The oligarchs don’t have hundreds of billions dollars lying around inside their bank account. The majority of their wealth is due to their publicly ally traded company stock and the stake they have in their company.
Sure, call it an oligarchy all you want, but their net worth is justified. If your business is doing well then that will be reflected according to the stock of your businesses and how much it’s worth per share.
Bezos was born to a single, high school mom who dropped out and became the richest person on Earth. Amazon is one of the best innovations ever.
If the government ran something so amazing and all at the low overall price of Jeff's net aorfh, it would be praised by people. Bezos absolutely deserves his wealth.
Tired of people saying the tech oligarchs are innovative. The idea of an online marketplace wasn't even new when Bezos founded Amazon. It was a natural step as the world became more and more digitized; Amazon is Amazon solely because of the early mover's benefit, not because it's some visionary company. Ebay had the core idea of Amazon in place 5 years before Amazon even started selling much beyond books.
Same for Zuckerberg at Facebook, who just cloned MySpace but 'for college students'?? There's no innovation, just networking and marketing.
It just goes on... PayPal, Google (search was not new, page rank was), all had prior iterations that were put on the market by actual innovators, if you want to call them that.
The only big tech company that has significantly innovated was Apple, but even then, their core product was just a modest improvement on the walkman.
It's crazy the amount of people willing to go FDAU for oligarchs over some rewritten history that their 'innovators'.
Yea, a lot of people fail to realize that Jeff Bezos own a small stake in Amazon (relatively it’s a large stake though), he is just worth a fraction of what Amazon the corporation is worth in the stock market.
Elon Musk has added approx 150B USD to his net worth since Nov 5. Is that really justified? Did Tesla have some world-altering innovation in the last 2 months that I missed? Did SpaceX reach Mars? Did Twitter turn around from it's death knell?
No; nothing fundamental about his businesses changed to justify this. He invested 250M USD into the Trump campaign and the market has so little faith in our government that it's invested hundreds of billions of dollars on the idea that Elon will use his influence with Trump to favor his own companies. Far from a justifiable increase in net worth.
It's why the meme is so dumb: people have been scaremongering for years around George Soros' donations to democrats, but are totally fine with somebody 50x wealthier openly influencing the next president of the US; totally fine with Bezos and Zuckerberg forcing change on the tech industry to be seen in a favorable light by the next president.
That’s the fault of the market then. Blame the people who put money where their mouth is and bought Tesla stock because they were feeling bullish about its future. I’m not actually sure what favors will Elon get. He has already stated that he doesn’t need EVs subsidies anymore.
The last part I agree with. Elon Musk is doing the same globalist shit and now censorship that he once criticized. It’s pretty hypocritical of him.
I think the war on drugs has made it pretty obvious you can't get rid of the sellers without first getting rid of the buyers. There will always be politicians willing to be bought as long as there are people with enough money and desire for power to buy them. We can't eliminate people that pathologically crave control. So we get rid of their ability to buy politicians and drown out the voice of the public.
I wonder if Bernie Sanders would consider Nancy Pelosi an oligarch. At least Musk, Bezos and Zuck made their money through innovation, modernization, and technology- offering the world something it wanted and sometimes needed to advance. Pelosi, on the other hand, built her $250M off the backs of taxpayers and is one of the country’s top ruling elite. I think Pelosi is too wealthy and powerful, but I doubt he would say that about her.
I read his biography and it’s a bit complicated. He wasn’t poor but their family was up and down, and his dad was a psycho. I don’t think his family’s money helped him much in his career
Yeah surely owning an emerald mine in apartheid South Africa didn't help him at all and definitely didn't help him buy his way into PayPal and jumpstart his wealth accumulation
Comparing 250 million to 250 billion is wild, even for someone that's arguing Elmo as anything but a child playing monopoly with more money to start off with...
