Whiny Rich People

[bloodyminded]

Money is not the only type of Power, but it remains the most effective. The moneyed classes get away with crimes that others don't, they have a disproportionate influence on domestic policies, and they are the primary influence on foreign policies.

The ongoing effort, before and now, is to enrich a small number of people at the expense of the world's poor. This is considered merely rational. And, in a psychopathic way, it may well BE rational. (On the other hand, serious unrest can be so fomented, causing problems for the world's Owners.)

That's why North American officials can talk, with straight faces, about the need to protect our resources in, say, Latin America.

OUR resources! Of which other people have committed the great insult of living upon.

There are independent movements that occur, which seek to protect the lives and livelihood of the poor majority. In the manner of an ancient discourse, this is considered to be "radical" and "irrational." That's because the rights of the wealthy minority are enshrined in malleable laws, so that wealth retention, wealth enhancement, and wealth opportunities are easy pickings for those with means. Meanwhile, the poor (ie. most of the Earth), cannot massage these laws into a desired shape in the same way, because they lack the power of propaganda, of finance, of media, government, and military.

So powerful are the rich that they don't much NEED to whine; which is why I added the crucial subtitle, which more accurately reflects the systemic whining that goes on: not so much OF the rich, as FOR them. The ideologues do a wonderful job of whining about how life is so unfair for the rich...even as they grow richer. The shrieking sycophants whine about the rotten poor--who, democratically, should own and run the earth. And these sycophants waste no words in informing us about the nobility and magnificence of the wealthy and powerful people who run virtually everything.

As Thomas Friedman wrote:

For globalization to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is. The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15, and the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technology is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

And note: this is not a radical critique; this is mainstream political economy, applauded by the very person writing the words. But it does tell us that the radical critiques are mostly correct. The only substantive difference between Noam Chomsky's and Thomas Friedman's view on this matter is that Friedman nods approvingly, thinking it a great plus.

[Shwa]

If not money, then what?

[bloodyminded]

If not money, then what?

Prestige, accolades, ego, the politics of power itself.

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bugs]

Money is not the only type of Power, but it remains the most effective. The moneyed classes get away with crimes that others don't, they have a disproportionate influence on domestic policies, and they are the primary influence on foreign policies.

Just wondering ... do you have a single example? What rich person has caused a war?

The ongoing effort, before and now, is to enrich a small number of people at the expense of the world's poor. This is considered merely rational. And, in a psychopathic way, it may well BE rational. (On the other hand, serious unrest can be so fomented, causing problems for the world's Owners.)

What effort? The economy does not work on the basis of taking money from the poor, and giving it to the rich. If offers handsome wages to entice people to work.

That's why North American officials can talk, with straight faces, about the need to protect our resources in, say, Latin America.

OUR resources! Of which other people have committed the great insult of living upon.

I can't remember this happening, either. What are you going on about?

There are independent movements that occur, which seek to protect the lives and livelihood of the poor majority. In the manner of an ancient discourse, this is considered to be "radical" and "irrational." That's because the rights of the wealthy minority are enshrined in malleable laws, so that wealth retention, wealth enhancement, and wealth opportunities are easy pickings for those with means. Meanwhile, the poor (ie. most of the Earth), cannot massage these laws into a desired shape in the same way, because they lack the power of propaganda, of finance, of media, government, and military.

Does this have any reference to reality, to what is going on now? Any? Whatever? Or have you just come out of Avatar, and haven't switched the willing suspension of disbelief to "off" yet? What fairyland does your mind occupy. Robocop is not a description of reality.

So powerful are the rich that they don't much NEED to whine; which is why I added the crucial subtitle, which more accurately reflects the systemic whining that goes on: not so much OF the rich, as FOR them. The ideologues do a wonderful job of whining about how life is so unfair for the rich...even as they grow richer. The shrieking sycophants whine about the rotten poor--who, democratically, should own and run the earth. And these sycophants waste no words in informing us about the nobility and magnificence of the wealthy and powerful people who run virtually everything.

