Get access to global coverage at an exclusive 20% discount at economist.com/moneymacro Further reading from the Economist: 1. www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/02/14/four-lessons-from-the-2023-democracy-index 2. www.economist.com/leaders/2025/01/08/mark-zuckerbergs-u-turn-on-fact-checking-is-craven-but-correct 3. www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/01/02/will-elon-musk-dominate-president-trumps-economic-policy
Oligarchy mean rule by small group of people. It initially was not negative, but become associated with billionaires buying they place in government or being under special protection of said in exchange of money. So it is not about how much, but specifically the thin line between bussines and politic.
Oligarch owns strategic assets. Trump is a rich politician but he has zero strategic important assets. Musk at the other hand is very influential. hence oligarch Strategic assets like state media, water supply, food supply, key oil resources etc.
@@ctuna2011tbh the sultanistic oligarchy is really only possible in a dictatorship. If you just have to wait for the sultan to leave office then his power is more limited. If the US is turning into a sultanistic oligarchy, the implication is that some kind of dictatorship is part of the deal
@@krombopulos_michaelthe censored cartoon shown at 13:35 suggests that perhaps such a deal is already secretly in place. Of course mine is just a conjecture with no proof.
@@themachine9366 because im against the interest of the oligarchs. and even if that is their agenda im okay with that, because its in my interest. its a win or win situation
@@themachine9366 Technically I was influenced on the day of inauguration - because google, chatgpt, and many other media tried to cover up musks nazi salute. I realized that most media - even google and others - block whatever they want and show you what they want you to see. I am watching this video only because i'm subscribed to the author for a long time now, and i didn't take it from my recommendations.
@themachine It’s known what the interests of the oligarchs are. Lower taxes on capital gains (making it easier to make money without working), lower taxes on corporations (leaving even more for shareholders), zero enforcement of antitrust legislation (so competition is low and more money flows upward, to those who make their money from investments rather than work), and deregulation, to push he costs of things such as pollution off of company owners and onto the public. The core secondary interest of oligarchs, therefore, is to keep people blaming things on minorities and ignoring class.
Bro,Even if America became a full blown oligarchy or dictatorship ..most Americans wouldn't even see it as a problem because of the myth of American exceptionalism, the dictator just needs to play into this and voila ...they get away with it ,this is why Americans never seem to mind about lobby groups in Washington, or why they pay for university ,healthcare, have problems with housing.. The American exceptionalism myth is so ingrained in the society such that it makes it so difficult to have a sober discussion on any structural reform , and it's not new ...just look at how the abolition of slavery for example came about and compare it with other places. To Americans, Oligarchies, dictatorships, corrupt governments et al are things that occur in other countries and not in their precious America.
What are you talking about? Americans are screaming about corruption, oligarchies and the end of democracy constantly. There were 3 clips of Bernie Sanders in THIS video...
Like in the Germany of the past, the America of the future may have some culture-searching to do. Everyone swims in the same culture that brought their most nightmare of politicians about: whatever brought them about is within all their fellow citizens, too.
It'll keep working as long as they keep the people divided and "well fed", for the most part. Otherwise people will start pushing back and that can usher in revolutionary action. A tipping point is what we're seeing with UHC and Luigi M. Oligarchs, Elites, you name it need to tread well and adjust the system enough to keep this type of revolt from spreading like wildfire.
Well it's more complicated than that. We are exceptional. That isn't a myth. Collectively when we are collective on an issue we don't have a match. And it's less about the myth and more about the fact that generally we believe our systems will hold up that we have enough checks and balances to keep the boat from sinking. Now that may be a myth but not the myth of American exceptionalism.
According to the Cambridge study "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" from 2014 by M. Gilens and B. I. Page, USA is an oligarchy.
THIS no one can tell me a country where the opinions of 90% of people count negligibly little in actual policy has any right to call itself a democracy
Came to comments to see whether this paper was mentioned. Public opinion on policy in the US has zero impact on whether the policy is made law. Whether legislation passes *does* show a correlation with the preferences of the very wealthiest Americans. This was 2014, using 20 years of data. It’s been an oligarchy since Reagan.
If I accept your narrow implied definition of oligarchy, then no, it doesn’t prove it. But it doesn’t prove that it isn’t an oligarchy by that definition either. It’s very consistent with what would be expected if only the top one percent had a say. For the most part, they want to appease the upper middle class. Edit: this was a response to a now-deleted comment
Swear half these comments didn’t finish the video. Good job drawing the distinction between civil and sultanistic oligarchies. Although, to the average joe, this is a distinction without a difference.
I think there are pros and cons to each type of oligarchy. And really, there isn’t a best system, only the most suitable system for a specific country at a specific time.
I didn't even watch the video before writing 3 comments xD. I read the comments and wrote what I know about what could oligarchy mean. Now I'm watching the video one hour after the comments, while dining.
Because when he describes the US 'oligarchs' he's describing Plutocrats. This is a distinction with a difference. The very wealthy in the US don't necessarily have any power over the state whatsoever (although many do). They can, however, acquire a large plot of land and employ many people as household servants and to the running of other establishments on their estates, exerting control over how the 'fief' is run by his control of the salaries of those under his employ. This is the role of a Plutocrat, which is, unlike the running of Government, a function of wealth.
Its honestly a presentation issue I think. The presenter, in his tone of voice, gives the impression that these statements are ridiculous in the intro, when really it is just his accent. When you finish the video his points are very nuanced and well-grounded imho.
it's fair to point that out. I was doubting about that sentence myself. I'm talking about the theory. The reality is far more messy than that. I think you should again think about this as a scale, the law does apply to oligarchs in many civil oligarchs. The degree depends on the country, the crime comitted, and the power of the oligarch.
@@MoneyMacroTrump just got off scot free despite an actual felony conviction. This isn't in dispute anymore. Rules don't apply unless you fall out of political favor.
Dont wanna be mean, but are you really proud about not understanding what he ment? It makes sense if you know that this is theory about a perfect democracy. The US is a flawed democracy (and civil oligarchy) 'because' Oligarchs have too much ability to bend the law, but thats only to a degree. Thats completely different from Russias Olygarchy, were law doesnt apply to Oligarchs, at all.
“.. candidates in both parties …were only ever successful if they did not threaten the wealth of the oligarch..” This. The American people could tell that something was rotten and kept trying to dislodge the tick-like grasp of lobbyists for corporations, but it all went to hell when the Supreme Court ruled in “Citizens United” that corporations were “people” and could donate as much as they wanted to for political campaigns.
And at the same time limits how much the average joe like you and me can donate. SCOTUS is corrupt, they all are. They work for themselves and their pockets, not for the people.
@@scottduncan92 True. Corporate personhood goes back to the 1870s. Coporate personhood has nothing to do with the many things wrong with the Citizens United ruling.
Nah man, Citizens Unites is a red herring, you need to realize that only applied to political action groups, meanwhile FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Facebook, Google etc already have huge control over what people see and think. Citizens United didnt have anything to do with what content these corporations decided to promote on their platform, what content was censored etc.
"Corporations are people" only exists so that the rich don't have to take accountability for anything that they do under the guise of business. Just pay a fine and everything is forgiven. Afterall, only the rich can afford to pay fine after fine or pay victims of their criminal acts over and over again. They can also afford to go bankrupt 6+ times and still remain rich through government handouts (that the poor have no access to) or generational wealth their family can just give them. If you can't afford legal knowledge, through infinite amounts of generational wealth, you will be ruined if your business fails, that is a fact of being lower class. We are not on the same level as the wealthy, even though some of us like to pretend they are (it probably makes them feel better about being lower class).
It's sort of true. "It is just as illegal for the poor man to steal bread to feed himself as it is for the rich man". The rich man simply is FAR LESS LIKELY to break the same laws, and can withstand more damage and punishment.
@@frocco7125😂😂If you think anyone in the US can put Elon in jail, you are delulu. Dude can do a Na xi salute on national TV twice and not a dam thing will happen to him.
@@Song-TheNiceGuy Nazi Nazi Nazi Elon Musk is a reactionary shithead Nazi sympathizer see you don't have to do this weird self-censor crap, the world is bleak enough already without self-inflicted newspeak *edited: spelling
Caesar wasn't Rome's first dictator. This is just a minor correction. Sulla was the first dictator and predates Caesar. After the fall of the Roman monarchy, dictators were nominated to do the job. These dictators resigned as soon as they finished the job. I believe, Sulla was the first one who declined to resign. Anyway, Caesar wasn't the first one, that's for sure!
