There are 614 billionaires living in the US. There are 22 million millionaires living in the US. And we wonder why houses are so expensive right now. Late-stage capitalism folks. We're beyond an oligarchy and are in damn near feudalism territory. You prevent corruption by preventing concentrations of wealth.
No, we have a problem with corporatists... especially those of the billionaire boys club that hang out with the Davos crowd... that own the media and most of big tech through their Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street accounts and share a Great Reset globalist agenda with the American political establishment because that cohort all expects to fatten their bank accounts from it.
And Musks’s comment “only that which matches the law” is perfectly reasonable as there isn’t much speech that is against the law (federal law) other than threating to physically hurt or kill.
In Virginia v. Black, a seminal 2003 Supreme Court decision on cross-burning, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor described “true threats” as statements in which “the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” In other words, the more specific and immediate the threat, the more likely it’ll be regarded as illegal.
The biggest difference between Russian oligarchs and ours, is Russian oligarchs rely on the power of the state for their existence. That certainly is not the case in the US and many on the left think it's the exact opposite, the power of the state (Congress/President and by appointment SCOTUS) relies on US oligarchs for their (financial) existence. But to suggest that government can rely less on our oligarchs by being a smaller govt is conservative poppycock. If govt lets companies do what they want regarding the environment or peddle drugs with unverified testing and approval, etc., that is the solution to the influence of oligarchs in the US? Should govt be so small that we only have a $50 billion defense budget, so we can strangle the military industrial complex in a bathtub? This line of thinking seems like a way to ignore the billions of dollars of the oligarchs "free speech", that drowns out other speech in the country. So when the left says we need a constitutional amendment to fix Citizen United, hackneyed calls for more small government seem so naive or disingenuous. The fact that the left and the right is raising and spending more dark money than their respective political parties, shows how far the cancer has spread. (Remember how much of the insane TV buys this money buys is all about creating distrust and demonization of others.) I know the Bulwark is not a fan of regulating campaign financing, but I hope the issue of Citizens United as a problem that needs to be fixed is revisited by you all.
No to all your proposed hypotheticals. I dislike all of these folks. Contrary to the so-called wisdom of the Supremes, politics needs less money not more.
Hmm apparently not, having just gotten a standing ovation from the caucus.
I do have to wonder given my suspicion of those polls that ask "Is the country heading in the wrong direction? There are several ways to look at that. One group might think the politician is going way too far and another might be that the politician isn't going far enough. Either way, it's the wrong direction but they're both additive.
One never knows. I have my suspicions though.. These guys don't seem to think moderation is a good idea. They remind me of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.
Why is it even a debate? Puck published "the bosses of the Senate" back in 1889. "meet the new bosses, same as the old bosses, we always get fooled again".
With the additional info that came out - Is the DeSantis-Disney issue really a win-win? DeSantis gets to look like he's tough and Disney does not have to do anything different? What are the chances the law re: the RCID remains? Even if the can is kicked past the elections, the Republicans, if they win, now have to make a decision - never mind about the law (hee hee) or negotiate with Disney who seems to hold a pretty good hand in the negotiations. OR really hold to the law and trash the local and likely state economy.
I guess, inasmuch as there is a problem with oligarchy globally.
I am beginning to think that Putin's Russia isn't so much a throw back as it is a harbinger of the ascendency of anarcho-capitalism to come. The Russians have found the markets and shown the world how it is done.
Can Trump, DeSantis & Co. long resist the siren call that Putin has been singing for 20 years?
The Banana Republicans have transcended "mere libertarianism" and are leading us to something new and different---an explicit but largely invisible contract of mutual support between the oligarchs and the state.
Old and samey or merely a restoration of the normative social arrangement of the past 6000 years?
Perhaps the past 300 years of relative liberal democracy in the West (made possible only by the emergence of capitalism) is just a brief respite from the normal tyranny that has always run the world.
The Joe Bidens of the world are the exception and the Vladimir Putins are the rule.
Some sociologists see it your way. There seems to be something in many people that needs a "lord" of some sort, whether a god of religion, an authoritarian strongman, or manor lord, or whatever.
