4 ms·

> Inequality causes dangerous levels of political instability Does it? I think that's just a hypothesis. I haven't seen any careful research justifying it. It

> Inequality causes dangerous levels of political instability Does it? I think that's just a hypothesis. I haven't seen any careful research justifying it. It is clear that when people are literally starving, instability results. But that isn't the same as inequality. Remember that Hillary lost the election despite outspending Trump 2:1. We still live in a democracy, 1 man 1 vote.

TomMckenny 8y ago
>I haven't seen any careful research justifying it. You can literally google it and find an innumerable number of papers. Here's one[1] with over 3,000 citations. >We still live in a democracy, 1 man 1 vote. You do know she won a majority of votes cast. More votes than Bush beat Kerry. More than well loved Kennedy beat Nixon who ended up resigning rather than be impeached. Even more than Gore beat Bush. So more of a flawed democracy[2] with 1 man, 1-ish vote [1]https://www.nber.org/papers/w4486 https://www.nber.org/papers/w4486 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  From your cite: "As a consequence, income inequality and investment are inversely related." And yet, investment in America has never been higher. Prosperity is up, unemployment is at very low levels, employment of minorities is at record levels. As for the Electoral College system, that's been around since the US was founded. We've always had a republic. It's irrelevant, anyway, since rich people don't have any more votes than poor people. There was little to no evidence of voter fraud in the last election.
  - andrekandre 8y ago
    > It's irrelevant, anyway, since rich people don't have any more votes than poor people. no, but they do have more money, which, thanks to citizens united equals more speech (money equals free speech) so, iow, they don’t need to vote, just use thier resources to conveniently/trick/extol others to vote the way they want... nice little workaround they found...

TomMckenny 8y ago

>I haven't seen any careful research justifying it. You can literally google it and find an innumerable number of papers. Here's one[1] with over 3,000 citations. >We still live in a democracy, 1 man 1 vote. You do know she won a majority of votes cast. More votes than Bush beat Kerry. More than well loved Kennedy beat Nixon who ended up resigning rather than be impeached. Even more than Gore beat Bush. So more of a flawed democracy[2] with 1 man, 1-ish vote [1]https://www.nber.org/papers/w4486 https://www.nber.org/papers/w4486 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

skookumchuck 8y ago
From your cite: "As a consequence, income inequality and investment are inversely related." And yet, investment in America has never been higher. Prosperity is up, unemployment is at very low levels, employment of minorities is at record levels. As for the Electoral College system, that's been around since the US was founded. We've always had a republic. It's irrelevant, anyway, since rich people don't have any more votes than poor people. There was little to no evidence of voter fraud in the last election.
- andrekandre 8y ago
  > It's irrelevant, anyway, since rich people don't have any more votes than poor people. no, but they do have more money, which, thanks to citizens united equals more speech (money equals free speech) so, iow, they don’t need to vote, just use thier resources to conveniently/trick/extol others to vote the way they want... nice little workaround they found...