I agree that there's a lot of economic mobility in America today compared to some other places and other times. I also agree that a huge part of intellect is determined by genetics, and a huge part of wealth is determined by intellect.
However, none of this means we don't live in a plutocracy.
Think about the people who exercise political power. Think of how so many people have made their money not through peaceful, economic activity, but through political activity, whether it takes the form of benefiting from direct subsidies, rent-seeking, central banking, corporatism, tax favoritism, licensing laws, or credentialism.
Hard as it is to accept, the word I chose was warranted.
Actually, I should point out that the presence of a high level of social and economic mobility does mean that this is not a plutocracy by definition.
As to your point about gaining money through political power, that can be legitimate. For instance, while the Clinton's were certainly rich before the presidency, Bill Clinton's speaking fees went up substantially after his presidency. Similarly, Mr. Obama's book sales went up significantly as he climbed the political ladder.
America is far closer to a meritocracy than any other country.
You're getting plutocracy backwards. A plutocracy is a system where being rich gets you political power/influence.
For example, a millionaire can bribe an official or use his campaign/PAC contributions to convince them to do what he wants.
People getting rich because of political power is totally separate and will pretty much always happen because they get more famous and respected due to their power.
In short, plutocracy means money gets you political power, not vice versa.
> America is far closer to a meritocracy than any other country.
If we're talking about politics - which is the reason that plutocracy is coming into play - then you're mistaken. As the other commentor points out, plutocracy means that money gives you political clout/power.
Compare the corruption rates in the US elections to a country like, say, Finland (which ranks lowest on corruption—that is, has the least). Go to Finland during an election and you'll see posters everywhere that feature tens of faces of people from every income level who are running for office. I can tell you that, as an American, this experience for me was not only surreal but almost disturbing.
Then look at the US, where the vast majority of politicians are rich to begin with and become only more enriched. Look at PACs, which use money to create voting blocs inside the governing bodies, and how lobbyists tend to write laws and then lawmakers simply sign them.
I remember reading an article in the NYT last fall, quoting a guy who heads up one of the international voting monitoring organizations. He said that the US is so bad, we don't even meet their minimum requirements for monitoring.
Money = power in the US. That hasn't changed much since its beginnings.
The sentiment that "The US is bad, sure, but it's better than all the alternatives!" is common here on HN (and among educated Americans in general). I really wish people would question it more and look at facts, and travel outside, to see that it's not true.
Maybe it feels like betrayal to say "Actually, the US is just really bad," but how can you heal a major wound if you won't even admit that you're bleeding out long enough to apply some pressure?
Comments
I agree that there's a lot of economic mobility in America today compared to some other places and other times. I also agree that a huge part of intellect is determined by genetics, and a huge part of wealth is determined by intellect.
However, none of this means we don't live in a plutocracy.
Think about the people who exercise political power. Think of how so many people have made their money not through peaceful, economic activity, but through political activity, whether it takes the form of benefiting from direct subsidies, rent-seeking, central banking, corporatism, tax favoritism, licensing laws, or credentialism.
Hard as it is to accept, the word I chose was warranted.
Actually, I should point out that the presence of a high level of social and economic mobility does mean that this is not a plutocracy by definition.
As to your point about gaining money through political power, that can be legitimate. For instance, while the Clinton's were certainly rich before the presidency, Bill Clinton's speaking fees went up substantially after his presidency. Similarly, Mr. Obama's book sales went up significantly as he climbed the political ladder.
America is far closer to a meritocracy than any other country.
You're getting plutocracy backwards. A plutocracy is a system where being rich gets you political power/influence.
For example, a millionaire can bribe an official or use his campaign/PAC contributions to convince them to do what he wants.
People getting rich because of political power is totally separate and will pretty much always happen because they get more famous and respected due to their power.
In short, plutocracy means money gets you political power, not vice versa.
I believe plutocracy is defined as government by the wealthy, so it appears you are using a different definition.
As for Clinton, that depends on what you mean. The fees did go up because of his earlier political power.
America is far closer to a meritocracy than any other country.
I'm inclined to agree, but being closer to a meritocracy than any other country does not mean America is not a plutocracy.
> America is far closer to a meritocracy than any other country.
If we're talking about politics - which is the reason that plutocracy is coming into play - then you're mistaken. As the other commentor points out, plutocracy means that money gives you political clout/power.
Compare the corruption rates in the US elections to a country like, say, Finland (which ranks lowest on corruption—that is, has the least). Go to Finland during an election and you'll see posters everywhere that feature tens of faces of people from every income level who are running for office. I can tell you that, as an American, this experience for me was not only surreal but almost disturbing.
Then look at the US, where the vast majority of politicians are rich to begin with and become only more enriched. Look at PACs, which use money to create voting blocs inside the governing bodies, and how lobbyists tend to write laws and then lawmakers simply sign them.
I remember reading an article in the NYT last fall, quoting a guy who heads up one of the international voting monitoring organizations. He said that the US is so bad, we don't even meet their minimum requirements for monitoring.
Money = power in the US. That hasn't changed much since its beginnings.
The sentiment that "The US is bad, sure, but it's better than all the alternatives!" is common here on HN (and among educated Americans in general). I really wish people would question it more and look at facts, and travel outside, to see that it's not true.
Maybe it feels like betrayal to say "Actually, the US is just really bad," but how can you heal a major wound if you won't even admit that you're bleeding out long enough to apply some pressure?