American men, having run out of people to screw, are now turning their guns on screwing their own American people. Both Democrats and Republicans are in the pocket of Corporate interests. Campaign issues revolve around non-issues like gay marriage, contraception, religion, revealing tax returns, the personality and character of politicians. These things stimulate lively debate but detract from the underlying structural exploitation of the American public.

The history of the USA seems to be very much a chronicle of 'By the oligarchs, for the oligarchs.' Exceptions to this trend only come at times of great stress and challenge where social cohesion is necessary for final victory: the depression, the world wars, the cold war, the 'afghanistan' phase of the war on terror. In the absence of an external threat, the rich forget about social cohesion and get on with exploitation like they always have. American democracy was from its very beginning a beast that was fed by the rich and served the interests of the rich. The United States was founded as a limited democracy, and still is a limited democracy, and to change the role of the rich in American society would require transforming the USA into a full social democracy. But I've noticed that whenever someone suggests such a change, it's labelled as 'communism' or 'socialism' in such a way as to suggest that religious freedom would be affected, which is nonsense but propaganda has always been part of the American political landscape.

Admittedly, I'm an outsider; I've never even been to the USA. I've drawn my conclusions based on my personal understanding of US and world history. My feeling about reading history is that you should always read between the lines and ask 'Where's the money? Who benefits financially?', because money talks louder than so-called truth. But I'm hardly an expert, so feel free to disagree with me.

Thomas, if you ever come to the U.S. the first beer is on me.

[BortimusPrime]

The problem is that the 99% are full of stupid morons who are actually influenced by the campaign ads paid for by the 1%.

[Taciturning]

Oh look, claims that "rich white men" are responsible for everything. How trendy.

What I'VE noticed is that usually when someone calls for things like "social democracy", they stand to benefit from it in the form of more free shit from the government.

[Bad Hussar]

(03-07-2012 08:51 AM)Taciturning Wrote:  

Oh look, claims that "rich white men" are responsible for everything. How trendy.

What I'VE noticed is that usually when someone calls for things like "social democracy", they stand to benefit from it in the form of more free shit from the government.

Anytime someone tries to convince you that you are a victim of some sort of discrimination (based on race, gender, sexuality, colour of your toenails etc.etc... ad nauseum) and claims he represents you and supports your interests I'd do the following: Take a deep breath, check that your wallet is still in your pocket, back away slowwwly, turn 180 degrees and then..... run like hell.

Thomas, I don't really disagree with the gist of your analysis, but you have to add "race" to the list of irrelevent fluff that polititians and people with state and economic power use to put their agenda over the populace. So your "rich white men" repetition is really a bit much. Put another way: You're playing into their hands and supporting their agenda, though you may immagine you are in opposition.

[Goldin Boy]

[/quote]
Oh look, claims that "rich white men" are responsible for everything. How trendy.
[quote]

That's an empirical observation.

Or was it all those Latino, Black and Asian business magnates and wealthy politicians pulling the strings in the aforementioned events?

[Brian]

Oh look, claims that "rich white men" are responsible for everything. How trendy.

Quote:


That's an empirical observation.

Or was it all those Latino, Black and Asian business magnates and wealthy politicians pulling the strings in the aforementioned events?

rich Latino, Black, and Asian men are pulling the strings in the countries in which they are the majority population. If you dont like the way the rich white men are running the country you are more then welcome to go live in a country like Nigeria, Iran, or Bolivia and let the rich Latins, Asians, or Blacks tell you how to live your life.

As much as American women are starting to become repulsive based on their lack of feminine characteristics, American men are becoming just as pathetic in my minds by constantly whining and bitching about how 'unfair' it is here and how the 'deserve' free health care, education, etc. Nothing is free, you just dont want to pay for it yourself. You want money and success - I got news for you, its hard. Do the work and you will actually see that. But the world doesnt owe you shit. I find it especially ironic when the children of immigrants, whose parents fled their home countries to leave behind ruthless dictators, horrible living standards, or other situations, want a political system that mimics the second or third world shithole their parents left behind.

[Goldin Boy]

Quote:

rich Latino, Black, and Asian men are pulling the strings in the countries in which they are the majority population.

Right, but post #8 was specifically about the US where the above mentioned groups aren't the majority. You are interpreting my last post as me saying white men are bad. Good and bad are relative terms that I don't care for, all people act out of self-interest.

Quote:

If you dont like the way the rich white men are running the country you are more then welcome to go live in a country like Nigeria, Iran, or Bolivia and let the rich Latins, Asians, or Blacks tell you how to live your life.

A lot of nativism there. You're stuck on race, it's about power. The influential majority in a country sometime abuse the power they wield. The majority that misused power sometimes in the US happens to be White-European; sheer coincidence as it could've been someone else.

Let's skip the racial debate, ok?

[ColSpanker]

Agree. Whining about race is a sucker's game.

