Within the context of this system, one may very well come to believe that the "profit incentive" is an essential feature of human nature. But this system, and that very belief itself, has a history. It's been beaten into our heads for generations, until it finally shows up in the warped worldview you represent. — Xtrix

I personally don't believe the profit motive is an essential feature of human nature. I do, however, believe that it's an essential feature of any modern, successful economy.

See? I don't even believe in the position that you're ascribing to me.

I personally don't believe the profit motive is an essential feature of human nature. I do, however, believe that it's an essential feature of any modern, successful economy.

See? I don't even believe in the position that you're ascribing to me. — BitconnectCarlos

...

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways... — Xtrix

Give your head a shake, Xanax. Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

Finally someone speaking some sense. — BitconnectCarlos

What Geo said to you isn't a straw man. He was just sharing his opinion. He wasn't reframing your argument in a ridiculous manner and responding to that.

If you were to say "capitalists believe that the profit motive is a universal and inherent to human nature" that would be a straw man. It would be ascribing an unrealistic assumption to capitalism and then debunking that and viewing that debunking as a blow to capitalist ideology.

If you just say "the game is illegitimate" and someone just shares an unrelated point with you that's not a straw man. Geo didn't try to defend every aspect of the current system.

This is such a ridiculous argument, can we go back to something a little more productive?

Imagine being so illiterate that you can't even properly read statements that you think you agree with. To be expected from those who belive in fairytales I guess.

What Geo said to you isn't a straw man. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, it was. Try your spin on someone else.

Stop straw manning capitalism.

:yawn:

This isn't just a "you" thing - plenty of people are moving out of California because the state is ridiculously expensive and moving over to Texas where they can buy a house at a 1/4 the cost. — BitconnectCarlos

Sometimes a relatively small move can make a big difference. My house would cost 2 to 3 times as much just 2 hours a way over on the coast.

There's always much talk about the 1%, and I wonder if anyone has read or researched extensively who exactly these people are and if there are trends in their philosophies or religious outlooks. — Xtrix

This seems an interesting question. One way to approach the question could be to consider that on a global scale the average American consumer is an economic elite. How we regard our wealth in regards to the very many around the world who have so much less might provide some insight in to the mindset of the American top 1%.

risk-aversion, stability seeking. That pretty much sums it up. Little risk, little payoff. I know it sounds cliche, but it is also accurate.

I grew up in relative poverty, parents grew up in orphanages, but the home life was mostly stable. Left home at 18. High school grades were crap, because I didn't care about school. I got a trade certification, lived in a shed for 10 months while paying down bills, went back to school. Worked at a strip club as a "hotdog guy" (yeah, THAT hotdog guy) to pay bills. It paid well and gave me time to study. Got a decent job. Things went sideways, went bankrupt, went back to school, another degree, a few more specialties. Now I pull in six figures, have an affordable home and vehicle, and a modest lifestyle. Totally stable. You know, until it isn't and I have to regroup and do it again.

Funny part is, all my buddies that elected the "safe route", with solid jobs early on, and secure investments, still, mostly have their jobs, and their investments, and should be mortgage free in five more years or so, they have less education than I do, less mobility, and are less secure, as if they lose their jobs they have problem. If/when I lose mine I will shrug, and get another. No worries.

I guess the point of it is: for those who want to work hard, get educated, are flexible and willing to take a risk, success is possible. For the "safe" route types, success is still possible, but perhaps less grand. However, success is in one's perspective, and I am certain that, despite how I may feel about my choices, others would be much less enthusiastic about taking my path, as I would would be with theirs. That captures the concept of equal opportunity of success to me.

This seems an interesting question. One way to approach the question could be to consider that on a global scale the average American consumer is an economic elite. How we regard our wealth in regards to the very many around the world who have so much less might provide some insight in to the mindset of the American top 1%. — Hippyhead

I imagine it would, but then again the top 1% (and remember, here I'm really meaning the top 0.1%) are very different than the average American consumer, who (like you mentioned) themselves are already quite privileged when compared to those in the rest of the world.

The people who control the companies that control the world are human beings as well, but with a unique circumstance: they're part of a club, a tradition. This tradition is one of true power in the sense of actual control over decisions on a national and international level. This tradition has many manifestations -- there have been ruling classes and elites for millennia -- but currently it appears as the corporation. This represents big business.

I think an example is helpful: Amazon. (You could take Facebook or Google or JP Morgan or Walt Disney or one of the fortune 500 companies, they all operate basically the same way.)

As a corporation they function and have attained their status in a system of rules and rights -- e.g., the idea of private property, ownership, corporation as legal "person," private profit, etc. -- and function within this system. They not only have control over people who work for them (amounting to millions of people), but the families, friends, and communities of which these people are connected. They own the major media, have the resources to both lobby ("influence") government for favorable legislation and bribe ("contribute to") politicians.

