You are wrong or lying. Study talks about "wealthy or elites" referring to the top 0.1% or so.
Yes, the paper "talks about wealthy and elite" and it "talks about" the "top 0.1%".
What I'm pointing out is that the only data the paper provides is for people making around $146000. Therefore, when its authors "talk about" the top 0.1%, they are talking out of their collective asses because they don't have any actual data.
And the argument they try to make based on a correlation between upper middle class and upper class preferences backfires, since it shows the exact opposite of what you infer: even the wealthy and elites themselves in the US actually just share upper middle class values. So, far from a society dominated by oligarchs, we have a society run by people with upper middle class values, shared even by the wealthy.
I don't think you can call exclusive control a mere "moderate bias"
The paper doesn't show "exclusive control", it shows that policies we adopt correlate better with upper middle class preferences than median preferences.
and I don't think "tens of millions of people" is a synonym for tens of thousands of people
But the group the paper studies is tens of millions of people large. A few tens of thousands additional people happen to agree with those policies. That doesn't make the tens of thousands of people "oligarchs".
They are right: it does "capture useful information about the views of the truly wealthy". What it tells you is that the super wealthy hold similar views and values to the upper middle class. The conclusion from that is not that the US is an "oligarchy" governed by the preferences of a few super wealthy people, but rather that the US is governed by the upper middle class and that even the people who might be suspected of using their wealth to form an oligarchy actually don't even try and instead behave like the upper middle class. That's probably because many of them used to be upper middle class.
but rather it is concentrated in the small-but-vocal interest groups and economically influential individuals.
Actually, if you actually think about it, what the study amounts to is saying that political power is "concentrated" in the educated, older, upper middle class, if you can call have a moderate bias for the preferences of tens of millions of people a "concentration". That is, the kind of people who influence policy a bit more than others is the kind of people who become politicians, academics, and professionals. That's neither surprising, nor unusual among democracies, nor necessarily a bad thing.
I hope you realize that, if you have any kind of graduate degree or work in high tech, you fall under the definition of "wealthy" according to this study, and you're advocating restricting your own political power and participation.
This study defines "rich people" as those making around $146000/year. That's 33 million Americans. It's also around what all of our elected representatives get paid. And it's close to what older workers with graduate or professional degrees make. It shouldn't come as a surprise that that happens to be the income bracket that influences politics more than median income. I don't see why you are "appalled" by it.
I also find it mystifying why you believe that it is different elsewhere. The European governing elites are far more removed from what average Europeans want than American politicians are from average Americans.
What the study actually found was that national policies agree more with the preferences making about $146000/year (90th percentile, about 33 million) than those making around $50000/year in income (50th percentile). Who is at the 90th percentile? Mostly people with graduate degrees, professionals, academics, and many of our politicians, including most of the people who set policy in the Democratic party and the authors of the study itself. It's well-off fiscal liberals, well-off fiscal conservatives, and everybody in between. That doesn't make us an "oligarchy", it makes us a nation in which somewhat smarter people both make more money and set more policies. Doesn't mean we have good government (many of those smarter people are still incredibly dumb), but it's probably better government than if we simply implemented the majority will for everything.
That's, of course, assuming that there is even a shred of truth to the study, given that it's so methodologically flawed. But if the results of the study are true, they merely show that we have representative government, in which people elect representatives who do the right thing, rather than the popular thing. That's how things are supposed to work.
Many blue collar workers earn more than white collar workers; jobs like plumbing, welding, etc. pay very well. And in lots of places around the country, housing and land are cheap.
As a software developer in the Bay Area, you probably live a lot worse than as a welder somewhere in a Midwestern farming town.
Crony capitalism happens when citizens neglect their civic duty.
No, "crony capitalism" happens when politicians enact policies to help their buddies enrich themselves. Walmart would have undercut local businessmen and driven them out of business. The local businesses went to their politicians and used FUD to keep Walmart out, FUD that you repeat. The result is that people in your town pay much more for good than they would otherwise: you've all become poorer.
YOU can move to another country. It is not much worse than having to move between cities or states.
I have moved to, and lived in, other countries. They have been wrecked by people like YOU.
As far as being a quitter. sometimes, yes that is the right choice. Other times it is too important to let 1-2 jerks ruin it for everybody else.
