The iPhone is doomed, and Spain as well
-
@dhromed said:
The answer to all those questions is "money", alternatively, "money and power".
I can see how that works for 2, 6a and maybe 4; not so much for the others though.
-
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
The answer to all those questions is "money", alternatively, "money and power".
I can see how that works for 2, 6a and maybe 4; not so much for the others though.
Ok, it doesn't really work for 5 and 6, but for the others, it's spot-on.
-
@dhromed said:
I would first love to understand why you're asking these questions, otherwise no answer is going to make sense.
Having just re-read the questions, I can see how they might be misconstrued as some kind of "send me teh codes" for a ticket into the magic circle. Not so: I have never desired overclass-grade wealth nor power. That makes it hard for me to understand the motivations of those who do; they look like TRWTF to me and I'm interested in finding out whether that view is shared by people whose politics appear to be far to the right of my own.
-
@flabdablet said:
This permanent overclass you posit is a fascinating idea, and I would be interested in your answers to a number of questions about it.- Who can join?
- What drives those who want to?
- How do they go about it?
- What is expected of members by (a) members (b) non-members?
- What are the consequences of failure to meet those expectations?
- How does the existence of such an overclass benefit (a) members (b) non-members (c) society as a whole?
Morb's phrase was "power elite (the politically-connected rich and the rich-connected politicians)." I'm not sure I would have described them as a permanent overclass, but it's not a completely unfair description. OK:
- Getting rich can buy your way in. Think Michael Bloomberg. Another way in is to sneak into an Ivy League school and make the right connections. Maybe Bill Clinton is a good example here. There are also the many more anonymous people who fill out the bureaucracies. As a whole, they have at least as much as the high profile politicians, though less individually.
- I think that for a lot of them, it's about treating life as a competition, and getting there is a way to win, or at least beat a lot of other people. Some probably want to change things for the better.
- I think I pretty much laid out how one joins in talking about who can join.
- I have no idea. I expect them to act in their own interests in general. In particular, their own interests become aligned with the institutions that they belong to or represent. This tends to overcome previously held principles that might have driven them to get to where they are.
- I think that the people who do not act in the best interest of their institutions get ostracized. We have things like whistleblower laws to protect these people, but they are enforced by the people being exposed, so they work poorly, at best.
- In general, I think the existence of the overclass is a detriment. I think that in general, competing interests among relative peers are the best ways to keep things from getting out of control. But the overclass is not an inclusive institution, and so there is not much to check its excesses.
-
@flabdablet said:
I can see how they might be misconstrued
You misconstrued my thoughts. That's mostly because I never uttered them, so it's okay.
I thought you were trying to disprove the immutable existence of this class by asking a few questions about, the bullshit answers to which would provide adequate grounds for dismissal of the concept.
-
@boomzilla said:
I have no idea. I expect them to act in their own interests in general. In particular, their own interests become aligned with the institutions that they belong to or represent. This tends to overcome previously held principles that might have driven them to get to where they are.
Continue playing the game. Playing the money/power game is a hobby to them. They do it often, and as such they get good at getting money and power, because that's how skill works.
@boomzilla said:
I think that the people who do not act in the best interest of their institutions get ostracized.
That was my idea as well. If you suddenly have "vision" and play the game for a lofty goal rather than keep on playing the game, you'll start getting odd looks.
I am not convinced the "overclass" exists, though; not as a distinct group anyway. It smells a trifle too much of Illuminati nonsense. Or rather, it sounds like an attempt at easy pigeonholing, like "fat capitalist" or "corrupt politician" or "antisocial programmer".
-
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
For me, I just want each person to take care of themselves as best they can, and be allowed to keep the vast majority of the wealth they create/earn. (90%+ ideally) It's not a case of "I need MORE MONEY!", it's a case of "I want to keep the money I earn". Whether I was earning minimum wage, millions as an executive, or my actual salary which is somewhere in between, I'd feel the same way. I doubt you care about what I believe but there it is anyway!I would first love to understand why you're asking these questions, otherwise no answer is going to make sense.
Having just re-read the questions, I can see how they might be misconstrued as some kind of "send me teh codes" for a ticket into the magic circle. Not so: I have never desired overclass-grade wealth nor power. That makes it hard for me to understand the motivations of those who do; they look like TRWTF to me and I'm interested in finding out whether that view is shared by people whose politics appear to be far to the right of my own.
