Is the United States a Plutocracy?

Plutocracy:

No

.

.

konvikt_17

No

lostrib

Not yet, but we're heading down that road.

:lol: Dude Pluto isn't even a planet anymore!

:lol: Dude Pluto isn't even a planet anymore!

cain006

Of course it is, sadly.

More like a mediocracy that just so happens to make my point and be a pun at the same time. I'm not talking about a group of me mediocre people (even though people in the media meet this criteria) but a nation run more by the media. Look at Barrack Obama's first presidential election. At the start he was completely unknown and lost early races. However once the media grabbed a hold of him he had the election pretty much in the bag. The whole Zimmerman trial also shows this. Whatever the media latches onto the general public agrees with. Whether politics or real life stories. I'm not saying that we actually are run by the media but it's more likely then rich overlords running the show. ferrari2001

nope.  Its actually a pretty good mutually beneficial relationship most of the time.  

That is not to say a lot we don't have our share of problems with wealth distribution and a large population at or under the poverty level, though.  

But generally if you work hard, you are rewarded.  Something a lot of the world seems to forget as they sacrifice 70% of their income and, not surprisingly, their populations lose all motivation to do anything.

[QUOTE="cain006"]

:lol: Dude Pluto isn't even a planet anymore!

ferrari2001

that makes me sad

I still think of it as a planet, even though it is not.  

nope.  Its actually a pretty good mutually beneficial relationship most of the time.  

That is not to say a lot we don't have our share of problems with wealth distribution and a large population at or under the poverty level, though.  

But generally if you work hard, you are rewarded.  Something a lot of the world seems to forget as they sacrifice 70% of their income and, not surprisingly, their populations lose all motivation to do anything.

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

nope.  Its actually a pretty good mutually beneficial relationship most of the time.  

That is not to say a lot we don't have our share of problems with wealth distribution and a large population at or under the poverty level, though.  

But generally if you work hard, you are rewarded.  Something a lot of the world seems to forget as they sacrifice 70% of their income and, not surprisingly, their populations lose all motivation to do anything.

hiphops_savior

yeah, shit happens man.  It happens everywhere though.  To tell you the truth though, I've been dicked over more times by peers than I have been by supervisors or bosses.

You have to play the game, and just be smart about where you work.  

Want to work the cubicle job where they offered you an extra 10k? Prepare to be miserable and dicked over.

Want to work at the mom and pop place? Prepare for excellent job satisfaction and flexibility, but not a lot of pay.

Either way, while the decisions of others might yield immediate negative results, the hard work you put in yields excellent results now and in the long term.

it's on the fence of one

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]More like a mediocracy that just so happens to make my point and be a pun at the same time. I'm not talking about a group of me mediocre people (even though people in the media meet this criteria) but a nation run more by the media. Look at Barrack Obama's first presidential election. At the start he was completely unknown and lost early races. However once the media grabbed a hold of him he had the election pretty much in the bag. The whole Zimmerman trial also shows this. Whatever the media latches onto the general public agrees with. Whether politics or real life stories. I'm not saying that we actually are run by the media but it's more likely then rich overlords running the show. hiphops_savior

I don't know. But it's a garbage country that's for sure.themajormayor

Let's just keep it with this and the topic is taken care of. 

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]I don't know. But it's a garbage country that's for sure.destinhpark

Let's just keep it with this and the topic is taken care of. 

haters gonna hat---

naw that is too easy.

Yes, but most countries are really thinly disguised plutocracies when you get down to it.  Wealth, influence and power will always go hand-in-hand.

Authoritarian plutocracy, yes. It's what all democracies become as government expands, with wealth being the only avenue of becoming a meaningful actor in it.

Sometimes it's like a plutocracy. Sometimes it's like a ptochocracy. More often the former than the latter.

Sometimes it's like a plutocracy. Sometimes it's like a ptochocracy. More often the former than the latter.

m0zart

and sometimes, on rare occasions, its a potatocracy!

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

Sometimes it's like a plutocracy. Sometimes it's like a ptochocracy. More often the former than the latter.

mrbojangles25

and sometimes, on rare occasions, its a potatocracy!

I believe that applies to both sides: those who eat too many, and those who are stuck in a potato famine. I'd guess we're a potatocracy 100% of the time.

With the amount of influence money has on winning elections I would say that many parts of are plutocratic in a sense. Corporations are people too!!!HoolaHoopMan

I just think it is funny, though, because theyre buying favors, not votes.  They are essentially making a bet on a candidate.  Sure, money buys ads and all that jazz, but the people still decide, and they will (hopefully) decide on factors such as various policies, qualities, and more.

If the candidate wins, then the rich cash in.  They're not paying to put a president in power, they're betting on their guy to win.

