Topic: Study Says The US Is An Oligarchy, Not A Democracy (Read 1160 times)
It´s a totalitarian police state. But as such it has a major flaw. Without regular purges such systems are likely to get over time totally overwhelmed by garbage in charge. So, to improve behavior of management good chunks of garbage are taken out from time to time. Best of luck with that America, g
What is an oligarchy in normal people speak?
Where a small group of people have all the control over a federation instead of the people representatives (deputies, senators, etc..)
Oh. And what. People are just coming to this realization now? This is old news to me.
What is an oligarchy in normal people speak?
Where a small group of people have all the control over a federation instead of giving the power to people representatives (deputies, senators, etc..)
What is an oligarchy in normal people speak?
Don't forget to throw in a side of Capitalism. When a Corporation can vote with its wallet as much as an individual, I'm not sure what people expect to happen.
You don't say...? With a controlled economy and media, who woulda thought?
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Quote
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
They conclude:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
They conclude:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
The US is to Democracy as China or Russia is to Communism .
Stephen F.
Even more than that, the US is far from a democracy. it is closer to a plutocracy, oligarchy and kleptocracy.
Check these infographics out:
http://www.kleptocracy.us/
Check these infographics out:
http://www.kleptocracy.us/
Quote
Study Says The US Is An Oligarchy, Not A Democracy
What a surprise. 
It is obvious, I also think that maybe the Anarchism is better than the actual 'democracy' (if we can call it in that way). If I can add a thing, the US government is everything that you want but it is not a democracy government (also if you know that people is voting a president).
Ich kann not recommend the support of the candidate Rand Paul. There is strong evidence that he is heavily influenced by 2 Juden: Ludwig von Mises und the Frau who went by the pseudonym Ayn Rand.
The eternal jew is always attempting to come to power by different, often opposing, paths.
Rand Paul is the Liberal part of the Marxian-Zentrum-Liberal-Capitalistic alliance against the rebirth that can only come from National Socialism. As proof of this, note that Rand Paul only takes donations in the Zionist controlled Bitcoin, and not in the racially pure cryptocurrency Paycoin.
The eternal jew is always attempting to come to power by different, often opposing, paths.
Rand Paul is the Liberal part of the Marxian-Zentrum-Liberal-Capitalistic alliance against the rebirth that can only come from National Socialism. As proof of this, note that Rand Paul only takes donations in the Zionist controlled Bitcoin, and not in the racially pure cryptocurrency Paycoin.
Exactly. No change is going to come from Rand or anyone in politics - the usual suspects have a death grip on US politics and the economy and have spent generations ensuring their plot succeeds.
Yeah, it clearly became an oligarchy and the only real threat towards it is Rand Paul. It's so far in debt that they have to keep the exportation of fed notes overseas in order to keep the shell game moving forward. Most adults realize the size of the debt but are too ignorant to realize what the repercussions are or that anything could change to the wonderful usa.
Can someone show me a country what isn't an oligarchy? Maybe in Switzerland we can still see some real democracy but apart from them practically all other countries are ruled by local or global oligarchs.
I guess there´s different degrees of oligarchy. In a one-party political system like in the U.S. it´s likely to become very strong over time and increasingly insane and homicidal. In a multi-party system with real media and checks and balances, in other words a democracy, it´ll have much less power.
You don't say...? With a controlled economy and media, who woulda thought?
Would you prefer the country to be dominated by a bunch of poor losers? Or by people making unrealistic economic promises? Or by people who don't want to pay their debts like in Greece?
The US is far from perfect, but it's far from being the worst country in the world. On the contrary, it's in the top league for well living and purchasing power.
Quote
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
Would you prefer the country to be dominated by a bunch of poor losers? Or by people making unrealistic economic promises? Or by people who don't want to pay their debts like in Greece?
The US is far from perfect, but it's far from being the worst country in the world. On the contrary, it's in the top league for well living and purchasing power.
No shit. There are about 1,000 Americans who matter, the rest of us are quite expendable in this system.
George Carlin said it best.
George Carlin said it best.
Can someone show me a country what isn't an oligarchy? Maybe in Switzerland we can still see some real democracy but apart from them practically all other countries are ruled by local or global oligarchs.
What a revelation. Well, it´s good that Americans are starting to figure this out, most everybody else did decades ago - I guess.
Good luck, g
Good luck, g
You don't say...? With a controlled economy and media, who woulda thought?
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Quote
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
They conclude:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
They conclude:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Wouldn't be so much of a problem If they also weren't psycho, and too stupid to run the country well, the future of the u.s. is not looking good.
You don't say...? With a controlled economy and media, who woulda thought?
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Quote
The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
They conclude:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."
On the other hand:
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
They conclude:
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Well, it's well known nowadays that bankers control the world. In America it's federal reserve system owners. American president is nothing more than a talking head. But it's still better than a totalitarizm.
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." -Stalin
Jump to: