Study: U.S. is an Oligarchy

[AuH20]

Mail en masse to Glenn Beck

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

[Ronin Truth]

Shock, Shock (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/shock-shock/)

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/lew-rockwell/?post_type=lrc-blog)

“US now controlled by rich and powerful,” says (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html) a new study. This is as versus during the 20th, 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries. (Thanks to Robert Hiett)

1:26 pm on April 16, 2014

Email Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (lewrockwell@mac.com)

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/lew-rockwell/?post_type=lrc-blog)


http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/shock-shock/

[Todd]

surprise surprise.

[menciusmoldbug]

I own the book (http://www.amazon.com/Affluence-Influence-Inequality-Political-Foundation/dp/0691153973/) on which this paper appears to be based. My opinions on it are reasonably summarized by this blog post (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/why_is_democrac.html).

"Before I studied public opinion, I often wondered, 'Why are democracies' policies so bad?' After I studied public opinion, I started asking myself the opposite question: 'Why aren't democracies' policies even worse?' The median American is no Nazi, but he is a moderate national socialist - statist to the core on both economic and social policy. Given public opinion, the policies of First World democracies are surprisingly libertarian."


"Democracies listen to the relatively libertarian rich far more than they listen to the absolutely statist non-rich. And since I think that statist policy preferences rest on a long list of empirical and normative mistakes, my sincere reaction is to say, 'Thank goodness.' Democracy as we know it is bad enough. Democracy that really listened to all the people would be an authoritarian nightmare."


Further recommended reading (http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/). "For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. The subterranean current that propels such anti-politics is recognizably Hobbesian, a coherent dark enlightenment, devoid from its beginning of any Rousseauistic enthusiasm for popular expression. Predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, it conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption. The democratic politician and the electorate are bound together by a circuit of reciprocal incitement, in which each side drives the other to ever more shameless extremities of hooting, prancing cannibalism, until the only alternative to shouting is being eaten."

Democracy is the opposite of freedom, almost inherent to the democratic process is that it tends towards less liberty instead of more, and democracy is not something to be fixed. Democracy is inherently broken, just like socialism. The only way to fix it is to break it up.
—Frank Karsten

I for one enthusiastically endorse our oligarchy so long as the only alternative is true democracy. Just as libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism, democracy is the heart and soul of communism. USG4 has its flaws, to be sure, and I endorse major reforms. But the kind we're likely to get as a result of this sort of rhetoric will be worse than what we have now.

[jtap]

“US now controlled by rich and powerful,”

Only "now"? When exactly did this happen and why? That would be a better study. Classic terrible media headline and I'm disappointed but not surprised in Lew's site for that. At least the original article didn't act like it just happened.

I think it's more like "We just realized NOW that the US is controlled by the rich and powerful".

[menciusmoldbug]

Every nation since the beginning of time has been controlled by the rich and powerful. That is what it means to be rich and powerful. This is not a state of affairs worth noticing or opposing. The trick to getting good governance is creating incentives for the rich and powerful to act in ways that benefit the interests of the people as a whole rather than just themselves.

(Hint: It's called capitalism. NOT democracy.)

[pcosmar]

A "study" to conclude what was already known.

[pcosmar]

(Hint: It's called capitalism. NOT democracy.)

Capitalism is not a system of Government. It is human nature.

Socialists are Capitalists too.
China is a Capitalist country.. and are OWNING the US.

[Philhelm]

The trick to getting good governance is creating incentives for the rich and powerful to act in ways that benefit the interests of the people as a whole rather than just themselves.

(Hint: It's called capitalism. NOT democracy.)

Many rifles with men behind them to collectively say, "No."

[menciusmoldbug]

Capitalism is not a system of Government.

Yet. I propose we change that.


It is human nature.

You'll find no more ardent supporter of capitalism than me, but I cannot endorse the claim that "t is human nature." Neither socialism nor capitalism has a monopoly on the claim to be rooted in human nature - both draw from and support different elements of it, which is why we find the two systems succeeding in different times and places throughout human history. They compete with one another by appealing to differing aspects of our selves (and different parts of the population).


Socialists are Capitalists too.

