ST showed Putin looking solemn as he hits out on russia leading tycoons:"You have made thousands to your ambitions, your lack if professionalism or maybe simply your trivial greed"
Here is a leader of a communist state showing concerns to his fellow comrades who is under the heat of capitalism unforgiving invisible hand...meanwhile SG democratic socialist cum capitalist state ask their workers to live and let live while our wages stagnate and even slide amdist of ever high living costs
But the USA still controlled by Oligarchy, see whether Obama can do to the USA Oligarchy what Putin did to the Russian Oligarchy.
But having put his priorities on paper and having stood behind them,
the President recognizes that there are those who will fight against
change every step of the way.
"I realize that passing this budget
won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also
represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the
insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid
competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how
we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs
for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t
like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but
that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college
more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us
ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund
a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new
industries. I know these steps won’t sit well with the special
interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing
business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My
message to them is this:
"So am I."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/28/
Historical background on the USA oligarchy's influence and control over the federal government:
This was a fairly workable system, since the three forces were approximately equal, the advantage, if any, resting with the party machine. This advantage became so great in the period 1865-1880 that the forces of finance, commerce, and industry were forced to contribute ever-increasing largesse to the political machines in order to obtain the services from government which they regarded as their due, services such as higher tariffs, land grants to railroads, better postal services, and mining or timber concessions.
The fact that these forces of finance and business were themselves growing in wealth and power made them increasingly restive under the need to make constantly larger contributions to party political machines.
Moreover, these economic tycoons increasingly felt it to be unseemly that they should be unable to issue orders but instead have to negotiate as equals in order to obtain services or favors from party bosses.
By the late 1870's business leaders determined to make an end to this situation by cutting with one blow the taproot of the system of party machines, namely, the patronage system.
This system, which they called by the derogatory term "spoils system," was objectionable to big business not so much because it led to dishonesty or inefficiency but because it made the party machines independent of business control by giving them a source of income (campaign contributions from government employees) which was independent of business control.
If this source could be cut off or even sensibly reduced, politicians would be much more dependent upon business contributions for campaign expenses.
At a time when the growth of a mass press and of the use of chartered trains for political candidates were greatly increasing the expense of campaigning for office, any reduction in campaign contributions from officeholders would inevitably make politicians more subservient to business.
It was with this aim in view that civil service reform began in the Federal government with the Pendleton Bill of 1883. As a result, the government was controlled with varying degrees of completeness by the forces of investment banking and heavy industry from 1884 to1933...
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/02.html#6
I know these steps won’t sit well with the special
interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing
business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My
message to them is this:
"So am I."
Originally posted by Ah Chia:But the USA still controlled by Oligarchy, see whether Obama can do to the USA Oligarchy what Putin did to the Russian Oligarchy.
But having put his priorities on paper and having stood behind them, the President recognizes that there are those who will fight against change every step of the way.
"I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:
"So am I."http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/28/
Historical background on the USA oligarchy's influence and control over the federal government:
This was a fairly workable system, since the three forces were approximately equal, the advantage, if any, resting with the party machine. This advantage became so great in the period 1865-1880 that the forces of finance, commerce, and industry were forced to contribute ever-increasing largesse to the political machines in order to obtain the services from government which they regarded as their due, services such as higher tariffs, land grants to railroads, better postal services, and mining or timber concessions.
The fact that these forces of finance and business were themselves growing in wealth and power made them increasingly restive under the need to make constantly larger contributions to party political machines.
Moreover, these economic tycoons increasingly felt it to be unseemly that they should be unable to issue orders but instead have to negotiate as equals in order to obtain services or favors from party bosses.
By the late 1870's business leaders determined to make an end to this situation by cutting with one blow the taproot of the system of party machines, namely, the patronage system.
This system, which they called by the derogatory term "spoils system," was objectionable to big business not so much because it led to dishonesty or inefficiency but because it made the party machines independent of business control by giving them a source of income (campaign contributions from government employees) which was independent of business control.
If this source could be cut off or even sensibly reduced, politicians would be much more dependent upon business contributions for campaign expenses.
At a time when the growth of a mass press and of the use of chartered trains for political candidates were greatly increasing the expense of campaigning for office, any reduction in campaign contributions from officeholders would inevitably make politicians more subservient to business.
It was with this aim in view that civil service reform began in the Federal government with the Pendleton Bill of 1883. As a result, the government was controlled with varying degrees of completeness by the forces of investment banking and heavy industry from 1884 to1933...
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/02.html#6
I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:
"So am I."
At least in the USA, some of those in the Oligarchs of Wealthy had some social conscience and contributed the bulk of their time and wealth towards those less fortunate within their society and towards selected communities in the World at large.
Warren Buffett contributed the bulk of his wealth to the Gates Foundation that is managed by Bill Gates and his wife, and in turn they agreed to establish a ‘Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett formed a US$60 Billion Philanthropic Foundation’ to fight global poverty and diseases.
The 'nouveau riche' Russia and China have a lot to learn from those in USA with a 150 year history of philanthropy in giving and helping the less fortunate.
At least in the USA, some of those in the Oligarchs of Wealthy had some social conscience
Some.
By the 1880's the techniques of financial capitalism were well developed in New York and northern New Jersey, and reached levels of corruption which were never approached in any European country. This corruption sought to cheat the ordinary investor by flotations and manipulations of securities for the benefit of "insiders."...
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/11
The 'nouveau riche' Russia and China have a lot to learn from those in USA with a 150 year history of philanthropy in giving and helping the less fortunate.
Skeptical of that.
It takes someone like Putin to put down the richest men in Russia..shows that wealth and social conscience don't go hand in hand and explore the flaws of capitalism
wealth and social conscience
Madoff?
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Madoff?
Was the "wealth" that he boasted to have truly his own ?
Can the wealth of a thief belong to him ?