Sociopath Community

Sven said: 

Xadem said: 

In the USA there's a 1% who holds all the wealth and is systematically causing the middle class to disintegrate, we see right now the opposite effect of what caused Feudalism to decline in the later medieval periods, because if this keeps going, we will end up with the peasant/noble dynamic again. I think the new nobles are the likes of Facebook and Google, Amazon and Apple CEOs, whose power is skyrocketing exponentially and who are using increasingly more sinister methods to establish the complete and utter disconnect between the peasantry and the moden aristocracy. Meanwhile the college educated people and liberal Hollywood are the new clergy, whose monopoly on culture is reminiscent of the Church impeding on everyone's private life. 

 You hit on a couple of very interesting points here. Been seeing lots of finger pointing at income inequality as societies greatest problem. Humans will never be equal, sorry. There will always be a bell curve of haves and have nots. and as society gets dumber and lazier, the weighting towards the have not will continue to rise.

I'm not arguing for communism. I'm fine with some  income inequality. 

I'm thinking that dummies and lazy people are societies greatest problem. lol.

The 1% is not that big of a deal, Just work hard and marry a smart chick.

https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/income-family-top-1-percent-every-state-2019-4

Lol sure, just make 500k a year. Thanks man

If Facebook, twitter and Google continue with their obvious political bias, they will soon see themselves regulated by the government as free speech utilities.

Regulated by the same government that's bailing out the banks while Google and Facebook make their own run for the financial industry? That sounds circular 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Xadem said: 

Okay so bare with me, but after realising that the European Union is a neo imperial Belgian construct, I will now share my revelation that the USA is a Neo-Feudalist aristocracy. 

Neo-feudalism or new feudalism is a theorized contemporary rebirth of policies of governance, economy, and public life reminiscent of those present in many feudal societies, such as unequal rights and legal protections for common people and for nobility.

What rights do wealthy people have that middle class or the poor do not also have? What legal protections does a wealthy individual have that all other individuals do not have? 

Impunity from prosecution. 
DuPont Case This guy paid a 4k fine and got treated for pleading guilty to raping his 3 year old, the lawsuit got little to no coverage whatsoever until after the sentencing. And this is when he got sentenced. Think of about all those people who "settled out of court"? They just bribe their way out of decades of jailtime. I'm not saying Neo-Feudalism is blatant, it's a very covert system. Epstein's case (or lack of it) plays into this as well. 

Political reforms rarely if ever actually do anything to touch the banking system or the bankers, like in 2008 Obama campaigned saying he'd punish those responsible for the crash and when he got elected he just stopped talking about it, lol. The wealthier someone is, the better use they can make of the legal system. Currently humanist ideals are like the old "a clergyman prays for all" but only apply to a select few while debt is being used to chain people into serfdom. This is far from the American Dream of equal opportunity. 

The concept of "neofeudalism" may focus on economics. Among the issues claimed to be associated with the idea of neofeudalism in contemporary society are class stratification, globalization, neoconservative foreign policy, mass immigration/illegal immigration, open borders policies, multinational corporations, and "neo-corporatism" (Wikipedia)

There's a lot of concerns here shared by any type of governance. What about the american approach to these is feudalistic?  The two quotes above really haven't defined neofeudalism in any meaningful or distinct way. 

It's my own fault that I didn't explain myself better. Neo-feudalism is the endgame I think, like Tryp raised the notion that this is hyper-capitalism which I'm a bit on the fence about, because capitalism holds the opportunity of upward mobility while the way America is headed, the breakdown of the middle class means less opportunity and the eventual creation of a caste-like system. The over-arching human rights that are supposed to transcend class divisions are but symbolisms when money comes into the picture. 

In the USA there's a 1% who holds all the wealth and is systematically causing the middle class to disintegrate, we see right now the opposite effect of what caused Feudalism to decline in the later medieval periods, because if this keeps going, we will end up with the peasant/noble dynamic again.

There has always been wealth inequality and the richest 1% used to be wealthier. 

Jeff Bezos, the richest American alive today is the fourths richest in U.S. history. 

1. Rockefeller adjusted wealth is $253 billion and he lived from 1839-1937

2. Vanderbilt adjusted wealth is $205 billion and he lived from 1794-1877

3. Astor adjusted wealth is $138 billion and he lived from 1763-1848 

When these men lived there was hardly a middle class to speak of and standard living conditions were far worse than today. Based on your explanation it can be assumed that the United States used to be far more feudalistic and has become far less with the rise of the middle class and the shrinking of historical income inequality. 

