5 ms·

The super rich have a very big problem. How to maintain the status quo? If you cannot appease the general public, there will be revolution, and the rich will n

The super rich have a very big problem. How to maintain the status quo? If you cannot appease the general public, there will be revolution, and the rich will not stay rich for long. But how to appease them? Offer them a vote, create the concept of democracy. Then What? Control the figure heads. (Think dirt, bribery, monetary influence both directly and indirectly). Immediately, the problem is reduced from impossible to difficult. From controlling millions/billions of people to controlling dozens. And with money, difficult things become less difficult. All that to say, off course there is a ruling class (think dynasty like Rothschild etc). You have to to think on a macro scale for this. They rule, not directly, but by influence. And we will never see them operate, by design. In the real world, money buys influence, wherever you are and whoever you are. I think the OP was referring to the super rich, who are able to pull politicians strings. The vote is only one aspect of democracy. The public get to vote in order to feel appeased, but its more than that. The rich get to influence in order to get richer, and the politicians get to feel powerful. Off course, the general population are not supposed to know about that previous sentence. Now off course, we see the interaction between the public and the politicians (well, except for Theresa May yesterday), in fact, this is usually highlighted to maximize the public's feeling of appeasement by building a certain "democracy hype" (can be seen before most elections). In reality, democracy is just the "peaceful" amalgamation of all three aspects: - public feeling good. Fooled, but working the hamster wheel as hard as possible trying to amass EARNED wealth. - politicians not feeling good, but powerful and usually richer. - mega-rich feeling good, powerful and richer. Which then leads to there being those 3 types of people. - Laythe

logicallee 9y ago
EDIT: you updated your comment considerably since my reply! The below was a reply to a simpler version of the parent comment. I don't disagree with what you've just written. - Before edit: - So why don't the ruling rich make it so that up to $100,000 everyone pays under the current tax regime, but any income over $100k is taxed at 0% (since you've already fully paid your share to the country, i.e. on the first $100K), meaning earning $500K or $5M per year gives the same tax burden? Nobody would vote for such a tax regime. That's why we don't have it. Your idea idea that there is a ruling class ("dynasty like Rothschild etc") that can do whatever they want is simply not true. The country is much more democratic than that. I might as well suggest that there is a secret absolute dictator who can do whatever they want. (Also not true.) I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's pretty obvious there isn't a ruling class even close to being able to set tax rates for themselves - or they would do so. Why do you think they don't? They can't.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- quickben 9y ago
  So, purely for entertainment, how much money one needs, on a population on a billion in developed countries, to influence the democratically elected leaders in 20 countries?
  - laythea 9y ago
    A lot.
    - clock_tower 9y ago
      Also a lot of tact. If you just leave a check on somebody's desk, you're calling him a crook, and few crooks enjoy being called crooks; it works better to hire a politician for a speech somewhere, or offer him a seat on a board of directors or a well-paid job with a charity when he leaves office, or put in a word on his children's behalf with the director of an exclusive private school, or something like that... The Saudis make an absolute art form of this, acting as a patron to the whole of DC. There are some memorable books about this. There's an old folk belief in the Anglosphere, that the rich are less corruptible than the poor. (In 16th-century England, the legal definition of "an honest man" was one who had an income from land and investments of ten pounds or more: maybe equivalent to $100,000-$400,000 today.) This belief isn't true, at least not most of the time; but the art of deniable bribery gives a hint of where it came from.
- logicfiction 9y ago
  I think it's more insidious than that. Of course it's not done on earned income. That would be too transparent for the general public to see. Instead you create a lot of financial instruments with varying degrees of complication that all have rules for avoiding taxation while still providing yields. Even better if it takes expensive and exclusive accountants and lawyers to conceive, establish, and protect these. This way you get to give appearance of the wealthy doing their part in a progressive tax while really only subjecting a small or zero amount of their wealth to it.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
I like what you are saying a lot. But I really dislike that you sign your posts.
- laythea 9y ago
  I'm interested why that disturbs you?
  - cr1895 9y ago
    I personally couldn't care less, but it is contrary to HN guidelines: "Please don't sign comments; they're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - laythea 9y ago
      oh - thanks.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
clock_tower 9y ago
But remember where democracy came from: the no-aristocracy, one-man-one-vote model of democracy is primarily a child of the French Revolution. (The US revolution created a cozy oligarchy, complete with property qualifications; democratization came later.) Prior to that revolution, the only way to join the French aristocracy was to be the child of an aristocrat; no amount of amassed wealth could make you noble, and the French aristocracy had even persuaded themselves that they were biologically superior to the commoners. (Hitler and Himmler really liked that notion; they even envisioned turning the SS into a new ruling aristocracy, not least for France.) The French Revolution blew the lid off all this, and made it possible for earning wealth -- in one generation or several -- to be enough to rise in station. This was always possible in England, and this is probably why the UK has never had a French-style revolution: no "insurgent elites," no men and women frozen out of the circles of power despite being qualified to enter. So democracy isn't a sham; or, at least, it wasn't originally one. There was a time when all of the factions you describe -- working stiffs, professional politicians, and the ultra-rich (especially rich Jews!) -- were more or less genuinely oppressed, and settled on democracy as a solution that gave all parties at least some of what they wanted. (This assumes a traditional reading of the French Revolution, of course; I've seen a revisionist reading that it was the work of a small elite that never enjoyed popular support. But I'm skeptical of this; if popular sentiment was really anti-Revolutionary, why did France have so many more republics?)