At the local and state level, one can simply move away from people like you; there are still plenty of places in the US not dominated by crazy jerks like you. At the federal level, we have to stand up and fight against people like you, so that the US doesn't turn into the kind of basket case that people like you have turned other countries into.
The current system is nothing like research in the 19th century. In the 19th century, a lot of science was funded privately, either because people were independently wealthy, or because they had day jobs like teaching. Full time researchers, public research labs, etc. are mainly a development of the 20th century, and not necessarily a good one. Where is the problem with people leaving science to pursue other jobs? And why should science funding not be primarily based on voluntary contributions and private foundations?
A bachelor in biology is no worse than a bachelor in some liberal arts field: you learn to read, write, and reason. There are lots of jobs open to you, just not in science.
Walmart - my city didn't want one; it was our right to not want them.
Walmart wouldn't be opening a store in your city if there weren't lots of people who want to shop there. The "we" you are talking about are rent seeking businesses who want their markets protected, corrupt politicians who are in bed with them, and deluded ideologues like you.
I am a participant, an active responsible citizen and any civil society has a government by which the citizens' collective power is manifest.
No, what you are is a tool who enables corrupt politicians to engage in crony capitalism.
Surely you must have volunteered or been part of things where nobody cared to be in charge except the jerk everybody hated because they were a control freak? Next time others having learned their lesson step up. Same kind of thing but a smaller scale.
Oh, I so agree. And look in the mirror to see one of these control freaks. Reasonable people don't participate in that kind of madness, we leave.
And that's the real reason people like you want strong federal control: at the local and state level, people simply move away when you have destroyed and bankrupted a community. But at the federal level, they can't.
In response to my argument for reducing the power of the US federal government and more decentralization, you responded:
Wouldn't want to throw away the child with the bathwater, as we say in Dutch. I think the English equivalent might be curing the disease by killing the patient.
I'm pointing out that if you think the current level of centralization in the US is good and should be maintained, you should adopt it for your own country, which would mean to eliminating the Netherlands entirely and joining one of your big neighbors. Most of your worries about being pushed around by the US would disappear.
You won't get much sympathy from Americans about getting pushed around by Washington and not having your voice heard, because we're being pushed around by Washington much more.
Finally, beyond misunderstanding or actually different opinions, I'm not sure why you would doubt my sincerity in expressing mine. Why all those "pretend" and "claim to" ?
I don't doubt your sincerity, I doubt your consistency and understanding.
What I thought was the obvious conclusion to my statement is that we need a salary cap and severe limits on corporate power
A wealthy elite competing with each other for the attention of politicians and voters is nothing compared to the corruption and oppression that the creation of a political and intellectual elite brings to a nation. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand.
The 4th branch, the press, was publicly funded with 3% of the GDP and afforded a semi-non profit status up to the civil war. Some minor changes would be needed today but the founding path was the correct one.
Public funding of the press in a modern society makes the press a tool for the political elite. Having lived in several countries that did that, I can also tell you that it's a really bad idea.
When Walmart wants something your city will lose; until that time you can go ahead and feel that it works better.
I have no problem with Walmart. I wish my city would get one.
Until you realize the error of your beliefs, you will just be another tool. Do some thinking and stop adhering to a simplistic religious world view (unsurprisingly one which is promoted by the power elite.)
You should write that on a piece of paper and read it every morning and every night until you understand it.
You probably believe you have very effectively stung my national pride, or something. I'll get back to you when I have one.
Your pretenses of open-mindedness really don't matter here (and likely wouldn't hold up if people actually started demanding your bicycle). There are simply several things inconsistent and self-defeating with your position.
The difference is, though, that I as a Dutchman am affected by some US policies, much more so than the other way around, obviously.
Quite the opposite. What you call "US policies" are policies of the US Federal Government. As an American, I have little more political control over the US Federal Government than you do, but it has far more power to wreck my life and destroy my culture than it does yours. Think of what you dislike about "US policies" and magnify it a thousand times, then you arrive at what people like me dislike about "US policies". The ability of the US Federal Government to influence both your and our lives derives from the increasing centralization of the US.
In addition, Europe has an easy antidote to that: it could centralize itself in the way you argue is good for Americans. Countries like yours could give up their autonomy, their language, their political power. Half a billion Europeans governed from Brussels by a Washington-style government wouldn't have to take sh*t from anybody. But that's obviously not good enough for your countrymen, who resist it fiercely. Understand your fellow Dutch resistance to giving up power and identity to the EU, and maybe you'll understand why Americans like me want the US government to become more decentralized again.