Well, give us an example. Exactly who are you talking about? The shrieking I hear comes from other sources. The ideologists I hear are talking about proroguing, and the threat to Democracy ... (didja know Pierre Trudeau did it 11 tiimes in 16 years?) ... or about what nasty people are troops are ...

There are actual real things to criticize about the world ... you don't have to make them up.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Bugs

[bloodyminded]

Just wondering ... do you have a single example? What rich person has caused a war?

I'm afraid i don't believe this is a serious question.

But just in case, let me explain: I'm not talking about some rich person who starts wars. I'm talking about an institutionalized process by which war is generally related to the enhancement of corporate and investor wealth. It doesn't mean every corporation and investor will do well, either; but some will. It's the edifice of wealth, power and prestige that's important...more important than the majority of human beings, in fact. "A" rich person is not the point.

What effort? The economy does not work on the basis of taking money from the poor, and giving it to the rich. If offers handsome wages to entice people to work.

What the hell are you talking about? The primary purpose of making wealth moveable and setting up sweatshops and so on is so that the wages don't have to be "handsome."

Hell, even my brief term at Walmart cannot be considerd to have allowed me "handsome wages." And that's in North America. As for the bulk of the world, wages tend to be very low for the overwhelming majority.

Did you honestly not know this? I find it difficult to believe.

I can't remember this happening, either. What are you going on about?

I'm "going on about" George Kennan, whose "wisdom" had had a crucial effect on US (and therefore global) policy which continues, and who said that "harsh measures" were necessary for "protection of our resources"...in Latin America, and in the Middle East.

"Our" resources. Which, unfortunately, other people tend to be living upon.

I'm "going on about" how Irving Kristol believed the same thing, opining that "insigificant people"--citizens of poor countries is to whom he was referring--have illusions about their own rights to their resources, which more correctly belong to those with the biggest guns. Namely, the wealthy North. Biggest guns means wiser and more just, in the world of right-wing lunatics.

Or are these too long ago? Ok...we had Paul Wolfowitz claiming that "investment catastrophes" awaited anyone supporting East Timorese independence over the genocidal Suharto dictatorship. So ok, we'll support the genocidal dictatorship, because rich investors are more important than East Timorese lives.

Or Bill Clinton's official doctrine, that the United States has the unilateral right to use military force to protect markets and resources.

This was what Thomas Friedman was "going on about" as well, in the quote I provided. That's a pro-"free market" [sic], pro-capitalist, pro-militarist voice.

It's with Friedman (both of 'em: Thomas and Milton), Clinton, Wolfowitz, Kennan, and Kristol that you have an argument.

Does this have any reference to reality, to what is going on now? Any? Whatever? Or have you just come out of Avatar, and haven't switched the willing suspension of disbelief to "off" yet?

I haven't seen Azatar.

What fairyland does your mind occupy.

Evidently the same one as the most famous policymakers, conservative economists, presidents, conservative ambassadors, pro-Western pundits and conservative thinkers.

Our only point of difference is that I find it objectionable, and they do not. But the facts are strictly identical.

Robocop is not a description of reality.

Neither is free-market fundamentalist propaganda, produced as it is by socialists bent on subsidies and war profiteering. And those who defend them are mere ideologues intrigued by worship of the rich, so they can't be taken seriously.

There are actual real things to criticize about the world ... you don't have to make them up.

And again, take it up with the sources I have cited....all of them influential to some degree, some profoundly so, and all of them supportive of military might proteting minority wealthy interests against the interests of the poor majority.

Hell, just read Thomas Friedman's quote again. It's right there in my opening post. It could scarcely be more clear.

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Just wondering ... do you have a single example? What rich person has caused a war?

It's much bigger than just one person.

The two axial principles of our age—tribalism and globalism—clash at every point except one: they may both be threatening to democracy.

Jihad vs McWorld

[bloodyminded]

That's an interesting article, eyeball. I'd heard the term, but have never read this.

[Moonbox]

Neither is free-market fundamentalist propaganda, produced as it is by socialists bent on subsidies and war profiteering. And those who defend them are mere ideologues intrigued by worship of the rich, so they can't be taken seriously.

