Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I know. That's why I cited him for correctly reporting "control" instead of "own." Control and own are two different things. For example, each state "controls" the titling of automobiles. They don't "own" title to them all.
Yes, I know. That's why I cited him for correctly reporting "control" instead of "own."
You are deeply confused as he is in full support of Wolf who you claim is trying to dupe people. The citation is not referring to "manage on behalf of" when he talks about control, as can be seen by the text I provided. He refers to control as in ownership in his "who rules America" text. Just give up this nonsense, you are the only one who is confused as you dont provide a single source that claim what you are claiming. It would be utterly absurd.
You are deeply confused as he is in full support of Wolf who you claim is trying to dupe people.
Yes, I know. He correctly reports "controls" instead of "owns." I even listed direct quotes.
Control and own are two very different things. I already clarified the difference for you: Each state "controls" the titling of automobiles. They don't "own" title to them all.
Yes, I know. He correctly reports "controls" instead of "owns." I even listed direct quotes.
But he is NOT talking about fund managers who manages something on behalf of their owners. He is talking about the owners, just like Wolf! He is not at all claiming what you think he is claiming. Here is William Domhoff, PhD talking about Wolf's findings:
Quote:
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in relatively few hands. As of 2013, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 36.7% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 52.2%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.8%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2017).
In an interview, New York congressional primary winner Ocasio-Cortez, a socialist-progressive, said that moderate Democrats and liberal progressives can work together under a Democratic "Big Tent." Compare her with Conor Lamb, a very moderate and centrist "blue dog" from western Pennsylvania. These two candidates can represent a winning formula for the Democrats: progressives in the big cities and moderate centrists in the rural areas, forming a Democratic center-left coalition. With this approach Dems it is very conceivable the Dems could win back Congress.
so what she says we should all take as the last word, is that what you are saying or are you just wishing that? I am sure, since winning the primary she thinks she has the perfect formula to sweep house in Nov. We shall see. Keep on thinking this, it gives you something to hope for, long shot or not.
@Cruzincat: what we learned from Bernie Sanders' campaign is that the "socialist" label isn't the liability it used to be. Older people view socialists as "bad," falsely equating them with Marxists or communists. The younger generation doesn't see it that way. They see socialists in a good light, along the lines of social democrats in Scandinavia, Denmark and so on.
well first of all, there are many in the countries you are talking about that are not so sure their plan is the best plan according to news articles that have come out recently. Whether the articles on based on fact I doubt any of us know, but more that that even if young people, many of them seem to support a certain amount of socialistic views, they also are not as likely to vote. Plus as much as you and some of your left wing friends on here would love to see the country turn socialistic how many socialists are getting elected and how about the new Republicans that are emerging, you know the young ones getting elected?
well first of all, there are many in the countries you are talking about that are not so sure their plan is the best plan according to news articles that have come out recently. Whether the articles on based on fact I doubt any of us know, but more that that even if young people, many of them seem to support a certain amount of socialistic views, they also are not as likely to vote. Plus as much as you and some of your left wing friends on here would love to see the country turn socialistic how many socialists are getting elected and how about the new Republicans that are emerging, you know the young ones getting elected?
Wall Street is still firmly in control of the political process. Almost no one who is not swimming in bribe cash from Wall Street, big pharma and big oil is getting elected. I dont think the ruling class has much to be worried about for now as big money has tremendous influence over the political process.
If we get big money out of politics and rebuild the union movement on the other hand, then the ruling elites have a reason to be worried.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
