Plutocracy: The Rule of The Rich Minority

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

( I have also posted this on YFIS - http://discussion.newyouth.com/index...ic,2912.0.html and Revleft - http://www.revleft.com/vb/plutocracy...197/index.html )
Most people consider the USA to have a Capitalist economic system, yet this is changing. Rather than function like Adam Smith and David Ricardo spelled out many years ago Capitalism has become dark and twisted, which is hard to do when it comes to something which is already less than sound in its basis. Yet it has happened, rather than being made up of many small businesses the economy is instead made up of huge corporations who collaborate together to stomp out every grassroots company which tries to take a piece of the market. This of course has drastic consequences, The people of America were raised to believe that if they worked really hard that they too could be rich.. But this is now a complete falsehood.. Even more concerning is the political power that these corporations wield, The corporations to preserve their interests throw money at political candidates. This can clearly be seen by the disclosed donation statistics during the past election, Both Obama and McCain received huge corporate donations, far outweighing those small time private donations. And really it doesn't split on party lines, the Democratic and Republican parties are both equally under the power of the rich, the parties are nothing but slaves doing their masters bidding, Obama who was expected to bring so much change.. and made so many promised.. has kept only one promise.. this one promise.. was to the corporations.. The people cannot stand and allow this to continue, we must stand for our rights and form a worker's Democracy.. but until then we must in every way oppose this inequality.. and while I myself cannot classify this abomination that we now know as Capitalism as being the same Capitalism as explained by economists, all Capitalist economists favor a system in which many small companies compete to breed innovation and lower prices, but instead we have the large corporations who really have nothing to fear from competition, in fact they have slowed technological progress and raised prices which are targeted more at the rich than at the poor, this has given birth to (as the people at Citigroup would say) "Plutonomy" (n. An economy that is driven by or that disproportionately benefits wealthy people, or one where the creation of wealth is the principal goal. [Blend of pluto- (wealth) and economy.] ) This system bears as much resemblance to Capitalism as does Stalinism to Socialism, While they are perceived as the same, and share some of the same mechanics - they are mirror opposites of each other.
You can find the reports on "Plutonomy" as authored by the "good people" at Citigroup in a downloadable form
here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674229/Ci...-Report-Part-2

Please express any thoughts on the matter that you may have..

[Nevins]

Snip

1. Nice shot at Capitalism as inherently evil. That sure didn't taint what could have been a well thought out post./sarcasm

2. Any socio-political system will eventually morph into a form of plutocracy. Your utopic "Worker's Democracy" would be dominated by the same type of people.

3. I don't really believe that the US is unique in the campaign donation problems. This seems like an inevitable outgrowth from having wealthy men and legislative bodies that regulate them.

4. Large corporations have been at least partially responsible for most of the important scientific breakthroughs in recent history. Smaller corporations simply do not have the capital or infrastructure to supply scientists and technicians with the tools they need.

5. I am personally more worried about the fiscal illiteracy and stupidity of common Americans, who purchased homes they could not afford and run up insane debt on their credit cards. Hopefully some of them will have learned that savings are good after this latest recession.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

What you also forget is that "Communism" is as inherently plutocratic as "Capitalism".

[Enemy of the State]

Big business has always used the state to protect its position. The problem with socialists is that they confuse two contradictory terms, the free market and state capitalism. A free market exists to serve the consumer, state capitalism exists to serve the corporations.

[Monarchist]

The problem with America is that it hasn't even pretended to be "Capitalist" (not "capitalist") since 1895, and even before. It was the constant little wars between 1812 and 1873 that really stretched the free market. You see, the evil Federalists were allowed to create a central, national bank as early as the 1790's. Due to that institution, every single time a war came along they inflated the currency or started issuing new, worthless currency. After the wars passed, the national bank would be disbanded again and the currency would go back to normal. The problem was that this authoritarian plutocracy of bankers happened so often (Manifest Destiny? ) that it managed to slowly destroy the dollar. They even went off the gold standard several times to fund their military adventures. This was not even anywhere remotely close to what Adam Smith had propounded just thirty years before. You must know the history of the U.S. National Bank(s) in order to see how un-Capitalistic America has been.

