3 ms·

One "problem" with western liberal democracies is that the billionaires are not tied to the land. This means that they are less concerned about the future of an

One "problem" with western liberal democracies is that the billionaires are not tied to the land. This means that they are less concerned about the future of any one particular country. They can just relocate with ease. It also makes them less likely to invest considerable time and effort in trying to shape any one particular country because some other faction might take over power in a few years and all their work will be lost. This is in contrast with countries like China where the CCP oligarchs are more or less tied to their country. That is the so called technocracy. It is not that they are any better than western billionaires. They just have no choice but to ensure the future stability of the only country in which the can retain their high status. Now, I say "problem" because do we really want to recreate a new aristocracy?

simonsarris 8y ago
What's wrong with aristocracy? It seems like we have not rid ourselves of a single problem that old aristocratic societies had, we only got rid of the benefits and then kept all the bad parts. Today's rich are not bound by any noblesse oblige, their money can more than ever exclusively benefit far-off places. Instead of building Rome or adding more beauty to Paris, they build gated communities. In patronizing art they tend to only flatter each other, it seems, (though maybe the art world of early Florence or Amsterdam were just as much "insider" art scenes, I don't know.) Beautiful things, especially beautiful cities, are not built anymore. Anything built that might benefit the middle class or lower is totally stripped, economized away. Most beautiful things (buildings, plazas) in cities were built long before high tax rates existed. Politics is still run by rich families (Bush, Kennedy, Clinton in the US) or rich businessmen (Trump, Bloomberg). Power is still held by the nobility, its just that the nobility is not held to any standards and barely cares for the country they reside in, beyond their gates.
- lumberjack 8y ago
  We got rid of a lot of "bad parts". For example we got rid of institutionalized classism whereby certain stations in society were reserved for nobles and royals. And one other thing facet to think about is that "avoiding collapse" is not necessarily the same as progress. These new aristocrats may decide to give everyone just the very minimum to get by, leaving the masses in a sort of limbo. And then that defeats the whole point of capitalism; the individual is not longer in control of their destiny.
analog31 8y ago
If they aren't creating jobs or otherwise stimulating prosperity, would it be a great loss if they relocated to somewhere else? Due to their political influence, their net impact on society may be negative.
- lumberjack 8y ago
  What I am saying is that because they do not care, they stop society from dealing with these problems until it is too late. Climate change is the obvious example.
  - codebje 8y ago
    Climate change is a global problem, so you cannot move countries to escape it. The best you can plan for is to move to minimise its impact on you personally for as long as possible, which is fine if you only expect to live another 30-50 years and don't give a crap about the next generations.

simonsarris 8y ago

What's wrong with aristocracy? It seems like we have not rid ourselves of a single problem that old aristocratic societies had, we only got rid of the benefits and then kept all the bad parts. Today's rich are not bound by any noblesse oblige, their money can more than ever exclusively benefit far-off places. Instead of building Rome or adding more beauty to Paris, they build gated communities. In patronizing art they tend to only flatter each other, it seems, (though maybe the art world of early Florence or Amsterdam were just as much "insider" art scenes, I don't know.) Beautiful things, especially beautiful cities, are not built anymore. Anything built that might benefit the middle class or lower is totally stripped, economized away. Most beautiful things (buildings, plazas) in cities were built long before high tax rates existed. Politics is still run by rich families (Bush, Kennedy, Clinton in the US) or rich businessmen (Trump, Bloomberg). Power is still held by the nobility, its just that the nobility is not held to any standards and barely cares for the country they reside in, beyond their gates.

lumberjack 8y ago
We got rid of a lot of "bad parts". For example we got rid of institutionalized classism whereby certain stations in society were reserved for nobles and royals. And one other thing facet to think about is that "avoiding collapse" is not necessarily the same as progress. These new aristocrats may decide to give everyone just the very minimum to get by, leaving the masses in a sort of limbo. And then that defeats the whole point of capitalism; the individual is not longer in control of their destiny.

analog31 8y ago

If they aren't creating jobs or otherwise stimulating prosperity, would it be a great loss if they relocated to somewhere else? Due to their political influence, their net impact on society may be negative.

lumberjack 8y ago
What I am saying is that because they do not care, they stop society from dealing with these problems until it is too late. Climate change is the obvious example.
- codebje 8y ago
  Climate change is a global problem, so you cannot move countries to escape it. The best you can plan for is to move to minimise its impact on you personally for as long as possible, which is fine if you only expect to live another 30-50 years and don't give a crap about the next generations.