Startling news: US policy is formed with zero concern for the wishes of US citizens

Forbidden Snowflake said:

Could we convince the world to tear everything down?

Because whenever something gets fixed, something else breaks. It reminds me of "Jenga" sometimes. We built something that is so fragile and keeps almost failing and still holding on...

Tear it down and build it back up to try and make it fundamentally better.

Unfortunately the people building it back up would probably be the same power hungry, greedy, rich ones that are influencing everything now.

So, why bother?

Not enough people want change.
The ones in power most certainly don't.
And most don't care.
And others feel helpless.

And in the end, all you can try and do is live your life the best you can...

And then nobody does anything?

Click to expand...

Some of us try to figure out a way to change things, and we consider this living life the best we can....

If it helps, most highly complex systems are subject to cascading systems failures....they tear themselves down...

Diana Hignutt said:

Some of us try to figure out a way to change things, and we consider this living life the best we can....

If it helps, most highly complex systems are subject to cascading systems failures....they tear themselves down...

Click to expand...

As can be confirmed at a glance by reviewing this report. While our fearless leaders are [sending other people's children- ed.] overseas fighting other oligarch's battles for them, and trying to do for to healthcare what they've done to infrastructure, our infrastructure is collapsing around their ears. As a consequence, even the age-old question "Who will build the roads?" is being answered differently in Hawaii and England.

There's also an underground economy growing by leaps and bounds, technology outstripping the ability of government to throttle it back, and alternate systems popping up to compete with, challenge and eventually supplant government-approved versions all over the place. The Capitolist system has essentially already lost the intellectual property battle to humans, thanks to the internet, and 3D printing, Uber, AirBnB and BitCoin, among others, illustrate the way the same battles will be won by humans in the physical world.

Democratization of the productive economy will do what democratization of the vote has never done.

Forbidden Snowflake said:

Could we convince the world to tear everything down?

Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily the world - this was a study of US politics. It'd be interesting to see similar studies for other countries.

And there are certainly parts of the world that HAVE torn everything down when they found their governments unresponsive to their needs. I think it would be in the best interests of the citizens AND the corporations if the US was able to reform without that ugly, violent business, but I suppose it's always a possibility if things get bad enough...

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but how is the fact that corporations and elected officials have more sway in government policies than normal people NEWS?

I'm not sure what you want here, PD. A vast uprising? Yeah, corporations are big and self-serving. People are small and self-serving. I rather doubt the situation would be improved by our input, which is almost guaranteed to be just as geared towards self-benefit as that of the corporations. How would it be any different?

regdog said:

We're supposed to be surprised by this why? If anyone has been paying attention for at least the last thirty years it's been obvious it's the rich and corporations who matter. The rest of us...not so much.

Click to expand...

Don't be surprised. Be mad.

The war (so to speak) ain't over yet. Remember, no matter what you think of the final result as is, if one more person per county in Florida had voted for Gore in 2000, different result. I may have my numbers mixed up, but I think Obama won Ohio that way in 2008. One vote per county.

It ain't over. Not if you're willing to work for it.

Ohio in 2008 wasn't close - the margin was around 300,000 votes. Maybe you're thinking of a different state, Rob? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Ohio,_2008
Florida in 2000, yes - that one was 536 votes, I believe.

In any case, yes, change is possible. The idea that it isn't only breeds apathy, which goes hand in hand with why it's so easy for corporate and other bad-for-us interests to win. Too cool for school attitudes on that point are just one more corrosive element.

Captcha said:

Well, not necessarily the world - this was a study of US politics. It'd be interesting to see similar studies for other countries.

And there are certainly parts of the world that HAVE torn everything down when they found their governments unresponsive to their needs. I think it would be in the best interests of the citizens AND the corporations if the US was able to reform without that ugly, violent business, but I suppose it's always a possibility if things get bad enough...

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see similar studies yes. But, studies or not, it's evident that similar things if not the same things are happening in Europe.

StormChord said:

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but how is the fact that corporations and elected officials have more sway in government policies than normal people NEWS?

I'm not sure what you want here, PD. A vast uprising? Yeah, corporations are big and self-serving. People are small and self-serving. I rather doubt the situation would be improved by our input, which is almost guaranteed to be just as geared towards self-benefit as that of the corporations. How would it be any different?

Click to expand...

So you don't believe in democracy? (I mean that as a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.) I accept that it has its flaws and sources of frustration, for sure, but overall... it seems like the best system we've found so far.