The regular dictatorships were for a limited time (six months?) and with a specific remit. Sulla marched on Rome, called himself a dictator with everything in his remit, and with no term limit (though he did eventually retire). He killed a lot of oligarchs and took their wealth to fund his supporters, so a lot of his legislation was repealed after his death. However, he inspired generals in the next generation to consider doing the same.
@@cemreomerayna463 I would actaully disagree since Ceasar was murdered in my opinion too soon to say with 100% confidence if he was going to hold on to power for the rest of his life or not.
Please watch the video. He did say that the US has alway been an oligarchy. But up until now, it has been a civil oligarchy, now it is at risk of becoming a sultanistic oligarchy.
Just wanted to point out one small detail for correction. At 0:20, there's a photo of Sanders and he's referred as the Democratic party. He's actually an Independent from the state of Vermont. He may align with many Democratic beliefs, but I think it's an important distinction. Thank you for your videos though!
Hrmmm Bernie runs as a Democrat but states he is an independent. I guess due to the US election system that by and large inhibits independents from being elected on federal level at least. Funny they let him "get away" with it.
Thanks. This is a really important video and Bernie Sanders' statements seems very accurate. Would love to see a more extensive economic (history) of Oligarchy.
The 2024 January+February edition of Mother Jones is all about American Oligarchy. It contains an article by Jeffrey A. Winters. It also contains a long article on the rise of American Oligarchy.
Not really necessarily, companies are a sub group of the people, its really more when you have central people in majority control of those companies that you can rule companies as part of the oligarchy. Companies are in the majority of cases closer to democratic rule than they are oligarchs, as there are very few large companies that are majority controlled by a single person.
Actually lobbying is also a big thing done by groups of people like Climate Activists or civil rights movement. Without lobbying there would be no functioning democarcy. Problem is the lobbying is done in the shadows and should instead be fully public with all data stored in a public database and any lobbying that is done of the books should be punished with harsh sentences
In my opinion campaigns should have public financing and super pacs should be banned. I think it’s unfair for large corporations or very wealthy people to be able to give their preferred candidates such a big advantage. I also think we should institute rank choice voting and automatic ballot access so third parties can have more of a chance.
the thing is those are all secondary problems. The reason we don't have those things already is exactly because the rich were allowed to get rich enough to use their economic power to prevent them or undo them if they were already in place. There's a reason why Citizens United, the supreme court ruling that allowed for unlimited private funding of US politics, happened after wealth inequality had already been allowed to start shooting upwards. You literally cannot get funding limits on politics or more proportional voting while you have super rich with enough money to stop, water down, or undo those things. You have to tackle the money first. If you don't, you either won't get what you want, or it'll be immediately undone as soon as the oligarchs' candidate is elected again. Which they always will be, eventually. Always follow the money. Money is power, so if you want your vote to count, the rich have to have less money than the electorate have power. As long as they have more, nothing else matters
Well, public financing takes the power away from the rich (at least in elections). They don't want to lose wealth, so they do whatever they can to keep it and expand it. That's why we don't have public financing in political campaigns.
Ok sure but isn't it strange that political parties can do things like mandate a car company's mpg? Ford makes most of its money from relatively low mpg trucks. Why do politicians get to first shut down nuclear power plants for renewables but then decide they need subsidies because they release no green house gas? What about when politicians fail to act when China sells solar panels at less than cost in the US? My point is that these are political actions or inactions to real or perceived problems so where is the ability to present a company's viewpoint? It's through lobbyist and money and it's not always insidious.
@@anon-soso-anon Politicians represent the people (at least in theory). So it is perfectly acceptable that politicians mandate stuff if the people support such mandates. It is called democracy. Companies on the other hand are not people. They should have no influence and no representation in government. The owners, CEO's etc of companies already have their say in the democratic process through their votes, same as everyone else. Why should they have extra influence just because they are rich? That is not democracy. That is plutocracy or oligarchy or corporacy, but not democracy.
This video reminds me very much of 'The Storm Before the Storm', a book by Mike Duncan about Rome before the rise of Caesar. He explored the way the Roman republic changed to make Caesar's rise possible. I re-read it from time to time just to freak myself out about how the US is moving in lock step down that road; every time I think 'yes, but THAT political line will never be crossed' it gets crossed. Anyway. I would recommend that book to anyone who's interested in the US's progress as an oligarchy. Or just in general. It's a really good book.
Truth is there is no correlation between public support of policy and policies implemented in the United States. Only a extremely strong correlation between policies implemented and the support of the extremely wealthy i.e the oligarchs.
What I'd say the difference is comes down to *how much influence* a rich person can get in a country's government. Trump is the most transactional president in modern times, which immediately makes the US more of an oligarchy now than just one week ago.
Technically speaking an oligarch never does anything 'illegal'. They make it so that the law and the government heavily favours them. And using that power multiply their wealth which was already in the rich category.
The oldest reference I found about this topic is "United States: Democracy or Oligarchy?" by Severo Mallet-Prevost in 1933! And in the conclusion one could read: "The present American oligarchy lives on what it can make out of the people."
@@teaser6089 Yes (on the USA) but no (on the big difference). Republic is the opposite of monarchy. Democracy can exist in both, and both republic and monarchy can be oligarchies or dictartoships. Suharto's Indonesia was a republic and Canada is a monarchy.
I'm planning to retire at 59 in another country outside the US that is free, safe and very cheap with a high quality of life and good healthcare. I could fully just rely on only my SS if I wanted to when that times arrives but l'll also have at least one pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific Investment account with my Stephanie Stiefel my FA. Retiring comfortably in the US these days is almost impossible
I’m planning on moving to Thailand in the next 5 years if trump’s government doesn’t do anything with the high prices of groceries and taxes What about you??
I know this lady you just mentioned. Stephanie Janis Stiefel is a portfolio manager and investment advisor. She gained recognition as an employee of neuberger berman; a renowned investor she is. Stephanie Janis Stiefel has demonstrated expertise in investment strategies and has been involved in managing portfolios and providing guidance to clients.
I was a stay at Home mom with no money in my IRA or any savings of my own, which was scary at 53 years of age. Three years ago I got a part time job and save everything I make. After 3 years, I am 56 yo and have put $9,000 in an IRA and $40,000 in my portfolio with CFA, Stephanie Janis Stiefel. Since the goal of getting a job was to invest for retirement and NOT up my lifestyle, I was able to scale this quickly to $150,000. If I can do this in a year, anyone can.
It's strange that you automatically classify Russia as an oligarchy. Since early 2000 the influence of wealth and capital on Russian politics was winding down sometimes violently (Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky). And after the war started the ultra rich were stripped from all the remaining regional powers they had. While Russia definitely was an oligarchy in the 90s and early 2000s and it is definitely an autocracy, the power in Russia does not come from money. You can make money from power, but not the other way around. Putin is rich because he is in power, but he is not in power because he is rich.
@@Eleku The definition that this video gives it "someone who rules through their wealth". You can challenge this definition, but by this definition Putin is not an oligarch. Also while he can move billions and buy and use palaces and yachts, he doesn't really have that much money on his name, so he's not technically rich. But he's using his power and connections to access all those luxuries. It's more similar to the mafia bosses, who also may not have money on their name, but they use their power and influence to get what they want. That's why there is a concept of "mafia state", as opposed to just "oligarchy".
This is what separates a kingdom from an oligarchy. Vlad Vexler has described Putin's Inner Circle as a court (implicitly, with Putin in the middle as the Tzar), where everyone curries the favors of the king. A country in which you are rich through power is what this describes.
@@nielskorpel8860 I'm not a fan of these monarchy comparison because it can create false analogies. Monarchy is deeply rooted in the family and familial structures (from royal family to aristocracy), Russia is not. It is a court system, but not aristocratic court. You can probably better compare it to the roman empire, which was also post-oligarchical but non-aristocratic regime.
