Which I specifically pointed out.
The first two paragraphs seem to indicate otherwise. There are plenty of isolationist/“Buy American”-style Republicans. Nothing in the article makes me think that the author doesn’t lean that direction.
Yep. Since corporate profits are very high right now, they are insulated from the economy that most of the country would consider bad. They can afford private security and education and transportation, so they are insulated from the failing infrastructure.
It’s hard to see why they would care about the well being of the country. Indeed, if corporate profits are going up while the country as a whole is going down they may consider it in their best personal interest to wreak havoc.
Especially since the worse off the economy in general is, the more desperate people are for a job and the more they will put up with low pay and mistreatment; “labor discipline” it’s called. It’s in their interest to keep the bulk of the populace desperate and afraid.
I read the article and applauded. I agree with the sentiments of one of the commenters:
I’ve bookmarked that website. It gives me hope that there are still American conservatives who are neither morons nor hypocrites.
The article was brief, lucid and eloquent. Is “TLDR” shorthand for wanting to ignore truths we find uncomfortable?
False. Start a thread in BBQ Pit if you still don’t understand why.
Yep.
You got time to post, you got time to read. :rolleyes:
GD tradition is that it’s up the OP to summarize the salient points of anything he links if he wants a real discussion of it.
-
I read the article. It was worth my time.
-
In fact, I bought the book by the same author.
I apologize. I don’t wade into this hornets nest very often and I think I have maybe started one or two other GD threads. The article struck me, mostly because it was in a conservative publication and because this guy that wrote it worked in the Reagan administration on budgetary committees and so clearly has some notion of what’s afoot in the inner workings of our economy.
As already noted, board culture is that OPs in GD contain summaries of linked articles. Do you dispute that?
Nope. You got an argument to make, make it here. The super rich are a tiny minority. They get one vote like the rest of us.
The article talks about how disengaged the wealthy generally are and that they have a general non-parcipatory malaise towards our nation and by extension, us as people. We are more an exploitable resource to serve their greedy bottom lines rather than be a part of the citizenry.
This is nothing new? Not so sure. The article notes that "*To some degree the rich have always secluded themselves from the gaze of the common herd; their habit for centuries has been to send their offspring to private schools. But now this habit is exacerbated by the plutocracy’s palpable animosity towards public education and public educators, as Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated. To the extent public education “reform” is popular among billionaires and their tax-exempt foundations, one suspects it is as a lever to divert the more than $500 billion dollars in annual federal, state, and local education funding into private hands—meaning themselves and their friends. What Halliburton did for U.S. Army logistics, school privatizers will do for public education. A century ago, at least we got some attractive public libraries out of Andrew Carnegie. Noblesse oblige like Carnegie’s is presently lacking among our seceding plutocracy.
In both world wars, even a Harvard man or a New York socialite might know the weight of an army pack. Now the military is for suckers from the laboring classes whose subprime mortgages you just sliced into CDOs and sold to gullible investors in order to buy your second Bentley or rustle up the cash to get Rod Stewart to perform at your birthday party. The sentiment among the super-rich towards the rest of America is often one of contempt rather than noblesse.*"
The writer doesn’t give much in the way of answers, but it does seem to be a general trend amongst the super wealthy. Obviously their political influence is self-serving and therefore dangerous.
There’s a misleading statement. You’d think the super rich have virtually no influence in politics, and that politicians can’t be bought.
If that’s what his key point is, then it’s a bunch of bunk. As noted in a recent Pit thread, even the “evil” Koch brothers are noted for their philanthropy, as are many titans of industry today (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet to name two of the richest).
As for animosity towards education, well assuming that’s true (and I don’t accept that it is, but lets just assume it is) that beats the advocates of Eugenics from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Nope. Never said that. But to assume that the 99% of us who aren’t super rich can’t vote the bums out is the oversimplification. To think otherwise is to assume that the majority of politicians not only can be “bought”, but when you vote out Jones and vote in Smith, Smith is going to be “bought”, too. And when you vote out Smith and vote in Ramirez, Ramirez is going to be “bought”, too.
I think the better explanation is that most people are actually comfortable enough, and happy enough that they don’t really feel the need to kick the bums out at all. They may talk about it, but they still vote for the incumbent the vast majority of the time. That’s not consistent with an electorate that isn’t more or less happy with what they are getting no matter what they tell pollsters. Congress sucks, but my Congresscritter is great! Yeah, well if 95% of the people think that, then how is it that Congress sucks?
GD tradition (well, one often flouted) is also to try to get some idea of what the discussion topic actually is before posting about it.
I found the last part of the quite well-written and incisive article to be quite telling:
Multinational corporations probably hold more power than do the citizenry.
This trend is disturbing.
Not so sure this is anything new. The rich have always, in all societies, have been able to insulate themselves from unpleasant realities to whatever degree they feel comfortable with. Money has always been power.
I come to SDMB to exchange information and ideas for mutual enlightenment. Others have different purposes; dialogs with them are at cross-purposes.
I thought FoieGrasIsEvil gave an excellent one-line summary:
Do you want more than this? Read the article! I’ve posted links to interesting articles on this board with poor results. For one worth-reading article I posted a short excerpt just to hint at the flavor of the article. The response I got was a nitpick that the short excerpt didn’t quite provide closure on a subtopic. I asked and … the complainer indeed hadn’t bothered to click the link :smack: He found it more worthwhile to find fault with my post than to enlighten himself, or even understand my viewpoint.
Mr. Mace’s “Do you dispute that?” suggests that he also treats SDMB like a sophomore debating society rather than a path to understanding ideas.
As for the question about America’s democracy, many of us believe that Bush’s 51% in 2004 is ample proof that Americans do not know how to vote in their self-interest. (Even a 25% Bush vote would be enough to convince many foreigners American voters aren’t very wise.) I don’t want to hijack this thread into a discussion of Bush; I just demonstrate to Mr. Mace how easy it is to prove the point about American voters for those with an open mind.
Meh. Perhaps you should take your own advice and start a Pit thread.
You have proven nothing. You have merely stated that you know what a person’s self-interest is better than that person does. Pardon me if I don’t accept your opinion on that.
Well, since you apparently didn’t read the article with any comprehension, since it covers the different degrees of engagement of the wealthy with US society over time, maybe you could go readthis post from FoisGrasIsDelicious and come back and maybe revise your opinion.