AOC nails it...again

[THE_DEVIL]

 

[magaboy]

She's so amazing

 

[Huey Grey 2]

Worst thing is that the Republicans won't do anything about all this corruption. They want Trump using his office to screw over the rest of us.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

plutocracy​

noun​

plu·toc·ra·cy plü-ˈtä-krə-sē

pluralplutocracies
Synonyms of plutocracy


1
: government by the wealthy


2
: a controlling class of the wealth

 

[THE_DEVIL]

AI generated




Like
Dislike

Can Capitalism and Plutocracy Work Together?​

Capitalism and plutocracy can coexist in practice, but their compatibility depends on how political power and economic systems interact.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, competition, and profit-seeking. It can foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth, but it also tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of those who own capital thisvsthat.io. Social mobility is possible through hard work and innovation, though it is not guaranteed.
Plutocracy, by contrast, is a political system where wealth and influence determine who holds power. In a plutocracy, the wealthy elite shape policies, control resources, and often restrict upward mobility for others thisvsthat.io. This concentration of wealth can lead to extreme inequality, monopolies, and reduced political equality.
How they can work together
In some cases, capitalist economies develop plutocratic tendencies when government policies favor the wealthy, such as tax breaks for capital gains, deregulation, and reduced labor protections Economics from the Top Down+1. This can create a feedback loop: wealth accumulation increases political influence, which in turn protects and expands economic advantages. In this model, capitalism provides the economic engine, while plutocracy ensures that the benefits flow disproportionately to the elite.
Why they may not work well together
Critics argue that extreme concentration of wealth undermines democratic principles. Wealthy individuals and corporations can influence legislation, elections, and public discourse through lobbying, campaign contributions, and media control lanekenworthy.net. This can drown out the voices of ordinary citizens and erode political equality. Philosophers like Plato warned that ruling by wealth, rather than merit, can lead to poor governance and societal decline constitutionaldiscourse.com.
The tension
Capitalism can function without plutocracy if there are strong checks—such as progressive taxation, labor rights, and independent regulatory bodies—that prevent wealth from monopolizing political power. Conversely, without democratic safeguards, capitalism can naturally evolve into a plutocracy, especially in systems where political power is tied to economic control lanekenworthy.net.
Bottom line
Capitalism and plutocracy can work together in a way that benefits the wealthy elite, but they are fundamentally at odds with equitable governance. For capitalism to sustain long-term social stability and democratic legitimacy, it must be balanced with mechanisms that limit the disproportionate influence of the richest few. Without such limits, the two systems risk reinforcing each other in a way that undermines fairness and public trust.

 

[baltimorened]

plutocracy​

noun​

plu·toc·ra·cy plü-ˈtä-krə-sē

pluralplutocracies
Synonyms of plutocracy


1
: government by the wealthy


2
: a controlling class of the wealth

well there's one thing you might be overlooking. When AOC refers to lobbyists or corporate PACs, anyone who is a member, no matter what they earn can donate to a PAC and it doesn't have to be a corporate one...there are union PACs, consumer goods PACs - like beer distribuotrs, just one example, lawyer PACs.....trial lawyers are a big deal in DC, there are also PACs in support of foreign interests - like AIPAC....

And. most members of both parties accept money from PACs and for those that don't there are ways arou nd the system...for example, Bernie Sanders doesn't accept money from pharmaceutical PACs, but he accepts money from folks who work for pharmaceutical companies, I know I used to get money from my corporate executives to give to members who didn't accept PAC funds. They knew where the money was coming from, but they had the deniability that they didn't accept PAC money...it's a sham

Now, I don't know anyone who doesn't think there's too much money in our politics. But as AOC tried to point out, our legal system makes all these donations legal.

So AOC, who is in a solid Democrat district can afford to get her campaign financing from mainly small donations. If she decides to run for higher office she may need to change her opinion.

 

[Huey Grey 2]

well there's one thing you might be overlooking. When AOC refers to lobbyists or corporate PACs, anyone who is a member, no matter what they earn can donate to a PAC and it doesn't have to be a corporate one...there are union PACs, consumer goods PACs - like beer distribuotrs, just one example, lawyer PACs.....trial lawyers are a big deal in DC, there are also PACs in support of foreign interests - like AIPAC....