1895 was the terrible year when the U.S. Supreme Court found (In re Debs) that the U.S. Federal Government has the "right" to regulate economy and commerce between American states. After this, it was only a short time until the Feds put their hands into everything, due to loose language. The Progressives just happened to come along a decade later, and by 1913 the last vestiges of "Capitalism" (not "capitalism") were destroyed. All in the same year: the terrifically socialist Wilson came in, signed the Federal Reserve Act creating the U.S. Federal Reserve, signed the Federal Income Tax into law, and instituted the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The last on the list had its name changed by feel-good Communists (Progressives) in 1918 to the "Internal Revenue Service", so it would sound more friendly.

Already, before the 1873 crisis and meltdown, America was full of statist intervention. Capitalism, as a complete theoretical system, has been dead since Thomas Jefferson's heyday of speeches. Don't go on about the "rich minority" and blame it on Capitalism; the American system is the direct result of 96 years (counting since 1913) of direct economic intervention by socialist bankers. Most of the Fortune 500 C.E.O.s (500 richest companies) are Democratic Party voters, and contributed heavily to Barack Obama's campaign in 2008. America is essentially a socialistic nation that has been propping itself up by false "services", "bureaus", "administrations", and other such things. The country needs a capitalist-monarchist-libertarian revolution, in my opinion.

[Celsius]

The problem with America is that it hasn't even pretended to be "Capitalist" (not "capitalist") since 1895, and even before. It was the constant little wars between 1812 and 1873 that really stretched the free market. You see, the evil Federalists were allowed to create a central, national bank as early as the 1790's. Due to that institution, every single time a war came along they inflated the currency or started issuing new, worthless currency. After the wars passed, the national bank would be disbanded again and the currency would go back to normal. The problem was that this authoritarian plutocracy of bankers happened so often (Manifest Destiny? ) that it managed to slowly destroy the dollar. They even went off the gold standard several times to fund their military adventures. This was not even anywhere remotely close to what Adam Smith had propounded just thirty years before. You must know the history of the U.S. National Bank(s) in order to see how un-Capitalistic America has been.

1895 was the terrible year when the U.S. Supreme Court found (In re Debs) that the U.S. Federal Government has the "right" to regulate economy and commerce between American states. After this, it was only a short time until the Feds put their hands into everything, due to loose language. The Progressives just happened to come along a decade later, and by 1913 the last vestiges of "Capitalism" (not "capitalism") were destroyed. All in the same year: the terrifically socialist Wilson came in, signed the Federal Reserve Act creating the U.S. Federal Reserve, signed the Federal Income Tax into law, and instituted the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The last on the list had its name changed by feel-good Communists (Progressives) in 1918 to the "Internal Revenue Service", so it would sound more friendly.

Already, before the 1873 crisis and meltdown, America was full of statist intervention. Capitalism, as a complete theoretical system, has been dead since Thomas Jefferson's heyday of speeches. Don't go on about the "rich minority" and blame it on Capitalism; the American system is the direct result of 96 years (counting since 1913) of direct economic intervention by socialist bankers. Most of the Fortune 500 C.E.O.s (500 richest companies) are Democratic Party voters, and contributed heavily to Barack Obama's campaign in 2008. America is essentially a socialistic nation that has been propping itself up by false "services", "bureaus", "administrations", and other such things. The country needs a capitalist-monarchist-libertarian revolution, in my opinion.

Agreed.

I highly doubt though that the US will adopt a monarchy. What we need is a nice Right Winged dictatorship that doesnt take crap off of anyone

[Problem Sleuth]

The problem with America is that it hasn't even pretended to be "Capitalist" (not "capitalist") since 1895, and even before. It was the constant little wars between 1812 and 1873 that really stretched the free market. You see, the evil Federalists were allowed to create a central, national bank as early as the 1790's. Due to that institution, every single time a war came along they inflated the currency or started issuing new, worthless currency. After the wars passed, the national bank would be disbanded again and the currency would go back to normal. The problem was that this authoritarian plutocracy of bankers happened so often (Manifest Destiny? ) that it managed to slowly destroy the dollar. They even went off the gold standard several times to fund their military adventures. This was not even anywhere remotely close to what Adam Smith had propounded just thirty years before. You must know the history of the U.S. National Bank(s) in order to see how un-Capitalistic America has been.

And? Before the national bank, there were over 50 active currencies in the United States. It was difficult to judge how much most of them were worth, because the values fluctuated constantly and there was a degree of 'lag'. The values in one part of the country varied from the rest. Rather than have one reasonably stable US currency, you ended up having a large number of worthless ones. Your history is off elsewhere. Andrew Jackson tore down the national banking system, so from 1828-1863, banks were free of Federal regulation, and no national bank existed. Furthermore, the First National Bank only made up around 20% of the currency. The rest was made by state-chartered banks.

1895 was the terrible year when the U.S. Supreme Court found (In re Debs) that the U.S. Federal Government has the "right" to regulate economy and commerce between American states.

They had that right previously. The Supreme Court merely unanimously reaffirmed it. The wording in the Constitution on this matter is pretty damn clear. In Article 1, Section 8, it states that Congress has the power to:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Understandably, every single Supreme Court justice voted that the Federal government had a right to intervene in intrastate commerce.

After this, it was only a short time until the Feds put their hands into everything, due to loose language. The Progressives just happened to come along a decade later, and by 1913 the last vestiges of "Capitalism" (not "capitalism") were destroyed. All in the same year: the terrifically socialist Wilson came in, signed the Federal Reserve Act creating the U.S. Federal Reserve, signed the Federal Income Tax into law, and instituted the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Err, terrifically socialist how? Is anything beyond the extreme right 'Communist' to you? By your definition, the vast majority of America is 'socialist', and Europe is no different than the USSR.

The last on the list had its name changed by feel-good Communists (Progressives) in 1918 to the "Internal Revenue Service", so it would sound more friendly.

IT'S A COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY, MAN! WATCH OUT! THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU! OH GOD THEY'RE ALREADY HERE THEY'RE AFTER ME OH GOD

But seriously, what?

Already, before the 1873 crisis and meltdown, America was full of statist intervention. Capitalism, as a complete theoretical system, has been dead since Thomas Jefferson's heyday of speeches. Don't go on about the "rich minority" and blame it on Capitalism; the American system is the direct result of 96 years (counting since 1913) of direct economic intervention by socialist bankers. Most of the Fortune 500 C.E.O.s (500 richest companies) are Democratic Party voters, and contributed heavily to Barack Obama's campaign in 2008. America is essentially a socialistic nation that has been propping itself up by false "services", "bureaus", "administrations", and other such things. The country needs a capitalist-monarchist-libertarian revolution, in my opinion.

Capitalism, as you envision it, has never lived, period. Furthermore, you don't seem to actually understand the meaning of socialism. A country isn't socialist because it retains a mostly capitalist system with a small amount of socialism thrown in. If you're going to be that absolutist, any country that has a military or police force isn't capitalist, because they're both nationalized protection services. As a result, anything but anarcho-capitalism can't actually be considered capitalism.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I'm wondering if that "Capitalism" you speak of is an attainable goal at all or just a dream .

[Monarchist]

I'm wondering if that "Capitalism" you speak of is an attainable goal at all or just a dream .