You are clearly using these words in a very different way than I do. I view socialism and capitalism as being fundamentally opposed to one another. To say that socialists are capitalists seems like nonsense.

What I would say is that there exists a spectrum between the two extremes, and most people/countries fall somewhere in between them.


China is a Capitalist country.. and are OWNING the US.

I would agree with both of these claims. However, I would argue that China is [I]less capitalist than the US (see the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom if you disagree). It succeeds despite having less economic freedom for several reasons. Two of the most important are 1) the mean IQ of a Chinese person is substantially higher than that of an American, and 2) China's system of government is much better/more efficient than ours by virtue of being more bureaucratic and less democratic. I'm no great fan of bureaucracy, but I do think empirical evidence suggests that it's superior to democracy by a fairly large margin.

Men like Martin Giles (author of the paper that sparked this thread) do not criticize the existence of oligarchy because they want to encourage competition in governance or increased federalism. They want soft communism, plain and simple, and they recognize that more democracy is a good way to get it.

[menciusmoldbug]

Many rifles with men behind them to collectively say, "No."

Some might be tempted to call these men a government.

[AuH20]

Some might be tempted to call these men a government.

More like the REAL Checks & Balances that the Founders spoke of.

[menciusmoldbug]

More like the REAL Checks & Balances that the Founders spoke of.

Were the "peasants with pitchforks" actually capable of standing up to the military might of USG4, we'd have an example of what's sometimes called "self-government." I'm skeptical that any unorganized militia will ever possess this much power again, however.

[AuH20]

Were the "peasants with pitchforks" actually capable of standing up to the military might of USG4, we'd have an example of what's sometimes called "self-government." I'm skeptical that any unorganized militia will ever possess this much power again, however.

If the feds keep training their resistance, we will see that day. I believe over a 7 year period the entire Armed Forces is cycled through and replaced by new recruits. Then factor what happens to many of these veterans who are basically discarded from general society with said training. The U.S. government spends billions upon billions of dollars to train individuals to accomplish regime change abroad, not knowing how easily this training can be redirected back at them.

[pcosmar]

I would agree with both of these claims. However, I would argue that China is less capitalist than the US (see the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom if you disagree). It succeeds despite having less economic freedom for several reasons.

Less/More capitalistic?

Human beings are capitalistic. It is basic nature. People work for gain. Try to improve their situation.
They do not do it for any other reason. They want something (Food, shelter, comforts, riches) That is the essence of Capitalism and the very reason why Communism can never exist outside of philosophical fantasy. Human Nature.

I have known Chinese people.. And they are the very same as me.

The Chinese Government is an Authoritarian Dictatorship. They many call themselves communist,,but they are not. They are socialist elitists and highly capitalistic.

They loan money to the US,, They produce products (using cheap labor) for a profit. They are capitalists..
And they are not wasting their resources on Countless Wars for little or no gain.

Who is the "better" capitalist?

[Ronin Truth]

Who wrote and ratified the CONstitution?






(Hint: Were they rich and powerful?)

[Todd]

Every nation since the beginning of time has been controlled by the rich and powerful. That is what it means to be rich and powerful. This is not a state of affairs worth noticing or opposing. The trick to getting good governance is creating incentives for the rich and powerful to act in ways that benefit the interests of the people as a whole rather than just themselves.

(Hint: It's called capitalism. NOT democracy.)

Hmm. Sounds alot like the conclusion of this book I once read as a wee lad. In it Fukuyama concluded that all history would end when the powerful and the weak reached some form of mutual agreement.

http://blogs.wm.edu/files/2012/02/Democracy-1.jpg

He is also idolized by the Neocons. I know....I'm a recovering one. Of course now 20 years later I know it's all bullshit of course. Kantian bullshit.

[pcosmar]

Were the "peasants with pitchforks" actually capable of standing up to the military might of USG4, we'd have an example of what's sometimes called "self-government." I'm skeptical that any unorganized militia will ever possess this much power again, however.

Apparently you have not been watching the Bundy Standoff.

