NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.theyrule.net/

Go into the site and click "load map" the "popular" look around. Some of the best ones are "The magnificent seven", "all the news they see fit to print", "who realy controls foreign policy"- they're all good.

You can also go to "find connection" and select two companies. The site will show you the link between the two.

By moving your mouse over a comapny or person you can bring up several options. You can click look at their websites, their connections on the site, or connect to a search engine.

What this is is a map of what I call the ruling class of the US (or more realistically, the world). The desks represent fortune 500 companies (and several prestigious institutions) and the people are the people who run that comapny/institution. The bigger the desk the bigger the company. The bigger the person, the more boards they sit on (fat cat).

The implications of the site are huge. All these companies decisions are influenced by eachother. These people are so wealthy and so powerful.
Its wild.

Whoever made this site has more free time than the people who post strings on this forum.

good point, wrong forum take this to general

http://www.theyrule.net/

Go into the site and click "load map" the "popular" look around. Some of the best ones are "The magnificent seven", "all the news they see fit to print", "who realy controls foreign policy"- they're all good.

You can also go to "find connection" and select two companies. The site will show you the link between the two.

By moving your mouse over a comapny or person you can bring up several options. You can click look at their websites, their connections on the site, or connect to a search engine.

What this is is a map of what I call the ruling class of the US (or more realistically, the world). The desks represent fortune 500 companies (and several prestigious institutions) and the people are the people who run that comapny/institution. The bigger the desk the bigger the company. The bigger the person, the more boards they sit on (fat cat).

The implications of the site are huge. All these companies decisions are influenced by eachother. These people are so wealthy and so powerful.
Its wild.

Whoever made this site has more free time than the people who post strings on this forum.

We've always had a ruling class, but it's never been a problem.

That's traditionally what these people do; they get appointed to boards of directors because they are qualified for the position while still running their company. Even though the boards have power, they are still responsible to the sharholders, and the shareholders are often individuals or companies who have ties to each other. Business is nothing without those kinds of connections.

The Fortune 500 employ millions of people and drive American economic and technological growth, so obviously the ruling class isn't a bad thing. It's when people use their wealth to oppress that it becomes a problem.

The Fortune 500 employ millions of people and drive American economic and technological growth, so obviously the ruling class isn't a bad thing. It's when people use their wealth to oppress that it becomes a problem.

Precisely. I'd like to think that the ruling class is at least a little bit afraid of us "commoners". At least that's how it should be, if they've learned what happens to oppressors (See: Execution of the Czars).

Right now...we're tollerating them, and if they want us to keep tollerating them, they'd best not abuse their power, lest we decide to get 1917 on their asses.

Its also not a static "ruling class"(I don't like that phrase too much). You can move up and down the social ladder. Winning the sperm lottery doesn't guarentee success here. While the children of these executives will probably never want for the basics, they will have to show some competetance to remain in their extravegant lifestyles. Children of midddle and lower class families can move up. While it may take a long time (probably a few generations), its not rare to hear a rags to riches story in this country.

As for all those companies being connected.....well duh. The only other option would be vertical intergration, which I think is illegal.

Precisely. I'd like to think that the ruling class is at least a little bit afraid of us "commoners". At least that's how it should be, if they've learned what happens to oppressors (See: Execution of the Czars).

Right now...we're tollerating them, and if they want us to keep tollerating them, they'd best not abuse their power, lest we decide to get 1917 on their asses.


Last I checked, 1917 didn't end up all that well for the "commoners" either.

Precisely. I'd like to think that the ruling class is at least a little bit afraid of us "commoners". At least that's how it should be, if they've learned what happens to oppressors (See: Execution of the Czars).

Right now...we're tollerating them, and if they want us to keep tollerating them, they'd best not abuse their power, lest we decide to get 1917 on their asses.

No silly, they're not afraid of us, they're afraid of what we could be (paraphrasing orwell) if we the proletariant ever shook off our deep sleep. As it stands they're unafraid because we will not stop tolerating them under present circumstances. They do abuse their power. These people live extravagent lives, far above the level of the every man. They get richer and everyone else gets poorer. Every year national debt (the amount that everyone in the country owes as individuals) rises. Equals intrest for them. They do not look out for our best intrests and that, considering that we're a democracy is a definate abuse of power.

They use their power to make themselves wealthy. Thats abuse

Last I checked, 1917 didn't end up all that well for the "commoners" either.
Good call

.While the children of these executives will probably never want for the basics, they will have to show some competetance to remain in their extravegant lifestyles.

