|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 6, 2005 9:30:23 GMT -5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Oligarchy is a form of government where most political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek for "few" and "rule". Some political theorists have argued that all societies are inevitably oligarchies no matter the supposed political system.
Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to become inheritors of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those governed. In contrast to aristocracy ("government by the 'best'"), this power may not always be exercised openly, the oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne", exerting control through economic means. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged cadre. It has also been suggested that most communist states fit the definition of oligarchy.
A society may become an oligarchy by default as an outgrowth of the shifting alliances of warring tribal chieftans, although any form of government may transform into an oligarchy at some point in its evolution. The most likely mechanism for this transformation is a gradual accumulation of otherwise unchecked economic power. Oligarchies may also evolve into more classically authoritarian forms of government, sometimes as the result of one family gaining ascendancy over the others. Many of the European monarchies established during the late Middle Ages began in this way.
Large numbers of our Senators, Representatives and Governors are descendents of previous Senators, Representatives and Governors (I don't have time to go back and look it up, but there are about 70 such folk just in the Congress). The influence of inheritance and connection even has spread to the world of entertainment and sports. Even without those obvious examples, we all know that powerful people and families have more influence over our political and social lives than their individual being should provide them ... we also know that the folks "behind the scenes", whether they be of the left and right, are the ones who have been calling the shots since at least the Great Depresssion. This is why the rally cry of "power to the people", and the notion of grass-roots, bottom-up democracy is so frightening to those in power ... it can still serve as a counter and a check on the power of the oligarchy ... which is why it is belittled and has been allowed to become a cliche in the popular media (also controlled by the very same oligarchy).
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Feb 7, 2005 16:33:23 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All,
I am so jealous of all of you who got to go to Jamaica, maybe next year I can join you.
Scott,
Yes for all of our talk of democracy, our system of governmnet had degenerated into an oligarchy (thanks for the spelling) quite some time ago. When ONLY a rich person has the opportunity for direct participation in our government because a person of modest means simply does not have the resources (money) to be elected democracy is effectively over. For all the differences that our elected officials might have they all have one thing in common, they are all rich. Is it any wonder that the only agenda that seems to be addressed by our government is the agenda of the rich? When Jr talks about his base being the Haves and the Have Mores it might be the only time he told the truth. When a goverment or economic system has become so unbalanced in favor of the rich historically the only remedy has been revolution (see the history of Mexico). I hope we can be enlightened enough to avoid this horrible method of correction.
Again the Republicans are much more guilty of what they accuse the dems of being. We have had two record deficits in a row and the proposed budget will become the third. Who is the irresponsible big government party? How you can target so many social programs and still propose a record setting budget baffels the mind? If we are slashing poor people programs and still have record setting bugets where is all the money going? Is rich people welfare (see no bid contracts to Hallibuton et al) where our hard earned money is going? I haven't had the chance to investigate facts and figures yet but this is my suspicion. Also, the service on our national debt (I believe about a third of our budget already) is driving the deficits and is a much more immediate problem (not to mention a 4 year reccesion) than Social Security. Again, when Reagon took over the oval office the national debt was $800 billion dollars, Clinton reduced the deficit (granted only slightly) and now the deficit is approaching $8 Trillion dollars, and this does not count the $80 billion additional dollars that Jr wants for Iraq or the $2 Trillion to "fix" social security. Who ARE the irresponsible spenders?
Again the Republicans are arguing the part of an argument that is a given. Social Security needs to be fixed and no one disputes that. Clinton was the one who put this issue on the agenda. The question is HOW to fix it. If we injected $2 Trillion into the present system haw much longer would it be viable? If private investment is such a good idea, why don't we lift the restrictions on the Soc. Sec. Sys. itself to use thier funds for private investment? By the very nature of private investment there WILL BE winners and losers. What will we do with those people who reach retirement who have chosen badly or were swindled out of their retirement accounts? Put them on the welfare roles. What if people had put their retirement accouts in Enron or World Com stock? Enron and World Com are not the last companies that are going to go bust, its just the nature of the beast, for example, AOL has lost 75% of its value since buying Time Warner, what if all of your retirement was in their stock. Soc Sec is not an investment, it is designed to provide a minimum standard of living for our retired. My dad taught me to NEVER bet more than you can afford to lose and that is exactly what this misguided plan is. Also, never forget that a private investment ALWAYS starts out behind, they're called commisions and that is what this so-called fix is about, a muti-trillion dollar boost for the investment industry and has little or nothing to do with fixing Social Security. Commisions are why no one is talking about the Soc Sec admin being able to invest the funds themeselves, because they could set up their own mutual funds (whatever they're called) and avoid the commision that would have to be paid by individuals. Also, Soc Sec is the most midle class loaded tax on the books, since you "pay-out" at about $90,000 in annual income if you make more than that your percentage of income contributcion drops for every dollar you make after that. Why has Jr taken out of the discussion making the buy in for social security actually match the pay out ? (The audacity of his belief that he can always frame the debate is amazing in itself, the arrogant punk.) Why, because that would not suit his real agenda of another subsidy for the rich.