There’s a distinct change in value or slope of various time series data at around 1980. Ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay. Portion of wealth owned by the top 1%. Tax rates on high earners…
The US has always been an oligarchy. It was founded by a small group of rich landowners and merchants that setup the system to their benefit. Real democracy was never part of the plan. It's just now they've gotten so brazen that they don't even influence politics behind the scenes but just directly run for office.
Just lame propaganda that I used to believe as well. As if wealthy people didn’t have the same or more access to power. What has changed is that the % of income tax paid by the wealthy has increased.
Bingo. Reagan successfully convinced the public that oligarchy was not only a good thing but god wanted it. Sort of a weird fusion between divine right to rule and ultra nationalism
Since George Washington, who was an oligarch himself, along with most of American founding fathers (most of them are rich men). Roman Republic, which is the model for American republican system, was also an (aristicratic) oligarchy.
Always love your insights. Keep up the great work! I hope your nights have improved and you're getting some more sleep! :) (You had mentioned your newborn suffered from Colic a while back) Wish you a great 2025 dude!
It seems like most mainstream sources define "democracy" as simply "universal suffrage," but IMO this is inadequate. Democracy should mean that the general public has influence on policy , not just that all citizens have a right to vote for representatives. Those "representatives" typically come with a pre-set "package" of policies that are not directly voted on by the public. Though we do have direct ballot initiatives at the local level, I'd argue it's not quite enough to be considered a full democracy. A supermajority of the US population supports universal healthcare, huge cuts to the military budget, progressive taxation, etc., and in fact they have consistently for many decades, yet none of these things ever become policy. This couldn't possibly be the case in a real democracy.
You cannot be serious with the claim at 11:53. I respect and like your content a lot, but you can't just say people are equal to oligarchs under the law in a civil oligarchy. Sure, in paper. In paper China's Communist Party is a full democracy. We know it's not like that in practice, and although some oligarchs have been held accountable after huge public pressure, mostly they can do whatever they want and hold many privileges under the law. Also, the high cost of lawyers allows for a system in which the rich and powerful can squeeze people out of holding oligarchs accountable by making going to court extremely expensive. Other than that, good video, I agree the US has been an oligarchy for a long time, I agree it is a different oligarchy to Russia, and I do believe seeing all these billionaires bending the knee to Trump is really scary, I honestly believe the US is heading to a Putin-like oligarchy, which thanks to your video I can now call a sultanistic oligarchy. Keep it up!
How, exactly are oligarchs in civil oligarchies not beholden to the same laws? Do you sincerely believe that Trump's claim that he could shoot a man on 6th Avenue and get away with it is true? He couldn't even get away with a victimless financial crime (the banks that loaned his company the money already knew and didn't care). Additionally, the cost of pursuing legal proceedings is irrelevant when it comes to this. When you're talking about *laws*, those are prosecuted by the state, and as such, cost is no obstacle. When it comes to civil suits, the actions alleged are not necessarily illegal, counsel is only retained to arbitrate and represent two (or more) opposing parties. Oligarchs having more power in this regard is not at all what Money & Macro was talking about when saying "equal under the law".
@wastingmylifeaway4898 Are you being serious right now? Trump was CONVICTED of 34 criminal counts on May 30th and he is now the US President! He has pressured and used every ttick in the book with expensive lawyers to postpone sentencing, his sentence was extremely lenient considering he had been held in contempt! How the f*** is that not getting away with it! A non-oligarch would have been thrown in jail months ago. As I said, on paper we are all beholden to the same laws. The practice is very very different due to connections from oligarchs and the ability to maintain a long and expensive legal process. This is not a possibility for most people. I'll compare the cases of Luigi Mangione and Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse posted bail SUPPORTED by oligarchs, because his crimes were against average joes (he murdered two people). He was allowed to await trial in his home and create political projects and a RUclips channel, he was later acquitted under self-defense, with one of the best legal teams available and with support from oligarchs. Luigi Mangione's crime, also horrible, was against the figurehead of a powerful company. He was quickly identified, arrested, treated like a dog, and will soon be convicted, sentenced, and made an example. In paper we are all equal under the law. In practice it is very different. The bail system for example allows rich people to walk free while awaiting trial, this is a privilege that not many people have. The damage done in jail can be irreversible and the fact some people can't access bail and must endure this ins inherently unfair and unequal. There's more examples but I'll let you analyze it, I don't think it's a very contested claim that a highly wealthy person can get away with things an average Joe can't.
Beautifully presented! I want to clarify though that we in the States refer to the period before the Great depression as the roaring twenties. Since they contributed to the Great depression as you said. The gilded age is the period right before the depression at the very end of the 1800s.
Thanks for clarifying! Speaks to the quality of my US history. They lump in these gilded age oligarchs / robber barrons (Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt like you said) with the ones that made it right before the depression (Ford, JP Morgan jr, etc.), so forgot they were around so long. Sad that all these figures overshadow the actual innovators of the time (like Tesla and the wright brothers)
There were actually a lot of good points in the video.. and one of the best explanations of the connection between economics and politics for a 17 min video.
This lense of analysis through oligarchies and this oligarchs-citizen societal contract is really interesting! I have never seen things this way before.
But they were all struggling Private companies unlike oligarchy seen in russia where they bought state owned companies that had literal monopoly power.
@@thalmoragent9344 Well its not any longer - the empire ended probably about 6 years ago. Ironically it was probably as a result of a Pistachio Billionaire [Im not making this up]
@@Blondul11 what's contradictive about his comment? the US have been an oligarchy for a long time, big money rules every aspect of law making rich individuals and their think tanks have been influencing lawmaking and public opinion heavily both politically established sides have their own media corporations and fund raisers it is oligarch influence that stopped the US from having universal health care although it is a bipartisan consensus same for affordable housing, abortion rights and other things, that isn't democracy, it is a ruling oligarchy, no?
It became a full blown Oligarchy under "trickle down" Reagan-Trump back in the 1980s the gd "trickle down" mafia is just continuing this 40 year total thievery and making Trump dictatorship
"Is the U.S turning into an oligarchy?" This is a grammatical error. You can't "turn into" what you already are. The good news is that the direction of the change is 180 degrees different from what you assumed with that silly header.
I think this is a well balanced take. Super Political Action Committees (PACs) give the wealthy lots of power; but individuals still have independent political ability.
This is the problem The Government is the gatekeeper of tax revenue. MP’s/Senators find innovative ways to redirect this capital in to private pockets. Elon, being one of the bigger beneficiaries of public capital. This causes a short fall in Social Spending for Health/Education etc. Which causes deficits in the Budget. Which causes the Government to borrow from Financial Systems at higher and higher interest rates. (Ironically the people that took the capital out of the system, tend to be the same people that lend to the system, creating a positive feedback loop of capital!) U.S. debt is $35.46 trillion which makes its GDP ratio 123%. Which means government revenue can hardly pay the interest on that debt. Which causes the Government to inflate taxes to payback these loans. Or prints money which creates inflation. Or borrows more to pay back previous loans. All of which results in a loss of buying power of the citizens. Which results in a wealth transfer from the citizens who must fund the corruption. Which makes them justifiably angry. Which in turn has created radicalised Left and Right politics. This system is very beneficial to Oligarchs, Plutocrats, Corrupt Politicians and Financial Systems (who essentially fund the system) in general. As a result Politicians and Economist will make the argument that the issue is, in fact, in government spending and that we need to privatise everything and open everything to market mechanics. BTW guess who they put in charge of cutting spending of social Spending......???. ELON! Which ironically further benefits the Oligarchs, Plutocrats, Corrupt Politicians, who sweep in with shite deals for the citizenry. As a result in the US 60% total wealth is owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.5 percent of the total wealth. Three people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country! This is happening worldwide. As oligarchs infiltrate global financial systems to game them, Neo Liberal Economics just adds fuel to the fire. Run though this system over a period of time and you will radicalise the citizenry. That’s how people end up electing Geert Wilders, Jair Bolsonaro, Trump/Biden or Boris Johnson/Stammer. These guys will redirect the citizenry’s frustration towards false arguments such as government oversight, Immigration and minorities, Social Spending, climate sensitivity, being the problem for economic growth. This is a global phenomenon brought on by the universal application of Neo Lib Capitalism. Trump and Elon are the logical outcome of an Oligarchy overthrow of traditional government.
the biggest recipients of social money in the us are the fossil fuel companies. the money that elons companies get is basically peanuts compared to what we do to subsidize fossil fuels.
