American Oligarchy?

Manach

Basically that monied elites are the main controllers of the US political system, whist " ... average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." - Princeton Study.
Does this seem a reasonable paper or would it be the case that this is global democratic attribute, where parties are in beholden to vested interests? Whilst not mentioned, the does seem to echo points made by earlier theorists such as Richard Posner who stated that organised lobby groups who can influence by money the political process gain most from the spoils of that process. Opinions?

sin_city

My opinion is that this post will get shot down by those that write in this forum who think that all is lovely and dandy in the USA and that talk of elites controlling anything is merely conspiracy rubbish.

Jonny7

I'd say it most definitely started as an oligarchy, and has been slowly moving toward a democracy ever since

I mean, to borrow from a comment I read, it started with rich white landowners who had to pay a poll tax - to the upper-middle class and gentry, to white males, then on to white people and finally to all people

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

My opinion is that this post will get shot down by those that write in this forum who think that all is lovely and dandy in the USA and that talk of elites controlling anything is merely conspiracy rubbish.

I completely agree with you, the USA is run by an elite class. It's so out in the open it irks me that people spend so much time worrying about conspiracies and so little time dealing with the problems right in their faces.

My "conspiracy theory" is that the privileged classes, the top 1%, are only too happy for the likes of Infowars, Truththeory.org and so on to spend their time worrying about the "New World Order" and "Illuminati". All of this time and energy wasted on grand conspiracy theories distracts honest, good people from what's really wrong. The increasing wealth gap between the rich and middle classes is the real problem.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

I completely agree with you, the USA is run by an elite class. It's so out in the open it irks me that people spend so much time worrying about conspiracies and so little time dealing with the problems right in their faces.

My "conspiracy theory" is that the privileged classes, the top 1%, are only too happy for the likes of Infowars, Truththeory.org and so on to spend their time worrying about the "New World Order" and "Illuminati". All of this time and energy wasted on grand conspiracy theories distracts honest, good people from what's really wrong. The increasing wealth gap between the rich and middle classes is the real problem.

The 1% changes every year so not sure exactly who you are refering to.

In response to your ignorance, Mr Thomas Sowell

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

The 1% changes every year so not sure exactly who you are refering to.

In response to your ignorance, Mr Thomas Sowell

In response to your response:

http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf

Given the wealth available socio-economic mobility is poor in the United States of America.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

In response to your response:

http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf

Given the wealth available socio-economic mobility is poor in the United States of America.

No mention of the top one percent in that study.

Show me a debate that Thomas Sowell has lost and you might be on top something.

Scofflaw

3-day ban for sin_city for constant incivility.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Amerika

It still is one vote per person regardless of their net worth, right? And a secret ballot, with no fear of repercussions on how one votes? And last I looked, there are a lot more of us then there are of them. Now if the argument is the average voter is gullible and merely buys into what the "elites" put out there... in the form of candidates, party persuasion, media influence, and advertising, well then that’s a different story.

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

in the form of candidates, party persuasion, media influence, and advertising, well then that’s a different story.

Yup, but it's certainly a lot better than it used to be. There was a time when there was no transparency or laws on campaign finance.. when tax riots meant cannon and musket fire (headed by Mr Washington himself no less) when civil rights marches resulted in police and national guard gunfire

It's all a question of perspective

eire4

I would say Democracy is struggling to stay afloat in America these days and the country is becoming if it is not already an Oligarchy. The recent supreme court decisions which have basically allowed major corporations and wealthy individuals to buy up political power and influence has been significantly expanded by these disgraceful decisions.

PopePalpatine

The recent court cases to destroy net neutrality in the US really have me worried about the control that the "1%" have over the US. And don't get me started on the Trans-Pacific Partnership...

ChicagoJoe

Manach wrote: »

Basically that monied elites are the main controllers of the US political system, whist " ... average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." - Princeton Study.
Does this seem a reasonable paper or would it be the case that this is global democratic attribute, where parties are in beholden to vested interests? Whilst not mentioned, the does seem to echo points made by earlier theorists such as Richard Posner who stated that organised lobby groups who can influence by money the political process gain most from the spoils of that process. Opinions?