And, honestly, if we COULD expect voters to make choices that would benefit themselves, I'd be relieved! But over and over we see voters choosing candidates with policies that are contrary to the voters' self-interest. People living in poverty voting for conservative political candidates, etc. And there are certainly examples of people living in wealth and privilege supporting candidates who want to challenge that setup, at least in small ways.

I don't know. I have no idea what the best system of governance is. But having the government controlled by amoral entities whose prime purpose is almost always to make more money for themselves? Surely that can't even be in the top ten!

I believe in democracy, but we can't make more of it than what it is, especially if "we the people" won't take responsibility for it, and let it grow and adapt to the changes in the world around us.

The OP isn't "news." That someone may have quantifiable data on it, that's news. Will it take outrage to make a change? Dunno.

(Why do I come here again?)

Click to expand...

Maybe the same as the rest of us. Because here we can still get responded to as a human, even when we act like one.

Williebee said:

The OP isn't "news." That someone may have quantifiable data on it, that's news. Will it take outrage to make a change? Dunno.

Click to expand...

Well, the OP was ABOUT the quantifiable data, so... that seems like the OP was about news.

But what I came back to the thread to post was this example from an article I was reading on another area of interest...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2014/08/13/a-tale-of-two-maternity-leaves/

It just seemed like such a crystal clear example of this issue.

I don't know - it seems like it's worth more than a shrug and a "that's just the way it is."

But I'm Canadian - we certainly have issues with corporate influence, but I don't think it's gone anywhere near as far as it has in the States. So maybe this is something that looks more alarming from the outside than it does from inside?

Yeah, I didn't say that very well. The premise isn't news. The data may help to put the growing feelings of some folks into a clearer light. Maybe give historians a hundred years from now something to point at and say, "See? They knew!" Maybe not.

Captcha said:

But what I came back to the thread to post was this example from an article I was reading on another area of interest...

While the United States prides itself on its family values, it is one of only three industrialized nations not offering maternity care.​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2014/08/13/a-tale-of-two-maternity-leaves/

Click to expand...

I don't accept the premise that refusing to have government-provided coverage is the same as not caring.

Captcha said:

So you don't believe in democracy? (I mean that as a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.) I accept that it has its flaws and sources of frustration, for sure, but overall... it seems like the best system we've found so far.

And, honestly, if we COULD expect voters to make choices that would benefit themselves, I'd be relieved! But over and over we see voters choosing candidates with policies that are contrary to the voters' self-interest. People living in poverty voting for conservative political candidates, etc. And there are certainly examples of people living in wealth and privilege supporting candidates who want to challenge that setup, at least in small ways.

I don't know. I have no idea what the best system of governance is. But having the government controlled by amoral entities whose prime purpose is almost always to make more money for themselves? Surely that can't even be in the top ten!

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, that was kinda rage-y of me. Honestly, I think democracy would be great, I really do. But I also believe that people are more inclined towards selfishness than they are towards social decency. The corporations that work exclusively for their own benefit are just larger-scale versions of basic human selfishness, which sucks, but is also rather wide-spread and hard to get rid of.

The basic problem I find with democracy is that, to compensate for everyone working towards their personal goals, there has to be someone (or a group of someones) on top to sift through those goals and figure out which ones help the most people. These top dogs, however, are ALSO human, and thus have the same basic flaws. Of course an individual person doesn't carry much weight, they're jockying for position with three hundred million other people. Of course the bigger, higher-up people will push in directions that help themselves.

Again, sorry. I'm kind of on a people-all-suck bender.

StormChord said:

Yeah, sorry, that was kinda rage-y of me. Honestly, I think democracy would be great, I really do. But I also believe that people are more inclined towards selfishness than they are towards social decency. The corporations that work exclusively for their own benefit are just larger-scale versions of basic human selfishness, which sucks, but is also rather wide-spread and hard to get rid of.

The basic problem I find with democracy is that, to compensate for everyone working towards their personal goals, there has to be someone (or a group of someones) on top to sift through those goals and figure out which ones help the most people. These top dogs, however, are ALSO human, and thus have the same basic flaws. Of course an individual person doesn't carry much weight, they're jockying for position with three hundred million other people. Of course the bigger, higher-up people will push in directions that help themselves.

Again, sorry. I'm kind of on a people-all-suck bender.

Click to expand...

Yeah, except that's not true. People do not possess limited liability. People are not potentially immortal. People live someplace. People may travel, but they aren't multinational.

These are big differences between people and corporations. Further, whearas corporations are composed of people, they aren't people...in the same sense that the Human Centipede isn't a person. This is basic set theory.