Oligarchy in the 21st Century … Get Used to It?
By Staff News & Analysis - May 09, 2014

Fed Chair Unsure If Capitalism or Oligarchy Describes the U.S. … "Are we still a capitalist democracy or have we gone over into an oligarchic form of society in which incredible economic and political power now rests with the billionaire class?" Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont socialist, asked that question of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen at a hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday. Yellen said she'd "prefer not to give labels," but she admitted to being very concerned about income inequality. – CNS News

Dominant Social Theme: The US is the freest country in the world and the "great exception."

Free-Market Analysis: Interesting question and answer. Bernie Sanders' query is predictable but Janet Yellen's response is not.

Alan Greenspan no doubt would have answered in a way that allowed for multiple interpretations. But Yellen took the question with little equivocation.

Here, quoting Yellen:

"So, all of the statistics on inequality that you've cited are ones that greatly concern me, and I think for the same reason that you're concerned about them. They can shape the – determine the ability of different groups to participate equally in the democracy and have grave effects on social stability over time.

"And so I don't know what to call our system or how to – I prefer not to give labels; but there's no question that we've had a trend toward growing inequality and I personally find it very worrisome trend that deserves the attention of policy-makers.

Sanders told Yellen, "There comes a point, where the billionaire class has so much political power – where the Koch brothers are now, because of Citizens United, able to buy and sell politicians – they have so much political power — at what point is that reversible?" he asked.

Sanders also asked Yellen about repealing the estate tax: "Would it make sense to you to give enormous tax breaks to the families of the top one percent of people in this country?" Yellen repeated that she shares Sanders' concern with inequality – but "it's up to the Congress to decide what's appropriate."

We can see that Yellen is being cautious, even as she is granting the possibility that the US is an oligarchy. Sanders has an agenda, but Yellen is certainly not about to discount it outright.

That this question came up at all is the result of a Princeton study on the subject. A TalkingPoints post back in April reported on the study, which asks "who really rules the US." The study concludes that in the past few decades America's political system has evolved from democracy to oligarchy.

In such a system, wealthy elites wield most power. Data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, [show] that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," 'the authors] write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

This is a strong conclusion, indeed, and one that The Daily Bell itself often focuses on. However, there is a difference: We believe that it is not so much "rich, well-connected individuals" that steer the country as a handful of top globalists with access to the incredible riches of central banking that they helped create and implement.

It is a very small group, in our estimation, that has created the conditions of increased internationalism that is apparently their goal. In order to steer the world in that direction, they utilize mercantilism – the conflation of private interests with the legal force of government.


The two main tools of this mercantilist system are monopoly central banking and corporate personhood. The resultant system is constantly consolidating, creating larger and larger business entities and government initiatives. As head of the Fed, Yellen is front-and-center in the continued enforcement of the system.

Beyond the mechanism itself, the system is perpetuated by certain dominant central themes put out to support increased globalism. One of the main memes involves the insistence that capitalism is subject to failure and needs constant regulation and supervision. Another is that self-interest creates conflicts of interest.

This latter point was recently rebutted over at Bloomberg by Jonathan Weil in a post entitled, "The Best Stock Research Money Can Buy."

The stereotype about Wall Street stock analysts has been well earned: They rarely say "sell," and their research reports often are compromised by investment-banking relationships or other conflicts of interest.

Now a new academic paper by three accounting professors has gone a step further. The authors studied a sample of 247 stock-research reports that were paid for by the companies being written about. They found the reports were just as reliable as comparable analyst reports issued by conventional brokerages.

… The study is in the current issue of the Accounting Review, published by the American Accounting Association. The professors noted that a lot of small public companies have trouble getting securities analysts to write about them, and that greater visibility can lead to more liquidity for their stocks and a lower cost of capital.

This is a great example of how debased the US sociopolitical conversation has gotten in the century. It is the marketplace itself that should determine the efficacy of specific competitive paradigms. Government is really not necessary to the process so long as competition is the main determiner. Using competition to police marketplaces is infinitely more sensible than using bureaucracy.

If competition was acknowledged as the main driver of industry standards and if the centralizing effects of modern monopoly central banking and corporate personhood were removed, oligarchic tendencies would be greatly diminished.

This won't easily happen, however, because those in power SEEK an oligarchy and endorse the various sociopolitical and economic platforms that support it.

