Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

You seem to think what I'm suggesting is that 3-4 billionaires meet in a room to plan out the future.

No.
Stop your cartoonish imagery of anything you disagree with.

The most successful people have become so in this time and place.  So it behooves them to maintain the status quo so that they may continue to be the most successful people.  
They OBVIOUSLY use their wealth to invest here, suppress there, contribute to this guy, contribute to that other guy's opponent, push for this legislation, get other legislation put on a back-burner, etc.
This is known.
We know some of these people's names.  Others, we don't.

They don't need to meet or agree or collaborate.
They just need to perpetuate the status quo....until they've positioned themselves to initiate the next paradigm shift in which they'll continue their success.
Sure, sometimes their desires clash, but over time, they've learned that squabbling only endangers their positions and they smartly give-and-take to maintain their positions.

Once again, a seemingly (to me) mundane truth gets pushback.  It's amazing.  

You seem to think what I'm suggesting is that 3-4 billionaires meet in a room to plan out the future.

<snip>

Once again, a seemingly (to me) mundane truth gets pushback.  It's amazing. 

Are you familiar with the term Motte and Bailey as a logical fallacy? Because I think this is something that you're employing here--and have had a tendency to do elsewhere too. It's... Frustrating.

Because this is what you originally said...

I'm pretty confident that's how the world functions.  Although I think the handful of people who run the world do the handshake before putting things into motion rather than as a conclusion.

I'm probably wrong.

I mean, the natural way to read this would be that there is a cabal of people who conspire to "run the world", agree on what's going to happen in some smoke-filled back room, and then they just sort of roll it out to the rest of us. That's the bailey, the portion of the argument that's hard to defend.

Then you get questioned on it and retreat to "I can't BELIEVE you think I was trying to say THAT... What I was ACTUALLY saying is that rich people have a lot of power and influence and use that power and influence to affect policy in ways that benefit themselves!" That's the motte, the proposition that none of us could really disagree with. 

What I don't understand is whether this is intentional or not. If it is not intentional, you would do well to be more clear in the language you use, to avoid the constantly repeated ways in which we all seem to misinterpret everything you say. Sometimes when people consistently misinterpret you, maybe it's due to the way you present your ideas up front? 

The issue is not the term "handful" obviously.  The issue is "run the world".

That is quite different from saying "A handful of people have a lot of influence in the world", which is obviously true.

When a poster gets "misunderstood" over and over and over by multiple other posters, one might form a conclusion.

So you're having trouble distinguishing between "run the world" and "have a lot of influence" in the world.  

Is there a bunch of daylight between the two?  
Change your name to SemanticsDawg or something.  Jesus.

Thanks for your contribution.  

Of course it is, and it's also about responding accurately when someone queries what you mean, instead of doubling down.  (And then as is typical just appearing to view it all as some irrelevancy by someone being picky.)

We all misstate and overstate things at times.  Clarification is a good thing.

Let me be clear:  I'd love for this thread to get back on-topic.