[DevilsAdvocate]

1) the mean IQ of a Chinese person is substantially higher than that of an American,

I take issue with this. First of all IQ is not a very good measure of intelligence, and second of all it only appears that Chinese people are smarter because the smart ones are the ones moving to America. We are getting the top 1% of the bell curve over here, that's where this "Asians are smart" stereotype comes from.

The reason Chinese people are more productive is because they have a different value system. Their society is very patriarchal and their values are generally work, work, work until your hands bleed. This isn't necessarily a good thing, Americans are typically much more creative and better problem solvers. For example a Chinese student might memorize every single textbook problem in their math class, while an American student might learn how the math works, and how to apply it to a broad range of problems, and even invent new techniques of their own.

The problem is that not many Americans are deciding to apply themselves and are instead opting for the "get drunk and have sex" European style party culture we have growing over here.

[pcosmar]

The reason Chinese people are more productive is because they have a different value system. Their society is very patriarchal and their values are generally work, work, work until your hands bleed. This isn't necessarily a good thing, Americans are typically much more creative and better problem solvers. For example a Chinese student might memorize every single textbook problem in their math class, while an American student might learn how the math works, and how to apply it to a broad range of problems, and even invent new techniques of their own.

The problem is that not many Americans are deciding to apply themselves and are instead opting for the "get drunk and have sex" European style party culture we have growing over here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSvwsforehU

[Lucille]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-17/princeton-study-confirms-us-oligarchy


In response to the publication of an academic study that essentially proves the United States is nothing more than an oligarchy, many commentators have quipped sentiments that go something like “so tell me something I don’t know.” While I agree that the conclusion is far from surprising to anyone paying attention, the study is significant for two main reasons.

First, there is a certain influential segment of the population which has a disposition which requires empirical evidence and academic studies before they will take any theory seriously. Second, some of the conclusions can actually prove quite helpful to activists who want to have a greater impact in changing things. This shouldn’t be particularly difficult since their impact at the moment is next to zero.

What is most incredible to me is that the data under scrutiny in the study was from 1981-2002. One can only imagine how much worse things have gotten since the 2008 financial crisis. The study found that even when 80% of the population favored a particular public policy change, it was only instituted 43% of the time. We saw this first hand with the bankster bailout in 2008, when Americans across the board were opposed to it, but Congress passed TARP anyway (although they had to vote twice).

Even more importantly, several years of supposed “economic recovery” has not changed the public’s perception of the bankster bailouts. For example, a 2012 study showed that only 23% percent of Americans favored the bank bailouts and the disgust was completely bipartisan, as the Huffington Post points out.

Personally, I think the banker bailouts will go down as one of the most significant turning points in American history. Despite widespread disapproval, Congress passed TARP and it was at that moment that many Americans “woke up” to the fact they are nothing more than economic slaves with no voice. That they are serfs. Even more importantly, once oligarchs saw what they could get away with they kept doubling down and doubling down until we find ourselves in the precarious position we are in today. A society filled with angst and resentment at the fact that the 0.01% have stolen everything.

Another thing that the study noted was that average citizens sometimes got what they wanted, but this is almost always when their preferences overlap with the oligarchs. When this occurs it is entirely coincidental, and in many cases may the result of public opinion being molded by the elite-controlled special interest groups themselves. How pathetic.

[menciusmoldbug]

If the feds keep training their resistance, we will see that day. I believe over a 7 year period the entire Armed Forces is cycled through and replaced by new recruits. Then factor what happens to many of these veterans who are basically discarded from general society with said training. The U.S. government spends billions upon billions of dollars to train individuals to accomplish regime change abroad, not knowing how easily this training can be redirected back at them.

Fingers crossed!

[menciusmoldbug]

Who wrote and ratified the CONstitution?






(Hint: Were they rich and powerful?)

http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Consti.html?id=P 9QpAAAAYAAJ

[menciusmoldbug]

Hmm. Sounds alot like the conclusion of this book I once read as a wee lad. In it Fukuyama concluded that all history would end when the powerful and the weak reached some form of mutual agreement.

http://blogs.wm.edu/files/2012/02/Democracy-1.jpg

He is also idolized by the Neocons. I know....I'm a recovering one. Of course now 20 years later I know it's all bullshit of course. Kantian bullshit.

With respect, you are deeply confused. I've read this work, and Fukuyama's conclusion is literally the exact opposite of mine (I oppose democracy with every fiber of my being and hope to live to see it die). I'm unsure how you've managed to confuse the two.

[menciusmoldbug]

Apparently you have not been watching the Bundy Standoff.

I have been, actually! Very closely and with great interest. I expect that this will not end well for Mr. Bundy. I badly hope that I am wrong and will be extremely excited if I prove to be, but I am not holding my breath.

[menciusmoldbug]

I take issue with this. First of all IQ is not a very good measure of intelligence

Name a better one? Regardless of the measure used, persons from China are more intelligent than persons from America, and this has extremely important consequences - there are very few more important factors to a country's success than the average intelligence of its citizens. The median Chinese citizen is roughly half a standard deviation smarter than the average US citizen, and the gap is growing rather than shrinking.


and second of all it only appears that Chinese people are smarter because the smart ones are the ones moving to America. We are getting the top 1% of the bell curve over here, that's where this "Asians are smart" stereotype comes from.

This is simply false. You ought not make claims about subjects you are ignorant of. If you're interested in learning more about the issue and have several hours to burn, I'd recommend this (https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/intelligence-a-unifying-construct-for-the-social-sciences-richard-lynn-and-tatu-vanhanen.pdf) as a decent primer. Check page 21 for China's IQ (105.8) and page 29 for USA's (97.5).

The "Asians are smart" stereotype exists because Asians are smart. Just like the "Jews are smart" stereotype exists because Jews are smart. There are other accurate stereotypes as well that I'll decline to draw attention to, but I'm sure you can figure it out.


The reason Chinese people are more productive is because they have a different value system. Their society is very patriarchal and their values are generally work, work, work until your hands bleed. This isn't necessarily a good thing, Americans are typically much more creative and better problem solvers. For example a Chinese student might memorize every single textbook problem in their math class, while an American student might learn how the math works, and how to apply it to a broad range of problems, and even invent new techniques of their own.

I don't deny the importance of values, but because values are a product of the genetic makeup of a people, its really difficult to separate the influence of the two. hbd*chick does yeoman's work here, and I'd highly recommend her blog to you if you're interested in learning more. Start here (http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/start-here/).


The problem is that not many Americans are deciding to apply themselves and are instead opting for the "get drunk and have sex" European style party culture we have growing over here.

This is indeed a problem. Democracy is degenerative and dysgenic, so we shouldn't be too surprised to see this result, though. A nation founded by treasonous radical left-wingers can't be expected to have too long of a shelf life.

[Demigod]

Capitalism is not a system of Government. It is human nature.

Socialists are Capitalists too.
China is a Capitalist country.. and are OWNING the US.

Human nature demands first and foremost ORDER ,yes from time to time a generation will want to create chaos but it will be with order in their mind.For a long time I have been wondering why is a big part of the population of my country nostalgic about socialism ( Balkans ) when we had less of everything.Not that we are rich today we are one of the most dirt poor regions in the world,some North African and Middle Eastern countries are doing better but still in every sphere things have still improved than from before the 1990,and still most long for the days when there was order.


Less/More capitalistic?

Human beings are capitalistic. It is basic nature. People work for gain. Try to improve their situation.
They do not do it for any other reason. They want something (Food, shelter, comforts, riches) That is the essence of Capitalism and the very reason why Communism can never exist outside of philosophical fantasy. Human Nature.

I have known Chinese people.. And they are the very same as me.

The Chinese Government is an Authoritarian Dictatorship. They many call themselves communist,,but they are not. They are socialist elitists and highly capitalistic.

They loan money to the US,, They produce products (using cheap labor) for a profit. They are capitalists..
And they are not wasting their resources on Countless Wars for little or no gain.

Who is the "better" capitalist?

I think that culture has a much bigger impact on why they are not starting wars than being practical.The Chinese main goal has always been to control their country ( which was a huge Empire for most of history with an enormous population ) stop rebellions and keep order.They have never had the conqueror mentality and almost always took the defense way against foreign threats.