By which I mean, the bedrock consensus of political science appears to have been disproved. Broadly speaking, political scientists believe that lawmakers and regulators only respond to the policy preferences of powerful people. If economic elites want a policy, that's the policy we get - no matter how unpopular it is with everyone else. Likewise, even if something is very, very popular with all of us, we won't get it if the super-rich hate it.

2/

Just take a look at the gap between public opinion and policy outcomes: most people think "capitalism does more harm than good"; most Canadians, Brits and Australians aged 18-34 think "socialism will improve the economy and well-being of citizens"; 72% of Brits support a national job guarantee; the majority of Californians support permanent rent-controls; and most people in 40 countries want CEO salaries capped at 4X that of their lowest-paid employees:

pluralistic.net/2025/08/07/the…

3/

The inability of the public to get its way isn't a mere impression - it's an empirical finding, based on a sample of 1,779 policy outcomes, that politicians ignore the will of the people in favor of the will of billionaires:

> economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

cambridge.org/core/journals/pe…

4/

And yet, all over the world, we're seeing these irrepressible outbreaks of antitrust policy, aimed squarely at shattering corporate power:

pluralistic.net/2025/06/28/mam…

It's a mystery. There's no policy that would be harder on billionaire wealth and power than vigorous antitrust enforcement (not least because preventing corporate concentration is key to preventing regulatory capture):

pluralistic.net/2022/06/05/reg…

5/

Certainly, there are a lot of merely obscenely rich people who are angry that the farcically rich people are screwing them over, and this class division between the 0.01% and the 1% has opened up some political space:

pluralistic.net/2025/08/09/eli…

But that wouldn't be enough, not without the massive supermajorities of everyday people who are sick to the back teeth of being abused by corporations, and who are desperate for *any* outlet to strike back.

6/

Take juries. Orrick is a big corporate law firm that represents the kinds of companies that might find their future in the hands of a jury in a state or federal courthouse. Orrick periodically surveys representative samples of people who show up for jury service to get a picture of their attitude towards the kinds of companies that can afford to hire a firm like theirs:

orrick.com/en/Insights/Groundb…

7/

Groundbreaking Jury Research Reveals U.S. Jury Attitudes in a Polarized Society

Our litigation team surveyed 1000+ potential U.S. jurors to develop fresh insights that help shape trial strategies.

^{www.orrick.com}

Their latest report contrasts the results of a pre-pandemic 2019 survey with a 2025 survey of 1,011 jurors in California, Florida, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, New Jersey, and New York.

They found that jurors' trust in the court system has plummeted since 2019 (67% in 2019, 48% in 2025); hostility to cops has tripled (11% to 33%); anti-corporate sentiment is way up (27% then, 45% now).

8/

The percentage of jurors who believe that they should use the courts to "sent messages to companies to improve their behavior" has risen from 58% to 62%; and 77% want to award punitive damages to "punish a corporation" (up from 69%).

And jurors are notably hostile to pharma companies, energy companies and large banks, but they *especially* hate social media companies.

9/

No wonder corporations are so desperate to take away our right to sue, and why "binding arbitration" clauses that permanently confiscate your legal rights are now part of every corner of modern life:

pluralistic.net/2025/08/15/dog…

The business lobby has been trying to take away workers', customers' and citizens' right to seek justice in court for decades, ginning up urban legends like "A lady's coffee was too hot so McDonald's had to give her $2.7 million":

pluralistic.net/2022/06/12/hot…

10/

Don't believe it. The courts are rarely on our side, but the fact that every now and again, a jury will seize an opportunity to deliver a smidgen of justice just drives plutocrats *nuts*. Billionaireism is the belief that you don't owe anything to anyone else, that morality is whatever you can get away with. You don't have to be a billionaire to contract a wicked case of billionaireism - but you *do* have to be stinking rich to benefit from it:

pluralistic.net/2025/08/20/bil…

eof/