Apparently noone told that to Bush

We've always had a ruling class, but it's never been a problem.

Except that their self-indulgence has led to an impovershed and dejected lower class in virtaully every society throught history. It is and has been a problem because it creates unhappiness, disease, death, corruption and so on where there need be none.


That's traditionally what these people do; they get appointed to boards of directors because they are qualified for the position while still running their company. Even though the boards have power, they are still responsible to the sharholders, and the shareholders are often individuals or companies who have ties to each other. Business is nothing without those kinds of connections.

Again though, that business only serves to enrich those few whom it envolves. It creates a powerful buisiness class that has their hands in politics, and other places where they should not be. It might even be acceptable to have such a powerful buisiness class or even an appointed "ruling class" of coroparate executives if the great mass of people were in a situation to free themselves, which, because the upper class controls the education system and the mass media, they cannot.


The Fortune 500 employ millions of people and drive American economic and technological growth, so obviously the ruling class isn't a bad thing. It's when people use their wealth to oppress that it becomes a problem.

'trickle down' economics is a myth started by the ruling class and reinforced (again by the education system and the media respectivly) and they do use their wealth to opress and manipulate, again largly through the mass media which they control.

I don't mean to come off sounding marxist, I'm just advocating a system where power is restricted, media is balanced and coprorations don't form a web of interlocking intrests, because in such a system we are all bound to lose. And we are lossing. And the vast majority of the population of the world is even more so.

No silly, they're not afraid of us, they're afraid of what we could be (paraphrasing orwell) if we the proletariant ever shook off our deep sleep.

Oh God

As it stands they're unafraid because we will not stop tolerating them under present circumstances. They do abuse their power. These people live extravagent lives, far above the level of the every man.

So? I really don't care what model Ferrari which CEO is driving. What matters is that I have the opportunity to move up to that level( not that I have an overhelming desire to)

They get richer and everyone else gets poorer.

Proof? I know they get richer, but is it because they are stealing it, we are giving it willingly, or because more wealth is being generated?

Every year national debt (the amount that everyone in the country owes as individuals) rises.

Thats not what the national debt is.

Equals intrest for them.

Which they use to buy more stuff equals more money into the economy.

They do not look out for our best intrests

Do you look out for theirs? I know I don't. My primary interest is and will always be myself and my family. Thats what it is for everybody( who is honest anyway)

and that, considering that we're a democracy is a definate abuse of power.

No, the two are not mutually exclusive. Your own self interest is the primary motivator in how you vote in a democracy.

They use their power to make themselves wealthy. Thats abuse

So, when I use my knowledge and creativity( my particular powers) to get myself a better job for more money (making myself more wealthy) am I abusing power or being undemocratic?

No silly, they're not afraid of us, they're afraid of what we could be (paraphrasing orwell) if we the proletariant ever shook off our deep sleep. As it stands they're unafraid because we will not stop tolerating them under present circumstances. They do abuse their power. These people live extravagent lives, far above the level of the every man. They get richer and everyone else gets poorer. Every year national debt (the amount that everyone in the country owes as individuals) rises. Equals intrest for them. They do not look out for our best intrests and that, considering that we're a democracy is a definate abuse of power.

They use their power to make themselves wealthy. Thats abuse
The converse is true as well: those who have risen in the business world have also been known to use their wealth to make themselves powerful. It happens so often that sometimes I think that the genetic and environmental basis for the drive to power is essentially identical to the basis for the drive to become wealthy.

1. Except that their self-indulgence has led to an impovershed and dejected lower class in virtaully every society throught history. It is and has been a problem because it creates unhappiness, disease, death, corruption and so on where there need be none.

2. ... business only serves to enrich those few whom it envolves. It creates a powerful buisiness class that has their hands in politics, and other places where they should not be. It might even be acceptable to have such a powerful buisiness class or even an appointed "ruling class" of coroparate executives if the great mass of people were in a situation to free themselves, which, because the upper class controls the education system and the mass media, they cannot.

3. 'trickle down' economics is a myth started by the ruling class and reinforced (again by the education system and the media respectivly) and they do use their wealth to opress and manipulate, again largly through the mass media which they control.
SIGH! Where to begin, where to begin. :headbang:

1. So the current standard of living in most Western countries was achieved how? By the "lower classes" revolting against the "oppressors" of the "upper classes?" No, it was achieved because the accumulation of capital made possible investment in new technology, new health systems, new agricultural methods, new manufacturing methods, etc.