I think America has a problem with disproportionate pay for CEO's as compared to the employees. I think that Boards that pay, fund golden parachutes, stock options tend to operate for the benefit of the shareholders, not the staff.
In my craft fair days, we had an expression: "Produce for the classes and live with the masses. Produce for the masses and live with the classes."
Gathering wealth is a sickness after a certain point I really hate Facebook and I think that a business that based itself in having complex thought in 141 characters was notable in itself.
One would think that one billion would be enough, but no, not here.
If you make really high-quality stuff, only the wealthy can afford it and you'll be limited in how many sales there can be. Make crap that looks shiny but is junky and tons of people will buy it. You'll do very well for yourself. Live in style.
It's all in the matter of the way you want to use your skills and creativity. .
1) I don't think DeSantis has miscalculated. I would not be surprised if he knew that (despite what the legislature did) that the anti-Disney thing would not actually go through at the end because of the legal technicalities. I am sure that many of the GoP legislature knew this (or were reliably informed of this) as well.
The crickets from Disney about the whole thing were a confirming sign. THEY certainly did not appear to be too concerned about it. In reality (on the basis of my limited knowledge)--the whole thing doesn't actually appear to be such a raw deal for Disney if it did go through. It looks like it would actually cost THEM less money and relieve them of some burdens.
So DeSantis and his butt-buddies in the Fla legislature get their posturing for the base with little actual cost in the longer term once everybody forgets about this in a few weeks after the next outrage.
This is standard GoP practice. There is always the next outrage--and the outrages seem to het worse over time--because they have to in order to distract from the previous.
At a certain point they are going to go a "bridge too far." Maybe. These days it is hard to tell because there apparently is no actual bottom.
I think America has a wage problem when it comes to the disproportionate rates that CEO's receive, the amounts their boards pay them, their golden parachutes, blah blah. The super rich simply escaped the pull of gravity.
Back in my craft fair days there was this expression. "Produce for the classes, live withe masses, produce for the masses, live with the classes."
It sums it all up quite well. I hate Facebook and I think trying to complete a decent thought in 141 characters is a great way to sum up American thinking these days. Twitter is a great place to throw rocks at cars from and then hide in the bushes.
Not every problem has a government solution. Much as liberals have typically argued that the cure for bad speech is more speech, I tend to suspect that the answer to concentrations of private economic power is more of the creative destruction known as capitalism.
That is not ideal, but the alternative is risking a scenario where "oligarchs" use their power and influence to subvert the very regulations government might impose, to solidify and perpetuate their grip at the expense of new competition.
That doesn't mean I favor dismantling antitrust laws intended to protect the consumer. But after all, most consumers (outside the partisan activist class) seem pretty happy with tech platforms that exploit them as advertising fodder. Vox populi, vox dei.
The "creative destruction" part of capitalism has been off the table for the beneficiaries of the concentrations of private economic power for decades.
They've engineered government policies to protect them from too many losses over the past few decades. See "too big to fail" where the losses get socialized but the gains get to be kept private.
And I don't know what you've been reading or not reading but we are already in a place where oligarchs are using their power to subvert the very regulations government might impose, to solidify and perpetuate their grip at the expense of new competition.
I think claiming are "pretty happy" with tech platforms exploiting them is maybe misreading resignation with happiness.
I know people are going to do it regardless, but analyzing Musk's tweets on free speech is a fairly pointless exercise. About all we can safely conclude is that he prefers free speech over censorship. We all do that, right? Whatever Musk's ideas for Twitter are now, they have yet to be tried out and, like with any battle, most will not survive engagement with reality. I think he would be the first to agree with that. He once thought his new Starship rocket would be built from carbon fiber. Early on he changed that to stainless steel. What we can count on is that he'll bring together smart people to work on the problem and probably won't be subject to ideological lock-in.
I would find all of the proposed scenarios troubling as they are all seeking control beyond their individual citizen strength - relying on the power of money!
There are 614 billionaires living in the US. There are 22 million millionaires living in the US. And we wonder why houses are so expensive right now. Late-stage capitalism folks. We're beyond an oligarchy and are in damn near feudalism territory. You prevent corruption by preventing concentrations of wealth.
Do we have a problem with oligarchs?