It's been an oligarchy for decades. It's ridiculous to assert that one needs to be a billionaire to have political influence in this country. If you have several million dollars, and can join a super PAC or affect local politics, you're a plutocrat and oligarch, even if you're a little one. Just because you only own five slaves and a small plantation of 10 acres, doesn't imply you're not a wealthy slave-master. You're still a wealthy slave master even if you don't own 80 slaves and 1000 acres. The capitalist owner class in this country is in control of our government and the minds of many working-class people, completely brainwashed by Western-capitalist Cold War propaganda and the allure and fantasy of becoming rich. They end up supporting their wealthy employer-masters, who they hope to one day join as a member of their elite club. The American working-class was the aristocracy of labor for decades, after WW2, and even though conditions today are much different than existed in the 1950s and 60s, too many Americans still think they "have it good". They're living paycheck to paycheck, they're a couple of paydays away from homelessness, and their rent is obscenely expensive, along with everything else, BUT BUT...They will go down fighting for their rich capitalist masters. These people are completely brainwashed, and that's why I don't see a solution in this country. The ruling class are going to continue to rule, and it doesn't matter how bad the situation gets for the American working class. These American workers, will continue to lick the boots of the rich and powerful, groveling at their feel, worshiping them.
It's a corporatocracy not an oligarchy not socialism not communism and not capitalism. It is corporatism and corporatocracy. Has been since all those colonization CORPORATIONS sailed here to set up shop.
Tbh I would suggest going through the latin americana and italian analysis of oligarchy, which is a lot richer and more developed than the american one. Suggesting Norberto Bobbio “La teoría de las formas de gobierno” and “Diccionario de política” and Ansaldi Waldo “Frívola y casquivana, mano de hierro con guante de seda”.
10:51 Wasn’t Sulla actually the first dictator already before Caesar? Even though he nominally concentrated power in his hands to preserve and strengthen the republic, he clearly did satisfy all criteria for a dictator.
Ehh... I believe it was designed to be more of a plutocratic not-quite-oligarchy with democratic elements. Most of the upsides of an oligarchy for the plutocratic class without most of the downsides, and maintaining many of the benefits of the British parliamentary model, without the only downside the rich and powerful among the colonists actually cared about (the existance of a higher power able to tell them 'no' and make it stick).
The mid 20th century was the time they had the least amount of power. The rich were taxed heavily, MOST Americans lived well, and the quality of goods were better than they ever were and have been since. A certain guy in the 80s ruined that.
I disagree with the idea that you have to be ultra wealthy to be an oligarch. With local politics a millionaire can be an oligarch by influencing things at the city or state level
It's also useful to distinguish between "oligarchy" (rule by the few) and "plutocracy" (wealth=power); Aristotle's terminology isn't really how these words are used today, not least because Aristotle actually thought rule by the few was a good thing as long as the "best" few were in charge (hence "aristocracy", which has lost its original positive connotation). A society can be oligarchic without that power being wielded through money. The important thing is that the ruling elite is constituted based on some sort of personal status (which could be wealth, a hereditary title, military prowess, having many followers who take their word as gospel, etc), as opposed to someone who merely holds office (granted by some other source of power, e.g. through elections or through appointment by the monarch) and ceases to wield power once they lose that office.
Get access to global coverage at an exclusive 20% discount at economist.com/moneymacro
Further reading from the Economist:
1. www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/02/14/four-lessons-from-the-2023-democracy-index
2. www.economist.com/leaders/2025/01/08/mark-zuckerbergs-u-turn-on-fact-checking-is-craven-but-correct
3. www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/01/02/will-elon-musk-dominate-president-trumps-economic-policy
Minor mistake at 15:11 where the pictures of Carnegie and Vanderbilt are flipped.
@@themachine9366 I was just about to post the same thing 😆
Oligarchy mean rule by small group of people. It initially was not negative, but become associated with billionaires buying they place in government or being under special protection of said in exchange of money. So it is not about how much, but specifically the thin line between bussines and politic.
Hello Youri,
since you mentioned the word "Sultanistic", were any histroric sultandoms actual sultanistic oligarchies?
Oligarch owns strategic assets. Trump is a rich politician but he has zero strategic important assets. Musk at the other hand is very influential. hence oligarch
Strategic assets like state media, water supply, food supply, key oil resources etc.
Well. Thank goodness the US is only heading towards a sultanistic oligarchy and not a dictatorship. Whew.
Is there a difference?
Could be a mix of both
@@ctuna2011tbh the sultanistic oligarchy is really only possible in a dictatorship. If you just have to wait for the sultan to leave office then his power is more limited. If the US is turning into a sultanistic oligarchy, the implication is that some kind of dictatorship is part of the deal
Both can be true
@@krombopulos_michaelthe censored cartoon shown at 13:35 suggests that perhaps such a deal is already secretly in place. Of course mine is just a conjecture with no proof.
When Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders agree on something, you know we are in deep trouble.
Both are stupid men.
Lol yeah, that you're brainwashed xD
@salvador.garcia you sound like a perfect example of the American education system...
@@salvador.garcia GO BACK TO MÉXICO
@@salvador.garcia I hope you held that view for the rest of your life and pay dearly darling 💕
"Rule by the people" - yes and those oligarchs influence ordinary people through social media tweaks and propaganda. These are not two distinct terms.
How do you know you are not saying this while influenced by the oligarchs?
@@themachine9366 because im against the interest of the oligarchs. and even if that is their agenda im okay with that, because its in my interest. its a win or win situation
@@themachine9366 Technically I was influenced on the day of inauguration - because google, chatgpt, and many other media tried to cover up musks nazi salute. I realized that most media - even google and others - block whatever they want and show you what they want you to see. I am watching this video only because i'm subscribed to the author for a long time now, and i didn't take it from my recommendations.
How do you know you are not telling this while influenced by the oligarchs? @@themachine9366
@themachine
It’s known what the interests of the oligarchs are. Lower taxes on capital gains (making it easier to make money without working), lower taxes on corporations (leaving even more for shareholders), zero enforcement of antitrust legislation (so competition is low and more money flows upward, to those who make their money from investments rather than work), and deregulation, to push he costs of things such as pollution off of company owners and onto the public.
The core secondary interest of oligarchs, therefore, is to keep people blaming things on minorities and ignoring class.
Bro,Even if America became a full blown oligarchy or dictatorship ..most Americans wouldn't even see it as a problem because of the myth of American exceptionalism, the dictator just needs to play into this and voila ...they get away with it ,this is why Americans never seem to mind about lobby groups in Washington, or why they pay for university ,healthcare, have problems with housing..
The American exceptionalism myth is so ingrained in the society such that it makes it so difficult to have a sober discussion on any structural reform , and it's not new ...just look at how the abolition of slavery for example came about and compare it with other places.
To Americans, Oligarchies, dictatorships, corrupt governments et al are things that occur in other countries and not in their precious America.
What are you talking about? Americans are screaming about corruption, oligarchies and the end of democracy constantly. There were 3 clips of Bernie Sanders in THIS video...
Like in the Germany of the past, the America of the future may have some culture-searching to do.
Everyone swims in the same culture that brought their most nightmare of politicians about: whatever brought them about is within all their fellow citizens, too.
It'll keep working as long as they keep the people divided and "well fed", for the most part. Otherwise people will start pushing back and that can usher in revolutionary action. A tipping point is what we're seeing with UHC and Luigi M. Oligarchs, Elites, you name it need to tread well and adjust the system enough to keep this type of revolt from spreading like wildfire.
Well it's more complicated than that. We are exceptional. That isn't a myth. Collectively when we are collective on an issue we don't have a match. And it's less about the myth and more about the fact that generally we believe our systems will hold up that we have enough checks and balances to keep the boat from sinking. Now that may be a myth but not the myth of American exceptionalism.
Europeans pay for university, healthcare, and have problems with housing, too. What the fuck are you on about?
According to the Cambridge study "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" from 2014 by M. Gilens and B. I. Page, USA is an oligarchy.
THIS no one can tell me a country where the opinions of 90% of people count negligibly little in actual policy has any right to call itself a democracy
Thanks for sharing this paper. I will check it out.
