America's Oligarch Problem: How The Super Rich Threaten America's Democracy

g under pg under p Posts: 18,196
edited October 2015 in A Moving Train
image

Essay By Markus Feldenkirchen (Spiegel magazine)

Is this essay accurate? Written a couple of weeks ago, since when the Trumpster has hinted at raising tax rates for the rich (Gasp).

He is apparently releasing details soon.

The sky’s the limit when it comes to the United States’ campaign finance system. Increasingly, the country’s richest sector is gaining influence and control over America’s politicals. The development threatens the country’s once proud democracy.

The two candidates currently attracting the most attention in the American presidential primaries seem to be polar opposites. First, there’s self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders, who can pack entire arenas with as many as 20,000 supporters. And then there’s a man who claims to possess $10 billion, Donald Trump, who is leading in the broad field of Republicans. The two do, however, have one thing in common: They reject the US campaign finance system. One out of conviction; the other because he has the resources to finance his own campaign.One, Bernie Sanders, takes pride in stating that he doesn’t want rich people’s money. Some 400,000 largely middle class Americans have contributed to his campaign so far, donating $31.20 on average. The other, Donald Trump, proudly announced recently that he had rejected a $5 million donation from a hedge fund manager. And that he is prepared to pump $1 billion of his own wealth into the campaign. One of Trump’s most popular arguments so far is that his rival Jeb Bush has managed to raise over $150 million. “Jeb Bush is a puppet to his donors,” Trump says disparagingly. Sooner or later, he argues, they will call in their favors. “I don’t owe anyone any favors.” It’s a message that is proving popular with potential voters. But is it really any more democratic that a billionaire can buy his own election instead of allowing himself to be bought by others?
Fatal Developments

Two fatal developments are converging during this election in the United States. The decoupling of the super-rich from the rest of society is an accelerating trend in recent years. And also the consequences of a series of rulings by the Supreme Court in 2010 that enable politicians and support groups to accept unlimited donations. This confluence of events is undermining the development of the world’s proudest democracy.

The distribution of wealth in the United States is getting absurd, with the popular image of a widening gap between the rich and the poor already outmoded. The emerging chasm is so enormous it can be described as being no less than a gulf. The debate in Germany over the growing divide between the highest echelons of society and the lowest pales by comparison.

The idea that free markets will ultimately create the best possible living conditions is, of course, a wonderful one. But the reality in American looks like this: The yearly income of a typical middle-class family has fallen by almost $5,000 since 1999. If you factor in inflation, male workers last year earned on average $783 less than they did 42 years ago. For the country’s richest, on the other hand, things are going swimmingly. The highest 0.1 percent possesses almost as much wealth as the lowest 90 percent taken together. The family of Sam Walton, founder of supermarket chain Walmart, has amassed over $149 billion in wealth. The family possesses as much as all of the lowest 42 percent of the country combined.........The Article continues....


https://fbkfinanzwirtschaft.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/americas-oligarch-problem-how-the-super-rich-threaten-us-democracy/

It may turn out that Trump is doing his country a major service with his candidacy because he is demonstrating very vividly what is rotten about this system. With all due respect, he's a usful idiot.

Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


Post edited by g under p on

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    Seems very accurate to me, G. Look how the "Occupy" movement was quickly swept under the carpet. Any more, I'm of a mind that resistance is futile, that the concept of revolution is unattainable and that the only thing that will create change is to wait and watch as the system collapses under its own weight. In the meantime, the best one can do is get by as well as possible, learn to live more frugally, spend wisely with an eye for the useful and durable and foster good relationships with like-minded people.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Bri,the Occupy movement was a joke.It had no real message other then a protest for protests sake.It was a bunch of idealistic yet nieve mostly young people who have yet to be burdened by wall streets hammer.They went about it wrong,they didn't have a unified message.They expected Vietnam era rally's and fell way short.Doing not much more then using and abusing the very parts of the machine they were preaching against.

    The same idiotic nonsense is going on with the Black Lives Matter Movement.

    I agree the divide is growing but I think the blame is a little more merky then just the 1% vs everyone else.Everything from the demise of good middle class manufacturing jobs and sorry trade agreements ,technology advances.Big Pharma and Health care,Education.

    This issue must be attacked from multiple fronts and no ideolical political view is better served then the other.
  • rr165892 said:

    Bri,the Occupy movement was a joke.It had no real message other then a protest for protests sake.It was a bunch of idealistic yet nieve mostly young people who have yet to be burdened by wall streets hammer.They went about it wrong,they didn't have a unified message.They expected Vietnam era rally's and fell way short.Doing not much more then using and abusing the very parts of the machine they were preaching against.