Too true, unfortunately Ireland seems to copy some of the worst aspects of America. Just watch a Michael Moore documentary like the Awful Truth.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

I would say Democracy is struggling to stay afloat in America these days and the country is becoming if it is not already an Oligarchy. The recent supreme court decisions which have basically allowed major corporations and wealthy individuals to buy up political power and influence has been significantly expanded by these disgraceful decisions.

Like it hasn't been going already for many decades by special interest groups and unions. Are we pissed because we added corporations and a few good men into the mix?

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Like it hasn't been going already for many decades by special interest groups and unions. Are we pissed because we added corporations and a few good men into the mix?

Coorect it has been going on for some time. However the recent supreme court decisions have expanded the control of the super wealthy and major corporations significantly. To the extent I would say that we are on the way to becoming a fully fledged Oligarchy rather then a democracy.
Personally I would like to see all outside money taken out of elections completely.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Like it hasn't been going already for many decades by special interest groups and unions. Are we pissed because we added corporations and a few good men into the mix?

Unions: democratic organisations who's goal is better working conditions for their members.

I'm fine with them lobbying for better working conditions for their members.

I'm not fine with corporations lobbying for decreased corporate oversight and lower taxes on profits. All the while the same corporations are outsourcing jobs and damaging the US economy.

Manach

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The recent court cases to destroy net neutrality in the US

Well reports from the latest FCC suggest that organisation is pushing ahead to undermine it irrespective of those. - link.

PopePalpatine

That's just disgraceful. It's bollocks like that that puts me off even considering a move to the USA.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Unions: democratic organisations who's goal is better working conditions for their members.

I'm fine with them lobbying for better working conditions for their members.

I'm not fine with corporations lobbying for decreased corporate oversight and lower taxes on profits. All the while the same corporations are outsourcing jobs and damaging the US economy.

Pardon me. You are fine with Unions lobbying the state and using slush funds to grease the wheels of power, yet have a problem when corporations do it too? Wow, just wow!!

The problem is that the state is so big now and controls so much of the economy and its functions. Is it any wonder that money talks when the consumer is the person having to suck it up. Obamacare is a classic example of this. Did anyone stop to think why they have to lobby in the first place?

PS. by your definition corporations are also democratic as the board members are voted in by shareholder, you know the guys who own the corporation.

PopePalpatine

jank wrote: »

Pardon me. You are fine with Unions lobbying the state and using slush funds to grease the wheels of power, yet have a problem when corporations do it too? Wow, just wow!!

The problem is that the state is so big now and controls so much of the economy and its functions. Is it any wonder that money talks when the consumer is the person having to suck it up. Obamacare is a classic example of this. Did anyone stop to think why they have to lobby in the first place?

PS. by your definition corporations are also democratic as the board members are voted in by shareholder, you know the guys who own the corporation.

The difference is between unions and corporations is that unions operate on "one person, one vote". Board members are voted in on the basis of "one share, one vote" - the average shareholder with a few dozen/hundred shares is no match for the billionaire with millions of shares.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Pardon me. You are fine with Unions lobbying the state and using slush funds to grease the wheels of power, yet have a problem when corporations do it too? Wow, just wow!!

I'm fine with unions lobbying to improve the working conditions of their members. Realistically they've been lobbying to maintain these conditions, for the most part they haven't been able to out spend the people lobbying in the opposite direction.

I don't understand the "wow" part. Unions represent people, working people. People who's lives would be much worse off if it wasn't for the labour movement.

The problem is that the state is so big now and controls so much of the economy and its functions. Is it any wonder that money talks when the consumer is the person having to suck it up. Obamacare is a classic example of this. Did anyone stop to think why they have to lobby in the first place?

The US federal government exerts far less control over the economy than I'd like.

PS. by your definition corporations are also democratic as the board members are voted in by shareholder, you know the guys who own the corporation.

No. Corporations are not democracies by any definition. It's not one man one vote. The larger the shareholding a person has the larger their voting power. In simple the terms, the richer you are the more power you have.

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The difference is between unions and corporations is that unions operate on "one person, one vote". Board members are voted in on the basis of "one share, one vote" - the average shareholder with a few dozen/hundred shares is no match for the billionaire with millions of shares.