I didn’t compare their net worths. I contrasted how they amassed their wealth. On the one hand, Musk, Bezos, and Zuck grew their wealth through a (mostly) free market economy - offering products of value for people all over the world. While Pelosi has amassed wealth through insider trading (which for some reason is perfectly legal for members of congress, but illegal for us), interest groups buying her votes and policy, an inflated salary, and corruption. Also pointing to the fact that it’s hypocritical for the massively wealthy, ruling political elite to be throwing stones from a glass house. They too are “too wealthy and powerful”. The only reason why they criticize and try to detract from these so called “oligarchs” is because they want the power they have for themselves. It’s jealousy and greed. They want to be the most powerful and have the most influence. It pisses them off that someone else has what they perceive as more - even though they’ve been influencing and implementing policy in the US and subsequently the world for decades and getting insanely wealthy while doing it. It’s still not enough. So when someone else comes along challenging their power/wealth, they throw stones.
Exactly - apparently his track record and timing on the market is literally perfect. It’s almost as if he knows something is about to happen before the public does.
I’m more concerned with the “public officials” that own multiple million dollar homes and have a net worth over $100M whilst never having a job outside the public sector.
I disagree with almost everything he has ever said. But I have alot of respect for a politician that doesn't change their platform for populism and rather stays consistent to their true beliefs. I have alot of respect for Bernie. I'd even love to sit down with him and talk about politics.
He has changed his platform plenty. He used to be a hard-liner on immigration, but softened his stance immensely when his party became the party of open borders.
He also stopped ragging on millionaires once he became one.
Bernie is not an ideologically consistent Ron Paul type.
The Carnegie Republicans versus The Rockefeller Democrats.
The Federal government stopped representing the US public and individual states a long long long time ago. It just takes time to transform a Constitutional Republic into a Administrative State.
These big public corporations are part and parcel of how a administrative state works.
The public would never accept, nor would it be practical, for the Federal government to send troops and police into each individual town and city to regulate American's lives.
But if the government created central banking and a heavily regulated market were the regulators and banking cartels get to manipulate the markets and lending rates to ensure massive corporations run everything... then the government has no problem convincing the public they need to regulate the big public corporations, which then allows them to have a high degree of centralized control over the economy.
Corporatism is just socialism with extra steps. If the government can't control the capital then at least they can control the people controlling the capital.
These people being called "Oligarchs" are only being called that because they are paying tribute to Trump.
When they did the exact same stuff for Biden then Reditors didn't have a single problem with it.
It doesn't even rise up to the level of hypocracy.
it is only "Tyrrany Blue == Good", "Tyrrany Red == Bad" or visa versa depending on what "side" you think you are on.
The reality is that the only side the centralized powers are on are the centralized powers. The more Americans blame other Americans for the shitty things the government does instead of the government itself... the more they can get away with.
The oligarchy part is not the amount of stock they own and their wealth. But how to put that wealth to work to manipulate the government imo. Mostly using it in some weird suppressive way. Or to maintain some weird monopolist structure
I don’t know I’m just a dumb guy but that’s pretty clear looking from the outset as a citizen? This is a global problem. Politicians are not in control any longer
The reality is that Big Corporations and Big Governments need each other.
In the 20th century, due to the success of the Progressive Movement, we saw the rise of things like publicly traded corporations, central banking, and administrative states.
It is the banking cartels and regulators that are the "king makers".
When the Federal Reserve, which is literally a banking cartel in every sense of the word, goes out and "prints" trillions of dollars... Were do you think that money goes?
Well it goes into the banks that own the Federal Reserve first. Then it starts to go into large institutional investors and the like, which then ends up in the stock market.
Things like this could not possibly exist without major government intervention.
This is all done very much on purpose.
One of the major beliefs of the Progressive Movement was that having squabbling small and medium businesses was inefficient and created a "race to the bottom" mentality. They felt to compete with Europe we needed these gigantic businesses that controlled all aspects of major industries in the USA.
So that is what they set out to do.
You see the oligarchs have always been here. They have been in and out of government since the beginning. They don't like competition. They don't like not being in control.
So as a result we have things like Central Banking and highly regulated public corporations and administrative states.
Prior to 20th century we had maybe 3 or 4 major Federal administrations. Now we have well over 400.
The administrative state needs public corporations. This is how they are able to regulate and control industries in the USA and most other countries.