Yes based on that alone you are right and my explanation was limited to begin with. I tend to start out weak and then improve when challenged to defend my stance and think more critically lol

I think the new nobles are the likes of Facebook and Google, Amazon and Apple CEOs, whose power is skyrocketing exponentially and who are using increasingly more sinister methods to establish the complete and utter disconnect between the peasantry and the moden aristocracy.

During the middle ages you had to be born into nobility. Today if you have an idea that can be actualized and made profitable for shareholders you can enter this noble class you speak of. Furthermore nobles can fall out of their nobility due to poor financial decisions and management. Is the fact that productivity instead blood determines this nobility a crucial difference between the two systems? 

This is the idea of equal opportunity, and I'm not saying there isn't some chance of moving to the highest echelons of society. My point is that the window is narrowing and I fear the current state of class division will solidify in the future, effectively rendering it into a neo-feudal state where serfdom is enforced via ever increasing debt. Productivity is in the hands of the ultra-rich who hinder innovation via the removal of the middle class. Like you have cartels buying up start-ups. Or let's take a zoomer example; big corporations copystriking independent Youtubers for using 0.1 second of a copyrightable clip, soundbeat, whatever, if even. It all plays into the same idea.
The very reason you are able to actualise an idea and gain a profit is because of the existence of a middle class which facilitates innovation thanks to the idea of liberal democracy.  

As for nobles falling out of grace; this does happen, however it's the exception to the rule. I've seen you mention Elizabeth Holmes before, lol. Generally the Neo Feudal nobility enjoys bailouts and a "too big to fail" status which effectively makes them immune to the livelihood-threatening risks that lower classes have to deal with. 

Why haven't things changed? Your political system gives you the choice between two corrupt corporate cronies each time, nothing changes, the circus goes on and serves as a distraction for the corporate elite driving the country into a Neo-Feudal system. Voting won't change a thing, the real power lies with the ultra-rich, your chances at joining this tier are diminishing quickly. 

Meanwhile the college educated people and liberal Hollywood are the new clergy, whose monopoly on culture is reminiscent of the Church impeding on everyone's private life. 

I agree with this more or less but i think it goes beyond culture and also manages valid thought at the most fundamental levels. For instance there is a scientific canon that you must believe in or you are declared pseudoscientific by the majority. Rejecting darwinism, big bang theory, global warming etc will land you in this category even if you have good reason and evidence. 

You can even extend this into people's sports-like obsession with x or y political party where it's considered thoughtcrime to consider the enemy's stance

PalePeach said: 

I agree completely. The US is very much an aristocracy. Technically anyone can succeed in the US. We don't have official class systems that prevent lower class citizens from rising, but the tools one needs to raise their status are often difficult to obtain without buying them. ex: An impoverished person can go to college on a full scholarship if they get straight A's throughout high school and maintain all A's in college, or a rich person with straight D's can have their parents buy their way in. Or two people are arrested for the same crime, both are guilty. One is assigned a public defender, has a short trial and is sentenced. The other has the ability to hire a team of lawyers who, although not able to prove innocence, are able to sway the judge and jury to a minimum sentence, much lighter than what their poor counterpart received.

Running for office is impossible if you cannot fund a campaign so all of our politicians are rich people, making decisions that benefit rich people at the expense of the bottom class.

example: Reopening the country during COVID, putting the lives of hair dressers, servers, retail staff etc at risk so the CEOs can make money over video conference from one of their 5 high security mansions.

Yes very true, I kind of centered my OP around this point, but obviously it's not a problem limited to the system we're defining here. Even though you can find inequality in every system, it's when the subsequent nuances come into play, like creating a serfdom class and removing the middle class so that upward mobility is hindered. This might be reminiscent of Communism, right? Well communism has a way of turning into Feudalism as well. 

The USA however is turning Neo-Feudalist, which has a basic difference that it's owned by corporations which deregulate the economy and hollow out the middle class, which hinders innovation and liberal democracy. 

Then these politicians re-arrange voting districts in their favor to suppress the voting power of citizens.

Say for instance a state has 1000 people. 440 are registered to the Star party, 560 registered for the Stripes party. The current state legislatures are all Stars party and they rearranging 10 voting districts so each has 100 citizens. 8 districts each contain 55 Stars members and 45 stripes members. 2 district have 100 Stripes members. In the next election all 1000 citizens vote, and every single one votes with their party. Total citizen votes: 440 for stars, 560 for stripes, a clear win for stripes but  with 1 vote per district based on citizen majority, the final outcome is 8 votes for Stars and 2 Votes for Stripes. The system is fucking rigged.

That is very interesting, I had forgotten about that. I saw a cool map a while ago: 

People in power would rather let millions of people die to maintain a shitty fragile system, rather than to reform a more stable and fair system because the current system favors them over 95% of the rest of the country. Gun control isn't about safety because the 1% don't care about that, it's about taking more power from those already weaker so they can't rise up.

America eventually is going to turn into one of those anarchist rebellions where the working class behead the upper class if we can't get out shit together and stop treating half the population as expendable labor instead of citizens of a democracy.

The remnants of liberal democracy are still visible and generally tend to serve as an illusion that America is still very much true to it's ideals

someone secret said: 

lmao i love it when sollipsistic narrow minded westerners who dont understand political ideologies in depth and see the world thru a me-based prism put labels on things based on how they NPD split (black and white thinking) countries, people, and factions based on how it makes em feel and serves them.

Okay but I'm not pulling a 14-year-old-discovers-fascism here, I genuinely see a correlation between Fedualism and the way things are moving. I also don't claim to be an expert and that's why I posted it here because other people can help me dissect this vague notion. If anything, I'm being honest about my ignorance. 

"X is an austocracy because i dont like it! capitalism is bad because i am too dumb and untalented to thrive in it! this dictatorship is actually a democracy because i like it! socialism is good because i cant make more than minimum wage! X guy is Y because i dislike W about him! war is peace! freedom is slavery!"

grow up and learn what the words you use mean. dont give fictive labels and exaggerate properties to sound smart on the internet. this is no different than people who wont laugh at offensive jokes because they are "offensive". Just because X has negative trait Y doesnt mean its also all these other negative traits or things you dont like. Thats toddler tier reasoning.

 I don't see how that applies to me but alright

Xadem said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

What rights do wealthy people have that middle class or the poor do not also have? What legal protections does a wealthy individual have that all other individuals do not have? 

Impunity from prosecution. 
DuPont Case This guy paid a 4k fine and got treated for pleading guilty to raping his 3 year old, the lawsuit got little to no coverage whatsoever until after the sentencing. And this is when he got sentenced. Think of about all those people who "settled out of court"? They just bribe their way out of decades of jailtime. I'm not saying Neo-Feudalism is blatant, it's a very covert system. Epstein's case (or lack of it) plays into this as well. 

I'm not all that familiar with this case but this is anecdotal evidence. Two can play at that game and get no where. 

Extremely Rich people who have gone to serve hard time for breaking the law

1. Raj Rajaratnam, net worth = $1.7 billion before jail, Crime = Insider trading, Sentence = 8 years

2.  Micheal Milken, net worth = $3.7 billion, Crime = Insider trading, Sentence 2 years and $600 million fine + $47 million to SEC complaint

3. Bernard Ebbers, Net worth = $1.4 billion, Crime = Fraud, Sentence = 25 years(Died in prison recently serving 13 years)

4. Bernie Madoff, Net Worth = $20 billion, Cimre = Fraud, Sentence = 150 years and forfeiture of $17 billion

I can go on and on. 

Political reforms rarely if ever actually do anything to touch the banking system or the bankers, like in 2008 Obama campaigned saying he'd punish those responsible for the crash and when he got elected he just stopped talking about it, lol. The wealthier someone is, the better use they can make of the legal system. Currently humanist ideals are like the old "a clergyman prays for all" but only apply to a select few while debt is being used to chain people into serfdom. This is far from the American Dream of equal opportunity. 

There are two great myths of the 2008 housing crises. 

The first myth is that is was caused purely by greed of big bankers and Wall Street. 

In reality the housing bubble was a result of bad legislation that was passed in 1992 meant to champion 'affordable housing'. It set quotas on the number of loans banks had to give out to low income people and quotas for the number of mortgages of low income people the FNMA and FHLM had to back. If these quotas were not meet the these institutions would be fined and head members were even threatened with prosecution by Janet Reno. So these institutions were forced by law to back extremely risky loans which in turn created a bubble. Even funnier than that, when Obama entered office he then penalized these institutions for taking on too much risk. 

The Second myth is that no one went to jail. 

1. Lee Farkas, Sentence = 30 years and $38 million fine

2. Kareem Serageldin = 2.5 years, $25.6 million fine, $1 million SEC despute

3. Micheal McGarth, Sentence =  14 years

Once again there are several others but these are the big three. It's important to remember that you can only be convicted of a crime if something is a crime. Irresponsible does not equal illegal. 

 

 

It's my own fault that I didn't explain myself better. Neo-feudalism is the endgame I think, like Tryp raised the notion that this is hyper-capitalism which I'm a bit on the fence about, because capitalism holds the opportunity of upward mobility while the way America is headed, the breakdown of the middle class means less opportunity and the eventual creation of a caste-like system. The over-arching human rights that are supposed to transcend class divisions are but symbolisms when money comes into the picture. 