Our interests and what you pretend are your interests are aligned. Europeans want less US hegemony and less US power, and so do Americans like me. So start using your brain and stop advocating policies and supporting politicians that bring about exactly what you claim to dislike.
So you're arguing that the only way to reduce lobbying in Washington is to, well, reduce Washington entirely.
Yes, I'm arguing that. Of course, reducing the size of the US federal government has many other advantages.
Wouldn't want to throw away the child with the bathwater, as we say in Dutch. I think the English equivalent might be curing the disease by killing the patient.
Why don't we talk about the Dutch equivalent of what you favor for the US? Your entire nation has about the size of the NYC metropolitan area. Isn't your country really too small and politically ignorant to make any decisions for itself or to have its own international representation? The Netherlands and its quaint low German dialect are really little more than an appendage of Germany anyway, and it would be so much more efficient for everybody if they just became a county (or maybe a state, let's be generous) under the German federal government! I'm sure Merkel would have your very best interest a heart! Your King Willem-Alexander can still sign off on such important local decisions like when the trash should get picked up, something I'm sure he's eminently qualified to do. And he's half German too!
Really: why don't you stop giving advice to Americans and worry about your own country and continent? Between Wilders and the EU, it seems to me you have more than enough on your plate.
Got any ideas, though? Let's set aside any utopian views. Let's pretty much ignore how things "should have been". Right now, today, in the real world, how do we go about limiting any aspect of government control in our lives?
The big federal government was built incrementally, scaling it back incrementally and gradually is natural and feasible. Spread the word for smaller federal government and more local control. Support politicians at all levels that promote gradual and sensible reductions in the federal government. Explain to people what a shitty deal they are getting from Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and other federal programs.
Merely obstructing federal lawmaking may already be most of the battle: many federal laws and regulations become obsolete and irrelevant quickly, a lot of regulations "inflate away", and for a lot of others, people find workarounds pretty quickly. So, it may not even take great political skill to scale things back, just a bit of hard-headedness and obstructionism.
Actually, even the quality stuff has gotten a lot cheaper over the years. It's just that manufacturers figured out even cheaper ways of making low-end goods, most of which are "good enough". A low end composite interior door is $22, solid core is $199; it's hard to pay much more for an interior door (unless you go for glass).
And... rich people tend to buy the cheap stuff; that's how they get rich in the first place.
You CANT avoid the problem by weakening government;
I don't want to "weaken government", I want to weaken the federal government.
The only solution is to separate powers and limit them to the extent they are stuck in a permanent battle that is evenly matched. This is the basic concept upon which the constitution of the US was created
The US Constitution was also created on the concept of a limited federal government, states rights, and local self-determination.
Sure, it will be just fine as a republic all the way into oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism and/or dictatorship... but the democracy aspect; the most important part, is dying off.
Yes, it is, and it's people like you who are killing it by arguing that we should give Washington ever more power, knowing full well that it's going to be abused and that Washington is, for practical purposes, unaccountable to voters.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the paper "talks about wealthy and elite" and it "talks about" the "top 0.1%".
What I'm pointing out is that the only data the paper provides is for people making around $146000. Therefore, when its authors "talk about" the top 0.1%, they are talking out of their collective asses because they don't have any actual data.
And the argument they try to make based on a correlation between upper middle class and upper class preferences backfires, since it shows the exact opposite of what you infer: even the wealthy and elites themselves in the US actually just share upper middle class values. So, far from a society dominated by oligarchs, we have a society run by people with upper middle class values, shared even by the wealthy.
The paper doesn't show "exclusive control", it shows that policies we adopt correlate better with upper middle class preferences than median preferences.
But the group the paper studies is tens of millions of people large. A few tens of thousands additional people happen to agree with those policies. That doesn't make the tens of thousands of people "oligarchs".
They are right: it does "capture useful information about the views of the truly wealthy". What it tells you is that the super wealthy hold similar views and values to the upper middle class. The conclusion from that is not that the US is an "oligarchy" governed by the preferences of a few super wealthy people, but rather that the US is governed by the upper middle class and that even the people who might be suspected of using their wealth to form an oligarchy actually don't even try and instead behave like the upper middle class. That's probably because many of them used to be upper middle class.