No, we have a problem with corporatists... especially those of the billionaire boys club that hang out with the Davos crowd... that own the media and most of big tech through their Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street accounts and share a Great Reset globalist agenda with the American political establishment because that cohort all expects to fatten their bank accounts from it.
And Musks’s comment “only that which matches the law” is perfectly reasonable as there isn’t much speech that is against the law (federal law) other than threating to physically hurt or kill.
In Virginia v. Black, a seminal 2003 Supreme Court decision on cross-burning, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor described “true threats” as statements in which “the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” In other words, the more specific and immediate the threat, the more likely it’ll be regarded as illegal.
The biggest difference between Russian oligarchs and ours, is Russian oligarchs rely on the power of the state for their existence. That certainly is not the case in the US and many on the left think it's the exact opposite, the power of the state (Congress/President and by appointment SCOTUS) relies on US oligarchs for their (financial) existence. But to suggest that government can rely less on our oligarchs by being a smaller govt is conservative poppycock. If govt lets companies do what they want regarding the environment or peddle drugs with unverified testing and approval, etc., that is the solution to the influence of oligarchs in the US? Should govt be so small that we only have a $50 billion defense budget, so we can strangle the military industrial complex in a bathtub? This line of thinking seems like a way to ignore the billions of dollars of the oligarchs "free speech", that drowns out other speech in the country. So when the left says we need a constitutional amendment to fix Citizen United, hackneyed calls for more small government seem so naive or disingenuous. The fact that the left and the right is raising and spending more dark money than their respective political parties, shows how far the cancer has spread. (Remember how much of the insane TV buys this money buys is all about creating distrust and demonization of others.) I know the Bulwark is not a fan of regulating campaign financing, but I hope the issue of Citizens United as a problem that needs to be fixed is revisited by you all.
No to all your proposed hypotheticals. I dislike all of these folks. Contrary to the so-called wisdom of the Supremes, politics needs less money not more.
Is Kevin McCarthy Toast?
Hmm apparently not, having just gotten a standing ovation from the caucus.
I do have to wonder given my suspicion of those polls that ask "Is the country heading in the wrong direction? There are several ways to look at that. One group might think the politician is going way too far and another might be that the politician isn't going far enough. Either way, it's the wrong direction but they're both additive.
One never knows. I have my suspicions though.. These guys don't seem to think moderation is a good idea. They remind me of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.
Why is it even a debate? Puck published "the bosses of the Senate" back in 1889. "meet the new bosses, same as the old bosses, we always get fooled again".
I've been saying this for a while now: When can we sanction OUR oligarchs?
If Kevin McCarthy gets denied the speakership it will be almost worth it to see the GOP retake the House in November.
With the additional info that came out - Is the DeSantis-Disney issue really a win-win? DeSantis gets to look like he's tough and Disney does not have to do anything different? What are the chances the law re: the RCID remains? Even if the can is kicked past the elections, the Republicans, if they win, now have to make a decision - never mind about the law (hee hee) or negotiate with Disney who seems to hold a pretty good hand in the negotiations. OR really hold to the law and trash the local and likely state economy.
Win for DeSantis, status quo for Disney, loss for everyone who doesn't want DeSantis to grow in power and influence.
KI can see that. I wanted to write win-win-win, but I could not think of a third win. Apparently there won't be one.
Does America Have an Oligarch Problem?
I guess, inasmuch as there is a problem with oligarchy globally.
I am beginning to think that Putin's Russia isn't so much a throw back as it is a harbinger of the ascendency of anarcho-capitalism to come. The Russians have found the markets and shown the world how it is done.
Can Trump, DeSantis & Co. long resist the siren call that Putin has been singing for 20 years?
The Banana Republicans have transcended "mere libertarianism" and are leading us to something new and different---an explicit but largely invisible contract of mutual support between the oligarchs and the state.
I'd argue that they're leading us to something kind of old and samey.
The capitalist version of feudalism.
Old and samey or merely a restoration of the normative social arrangement of the past 6000 years?
Perhaps the past 300 years of relative liberal democracy in the West (made possible only by the emergence of capitalism) is just a brief respite from the normal tyranny that has always run the world.
The Joe Bidens of the world are the exception and the Vladimir Putins are the rule.