The idea that government is needed to counter business greed or business monopolies is something that only began around the 1930s or so. It was a lie then and it is a lie now.
There is a reason why 'The New Deal' is a type of Corporatism.
An oligarchy implies that these ultra rich and powerful are all working together towards a certain goal. Bezos and Zuckerberg and Musk don't appear to be working together. Just because they are rich doesn't mean they are doing anything together. Especially for any specific political power. Now the very wealthy CEOS' of Exxon/Mobile and Chevron, which do work together and lobby congress heavily as well as other countries, however they are appointed CEOs not private investors. So they are big oil but not an oligarchy. The fact that Exxon/mobile used to be multiple oil and gas companies that were broken up as part of of a monopoly, and Chevron was part of Standard oil too has to do with anti trust issues, As Does Facebook and Amazon, but monopolies do not make you an oligarch necessarily. its something else.
Bernie is such a clown on things like this. He's so hypocritical to not criticize his own side until politically advantageous to do so, but always attack anyone outside of his camp. People like to say that he's "principled" but he's just like any other politician where he openly lies when it benefits him and sways with the winds of wherever the Left is pointing so that he can maintain his position of power.
To be an oligarchy, does it not require some sort of actual government position? If he means market share, it'd be called an oligopoly, and Sanders's beliefs were what made them too.
"Forget how they made their money," I for one choose not to forget how they made their money through innovation and producing goods/services that people wanted and resulted in job creation for countless people that may have otherwise been unemployed
Billionaires don't get to that tier because of their "innovation", they exploit and undermine and take advantage of anything they can. And they provide very little to society in the broader picture; they only desire assets. People are just tools to them. People are just drones.
"Countless" is incorrect. And those people they employ they exploit. There is no morality in hoarding billions acquired through economically oppressing the humans making their extreme wealth a possibility. Their bottom line is sustained and bolstered by the devaluation of human dignity. They are devoid of empathy. They do not value life whatsoever.
Unless a billionaire gives back and creates meaningful change for normal people, there is no reason to adore and revere these parasites. Billionaires destabilize society. They undermine the fabric of it.
Do you know how much a billion is? Please look up some easy to understand graphics to grasp it. What is the point of having that much money? Do something with it. Billions with a B. It's astronomically excessive.
You know damn well what exploitation is. Pay a livable wage. Stop squashing collective bargaining, provide adequate benefits, give people more of an incentive to work instead of a shitty, barely viable paycheck. Don't demand work conditions that result in people shitting/pissing in bottles. Don't vehemently deny workers comp. Don't lie to congress about it either.
Where is that money going? Nowhere. Nowhere but their pockets.
The beneficiaries of wealth creation are themselves. There is no wealth creation for anyone else. No upward mobility. Nobody struggling gives a shit about shareholders, they need to survive. Trickle down .05 of your net worth and guess what, still a billionaire.
A modest 20% wage increase from bezos for everyone that works for Amazon would be a drop in the bucket... This is psychotic, sadistic behavior. That's hoarding.
So society gets convenience and cool stuff, but the cost for that is total dehumanization. There is no morality in this whatsoever.
Sir this is a libertarian subreddit lol. What you’re complaining about can be solved by free market principles. If people don’t like the pay/benefits/conditions then they can leave. It’s no one’s business to tell others how to run their successful business or how to spend their money, but themselves. People create a product that makes them to be valued billions. That’s how it works. Just because you think it doesn’t provide any benefits to society then that’s your problem. It clearly provided plenty of people with some otherwise why would they be worth billions now?
Independently of what your political view is - getting a medal of freedom has nothing to do with the question imo. You can get a medal and be a piece of shit.
jankdangus@reddit
The oligarchs don’t have hundreds of billions dollars lying around inside their bank account. The majority of their wealth is due to their publicly ally traded company stock and the stake they have in their company.
Sure, call it an oligarchy all you want, but their net worth is justified. If your business is doing well then that will be reflected according to the stock of your businesses and how much it’s worth per share.