A conversation about the US system has now begun. We have a suspicion that this is part of a larger dialectic intended to gradually enlighten people as to the reality of their lives and professional and personal situations. We'll see how well this sort of promotion works in the 21st century.

After Thoughts

Solutions to be offered, of course, will feature further regulation.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

  • Sydney

    Frame of reference: the individual vs the corporate (oligarchy).

    The good is then what empowers the individual, assuming you are not part of the oligarchy.

    Knowledge is power, and the oligarchs rise by confusing things greatly with their sophisms and lies.

    The DB excels at intelligently simplifying this intellectual struggle (that in the 20th century was to the death) for even those of modest intellect (me).

    Brilliance is the simplification of complexity brought by the sophists and their handlers (oligarchs).

    Another pearl offered by the DB: …… is (the lie) that self-interest creates conflicts of interest. – See more at:–Get-Used-to-It/#sthash.dnbVG8Jr.dpuf

    The use of force is very expensive. Because there is no free lunch the individual can not afford its use, very often any way. The Individual must cooperate, find win, wins to improve their lot. Only the oligarchs and their collective can afford force and consistently use it. They use it well bludgeoning away with government granted monopoly central banking and corporate personhood, based on maritime law based on precedent apparently. It is the use of force, or its consideration that leads to “conflict of interests”, NOT the self interest of the individual.

    Other DB pearls: One of the main memes involves the insistence that capitalism is subject to failure and needs constant regulation and supervision. – See more at:–Get-Used-to-It/#sthash.dnbVG8Jr.dpuf For people like me substitute the word meme with lies. I never knew what meme meant before reading the DB (nor did anybody else for that matter).

    and :Using competition to police marketplaces is infinitely more sensible than using bureaucracy. – See more at:–Get-Used-to-It/#sthash.dnbVG8Jr.dpuf

    This is really great stuff. I for one am grateful for this clarity provided by the DB in the great conversation underway. Grow government any further, go in the direction of the oligarchy and destruction awaits (20th century history) certainly for the individual.

    Thanks for a great read.

  • If the state resolved to reject all use of force to enforce its dictates how long would it last? Who would agree to pay taxes if the outcome of denying their polite requests was zilch enforcement. If you call for a socialist state with its redistribution of wealth but you fail to recognise the ‘gun in the room’ you are not being honest with yourself at the least.

    I don’t care what magical costumes and special powers statists wish to imagine for your state’s authorities, if they come for peoples money and will use violent force to make that happen that is violent theft.

    I agree with Socialists that there is a “wealthy elite” who “through manipulation of our politics and economies” are taking more than they rightly should derive. That is the fact.

    So the statist’s solution is what: this system is not working so we need to do even more of it, exert more control, make more rules.

    I say this system of state and government is and always will be manipulated to favour the very few. That is what it is for. The idea that government delivers wide ranging social benefit is an illusion to grant a form of justification for the illusionary edifice of the state to exist at all.

    How long would the people support the concept of the state if the people could clearly see they derived absolutely no social benefit at all, just paid taxes. That would clearly be slavery.

    If a state taxed 1% and delivered nothing it may, via the use of force, just about survive. But at 50% and never any apparent benefit at all, ever: revolution.

    A tax of 30% and a degree of social benefit people swing along with it. Add to that 14 years of government school indoctrination and a fundamentally uncritical media and they even can start to push-up the levels of taxation.

    This balancing act is not how the state works, it is the illusion it creates of how it works whilst, in reality, the truly wealthy elite own and control politics and economies.

    Without the state to do the bidding of this ‘truly wealthy elite’ they are cut-off from the control mechanism they depend upon, have invented, to maintain their advantage whilst the people fail to see the state for what it really is, a modern form of slavery, and instead think it is all about delivering social benefit and justice.

  • “Solutions to be offered, of course, will feature further regulation”. If this wasn’t so horrific, it would be hysterically funny.

  • gene1357

    Humbug! The simple truth, 1,2,3:
    (#1) We must repeal the 16th amendment, and thus disenfranchise the Federal Reserve;
    (#2) Repeal the 17th Amendment, thus not only returning to the States their only voice and rightful power in the Republic, but also putting an end to the democracy that is destroying our Republic;
    (#3) Repeal the 26th Amendment; Obviously the prurience of 18 year olds was enough to allow the election of Obama…twice.