2. So it's impossible to "free yourself" from this alleged repression, is it? How would you like me to dig up say five success stories of people who largely lifted themselves out of poverty and wound up in the rarefied atmosphere of corporate boardrooms, or as directors of large NPOs, or other so-called "upper class" careers?

3. Two words "college scholorships" or two other words "tuition loans." Or how about you don't have to listen to anything you don't want to. You can listen to all the conspiracy theorists out there, or nothing but left-wing propaganda, as some on here have amply demonstrated they in fact do.

Your reality is considerably different from mine, apparently.

Last I checked, 1917 didn't end up all that well for the "commoners" either.

Blame Stalin. I would have done things differently.

SIGH! Where to begin, where to begin. :headbang:

1. So the current standard of living in most Western countries was achieved how? By the "lower classes" revolting against the "oppressors" of the "upper classes?" No, it was achieved because the accumulation of capital made possible investment in new technology, new health systems, new agricultural methods, new manufacturing methods, etc.

2. So it's impossible to "free yourself" from this alleged repression, is it? How would you like me to dig up say five success stories of people who largely lifted themselves out of poverty and wound up in the rarefied atmosphere of corporate boardrooms, or as directors of large NPOs, or other so-called "upper class" careers?

3. Two words "college scholorships" or two other words "tuition loans." Or how about you don't have to listen to anything you don't want to. You can listen to all the conspiracy theorists out there, or nothing but left-wing propaganda, as some on here have amply demonstrated they in fact do.

Your reality is considerably different from mine, apparently.

Actually Eutrusca, the standard of living in most Western Countries was established by the blood, sweat, toil, and tears of labor unions and worker's organizations, usually over the violent protest of the establishment. It wasn't accumulation of wealth that limited the workweek to 40 hours or eliminated child labor or established a unified minimum wage, or even the principle of using government funding for education that you cite above, but rather bloody labor protests to force business to recognize those as rights. The difference between places like Malaysia and Borneo and the United States and Germany can usually be summed up in a different three-word term than accumulation of capital: Federation of Labor.

Actually Eutrusca, the standard of living in most Western Countries was established by the blood, sweat, toil, and tears of labor unions and worker's organizations, usually over the violent protest of the establishment. It wasn't accumulation of wealth that limited the workweek to 40 hours or eliminated child labor or established a unified minimum wage, or even the principle of using government funding for education that you cite above, but rather bloody labor protests to force business to recognize those as rights. The difference between places like Malaysia and Borneo and the United States and Germany can usually be summed up in a different three-word term than accumulation of capital: Federation of Labor.
I can't deny the contributions of the labor movement, particularly in its early years, to a more equitable distribution of wealth and material prosperity, but without the accumlation of capital the unions would be superfluous.

1. So the current standard of living in most Western countries was achieved how? By the "lower classes" revolting against the "oppressors" of the "upper classes?" No, it was achieved because the accumulation of capital made possible investment in new technology, new health systems, new agricultural methods, new manufacturing methods, etc.

We humans are fairly inventive creatures, and with all the creating that e have dne, it would be almost impossible for our standard of living not to have risen. My point is simply that, at present and in the past, the great mass of people have not been living nearly as well as they (we) could (have) because of the wonton lifestyles of the upper classes.


2. So it's impossible to "free yourself" from this alleged repression, is it? How would you like me to dig up say five success stories of people who largely lifted themselves out of poverty and wound up in the rarefied atmosphere of corporate boardrooms, or as directors of large NPOs, or other so-called "upper class" careers?

No silly, obviously an individual with talent, skill and a dazalling smile can rise to the top, its not like the matrix or anything. Its just that the great mass of people are unable to do so, and that they are simotaneously unable to leave the estblished system and create one where they could receive more equal benefits than they do under the present system. Jeeez



3. Two words "college scholorships" or two other words "tuition loans." Or how about you don't have to listen to anything you don't want to. You can listen to all the conspiracy theorists out there, or nothing but left-wing propaganda, as some on here have amply demonstrated they in fact do.


No I listen, I just try to listen without anger, self-doubt, bias or the overhelming drive to consume and follow the establsihed patterns that most people do. I'll paraphrase Chomsky. What I'm describing isn't a conspiracy. The upper class dosn't have a "conspiracy" to "control us" so we can't "free ourselves" or whatever the ignorant right-wing thinks that more enlightened folks such as myself think. What the ruling class has going on is common sense. The system hich we have in place is the way it is because if a person is asked "do you want to be rich" the answer is yes. Common Sense. We, as common folk however, need to use some mass common sense ourseleves and empower ourselves etc. and somewhat make ourown lives, and the lives of those less fortunate, better.

