If the obscenely wealthy benefit most from having Republicans in power; and collectively they have disproportionate control over the economy; wouldn't they use that power to sabotage Democrats?
from Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world on 13 Sep 18:36
https://lemmy.world/post/19735981
from Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world on 13 Sep 18:36
https://lemmy.world/post/19735981
#nostupidquestions
threaded - newest
Are you under the impression that they don’t?
The general consensus seems to be which ever party is in power has the most control over the economy.
Sure, I mean pretty much by definition. What does that have to do with your question?
I guess, thank you for your response.
It’s pretty difficult to control a lot of the economy still, especially where international concerns like the OPEC price setting cartel, yet oil prices are often blamed on leadership.
…but also, establishment politicians have a pretty fixed economic ideology that doesn’t change all that much, further constraining their reactions which are mostly classist.
Then there’s macroeconomic policies like interest rates, which globally Western governments seem to prefer to leave entirely up to central bankers.
I think that’s only a consensus among people who don’t understand the economy very well. The truth is politicians have very little control over the economy particularly in the short term. At most politics is able to nudge the economy very slightly like the rudder on a massive ship that takes years to turn.
Course there are some things you can do. Tariffs is an obvious one, completely bungling a global pandemic is probably another, etc…
As an example… fox news.
And the Sinclair Media Group.
To answer OP’s question succinctly, yes, and they do.
They do.
cnbc.com/…/judge-blocks-bidens-new-student-loan-f…
The Republicans have been caught entirely funding the green party in multiple swing states.
They absolutely use their money to sabotage the democrats
It’s called gerrymandering.
Been going on my entire life so far
I think choice and/or the illusion of choice needs to be there for either side’s fringe elements to have a safe outlet for their frustrations. There needs to be a viable left-leaning party to control potential socialist or communist agitators. If they just completely shut down the Democratic party, then there’s the potential that somebody outside of the control of the aristocratic classes comes to power. Having the Democratic party around gives them a chance to funnel those people through the system and subtly bend them and make them more agreeable to the system. So maybe somebody would’ve been a bomb-throwing anarchist advocating for blowing up the status quo and beheading all the billionaires, but when processed through the Democratic party, maybe they turn into somebody like AOC or Bernie Sanders or something, still willing to work within the system and less likely to advocate revolution.
I’m still not sure about Trump, he still seems like an abnormality or a glitch in the system. I don’t know if he went AWOL and the aristocracy doesn’t want to move against their own, or if he’s just part of “the plan” to move the country to the Right and having a crazy man-child as president gives them cover to push through all their extreme right-wing policies while everyone else fixates on the latest dumb thing that Trump tweeted. Or maybe it’s all just anarchy and there is no conspiracy of the aristocracy, I don’t know. Trump’s existence just seems like one of those things the TVA would’ve come in and destroyed this whole timeline over.
Either sabotage Democrats or make them pursue more right wing policies, which is why there was so much Reagan praise at the DNC when every dem voter under 40 hates his guts.
I’m 50 and I hate that piece of shit.
bit older and so do i
The obscenely wealthy donate to both parties. Both parties protect the interests of the wealthy.
Hell, there have been two Democratic administrations that had total congressional control over the last sixteen years. The minimum wage is still seven bucks an hour.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
and all that
Whatever you may think, rich people do donate to the democrats too †
Given that the orange clown may not win the election, they need to bribe democrats into doing their bidding. This is what lobbies do.
† forbes.com/…/here-are-the-billionaires-funding-th…
we’re in agreement :-) what I said is an Orwell’s 1984 quote. My overly simplified explanation of the quote is that the governmental entities in the novel were able to maintain absolute authority because of a manufactured conflict. In essence, two sides intentionally maintained a stalemate at war so that each of them could keep absolute control over their populace using fear of the other. In reality, both groups were controlled by the same people-- an autocratic ruling class.
Oh sorry, I thought you were mocking the person you replied to because they were trying to redefine truth somehow.
They play both sides where possible because they can afford to
Can you describe their “power over the economy”?
Uhm. They control the price of things. They control wages. They control different markets, like the housing market. They control land development and energy. You know, things the economy relies on.
How do they “control the price of things”? Or wages?
… they sit on the board of the major companies and say, “we need to raise prices.” Or “we need to decrease wages.”
And then it happens why?
They raise the price and refuse wage increases. Are you not familiar with how a corporation works?
Why hadn’t they raised them before? Why don’t they keep raising them until prices are at infinity?
Why don’t they lower wages to zero, or negative?
They didn’t think they could get away with raising prices so far before. And they would pay us nothing if they could. Slavery showed us that.
What does “get away” with it mean? Why can’t they pay us nothing?
Because we fought a war over it and made it illegal. And previously it was assumed price increases would drive customers away. But the monopoly power of corporations like Kroger’s had gone further than anyone thought.
Sorry, what are you talking about? What “war”? What was made illegal?
Okay, on the chance you’re not American, the American Civil War, and slavery.
Who said anything about slavery? What are you talking about?
If you’re going to post so many comments, at least read the chain. Otherwise someone might mistake you for a troll.
I mean I am the chain, I’m asking you what the fuck you’re talking about and you’re really bad at having clear ideas
Oh, perfect recall then? In that case you know exactly where in your line of 5 year old style questioning that slavery was mentioned.
Socratic questioning goes back a lot longer than 5 years, stupid
That is not the Socratic method. Questioning how the CEO of a corporation has control over pricing is just trolling.
No, I’m asking you to explain why you think prices are arbitrary in contravention of essential economics.
Oh you see, you could have asked that way up there. And I’d tell you that you’re operating from a flawed premise. Economics actually talks quite a lot about monopoly power and rent seeking.
I did.
Do you? This is the first you’ve mentioned either. What’s the “monopoly” in the situation we’re discussing?
No you asked why hadn’t they raised prices before. And I was nice enough to let the flawed premise pass, (they have raised them before, they’d be out of business if they hadn’t) and give you the layman’s answer to your layman’s question.
Now you want to say it meant something else, something the English you wrote doesn’t support.
No.
Sorry, you’ve misunderstood the question. Obviously there have been price increases in the past.
If a company, on this present date, raises the price of a widget they sell to $X.XX, I’m asking you why it wasn’t already at that price. Why had they waited?
No. You’ve had two shots at this question and both answers will do here.
This is literally the first post where you’ve understood what question I even fucking asked, I think you’re obligated to give one attempt at an answer before you take your third place victory lap
Nah.
I know you know you’re a loser
They would, and they do.
But because they’re rich and determined to play both sides of the fight, they also pour some (less) money towards the Democrats to have some leverage.
…there are a ton of billionaire Democrat backers.
Yes, and they do.
You think they don’t? See
That’s why they trot out Jill Stein every four years to try and split the vote.
They sometimes do, just look at what Musk is doing. They also
bribedonate to the democrats in an effort to influence them (this is lobbying).Why do anything illegal, when you can bribe and defame in the media you own? It looks a lot less suspicious and is a lot more sustainable.
Unless something changes, the rich have basically sabotaged the democratic party into being a center-right party. That’s why it won’t be a left-wing party in the foreseeable future.
If you don’t believe me, just look up why the Democrats tolerate the Manchins and the Sinemas within their ranks.