Fletch71011@reddit
Bezos was born to a single, high school mom who dropped out and became the richest person on Earth. Amazon is one of the best innovations ever.
If the government ran something so amazing and all at the low overall price of Jeff's net aorfh, it would be praised by people. Bezos absolutely deserves his wealth.
JustAnotherMortalMan@reddit
Tired of people saying the tech oligarchs are innovative. The idea of an online marketplace wasn't even new when Bezos founded Amazon. It was a natural step as the world became more and more digitized; Amazon is Amazon solely because of the early mover's benefit, not because it's some visionary company. Ebay had the core idea of Amazon in place 5 years before Amazon even started selling much beyond books.
Same for Zuckerberg at Facebook, who just cloned MySpace but 'for college students'?? There's no innovation, just networking and marketing.
It just goes on... PayPal, Google (search was not new, page rank was), all had prior iterations that were put on the market by actual innovators, if you want to call them that.
The only big tech company that has significantly innovated was Apple, but even then, their core product was just a modest improvement on the walkman.
It's crazy the amount of people willing to go FDAU for oligarchs over some rewritten history that their 'innovators'.
Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit
Ok then, use Ebay instead of Amazon. Use MySpace instead of Facebook. Don't use PayPal or Google.
No one's stopping you.
No one's forcing anyone to use those providers instead of their many competitors.
People choose to use them because they like them the best, because they provide a superior service.
c0achmcguirk@reddit
If it's so easy, you should do it.
JustAnotherMortalMan@reddit
It's not the 90s anymore, and I have no aspirations to be an oligarch.
jankdangus@reddit
Yea, a lot of people fail to realize that Jeff Bezos own a small stake in Amazon (relatively it’s a large stake though), he is just worth a fraction of what Amazon the corporation is worth in the stock market.
JustAnotherMortalMan@reddit
Elon Musk has added approx 150B USD to his net worth since Nov 5. Is that really justified? Did Tesla have some world-altering innovation in the last 2 months that I missed? Did SpaceX reach Mars? Did Twitter turn around from it's death knell?
No; nothing fundamental about his businesses changed to justify this. He invested 250M USD into the Trump campaign and the market has so little faith in our government that it's invested hundreds of billions of dollars on the idea that Elon will use his influence with Trump to favor his own companies. Far from a justifiable increase in net worth.
It's why the meme is so dumb: people have been scaremongering for years around George Soros' donations to democrats, but are totally fine with somebody 50x wealthier openly influencing the next president of the US; totally fine with Bezos and Zuckerberg forcing change on the tech industry to be seen in a favorable light by the next president.
jankdangus@reddit
That’s the fault of the market then. Blame the people who put money where their mouth is and bought Tesla stock because they were feeling bullish about its future. I’m not actually sure what favors will Elon get. He has already stated that he doesn’t need EVs subsidies anymore.
The last part I agree with. Elon Musk is doing the same globalist shit and now censorship that he once criticized. It’s pretty hypocritical of him.
pskaife@reddit
Their wealth isn't the problem. Their control of the government that circumvents the will of the people is.
Representative_Bat81@reddit
We need a political system that decouples money from political power, not an economic system that removes prosperity in search of economic equality.
JustAnotherMortalMan@reddit
Government and political media... (WaPo, Twitter, Facebook news, Fox news, probably more) are all oligarch owned.
JustAnotherMortalMan@reddit
Government and political media... (WaPo, Twitter, Facebook news, Fox news, probably more) are all oligarch owned.
jankdangus@reddit
Yea that’s fair, and I would agree we should have laws against high net wort individuals yielding that much political power.
KochamPolsceRazDwa@reddit
No, unnecessary bureaucracy is not the answer. What is the answer is taking away the power that they would sell.
ralphie0341@reddit
Simply remove the power from the state and the rich won't pay to use it for their own interests.
Gratedfumes@reddit
It would be more efficient if they could just use that money to directly subjugate us.
And then they wouldn't need to worry about the people t
LogicalConstant@reddit
Then stop the government from selling power
PunkCPA@reddit
If they don't have power, they have nothing to sell. That's libertarianism.