    • All fine and dandy but for the clear fact that the US constitution has resoundingly failed! Yes: the most hopeful, most liberal document apparently in the history of humanity and of state’s governments is evedently still far from good enough to protect the subjects of the state from being subjected to the will of those who’s every desire and endeavour is to win control of those levers of power (indeed designing or influencing them from the offset).

      The US has gone from idealism to horror and that was with its constitution. How can the people be protected from constant repetition even with the constitution restored?

      The answer is simple. End the failed, illusionary and violent construct of the state.

      • Danny B

        “Brainwashing”,, that is an appropriate name. The constitution hasn’t failed. It has been diminished by bad amendments. It has been ignored. IF we had constitutional money, we would have a very different country.
        The Founding Fathers made the supreme court the final arbiter. They KNEW that this was a weak point. Their fears have come to fruition. SCOTUS finds in favor of the power mongers.

        • What good is a constitution if it can just be amended and can just be ignored? Why would it not just get ignored all over again. Again and again.

          There will never be true freedom for humanity whilst there is the presence of a state – the two concepts are contradictory of each other.

        • Gina

          The fiat central money changers were at work from the beginning to destroy this country, and to pervert the US Constitution. We were never supposed to thumb our nose at King and Mother England. The payback was planned for scorning our betters even then. The Currency Act of 1864 was acknowledged as the true cause of the Revolutionary War of 1776 – colonies were forced to use BOE notes replacing their own colonial script at 1/2 ratio. Central banks were imposed upon the states twice more before the the present FedRes system. It is fiat, un-backed, pretend money that allows the bankers to destroy a country, to pervert the nation, and conscript the people into slavery. We cannot return to a Republican representative government until the Den of Thieves are rooted out forever!

          IMO, Pres. Jackson was being too kind. The bankers are murderers. Our Heavenly Father equates Liars with Murderers…. “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth….” John 8:44. Anyone willing to lie to you doesn’t care whether you live or die. So, let’s give the bankers their real name and put them in jail for the murderers they are. Then, we return our country to free banking and sound money.

          • Gina

            Correction… typo…meant Currency Act of 1764….

      • gene1357

        No! The people have failed The Constitution!
        The Constitution called for the Senate to be a true Upper House. Senators were to be “chosen by the legislatures (of the States) thereof, not popular vote. The States, creators of The Republic and The Constitution were made irrelevant.
        But before that, an unlimited source of wealth confiscation, and thereby debt encumbrance, was allowed. Almost immediately we were in our first European war!
        Follow the money. Bad amendments did it. Google “the law that never was”.
        There is no doubt about it: Had the 16th and 17 amendments never been foisted upon the Republic, we would be fine.
        Allowing 18 year olds to vote gave us Obama. That is another bad amendment.

        • OK I understand. So what we need is a restored constitution and then this time just get rid of all the annoying and fickle people to robustly ensure it can endure. Simple – fixed that.

    • Philip

      Gene 1357. And I would add #4. A return to common law with trial by jury, and
      making it an offence, which it is or was for judges to interfere with jury decisions including the Supreme Court judges. Supreme Power must be in the hands of the people, not the Supreme Court alias the King.

      • gene1357

        More important to forget “capitalism” and seek laissez-faire free enterprise, based upon the gold standard.
        Ron Paul has it right.
        Abolish the Fed, bring all troops home. The savings would balance the budget in no time.

  • Jon_Roland

    “Corporate personhood” is not the problem, and reflects a lack of understanding of what “person” means. It is, literally, a role played in a legal arena. Each individual can be many persons, and many people can unite to act as a single person. Corporations, for-profit and nonprofit, have always been legal persons, for more than 2000 years. They must be.

    There is a problem with excessive concentration of unbalanced power, but it makes little difference whether that takes the form of corporations, wealthy individuals, or as merely the behavior of unorganized herds. The need is to break up large organizations into many much smaller ones, including government and banking, and to disperse herd behavior.

    See Evolving Complex Networks in Constitutional Republics

    • We’ve written quite a bit on this subject. Here’s an excerpt from an article that appeared in 2010 … (“The Artificiality of Corporations”)

      … A book on the subject, available for free download on the Internet, is called, Gangs of America, The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, and is written by Ted Nace.

      This book traces the rise of corporations and shows how state power has always supported them. It is an unusual book to our mind and fairly well documented with footnotes and a bibliography. It is not just a pile of assertions.

      Where it falls down, unfortunately, is at the end when inevitably it recommends more government as a cure for what government has wrought. As free-market types, we’d rather go the other way – practicing a judicial disenfranchisement of the corporation and then letting the business model stand (in all its artificial ruthlessness) without state support, if it can.

      Certainly, the book documents intensive state involvement in the creation of the corporate model throughout history. Here is how the author describes it: “When we pan in closer with our historical lens, tracing how the institution known as the corporation was constructed piece by piece, the looming shape comes into focus as a specific legal contraption, a thing made of nuts, bolts, wheels, belts, and wiring.” While the book goes back thousands of years to trace corporate evolution, we found the chapters on the emergence of the American model most compelling. As with the central bank, it seems that prior to the Civil War the instinct was to rein-in bigness. Here is a description of pre-Civil War American corporate development:

      “After the (US) Constitutional Convention, the system that emerged for chartering corporations flipped the English system upside down. Instead of the monarch using corporate charters to grant special monopoly privileges to men of wealth, the American system placed the chartering function in the hands of the various state legislatures and placed an emphasis on restrictions and accountability measures, rather than on privileges. State constitutions and statutes reinforced the restrictive stance toward corporations. Under this system, charters tended to be granted sparingly, in keeping with the widespread belief that the potential for corporations to accumulate power rendered them inherently dangerous to democracy.”

      Not only were pre-Civil War populations suspicious of corporations, we found much evidence in the book of assertions that the Bell has made in the past regarding business practices. It has always been our assertion that without state involvement businesses would be much smaller – and that even industrial development of great magnitude would take place within a flexible arrangement shared among many smaller entities. Here is what Nace tells us: “It is important first to note that the corporate form, characterized by a charter and joint-stock ownership, was not the typical way businesses were organized in the colonies. Most businesses were owned by families or partnerships. They had no corporate charters, nor did they need them. …”

      And Nace adds, “In Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith saw the corporation as a decrepit and ill-conceived institution, a remnant of medieval privilege that was too prone to mismanagement to be useful for any but a handful of contingencies. In The Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx ignored corporations altogether. Smith was thinking mainly about the situation in Britain, where virtually all the giant trading companies had collapsed by the mid-1700s. For the most part, the Industrial Revolution in England flourished under quite simple institutional forms, mainly family-owned enterprises, partnerships, and unincorporated joint-stock companies.”

      • Jon_Roland

        All of those “simple” forms are “corporations” as that term was originally understood. See A Readable Edition of Coke upon Littleton, ed. Thomas Coventry (1830) It is not the form that is the problem, but the size. Reform needs to focus on correcting excessive and unbalanced concentrations of power, regardless of the form. I have proposed adoption of the ancient system of shmita to liquidate for-profit enterprises every seven years, for one year. Nonprofits could be allowed to persist, but should be broken up into small management units. See

        • You don’t need to force people to adopt another form. Just get rid of the legislation that forces people to do businesses with corporations that are protected by “personhood.”

          • Jon_Roland

            There is no significant legislation that comes to mind that “forces” anyone to do business with any corporation other than the government, and “personhood” is not some protection of privilege. It is the recognition of a role in the legal arena, which may vest in a natural individual or in a body of several of them. We are almost all many persons. A trustee is not the same person as a settlor or a beneficiary. A spouse, a parent or guardian, or an heir, are all different persons in law, even though each personhood is attached to the same warm body. A corporate person is just several individuals acting together represented by a common agent.

            You should not throw out terms like “corporation” or “personhood” until you have at least an elementary understanding of what the terms mean. You seem to be a long way from such understanding now.

          • Don’t understand the problem here. Corporate personhood is indeed a program of judicial force. Just go online and read about it.

            Here: from Reclaim Democracy …


            Introduction to Corporate Personhood

            Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

            But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800′s by establishing the doctrine of “corporate personhood” — the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

            We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal “persons” effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

          • Jon_Roland

            The article to which you link is just another lay take on a real problem which the writer completely fails to comprehend, for lack of knowledge of the basics of law. If you would actually read the link I provided to Coke on Littleton you would find corporate personhood well established when Coke wrote in 1628 commenting on Littleton who wrote in about 1481. And if you go back, you will also find it well established in ancient Roman law. This is not some 19th century innovation. If you read Coke you may also learn something about the reasons for these principles of law. It is not some nefarious plot.