Actually, if you actually think about it, what the study amounts to is saying that political power is "concentrated" in the educated, older, upper middle class, if you can call have a moderate bias for the preferences of tens of millions of people a "concentration". That is, the kind of people who influence policy a bit more than others is the kind of people who become politicians, academics, and professionals. That's neither surprising, nor unusual among democracies, nor necessarily a bad thing.
I hope you realize that, if you have any kind of graduate degree or work in high tech, you fall under the definition of "wealthy" according to this study, and you're advocating restricting your own political power and participation.
This study defines "rich people" as those making around $146000/year. That's 33 million Americans. It's also around what all of our elected representatives get paid. And it's close to what older workers with graduate or professional degrees make. It shouldn't come as a surprise that that happens to be the income bracket that influences politics more than median income. I don't see why you are "appalled" by it.
I also find it mystifying why you believe that it is different elsewhere. The European governing elites are far more removed from what average Europeans want than American politicians are from average Americans.
What the study actually found was that national policies agree more with the preferences making about $146000/year (90th percentile, about 33 million) than those making around $50000/year in income (50th percentile). Who is at the 90th percentile? Mostly people with graduate degrees, professionals, academics, and many of our politicians, including most of the people who set policy in the Democratic party and the authors of the study itself. It's well-off fiscal liberals, well-off fiscal conservatives, and everybody in between. That doesn't make us an "oligarchy", it makes us a nation in which somewhat smarter people both make more money and set more policies. Doesn't mean we have good government (many of those smarter people are still incredibly dumb), but it's probably better government than if we simply implemented the majority will for everything.
That's, of course, assuming that there is even a shred of truth to the study, given that it's so methodologically flawed. But if the results of the study are true, they merely show that we have representative government, in which people elect representatives who do the right thing, rather than the popular thing. That's how things are supposed to work.
Many blue collar workers earn more than white collar workers; jobs like plumbing, welding, etc. pay very well. And in lots of places around the country, housing and land are cheap.
As a software developer in the Bay Area, you probably live a lot worse than as a welder somewhere in a Midwestern farming town.
High densities and affordability in Europe are also achieved by keeping apartments and condos much smaller than in the US.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
There is is lots of affordable housing for middle class people all around the country.
What you want is cheap housing for everybody in expensive neighborhoods, and that's logically impossible.
No, "crony capitalism" happens when politicians enact policies to help their buddies enrich themselves. Walmart would have undercut local businessmen and driven them out of business. The local businesses went to their politicians and used FUD to keep Walmart out, FUD that you repeat. The result is that people in your town pay much more for good than they would otherwise: you've all become poorer.
I have moved to, and lived in, other countries. They have been wrecked by people like YOU.
At the local and state level, one can simply move away from people like you; there are still plenty of places in the US not dominated by crazy jerks like you. At the federal level, we have to stand up and fight against people like you, so that the US doesn't turn into the kind of basket case that people like you have turned other countries into.
The current system is nothing like research in the 19th century. In the 19th century, a lot of science was funded privately, either because people were independently wealthy, or because they had day jobs like teaching. Full time researchers, public research labs, etc. are mainly a development of the 20th century, and not necessarily a good one. Where is the problem with people leaving science to pursue other jobs? And why should science funding not be primarily based on voluntary contributions and private foundations?
A bachelor in biology is no worse than a bachelor in some liberal arts field: you learn to read, write, and reason. There are lots of jobs open to you, just not in science.
Walmart wouldn't be opening a store in your city if there weren't lots of people who want to shop there. The "we" you are talking about are rent seeking businesses who want their markets protected, corrupt politicians who are in bed with them, and deluded ideologues like you.
No, what you are is a tool who enables corrupt politicians to engage in crony capitalism.
Oh, I so agree. And look in the mirror to see one of these control freaks. Reasonable people don't participate in that kind of madness, we leave.
And that's the real reason people like you want strong federal control: at the local and state level, people simply move away when you have destroyed and bankrupted a community. But at the federal level, they can't.
In response to my argument for reducing the power of the US federal government and more decentralization, you responded:
I'm pointing out that if you think the current level of centralization in the US is good and should be maintained, you should adopt it for your own country, which would mean to eliminating the Netherlands entirely and joining one of your big neighbors. Most of your worries about being pushed around by the US would disappear.