I still think it is wrong, though, just not as sinister as people think it is.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]With the amount of influence money has on winning elections I would say that many parts of are plutocratic in a sense. Corporations are people too!!!mrbojangles25

I just think it is funny, though, because theyre buying favors, not votes.  They are essentially making a bet on a candidate.  Sure, money buys ads and all that jazz, but the people still decide, and they will (hopefully) decide on factors such as various policies, qualities, and more.

If the candidate wins, then the rich cash in.  They're not paying to put a president in power, they're betting on their guy to win.

I still think it is wrong, though, just not as sinister as people think it is.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]With the amount of influence money has on winning elections I would say that many parts of are plutocratic in a sense. Corporations are people too!!!HoolaHoopMan

I just think it is funny, though, because theyre buying favors, not votes.  They are essentially making a bet on a candidate.  Sure, money buys ads and all that jazz, but the people still decide, and they will (hopefully) decide on factors such as various policies, qualities, and more.

If the candidate wins, then the rich cash in.  They're not paying to put a president in power, they're betting on their guy to win.

I still think it is wrong, though, just not as sinister as people think it is.

ah yes, media.  Forgot about that part.

Nope. The stalling of immigration reform is pretty good proof of that. If the entire U.S. corporate world throwing their backs behind that couldn't budge it, then there's no way that the U.S. political system could be controlled by them when they're normally a lot more divided.

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

nope.  Its actually a pretty good mutually beneficial relationship most of the time.  

That is not to say a lot we don't have our share of problems with wealth distribution and a large population at or under the poverty level, though.  

But generally if you work hard, you are rewarded.  Something a lot of the world seems to forget as they sacrifice 70% of their income and, not surprisingly, their populations lose all motivation to do anything.

mrbojangles25

yeah, shit happens man.  It happens everywhere though.  To tell you the truth though, I've been dicked over more times by peers than I have been by supervisors or bosses.

You have to play the game, and just be smart about where you work.  

Want to work the cubicle job where they offered you an extra 10k? Prepare to be miserable and dicked over.

Want to work at the mom and pop place? Prepare for excellent job satisfaction and flexibility, but not a lot of pay.

Either way, while the decisions of others might yield immediate negative results, the hard work you put in yields excellent results now and in the long term.

Amen, statistics showing increased productivity and stagnant wages be damned.

EDIT:

Mmm, that hard work paying off big time.

Yes why didn't we let all the banks fail then.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]With the amount of influence money has on winning elections I would say that many parts of are plutocratic in a sense. Corporations are people too!!!HoolaHoopMan

I just think it is funny, though, because theyre buying favors, not votes.  They are essentially making a bet on a candidate.  Sure, money buys ads and all that jazz, but the people still decide, and they will (hopefully) decide on factors such as various policies, qualities, and more.

If the candidate wins, then the rich cash in.  They're not paying to put a president in power, they're betting on their guy to win.

I still think it is wrong, though, just not as sinister as people think it is.

The influence of ads is actually fairly minimal.

While there are very powerful interests, this is actually a REALLY good example.

Nope. The stalling of immigration reform is pretty good proof of that. If the entire U.S. corporate world throwing their backs behind that couldn't budge it, then there's no way that the U.S. political system could be controlled by them when they're normally a lot more divided.

 Barbariser

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

Sometimes it's like a plutocracy. Sometimes it's like a ptochocracy. More often the former than the latter.

mrbojangles25

and sometimes, on rare occasions, its a potatocracy!

the government can count to potato, that's for sure

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

I just think it is funny, though, because theyre buying favors, not votes.  They are essentially making a bet on a candidate.  Sure, money buys ads and all that jazz, but the people still decide, and they will (hopefully) decide on factors such as various policies, qualities, and more.

If the candidate wins, then the rich cash in.  They're not paying to put a president in power, they're betting on their guy to win.

I still think it is wrong, though, just not as sinister as people think it is.

coolbeans90

The influence of ads is actually fairly minimal.

this is just me, but I've been alienated by ads more often than encouraged to vote for that person.

[QUOTE="cain006"]

:lol: Dude Pluto isn't even a planet anymore!

ferrari2001

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

I just think it is funny, though, because theyre buying favors, not votes.  They are essentially making a bet on a candidate.  Sure, money buys ads and all that jazz, but the people still decide, and they will (hopefully) decide on factors such as various policies, qualities, and more.

If the candidate wins, then the rich cash in.  They're not paying to put a president in power, they're betting on their guy to win.

I still think it is wrong, though, just not as sinister as people think it is.

coolbeans90

The influence of ads is actually fairly minimal.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] I'd say its more than a bet though. Coverage and ads do have influence on voters. In that sense more money means more ads, which then leads to more votes. The media, including ads, are exceptionally good at shaping public opinion to their own whims. HoolaHoopMan

The influence of ads is actually fairly minimal.

Ads basically drive name recognition - which I suppose does raise legitimate concerns regarding third parties, but not outcomes between the two big parties. Doubling an opponents campaign budget amounts to ~ 1% difference in the vote - and that is at all not a typical sort of financial disparity b/w Republicans and Democrats in close races.