            There is indeed a problem with large organizations, whether they be corporations or not, and even with emergent herd behavior that is not organized at all, but the legal character as corporations is simply not the problem. Yes, shareholders of for-profit corporations are protected from personal liability. So are creditors. So are the members of nonprofit organizations. But officers, directors, and employees of every corporation are just as liable as any other citizen. There may be a problem proving it, but that is an evidentiary (and perhaps political) problem, that has nothing whatsoever to do with it being a corporation.

          • Rome also had emperors, crucifixions and collapsed due to overtaxation and judicial and executive malfeasance. Sound familiar? Once corruption takes over a system, it is usually doomed. We have written many articles on private justice and legitimate, age-old common law.

            You cite precedent. But precedent-law has brought us to a stage where in the US alone one out of every three individuals has some kind of criminal interaction before he is 25. (US Today)

            There are some six million individuals at any one time involved in the US “justice” system. This is the environment you wish to defend? Corporatism is a judicially enforced facility and in its current form is not defensible, no matter how many corrupt precedents you present.


            And see this …


            Corporate personhood refers to the ability of organisations to be recognised by law as an individual, bringing with it certain rights, protections and abilities that are enjoyed by human beings. However, corporate personhood does not convey all the rights available to people. The main rights useful to organisations are the right to enter into contractual agreements and the ability to be sued or sue in a court of law. Corporate personhood is linked to the idea of limited liability – because it’s the corporation that enters into contracts rather than a person, it’s the company that would get sued for breach of contract, rather than an individual. Executives sign contracts on behalf of the company, rather than on behalf of themselves.

          • Jon_Roland

            Your concerns are well-taken and I share them. But those problems are not caused by “corporations” per se or recognizing them as “persons”. It would make more sense to blame the human species and human nature. Those problems are all caused by those nasty humans, so get rid of them! Replace them, perhaps, with chimpanzees, or robots. Or perhaps we can keep the humans and just do away with those nasty things called “law” and “government”. After all, “government” is the biggest corporation of all. Many have proposed doing just that, but others don’t think that would be a good idea. Or do away with society and go back to the state of nature, where we all get to happily fight and kill one another.

            Or we could stop diverting attention from the real causes of the problems of corruption and abuse of power and develop proposals that might actually alleviate them, by focusing on the real causes and not some bogeymen of our imagination.

          • Social and economic problems stem from the imposition of unfair or failing systems. Corporate personhood is one such …

  • robertsgt40

    Oligarchy too mild a term. Fascist more accurately describes where we’re at.

  • Know this and then ‘EVERYTHING’ makes sense!

    Yes, America is Still in an Official State of Emergency, February 11, 2010

    A reader asked whether the U.S. is still in an official state of emergency, and if so, what that means.

    The answer is ‘YES’, we are still in a state of emergency.

    Specifically: On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001: “A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . .”

    That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11 [throughout the Bush administration] to the present. On September 10 2009, President Obama continued the state of emergency: The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2009, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.

  • chuck martel

    “There comes a point, where the billionaire class has so much political power – where the Koch brothers are now, because of Citizens United, able to buy and sell politicians.”
    Bolshevik Bernie probably isn’t describing himself here, so who does he mean? What are the names of the bought and sold politicians? Oh, yeah, Jesse Jackson, Jr., he’s one, several more in Illinois, actually in prisons in Illinois. But they’re not on the Koch payroll. Didn’t the POTUS have a little dinner in San Jose yesterday where a plate full of goodies and some presidential boilerplate cost $32,500? How the heck did that inarticulate zombie Caroline Kennedy get to be ambassadress to Nippon? It sure ain’t because she’s fluent in Japanese.

    The problem apparently is that the “billionaire class” can buy politicians and get them to pass legislation favorable to them that’s unfavorable to everyone else. The solution is to make sure there are no more billionaires. It’s not part of the solution to make the politicians walk the plank, even though they’re just as guilty as the billionaires.