Jr's contention that the war in Iraq would not cost $200 billion is, I guess. not technically a lie. With the additional $80 billion he is requesting for Iraq we will be at about $300 billion (and building at a billion dollars a week). How many lies does this idiot have to tell before the American people wake up. Now I am impressed that Iraqis were willing to vote. But remember we were able to depose the Shah of Iran and what we got was one of the most repressive theocracies in the world. I wonder if Jr is going to like this election so much when it's tallied and it turns out that his hand picked PM is defeated by a man advocating a Moslem theocracy. That is what is happening by a (app.) 66% majority, now THAT'S a mandate. Is Jr. going to accept results he doesn't like? Have we killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis, 1400 American servicemen, and spent $300 billion for another country to become controlled by a nut case theocracy in the middle east?
One other rant, sorry. When one party says that we are great and don't need to be any better and another party says our country in great and this is our opportunity to be even better, who is being negative? When conservatives accuse the democrats of being negative because they say we can be even better than we already are, I want to choke the lieing b*stards. Are they so blind that they can't see that we can, IF we work at it, become the greatest and FAIREST (in both senses of the word) country the world has ever seen. Are they blind enough to think that we are already there? Rush you ARE a big fat idiot.
Scott would you post the address for the Wikipedia, this is the first I have heard of it.
I'm still jealous of all of you that got to go to Jamaica. I hope you have recovered from the sun, the rum, the great time, and whatever else you ingested in Jamaica. I swear I'm going to make it next year.
Peace j
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Feb 8, 2005 18:00:51 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All
Sorry to be going back to back here but I heard some figures late yesterday that I thought you might find interesting.
As you all know Jr wants to "reform" medical malpratice lawsuits. First, how is limiting the amount awarded in lawsuites going to limit the number of lawsuits. Next the need for reform is being pushed by Dr's, who claim they can't afford insurance and the insuance lobby of course. What they don't want you to know, and obviously aren't telling the drs., is that medical malpratice insurance companies recorded a 99.7 increase in PROFITS the year before last and a 60% increase in PROFITS last year. This is just another example of Jr trying to take POWER from another branch of government, by taking flexibility from judges, and stealing it for himself.
Peace j
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 8, 2005 19:00:03 GMT -5
Yep, we "reformed" medical malpractice lawsuits here in Tx a couple of yrs. ago and here are the results. 1) Insurance premiums have continued to rise, even for the Drs., and the Insurance Co's enjoy record profits with every new year, and now have basically no risk. 2) The quality of healthcare continues to plummet, and is "managed" by accountants, not Doctors. The "good compliant" Drs. are REWARDED for practicing medicine the accountants way, which has nothing to do with what they learned in Med School. (HMO's) 3) When a patient is damaged by a "good compliant" Dr. they now have very little to no recourse. I don't know about you guys, but I'm finding life in the grip of this CORPORATE PUPPET pretty damn scary. Of course, being in Texas (61% republican, and Dubya for Gov) I have a little more experiance than some of you. Integrity, Honesty, and Peace. Mike
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Feb 14, 2005 19:01:35 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All, Let's talk a little about Jr's proposed budget. Does it surprise anyone that it is severly slanted towards the rich. First did you know that there is an additional permanent tax cut for the rich. Yes if you make $1,000,000 per year you will recieve a tax cut that will put an additional $18,000 in your pocket. This tax cut in the same budget that will cut FOOD programs for poor children, cut money for education, cut money for the poor to attend college, cut money for food and drug safety (can you say drug lobby), and cut money for disease prevention. The largest increase in spending is for the defense department (almost 5%) and this does not include the additional $80 billion and the $60 billion right behind it for Iraq that Jr. is asking for. These are hidden in a suplimental spending bill so Jr. doesn't have to include it in the budget. The estimated $2 Trillion to fix Soc Sec is not lincluded either. Even without these hidden expenditures this budget will produce the third record setting yearly deficit in a row. This info is from the NY Times, www.nytimes.com, op ed page for 2/13/05. We have also have now set another dubious record. We had the largest trade deficit, both in actual dollars and percent of gnp, last year in our history. With more and more deficits this figure will undoubtably worsen as the dollar continues to drop like a rock in relation to other world currencies. We have gone from the dollar buying 1 euro for $.83 to $1.34 since Jr. took office. The recession has continued for over 4 years of Jr.'s tenure when is he going to take responsibility for this disaster. The latest unemployment figures went down slightly