Gail__Wynand@reddit
I think the war on drugs has made it pretty obvious you can't get rid of the sellers without first getting rid of the buyers. There will always be politicians willing to be bought as long as there are people with enough money and desire for power to buy them. We can't eliminate people that pathologically crave control. So we get rid of their ability to buy politicians and drown out the voice of the public.
discourse_friendly@reddit
If reddit wasn't such a bias shit hole , that would get 30K likes on murdered by words
ScHoolboy_QQ@reddit
The comments over there kill me. Literally a botfarm/zoo.
discourse_friendly@reddit
Yes. literally all the same comment "I don't see the burn because Bernie isn't biden"
they also removed the post with out ever stating a reason. which I guess that means they didn't lie on why they removed it.
pigs_have_flown@reddit
None of this is new. Acting like any of this is new or unique to this incoming presidency is a distraction.
Abi_giggles@reddit
I wonder if Bernie Sanders would consider Nancy Pelosi an oligarch. At least Musk, Bezos and Zuck made their money through innovation, modernization, and technology- offering the world something it wanted and sometimes needed to advance. Pelosi, on the other hand, built her $250M off the backs of taxpayers and is one of the country’s top ruling elite. I think Pelosi is too wealthy and powerful, but I doubt he would say that about her.
SwissDeathstar@reddit
Hmmm.. Did we really need social media? Or delivery services to our doorsteps? And Musk didn’t invent anything. He just wanted to get rich and famous.
NotoriousSUZ@reddit
Musk was born rich.
Presitgious_Reaction@reddit
I read his biography and it’s a bit complicated. He wasn’t poor but their family was up and down, and his dad was a psycho. I don’t think his family’s money helped him much in his career
Professional-Room-13@reddit
Hr was born rich, bezos married rich, and zuck was born rich.
IhamAmerican@reddit
Yeah surely owning an emerald mine in apartheid South Africa didn't help him at all and definitely didn't help him buy his way into PayPal and jumpstart his wealth accumulation
c0achmcguirk@reddit
Yeah, this isn't even close to the truth. But Reddit hivemind laps it up.
PranksterLe1@reddit
How much was that author paid to write that book that you are automated to respond to every time it is mentioned on Reddit though?
https://i.redd.it/786dtegkkkde1.gif
Professional-Room-13@reddit
1: why would he? She's not one oligarch has a specific meaning, Nancy was voted in.
2: how they made their money doesn't matter, just like Sanders said its how they use it that makes them oligarchs.
PranksterLe1@reddit
Comparing 250 million to 250 billion is wild, even for someone that's arguing Elmo as anything but a child playing monopoly with more money to start off with...
Abi_giggles@reddit
I didn’t compare their net worths. I contrasted how they amassed their wealth. On the one hand, Musk, Bezos, and Zuck grew their wealth through a (mostly) free market economy - offering products of value for people all over the world. While Pelosi has amassed wealth through insider trading (which for some reason is perfectly legal for members of congress, but illegal for us), interest groups buying her votes and policy, an inflated salary, and corruption. Also pointing to the fact that it’s hypocritical for the massively wealthy, ruling political elite to be throwing stones from a glass house. They too are “too wealthy and powerful”. The only reason why they criticize and try to detract from these so called “oligarchs” is because they want the power they have for themselves. It’s jealousy and greed. They want to be the most powerful and have the most influence. It pisses them off that someone else has what they perceive as more - even though they’ve been influencing and implementing policy in the US and subsequently the world for decades and getting insanely wealthy while doing it. It’s still not enough. So when someone else comes along challenging their power/wealth, they throw stones.
PranksterLe1@reddit
baconinstitute@reddit
Paul Pelosi made his money in finance, only difference was his insider is married to him rather than a golf buddy
Abi_giggles@reddit
Exactly - apparently his track record and timing on the market is literally perfect. It’s almost as if he knows something is about to happen before the public does.
xxdoba1@reddit
Bernie Sanders is an independent. Do a little reeling
Abi_giggles@reddit
LOL Bernie is left of the left. He’s a democratic socialist. I don’t care if he’s registered dem or not, I look at his actions.
pro_nosepicker@reddit
He’s caucused with the Democrats almost his entire career and has twice sought the Democratic nomination for president.
xxdoba1@reddit
Great he attended meetings on the Democrats side as a registered independent.
rakedbdrop@reddit
50 year public "servents" calling for term limits at the end of their career is peak politics.