All of this is easy to see, and right on the surface. Takes a few minutes to think it through, and I think most Americans take it for granted.

So what's the point of me reviewing the obvious? Because if these companies essentially run the world, then the people running the companies is where we should be focused -- and are the topic of this thread. They are the owners of these companies, and make all the decisions about how to run the company. They appoint the administration, from the CEO on down the executive and managerial chain, and decide what to do with the profits. Specifically, they are the major shareholders.

And here a little knowledge about how a corporation operates is important, as is a little acquaintance with how stocks work. But otherwise it's fairly obvious what group makes the important decisions in a corporation. Perhaps there's 10-20 people on the board of directors, representing these major shareholders, and a handful of others. Add them up, maybe 50-100 people run any one of these Fortune 500 companies.

Add all the companies together, and you're looking at a number in the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. That's not 1% of the global population. That's not even 1% of the American population. There's about 328 million people in the United States. 1% of that is 3.2 million. We're talking about tens of thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands tops, who control the world by controlling the corporations. 0.1% would take us to 320 thousand, which itself seems too high, but is at least closer to what one would expect -- at least in the United States.

When you start asking questions about THAT group, comparisons to average Americans just don't seem to fly.

Let’s talk first about money—even if money is only one part of what makes the new aristocrats special. There is a familiar story about rising inequality in the United States, and its stock characters are well known. The villains are the fossil-fueled plutocrat, the Wall Street fat cat, the callow tech bro, and the rest of the so-called top 1 percent. The good guys are the 99 percent, otherwise known as “the people” or “the middle class.” The arc of the narrative is simple: Once we were equal, but now we are divided. The story has a grain of truth to it. But it gets the characters and the plot wrong in basic way.

It is in fact the top 0.1 percent who have been the big winners in the growing concentration of wealth over the past half century. According to the UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the 160,000 or so households in that group held 22 percent of America’s wealth in 2012, up from 10 percent in 1963. If you’re looking for the kind of money that can buy elections, you’ll find it inside the top 0.1 percent alone.

Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose.

In between the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent is a group that has been doing just fine. It has held on to its share of a growing pie decade after decade. And as a group, it owns substantially more wealth than do the other two combined. In the tale of three classes (see Figure 1), it is represented by the gold line floating high and steady while the other two duke it out. You’ll find the new aristocracy there. We are the 9.9 percent.

The New American Aristocracy

Just found this article. An old thread, but relevant to the OP.

All I can remember about the so-called 1% is that they cause more environmental damage than the rest of us bottom-feeders. However, I don't know how exactly; the Devil, as we all know, is in the details.

At 9 figures I'd imagine things get pretty insane. — BitconnectCarlos

I imagined exactly that after reading that Musk, mister Tesla himself, got richer a couple of billion dollars in the blink of an eye. Try explain that to a loan slave working 12 hours a day for a small handful (the hand usually not even ful). The work is boring and kills the mind slowly, in general. Working floor circumstances are bad. About a hundred people own half money in the whole world, and 1% even more. Isn't it time for a change? Revolution? Get into arms?

What's the mentality asked for in the OP? The mentality of people like Elon Musk?

Where they came from:. A Brief History of Neoliberalism, David Harvey

check it out!

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are.
— Xtrix

It seems to me that everyone’s done everything except address the OP.

1: They’re very hard workers

2: They’re very good a setting an objective and then making a plan to get there

3: They’re very good at projecting into the future

4: They’re very adaptable

5: Many of them are very innovative

6: They’re very good at choosing people to work with, understanding them, motivating them

7: They inspire people within their circle

8: They have a through understanding of the world they’re operating in

9: They’re very good at networking

10: They create opportunities for others — Brett

Some things about them we may not be impressed with.

1: They make decisions in a pragmatic way that may hurt others: what do I need, what don’t I need, how do I get what I want?

2: They measure all actions, all success, in terms of profits

3: They may at times bend the rules to achieve their objectives

4: They probably lie and deceive often

5: Their egos are all powerful

6: They view politics as merely a tool to achieve their objective

7: They’re never satisfied — Brett

But the same applies to drug dealers, mobsters, small time conmen ... and to pretty much anyone who is eager to succeed.

IIRC, it was Bill Gates who said that it is luck that plays a major role in how successful a person will be.

Often, we are told that ambition and hard work are what it takes to succeed. But this isn't all. The opportunities for success in this world are limited, at from some point on, ambition and hard work make no difference.

When you start asking questions about THAT group, comparisons to average Americans just don't seem to fly. — Xtrix

It seems to me that in terms of values, morality, psychologically, the 1% are actually similar or even the same as the middle class people. What makes the difference is that the 1% are operating within an entirely different socioeconomic context, which makes for vastly different results.