Is the middle class actually shrinking? This is a tough question to answer. usually median household income is used to drive this point but it doesn't paint the whole picture because despite median income being slightly less than it used to be the size of housholds has changed. The number of single member households has more than doubled. Hence it is implied that median household income would show decline, but that doesn't mean the middle class is shrinking it just means households are smaller. 

Furthermore these stats don't take into account the lifetime growth of of a persons assets. The majority of those single households are millennials who have not reached peak income or net worth. It is natural that boomer households whose members are in there late 40's and 50's have more money than a single member mellinnial household as they've had more time to acquire wealth. 

In fact many studies point to our generation being the richest generation in history, projections that we will incur 5x as much wealth as we have today via income and inheritance.  

 

TheThis is the idea of equal opportunity, and I'm not saying there isn't some chance of moving to the highest echelons of society. My point is that the window is narrowing and I fear the current state of class division will solidify in the future, effectively rendering it into a neo-feudal state where serfdom is enforced via ever increasing debt. Productivity is in the hands of the ultra-rich who hinder innovation via the removal of the middle class. Like you have cartels buying up start-ups. Or let's take a zoomer example; big corporations copystriking independent Youtubers for using 0.1 second of a copyrightable clip, soundbeat, whatever, if even. It all plays into the same idea.
The very reason you are able to actualise an idea and gain a profit is because of the existence of a middle class which facilitates innovation thanks to the idea of liberal democracy.  

I addressed this above. 

I will note though that this argument has been made many times over the decades yet a new generation of rich young people come into being. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc all created by millennnials and all highly innovative. 

AI market is projected to reach $390 billion by 2025. The individuals building that innovative technology are mostly young software devs, engineers, and mathematicians. On top of that I am sure many young engineers and devs will create successful start-ups in this space. They will move up the ladder. But why? Because they decided to develop highly useful skills that allow them to create and innovate. 

As for nobles falling out of grace; this does happen, however it's the exception to the rule. I've seen you mention Elizabeth Holmes before, lol. Generally the Neo Feudal nobility enjoys bailouts and a "too big to fail" status which effectively makes them immune to the livelihood-threatening risks that lower classes have to deal with. 

I agree with this to some degree and I am not a fan of bailouts, if tough times hit and a company will fail if not intervened with we should let it die. Let the market evolve naturally. 

Why haven't things changed? Your political system gives you the choice between two corrupt corporate cronies each time, nothing changes, the circus goes on and serves as a distraction for the corporate elite driving the country into a Neo-Feudal system. Voting won't change a thing, the real power lies with the ultra-rich, your chances at joining this tier are diminishing quickly. 

There has always been corruption and I agree money should be seperate from politics. 

But I see no reason to believe there is no ability to move up the ladder at the moment nor is opportunity shrinking. In the age of the internet there is more opportunity to generate wealth than at any point in history. I turned 1k into 10k in 1.5 months by trading electronically and all I had to do was read two books to learn the ropes. Everyone I know who has put effort into their existence by acquiring skills is at least in the high middle class. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

I'm not all that familiar with this case but this is anecdotal evidence. Two can play at that game and get no where. 

Extremely Rich people who have gone to serve hard time for breaking the law

1. Raj Rajaratnam, net worth = $1.7 billion before jail, Crime = Insider trading, Sentence = 8 years

2.  Micheal Milken, net worth = $3.7 billion, Crime = Insider trading, Sentence 2 years and $600 million fine + $47 million to SEC complaint

3. Bernard Ebbers, Net worth = $1.4 billion, Crime = Fraud, Sentence = 25 years(Died in prison recently serving 13 years)

4. Bernie Madoff, Net Worth = $20 billion, Cimre = Fraud, Sentence = 150 years and forfeiture of $17 billion

I can go on and on. 

You're right, these are anecdotal stories but it's hard to look past the effect that wealth has on a criminal case. Highly specialised lawyers, counseling, and mere influence go a long way into ensuring that the law bends for those able to afford it.

Even just the first one you mentioned, Raj Rajatnaram served on the top floor of a highly specialised hospital ward with access to a private bathroom, television, balcony etc. all thanks to his elite defense team that argued his diabetes should get him medical treatment. As for his Credit Suisse investment bank? Settled for a mere 5.1 billion dollars. 

Michael Milken was indicted in 1989, so 30 years ago. Fun fact though Trump pardoned him in February. 

Bernard Ebbers was also 20 years ago. 

Bernie Madoff defrauded some of the most powerful men in the world from tens of billions of dollars and made many enemies that way. 

