Have The Rules Changed?

Richard MELLON Schaif's The American Spectacle is even less credible than Goldberg.

America is ruled by the 60 Families, AKA The Establishment, one of which is the Mellon family. No informed person would expect media controlled by the 60 families to tell the truth about who really holds the reins of power in America.

If you truly wish to learn the truth, I would recommend the books, "The Rich and the Super-Rich" and "America's 60 Families," both by Ferdinand Lundberg. They are both out of print but used copies can be had from Amazon.

Amazon.com: ferdinand lundberg: Books


Being so smart and all, you might suggest that others read a variety of points of view. In my op though the point wasn't Goldberg's thinking, rather the thesis of possible paradigm change in US political/economic reality.
As long as the 60 families rule there will be no change.

And the books I recommended were to give a different point of view from boedicca's link and not your post. I made a different post in reply to one of your posts.

If the people are awakened and dissatisfied, change will come, one way or another. That is inevitable.

On the other hand, if they return to where they've been for most of the past 100 years, I agree. Again, I could be wrong, I just don't see wholesale slumber of the citizenry happening anytime soon.
 
In your last paragraph you ask one question that is relevant, my answer is 'no', it hasn't been the same for 100 years. Doesn't mean those in power wouldn't have liked the same, but they didn't have the amount of power over the people. Not through taxes, legislation, arms of enforcement, etc.
The corporate monopolists have ruled this nation for more than the past 100 years. You underestimate their power. They control both Parties and all the major media. They pay no taxes and have learned to CONTROL their monopolies through phony charities and the banking cartel.

Which was on point for the link that Boedicca posted today, myself yesterday on another thread.

For some reason you just seem to feel like one of the cool kids to put down sources, when the ideas don't qualify for derision. Whatever. You're posts used to be much more interesting when you weren't so partisan.
Her link skirts naming manes and blames the standard CON$ervative scapegoats. Lundberg names names and does not scapegoat big government, Democrats, wealthy neighborhoods, and universities as her link does. See the double-talk below from her link:

The Ruling Class

Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?

The most widespread answers -- by such as the Times's Thomas Friedman and David Brooks -- are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg's notion that America is now ruled by a "newocracy": a "new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization -- including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy." In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.

Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities' priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston's Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate -- just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative "nonprofit" and "philanthropic" sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter's grievances.
 

Forum List

Back
Top