It is only right imo that if you hold more of an equity in a private institution or corporation than you have more of a say than someone who hold 1/10 of what you may own. Also, lets not forget that the consumer is the ultimate arbitrator of what a corporation does as they ultimately vote with their feet and wallet.

I presume you are a property owner, you get to decide what colour paint goes on the walls, not your pesky eight year old kid!

Anyway the main point stands, to state that its OK for unions to lobby but not corporations is pure cognitive dissonance.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

I'm fine with unions lobbying to improve the working conditions of their members. Realistically they've been lobbying to maintain these conditions, for the most part they haven't been able to out spend the people lobbying in the opposite direction.

I don't understand the "wow" part. Unions represent people, working people. People who's lives would be much worse off if it wasn't for the labour movement.



The US federal government exerts far less control over the economy than I'd like.



No. Corporations are not democracies by any definition. It's not one man one vote. The larger the shareholding a person has the larger their voting power. In simple the terms, the richer you are the more power you have.

So you are fine with unions lobbying the federal government to promote their aims and goals (because you are ideologically sympathetic to them) yet give out then that the other side have too much influence by doing the exact same as what you are advocating. You do not see the problem with that statement?

Unions are one of the reasons why Detroit is destroyed and why inner city education sucks affecting especially African Americans kids.

If the Federal government had more control over the economy the problems of lobbying and control but by vested interests would be worse, not better. It is naive to think otherwise.

Lastly. Democracy is note defined by one man one vote. That is the system of government we have in many places but historically not the only type. Business and corporations who hold AGM's and require shareholders to approve certain measures and are democratic given the broad meaning of the word.

I do find it odd that you vocalise the 'democracy' of unions while then they go off and lobby washington to change the rules, laws and legislation that affects everyone not just union members.
Nevermind the fact that to work in certain jobs and industry union membership is mandatory in some states.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

The US federal government exerts far less control over the economy than I'd like.

People don't like central planning. If they did, people would be moving to places like North Korea and Cuba where there are large amounts of central planning.

Ever since the US federal government has become more involved in the economy the people in general have suffered more and more.

Accountability is a huge issue.

Are you pro bailout of the banks? This is not capitalism. Pure socialism for bankers.

jank

Lets not forget that the primary reason for the GFC was political pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates low so that people of low income and questionable credit worthiness could buy property. Nobody of that ilk was giving out then about these bad loans but if they didn't have access to cheap credit you can bet your last dollar that certain interest groups would be harping on about the lack of cheap credit for the 'poor' to buy their dream house. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

I see the latter being a problem with Ireland in the coming years actually and I am waiting for the usual suspects to come out and pontificate to the rest about how the poor have the right to that big mortgage to buy that 3 bed semi. Government caves in, banks oblige, property boom Mark 2.0. No lessons learned and de banks are to blame of course for it all when the state bails them out… yawn.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

So you are fine with unions lobbying the federal government to promote their aims and goals (because you are ideologically sympathetic to them) yet give out then that the other side have too much influence by doing the exact same as what you are advocating. You do not see the problem with that statement?

Exactly, I am ideologically sympathetic to unions. That's precisely what I am saying. I see labour unions as a positive force in politics and corporations as a negative one. These are my beliefs, I am not stating them as facts.

Unions represent the interests of workers; this is good IMO.
Corporations represent the selfish interests of their shareholders placing profit above all else: this is bad IMO.

Clear?

Unions are one of the reasons why Detroit is destroyed and why inner city education sucks affecting especially African Americans kids.

There is zero proof to back this statement up.

If the Federal government had more control over the economy the problems of lobbying and control but by vested interests would be worse, not better. It is naive to think otherwise.

It's not naive, it's aspirational.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

Unions represent the interests of workers; this is good IMO.

Who represents the people who can't get a job because the unions have pushed up the wages so high for those in the union?

I'm not denying the fact that unions are a benefit for their members.

I'm not anti union at all. For example, I think they are very important for ensuring worker safety.

