3 ms·

"Economic Inequality is a Red Herring" might've been a better title. He's probably right that economic inequality itself is not a huge problem. But he could be

by staunch 11y ago

"Economic Inequality is a Red Herring" might've been a better title. He's probably right that economic inequality itself is not a huge problem. But he could be wrong. Maybe it should be illegal for any person to amass more than $1 billion or some reasonable limit. Individuals with massive fortunes might always threaten democracy. The Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson are examples of how corrupting they can be. Zuckerberg could start buying elections the same way with his new $45 billion LLC. Michael Bloomberg bought himself high political office. Mitt Romney tried. Donald Trump is trying again. Supposedly 200 families have funded 50% of the 2016 election. One solution is to close every possible loophole they use to exert their influence over politicians. Another solution is to cap wealth at some high number, limiting the potential damage. Heck, the unprecedented wealth of Crassus was the proximate cause of the fall of the Roman Republic. Crassus used his massive fortune to finance Caesar's very expensive political career, including bribing politicians left and right. Didn't Hitler also rely on the backing of a few wealthy industrialists in his rise to power?

natrius 11y ago
We can stop amassed wealth from threatening our democracy without limiting wealth itself. I don't care how much wealth people have, but I care how they use it to subvert our democracy. We've been trying to solve this problem with laws, but lawmakers can be subverted with wealth, too. Instead of trying to stop excess political spending, we should eliminate the incentive to accept excess political spending. People accept money to influence our democracy because they can use that money to get whatever they want from almost anyone, including you. You can't opt out because economic power is invisible. But we can make it visible, and give every individual the freedom to reject economic power that they feel is misused. This is merit capitalism. http://meritcapitalism.com/ http://meritcapitalism.com/

by staunch 11y ago

natrius 11y ago

We can stop amassed wealth from threatening our democracy without limiting wealth itself. I don't care how much wealth people have, but I care how they use it to subvert our democracy. We've been trying to solve this problem with laws, but lawmakers can be subverted with wealth, too. Instead of trying to stop excess political spending, we should eliminate the incentive to accept excess political spending. People accept money to influence our democracy because they can use that money to get whatever they want from almost anyone, including you. You can't opt out because economic power is invisible. But we can make it visible, and give every individual the freedom to reject economic power that they feel is misused. This is merit capitalism. http://meritcapitalism.com/ http://meritcapitalism.com/