How is the US an aristocracy?

Question

I have a debate tommorrow, and I need an example of how the US is controled by rich people. Try to use history to support the question. Best questions get 10 points. Thanks

Answer 1

In order to be elected to a seat in the House or Senate, you MUST be able to finance the election yourself or be able to raise the millions of dollars required. A teacher, for example, is unlikely to be able to do either of those things.

In order to get a bill passed through Congress, it requires millions of dollars in lobbying funds, advertisements, and other "tricks". Only large corporations or individual billionaires (like that jerk, George Soros who single-handedly funded Moveon.org in the last presidential election) are able to make any significant impact on legislation.

Answer 2

While it was once the case that less than 1% of the wealthy families in the US owned more than 90% of the wealth and assets in this nation, it is rather the case now that the wealthiest people are not individuals, but rather corporations.
After the first corporations came into being in the 1920's wealth slowly shifted from individual families to large (eventually international) corporations. The advantage to this was that these families could control the stock in corporations that owned assests, but not have to directly own and hold the assets themselves. This allows a number of benefitial things to happen. Firstly, assets can then be passed to others with minimal taxation, unlike the many estate and other death taxes that occur when a family patriarch dies. Secondly, those taxes, levies, and assessments (not to mention judgements and court orders) that do attach to those assets become the duty of the corporation and not the individual to pay. Thirdly, the liability of corporate owners (meaning the stock shareholders) is limited by statutory law, thus protecting shareholders own personal assets (house, car, wallet, etc...) should the corporation get sued. This last reason is the primary driving force behind this shift in wealth ownership.
Since about the 1940's, after the heavy industrialization of the U.S. for two wars (Pacific Rim and European Theater), it became more and more common for corporations to own each other. Corporation A has a leveragable share in Corporation B which also owns Corporation C from a prior buyout....
As such, while the richest of the rich individuals may be approaching trillionaire status, the richest of the rich people (meaning corporations which are considered to be actual "persons" with the same civil rights as any individual; based on court rulings and civil statutes passed by various state and federal legislative bodies) are already reaping the rewards of trillions of dollars in profits internationally every year AND availing themselves of all the many tax breaks / loopholes that their high powered lawyers can find.
Is the US still an aristocracy with Carnigies & Rockafellers now disguised under the name of Gates, Jobs and Ellison? Perhaps. If the question addresses whether or not we are a society with multiple economic classes ranging from the impoverished up through a suburban middleclass to wealthy corporate officers and beyond to the presence of international corporations in our midst, then the answer is a qualified yes.
One such qualification I would proffer is that few cultures are not aristoctratic in nature. Those who propose to be egalitarian, like the Chinese leadership acting in public as if they are also humble peasant farmers, is a farce. The powerful in society are always on top of the social pyramid with status, glitz and luxury, whether or not it is displayed as openly as in our culture. Even in tribal societies, the proverbial chieftans and their council of elders have held sway over others with different tribes relegated to the bottom of the pecking order in hunting and gathering regions (see Native Americans on the plains references for comparitive studies of tribes regarding pecking order in rotation hunting).
In some senses, every society relinquishes power to a few who are the elite; the aristocrats. In this sense also, the term becomes functionally archaic and meaningless in light of our modern understandings of the true complexities of culture. Those who use "aristocrat" probably have an agenda, liberal or conservative to promote, by oversimplifying the intricacies of society. It is a nebulous social term that has "soft" definitions which can be selectively applied to meet theories more suited to pop culture discussions at cocktail parties, than serious social science issues.

Answer 3

Umm.....kinda hate to spring this on ya, but every government in the free world is controlled by economics!
The Robin Hood philosophy of "take it from the rich" and give it to me wouldn't look as good if you recognize it as an obvious form of greed that only applies to those who have more than you do. If we carry it to it's logical conclusion who's going to protect you from the masses who consider your worth as being rich?
A farmer in China or the Amazon who burns 6000 calories a day just to put rice on his kids plate thinks your income of hundreds of dollar per week is absolutely obscene. So where DO you draw the line?
Directly under yourself of course. Right?

Answer 4

uhhh you are talking about a Plutocracy and we do not have.. we live in a republic.... how can you debate on something that isn't accurate???