Raginfrijoles@reddit
Damn bro just eat the whole boot while you’re at it 🤣🤣
Kawadamark1@reddit
I bet he would....
FantomexLive@reddit
They don’t care about truth they care about power and control.
Clown-Baby-21@reddit
Was he implying that Elon was some destitute immigrant and pulled himself up by his bootstraps? That’s not really the case.
OriginalSkyCloth@reddit
I’m more concerned with the “public officials” that own multiple million dollar homes and have a net worth over $100M whilst never having a job outside the public sector.
Asangkt358@reddit
No, no, no. You need to be worried about evil rich people in the private sector. The public sector can't possible be evil.
TheHancock@reddit
To protect and serve! Says so on the car!
Professional-Room-13@reddit
Public speaking events, book deals(multiple), teaching roles, and not being the only person in their household
FeelingCurrent6079@reddit
Yeah but have you ever heard them at one of their $300K speaking events? Real breathtaking stuff, surely well deserving of that kind of $$… /s
Gabeeb3DS@reddit
we have been oligarchy since nixon was pardoned and resigned bernie and biden are 50 years too late
xxdoba1@reddit
Bernie has been talking about an oligarchy for 45 years…
SpeakerOk1974@reddit
I disagree with almost everything he has ever said. But I have alot of respect for a politician that doesn't change their platform for populism and rather stays consistent to their true beliefs. I have alot of respect for Bernie. I'd even love to sit down with him and talk about politics.
amosnahoy@reddit
I’m always saying this. I disagree so much but that right there is, dare is say, a good man in politics perhaps?
IamFrank69@reddit
He has changed his platform plenty. He used to be a hard-liner on immigration, but softened his stance immensely when his party became the party of open borders.
He also stopped ragging on millionaires once he became one.
Bernie is not an ideologically consistent Ron Paul type.
Professional-Room-13@reddit
This is actually very much false, bernie has always been pro- soft borders.
NonPartisanFinance@reddit
Underrated opinion. Bernie and Ron Paul had a great respect for each other for these reasons. Both stood on business and didn't sway with the winds.
nullstring@reddit
If all our politicians were like this (regardless of their politics and values), the country would be a much much better place.
Professional-Room-13@reddit
This thank you, the left, the real left that is has been blowing this horn for decades.
natermer@reddit
Try the 1870s, not the 1970s.
The Carnegie Republicans versus The Rockefeller Democrats.
The Federal government stopped representing the US public and individual states a long long long time ago. It just takes time to transform a Constitutional Republic into a Administrative State.
These big public corporations are part and parcel of how a administrative state works.
The public would never accept, nor would it be practical, for the Federal government to send troops and police into each individual town and city to regulate American's lives.
But if the government created central banking and a heavily regulated market were the regulators and banking cartels get to manipulate the markets and lending rates to ensure massive corporations run everything... then the government has no problem convincing the public they need to regulate the big public corporations, which then allows them to have a high degree of centralized control over the economy.
Corporatism is just socialism with extra steps. If the government can't control the capital then at least they can control the people controlling the capital.
These people being called "Oligarchs" are only being called that because they are paying tribute to Trump.
When they did the exact same stuff for Biden then Reditors didn't have a single problem with it.
It doesn't even rise up to the level of hypocracy.
it is only "Tyrrany Blue == Good", "Tyrrany Red == Bad" or visa versa depending on what "side" you think you are on.
The reality is that the only side the centralized powers are on are the centralized powers. The more Americans blame other Americans for the shitty things the government does instead of the government itself... the more they can get away with.
Jerclaw@reddit
I feel like the oligarch started on 11/22/1963.
That’s when the major shifts in culture started. They’ve owned the state since that moment.