It's not as black and white as saying unions are good and corporations are bad.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Exactly, I am ideologically sympathetic to unions. That's precisely what I am saying. I see labour unions as a positive force in politics and corporations as a negative one. These are my beliefs, I am not stating them as facts.

Yet in the same breath complain about the power of money in swinging regulation and legislation in favour of special interests that you are not ideologically sympathetic to. Do you only complain therefore when it swings not in your favour but favour it when it does? Therein lies the problem of American politics.

Brian? wrote: »

Unions represent the interests of workers; this is good IMO.
Corporations represent the selfish interests of their shareholders placing profit above all else: this is bad IMO.

Clear?

Unions good, Corporations bad,…. regulations….. b-b-b-better? Do I have that one right?

Brian? wrote: »

There is zero proof to back this statement up.

The South is the new power house of American auto industry and has been before the GFC. This is because in union dominated states like Michigan one is mandated (yes forced by law) to be a member of a union and pay for that 'privilege' in order to take up a job in said industry. This is one of the most authoritarian pieces of labour legislation's in the western world. Why should the state force anyone to join a group and pay to be a member if they do not wish to do so if they don't want to?


Some history.

While the American automakers were investing in or buying foreign competitors, the foreign automakers continued to establish more production facilities in the United States. In the 1990s, BMW and Daimler-Benz opened SUV factories in Spartanburg County, South Carolina and Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, respectively. In the 2000s, assembly plants were opened by Honda in Lincoln, Alabama, Nissan in Canton, Mississippi, Hyundai in Montgomery, Alabama and Kia in West Point, Georgia. Toyota opened an engine plant in Huntsville, Alabama in 2003 (along with a truck assembly plant in San Antonio, Texas) and is building an assembly plant in Blue Springs, Mississippi. Volkswagen has announced a new plant for Chattanooga, Tennessee. Also, several of the Japanese auto manufacturers expanded or opened additional plants during this period. For example, while new, the Alabama Daimler-Benz and Honda plants have expanded several times since their original construction. The opening of Daimler-Benz plant in the 1990s had a cascade effect. It created a hub of new sub-assembly suppliers in the Alabama area. This hub of sub-assemblies suppliers helped in attracting several new assembly plants into Alabama plus new plants in nearby Mississippi, Georgia and Tennessee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_the_United_States#1990s_and_2000s

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00107-the-south-rises-again-in-automobile-manufacturing

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2008/12/big_three_meet_the_little_eight.html

Production in right-to-work states excluding Michigan has been growing in recent years, up 10 percentage points since 2004. As Detroit auto makers shed capacity during their recent restructurings, 26 assembly plants closed between 2004 and 2011, with all but four in union-friendly states.

In that same period, nine new vehicle factories opened with six in right-to-work states by auto makers based outside the U.S. The remaining three were union shops outside of right-to-work states.

Still, excluding Michigan from the ranks of right-to-work states, production by union-represented assembly plants between 2004 and 2011 shrank to 54% of U.S. light-vehicle output from 76%. In right-to-work states during that period, union-represented output fell to 21% from 58%.

http://wardsauto.com/politics/new-michigan-law-swings-vehicle-production-right-work-states


This one is an interesting read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/16/the-uaw-having-stripped-detroit-bare-looks-to-the-south/

Unfortunately for King, kill the company, kill the union. At its peak in 1979, the UAW boasted a membership of 1.5 million. Today, by its own admission it boasts a mere 390,000. In the last 12 years, the Detroit-based auto companies have shed 200,000 jobs—three-fifths of its hourly workforce. Meanwhile, foreign-owned car companies have created some 20,000 new jobs in mostly southern factories.

No wonder the Passat, and the Volkswagen plant that manufactures it, has attracted gleam-filled gaze from the north. But if the UAW gets its way, it could do for the foreign auto makers exactly what it has done to the once great American car industry.

Increase costs, decrease quality. Kill jobs

One of the main reasons why the Auto industry is booming in the south is become of the right to work laws. Now even Michigan has seen the light and has enacted similar laws in an effort to protect what is left of the auto industry there

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21568430-anti-union-legislation-home-car-industry-now-michigan

In what is arguably still the heartland of America’s union movement, the Michigan legislature passed so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) legislation on December 11th. This prevents unions from requiring workers to pay union dues. Governor Rick Snyder immediately signed the legislation into law. When he did, Michigan, whose largest city is Detroit, became the 24th RTW state.