Came to comments to see whether this paper was mentioned.
Public opinion on policy in the US has zero impact on whether the policy is made law.
Whether legislation passes *does* show a correlation with the preferences of the very wealthiest Americans.
This was 2014, using 20 years of data. It’s been an oligarchy since Reagan.
Not sure I’d call it a Cambridge study just because it’s published in Cambridge University Press. Gilens and Page were at Princeton and Northwestern.
If I accept your narrow implied definition of oligarchy, then no, it doesn’t prove it. But it doesn’t prove that it isn’t an oligarchy by that definition either. It’s very consistent with what would be expected if only the top one percent had a say. For the most part, they want to appease the upper middle class.
Edit: this was a response to a now-deleted comment
Swear half these comments didn’t finish the video. Good job drawing the distinction between civil and sultanistic oligarchies. Although, to the average joe, this is a distinction without a difference.
You are giving them too much credit, they probably only read the tittle and went to the comment.
I think there are pros and cons to each type of oligarchy. And really, there isn’t a best system, only the most suitable system for a specific country at a specific time.
I didn't even watch the video before writing 3 comments xD.
I read the comments and wrote what I know about what could oligarchy mean.
Now I'm watching the video one hour after the comments, while dining.
Because when he describes the US 'oligarchs' he's describing Plutocrats. This is a distinction with a difference. The very wealthy in the US don't necessarily have any power over the state whatsoever (although many do). They can, however, acquire a large plot of land and employ many people as household servants and to the running of other establishments on their estates, exerting control over how the 'fief' is run by his control of the salaries of those under his employ. This is the role of a Plutocrat, which is, unlike the running of Government, a function of wealth.
Its honestly a presentation issue I think. The presenter, in his tone of voice, gives the impression that these statements are ridiculous in the intro, when really it is just his accent. When you finish the video his points are very nuanced and well-grounded imho.
11:53 - you lost me at “after all, in a Civil Oligarchy the law applies equally to the people and the oligarchs.”
it's fair to point that out. I was doubting about that sentence myself. I'm talking about the theory. The reality is far more messy than that. I think you should again think about this as a scale, the law does apply to oligarchs in many civil oligarchs. The degree depends on the country, the crime comitted, and the power of the oligarch.
Right!? I literally lolled at that point!
@@MoneyMacroTrump just got off scot free despite an actual felony conviction. This isn't in dispute anymore. Rules don't apply unless you fall out of political favor.
Recent example: Luigi Mangione. The law does NOT apply equally for crimes that cross class boundaries.
Dont wanna be mean, but are you really proud about not understanding what he ment?
It makes sense if you know that this is theory about a perfect democracy. The US is a flawed democracy (and civil oligarchy) 'because' Oligarchs have too much ability to bend the law, but thats only to a degree. Thats completely different from Russias Olygarchy, were law doesnt apply to Oligarchs, at all.
“.. candidates in both parties …were only ever successful if they did not threaten the wealth of the oligarch..”
This. The American people could tell that something was rotten and kept trying to dislodge the tick-like grasp of lobbyists for corporations, but it all went to hell when the Supreme Court ruled in “Citizens United” that corporations were “people” and could donate as much as they wanted to for political campaigns.
And at the same time limits how much the average joe like you and me can donate. SCOTUS is corrupt, they all are. They work for themselves and their pockets, not for the people.
Not disagreeing, but I believe that Citizens United decided that unlimited spending was free speech. Corporations were already 'people' before then.
@@scottduncan92 True. Corporate personhood goes back to the 1870s. Coporate personhood has nothing to do with the many things wrong with the Citizens United ruling.
Nah man, Citizens Unites is a red herring, you need to realize that only applied to political action groups, meanwhile FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, Facebook, Google etc already have huge control over what people see and think. Citizens United didnt have anything to do with what content these corporations decided to promote on their platform, what content was censored etc.
"Corporations are people" only exists so that the rich don't have to take accountability for anything that they do under the guise of business. Just pay a fine and everything is forgiven. Afterall, only the rich can afford to pay fine after fine or pay victims of their criminal acts over and over again. They can also afford to go bankrupt 6+ times and still remain rich through government handouts (that the poor have no access to) or generational wealth their family can just give them. If you can't afford legal knowledge, through infinite amounts of generational wealth, you will be ruined if your business fails, that is a fact of being lower class. We are not on the same level as the wealthy, even though some of us like to pretend they are (it probably makes them feel better about being lower class).
"in civil oligarchies law applies equally" haha good one
It's sort of true. "It is just as illegal for the poor man to steal bread to feed himself as it is for the rich man".
The rich man simply is FAR LESS LIKELY to break the same laws, and can withstand more damage and punishment.
@@frocco7125😂😂If you think anyone in the US can put Elon in jail, you are delulu. Dude can do a Na xi salute on national TV twice and not a dam thing will happen to him.
@@Song-TheNiceGuy let them give us some laugh
@@Song-TheNiceGuy Nazi Nazi Nazi Elon Musk is a reactionary shithead Nazi sympathizer see you don't have to do this weird self-censor crap, the world is bleak enough already without self-inflicted newspeak *edited: spelling
Law is same price for Botha billionaire and aan average Joe. But average Joe can't afford it.😂
Caesar wasn't Rome's first dictator. This is just a minor correction. Sulla was the first dictator and predates Caesar.
After the fall of the Roman monarchy, dictators were nominated to do the job. These dictators resigned as soon as they finished the job.
I believe, Sulla was the first one who declined to resign.
Anyway, Caesar wasn't the first one, that's for sure!
The regular dictatorships were for a limited time (six months?) and with a specific remit. Sulla marched on Rome, called himself a dictator with everything in his remit, and with no term limit (though he did eventually retire). He killed a lot of oligarchs and took their wealth to fund his supporters, so a lot of his legislation was repealed after his death. However, he inspired generals in the next generation to consider doing the same.
In the Roman context, you are correct. But I think in the modern definition of dictatorship, I would agree that Caesar was the first.
@@cemreomerayna463 I would actaully disagree since Ceasar was murdered in my opinion too soon to say with 100% confidence if he was going to hold on to power for the rest of his life or not.
@@cemreomerayna463 Even by modern standards, Sulla still qualifies.
America is always an oligarchy, except they used to bother covering that up.
They just exposed it just to spite the new guy in office
Please watch the video. He did say that the US has alway been an oligarchy. But up until now, it has been a civil oligarchy, now it is at risk of becoming a sultanistic oligarchy.
Quality seems to be sinking
@@ElekuNot really. You're just watching the oligarchy split between establishment and new age.
@jsaction33 what do you mean by new age oligarchs? Like much more wealthy and powerful than ever before?
Just wanted to point out one small detail for correction. At 0:20, there's a photo of Sanders and he's referred as the Democratic party. He's actually an Independent from the state of Vermont. He may align with many Democratic beliefs, but I think it's an important distinction. Thank you for your videos though!
True! Fair point
Hrmmm Bernie runs as a Democrat but states he is an independent. I guess due to the US election system that by and large inhibits independents from being elected on federal level at least. Funny they let him "get away" with it.
He has ran as a democratic candidate so yes he's a democratic but leans more independent
I'd wager his beef with the Democratic Party is a large contributed to the growth of the far left
@@jeffersonhassan4558 he ran as a Democrat once, and they taught him he wasn't welcome.
Thanks. This is a really important video and Bernie Sanders' statements seems very accurate. Would love to see a more extensive economic (history) of Oligarchy.
of course. Bernie is based af
Hes one of them
The 2024 January+February edition of Mother Jones is all about American Oligarchy. It contains an article by Jeffrey A. Winters. It also contains a long article on the rise of American Oligarchy.
That makes him all the more _based_ of course.
It takes a good man to prioritise other's needs above his wants.
@@Smokey02z The one of them that still has the audacity to call it all out.
the fact that lobbying is primarily done by big companies means it is an oligarchy
Not really necessarily, companies are a sub group of the people, its really more when you have central people in majority control of those companies that you can rule companies as part of the oligarchy. Companies are in the majority of cases closer to democratic rule than they are oligarchs, as there are very few large companies that are majority controlled by a single person.
Actually lobbying is also a big thing done by groups of people like Climate Activists or civil rights movement.
Without lobbying there would be no functioning democarcy.