You won't get much sympathy from Americans about getting pushed around by Washington and not having your voice heard, because we're being pushed around by Washington much more.
I don't doubt your sincerity, I doubt your consistency and understanding.
How does the "no true Scotsman" fallacy apply here?
I want decentralized, local government. I want "devolution", like some places in Europe have been trying to implement.
What's so hard to understand about that?
A wealthy elite competing with each other for the attention of politicians and voters is nothing compared to the corruption and oppression that the creation of a political and intellectual elite brings to a nation. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand.
Public funding of the press in a modern society makes the press a tool for the political elite. Having lived in several countries that did that, I can also tell you that it's a really bad idea.
I have no problem with Walmart. I wish my city would get one.
You should write that on a piece of paper and read it every morning and every night until you understand it.
Your pretenses of open-mindedness really don't matter here (and likely wouldn't hold up if people actually started demanding your bicycle). There are simply several things inconsistent and self-defeating with your position.
Quite the opposite. What you call "US policies" are policies of the US Federal Government. As an American, I have little more political control over the US Federal Government than you do, but it has far more power to wreck my life and destroy my culture than it does yours. Think of what you dislike about "US policies" and magnify it a thousand times, then you arrive at what people like me dislike about "US policies". The ability of the US Federal Government to influence both your and our lives derives from the increasing centralization of the US.
In addition, Europe has an easy antidote to that: it could centralize itself in the way you argue is good for Americans. Countries like yours could give up their autonomy, their language, their political power. Half a billion Europeans governed from Brussels by a Washington-style government wouldn't have to take sh*t from anybody. But that's obviously not good enough for your countrymen, who resist it fiercely. Understand your fellow Dutch resistance to giving up power and identity to the EU, and maybe you'll understand why Americans like me want the US government to become more decentralized again.
Our interests and what you pretend are your interests are aligned. Europeans want less US hegemony and less US power, and so do Americans like me. So start using your brain and stop advocating policies and supporting politicians that bring about exactly what you claim to dislike.
I agree completely. Is that supposed to be an argument for or against limiting the federal government?
Yes, I'm arguing that. Of course, reducing the size of the US federal government has many other advantages.
Why don't we talk about the Dutch equivalent of what you favor for the US? Your entire nation has about the size of the NYC metropolitan area. Isn't your country really too small and politically ignorant to make any decisions for itself or to have its own international representation? The Netherlands and its quaint low German dialect are really little more than an appendage of Germany anyway, and it would be so much more efficient for everybody if they just became a county (or maybe a state, let's be generous) under the German federal government! I'm sure Merkel would have your very best interest a heart! Your King Willem-Alexander can still sign off on such important local decisions like when the trash should get picked up, something I'm sure he's eminently qualified to do. And he's half German too!
Really: why don't you stop giving advice to Americans and worry about your own country and continent? Between Wilders and the EU, it seems to me you have more than enough on your plate.
The big federal government was built incrementally, scaling it back incrementally and gradually is natural and feasible. Spread the word for smaller federal government and more local control. Support politicians at all levels that promote gradual and sensible reductions in the federal government. Explain to people what a shitty deal they are getting from Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and other federal programs.
Merely obstructing federal lawmaking may already be most of the battle: many federal laws and regulations become obsolete and irrelevant quickly, a lot of regulations "inflate away", and for a lot of others, people find workarounds pretty quickly. So, it may not even take great political skill to scale things back, just a bit of hard-headedness and obstructionism.
I suppose the "conspiracy of the shivering north" is another hypothesis for why people might want climate change.
Personally, I think they just aren't going to vote for carbon emission restrictions because it makes gas and food more expensive.
Actually, even the quality stuff has gotten a lot cheaper over the years. It's just that manufacturers figured out even cheaper ways of making low-end goods, most of which are "good enough". A low end composite interior door is $22, solid core is $199; it's hard to pay much more for an interior door (unless you go for glass).
And... rich people tend to buy the cheap stuff; that's how they get rich in the first place.
Thanks. It would be nice if you could track down that reference.
I don't want to "weaken government", I want to weaken the federal government.
The US Constitution was also created on the concept of a limited federal government, states rights, and local self-determination.
Yes, it is, and it's people like you who are killing it by arguing that we should give Washington ever more power, knowing full well that it's going to be abused and that Washington is, for practical purposes, unaccountable to voters.