Indiana became the 23rd in February, and much of the same debate is being aired there. Proponents of the new law argue that it is unfair to force anyone to contribute money to a union, and that it will encourage employers to move to the state

Still the unions are not happy and are trying to get their hands on the new auto industry in the south but the workers are wise to their tricks it seems. They want to keep their own industry strong.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/21/us-vw-uaw-tennessee-idUSBREA3K0GG20140421

So even with the stakes all too clear, the workers themselves voted against union representation: a step which many consider may be the beginning of the end for once all too powerful unions.

"The union needs new members. They have to organize the transplants or they don't have much of a future," said Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.

The election was also extraordinary because Volkswagen choose to cooperate closely with the UAW. Volkswagen allowed UAW organizers to campaign inside the factory—a step rarely seen in this or other industries.

"This is like an alternate universe where everything is turned upside down," said Cliff Hammond, a labor lawyer at Nemeth Law PC in Detroit, who represents management clients but previously worked at the Service Employees International Union. "Usually, companies fight" union drives, he added.
Or maybe this time even the workers decided to give efficient labor supply and demand a chance? It certainly wouldn't be the first time when workers have realized that there is more downside than upside to joining a labor union:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-15/us-organized-labor-humiliated-after-volkwsagens-tennessee-workers-vote-against-union

So, yes there is strong evidence to suggest that unions destroyed the auto industry in Detroit.

As for inner city public schools, well have a look at the history of 'No child left behind' (unions against it), school vouchers (unions against it) and the documentary called 'Waiting for Superman'.

Brian? wrote: »

It's not naive, it's aspirational.

You want to increase the influence of government in the economy yet you are unhappy with special interests running they country. Seriously, step back and think about that for a minute. So, yes its youthful naivety.

MRnotlob606

I guess it is an Oligarchy , but in a sort of a subtle way , Big Financial backers lining politicians pockets at election time to serve their own Interests. But its not the only way Oligarchs in the US benefit from their relationship with the Goverment, They have made considerable money from oil contracts from the iraq war

Jonny7

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

They have made considerable money from oil contracts from the iraq war

Who have?

Conas

Of of course there is an Oilgarchy in America. The days of people electing the American President are over as far as I'm concerned. You get a choice of Red for Republican, and Blue for Democrat. The same elite nominates them both.

But what people haven't mentioned is the role that the lobbyists play. One that stands out is AIPAC. I can see why John F Kennedy, and his brother Robert wanted the American Zionist Council to register as a foreign agent. When that happened, they just replaced it with AIPAC, who still haven't been made to register as a foreign agent, and aren't likely to. Pro-Israeli Sheldon Adelson was the biggest Republican donor in 2012, and he called for America to nuke Iran. Now we have GOP's candidates in 2016, already meeting him.

It's so sad that people like myself, now view America as the worlds biggest warmongering nation. I used to think America wanting to take over the world as the stuff of conspiracy theorists. But when you see the goverment sticking their noses into the affairs of nearly every country in the world, I've totally changed my mind. They are out of control.

I even watched an Australian documentary not so long ago, where reporters went around and asked America's questions about the rest of the world. Many didn't even know where countries were on the map. It's madness. I blame main-stream media propaganda. If I watch Fox News, I get dizzy. I even had Fox News on with someone who never watched it before, and straight away they said to me 'turn off that one sided, biased rubbish'. True story.

Jonny7

Conas wrote: »

I even had Fox News on with someone who never watched it before, and straight away they said to me 'turn off that one sided, biased rubbish'. True story.

That's because it's a biased station and the average age of a Fox news viewer is 60-something

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Yet in the same breath complain about the power of money in swinging regulation and legislation in favour of special interests that you are not ideologically sympathetic to. Do you only complain therefore when it swings not in your favour but favour it when it does? Therein lies the problem of American politics.

I'd be a hell of a lot more happy if no one was allowed buy influence, be it union or corporation. I am not happy with the current situation, but see the influence of unions as a positive force in the current paradigm.