    • Dorothy Myers

      So maybe Piketty is right? We should have a confiscatory wealth tax to make sure that nobody makes enough money to cause jealousy and envy in anybody? Sure, money talks in D.C. but it couldn’t talk as much if, over many decades, the power and scope of govt and regulation hadn’t expanded beyond anybody’s control. Vested interest and groups put pressure on politicians to vote their way and the general citizenry knows their individual votes count for nothing. But, putting a wealth tax that confiscates (say) 70% of somebody’s wealth who makes (say) over $1M a year, or having a confiscatory inheritance tax will insure that successful and rich business people will walk out on such a regime (as many have done in France). Perhaps Aristotle was right — that any form of govt would work with fewer than 40,000 people involved, but when the population got too big then any form of govt would degenerate into corruption. We have moved from a republic (not a democracy) to rule by faceless bureaucrats who implement administrative policy and anybody who wants to oppose it finds they can’t because there’s no individual responsible, only a vast bureaucracy. Mercantilism doesn’t work, but that might be close to what we’ve got, leaning toward fascism. But, getting rid of all the billionaires won’t change that — all it would do is give bureaucrats and administrators the power and we know that power will be abused by whoever has it.

      • chuck martel

        You’re on to something when you bring up the bureaucrats. During the Lincoln administration, in an agrarian economy, the US Dept. of Agriculture had 16 employees. Today there are more than 106,000 bureaucrats working for an agency that services wealthy agribusiness at the taxpayers’ expense. None of these anonymous pencil pushers is subject to supervision, direction or censure by the body politic.

    • siriusadult

      your choice of ‘examples’ suggest to me that you are a Tea Party racist… that so?

      • chuck martel

        Ah, yes, the ultimate leftist, fits-every-circumstance, gambit, accuse the other of being a “racist”. There is no debate or discussion that can’t be dressed in racist clothing by the intellectually bankrupt baboons on the left.

      • 45clive

        Of course I am a racist…a human racist.

  • Mar 2, 2014 Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today’s world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people’s voice be heard?

    • But who controls the corporations ….

      • I just by chance have that answer for you, because of my own personal curiosity.

        02/13/2006 Who Owns the Corporation? Nobody!

        I am aware of where this information comes from and I only use what I have searched for, and have found on the topic. My apologies for any who are offended!

        These 26 Companies ‘AKA Corporations-Pay’ No Federal Income Tax 02/25/2014

        • We didn’t use the word “own.” We used the word “control.”

          “The secret to success is to own nothing, but control everything.” – Nelson Rockefeller (supposedly)

          • Own and control usually are interconnected from my view.

            “The secret to success is to own nothing, but control everything.” Nelson Rockefeller

            Is accurate from who it was. Here is a site copyrighted and has an extensive variety I have been using for years. Enjoy!


          • Freespirit

            Own and Control are in no way similar.

            Owning requires that the actual company is simply another name one uses to operate ones business but is actually a “pseudonym” for oneself and thus is OWNED by oneself. Corporations, on the other hand, are CONTROLLED by SHAREHOLDERS. One can own Shares but NOT the Corporation as it has “person-hood” granted by legislation, just as one cannot own a person

            Controlling, thus, would be the use of leverage by shares, coercion or “bribery” or by PROXY through TRUSTS to control a company ( or individual), corporation, not a “pseudonym” actually directly or indirectly “owned” by oneself

  • bill

    Solutions to be offered, of course, will feature further

    Spot on DB.!

    Solution to be “Financial Stability” with regulations coming
    from “Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)” part of Dodd-Frank granting powers to FED designating asset
    managers as systemically important financial institutions (SIFI).


  • gene1357

    The one solution that does not “feature further regulation” is repeal.

  • MetaCynic

    No one gives money to politicians out of the goodness of their heart. Something is expected in return. And this something is made possible by the power of the government’s gun. Every privilege, subsidy or government granted monopoly is sustained by force or the threat of force by some bureaucrat or another. The solution to extreme and growing wealth inequality is not more taxes and regulations. That’s what has caused the problem in the first place. The solution is to massively roll back government power so that its Magnum 44 morphs into a harmless pop gun.

  • Freespirit

    Once more the NAMES of the the REAL criminal “puppeteers” are not given and further, to the best of my understanding, the original REPUBLIC was,just that, a REPUBLIC, NOT a Democracy and a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic,at that.

    Shame on the authors, who I assume are American, for not stating that, and I am Canadian.

    Democracy is NOT Evolution, it is Devolution. By this I mean, to suggest Democracy has EVOLVED to Oligarchy, is to imply the REPUBLIC evolved to Democracy , when in fact Democracy is NOT evolution at all…it is literally, RULE by the MOB and a GIANT step back for mankind !