because more people lost their benefits than joined the job market and the White House tried to make this seem like a good thing. When no one has any unemploment benefits left will this mean that the unemployment rate is 0%. Yes, I know that both parties figure the umeployment rate this way, but whoever is doing the counting it is wrong and should be changed to include ALL of the unemployed so that we have a true picture of unemployment and can deal with the problem honestly. We can not wait for the next election to try to minimize the damage that this administration does. Call or write your Senators or Reps and make sure that they know that if they act as rubber stamps for this White House you will not be voting for them again. This is especially important for people, like you Mike, in the "red" States. One great new resource for the opposition is www.democracyforamerica.com ,this is Howard Dean's revamped website and it has links to expess your opinion. We also need to talk to our friends and neighbors (now not in 2 years) about what this administration is doing to the honest hard working people in this country and maybe in 2006 we can take back some of our voice in the congress. Peace j
|
|
|
Post by featphoto on Feb 14, 2005 19:34:35 GMT -5
We had the largest trade deficit, both in actual dollars and percent of gnp, last year in our history. With more and more deficits this figure will undoubtably worsen as the dollar continues to drop like a rock in relation to other world currencies. uh, no ... a weak dollar helps lower the trade deficit ... as a foreign country's currency is worth more they are able to buy more US stuff, while US buyers can afford less foreign goods ... I definitely find myself on your side of the fence most of the time jashley, but ya gotta keep yer facts straight ...
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Feb 14, 2005 20:35:21 GMT -5
featphoto,
The only problem with your reasoning (in the past I would have agreed with you) is that the stuff we buy, mainly oil, will cost more and it is not a want to purchase but a have to purchase. If our money is devalued it will cost more of it to buy goods. Conversely if a foriegn currency is worth more they will need less of it to buy our goods. Yes they may buy more of our goods because they will be a better value but they will be paying less for them. Your right if our goods have attractive enough prices it can increase our sales but there are things we now HAVE to buy overseas (oil again but not limited to) no matter how unattractive the price ($30/barrell oil is projected to reach $60 soon), this has done away with or at least weakened what have been traditional balances inherent in the system.
Keep me on my toes, great to hear from you. I was thinking everyone was gone, by the way is BillL alive, I miss that cantancurous old cuss and I hope he is alright.
Peace j
|
|
|
Post by Rollin' Mark on Feb 16, 2005 8:48:22 GMT -5
featphoto, The only problem with your reasoning (in the past I would have agreed with you) is that the stuff we buy, mainly oil, will cost more and it is not a want to purchase but a have to purchase. If our money is devalued it will cost more of it to buy goods. Conversely if a foriegn currency is worth more they will need less of it to buy our goods. Yes they may buy more of our goods because they will be a better value but they will be paying less for them. Your right if our goods have attractive enough prices it can increase our sales but there are things we now HAVE to buy overseas (oil again but not limited to) no matter how unattractive the price ($30/barrell oil is projected to reach $60 soon), this has done away with or at least weakened what have been traditional balances inherent in the system. Keep me on my toes, great to hear from you. I was thinking everyone was gone, by the way is BillL alive, I miss that cantancurous old cuss and I hope he is alright. Peace j J. There was nothing wrong with Hank's reasoning, he got it exactly right. Foreign goods will cost more as the dollar "devalues" against other world currency. US goods will cost less when other countries import them, This is GOOD for the American economy. Your statements become contradictory, you seem to be complaining of a record trade deficit, then you complain that foriegn goods will cost more. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. In order for Trade deficits to decline, we have to stop making AND buying foreign goods. The only real way for this to happen is for it to be unattractive to buy foreign goods. Problem is, foreign competition makes it impossible for commodity type items to be manufactured here. One of the reasons so much has gone "offshore" is because of an "overvalued" dollar. Another is labor rates. So what do we do about it? Ban foreign products? Greatly increase tarrifs? You've already complained about the higher cost of products. What do you think will hapeen when we can no longer buy them and they have to be made here instead? Regarding your previous comments on The recession and Unemployment rate: 1.Recession: There isn't one, its over. The economy has been growing since Nov '03. Believe me, if the economy was bad, Bush NEVER would have been re-elected. Americans always vote with their back pockets. And, once again for the record, the last recession started in the Clinton admin. Not that I blame him either, recessions are cyclical. This from CBS News: "On the jobs front, Fed policy-makers said: "labor market conditions continue to improve gradually."