So...the free-market fundamentalists are in cahoots with the socialists. Scary....

[eyeball]

So...the free-market fundamentalists are in cahoots with the socialists. Scary....

Yes, it is a little scary now that these fundamentalists are climbing into bed with China.

[Oleg Bach]

Everybody will poop their pants on their death bed, rich and poor and all will whine.

[Michael Hardner]

And hopefully we will remember this great thread.

[Shwa]

It's much bigger than just one person.

a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe

LOL! A "Lebanonization." LOFL! Funny that the only outcome of tribalization is conflict, all against all, nasty, brutish and short lives. And, of course, our only recourse is Leviathan. We're doomed! Doomed I tells ya! Dooooooooooommmmmed!

Wait a minute. No we're not.

I wonder if the schmucks ever pondering the modern organization of the world using the word "tribalization" have ever looked at anthropology long enough to see the word moiety. I bet not. Oh well, more hyperbolic metaphor like Lebanonization.

[Shwa]

Prestige, accolades, ego, the politics of power itself.

Bloodyminded, you started with this:

Money is not the only type of Power, but it remains the most effective.

This is presuming that the good folks of the world have already tried prestige, accolades, ego, the politics of power itself and found it wanting in the 'effective' category. Thus I ask, if not money as the most effective type of Power, than what else. That is, what other forms of Power can be elevated as an alternative to money?

[Oleg Bach]

And hopefully we will remember this great thread.

People forget they are all vulnerable and human. Whether it is the top or bottom of the power heap- it ends the same for all and the game played in the middle regarding wealth and status will not matter much..it would be nice to get rid of material ego..a person is more that what stuff they own or who they imagine they control.

[bloodyminded]

Bloodyminded, you started with this:

This is presuming that the good folks of the world have already tried prestige, accolades, ego, the politics of power itself and found it wanting in the 'effective' category. Thus I ask, if not money as the most effective type of Power, than what else. That is, what other forms of Power can be elevated as an alternative to money?

with all due respect, I don't know what you're getting at. It is not an either/or equation: this type of power or that one.. And I posited that money IS the most effective type of power.

Edited February 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

Imagine if he rich people did not quietly whine..there would have been no bailouts and our social,cast and finacial system would have collapsed and maybe some poor smart people would have had the chance to fix the institutions that were destroyed by the overly privledged and inept rich people.

[Michael Hardner]

Imagine if he rich people did not quietly whine..there would have been no bailouts and our social,cast and finacial system would have collapsed and maybe some poor smart people would have had the chance to fix the institutions that were destroyed by the overly privledged and inept rich people.

The lower- and middle-classes whined in the mid 20th century in America and we had a quiet revolution of tax increases, coupled with investment in infrastructure and social programs without a single drop of bourgeois blood being spilled.

The rich whined, but didn't start making headway until they figured out how to make the lower- and middle-classes actually empathize with them.

[Oleg Bach]

The lower- and middle-classes whined in the mid 20th century in America and we had a quiet revolution of tax increases, coupled with investment in infrastructure and social programs without a single drop of bourgeois blood being spilled.

The rich whined, but didn't start making headway until they figured out how to make the lower- and middle-classes actually empathize with them.

Sympathy or sympathos-- means to suffer together..empathy is not sympathy--it is to be in the other persons skin and look out of their eyes--the rich had no sympathy for those that made them rich..so I don't understand why we have granted them empathy...which is impossible- they would have to be honest in order for us to understand them..they are not that open- riches are held in a trust of secrecy..They will never tell us what they really think...It is like confessing to the village priest..He knows all about everybody and no one knows about him- it will always be a power imbalance- the rich are liars- just like the poor.

[Michael Hardner]

Sympathy or sympathos-- means to suffer together..empathy is not sympathy--it is to be in the other persons skin and look out of their eyes--the rich had no sympathy for those that made them rich..so I don't understand why we have granted them empathy...which is impossible- they would have to be honest in order for us to understand them..they are not that open- riches are held in a trust of secrecy..They will never tell us what they really think...It is like confessing to the village priest..He knows all about everybody and no one knows about him- it will always be a power imbalance- the rich are liars- just like the poor.