For example, Bill Gates' father wrote a book, Showing Up for Life: Thoughts on the Gifts of a Lifetime. In terms of morality and psychology, it's nothing special, it's middle class mentality. Except that if one can do those things with the kind of socioeconomic influence that these rich people have, the results are vastly different than if an ordinary, middle class person were to do them.

It seems to me that in terms of values, morality, psychologically, the 1% are actually similar or even the same as the middle class people. What makes the difference is that the 1% are operating within an entirely different socioeconomic context, which makes for vastly different results. — baker

That may very well be true. I'm more inclined to think that the context/conditions in which they live influences their attitudes, beliefs, and values as well -- in ways that are similar to different educational outcomes, or even health. So things like a belief in meritocracy, since it is very self-serving ("I am where I am because I deserve it/earned it"), or the usefulness of those at the very top ("they create jobs and innovate") is probably more deeply embedded than in lower classes.

For example, Bill Gates' father wrote a book, Showing Up for Life: Thoughts on the Gifts of a Lifetime. In terms of morality and psychology, it's nothing special, it's middle class mentality. — baker

Seems like he grew up middle-class, so that's not a huge surprise. I wonder if someone like Paris Hilton or members of the Walton family believe similar things. Who knows. One thing seems clear enough: they're all capitalists at heart. That seems to be the church they all belong to, with varying splits and denominations.

Where they came from:. A Brief History of Neoliberalism, David Harvey — frank

Already read it. Time to find a new book.

https://www.amazon.com/Giants-Global-Power-Peter-Phillips/dp/1609808711/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3D30EJ0V165AY&keywords=giants+the+global+power+elite&qid=1636314271&s=books&sprefix=giants%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C138&sr=1-1

I had that book, but gave it to a friend. It's more of a kind of detective work than a straight out read. But you do get names.

It's more the .1%, technically.

I think the salient question in all this is whether they are so rich because of their specific beliefs, or whether they have those beliefs because they are so rich.
Or, in the case of the first-generation rich, whether they now, when established as rich, they still have the same beliefs that made it possible for them to become rich in the first place.

Already read it. — Xtrix

For real?

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

The masters? The destroyers. But they don't realize, as Oppenheimer did, after he created his deadly toy. I think they won't easily come out of their gold-plated towers of ivory, but instead make these higher and higher, ever further away from the world they have their roots in, and with which they make sporadic contact to assure their base stays firm and solid. The towers grow higher and higher to the point they collapse unders their own gravity and make a destructive impact on the world below them. Probably they will have left their towers shortly before, to establish themselves in lonely heavenly domains in space, trying to live a life of computer created virtual worlds in which new towers can be built to reach infinity of the material world, not caring a moment for the misery they created down there. In that realization of their psychotic, megalomaniac, almost psychopathic ideas, they will linger in a false security awaiting the unevitable moment they fall out of the sky like burning angels of destruction, into a world already fallen prey to the same kind of psychosis that eventually led to global destruction and global doom.

Read most of that too. Great stuff.

For real? — frank

Yes. Harvey's great. Worth checking out his Anti-capitalist Chronicles, as well.

The one percent, I believe are the power elite, which makes war for corporations and is the terror of the earth. The Vietnam holocaust made a lot of millionaires, war for America is big business and the corporations keep the patterns of explotation and war working for them. America has become a world cancer. This power elite is untouchable, anonymous, and amoral.

If we're talking global scale most, of not all, people here are the 1%.

If you narrow it down to a specific country then it is easier to look with distain upon those who have a considerable amount more than you do.

look with distain upon those who have a considerable amount more than you do. — I like sushi

Yes, I think it’s appropriate to disdain those who have considerably more because of slave labor and cheating.

Yes. Harvey's great. — Xtrix

Yes. He shows how an electorate can be used like a tool in the right circumstances. He offers a really good way to see how the American people are in the same boat with most regular people in the world. And that's where leftist solidarity should be reaching, although I'm not sure how that would happen.

We're just too profoundly, belligerently stupid to take the power that's within our reach.

All the anti-American bullshit is the rattling of chains to our hateful nature.

All we can do is pay attention to the little things around us. Help a homeless person. Bring a meal to a sick person. Let the world do whatever it's going to do.

All we can do is pay attention to the little things around us. Help a homeless person. Bring a meal to a sick person. Let the world do whatever it's going to do. — frank

Bullshit.

Sushi,
I am not concerned with the morality of keeping up with the Jones. I was just wondering if this 1% is the power elite that runs America like an international crime family. Most Americans are not even aware of the crimes against humanity that this hidden power elite forces upon the rest of the world. At this stage, it would be funny if it was not so tragic, that most Americans do not even know their country is a hated empire, an excellent metaphor for evil in the world.