Perhaps I am too cynical.
Some sociologists see it your way. There seems to be something in many people that needs a "lord" of some sort, whether a god of religion, an authoritarian strongman, or manor lord, or whatever.
I think America has a problem with disproportionate pay for CEO's as compared to the employees. I think that Boards that pay, fund golden parachutes, stock options tend to operate for the benefit of the shareholders, not the staff.
In my craft fair days, we had an expression: "Produce for the classes and live with the masses. Produce for the masses and live with the classes."
Gathering wealth is a sickness after a certain point I really hate Facebook and I think that a business that based itself in having complex thought in 141 characters was notable in itself.
One would think that one billion would be enough, but no, not here.
What does that expression mean?
If you make really high-quality stuff, only the wealthy can afford it and you'll be limited in how many sales there can be. Make crap that looks shiny but is junky and tons of people will buy it. You'll do very well for yourself. Live in style.
It's all in the matter of the way you want to use your skills and creativity. .
WRT the Disney thing:
1) I don't think DeSantis has miscalculated. I would not be surprised if he knew that (despite what the legislature did) that the anti-Disney thing would not actually go through at the end because of the legal technicalities. I am sure that many of the GoP legislature knew this (or were reliably informed of this) as well.
The crickets from Disney about the whole thing were a confirming sign. THEY certainly did not appear to be too concerned about it. In reality (on the basis of my limited knowledge)--the whole thing doesn't actually appear to be such a raw deal for Disney if it did go through. It looks like it would actually cost THEM less money and relieve them of some burdens.
So DeSantis and his butt-buddies in the Fla legislature get their posturing for the base with little actual cost in the longer term once everybody forgets about this in a few weeks after the next outrage.
This is standard GoP practice. There is always the next outrage--and the outrages seem to het worse over time--because they have to in order to distract from the previous.
At a certain point they are going to go a "bridge too far." Maybe. These days it is hard to tell because there apparently is no actual bottom.
I think America has a wage problem when it comes to the disproportionate rates that CEO's receive, the amounts their boards pay them, their golden parachutes, blah blah. The super rich simply escaped the pull of gravity.
Back in my craft fair days there was this expression. "Produce for the classes, live withe masses, produce for the masses, live with the classes."
It sums it all up quite well. I hate Facebook and I think trying to complete a decent thought in 141 characters is a great way to sum up American thinking these days. Twitter is a great place to throw rocks at cars from and then hide in the bushes.
Not every problem has a government solution. Much as liberals have typically argued that the cure for bad speech is more speech, I tend to suspect that the answer to concentrations of private economic power is more of the creative destruction known as capitalism.
That is not ideal, but the alternative is risking a scenario where "oligarchs" use their power and influence to subvert the very regulations government might impose, to solidify and perpetuate their grip at the expense of new competition.
That doesn't mean I favor dismantling antitrust laws intended to protect the consumer. But after all, most consumers (outside the partisan activist class) seem pretty happy with tech platforms that exploit them as advertising fodder. Vox populi, vox dei.
The "creative destruction" part of capitalism has been off the table for the beneficiaries of the concentrations of private economic power for decades.
They've engineered government policies to protect them from too many losses over the past few decades. See "too big to fail" where the losses get socialized but the gains get to be kept private.
And I don't know what you've been reading or not reading but we are already in a place where oligarchs are using their power to subvert the very regulations government might impose, to solidify and perpetuate their grip at the expense of new competition.
I think claiming are "pretty happy" with tech platforms exploiting them is maybe misreading resignation with happiness.
I know people are going to do it regardless, but analyzing Musk's tweets on free speech is a fairly pointless exercise. About all we can safely conclude is that he prefers free speech over censorship. We all do that, right? Whatever Musk's ideas for Twitter are now, they have yet to be tried out and, like with any battle, most will not survive engagement with reality. I think he would be the first to agree with that. He once thought his new Starship rocket would be built from carbon fiber. Early on he changed that to stainless steel. What we can count on is that he'll bring together smart people to work on the problem and probably won't be subject to ideological lock-in.
I would find all of the proposed scenarios troubling as they are all seeking control beyond their individual citizen strength - relying on the power of money!