Political Memes

Plutocracy means what it says it means - so not all words have be designed poorly, it is we who allow them to get away with it. Then again, how are we going to go to the nazis and tell them to change the name they use to refer to themselves?:-P On the other hand, we could call them what they are: fascists.

You asked why there is such a difference b/t Sweden vs. the USA, and I think the answer is simple: the former is a democracy, whereas the latter is not. The latter calls itself one, but that is merely a convenient fiction for something that is more trule rather a plutocracy. I don't know how Norway has managed to remain so awesome - it has truly been a sight to behold though:-).

Back to the USA, the difference as I mentioned was the rise of "corporations" in the late 1970s: prior to that, if someone owned a "company", like Mr. Smith's paper mill, and he did something bad, then they could come and take it from him, plus also his actual house. However nowadays those limited liability organizations allow him to do whatever he pleases, confident that the LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) will take the fall, while he retains all of the privileges. At the highest levels, someone can live the lifestyle of a FABULOUSLY wealthy person - driving the best cars, flying around to their private jets and traveling not by car but by helicopter to & from it, to their personal private building where they live in the penthouse suites, eating the best foodstuffs and sampling all the best products, all while the corporation pays the taxes - at a significantly lower rate than a human being would - and shoulders all the liability concerns. And sure, occasionally they will pay the human a million dollars here or there, but that is a pittance compared to the multimillion-dollar lifestyle they live in perpetuity, offered by the corporation. We created these legal fictions to exist "above" us, we the people, and now they live... above us, while we suffer along barely able to eat.

Anyway that Rules for Rulers video was never meant to explain everything, just one of the various rules - i.e. it helps people to avoid falling into one of the various common traps.

I disagree about corporations though: the USA Supreme Court itself has stipulated that "corporations are people", and moreover they are abstract entities that exist semi-independently from humans. Yes, humans are involved, but like cells in a body, whereas the corporation is more than the sum of all of them combined. e.g. if a CEO dies, it can be replaced, while the corporation moves ever onwards. Sometimes it may act in accordance aligned perfectly with the will of a particular CEO, but other times not - e.g. if the Board directs otherwise. It is not the only such entity, human families may act likewise: sometimes a dad may be in charge, other times a mom, still other times the children take the lead, e.g. perhaps they are put in charge of deciding where the entire family will go for a vacation; and there too the components are replacable, e.g. if a father dies and a step-father comes in to fill the gap, but the "family" abstract entity will go on, never quite being the same, but then again it's never the same from one year to the next in any case.

But getting back to corporations: they DO have a will, and that will is to seek profits, at any cost. Like a zombie constantly eating flesh, even picking up the food that fell out of its own deteriorated body that could not hold it, a corporation just nom-noms forever, regardless of whether it has been successful or failed in the past, it always marches on towards the direction of profits. Though, like the human abstract concept of "family", yes it too receives input from its component parts, even as it also takes on a semi-independence beyond that as well. I probably am horribly botching this explanation, b/c it almost sounds like I am disagreeing with you, but what I am intending is to say that corporations are not solely limited to being made up of humans: they also have something inherent within themselves. For example, if the exact same humans within an LLC would behave differently in a non-LLC, where they could be held personally responsible for their actions, then that is the difference that the "corporation" aspect made.

Though yeah, you do bring up a valid point about things that work against the interests of the corporation as a whole. Just like humans who drink or do drugs and harm the whole entire body - freedom is a bitch, which offers benefits & detractions both. The legal fiction of corporations have given those giants "abilities" that humans do not have, but somehow people never got around to doing much to place "restrictions" upon those super-persons - like a human cannot murder another human, so why are corporations allowed to do things like hostile take-overs? And yes, pay their CEOs enormous compensation packages that hurt the corporation overall - should that be allowable, or does that additional "freedom" hurt society, as well as all the humans within the corporation, to a greater degree than it provides any benefits? The EU is placing restrictions upon corporations, and the USA used to do things like have anti-trust lawsuits to hold back the likes of Microsoft e.g. in the infamous browser wars of the 90s, but ever since such laws have not been enforced, making the restrictions weaker and effectively no longer present - inept and hobbled - by design of course.

i.e. that "trick in Modern Capitalism" is on purpose, by those who wish to make use of those tricks, hence put them into the law to begin with, and constantly fiddle with the laws to keep them and tune them further towards their liking.

I do disagree though that corporations are nothing to worry about - they might have been such when they were first growing up, but now their might literally rivals that of many countries, and furthermore they are starting to hollow out the actual governments of literal nations in order to control them parasitically from within. Imagine a man holding a sword and also a small knife - yes the abstract idea of a "corporation" may only be the sword, and yes he still has a small knife (plus whatever other tricks up his sleeve, including his own hands, feet, and whatever else), but even so... it would be foolish to ignore the sword that is currently pointed at you. Likewise, a literal child could pick up the sword and do GREAT damage with it (e.g. Elon Musk). So it is not that humans are dangerous and that corporations are not, it is that both offer their unique challenges, as well as tbf probably some benefits to society as well. However, the balance seems to have been lost, just like with guns in the USA, wherever everyone and their brother can run around with them unchecked, and despite how many people continue to die on a DAILY basis (including literal fucking CHILDREN!!!), those who enjoy using (read: abusing) the power of such do not want limitations or restrictions to be placed upon them, and in fact continue to work to remove those whenever possible.

e.g. Trump - among many other things - lowered the budgets of the organizations that police fraud (the Securities and Exchange Commission), and what you are allowed to get away with saying on television (FCC), and regulations on what train companies must uphold. Therefore now, mere months later to watch MULTIPLE train derailments happen across the nation... strains credibility to think that those deregulation events and the subsequent derailments are entirely unconnected. i.e. humans, using corporations, reach into the realm of government and alter the rules to work better for those Giants and less well for mere Humans overall. And since corporations control such a large fraction of the wealth in this country, which can pass between humans even when they die, they seem to be taking on an increasingly prominent role in Western society. Not entirely but semi-independently of the humans that run them. e.g. even if all of the current CEOs were to die, and even if we threw in all forms of all upper management, then just how much would it do, really, to stem the evil tide of greed that they push upon us, when their whole entire and literal purpose in being is to generate profits, with no real restrictions on "ethics" or even things like "sustainability" that affect profits in a more long-term rather than strictly short-term sense? The adult dies, a child picks up the sword, and continues the trend - at some point the issue is the sword-wielder, but at another level of abstraction it is the sword itself? Therefore perhaps restrictions should be placed upon it, e.g. you perhaps should not be allowed to draw out a sword when you are in the presence of valuable things like museums or schools or in the company of a king - they have their uses, in the proper time & place, but why should anarchy reign supreme in all places, just b/c those who have chosen to become sword-wielders say that it should?