Problem is the lobbying is done in the shadows and should instead be fully public with all data stored in a public database and any lobbying that is done of the books should be punished with harsh sentences
In my opinion campaigns should have public financing and super pacs should be banned. I think it’s unfair for large corporations or very wealthy people to be able to give their preferred candidates such a big advantage. I also think we should institute rank choice voting and automatic ballot access so third parties can have more of a chance.
the thing is those are all secondary problems. The reason we don't have those things already is exactly because the rich were allowed to get rich enough to use their economic power to prevent them or undo them if they were already in place. There's a reason why Citizens United, the supreme court ruling that allowed for unlimited private funding of US politics, happened after wealth inequality had already been allowed to start shooting upwards. You literally cannot get funding limits on politics or more proportional voting while you have super rich with enough money to stop, water down, or undo those things. You have to tackle the money first. If you don't, you either won't get what you want, or it'll be immediately undone as soon as the oligarchs' candidate is elected again. Which they always will be, eventually. Always follow the money. Money is power, so if you want your vote to count, the rich have to have less money than the electorate have power. As long as they have more, nothing else matters
Well, public financing takes the power away from the rich (at least in elections). They don't want to lose wealth, so they do whatever they can to keep it and expand it.
That's why we don't have public financing in political campaigns.
Ok sure but isn't it strange that political parties can do things like mandate a car company's mpg? Ford makes most of its money from relatively low mpg trucks. Why do politicians get to first shut down nuclear power plants for renewables but then decide they need subsidies because they release no green house gas? What about when politicians fail to act when China sells solar panels at less than cost in the US?
My point is that these are political actions or inactions to real or perceived problems so where is the ability to present a company's viewpoint? It's through lobbyist and money and it's not always insidious.
You're absolutely right
@@anon-soso-anon Politicians represent the people (at least in theory). So it is perfectly acceptable that politicians mandate stuff if the people support such mandates. It is called democracy.
Companies on the other hand are not people. They should have no influence and no representation in government. The owners, CEO's etc of companies already have their say in the democratic process through their votes, same as everyone else. Why should they have extra influence just because they are rich? That is not democracy. That is plutocracy or oligarchy or corporacy, but not democracy.
It has been an oligarchy for quite a while now.
Please watch the video. The US has always been an oligarchy. A civil oligarchy until now, but it might be at risk of becoming a sultanistic oligarchy.
It has been an oligarchy since the creation of the Fed
Yes but in recent years that problem has only worsened and the oligarchs are crossing lines that haven't been crossed before
@@joecaa3722 like downing a president? Nothing's new.
@@Elekugood.
This video reminds me very much of 'The Storm Before the Storm', a book by Mike Duncan about Rome before the rise of Caesar. He explored the way the Roman republic changed to make Caesar's rise possible. I re-read it from time to time just to freak myself out about how the US is moving in lock step down that road; every time I think 'yes, but THAT political line will never be crossed' it gets crossed.
Anyway. I would recommend that book to anyone who's interested in the US's progress as an oligarchy. Or just in general. It's a really good book.
Mike Duncans podcasts on the "history of Rome" and "revolutions" are both really good too and worth listening to.
To be fair he wrote that book specifically with current (at the time) US events in mind, so he tried to make the parallels more obvious
so, where in Rome's timeline is the US now?
@@Ptaku93 Probably the 20-40 years before Augustus assumed absolute power.
Does the book make a case for what changes are happening in the US to move it in parallell to Rome? It sounds like it would be an interesting read.
Truth is there is no correlation between public support of policy and policies implemented in the United States. Only a extremely strong correlation between policies implemented and the support of the extremely wealthy i.e the oligarchs.
I just appreciate that we are finally having this conversation. It’s getting out of hand
What I'd say the difference is comes down to *how much influence* a rich person can get in a country's government.
Trump is the most transactional president in modern times, which immediately makes the US more of an oligarchy now than just one week ago.
Technically speaking an oligarch never does anything 'illegal'. They make it so that the law and the government heavily favours them. And using that power multiply their wealth which was already in the rich category.
8:00 Bernie would def agree with you that the US has been an oligarchy.
The oldest reference I found about this topic is "United States: Democracy or Oligarchy?" by Severo Mallet-Prevost in 1933! And in the conclusion one could read: "The present American oligarchy lives on what it can make out of the people."
US never has been a democracy, it always has been a republic.
There is a big difference
@@teaser6089 Yes (on the USA) but no (on the big difference). Republic is the opposite of monarchy. Democracy can exist in both, and both republic and monarchy can be oligarchies or dictartoships. Suharto's Indonesia was a republic and Canada is a monarchy.
It is, elon musk is practically a second president
Thanks god!
Is it better that Musk is visible and accountable or that he would be able to pull the strings behind the scenes invisible to the public?
@@dw620lol "accountable"
@@dw620 >accountable MY SIDES
@@dw620 "Accountable" lol you poor thing
I'm planning to retire at 59 in another country outside the US that is free, safe and very cheap with a high quality of life and good healthcare. I could fully just rely on only my SS if I wanted to when that times arrives but l'll also have at least one pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific Investment account with my Stephanie Stiefel my FA. Retiring comfortably in the US these days is almost impossible
I’m planning on moving to Thailand in the next 5 years if trump’s government doesn’t do anything with the high prices of groceries and taxes
What about you??
I know this lady you just mentioned. Stephanie Janis Stiefel is a portfolio manager and investment advisor. She gained recognition as an employee of neuberger berman; a renowned investor she is. Stephanie Janis Stiefel has demonstrated expertise in investment strategies and has been involved in managing portfolios and providing guidance to clients.
Been debt free for two years thanks to Stephanie Janis Stiefel. So sad to see my friends in their 40s with car loans, mortgages and credit card debt.
My sister lives in Aussie. They have good healthcare better than America. I am also moving there after I retire.
I was a stay at Home mom with no money in my IRA or any savings of my own, which was scary at 53 years of age. Three years ago I got a part time job and save everything I make. After 3 years, I am 56 yo and have put $9,000 in an IRA and $40,000 in my portfolio with CFA, Stephanie Janis Stiefel. Since the goal of getting a job was to invest for retirement and NOT up my lifestyle, I was able to scale this quickly to $150,000. If I can do this in a year, anyone can.
It's strange that you automatically classify Russia as an oligarchy. Since early 2000 the influence of wealth and capital on Russian politics was winding down sometimes violently (Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky). And after the war started the ultra rich were stripped from all the remaining regional powers they had. While Russia definitely was an oligarchy in the 90s and early 2000s and it is definitely an autocracy, the power in Russia does not come from money. You can make money from power, but not the other way around.
Putin is rich because he is in power, but he is not in power because he is rich.
Hey, I wanted to write the same comment!
You beat me to it.
An oligarch is someone who is very rich and powerful. This applies to Putin.
@@Eleku The definition that this video gives it "someone who rules through their wealth". You can challenge this definition, but by this definition Putin is not an oligarch.
Also while he can move billions and buy and use palaces and yachts, he doesn't really have that much money on his name, so he's not technically rich. But he's using his power and connections to access all those luxuries. It's more similar to the mafia bosses, who also may not have money on their name, but they use their power and influence to get what they want. That's why there is a concept of "mafia state", as opposed to just "oligarchy".
This is what separates a kingdom from an oligarchy.
Vlad Vexler has described Putin's Inner Circle as a court (implicitly, with Putin in the middle as the Tzar), where everyone curries the favors of the king.
A country in which you are rich through power is what this describes.
@@nielskorpel8860 I'm not a fan of these monarchy comparison because it can create false analogies. Monarchy is deeply rooted in the family and familial structures (from royal family to aristocracy), Russia is not. It is a court system, but not aristocratic court. You can probably better compare it to the roman empire, which was also post-oligarchical but non-aristocratic regime.
Huh? It’s been an oligarchy since Reagan.
It always was, most of the founding fathers were oligarchs.
There’s a distinct change in value or slope of various time series data at around 1980.
Ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay.
Portion of wealth owned by the top 1%.
Tax rates on high earners…
Its not if a politician is bought
Its what they get asked to do.
Amazing video as always. Keep up the good work!
You frame the question like it’s not a *fait accomplit* that happened forty years ago. The US has been an oligarchy since Reagan.
