6 ms·

What will prevent the mega-corps from trample democracy? Do we have to trust the wealthiest 1% to be ethical? Or should we tax the 1% percent until it becomes,

What will prevent the mega-corps from trample democracy? Do we have to trust the wealthiest 1% to be ethical? Or should we tax the 1% percent until it becomes, say, 5% - "decentralized" enough to keep democracy in the safe zone?

scarface74 8y ago
Between worrying about private companies trampling democracy and the politicians themselves - gerrymandering, voter suppression, insecure voting machines, etc., I’m much more worried about the politicians.
- rectang 8y ago
  The two problems are one and the same. Massive disparities of wealth create massive disparities of political power. Concentrated wealth then funds political efforts to keep their bought-and-paid-for politicians in office.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Consolidating of political power through gerrymandering has way more to do with ideology. Republicans can cater to business interests and throw a few bones at the populists and “the moral majority”. Democrats - especially Black politicians - also like gerrymandering because while it dilutes the power of minorities in the overall federal government by putting all of thier votes in one district, it keeps the politicians that are elected by the big cities in power. (Before anyone replies about me being racist - I’m Black.)
    - rectang 8y ago
      Regardless of ideology, our representatives are reliant on campaign contributions. (Obama was famously friendly to Big Finance.) Especially after Citizens United, concentrated wealth disproportionately impacts governance.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        No matter how much financial backing Obama got, he was never going to convince people in the rural south to vote for “an America hating, secret Muslim, that was trying to bring Sharia Law to the United States” (please note sarcasm). As the last Presidential Election proved, not only was Trunp outspent by Clinton, he was also outspent by his Republican primary opponents. But he won anyway. The country is so idealogically divided, once the general election happens, really the only thing that matters is turnout and which side is angrier.
        rectang 8y ago
        PAC money can be spent on ground game, which feeds turnout. I agree that there is a deep cultural canyon dividing the country right now. However, the need for funding to keep up with the competition limits what representatives can achieve. It is in this context that the lobbying of the finance industry (for example, but many others) finds receptive congress critters from both parties. For instance, there were a handful of Senate Democrats who voted in favor of a bill to weaken Dodd-Frank back in March. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/07/elizabeth-warren-democrats-crapo-bank-deregulation-bill https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/07/elizabeth-wa... I suspect that Obama would have preferred to do more to rein in Big Finance, but felt he could not.
nobody271 8y ago
Just taxing the 1% will have complicated economic consequences, won't it? That is, it's more of a knee jerk reaction than anything. Taxes go up, GDP goes down, and that effects the poor. I don't think we really live in what people think of as "America" anymore. We're all still attached to these old ideas but in reality it's a lot different. You know, it's time to recompile and see what's broke.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Taxes go up, GDP goes down [citation needed] > and that effects the poor. Even if it did happen, and did effect the poor, there's nothing to say the net effect is negative. GDP and the condition of the poor have no necessary relationship; you have to consider distribution as well as aggregate level. > I don't think we really live in what people think of as "America" anymore What does that even mean? > We're all still attached to these old ideas but in reality it's a lot different. What old ideas? What's different? > You know, it's time to recompile and see what's broke. That metaphor doesn't make any sense in this context.
  - nobody271 8y ago
    > [citation needed] A high school understanding of economics, any book on the subject, or a google search. > Even if it did happen, and did effect the poor, there's nothing to say the net effect is negative. GDP and the condition of the poor have no necessary relationship; you have to consider distribution as well as aggregate level. Yeah, it's complicated. That's why a simple solution like "tax the 1%" might not be a good idea. > What does that even mean? It means times change. > What old ideas? What's different? You're kind of getting on my nerves. > That metaphor doesn't make any sense in this context. Have a good day.
paulddraper 8y ago
What will prevent the 99% from "trample democracy" against the the rights of the 1%?

scarface74 8y ago

Between worrying about private companies trampling democracy and the politicians themselves - gerrymandering, voter suppression, insecure voting machines, etc., I’m much more worried about the politicians.

rectang 8y ago
The two problems are one and the same. Massive disparities of wealth create massive disparities of political power. Concentrated wealth then funds political efforts to keep their bought-and-paid-for politicians in office.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Consolidating of political power through gerrymandering has way more to do with ideology. Republicans can cater to business interests and throw a few bones at the populists and “the moral majority”. Democrats - especially Black politicians - also like gerrymandering because while it dilutes the power of minorities in the overall federal government by putting all of thier votes in one district, it keeps the politicians that are elected by the big cities in power. (Before anyone replies about me being racist - I’m Black.)
  - rectang 8y ago
    Regardless of ideology, our representatives are reliant on campaign contributions. (Obama was famously friendly to Big Finance.) Especially after Citizens United, concentrated wealth disproportionately impacts governance.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      No matter how much financial backing Obama got, he was never going to convince people in the rural south to vote for “an America hating, secret Muslim, that was trying to bring Sharia Law to the United States” (please note sarcasm). As the last Presidential Election proved, not only was Trunp outspent by Clinton, he was also outspent by his Republican primary opponents. But he won anyway. The country is so idealogically divided, once the general election happens, really the only thing that matters is turnout and which side is angrier.
      - rectang 8y ago
        PAC money can be spent on ground game, which feeds turnout. I agree that there is a deep cultural canyon dividing the country right now. However, the need for funding to keep up with the competition limits what representatives can achieve. It is in this context that the lobbying of the finance industry (for example, but many others) finds receptive congress critters from both parties. For instance, there were a handful of Senate Democrats who voted in favor of a bill to weaken Dodd-Frank back in March. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/07/elizabeth-warren-democrats-crapo-bank-deregulation-bill https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/07/elizabeth-wa... I suspect that Obama would have preferred to do more to rein in Big Finance, but felt he could not.

nobody271 8y ago

Just taxing the 1% will have complicated economic consequences, won't it? That is, it's more of a knee jerk reaction than anything. Taxes go up, GDP goes down, and that effects the poor. I don't think we really live in what people think of as "America" anymore. We're all still attached to these old ideas but in reality it's a lot different. You know, it's time to recompile and see what's broke.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Taxes go up, GDP goes down [citation needed] > and that effects the poor. Even if it did happen, and did effect the poor, there's nothing to say the net effect is negative. GDP and the condition of the poor have no necessary relationship; you have to consider distribution as well as aggregate level. > I don't think we really live in what people think of as "America" anymore What does that even mean? > We're all still attached to these old ideas but in reality it's a lot different. What old ideas? What's different? > You know, it's time to recompile and see what's broke. That metaphor doesn't make any sense in this context.
- nobody271 8y ago
  > [citation needed] A high school understanding of economics, any book on the subject, or a google search. > Even if it did happen, and did effect the poor, there's nothing to say the net effect is negative. GDP and the condition of the poor have no necessary relationship; you have to consider distribution as well as aggregate level. Yeah, it's complicated. That's why a simple solution like "tax the 1%" might not be a good idea. > What does that even mean? It means times change. > What old ideas? What's different? You're kind of getting on my nerves. > That metaphor doesn't make any sense in this context. Have a good day.

paulddraper 8y ago

What will prevent the 99% from "trample democracy" against the the rights of the 1%?