    The same idiotic nonsense is going on with the Black Lives Matter Movement.

    I agree the divide is growing but I think the blame is a little more merky then just the 1% vs everyone else.Everything from the demise of good middle class manufacturing jobs and sorry trade agreements ,technology advances.Big Pharma and Health care,Education.

    This issue must be attacked from multiple fronts and no ideolical political view is better served then the other.

    there was not a unified message to occupy because it is a nuanced issue. there were many factors involved. opposition to wallstreet and market manipulation, opposition to predatory banks who gave shitty loans to students and homebuyers, opposition to citizens united and money in politics, etc. it is not like vietnam protests where it was black and white, support or oppose the war and the federal government.

    unlike the tea party, who is about as grassroots as the astroturf in the edward jones dome, occupy was a grassroots movement against the billionaires. they did not want to have what happened to the tea party, ie, being hijacked and taken over by billionaires (koch bros) and prominent people in congress, happen to occupy. it is kind of hard to sell out to billionaires when you are raging against said billionaires, ya know?

    black lives matter is about so much more than the vietnam protests and the occupy movement. blm can't be compared to those other movements.

    you say it is not the 1% vs everyone else. why can't it be like that when the 1% have more wealth than the entire bottom 50%?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Because some of the negative factors the bottom 50% are facing are not just perpetrated by the very wealthy.A lot of what keeps upward mobility at bay can be traced back to basics like family,education,opportunity and the demise of what propped the middle up for decades before the computer/Internet era went full swing.Factories,production,manufacturing and all related industries all which were staples of the middle class are now all but gone to overseas.Companies exploiting tax laws and trade agreements have raped it.
    We need some sound rethought on how our middle class can thrive again.What laws and agreements can be reworked and examined to bring buisness and production back to American Soil.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    rr165892 said:

    Because some of the negative factors the bottom 50% are facing are not just perpetrated by the very wealthy.A lot of what keeps upward mobility at bay can be traced back to basics like family,education,opportunity and the demise of what propped the middle up for decades before the computer/Internet era went full swing.Factories,production,manufacturing and all related industries all which were staples of the middle class are now all but gone to overseas.Companies exploiting tax laws and trade agreements have raped it.
    We need some sound rethought on how our middle class can thrive again.What laws and agreements can be reworked and examined to bring buisness and production back to American Soil.

    We need something other than simple upward mobility if we are to survive as a species, let alone as a civilization. If we all were to move upwardly (and by all, I mean 7 plus billion of us) we would exhaust the earth's resources in a very short time (humans already consume in eight months each year what the earth provides annually).

    What we really need are a) a more stable, reduced population, b) a sustainable mindset toward more simple living and the production and consumption of durable goods rather than throw-away crap and c) greater equity. The 1 % want none of the above.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Make it profitable and they will be on board
  • people are inherently selfish. selfish and greedy by nature.

    otherwise, why is it such a surprise whenever someone does something nice for someone?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    rr165892 said:

    Make it profitable and they will be on board

    There are a few examples of this. Chapotle Grill comes to mind. They are featured in the extras from the DVD of the excellent food documentary, "Food Inc."

    people are inherently selfish. selfish and greedy by nature.

    otherwise, why is it such a surprise whenever someone does something nice for someone?

    THIS!!

    Why does everything have to revolve around (I'm gonna sound like my Pop here) "the almighty dollar"? Why do we automatically look to make a profit even when we do things that are supposed to be good?

    The example of this that comes to mind comes from reading Peter Heller's The Whale Warriors in which he talks about why Paul Watson left Greenpeace (which he helped found) to form Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Watson saw that Greenpeace was becoming bogged down with an infrastructure geared to ward making money and an increasingly bloated paid staff. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, on the other hand, is run by volunteers and the funds and supplies that are donated to them are almost completely channeled into taking action to stop illegal fishing and the killing of marine mammals.

    Yes, I agree that it is better to have profitable companies that are geared toward things that are healthy and more sustainable (an overused, not well understood term) since closer to sustainable is better than father away from it but if profit is our main motive, we are less likely to survive. In a capitalistic society, profit cannot be completely ignored in order to keep running but if our long term goals aren't more in focus with getting closer to sustainability, eventually the wheels will stop turning and short-term profits will become long-term catastrophic loss.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













Sign In or Register to comment.