>>10682>But not in the sense of treating unfairly, which is how I was using the word. Yes, that's right.
Thus my usage earlier, of saying "If you feel you're being exploited unfairly". I feel unfairly is something to add to exploitation, not something inherent.
>Ford had massive political sway due to the wealth of his company.To an extent. But much of that wealth is tied to the company itself, and its shareholders, rather than Ford's pocket itself.
The bulk of lobbyists are financed not by individual pockets, but rather, large organizations. Especially in the case of business. Ford himself would have less resources than that.
> I only want to address that at some level there exists an inequality that people in positions of power, like Ford, would have a direct interest in upholding. Understandable. Though I would make the case, wealth is less a determining factor as class and culture are.
Politicians, at least in the US, seem to be quite an insular group. More or less the only ones they seem to listen to are the media types, who're more in that metropolitan class than your average businessman. The connections are ones of education and lifestyle, rather than raw wealth.
I think this rather shows its form when you look at what politicians tend to focus on. At least when it comes to the public face of things.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text. 