logicallee 9y ago

EDIT: you updated your comment considerably since my reply! The below was a reply to a simpler version of the parent comment. I don't disagree with what you've just written. - Before edit: - So why don't the ruling rich make it so that up to $100,000 everyone pays under the current tax regime, but any income over $100k is taxed at 0% (since you've already fully paid your share to the country, i.e. on the first $100K), meaning earning $500K or $5M per year gives the same tax burden? Nobody would vote for such a tax regime. That's why we don't have it. Your idea idea that there is a ruling class ("dynasty like Rothschild etc") that can do whatever they want is simply not true. The country is much more democratic than that. I might as well suggest that there is a secret absolute dictator who can do whatever they want. (Also not true.) I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's pretty obvious there isn't a ruling class even close to being able to set tax rates for themselves - or they would do so. Why do you think they don't? They can't.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
quickben 9y ago
So, purely for entertainment, how much money one needs, on a population on a billion in developed countries, to influence the democratically elected leaders in 20 countries?
- laythea 9y ago
  A lot.
  - clock_tower 9y ago
    Also a lot of tact. If you just leave a check on somebody's desk, you're calling him a crook, and few crooks enjoy being called crooks; it works better to hire a politician for a speech somewhere, or offer him a seat on a board of directors or a well-paid job with a charity when he leaves office, or put in a word on his children's behalf with the director of an exclusive private school, or something like that... The Saudis make an absolute art form of this, acting as a patron to the whole of DC. There are some memorable books about this. There's an old folk belief in the Anglosphere, that the rich are less corruptible than the poor. (In 16th-century England, the legal definition of "an honest man" was one who had an income from land and investments of ten pounds or more: maybe equivalent to $100,000-$400,000 today.) This belief isn't true, at least not most of the time; but the art of deniable bribery gives a hint of where it came from.
logicfiction 9y ago
I think it's more insidious than that. Of course it's not done on earned income. That would be too transparent for the general public to see. Instead you create a lot of financial instruments with varying degrees of complication that all have rules for avoiding taxation while still providing yields. Even better if it takes expensive and exclusive accountants and lawyers to conceive, establish, and protect these. This way you get to give appearance of the wealthy doing their part in a progressive tax while really only subjecting a small or zero amount of their wealth to it.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago

I like what you are saying a lot. But I really dislike that you sign your posts.

laythea 9y ago
I'm interested why that disturbs you?
- cr1895 9y ago
  I personally couldn't care less, but it is contrary to HN guidelines: "Please don't sign comments; they're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - laythea 9y ago
    oh - thanks.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

clock_tower 9y ago

But remember where democracy came from: the no-aristocracy, one-man-one-vote model of democracy is primarily a child of the French Revolution. (The US revolution created a cozy oligarchy, complete with property qualifications; democratization came later.) Prior to that revolution, the only way to join the French aristocracy was to be the child of an aristocrat; no amount of amassed wealth could make you noble, and the French aristocracy had even persuaded themselves that they were biologically superior to the commoners. (Hitler and Himmler really liked that notion; they even envisioned turning the SS into a new ruling aristocracy, not least for France.) The French Revolution blew the lid off all this, and made it possible for earning wealth -- in one generation or several -- to be enough to rise in station. This was always possible in England, and this is probably why the UK has never had a French-style revolution: no "insurgent elites," no men and women frozen out of the circles of power despite being qualified to enter. So democracy isn't a sham; or, at least, it wasn't originally one. There was a time when all of the factions you describe -- working stiffs, professional politicians, and the ultra-rich (especially rich Jews!) -- were more or less genuinely oppressed, and settled on democracy as a solution that gave all parties at least some of what they wanted. (This assumes a traditional reading of the French Revolution, of course; I've seen a revisionist reading that it was the work of a small elite that never enjoyed popular support. But I'm skeptical of this; if popular sentiment was really anti-Revolutionary, why did France have so many more republics?)