And. most members of both parties accept money from PACs and for those that don't there are ways arou nd the system...for example, Bernie Sanders doesn't accept money from pharmaceutical PACs, but he accepts money from folks who work for pharmaceutical companies, I know I used to get money from my corporate executives to give to members who didn't accept PAC funds. They knew where the money was coming from, but they had the deniability that they didn't accept PAC money...it's a sham

Now, I don't know anyone who doesn't think there's too much money in our politics. But as AOC tried to point out, our legal system makes all these donations legal.

So AOC, who is in a solid Democrat district can afford to get her campaign financing from mainly small donations. If she decides to run for higher office she may need to change her opinion.

And what about her other point? The point everyone in the panel agreed with? That Trump was taking all this PAC money and then creating laws to exclusively benefit the funders of the PACs to both make them and Trump richer?

You agree that this is corruption, correct? You also agree that such a president should be booted from office who does this, correct?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

well there's one thing you might be overlooking. When AOC refers to lobbyists or corporate PACs, anyone who is a member, no matter what they earn can donate to a PAC and it doesn't have to be a corporate one...there are union PACs, consumer goods PACs - like beer distribuotrs, just one example, lawyer PACs.....trial lawyers are a big deal in DC, there are also PACs in support of foreign interests - like AIPAC....

And. most members of both parties accept money from PACs and for those that don't there are ways arou nd the system...for example, Bernie Sanders doesn't accept money from pharmaceutical PACs, but he accepts money from folks who work for pharmaceutical companies, I know I used to get money from my corporate executives to give to members who didn't accept PAC funds. They knew where the money was coming from, but they had the deniability that they didn't accept PAC money...it's a sham

Now, I don't know anyone who doesn't think there's too much money in our politics. But as AOC tried to point out, our legal system makes all these donations legal.

So AOC, who is in a solid Democrat district can afford to get her campaign financing from mainly small donations. If she decides to run for higher office she may need to change her opinion.

So should the system be changed?

 

[baltimorened]

So should the system be changed?

absolutely....but the problem is the system is currently legal and you'd need Congress to change it. You'd think that individual members, who spend an inordinate amount of time fundraisng - there used to be invididual "cubbyholes" in the RNC and DNC where members would go and "dial for dollars". They don't like doing it and people who get those calls don't like it either.

I'd prefer some kind of a system with a limited amount of time for campaigning and a limit on the amount of money spent on campaigns. But there are entire industries built on our elections system. I have a friend of my son whose wife is a fundraiser for Republican candidates - she's been at it for a while - draws 10% of what she raises, and she's been earning 7 figures for years now.

Look how much money media, be it TV, radio, billboard, social media make off ads every 2 years....AOC might not like the system, but a lot of other people/businesses do

But does it need to be changed...yes

 

[Huey Grey 2]

absolutely....but the problem is the system is currently legal and you'd need Congress to change it. You'd think that individual members, who spend an inordinate amount of time fundraisng - there used to be invididual "cubbyholes" in the RNC and DNC where members would go and "dial for dollars". They don't like doing it and people who get those calls don't like it either.

I'd prefer some kind of a system with a limited amount of time for campaigning and a limit on the amount of money spent on campaigns. But there are entire industries built on our elections system. I have a friend of my son whose wife is a fundraiser for Republican candidates - she's been at it for a while - draws 10% of what she raises, and she's been earning 7 figures for years now.

Look how much money media, be it TV, radio, billboard, social media make off ads every 2 years....AOC might not like the system, but a lot of other people/businesses do

But does it need to be changed...yes

Simply overturning Citizens United would go a long way to repairing a lot of this campaign damage.

 

[baltimorened]

Simply overturning Citizens United would go a long way to repairing a lot of this campaign damage.

yea but I don't know how you do that...didn't the supreme court rule on that?

 

[Huey Grey 2]

yea but I don't know how you do that...didn't the supreme court ruled on that?

Realistically I don't know. It like the Iran War. The Republicans have screwed a lot of things up and there appear to be no good solutions because the Republicans are in power and want to keep things screwed up.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Do you notice AOC is starting to spread out with getting plum everywhere

Guess she is eating too much carbs