Are we being brainwashed by the cult of the super-rich?

[Pixilated]

This author thinks so.

Just a heads up ... it's kinda lengthy and wordy. And some of the language reminds me of the embarrassing slogans you used to hear in the late 60s (think "running-dog imperialist lackeys" ... we're talking Cliché City here ...)

Still, after the recent "affluenza" verdict, I'm not entirely convinced that the author is completely wrong. However, I'm also not entirely convinced that the masses are happily acceding to a new feudal system. And I'm not sure what she expects the general public to do: riot in the streets?

What do you think of her take on things?

[s_stabeler]

to an extent, then yes, I think there IS brainwashing going on- for example, every time CEO pay comes up, there is at least one person who defends the fact that your average CEO gets more pay in a year than many people will see in a lifetime- but it isn't quite as serious as most people being affected. It IS true that the super-rich get away with a LOT that others wouldn't, though. ( and to be fair, the Affluenza verdict wasn't as such because the kid's parents are rich. the judge in that case tries to send most cases to these kind of places, it's just this kid could actually afford it)

[mikoyan29]

I don't think this is a new phenomenom to be honest. Everyone at some point wants to think they will be a part of the rich and gets the idea that bashing the rich will prevent that from happening...or something to that effect.

[Andara Bledin]

Mikoyan29, that's referred to as people believing that they aren't poor or middle class but they're merely "temporarily embarrassed" millionaires. I work with one of these people. He will vote for things that actually hurt him financially because he sincerely believes that he'll somehow bootstrap his way into riches in the very near future.

That said, there's no brainwashing required. The masses will keep on chugging along as long as they're reasonably comfortable and not too many of them are in dire straits and the people at the top don't get too far out of reach. That last is getting to the breaking point, which is why we have the level of irritation we've got going in the US right now, but the other two are still within what the masses will accept so things keep on as they're keeping on.

[s_stabeler]

it doesn't help that there is at least a perception that the rich control politics to make themselves richer. ( as a general rule, people prefer there to be at least a reasonable pretense that politicians are motivated by what is best for the nation...)

[Racket_Man]

It all come down to the phrase :Panem Et Circenses: literally translated "Bread and Circuses"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

As long as the masses have cheap food, entertainment and some superficial contentment to distract them why should they care.

some recent literature is rife with this theme: Battle Royal, The Hunger Games series, A Brave New World, etc. to name a few.

And YET even though we as a whole see it we are willfully blind.

[Greenday]

And YET even though we as a whole see it we are willfully blind.

I'm pretty sure if you went and asked most people in America if there's a problem with income inequality between the super-rich and the rest of us, nearly everyone would say there is a problem.

The real issue with the situation is things haven't become bad enough for enough people to want to do anything about it.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Suggest something. That's my issue with this article or viewpoint. That goes with a lot of causes actually. Don't bitch about things you don't like, suggest a workable resolution. Generally, it can't be done which is why people don't do anything.

A majority people if you simply asked them, "Do you believe in capitalism?" would say yes. They don't see the superwealthy as enexorably tied to that system (or hell, just about any system we've currently come up with.) They don't see "if not them, then someone else." What they see is the same thing Madison and Hamilton saw in the Federalist papers: people's drive to "social justice" based on their perspective. The rich always try to keep and take more because they deserve it because they create wealth. The poor try to take because they have nothing and they deserve it because injustice. The middle class pick and choose their causes on both sides.

Honestly, as a concept I don't mind redistribution of wealth but I would never trust people with it. There will always be a Napoleon of Animal Farm and that system will get abused (and Orwell was a socialist). So instead, people just write articles like this or write Rage Against the Machine songs without the slightest idea how to make a workable system or suggest one, and only make it a cottage industry to hate people who through quirks of the system become super wealthy and act like you would expect a financially rational yet out of touch with most of society person to act. It's sort of a not really persecuted but hated version of the super poor which are persecuted in fact. The rich just tend to be too wealthy for us to get away with actually persecuting them.