-
@boomzilla said:
I'm not sure I would have described them as a permanent overclass, but it's not a completely unfair description.
Wasn't intending to start a Marxist flame war there; just seemed like a concise way to label the power elite while capturing Morbs's suggestion that nothing we can do will change the fact of such an elite's existence, using language consistent with his description of those unable or unwilling to break from welfare dependence as a permanent underclass.
-
@dhromed said:
I am not convinced the "overclass" exists, though; not as a distinct group anyway. It smells a trifle too much of Illuminati nonsense. Or rather, it sounds like an attempt at easy pigeonholing, like "fat capitalist" or "corrupt politician" or "antisocial programmer".
Yes. Like most things, it's an over simplification. But even so, it's not completely without merit. Consider political dynasties. I recently saw a tweet about someone laughing at someone else. It went something like: "'I can't believe the Cheney* dynasty!' said the Hilary 2016 supporter."
* Liz Cheney is former VP Dick Cheney's daughter, and appears to be about to run for the Senate in Wyoming. Hillary is Bill Clinton's estranged First Lady, former Senator and Secretary of State and probably shadowy patron of Anthony Weiner.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
I'm not sure I would have described them as a permanent overclass, but it's not a completely unfair description.
Wasn't intending to start a Marxist flame war there; just seemed like a concise way to label the power elite while capturing Morbs's suggestion that nothing we can do will change the fact of such an elite's existence, using language consistent with his description of those unable or unwilling to break from welfare dependence as a permanent underclass.
Yes, I was just registering a complaint about some of the connotations of the phrase. Though it has a lot of truth in it. People manage to get a job in a powerful bureaucracy, and then they leave and get super lucrative deals from the private entities affected by the bureaucracy. There are multiple reasons why these people are so valuable. It might be the contacts they still have within their former institution in order to affect future policy or enforcement. Or it might just be that the shit they helped erect in their tenure is so fucking complicated that their inside view is super valuable because no one can figure out if they're breaking the law any more.
-
@boomzilla said:
Hillary is Bill Clinton's estranged First Lady, former Senator and Secretary of State and probably shadowy patron of Anthony Weiner.
Anthony or Anthony's?
-
@boomzilla said:
People manage to get a job in a powerful bureaucracy, and then they leave and get super lucrative deals from the private entities affected by the bureaucracy.
What's your take on people who move the other way, from a senior position in a large private firm into a bureaucratic role with direct influence over the regulatory conditions affecting their former employer?
-
@PJH said:
@boomzilla said:
Hillary is Bill Clinton's estranged First Lady, former Senator and Secretary of State and probably shadowy patron of Anthony Weiner.
Anthony or Anthony's?Definitely not Anthony's. There have been rumors that Weiner's wife (who is also Hillary's top aide) is Hillary's girlfriend. Probably untrue, but Hillary's patronage is really for the benefit of his wife, who is at least a good friend.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
People manage to get a job in a powerful bureaucracy, and then they leave and get super lucrative deals from the private entities affected by the bureaucracy.
What's your take on people who move the other way, from a senior position in a large private firm into a bureaucratic role with direct influence over the regulatory conditions affecting their former employer?
My first thought: The bureaucracy probably shouldn't exist in the first place, and if it should, it has too much power anyways.
But let's suppose there's a good reason for doing whatever the bureaucracy is doing. There's an argument to be made that it's better to have someone who knows the subject matter doing it. My opinion on public / private collusion is that it happens because the government has enough power in the subject area for the collusion to be profitable. If the government doesn't have the power to influence things, then no one is going to waste money lobbying or whatever. But if you offer people a way to buy out their competition and especially new entrants, they'll do it.
You also have the process of a very engaged minority, with significant and concentrated benefits vs a majority that doesn't really care and for which the costs are super dispersed. So the people working in the bureaucracy have reason to become entrenched and make their influence bigger in order to justify their existence. No one cares enough about a paper cut to fire a thousand people, but eventually the paper cuts add up, only you can't ever get rid of any of them, because they have a hard core constituency and eliminating one makes no significant difference to the whole.
Another thing about the senior private person going to a public role is that they're more likely to step down after a reasonable amount of time than a career bureaucrat, who will just move on to the next post.