My insight into reality is considerably different from yours yes.

Precisely. I'd like to think that the ruling class is at least a little bit afraid of us "commoners". At least that's how it should be, if they've learned what happens to oppressors (See: Execution of the Czars).

Right now...we're tollerating them, and if they want us to keep tollerating them, they'd best not abuse their power, lest we decide to get 1917 on their asses.

So you support gun rights then?:D

So? I really don't care what model Ferrari which CEO is driving.

Apathy is what allows this system to function in the first place. Consmer apathy. Proletarient apathy. Or is it ignorance? Because if someone took money out of your wallet without handing you a recipt, you might not be so apathetic anymore.

Than you said something about you being able to rise being all that matters. Well p-dawg, let me tell you that level of lack of empathy for your fellow man is indicative of a sociopath. You see are the problem. You are so focused on rising and buying for you, that you forget about everyone else. I saw a woman in my hospital yesterday (we're pretty sure she or her husband had been beating their to children) talking to the younger of the two children, she said she didn't have enough money today, but tomorow she'd have enough money for KFC. You may buy a porsch, or a ferari someday, I may end up doing so as well. But I'll tell you what, if you can look the people who have fallen through the cracks, the great mass of people, who don't have 8$ for chicken, and don't have a better idea of what to do with their money, with their life, than tomorrows dinner because they have not been educated, they have not been loved and they have not been inspired, than I would say we are of a seperate species.


Proof? I know they get richer, but is it because they are stealing it, we are giving it willingly, or because more wealth is being generated?


A combination of the three. More wealth is generated, so they make up things (I once heard, from not a particularly reputable source, that a 2litre bottle of coke costs 18cents to manufacture), to 'steal' (i don't like that ord, again its not a conspiracy, its common sense) our money. Because we have been indoctrinated so effectivly by the mass media, willingly accept those lies. Yes our material standard of living goes up, but for the same reasons intangibles like our self-worth go down, and our material wealth is not nearly as high as it could be. And then I ask you to think of the some odd-thousands dieing everyday from hunger, thirst, preventable disease etc. in places like africa.


Thats not what the national debt is.


I know it can be confusing, but sometimes words can have more than one meaning.


Which they use to buy more stuff equals more money into the economy.


Which results in us owing them more money. We are corprate slaves. We're either trying to pay off our intrests and mortage or striving to buy the new ipod.


Do you look out for theirs? I know I don't. My primary interest is and will always be myself and my family. Thats what it is for everybody( who is honest anyway)

Again, indicitive of a sociopath


No, the two are not mutually exclusive. Your own self interest is the primary motivator in how you vote in a democracy.


Yes, but the masses are manipulated by corporatins, by the mass media, by executives, so what they think is in their best intrests is often not, it is the best intrests of those who are the executives, who are the corporations, who own the media. Their best intrest is money for them, which they get from us.


So, when I use my knowledge and creativity( my particular powers) to get myself a better job for more money (making myself more wealthy) am I abusing power or being undemocratic?

No, you use your skills. The upper class uses their power, which has been given to them to uphold our best intrests, to enrich and advance themselves that is abuse, obviosuly.

Precisely. I'd like to think that the ruling class is at least a little bit afraid of us "commoners". At least that's how it should be, if they've learned what happens to oppressors (See: Execution of the Czars).

Right now...we're tollerating them, and if they want us to keep tollerating them, they'd best not abuse their power, lest we decide to get 1917 on their asses.


Not this socialist crap again........:rolleyes:

Stop blaming a ruling class for your misfortunes and realize that it is indeed your fault that you are in a lower position in life then they are.

They are powerful and you are weak. They reign over you and all you can do is bitch about it in some useless online forum. Now you can either accept that or you can shoot yourself in the face. Thats reality kid....

Apathy is what allows this system to function in the first place. Consmer apathy. Proletarient apathy.

Its not apathy. Its knowing whats important. You need to be not so concerned with people's mmaterial wealth.

Or is it ignorance? Because if someone took money out of your wallet without handing you a recipt, you might not be so apathetic anymore.

If they tried to do so without exchanging a good or service for it, yes, I'd probably be a little peeved.

Than you said something about you being able to rise being all that matters.

No, I said its what matters compared to measuring the material wealth of someone else.

Well p-dawg, let me tell you that level of lack of empathy for your fellow man is indicative of a sociopath.

Gee, thanks for the diagnosis. Glad to see the 8-grade psyche class is coming in handy. Even though its not what I said.