These don't convince me that the USA isn't headed into a state of increasing corporatism where cases like Ebbers and MAdoff aren't punished by the law accordingly. However it is interesting to see that the early 2000s were a shitty period for crooked CEOs.

There are two great myths of the 2008 housing crises. 

The first myth is that is was caused purely by greed of big bankers and Wall Street. 

In reality the housing bubble was a result of bad legislation that was passed in 1992 meant to champion 'affordable housing'. It set quotas on the number of loans banks had to give out to low income people and quotas for the number of mortgages of low income people the FNMA and FHLM had to back. If these quotas were not meet the these institutions would be fined and head members were even threatened with prosecution by Janet Reno. So these institutions were forced by law to back extremely risky loans which in turn created a bubble. Even funnier than that, when Obama entered office he then penalized these institutions for taking on too much risk. 

The Second myth is that no one went to jail. 

1. Lee Farkas, Sentence = 30 years and $38 million fine

2. Kareem Serageldin = 2.5 years, $25.6 million fine, $1 million SEC despute

3. Micheal McGarth, Sentence =  14 years

When I google why the financial crisis of 2008 happened it tells me that it was due to deregulation which permitted banks to engage in hedge fund trading for which they needed more money and started squeezing the middle class. This has only confirmed what I knew before. May I point out though that Kareem Serageldin is the only American top banker who has been convicted? Remember we're talking about the ultra rich here, brokers like Farkas and McGarth are petty thieves compared to them. 

https://ig.ft.com/jailed-bankers/ 

"The US, ground zero for the financial crisis, has jailed just one banker for issues relating to the crisis. Former Credit Suisse trader Kareem Serageldin was sentenced to thirty months in prison for artificially inflating the price of subprime mortgages, a financial product at the very heart of Wall Street’s unravelling."

You've named the exception to the rule. 

Once again there are several others but these are the big three. It's important to remember that you can only be convicted of a crime if something is a crime. Irresponsible does not equal illegal. 

I definitely agree with you there. Then isn't the influence of the elite on the political system all the more worrying? If corporate interests boost the incentive to deregulate, what will stop those people from solidifying the division between upper and lower class via those same means?

Is the middle class actually shrinking? This is a tough question to answer. usually median household income is used to drive this point but it doesn't paint the whole picture because despite median income being slightly less than it used to be the size of housholds has changed. The number of single member households has more than doubled. Hence it is implied that median household income would show decline, but that doesn't mean the middle class is shrinking it just means households are smaller. 

Furthermore these stats don't take into account the lifetime growth of of a persons assets. The majority of those single households are millennials who have not reached peak income or net worth. It is natural that boomer households whose members are in there late 40's and 50's have more money than a single member mellinnial household as they've had more time to acquire wealth. 

In fact many studies point to our generation being the richest generation in history, projections that we will incur 5x as much wealth as we have today via income and inheritance.  

I got the middle class shrinking thing from the OECD, who argues that it indeed has been shrinking across the west, and that while millennial income has risen, it has failed to keep up with inflation and the rising cost of real estate. While wages have risen, it fails to compensate for higher cost of living. So when you put it in the context, (or indexate it) income has not risen. 

The comparison the OECD makes is between boomers when they were in their 20s and people in their 20s now. It would indeed be silly to compare a 55 year old's bank account to that of a 21 year old. 

However I also found some conflicting information, which you've touched upon with regards to definitions. Clearly I'm not an expert so when I check this stuff I rely on official sources and even when googling your arguments I find that the majority of experts thinks the middle class is shrinking. 

I addressed this above. 

I will note though that this argument has been made many times over the decades yet a new generation of rich young people come into being. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc all created by millennnials and all highly innovative. 

AI market is projected to reach $390 billion by 2025. The individuals building that innovative technology are mostly young software devs, engineers, and mathematicians. On top of that I am sure many young engineers and devs will create successful start-ups in this space. They will move up the ladder. But why? Because they decided to develop highly useful skills that allow them to create and innovate. 

There has always been corruption and I agree money should be seperate from politics. 

But I see no reason to believe there is no ability to move up the ladder at the moment nor is opportunity shrinking. In the age of the internet there is more opportunity to generate wealth than at any point in history. I turned 1k into 10k in 1.5 months by trading electronically and all I had to do was read two books to learn the ropes. Everyone I know who has put effort into their existence by acquiring skills is at least in the high middle class. 

I don't think it's impossible to be successful right now, nor have I claimed that it is, I'm saying that I see a pattern which if it continues could result in a Neo Feudal status quo. 

Xadem said:

Neo Feudalist