The CEOs maybe, but they then hire people who know all this psychology and absolutely know how to accomplish this.
I think this and similar ideas were more of an post-implementation discovery that now drives refused change of said systems. The idea that some grand plan has been in effect from any starting point is where absurdity is introduced.
The wealthy, ie the powerful, cannot even agree within their circle on much, and the entire personality that reaches said level isn't known for thorough meticulous loyalty to a group plan.
The short name for what you've just described is POSIWID - the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does. There is no meaning in ascribing intent to a system beyond its function, because intentions don't matter. Systems act regardless. If an outcome occurs - our emiseration - and those in charge do nothing to correct it, then they are implicitly approving of it, so it becomes part of the system's purpose by evolution.
This doesn't preclude policy decisions made by elite politicians funded by the wealthy from being designed to keep lower classes too exhausted to politically mobilize or rise up the caste or class system.
If you read The laws of power and super freakonomics, it's easy to draw the conclusion that ethical companies are out competed by unethical companies, and should a company choose to remain ethical despite that, then the company can come to an end.
It's financial death by a million cuts.
If you refuse to use slave labor to produce your tennis shoes, the company that does use slave labor to produce their tennis shoes can sell their shoes for less money.
No absolutely not, I agree, and I made the point elsewhere in this thread that anyone who knows "entrepreneurial" types will know that they relish in this kind of machiavellian thinking. They think it makes them so smart and so good at business that they know how to manipulate people into spending money.
Maybe it wasn't intentional at first, but once they saw the effect and realized why it was happening, they definitely cranked it up to 11.
To some degree, yes. But its also a direct product of the systems starting point as well. Arguably, not changing anything is the best thing to keep the system in their favor for as long as possible.
What I'd argue is the "decision" they individually make, is to what degree they allow the suffering caused by their actions to be actually linked to them in the public eye. You have people like elon who are on the extreme end of unapologetic assholery, and then there are the people of equal or greater wealth who we cannot even name. I think that's the core decision that the ultra wealthy make that affects society the most. Loud out and proud makes for a very clear and, to some degree understood, target for everything from legislation to pitchforks and torches. Quiet and Guarded makes for less "fun" and likely drives some of the large losses in wealth (chasing the big number for its brain feels gets increasingly risky).
I could go on and on about my amatuer class theory, but I'll spare the rest. While all of this is important to consider at times of great change, I'd like to point out that I don't find this aspect of examining class warfare to be helpful without the will and leadership to enact change.
The CEOs maybe, but they then hire people who know all this psychology and absolutely know how to accomplish this.
I think this and similar ideas were more of an post-implementation discovery that now drives refused change of said systems. The idea that some grand plan has been in effect from any starting point is where absurdity is introduced.
The wealthy, ie the powerful, cannot even agree within their circle on much, and the entire personality that reaches said level isn't known for thorough meticulous loyalty to a group plan.
The short name for what you've just described is POSIWID - the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does. There is no meaning in ascribing intent to a system beyond its function, because intentions don't matter. Systems act regardless. If an outcome occurs - our emiseration - and those in charge do nothing to correct it, then they are implicitly approving of it, so it becomes part of the system's purpose by evolution.
This doesn't preclude policy decisions made by elite politicians funded by the wealthy from being designed to keep lower classes too exhausted to politically mobilize or rise up the caste or class system.
If you read The laws of power and super freakonomics, it's easy to draw the conclusion that ethical companies are out competed by unethical companies, and should a company choose to remain ethical despite that, then the company can come to an end.
It's financial death by a million cuts.
If you refuse to use slave labor to produce your tennis shoes, the company that does use slave labor to produce their tennis shoes can sell their shoes for less money.
No absolutely not, I agree, and I made the point elsewhere in this thread that anyone who knows "entrepreneurial" types will know that they relish in this kind of machiavellian thinking. They think it makes them so smart and so good at business that they know how to manipulate people into spending money.
Maybe it wasn't intentional at first, but once they saw the effect and realized why it was happening, they definitely cranked it up to 11.
To some degree, yes. But its also a direct product of the systems starting point as well. Arguably, not changing anything is the best thing to keep the system in their favor for as long as possible.
What I'd argue is the "decision" they individually make, is to what degree they allow the suffering caused by their actions to be actually linked to them in the public eye. You have people like elon who are on the extreme end of unapologetic assholery, and then there are the people of equal or greater wealth who we cannot even name. I think that's the core decision that the ultra wealthy make that affects society the most. Loud out and proud makes for a very clear and, to some degree understood, target for everything from legislation to pitchforks and torches. Quiet and Guarded makes for less "fun" and likely drives some of the large losses in wealth (chasing the big number for its brain feels gets increasingly risky).
I could go on and on about my amatuer class theory, but I'll spare the rest. While all of this is important to consider at times of great change, I'd like to point out that I don't find this aspect of examining class warfare to be helpful without the will and leadership to enact change.