[s_stabeler]

There are two big issues with the Superwealthy.
1) how they act. In times past, the aristocracy had the concept of Noblesse Oblige- that nobles have responsibilities as well as privileges. ( In the feudal era, the Lords protected the peasents, for example) A big issue is that a lot fo the superwealthy these days have no real concept of Noblesse Oblige, they seem to believe that their wealth actually reduces their responsibilities.
2) how they got their wealth. A lot of the superwealthy are bankers. To be blunt, the benefit of banks to the economy is somewhat invisible most of the time, and so it irritates people when people get massively wealthy seemly just for moving money around. ( literally, in some cases- derivatives basically are just moving money around)

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm reminded of one of my favorite plays, the musical 1776.

"Those who have nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor."

[Panacea]

There are two big issues with the Superwealthy.
1) how they act. In times past, the aristocracy had the concept of Noblesse Oblige- that nobles have responsibilities as well as privileges. ( In the feudal era, the Lords protected the peasents, for example)

Noblesse Oblige is a very romantic notion, but that's all it is: a notion. It really wasn't practiced; nobles were just as prone to exploit the populace as the super rich today are.

A lot of conservatives complain that liberals want to "redistribute" wealth ala collectivization in the early Soviet era. The reality is two things:

1) that wealth redistribution already exists to direct wealth to the top disproportionally.
2) what liberals really want is fairness

When CEOs made reasonable salaries and taxes were higher, more wealth stayed in the hands of the middle class and the economy soared. Deregulation shifted the balance struck after the Great Depression and now we're back to the Roaring 20's where it's great to be rich, not so great to be poor.

[Pixilated]

Panacea: I was thinking the same thing: the concept of noblesse oblige, like that of chivalry, was honoured more as an abstract concept than in reality. Today's equivalent of feudal landlords have simply gone back to the basics and dropped any pretense of caring about anybody else.

*snip*

That said, there's no brainwashing required. The masses will keep on chugging along as long as they're reasonably comfortable and not too many of them are in dire straits and the people at the top don't get too far out of reach. That last is getting to the breaking point, which is why we have the level of irritation we've got going in the US right now, but the other two are still within what the masses will accept so things keep on as they're keeping on.

That's about it. People will put up with a lot as long as they see themselves as still having something worth salvaging. But with the policies now going into place, both in the U.S. and here in Canada, they are pushing people to the edge.

[protege]

2) how they got their wealth. A lot of the superwealthy are bankers. To be blunt, the benefit of banks to the economy is somewhat invisible most of the time, and so it irritates people when people get massively wealthy seemly just for moving money around. ( literally, in some cases- derivatives basically are just moving money around)

Some of them are on Wall Street. But, quite a few are actors/actresses, singers, sports stars, and other high-buck jobs. What I'd like to know, is why the Occupy assholes put so much effort going after Wall Street...while they don't seem to have a problem with the other categories I listed. I guess I'm one of those people who don't consider playing basketball (or football, or baseball) to be "work," nor do I understand why someone should get millions for a 30-second commercial.

[s_stabeler]

part of it is what I said- more or less, with actors, singers, sports stars and many other jobs, you can see they are doing something for their income. (sports stars, for example, need to train a LOT to get as good as they do, and need to keep trianing to maintain their skills. it's why a player isn't always as good when they are coming back from injury)

[Andara Bledin]

Some of them are on Wall Street. But, quite a few are actors/actresses, singers, sports stars, and other high-buck jobs. What I'd like to know, is why the Occupy assholes put so much effort going after Wall Street...while they don't seem to have a problem with the other categories I listed. I guess I'm one of those people who don't consider playing basketball (or football, or baseball) to be "work," nor do I understand why someone should get millions for a 30-second commercial.

Because pop icons tend to spend their money, it goes back into the economy. And they don't have any control over how the economy runs.

The fat cats on wall street, however, tend to collect and hoard and manipulate things to make that easier for them. Money is pooling at the top and the economy stagnates as a result, reducing social mobility to nearly nothing.

This is the perception. And it's probably very close to the truth. The entire banking fiasco was the result of a lot of greedy bastards who played fast and loose with the economy of the entire world for a quick buck, fucked shit up, and suffered near zero consequence for so doing.