It makes me happy when things change in a direction I like. Terrible isn't it?

Unions good, Corporations bad,…. regulations….. b-b-b-better? Do I have that one right?

In general, but as with everything it depends.

The South is the new power house of American auto industry and has been before the GFC. This is because in union dominated states like Michigan one is mandated (yes forced by law) to be a member of a union and pay for that 'privilege' in order to take up a job in said industry. This is one of the most authoritarian pieces of labour legislation's in the western world. Why should the state force anyone to join a group and pay to be a member if they do not wish to do so if they don't want to?


Some history.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_the_United_States#1990s_and_2000s

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00107-the-south-rises-again-in-automobile-manufacturing

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2008/12/big_three_meet_the_little_eight.html


http://wardsauto.com/politics/new-michigan-law-swings-vehicle-production-right-work-states


This one is an interesting read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/16/the-uaw-having-stripped-detroit-bare-looks-to-the-south/



One of the main reasons why the Auto industry is booming in the south is become of the right to work laws. Now even Michigan has seen the light and has enacted similar laws in an effort to protect what is left of the auto industry there

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21568430-anti-union-legislation-home-car-industry-now-michigan



Still the unions are not happy and are trying to get their hands on the new auto industry in the south but the workers are wise to their tricks it seems. They want to keep their own industry strong.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/21/us-vw-uaw-tennessee-idUSBREA3K0GG20140421



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-15/us-organized-labor-humiliated-after-volkwsagens-tennessee-workers-vote-against-union

So, yes there is strong evidence to suggest that unions destroyed the auto industry in Detroit.

As for inner city public schools, well have a look at the history of 'No child left behind' (unions against it), school vouchers (unions against it) and the documentary called 'Waiting for Superman'.

Loads of links to opinions you agree with, I haven't the energy to refute every one of them. So I suppose you win.

You want to increase the influence of government in the economy yet you are unhappy with special interests running they country. Seriously, step back and think about that for a minute. So, yes its youthful naivety.

I've stepped back, looked at it and it's not what I said.

sin_city

Unions demanding higher wages in the Australian auto industry have forced the manufacturers to leave the country altogether due to the cost of labour.

Is this the direction you like?

jank

Brian? wrote: »

I'd be a hell of a lot more happy if no one was allowed buy influence, be it union or corporation. I am not happy with the current situation, but see the influence of unions as a positive force in the current paradigm.

So you would be 'More' happy if nobody could buy influence but accept the status quo so play the game and back a side. Hmmmm... You mentioned earlier you were aspirational for more government control. Well that you are not, you are more pragmatic than you think. It is those of a libertarian world view that are actually aspirational. However, if you are 'more' happy if nobody had influence than surely we should be of the same mindset and call out BOTH unions, special interests and corporations influence with government.

Brian? wrote: »

Loads of links to opinions you agree with, I haven't the energy to refute every one of them. So I suppose you win.

In fairness, its more than mere opinion (the economist article for example) and is stating the facts on the ground regarding the American auto industry and its relationship to unions and its dissadvantages.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Unions demanding higher wages in the Australian auto industry have forced the manufacturers to leave the country altogether due to the cost of labour.

Is this the direction you like?

I love that it's the unions fault here and not the corporations.

It's the employees fault for being greedy and looking for better working conditions.

The corporations have no choice to up sticks and move somewhere cheaper? The need to keep the wolf from the door? The poor souls.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

So you would be 'More' happy if nobody could buy influence but accept the status quo so play the game and back a side. Hmmmm... You mentioned earlier you were aspirational for more government control. Well that you are not, you are more pragmatic than you think. It is those of a libertarian world view that are actually aspirational.

That's nonsense. We can both be aspirational you know? We aspire to very different things. I can also be pragmatic at the same time, having the brain capacity for more than one idea.

However, if you are 'more' happy if nobody had influence than surely we should be of the same mindset and call out BOTH unions, special interests and corporations influence with government.

Call out how? This is a debate forum. Unions were being attacked and I defended them as I felt was right.

I haven't been making the point that unions should be allowed buy influence. I've been defending their actions within the current paradigm.