For all of 2004, the economy added 2.2 million jobs.
Last year, the economy clocked a 4.4 percent increase in growth, its best performance in five years. Looking ahead, analysts predict that the economy will expand by 3.5 percent or more in 2005. That would be sufficient to spur modest job growth in the months ahead, analysts say. "2.Unemployment Rate. Its a barometer. I know that it does not tell us exactly how many people are out of a job, but it does tell us which way the economy is heading. It also doesn't tell us how many poeple who aren't on unemployment, get jobs. There is no better incentive to get a job then when you have no income. Anyway, overall employment is up. Hope this didn't sound "mean spiriited", I didn't mean it to be. Peace Rollin' Mark PS Spoke to BillL on Friday, other than a stomach bug, he's fine.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 18, 2005 15:08:57 GMT -5
Believe me, if the economy was bad, Bush NEVER would have been re-elected. Americans always vote with their back pockets. ;D All of the moral values (the liberal dems will ban your bible), military service records (Kerry the bad guy for even going to Viet Nam), terrorist at your front door, and anything else Rove and Delay could come up with weren't even needed.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 18, 2005 23:28:46 GMT -5
I'm not buying into the "economy is getting better" thing, either. First, I refer back to my post about "oligarchy". The economy is doing just fine, thank you, if you reside in the upper 5-10% of the new American caste system (better if you are in the top 1-2%). If some of that success filters down to those of us in the rest of the hierarchy, the "share" will be so small as to amount to almost nothing. I know I haven't received any kind of raise in the last four years ... even "cost of living adjustments" do not really match the cost of living. Since the stock market is the biggest shill game ever invented, I refuse to participate in it (even if my retirement fund invests like crazy -- but then the state government continues to borrow from my retirement funds because they are the only thing earning money in the entire stinking state), and therefore adamantly refuse to accept a "voluntary" social security system that will be based upon an anti-up into that huge gamble.
I notice that my insurance company -- which fights me tooth and nail every time I am so timorous as to file a claim -- continues to report 150 to 200% profits; I also notice that my insurance company is on the list of lobbyists supporting an end to "frivolous" law suits.
At the same time, I would point out that the upper class wonks who supported "liberal" policies in the sixties and seventies were the very same all-knowing mandarins against whom I protested back then.
Meanwhile, democracy dies and the senate, house, presidency, governor's houses and state legislatures assume increasingly heriditary lineages because it takes "so much money" and so much "public name recognition" to run for office. Right now we live on the verge of "top down" totalitarian state; in the next iteration it might be a "liberal" interpretation of the same hell.
I think when I retire in June and move to Oregon, I will begin to work towards creating at least one, and then maybe several, local syndicates of direct democracy ... beginning with all the folks in the neighborhood who want to first send their kids to our school, form a farming and shopping cooperative, then speak as a group when it comes to paying property taxes (we will elect to divert a certain percentage towards making immediate improvements in our own neighborhood), and then designing "public" transportation systems that actually take us to where it is that we have to go.
We will reshape America from the bottom up, and tell all the rich wonks that want to tell us what we "should" be doing to go do it themselves. If they want to take my telephone service to India, then I won't use their stupid telephones. So far, I have resisted the "need" to have instant contact with anyone via a cell-phone, and continue to find face-to-face conversation preferable to any phone conversation, and old fashioned letter-writing (or new-fangled emailing) superior to the false sense that I am "connected" to the world instantly.
And that's all I have time for in this rant
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Feb 22, 2005 19:18:13 GMT -5
Mark,
I wrote about an 8 paragraph reply to your last post on this thread but it sounded mean spirited so I deleted it. So instead I'll just quote the financial news this morning, I think you missed the point of my last post that the traditional balances in the economic system no longer always apply.
