Reddit reviews Who Rules America? The Triumph of the Corporate Rich
We found 4 Reddit comments about Who Rules America? The Triumph of the Corporate Rich. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
> capital allocation should remain in the hands of those who have proven themselves good at allocating capital.
It's easy to claim that one is deserving of their wealth (and then some more), when it is their wealth that allows them to change the rules of the game to their advantage.
But you already knew that.
What is the source of this statement? Apparently, it's Who Rules America? The Triumph of the Corporate Rich [Paperback]
.
But, I wonder what Domhoff's source is.
There is a terrific section on Obama in Domhoff's hard copy version of Who Rules America. I tried to find the story on his website but failed. When Obama was a local politician he was identified by the Pritzker family as a young man on the rise and one of the Pritzker matriarchs groomed him carefully. Unfortunately for the Pritzkers their family blew up before Obama made it to the White House and they could really make the huge haul. The story about the young Pritzker suing her uncle for trust fund mismanagement is a classic how to blow a fortune story.
Put the bulk into one "non-profit" trust is definitely the way to go.
Users kingofthenorthpole and zmild gave great advice. If you read some history about Islam and the Middle East and read the news consistently too, you'll soon have a reasonable opinion that you'll be able to back up. It won't be a warped view either, so feel confident in your ability to figure these things out yourself and then express those views. Keep in mind some words from Kant:
> Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.
I also think you should take a look at William Domhoff's arguments about the nature of the Council on Foreign Relations, its importance, and its history. It's an interesting and detailed argument about the creation of our foreign policy that you should at least consider. As a disclaimer, he certainly could be wrong, and not many people agree with him. But it's an interesting read nonetheless.
> I see general policy-discussion organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, along with the "think tanks" that provide advice to them, as the main ways in which corporate leaders attempt to reach policy consensus among themselves and impress their views upon government. As I have claimed since the early 1970s (e.g., Domhoff, 1970a, 1971, 1974, 1979; 2014, p. 93), they have four main functions within the corporate community and three roles in relation to the general public:
> 1. They provide a setting in which corporate leaders can familiarize themselves with general policy issues by listening to and questioning the experts from think tanks and university research institutes.
2. They provide a forum in which conflicts between moderate conservatives and ultraconservatives can be discussed and compromised, usually by including experts of both persuasions within the discussion group, along with an occasional liberal on some issues.
3. They provide an informal training ground for new leadership. It is within these organizations that corporate leaders can determine in an informal fashion which of their peers are best suited for service in government and as spokespersons to other groups.
4. They provide an informal recruiting ground for determining which policy experts may be best suited for government service, either as faceless staff aides to the corporate leaders who take government positions or as high-level appointees in their own right.
> In addition, the policy groups have three useful roles in relation to the rest of society:
> 1. These groups legitimate their members as serious and expert persons capable of government service. This image is created because group members are portrayed as giving of their own time to take part in highly selective organizations that are nonpartisan and nonprofit in nature.
2. They convey the concerns, goals, and expectations of the corporate community to those young experts and young professors who want to further their careers by receiving foundation grants, invitations to work at think tanks, and invitations to take part in policy discussion groups.
3. Through such avenues as books, journals, policy statements, press releases, and speakers, these groups try to influence the climate of opinion both in Washington and the country at large.
> The CFR publishes annual reports, makes it positions known through articles in its highly regarded journal, Foreign Affairs, and has sponsored events and historical pamphlets commemorating what it considers to be significant milestones.
This picture is opposite of what conspiratorial thinkers claim, as I showed in a detailed critique of three well-known and widely read conspiracists of the 1960s, Dan Smoot, Phyllis Schlafly, and Reverend William S. McBirnie (Domhoff, 1970b, Chapter 8)...
After the role of the CFR's role in shaping postwar foreign policy is demonstrated in the first section of the chapter, I turn in the second section to a detailed account of how international corporate leaders, Wall Street financiers, and policy experts concerned with international relations worked through the war-peace study groups to develop the plans that shaped the economic framework for an increasingly internationalized postwar economy, starting with the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly known as the World Bank.