In fairness, its more than mere opinion (the economist article for example) and is stating the facts on the ground regarding the American auto industry and its relationship to unions and its dissadvantages.

I'll digest and respond later.

InTheTrees

Which auto manufacturers have left Australia?

Scofflaw

Out of interest, how many people actually read the paper referenced in the OP?

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Out of interest, how many people actually read the paper referenced in the OP?

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

cordially,
Scofflaw

Does watching their Daily show interview count?

Although I'm reading another interesting source, The Unwinding by George Packer, which has a similar central thesis.

Amerika

Scofflaw wrote: »

Out of interest, how many people actually read the paper referenced in the OP?

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well some of have tried. Does that count? But it doesn’t take a boring paper capable of being understood by about 5% (at most) of the population to realize the economic and business elites who are connected into the political scene control our government policy for the most part, and the average citizen has little, if any, influence because they choose not to, regardless of how they feel and their self-interest.

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

Which auto manufacturers have left Australia?

Ford, Toyota and GM(Holden) have announced they will be leaving Australia in 2016 and 2017.

eire4

An interesting article that contends that the US is indeed no longer a democracy and is in fact an Oligarchy.






A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is:

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.

The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:

Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater.

Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied.


What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell.

FISMA

eire4 wrote: »

To put it short: The United States is no democracy...

When was it supposed to be a democracy?

Brian?

FISMA wrote: »

When was it supposed to be a democracy?

Go on.......


The USA has never been a true democracy. Senators from Alaska and California have the same political influence despite the huge disparity in votes it takes to win each seat.

The house is far more democratic but it's destroyed by the election cycle being so short. Members of the house are constantly campaigning.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

Go on.......


The USA has never been a true democracy. Senators from Alaska and California have the same political influence despite the huge disparity in votes it takes to win each seat.

The house is far more democratic but it's destroyed by the election cycle being so short. Members of the house are constantly campaigning.

The fact that senators from tiny population states like say Wyoming or Maine have the same political say as the senators from California or Texas is a very valid point. I agree with you about the constant campaigning of the house members as well.


Both very valid points.

eire4

FISMA wrote: »

When was it supposed to be a democracy?

Can you elaborate on the point your trying to make there? I am genuinely not sure exactly where your going with that.

FISMA

eire4 wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the point your trying to make there? I am genuinely not sure exactly where your going with that.

Surely, you understand that the United States of America is a republic and not a democracy and the differences therein.

eire4

FISMA wrote: »

Surely, you understand that the United States of America is a republic and not a democracy and the differences therein.

I am merely interested in the points your looking to make and was looking for you to elaborate.

Brian?

FISMA wrote: »

Surely, you understand that the United States of America is a republic and not a democracy and the differences therein.

The US is a democratic republic as the constitution can be changed by the government. That's my understanding anyway.

FISMA

eire4 wrote: »

I would say Democracy is struggling to stay afloat in America...

eire4 wrote: »

An interesting article that contends that the US is indeed no longer a democracy...

eire4 wrote: »

I am merely interested in the points your looking to make and was looking for you to elaborate.

The premise of your statement is wrong. Generally speaking, that does not bode well for the conclusion.

Personally speaking, I would not continue to read a paper in which the author was so fundamentally wrong. When an author is that ignorant of the fundamentals, how likely are their conclusions to be valid?

Would you not agree?

If you picked up a paper that started with a statement saying that "the moon in fact is not made up a cheese, but matter called lmnop's..." Aside from wanting a good laugh, would you continue reading?

That was my opinion of the source you cited and your original quote. If you fundamentally do not understand that the US is a republic, that went out of its way to avoid democracy, I would question the ability to draw a valid conclusion.

Brian? wrote: »

The US is a democratic republic

Like the People's Democratic Public of Korea or the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

You are fundamentally mistaken here Brian?. This topic is well covered in American history and the founding fathers clearly were against a democracy and in favor of a republic.

A good basic book of American history would help. If you do not have time you should read the Federalist papers (#10 and 63). They will give you good insight in to what the founding fathers were thinking at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

Hope I did not come off to harsh lads, not my intention. The two systems may appear close, however, in reality, are very different.