ABC, 02/22/05, 11AM EST " The stock market took a sharp downturn in morning trading because of the news that the dollar devalued another 1% against the euro leading to fears that this would cause higher energy costs and increase inflation." See a weak dollar (and this is consistant with conventional logic) is NOT good for our economy. By the way do you remeber what a spike in energy costs did to the economy when Jimmy Carter (my favorite president in my lifetime; might as well start another argument) was president, it cost him a second term.
I believe that we now live in a global economy and the old principles that applied to national economies no longer apply to the extent that they once did. The strength or weakness of our money is only a reflection of the opinion that others in the world hold of the strength or weakness of our economic system and policies, obviously the world opinion of our economy is not very good at present. So the exchange is both an indicator and a cause of the future performance of our system.
Quickly in answer to your question what should we do? We need to get our system back on sound economic principles; less deficit, less government spending, better government spending, fair and reasonable taxation (inc. a tax rate sufficient to cover our government needs, even if it hurts in the short run). And we need to cut our dependence on foriegn sources of energy, mainly oil.
By the way Mark if you think the recession is over I got a bridge.....
Still love 'ya Mark keep arguing, and don't forget it's only an opinion. And don't make me answer why Jr got re-elected then it will get mean (just kidding).
Peace j
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 22, 2005 19:40:34 GMT -5
I believe that we now live in a global economy and the old principles that applied to national economies no longer apply to the extent that they once did. Peace j Can't be Jashley, because in order for that to balance out, the standards of the Good Ole USA would have to be drastically reduced, and we know our trusted (?), "elected" leaders are not going to let that happen.
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Feb 22, 2005 20:12:25 GMT -5
Mike,
Like it or not the world economy is here, not a choice but a reality (course that doesn't seem to bother Jr much). Oh unless we want to turn our planet into a cinder.
Mike you are a hoot and I like Kinky as much as you do. If he really does run for governor I might have to move to good ol'Texas just so I can vote for him.
We gotta get together sometime, maybe next year in Jamaica.
Peace j
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2005 23:00:09 GMT -5
Mike you are a hoot and I like Kinky as much as you do. If he really does run for governor I might have to move to good ol'Texas just so I can vote for him. We gotta get together sometime, maybe next year in Jamaica. Peace j Just to be clear, I don't really hold aspirations of "Bush's Second Wave" in Texas actually "allowing" the Kinkster to hold office...but it will be fun, so come on down! We'd love to have ya. Jamiaca; sounds do-able. We are working on our raft already. We figure we can launch it from South Padre Island and be there in 2 weeks. ;D Honesty, Integrity, and Peace. Mike
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Mar 8, 2005 18:24:33 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy All, I know everyone is busy but I miss hearing from you all. I've been as guilty as everyone else but I'll make time for a short post based on the latest wonderful news from the company still providing millions in defered compensation to our wonderful V.P., Dick (I didn't sell my soul to the devil) Cheney. Haliburton has announced that through one of their off shore subsideries (in the Caymans, to keep this deal technically legal) they have agreed to a multi-billion dollar deal with IRAN to drill oil and gas wells. This is the same company that is under federal grand jury investigation for increasing their business dealings with Libya from 1995 to 2000 (yes while Libya was on the official enemies list and D. Cheney was CEO). Isn't Iran one of the memebers of the "Axis of Evil". Did anyone read "Catch-22"? I always thought this book was funny but now I find it was prophetic as well. Do you remember the supply officer, Milos Mindbender (?). Whatever is good for MM Enterprises is good for the country. He ended up in a situation where he had to bomb the American runway for the Germans to keep MM Enterprises afloat. Is Haliburton our MM enterprises? While they are being awarded multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts (and being repeatedly investigated and fined for overcharging) to supply our troops, they are doing billions of dollars of business with our declared enemies. Am I nuts or is this just plain wrong, not to mention real scarry? Believe it or not this is not web rumour it was reported by ABC news. Didn't make it to the Rush Limbaugh show though. I wonder why? Just read a great new book called "Sore Winners" by John Powers available at www.doubleday.com . It is critical of Jr and his clan but the democrats get their fair share of abuse too. Highly recommended. As someone else said on the forum I hate it when I open up my e-mail and there are no notices from this forum that there have been posts, I feel like all my friends are out of town. Hope to hear from you all soon and I hope everyone is alive and kickin'. Peace j
|
|