Well yes, of course it is a dream. However, there are ways of getting to it, or coming close to it, that are infinitely more efficacious than what America has now. My goal is liberty of the individual, and freedom of the civil society from endless bureaucratic intervention into every man's wallet. Communism is inherently based upon the latter, not the former, because Marx himself said that it is better to have the community control everything. His goal was not any sort of freedom for anybody, but servitude to the horde. At least Capitalistic systems come nearer to allowing freedom of choice for the individual. That is all I really want.

[Monarchist]

Timothy Leary is right, as usual. This is why I prefer small businesses to "big business"; undoubtedly, "big Oil", "big Pharma", etc. provide us with essential things for life, but they just lobby government way too much. Lobbying is the single biggest evil in the world, in my opinion. It is totally immoral, and one of the main causes for the destruction of American greatness and liberty.

Ducale, isn't a Monarchy just that?

[Enemy of the State]

I'm wondering if that "Capitalism" you speak of is an attainable goal at all or just a dream .

Of course it's attainable. All you have to do is... Laissez-Faire. It's spontaneous order.

[Denny Crane!]

and that free market doesn't mean arbitration and good working practice has to disappear. Society could be more fair, forgiving and humane than it is now.

[BNS]

I am pleasantly surprised that someone from revleft would make the intellectual effort to distinguished laissez faire capitalism and the system we have in place in the U.S.

HINT: Bring dignity back to industry. I have never exactly been a blue-collar guy, I admit, but I hugely value the ideal of working not being cause for stigma. I know that this might sound off-colour in the current climate, but I think bonuses (yes, those dreaded things) ought to be brought into manufacturing. That way, yes companies can pay a low wage, but workers are incentivised to work better for a bonus (it does not have to be major, shall we say a £500 lump sum in December, with the occasional tidbit elsewhere?)

Not a bad idea and workable in some situations. However in the U.S. the present taxation and regulatory structure creates an incentive against that for the lower paying jobs.

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

I meant tax-free bonus, sorry I should have said. The government can afford to lose a piddling amount of tax money in order to rekindle industry, and keep it competitive.

I may actually start a new thread on this...

[BNS]

I meant tax-free bonus, sorry I should have said. The government can afford to lose a piddling amount of tax money in order to rekindle industry, and keep it competitive.

I may actually start a new thread on this...

It's not so much the tax. It's this enforced bonus that we have here in the U.S. called employer based health care insurance. The burden of which will only grow bigger on small business and low wage employees should the pending health care legislation pass.

[Last Roman]

and that free market doesn't mean arbitration and good working practice has to disappear. Society could be more fair, forgiving and humane than it is now.

the problem comes when we ask "how do we enforce those fair working practices?"

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

I say we bring back Feudalism.

Well, yes, that was a *joke*, but there are times when I think the worst kinds of government are those that refuse to call a spade a spade. The sooner we an all admit that a small elite control everyone's lives and just try and expand that elite, the sooner we can progress.

Also, I think that the fundamental facet of good governance is not to take 10 wealthy individuals (let us assume), and say "they are rich, let's bring them DOWN!", but to say, "OK, some people achieve and some don't. How can we get more people into the former category and less in the latter?

HINT: Bring dignity back to industry. I have never exactly been a blue-collar guy, I admit, but I hugely value the ideal of working not being cause for stigma. I know that this might sound off-colour in the current climate, but I think bonuses (yes, those dreaded things) ought to be brought into manufacturing. That way, yes companies can pay a low wage, but workers are incentivised to work better for a bonus (it does not have to be major, shall we say a £500 lump sum in December, with the occasional tidbit elsewhere?)

This is becoming "Andrew's rant on the modern world, volume XI" now, so I will stop talking...

[Yosemite]

i don't like irresponsable corporations, no matter how big they are

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

i don't like irresponsable corporations, no matter how big they are

You're quite right. Even a small business can do harm.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Well, the problem is that in these times of post-democracy, we are assisting to an "end of History" of sorts -- the happy dog settles into his "liberal" democracy, basks in the sun, and doesn't care to make his own lot, or that of other dogs, any better.

And meanwhile, others are holding the leash.