The US has always been an oligarchy. It was founded by a small group of rich landowners and merchants that setup the system to their benefit. Real democracy was never part of the plan. It's just now they've gotten so brazen that they don't even influence politics behind the scenes but just directly run for office.
Just lame propaganda that I used to believe as well. As if wealthy people didn’t have the same or more access to power. What has changed is that the % of income tax paid by the wealthy has increased.
Bingo. Reagan successfully convinced the public that oligarchy was not only a good thing but god wanted it. Sort of a weird fusion between divine right to rule and ultra nationalism
Since George Washington, who was an oligarch himself, along with most of American founding fathers (most of them are rich men).
Roman Republic, which is the model for American republican system, was also an (aristicratic) oligarchy.
Id argue a bit before Reagan but he was definitely the nail in the coffin.
always love the balanced and insightful analysis sir. Keep it up.
Such a great breakdown of a complex topic. Thank you for bringing logic and nuance to so many important economic issues.
Swear to god ive been thinking about this and yt recommended the video. Wild!
At first I was a bit annoyed because it seemed like a rant on semantics but it turned out well :)
Great explanation of the system, love your videos and willingness to share your understanding of the world with the rest of us!
I think that, at 2:31, this forms a cycle. People become rich enough to buy influence, then use their bought influence to become rich.
Always love your insights. Keep up the great work! I hope your nights have improved and you're getting some more sleep! :) (You had mentioned your newborn suffered from Colic a while back) Wish you a great 2025 dude!
Thank you! It's not quite there yet. But, a lot better already!
Great video! Informative.
Well. The best video to understand what is oligarchy!
It seems like most mainstream sources define "democracy" as simply "universal suffrage," but IMO this is inadequate. Democracy should mean that the general public has influence on policy , not just that all citizens have a right to vote for representatives. Those "representatives" typically come with a pre-set "package" of policies that are not directly voted on by the public. Though we do have direct ballot initiatives at the local level, I'd argue it's not quite enough to be considered a full democracy. A supermajority of the US population supports universal healthcare, huge cuts to the military budget, progressive taxation, etc., and in fact they have consistently for many decades, yet none of these things ever become policy. This couldn't possibly be the case in a real democracy.
You cannot be serious with the claim at 11:53. I respect and like your content a lot, but you can't just say people are equal to oligarchs under the law in a civil oligarchy. Sure, in paper. In paper China's Communist Party is a full democracy. We know it's not like that in practice, and although some oligarchs have been held accountable after huge public pressure, mostly they can do whatever they want and hold many privileges under the law. Also, the high cost of lawyers allows for a system in which the rich and powerful can squeeze people out of holding oligarchs accountable by making going to court extremely expensive.
Other than that, good video, I agree the US has been an oligarchy for a long time, I agree it is a different oligarchy to Russia, and I do believe seeing all these billionaires bending the knee to Trump is really scary, I honestly believe the US is heading to a Putin-like oligarchy, which thanks to your video I can now call a sultanistic oligarchy.
Keep it up!
How, exactly are oligarchs in civil oligarchies not beholden to the same laws?
Do you sincerely believe that Trump's claim that he could shoot a man on 6th Avenue and get away with it is true? He couldn't even get away with a victimless financial crime (the banks that loaned his company the money already knew and didn't care).
Additionally, the cost of pursuing legal proceedings is irrelevant when it comes to this. When you're talking about *laws*, those are prosecuted by the state, and as such, cost is no obstacle.
When it comes to civil suits, the actions alleged are not necessarily illegal, counsel is only retained to arbitrate and represent two (or more) opposing parties.
Oligarchs having more power in this regard is not at all what Money & Macro was talking about when saying "equal under the law".
@wastingmylifeaway4898 Are you being serious right now? Trump was CONVICTED of 34 criminal counts on May 30th and he is now the US President! He has pressured and used every ttick in the book with expensive lawyers to postpone sentencing, his sentence was extremely lenient considering he had been held in contempt! How the f*** is that not getting away with it! A non-oligarch would have been thrown in jail months ago.
As I said, on paper we are all beholden to the same laws. The practice is very very different due to connections from oligarchs and the ability to maintain a long and expensive legal process. This is not a possibility for most people.
I'll compare the cases of Luigi Mangione and Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse posted bail SUPPORTED by oligarchs, because his crimes were against average joes (he murdered two people). He was allowed to await trial in his home and create political projects and a RUclips channel, he was later acquitted under self-defense, with one of the best legal teams available and with support from oligarchs. Luigi Mangione's crime, also horrible, was against the figurehead of a powerful company. He was quickly identified, arrested, treated like a dog, and will soon be convicted, sentenced, and made an example. In paper we are all equal under the law. In practice it is very different. The bail system for example allows rich people to walk free while awaiting trial, this is a privilege that not many people have. The damage done in jail can be irreversible and the fact some people can't access bail and must endure this ins inherently unfair and unequal. There's more examples but I'll let you analyze it, I don't think it's a very contested claim that a highly wealthy person can get away with things an average Joe can't.
Ik waardeer het zeer dat er iemand is die op een objectieve manier deze concepts uitlegt! Thanks!
Beautifully presented! I want to clarify though that we in the States refer to the period before the Great depression as the roaring twenties. Since they contributed to the Great depression as you said. The gilded age is the period right before the depression at the very end of the 1800s.
Thanks! But, I was referring to the Gilded age up to the great depression.
Thanks for clarifying! Speaks to the quality of my US history. They lump in these gilded age oligarchs / robber barrons (Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt like you said) with the ones that made it right before the depression (Ford, JP Morgan jr, etc.), so forgot they were around so long. Sad that all these figures overshadow the actual innovators of the time (like Tesla and the wright brothers)
There were actually a lot of good points in the video.. and one of the best explanations of the connection between economics and politics for a 17 min video.
This lense of analysis through oligarchies and this oligarchs-citizen societal contract is really interesting! I have never seen things this way before.
Is water turning wet?
➕
Beautiful
It's always been
water doesn't turn wet (unless you're referring to an air-water emulsion)
Towels get wet, not water.
Thank you!
Simple, concise, and most importantly illuminating. This video's a banger.
Conservatives in 2020: America is turning into an oligarchy...
Conservatives in 2025: ...and I think that's great!
3:05 - musk literally bought his way into all his companies though...
But they were all struggling Private companies unlike oligarchy seen in russia where they bought state owned companies that had literal monopoly power.
Oligarchs plus Ai = scary future for the Us cyberpunk dystopia type
It has been an oligarchy for a long time
you should watch the video. You might like it
Please watch the video. The US has always been an oligarchy. A civil oligarchy until now, but it might be at risk of becoming a sultanistic oligarchy.
Very interesting video
*NOPE - ITS BEEN ONE FOR DECADES* they just stopped pretending it wasnt
Have you listened to the video? I don't think you understand what you are saying. Listen to the video man, then comment.
@@thalmoragent9344 Well its not any longer - the empire ended probably about 6 years ago. Ironically it was probably as a result of a Pistachio Billionaire [Im not making this up]
@@Blondul11 what's contradictive about his comment?
the US have been an oligarchy for a long time, big money rules every aspect of law making
rich individuals and their think tanks have been influencing lawmaking and public opinion heavily
both politically established sides have their own media corporations and fund raisers
it is oligarch influence that stopped the US from having universal health care although it is a bipartisan consensus
same for affordable housing, abortion rights and other things, that isn't democracy, it is a ruling oligarchy, no?
It became a full blown Oligarchy under "trickle down" Reagan-Trump back in the 1980s the gd "trickle down" mafia is just continuing this 40 year total thievery and making Trump dictatorship
For century even, remember the gilded age.
This a nice break down of the matter. Thanks!
Don't kid yourself, the US has been an Oligarchy since Reagan. Mainstreet has lost to Wallstreet in every fight since the 70s.
Incredible video.
15:23 The chart shows when it changed, under Reagan. And that chart ends in 2010. Spoiler, things have not become more fair since 2010.
"Is the U.S turning into an oligarchy?"
This is a grammatical error. You can't "turn into" what you already are.
The good news is that the direction of the change is 180 degrees different from what you assumed with that silly header.
I think this is a well balanced take. Super Political Action Committees (PACs) give the wealthy lots of power; but individuals still have independent political ability.
