4 ms·

Yes, because I don't want to live in an oligarchy. Do you? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. If only there were some of law that prevented the ul

by jnbiche 11y ago

Yes, because I don't want to live in an oligarchy. Do you? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. If only there were some of law that prevented the ultra-rich from buying the political process... The sad fact is, even when there is a law (like we had before in the US), extreme wealth usually finds a way to eliminate it. And then it's off to the races as a feedback loop is entered. In principle, capitalism is a fairly effective instrument for reducing inequality until the political process is corrupted, and then the advantages of capitalism no longer benefit non-wealthy people due to regulatory capture, socialized risk, etc.

mc32 11y ago
It depends on the person, some people prefer relative wealth, other people prefer wealth in absolute terms. That is, some people would prefer to be one of the wealthiest persons in a poor country over having double that money in absolute terms, but being relatively poorer to their peers in a rich country. So it depends on the person.
joelrunyon 11y ago
So, your main complaint is money in politics. This is exactly what PG was talking about. You're talking about corruption - not inequality.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  No, my main complaint is that extreme wealth inevitably leads to political corruption and oligarchy. Among the wealthy, there are always some who aren't satisfied with wealth. They want political power, and to crush everyone else underfoot until they are in rags (some people think like this, seriously). If people like that can't get political power honestly, then they'll find a way to buy it, and reap the benefits of their political power in government concessions paid by the taxpayers. Then they and their ilk will buy more political power. And then the systems enters a feedback loop, which is where we are now in the US. Edit: I should add that I don't think that extreme wealth is the natural conclusion of capitalism. In a limited government system, combined with the natural dispersion of wealth that comes from passing money down generations, I think that competition serves to keep the top 0.01% within a reasonable multiplier of the average. Unfortunately, big government combined with big business is the worst of all possible worlds, and serves to increase and perpetuate inequality (a deeply-held belief I find difficult to properly convey to my Democrat friends).
  - bdamm 11y ago
    Bingo
ghufran_syed 11y ago
"If only there were some of law that prevented the ultra-rich from buying the political process..." Perhaps the rather counter-intuitive sounding "Voting with dollars"? http://www.yale.edu/yup/pdf/092628_front_1.pdf http://www.yale.edu/yup/pdf/092628_front_1.pdf
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
There's another way (at least theoretically). We could reduce the power of the government, particularly its ability to influence the economy. That reduces the feedback loop from the other side. The rich can buy the political process, but they can't use it to get more money or to have great power.

by jnbiche 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

It depends on the person, some people prefer relative wealth, other people prefer wealth in absolute terms. That is, some people would prefer to be one of the wealthiest persons in a poor country over having double that money in absolute terms, but being relatively poorer to their peers in a rich country. So it depends on the person.

joelrunyon 11y ago

So, your main complaint is money in politics. This is exactly what PG was talking about. You're talking about corruption - not inequality.

jnbiche 11y ago
No, my main complaint is that extreme wealth inevitably leads to political corruption and oligarchy. Among the wealthy, there are always some who aren't satisfied with wealth. They want political power, and to crush everyone else underfoot until they are in rags (some people think like this, seriously). If people like that can't get political power honestly, then they'll find a way to buy it, and reap the benefits of their political power in government concessions paid by the taxpayers. Then they and their ilk will buy more political power. And then the systems enters a feedback loop, which is where we are now in the US. Edit: I should add that I don't think that extreme wealth is the natural conclusion of capitalism. In a limited government system, combined with the natural dispersion of wealth that comes from passing money down generations, I think that competition serves to keep the top 0.01% within a reasonable multiplier of the average. Unfortunately, big government combined with big business is the worst of all possible worlds, and serves to increase and perpetuate inequality (a deeply-held belief I find difficult to properly convey to my Democrat friends).
- bdamm 11y ago
  Bingo

ghufran_syed 11y ago

"If only there were some of law that prevented the ultra-rich from buying the political process..." Perhaps the rather counter-intuitive sounding "Voting with dollars"? http://www.yale.edu/yup/pdf/092628_front_1.pdf http://www.yale.edu/yup/pdf/092628_front_1.pdf

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

There's another way (at least theoretically). We could reduce the power of the government, particularly its ability to influence the economy. That reduces the feedback loop from the other side. The rich can buy the political process, but they can't use it to get more money or to have great power.