Semirahl@reddit
your face is an oligarchy 🧐😎
DoomsdayTheorist1@reddit
Bernie used to complain about millionaires and billionaires until he became a millionaire.
Professional-Room-13@reddit
Dude bernie still says he doesn't like billionaires and millionaires.
FlatlandCow@reddit
I keep seeing people say this but if you watch any interview he still is, like all the time.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Bernie IS part of the Oligarchy. Entrenched politicians in Washington holding onto power for over 30 years.
Professional-Room-13@reddit
-_- no he's not, oligarch has a very specific meaning, and bernie doesn't fit it.
Professional-Room-13@reddit
Mate what Sanders is saying is how musk made his money isn't relevant, how he's using his money is.
TylerTheHungry@reddit
He who controls the past also controls the present and the future. How very black/white.
Otherwise_Visual_966@reddit
The oligarchy part is not the amount of stock they own and their wealth. But how to put that wealth to work to manipulate the government imo. Mostly using it in some weird suppressive way. Or to maintain some weird monopolist structure
I don’t know I’m just a dumb guy but that’s pretty clear looking from the outset as a citizen? This is a global problem. Politicians are not in control any longer
natermer@reddit
The reality is that Big Corporations and Big Governments need each other.
In the 20th century, due to the success of the Progressive Movement, we saw the rise of things like publicly traded corporations, central banking, and administrative states.
It is the banking cartels and regulators that are the "king makers".
When the Federal Reserve, which is literally a banking cartel in every sense of the word, goes out and "prints" trillions of dollars... Were do you think that money goes?
Well it goes into the banks that own the Federal Reserve first. Then it starts to go into large institutional investors and the like, which then ends up in the stock market.
Things like this could not possibly exist without major government intervention.
This is all done very much on purpose.
One of the major beliefs of the Progressive Movement was that having squabbling small and medium businesses was inefficient and created a "race to the bottom" mentality. They felt to compete with Europe we needed these gigantic businesses that controlled all aspects of major industries in the USA.
So that is what they set out to do.
You see the oligarchs have always been here. They have been in and out of government since the beginning. They don't like competition. They don't like not being in control.
So as a result we have things like Central Banking and highly regulated public corporations and administrative states.
Prior to 20th century we had maybe 3 or 4 major Federal administrations. Now we have well over 400.
The administrative state needs public corporations. This is how they are able to regulate and control industries in the USA and most other countries.
The idea that government is needed to counter business greed or business monopolies is something that only began around the 1930s or so. It was a lie then and it is a lie now.
There is a reason why 'The New Deal' is a type of Corporatism.
https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm
The bigger the government the more power to the big corporations. And visa versa.
Otherwise_Visual_966@reddit
Ty for this reaction I’ll dig in deeper
MrSluagh@reddit
So are we far away from "real capitalism" or "real communism" for you to form a temporary alliance with socialists yet?
rabell3@reddit
I'd give you a gold if I could. This comment is spot-on!
cdmillerx42@reddit
Too bad they removed the comment
fatty_boombatty@reddit
I don't think I'm dumb and you expressed it better than I could.
Grumblepugs2000@reddit
Sanders: "Our oligarchs are good your oligarchs are bad!"
ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)
They’re not oligarchs they’re Democratic oligarchs!
CamperStacker@reddit
who keeps voting for these dinosaurs
Grumblepugs2000@reddit
Vermont is the home of retired college professors
cmparkerson@reddit
An oligarchy implies that these ultra rich and powerful are all working together towards a certain goal. Bezos and Zuckerberg and Musk don't appear to be working together. Just because they are rich doesn't mean they are doing anything together. Especially for any specific political power. Now the very wealthy CEOS' of Exxon/Mobile and Chevron, which do work together and lobby congress heavily as well as other countries, however they are appointed CEOs not private investors. So they are big oil but not an oligarchy. The fact that Exxon/mobile used to be multiple oil and gas companies that were broken up as part of of a monopoly, and Chevron was part of Standard oil too has to do with anti trust issues, As Does Facebook and Amazon, but monopolies do not make you an oligarch necessarily. its something else.
maffearth@reddit
I'm not following how this is doublethink
ALD3RIC@reddit
No no.. When Soros does it it's OK. When Musk does it he's a "threat to our democracy".