-
@boomzilla said:
no one can figure out if they're breaking the law any more.
Dude, that ship has sailed so far beyond the horizon, it's expected back in about six months.
-
@KillaCoda said:
Whether I was earning minimum wage, millions as an executive, or my actual salary which is somewhere in between, I'd feel the same way. I doubt you care about what I believe but there it is anyway!
Do you have any desire to earn millions as an executive? If not, why not? If so, are you moving in that direction and how will you know when you've moved far enough?
-
@boomzilla said:
Another thing about the senior private person going to a public role is that they're more likely to step down after a reasonable amount of time than a career bureaucrat, who will just move on to the next post.
My knowledge of the workings of the US elite is annoyingly sparse. Could you name a few of the people you had in mind when making that comparison?
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
People manage to get a job in a powerful bureaucracy, and then they leave and get super lucrative deals from the private entities affected by the bureaucracy.
What's your take on people who move the other way, from a senior position in a large private firm into a bureaucratic role with direct influence over the regulatory conditions affecting their former employer?
I think people who move from a position of corporate power to a political one should experience dramatic culture shock, and should end up losing a lot of immediate authority, since corporations are not [social] democracies.
But that's the ideal. I do not move in that way, and don't know anyone personally who has.
-
@flabdablet said:
Do you have any desire to earn millions as an executive? If not, why not?
Lol, no. It's not my hobby to manage millions or spend it or live that kind of life.
-
@flabdablet said:
My knowledge of the workings of the US elite is annoyingly sparse.
I just want to say that here in Dutchland, ministers or secretaries of finance are exchanged with high banking positions when entering or leaving either.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
Another thing about the senior private person going to a public role is that they're more likely to step down after a reasonable amount of time than a career bureaucrat, who will just move on to the next post.
My knowledge of the workings of the US elite is annoyingly sparse. Could you name a few of the people you had in mind when making that comparison?My first thought was Paul O'Neill, but reading his bio, I can see that he was in and out of private and public life more than I thought. I was most aware of his tenure at Alcoa.
Honestly, it's hard to think of someone in a senior role like that. It seems like everyone who gets to the top has had a lot of public experience. I suppose the exception might be some high profile politicians. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura come immediately to mind. When their ride ended, they didn't look for another public post, since they had other skills and interests. OTOH, a guy like Bloomberg seems to enjoy using the power of the government to boss people around, so I think he'll be with us for a lot longer.
So I think my statement stands up, since the public servant for life never really goes away if he can help it. And the guy who came from the private sector could go either way.
-
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
People manage to get a job in a powerful bureaucracy, and then they leave and get super lucrative deals from the private entities affected by the bureaucracy.
What's your take on people who move the other way, from a senior position in a large private firm into a bureaucratic role with direct influence over the regulatory conditions affecting their former employer?
I think people who move from a position of corporate power to a political one should experience dramatic culture shock, and should end up losing a lot of immediate authority, since corporations are not [social] democracies.
But that's the ideal. I do not move in that way, and don't know anyone personally who has.
Sure, but neither are large bureaucratic government agencies. You might be referring to having to get elected, but generally the sorts of people at the helm of large companies have good social skills. Partly to survive the power politics that comes with fighting your way up the corporate ladder, but also just to be able to sell the company and the company's products.
-
@flabdablet said:
Who can join?
Those with wealth or political power.
@flabdablet said:
What drives those who want to?
Ambition, greed, sometimes a genuine desire to make things better for other people.
@flabdablet said:
How do they go about it?
About what?
@flabdablet said:
What is expected of members by (a) members (b) non-members?
It's not a formal arrangement, obviously. But it's a lot of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".
@flabdablet said:
What are the consequences of failure to meet those expectations?
Depends. Sometimes you are ruined, sometimes you are not. As I said, it's not formalized. And I think you know that.
@flabdablet said:
How does the existence of such an overclass benefit (a) members (b) non-members (c) society as a whole?
It gives members access to power and wealth (which is really mostly power, anyway.) You could make an argument that it directs society for the benefit of all, but I don't buy it.
-
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Do you think Ginni Rometty* goes home and eats Cup of Noodle so she can afford IBM's taxes? Or do you think they just tack that shit onto the licensing fees for the Ugandan orphanages they've tricked into buying Notes?
(*I seriously had to look that up. Because who the fuck even pays attention to what goes on at IBM any more?)
Rometty is older and less trendy than the Yahoo bitch but she got serious skills, not just clout. A true IBMer, not an opportunistic board jumper.
I don't know who either one of them is, and I don't care. Yahoo! is a joke and IBM is nearly one.
IBM
Yahoo
Sooo.. Yahoo! just hired a model to be their CEO? And she just shows off her (admittedly nice) body in glamour shots for them? Wow, Yahoo! is more fucked than I imagined.
-
@boomzilla said:
Getting rich can buy your way in. Think Michael Bloomberg. Another way in is to sneak into an Ivy League school and make the right connections. Maybe Bill Clinton is a good example here. There are also the many more anonymous people who fill out the bureaucracies. As a whole, they have at least as much as the high profile politicians, though less individually.
Right, Ivy League schools are the filter, so to speak. There are other ways in, but that's the primary.
You should also realize that while we don't tend to care if somebody went to Harvard, these people really, really do. You don't know how often CEOs get hired because "He also went to HBS" or, to a lesser extent, Stanford, Sloan, etc..
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
People manage to get a job in a powerful bureaucracy, and then they leave and get super lucrative deals from the private entities affected by the bureaucracy.
What's your take on people who move the other way, from a senior position in a large private firm into a bureaucratic role with direct influence over the regulatory conditions affecting their former employer?
They're both harmful, obviously. It's pretty much a revolving door between Big Government and Big Business, which is partially why I can't believe that more people don't see that Big Business and Big Government are allies more often than enemies. Most big businesses only exist because of extensive government protection. And most regulations are promulgated for the intent of shutting out smaller competitors.
That's why regulation and vesting the government with expansive, near-unlimited power is such an awful idea. I don't know why people continue to delude themselves into thinking America operates as a free market or that it isn't massively socialized. Are you foolish enough to think that America's elite would just don red corsages on featureless, military-like uniforms and declare themselves The Party? America is one of the most socialist nations on Earth, and certainly the biggest and most powerful. Sure, it doesn't look like Sweden, but why should it?
-
@boomzilla said:
But let's suppose there's a good reason for doing whatever the bureaucracy is doing. There's an argument to be made that it's better to have someone who knows the subject matter doing it. My opinion on public / private collusion is that it happens because the government has enough power in the subject area for the collusion to be profitable. If the government doesn't have the power to influence things, then no one is going to waste money lobbying or whatever. But if you offer people a way to buy out their competition and especially new entrants, they'll do it.
Or to put it more succinctly: when the government controls what is bought and sold, the first thing bought and sold is the government.
-
morbiuswilters COMBO 5X
-
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
My knowledge of the workings of the US elite is annoyingly sparse.
I just want to say that here in Dutchland, ministers or secretaries of finance are exchanged with high banking positions when entering or leaving either.
That's the way it is everywhere, or virtually everywhere. The ECB and the Threadneedle Street are both headed up by former Goldman Sachs employees; the US Treasury is run by the former COO of Citigroup. Hell, the Securities and Exchange Commission's first Chairman was Joe Kennedy, father of JFK; he made his fortune as a bootlegger during Prohibition. The corruption at the top is long and deep.
-
-
-
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
Whether I was earning minimum wage, millions as an executive, or my actual salary which is somewhere in between, I'd feel the same way. I doubt you care about what I believe but there it is anyway!
Do you have any desire to earn millions as an executive? If not, why not? If so, are you moving in that direction and how will you know when you've moved far enough?
No, absolutely not.
I simply don't need that kind of money to be happy. Even if I did, I'd need to completely dedicate my life to insane amounts of hard work and also hope for lots of luck, to get anywhere near that level. Not worth it.
Right now, I'm only a junior dev. I get a paycheck that pays for a nice apartment, the necessities of life, and plenty left over for hobbies and socialising. I hope to move up the career ladder, earn more money, and eventually be able to afford house + car + family. 100k a year is my rough goal. Though of course that's kinda meaningless since the Euro is collapsing and that may not buy a loaf of bread in 10 years :P
Yeah, I don't want to be part of that mega rich power class. I think I'd be deeply unhappy if I was.