[joehoya]

(03-07-2012 11:02 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

Agree. Whining about race is a sucker's game.

EXACTLY!

Sure, the "rich white men" story of the US has been true throughout our history. HOWEVER, too many folks are focusing on the "white" part of the story. The reality is that those FEW rich white men have been far more willing to accept a FEW rich black/brown/yellow men/women than they are willing to address the concerns of the POOR/MIDDLE CLASS of all races.

This is a money game, period. If you look at our history over the past 30 years, you can see a startling trend. The top 0.1% are killing it in terms of growth. The top 10%, while not balling as hard as the top 0.1% has also seen their income increase dramatically. Those folks in the bottom 50% have taken a long stiff one up the ass, though.

Every time I look at the political landscape and realize how fucked up our system is, the only conclusion I come to is to make as much money as I possibly can. I reign this in by always keeping in mind the lifestyle I want to have, but my mind is still on my money. I have seen far too many poor, and even middle class people get assfucked over and over again. I got the message.

As an example, here is the effect of Mitt Romney's tax plan:


It is basically a giant sign that says "Hey poor and middle class, just so you know, I don't give a fuck about you." As long as I know that is how America is rolling, I can adjust to it. What little social safety net our country had is being eroded. Understand that and prepare for it.

[T and A Man]

(03-07-2012 03:17 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

This thread needs more Brian.

I told you Brian would add value.

[All or Nothing]

(03-07-2012 08:54 PM)Brian Wrote:  

rich Latino, Black, and Asian men are pulling the strings in the countries in which they are the majority population. If you dont like the way the rich white men are running the country you are more then welcome to go live in a country like Nigeria, Iran, or Bolivia and let the rich Latins, Asians, or Blacks tell you how to live your life.

Iran doesn't have Latinos, Blacks or Asian men running the show. Most Iranians are white. Also, Latinos are usually white, or part white. Bolivia is most likely run by wealthy white men too. Same with Iran. You got one out of three right...

[Brian]

(03-07-2012 11:55 PM)joehoya Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 11:02 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

Agree. Whining about race is a sucker's game.

EXACTLY!

Sure, the "rich white men" story of the US has been true throughout our history. HOWEVER, too many folks are focusing on the "white" part of the story. The reality is that those FEW rich white men have been far more willing to accept a FEW rich black/brown/yellow men/women than they are willing to address the concerns of the POOR/MIDDLE CLASS of all races.

This is a money game, period. If you look at our history over the past 30 years, you can see a startling trend. The top 0.1% are killing it in terms of growth. The top 10%, while not balling as hard as the top 0.1% has also seen their income increase dramatically. Those folks in the bottom 50% have taken a long stiff one up the ass, though.

Every time I look at the political landscape and realize how fucked up our system is, the only conclusion I come to is to make as much money as I possibly can. I reign this in by always keeping in mind the lifestyle I want to have, but my mind is still on my money. I have seen far too many poor, and even middle class people get assfucked over and over again. I got the message.

As an example, here is the effect of Mitt Romney's tax plan:


It is basically a giant sign that says "Hey poor and middle class, just so you know, I don't give a fuck about you." As long as I know that is how America is rolling, I can adjust to it. What little social safety net our country had is being eroded. Understand that and prepare for it.

when you take your graphs from a liberal thinktank what do you expect?

[Brian]

(03-08-2012 12:33 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 08:54 PM)Brian Wrote:  

rich Latino, Black, and Asian men are pulling the strings in the countries in which they are the majority population. If you dont like the way the rich white men are running the country you are more then welcome to go live in a country like Nigeria, Iran, or Bolivia and let the rich Latins, Asians, or Blacks tell you how to live your life.

Iran doesn't have Latinos, Blacks or Asian men running the show. Most Iranians are white. Also, Latinos are usually white, or part white. Bolivia is most likely run by wealthy white men too. Same with Iran. You got one out of three right...

Iran is run by a fucking lunatic, and I dont know what your definition of "white" is but most Iranians aren't 'white,' especially that whack job running the place. Most Iranians w/money got the hell out of that place first chance they got, as evidenced by their huge populations in places like DC and LA. But if you want to go live there by all means have at it.

Bolivia is run by a leftist socialist named Evo Morales. Do a google search and you will see that he's not white, nor where Presidents before him.

Latinos aren't white, latino's are latino. they may be light skinned, but they're not white.

[Only One Man]

(03-07-2012 08:54 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 07:43 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

Oh look, claims that "rich white men" are responsible for everything. How trendy.

Quote:


That's an empirical observation.

Or was it all those Latino, Black and Asian business magnates and wealthy politicians pulling the strings in the aforementioned events?

rich Latino, Black, and Asian men are pulling the strings in the countries in which they are the majority population. If you dont like the way the rich white men are running the country you are more then welcome to go live in a country like Nigeria, Iran, or Bolivia and let the rich Latins, Asians, or Blacks tell you how to live your life.