DrElvisHChrist0@reddit
Bernout is part of the oligarchy too!
Atrampoline@reddit
Bernie is such a clown on things like this. He's so hypocritical to not criticize his own side until politically advantageous to do so, but always attack anyone outside of his camp. People like to say that he's "principled" but he's just like any other politician where he openly lies when it benefits him and sways with the winds of wherever the Left is pointing so that he can maintain his position of power.
claybine@reddit
To be an oligarchy, does it not require some sort of actual government position? If he means market share, it'd be called an oligopoly, and Sanders's beliefs were what made them too.
UpvoteBecauseReasons@reddit
Don't forget that companies are people. We've been an oligarchy for 60+ years.
Bagain@reddit
As usual, half right. Then again, the government acknowledging the real problem is bad for government so… that’s not going to happen.
ZeldaTrek@reddit
"Forget how they made their money," I for one choose not to forget how they made their money through innovation and producing goods/services that people wanted and resulted in job creation for countless people that may have otherwise been unemployed
MasterDump@reddit
Billionaires don't get to that tier because of their "innovation", they exploit and undermine and take advantage of anything they can. And they provide very little to society in the broader picture; they only desire assets. People are just tools to them. People are just drones.
"Countless" is incorrect. And those people they employ they exploit. There is no morality in hoarding billions acquired through economically oppressing the humans making their extreme wealth a possibility. Their bottom line is sustained and bolstered by the devaluation of human dignity. They are devoid of empathy. They do not value life whatsoever.
Unless a billionaire gives back and creates meaningful change for normal people, there is no reason to adore and revere these parasites. Billionaires destabilize society. They undermine the fabric of it.
LogicalConstant@reddit
The primary beneficiary of wealth creation is society. The shareholders only get the leftovers.
Define exploit
Define hoarding
MasterDump@reddit
Do you know how much a billion is? Please look up some easy to understand graphics to grasp it. What is the point of having that much money? Do something with it. Billions with a B. It's astronomically excessive.
You know damn well what exploitation is. Pay a livable wage. Stop squashing collective bargaining, provide adequate benefits, give people more of an incentive to work instead of a shitty, barely viable paycheck. Don't demand work conditions that result in people shitting/pissing in bottles. Don't vehemently deny workers comp. Don't lie to congress about it either.
Where is that money going? Nowhere. Nowhere but their pockets.
The beneficiaries of wealth creation are themselves. There is no wealth creation for anyone else. No upward mobility. Nobody struggling gives a shit about shareholders, they need to survive. Trickle down .05 of your net worth and guess what, still a billionaire.
A modest 20% wage increase from bezos for everyone that works for Amazon would be a drop in the bucket... This is psychotic, sadistic behavior. That's hoarding.
So society gets convenience and cool stuff, but the cost for that is total dehumanization. There is no morality in this whatsoever.
shiggidyschwag@reddit
It’s like you think Amazon employs only entry level warehouse workers and no one else.
Shitloads of people have great careers making great money to make that company work.
TheDunzoWashington@reddit
Sir this is a libertarian subreddit lol. What you’re complaining about can be solved by free market principles. If people don’t like the pay/benefits/conditions then they can leave. It’s no one’s business to tell others how to run their successful business or how to spend their money, but themselves. People create a product that makes them to be valued billions. That’s how it works. Just because you think it doesn’t provide any benefits to society then that’s your problem. It clearly provided plenty of people with some otherwise why would they be worth billions now?
Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit
Lol. Lmao.
TheDunzoWashington@reddit
This guy must be trying to rage baiting us lol
in_ya_Butt@reddit
Independently of what your political view is - getting a medal of freedom has nothing to do with the question imo. You can get a medal and be a piece of shit.
Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit
List of who Biden just gave the presidential medal of freedom to (19 peeps including Soros and Clinton):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/04/president-biden-announces-recipients-of-the-presidential-medal-of-freedom-3/