Did I say I don't care about my fellow man? Did I say the poor can rot for all I care? No. I said it doesn't bother me that some CEO has cool toys.

You see are the problem.

No, son, I'm the solution.

You are so focused on rising and buying for you, that you forget about everyone else.

Really? You know me that well? Are you my alter ego come to life or something?

I saw a woman in my hospital yesterday (we're pretty sure she or her husband had been beating their to children) talking to the younger of the two children, she said she didn't have enough money today, but tomorow she'd have enough money for KFC.

You have a very sad story there, but what does it have to do with what Steve Jobs had in his living room? Did he or any CEO take food way from that family?

You may buy a porsch, or a ferari someday,

Honestly, I'm more of a muscle car man.

I may end up doing so as well.

When you get a little older and realize how silly all this socialist talk is.

But I'll tell you what, if you can look the people who have fallen through the cracks, the great mass of people, who don't have 8$ for chicken, and don't have a better idea of what to do with their money, with their life, than tomorrows dinner because they have not been educated, they have not been loved and they have not been inspired, than I would say we are of a seperate species.

I'm sure there is a complete thought somewhere in that jumble of words.



A combination of the three. More wealth is generated, so they make up things (I once heard, from not a particularly reputable source, that a 2litre bottle of coke costs 18cents to manufacture), to 'steal' (i don't like that ord, again its not a conspiracy, its common sense) our money.

A particularly reliable source? Like what? That dude in that place?

Anyway: No duh, it costs next to nothing to produce Coke. But does that number incluse shipping, advertising and all the other, non-production expenses that go into it? I'm sure most people realize that they are paying for the overhead as well as the product.

Because we have been indoctrinated so effectivly by the mass media, willingly accept those lies.

So they are working together to take our money and enslave us? You say you don't like the word conspiracy, but thats the picture you are painting.

Yes our material standard of living goes up, but for the same reasons intangibles like our self-worth go down,

Because we let it and people like you refuse to see where the problem really lies.

and our material wealth is not nearly as high as it could be.

And whose fault is that?

And then I ask you to think of the some odd-thousands dieing everyday from hunger, thirst, preventable disease etc. in places like africa.

For what purpose? To hate the rich? Or to blame the warlords and butchers in Africa that are causing that suffering?



I know it can be confusing, but sometimes words can have more than one meaning.

No. "national debt" is a very specific term linked to one certain issue. Don't talk down to me when you haven't the first clue what you are talking about.



Which results in us owing them more money.

Or earning it. And, if we are giving them a reasonable sum ofmoney in exchange for a vital good or service, so what?

We are corprate slaves.

We?

We're either trying to pay off our intrests and mortage

For a good or service they are providing.

or striving to buy the new ipod.

Blech. Trendy piece of crap.

Maybe I'm alone and lucky, but I grew up in a family that taught me not to throw my hard earned money at every expensive bauble to come down the pike.

Again, indicitive of a sociopath

Oh please. Its indicitive of a human being. Even the Founding Fathers recognized this. The Constituion is meant to protect the individual from the Tyranny of the Majority (what you call democracy).


Yes, but the masses are manipulated by corporatins, by the mass media, by executives, so what they think is in their best intrests is often not, it is the best intrests of those who are the executives, who are the corporations, who own the media.

Again, you are defining a conspiracy. No wonder you can't keep up in an arguement. You can't even be honest with yourself.

Their best intrest is money for them, which they get from us.

As long as I am getting what I am looking for in exchange( which is why we have money), then render unto Caesar.


No, you use your skills.

Which put me in a position of power with current and perspective employers and lients.

The upper class uses their power,

The ability to gather and manage resources is a talent.

which has been given to them

Or earned by

to uphold our best intrests,

Where was that written? I really need to know where that idea comes from, because its skating dangerously close to divine right concepts, which I want nothing to do with.

They have their wealth because they are providing goods or services that society deems valuable and they do them well. Do I agree with what some people make? Hell no. Do I think those people should turn in their salaries? Not if they are doing what was asked of them.

to enrich and advance themselves that is abuse, obviosuly.

No, abuse only comes in when you directly harm someone.

This is not say I trust corporations or the people who run them. I just know their place in society. I think that when corporations harm people and CEOs bilk their investors and destroy their employees' lives, they need to pay to the fullest extent of the law.

However, being rich is not a crime. I encourage generousity and charitable works, but I don't believe in forcing people into it. Unfortunatly, living in a free society means tolerating people being douchebags, as long as they are't harming the next person.