They purchased the best actors, writers and TV stars to make us think they were the same as us. They even got an actor elected president around that time. In Texas, they have a candidated named Debra Medina who is up to 20% in the polls. Her angle is that she will eliminate property tax and raise sales tax to 16%.

[Oleg Bach]

They purchased the best actors, writers and TV stars to make us think they were the same as us. They even got an actor elected president around that time. In Texas, they have a candidated named Debra Medina who is up to 20% in the polls. Her angle is that she will eliminate property tax and raise sales tax to 16%.

When I was assisting decorating Belinda Stronachs house along with the home of one of their executives- I noticed that these people bought talent- bought brains...even their cutlery and bed sheets had to be scrutinized by the designer first--- one mistress of the big boss was thrilled that she actually chose the clour for a kids guest room...wow..I thought..when you are super rich you can maintain success buy admitting you are stupid and hire the smart people.

[Shwa]

with all due respect, I don't know what you're getting at. It is not an either/or equation: this type of power or that one.. And I posited that money IS the most effective type of power.

Then perhaps it is that the message is in the medium.

I see you providing a critique, but not offering any other alternative to the problem so I ask: if not money, then what else? It seems that you are equating amounts of money with wealth, power, resources, means, the poor and so on. Radical critique or mainstream matter of fact, it comes down to money and I would say - on the face of it - unless there is another form of exchange, we might as well criticize trees for being green in the summer.

On the other hand, I was wondering what you were getting at or were you just providing a balance to the 'whiny poor people' thread?

[bloodyminded]

Then perhaps it is that the message is in the medium.

I see you providing a critique, but not offering any other alternative to the problem

Sure, if you're sufficiently indoctrinated.

For godzilla's sake, the alternative is intrinsic to the critique itself.

If people deem it unaaceptable for mere wealth to give people political power...and if it's thought unacceptable for institutions--up to and including war--to be run as private bank accounts..then it stops.

- on the face of it - unless there is another form of exchange, we might as well criticize trees for being green in the summer.

right. there's no agency. The rich can't help ruling the world, making gains off of the majority's losses. They've victims of...the system!....which they own and run.

Just like trees being green.

On the other hand, I was wondering what you were getting at or were you just providing a balance to the 'whiny poor people' thread?

That too...easy enough, since it is a hate-filled diatribe bloated with masturbatory nonsense.

Edited February 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

Money money money money- makes the world go round. I suggested bribing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago. It would have been cheaper in the long run than waging war...but military contractors..political types would have less to do and peace is not profitable..so the whiny rich insisted that we protect democracy..fulfill contractual obligations..and continue to keep them rich while we salute corpses form some dismal highway over pass while curious coroners in Toronto get to examine young people with their asses blown off..it all makes for great fun for the whiny and board rich.

[Shwa]

Sure, if you're sufficiently indoctrinated.

Are we not? Unless you are making your living strictly through underground means, then you are a direct participant in the system you abhor. That must be difficult, but not impossible.

For godzilla's sake, the alternative is intrinsic to the critique itself.

Please enlighten me:

If people deem it unaaceptable for mere wealth to give people political power...and if it's thought unacceptable for institutions--up to and including war--to be run as private bank accounts..then it stops.

I am not sure all of that is true. For instance, not all wealthy people incline towards public political power, some of them are quite happy within the limited domain of their company. And, other than the banking system, what other institutions are run as "private bank accounts?" The problem here is that it is difficult for anyone to stop something that can only be conveyed to them in very abstract terms in which they lack access to the full experience of the concept.

I get that you want a prohibition, but a prohibition of what exactly? Now, at this point I would revise the proposition that money is the most effective means of power to say that credit is the most effective means of power and usury is it's henchman. Or something like that.

The rich can't help ruling the world, making gains off of the majority's losses. They've victims of...the system!....which they own and run.