As much as American women are starting to become repulsive based on their lack of feminine characteristics, American men are becoming just as pathetic in my minds by constantly whining and bitching about how 'unfair' it is here and how the 'deserve' free health care, education, etc. Nothing is free, you just dont want to pay for it yourself. You want money and success - I got news for you, its hard. Do the work and you will actually see that. But the world doesnt owe you shit. I find it especially ironic when the children of immigrants, whose parents fled their home countries to leave behind ruthless dictators, horrible living standards, or other situations, want a political system that mimics the second or third world shithole their parents left behind.

I don't think I've ever heard any children of immigrants advocate for a fascist dictatorship in the US where 5% of the population owns 90% of the wealth. I would say they typically want a political system that is the opposite of that.

[thegmanifesto]

(03-08-2012 12:51 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 12:33 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 08:54 PM)Brian Wrote:  

rich Latino, Black, and Asian men are pulling the strings in the countries in which they are the majority population. If you dont like the way the rich white men are running the country you are more then welcome to go live in a country like Nigeria, Iran, or Bolivia and let the rich Latins, Asians, or Blacks tell you how to live your life.

Iran doesn't have Latinos, Blacks or Asian men running the show. Most Iranians are white. Also, Latinos are usually white, or part white. Bolivia is most likely run by wealthy white men too. Same with Iran. You got one out of three right...

Iran is run by a fucking lunatic, and I dont know what your definition of "white" is but most Iranians aren't 'white,' especially that whack job running the place. Most Iranians w/money got the hell out of that place first chance they got, as evidenced by their huge populations in places like DC and LA. But if you want to go live there by all means have at it.

Bolivia is run by a leftist socialist named Evo Morales. Do a google search and you will see that he's not white, nor where Presidents before him.

Latinos aren't white, latino's are latino. they may be light skinned, but they're not white.

White Hispanic and Latino Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispa..._Americans

[Thomas the Rhymer]

Good grief, I never meant for this to be a race thread. I was just trying to emphasise that a small oligarchic clique always appeared to benefit throughout US history. The white part is not really that relevant, the existence of a politically connected wealthy elite is, and I regret using the word 'white' because people are focusing on that rather than the rest of the argument. It's silly to focus on that and it was silly of me of me not to anticipate how my argument would get hijacked by my choice of words. Race is a non-issue here, I apologise for implying it!

(03-07-2012 08:54 PM)Brian Wrote:  

As much as American women are starting to become repulsive based on their lack of feminine characteristics, American men are becoming just as pathetic in my minds by constantly whining and bitching about how 'unfair' it is here and how the 'deserve' free health care, education, etc. Nothing is free, you just dont want to pay for it yourself. You want money and success - I got news for you, its hard. Do the work and you will actually see that. But the world doesnt owe you shit. I find it especially ironic when the children of immigrants, whose parents fled their home countries to leave behind ruthless dictators, horrible living standards, or other situations, want a political system that mimics the second or third world shithole their parents left behind.

You imply that you prefer a non-socialist system. It's fine to prefer it, it has its own advantages. But in such a system, it's inevitable that the interests of the rich will override other interests. How do you safeguard against corporate manipulation of politics when the underlying law of the land is 'everyone for himself'? Can a 'fend-for-yourself' system ever be free of manipulation? What if a person decides that his way to wealth is via hard work, and that his hard work shall consists of making other people work hard for him? - which is what some politicians/businessmen in the US seem to be striving for. Is this acceptable based on the fact that you deserve what you've worked for, even if what you've worked for is to make someone else your sweat factory robot?

Of course in a full democracy people will vote for personal benefits, although there is always the danger of too many benefits being voted in and the government being sucked into debt, which unfortunately we are witnessing happening in Europe. But these governments seem to be less subject to the manipulative whims of corporate interests, which is what this thread is about. Is it acceptable to have a government where the public interest can hijack the government to the point where economies can collapse; but where manipulation by the rich is relatively less?

The thread started out by pointing that the super rich are manipulating US politics. I believe that this is due to underlying structure of the US political system; it's made to be manipulated. I believe it was not designed to prevent manipulation. A full social democracy would probably negate much of the power of the rich to manipulate the system, if you feel that such manipulation is wrong to begin with. By full social democracy I mean:

- One man one vote, and to ban the electoral colleges. This would prevent a candidate from winning the election by winning a state. This would make it much harder to spend money manipulating voting patterns, because you can no longer make strategic choices on manipulation by focusing on such-and-such states.

- A government is legally bound to respond to the needs and wants of the average public person, rather than business interests.

Whether or not the US will improve by adopting such a system, whether or not such a system is good or not, is probably an entirely different discussion. My personal knowledge of politics and the US is too weak to make a judgement call either way.