Excellent video, thx you!
Yes, the answer is yes. It's been one for a while, but now it's pretty obvious.
Very interesting video. Gave me food for thought and changed my perspective.
Russia is not oligarchy, it's autocracy
Excellent video as usual. Always enjoy hearing your balanced in sight and educational content
Huh, got this video after 54 seconds. Seems like the algorythm is faster at recommending new videos to me recently.
Very insightful! Thanks!
This is the problem
The Government is the gatekeeper of tax revenue.
MP’s/Senators find innovative ways to redirect this capital in to private pockets. Elon, being one of the bigger beneficiaries of public capital.
This causes a short fall in Social Spending for Health/Education etc.
Which causes deficits in the Budget. Which causes the Government to borrow from Financial Systems at higher and higher interest rates. (Ironically the people that took the capital out of the system, tend to be the same people that lend to the system, creating a positive feedback loop of capital!)
U.S. debt is $35.46 trillion which makes its GDP ratio 123%. Which means government revenue can hardly pay the interest on that debt.
Which causes the Government to inflate taxes to payback these loans. Or prints money which creates inflation. Or borrows more to pay back previous loans.
All of which results in a loss of buying power of the citizens. Which results in a wealth transfer from the citizens who must fund the corruption.
Which makes them justifiably angry. Which in turn has created radicalised Left and Right politics.
This system is very beneficial to Oligarchs, Plutocrats, Corrupt Politicians and Financial Systems (who essentially fund the system) in general.
As a result Politicians and Economist will make the argument that the issue is, in fact, in government spending and that we need to privatise everything and open everything to market mechanics.
BTW guess who they put in charge of cutting spending of social Spending......???. ELON!
Which ironically further benefits the Oligarchs, Plutocrats, Corrupt Politicians, who sweep in with shite deals for the citizenry.
As a result in the US 60% total wealth is owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.5 percent of the total wealth. Three people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country!
This is happening worldwide. As oligarchs infiltrate global financial systems to game them, Neo Liberal Economics just adds fuel to the fire.
Run though this system over a period of time and you will radicalise the citizenry. That’s how people end up electing Geert Wilders, Jair Bolsonaro, Trump/Biden or Boris Johnson/Stammer.
These guys will redirect the citizenry’s frustration towards false arguments such as government oversight, Immigration and minorities, Social Spending, climate sensitivity, being the problem for economic growth.
This is a global phenomenon brought on by the universal application of Neo Lib Capitalism.
Trump and Elon are the logical outcome of an Oligarchy overthrow of traditional government.
Yeah pretty spot on here. Throw in citizens united v FEC back in 2010 and that just about explains it all
well said
the biggest recipients of social money in the us are the fossil fuel companies. the money that elons companies get is basically peanuts compared to what we do to subsidize fossil fuels.
didnt read. sniffed armpit
@@GAGONMYCOREY Fair enough! 🤣
Great video.
I thought it was already an Oligarchy due to a study that got a lot of attention years ago.
Please watch the video. The US has always been an oligarchy. A civil oligarchy until now, but it might be at risk of becoming a sultanistic oligarchy.
@@Eleku hey i think you missed a few individual posts telling them to watch the video and that the US has always been an oligarchy.
It's been an oligarchy for decades. It's ridiculous to assert that one needs to be a billionaire to have political influence in this country. If you have several million dollars, and can join a super PAC or affect local politics, you're a plutocrat and oligarch, even if you're a little one. Just because you only own five slaves and a small plantation of 10 acres, doesn't imply you're not a wealthy slave-master. You're still a wealthy slave master even if you don't own 80 slaves and 1000 acres.
The capitalist owner class in this country is in control of our government and the minds of many working-class people, completely brainwashed by Western-capitalist Cold War propaganda and the allure and fantasy of becoming rich. They end up supporting their wealthy employer-masters, who they hope to one day join as a member of their elite club. The American working-class was the aristocracy of labor for decades, after WW2, and even though conditions today are much different than existed in the 1950s and 60s, too many Americans still think they "have it good".
They're living paycheck to paycheck, they're a couple of paydays away from homelessness, and their rent is obscenely expensive, along with everything else, BUT BUT...They will go down fighting for their rich capitalist masters. These people are completely brainwashed, and that's why I don't see a solution in this country. The ruling class are going to continue to rule, and it doesn't matter how bad the situation gets for the American working class. These American workers, will continue to lick the boots of the rich and powerful, groveling at their feel, worshiping them.
It's a corporatocracy not an oligarchy not socialism not communism and not capitalism. It is corporatism and corporatocracy. Has been since all those colonization CORPORATIONS sailed here to set up shop.
It's been a oligarchy for a hundred years
a such good video!
Don't think I've ever heard this phenomenon put in such a nuanced and likely accurate manner, very insightful.
What a nice job you do!
This is a really excellent video on the current situation. It's a shame so many of the commenters decided not to watch it.
it really is sad. It seems like soo many decided to read the title, comment, and then leave
Good video. Well done 🙂👍
I don't think we are here with a semantics problem.
Every country that isn't a monarchy or Dictatorship is an oligarchy. South Korea, the UK, and Japan immediately spring to mind.
Is the sky blue? Is the grass green?
Refreshing to see a good educational video in the midst of this chaotic information war!
"Is the Us oligarchy ?"
"Always has been"
Tbh I would suggest going through the latin americana and italian analysis of oligarchy, which is a lot richer and more developed than the american one. Suggesting Norberto Bobbio “La teoría de las formas de gobierno” and “Diccionario de política” and Ansaldi Waldo “Frívola y casquivana, mano de hierro con guante de seda”.
Let's bump this to the top of the comment section so that Youri can spot it.
10:51 Wasn’t Sulla actually the first dictator already before Caesar? Even though he nominally concentrated power in his hands to preserve and strengthen the republic, he clearly did satisfy all criteria for a dictator.
0:40 it can't be both autocracy and oligarchy at the same time. You must choose 1.
Yep, Russia used to be an oligarchy, but transformed into an autocracy
The US has always been and always will be an oligarchy
Always? We were closer to feudalism than an oligarchy for half of our history
Ehh... I believe it was designed to be more of a plutocratic not-quite-oligarchy with democratic elements. Most of the upsides of an oligarchy for the plutocratic class without most of the downsides, and maintaining many of the benefits of the British parliamentary model, without the only downside the rich and powerful among the colonists actually cared about (the existance of a higher power able to tell them 'no' and make it stick).
Listen to the video. All countries are. But what type of oligarchy it is matters.
When the entire culture worships money and consumption above all, you might be right.
The mid 20th century was the time they had the least amount of power. The rich were taxed heavily, MOST Americans lived well, and the quality of goods were better than they ever were and have been since. A certain guy in the 80s ruined that.
This is one of the best made, most clear videos I've seen. Well done.
Thank you!!
“Turning”
I disagree with the idea that you have to be ultra wealthy to be an oligarch. With local politics a millionaire can be an oligarch by influencing things at the city or state level
The book he references in the video broadly defines an oligarch as someone with an income around $4 million and up. So it seems you don't disagree.
It's also useful to distinguish between "oligarchy" (rule by the few) and "plutocracy" (wealth=power); Aristotle's terminology isn't really how these words are used today, not least because Aristotle actually thought rule by the few was a good thing as long as the "best" few were in charge (hence "aristocracy", which has lost its original positive connotation). A society can be oligarchic without that power being wielded through money. The important thing is that the ruling elite is constituted based on some sort of personal status (which could be wealth, a hereditary title, military prowess, having many followers who take their word as gospel, etc), as opposed to someone who merely holds office (granted by some other source of power, e.g. through elections or through appointment by the monarch) and ceases to wield power once they lose that office.
Happy with my decision to join the Adaxum presale. Let’s see how it performs in the long run.
It is not "turning" into an oligarchy, it has been for many years now.
Worse, a dystopian techbrocracy
Prof. Winters is 100% correct
The Adaxum project has some strong points. Took a position while the presale is still open.
Billionaire = oligarch
The difference is if you like or don't like the country that have these people
Interesting video! What made you decide to do a video that more about political science rather than economy?
Corpocracy may be more accurate
Whew, just a sultanistic oligarchy in sight. The dictatorship route would’ve been so much worse.