But... hasn't this always been the case in the history of Western Civilization? Sure there have been little pockets of alternative experience here and there for brief periods of time, but what do the history books teach us? What do the universities implore? Are there not degrees? Are there no baccalaureates? Because there is no victimology required since most of what "they" do is by volunteering. And is that not true of yourself? Instead of "majority's losses" how about phrasing that as what the 'majority freely gives?'

Lookit, I am not trying to be cynical. But I believe that unless a full realization of the nature of the system is on hand, very little can be done to change it in people's minds. Perhaps it is satisfying to throw up a sign at a Gn protest, smash a storefront window, or write a heated letter to the editor - these things might assuage the guilt of complicity for some for a little while, but for others, there has to be an answer somewhere does there not? What is it?

[bloodyminded]

Are we not? Unless you are making your living strictly through underground means, then you are a direct participant in the system you abhor. That must be difficult, but not impossible.

I don't abhor the system entire. I abhor the facts which you freely concede are the facts.

I am not sure all of that is true. For instance, not all wealthy people incline towards public political power, some of them are quite happy within the limited domain of their company.

Of course. I never suggested otherwise. We're talking about institutional tendencies, not "rich people are evil."

And, other than the banking system, what other institutions are run as "private bank accounts?"

The military-industrial complex, if I may use the term which people often scoff at even as it's incontestably real.

Large-scale resource investors in third-world countries, who have the IMF and the World Bank as their free enforcers.

Any corporation that funds the sort of influential "think tanks" [sic] because the tt's, who have real-time influence in government policy, are ideologically aligned with their interests, specifically in matters such as war and "austerity measures," for example of the type that almsot ruined Argentina for the express purpose of enriching foreign and Argentinian miunority financial interests.

Hell, if it weren't for Big Business and the serious foreign investment interests, our newspapers would not be publically inflaming opinion against Hugo Chavez as we speak, up to the point of inventing controversies. (This is totally aside from any real problems about Chavez, I hasten to add; I'm not personally an admirer. I say this to avoid the anticipated misdirections of the point I'm trying to make here.)

And it's not that the NYTimes and Washington Post and Globe and Mail and The Economist magazine are actively and intentionally performing in this reprehensible manner; it's that they are doctrinal forms of media that very naturally align themselves with Western interests of Power and Wealth.

The problem here is that it is difficult for anyone to stop something that can only be conveyed to them in very abstract terms in which they lack access to the full experience of the concept.

It is difficult. But it would appear people generally have a sense of it. When the Left rails agaisnt George Bush, they have merely oversimplified a systemic problem. But they know it's there. When working-class conservatives think that "the liberal elite" is the cause of their economic woes, they are on to somehting, but have been misdirected by elites generally, not just liberals.

But... hasn't this always been the case in the history of Western Civilization? Sure there have been little pockets of alternative experience here and there for brief periods of time, but what do the history books teach us? What do the universities implore? Are there not degrees? Are there no baccalaureates? Because there is no victimology required since most of what "they" do is by volunteering. And is that not true of yourself? Instead of "majority's losses" how about phrasing that as what the 'majority freely gives?'

First of all, i believe we're at a point in history where voices can be heard in a way that they never could before.

Second, the "majority freely gives" arguably applies in certain societies. But not globally. Usually, it is taken from them.

Lookit, I am not trying to be cynical.

I think you're being rational, not cynical.

But I believe that unless a full realization of the nature of the system is on hand, very little can be done to change it in people's minds. Perhaps it is satisfying to throw up a sign at a Gn protest, smash a storefront window, or write a heated letter to the editor - these things might assuage the guilt of complicity for some for a little while, but for others, there has to be an answer somewhere does there not? What is it?

I'm not sure you're wrong; it's a real problem. But protesting, both physically and in print, has had monumental effects upon society. The Civil rights movement, for example. Women's rights, the effects of which are profound. The fact that Western powers cannot now fly into a nation and slaughter millions of people; now they need to assuage the public with notions of "keeping cvilian deaths to a minimum"--something of a falsehood (since "minimum" must ultimately have a meaning beyond the platitudinous), but displaying a sea-change in public and political expectation after all.

None of these things were handed down to us from powerful people and institutions; they were taken from power by the people. Largely in a matter of decades.