8 ms·

Money and power can both be squandered and wasted with little effort. To the extent that democracy has reduced the longevity of power (compared to e.g. monarch

Money and power can both be squandered and wasted with little effort. To the extent that democracy has reduced the longevity of power (compared to e.g. monarchy or theocracy) it acts much like inflation does for money—if you don’t want your asset to devalue in real terms, you need to invest it. (Or you can hack the system and find vulnerabilities. Right now it seems like a few politicians have worked out the power equivalent of the get rich quick scam...)

coldtea 7y ago
>To the extent that democracy has reduced the longevity of power (compared to e.g. monarchy or theocracy) It just gives it a new public facade every 4-5 years. Those in power remain the same...
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > Those in power remain the same This is demonstrably false, at least in American politics. The inter-generational transmission of wealth and power had a half life of, at my last reading, about 1.5 generations. In Sweden, for instance, about 70% of information gets lost in each generation [1]. After a couple generations, the effect tends to disappear. Expecting power dynamics to shift every 5 years is silly. People build life-long relationships. And someone good at leading when 35 is probably still good at 45. [1] https://voxeu.org/article/drivers-wealth-persistence-across-generations https://voxeu.org/article/drivers-wealth-persistence-across-...
  - js8 7y ago
    It's also the reason why there is much power in money (in Western societies) - the other venues of power (such as hereditary privilege or religion or mercenaries) have been closed.
  - jammygit 7y ago
    This sounded very interesting, so I looked it up. It seems that Sweden during that time seems to have had a 30-70% inheritance tax, depending on the year. That accounts for a loss of 70% of wealth pretty neatly. https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-disastrous-inheritance-tax https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-di... Please correct me if I missed something in my haste
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      The study’s data span multiple inheritance-tax regimes. The results are robust beyond the (since expired) tax.
  - sooheon 7y ago
    Interesting to see those stats, but you also see the same family names in politics over and over again (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy...). I could grant that information loss for the population as a whole, and still also recognize that dynasties exist at extremes (Rothschild?). All the "regular people" could be in a flux of wealth gain and loss, and the true upper crust could also be very good at holding on to power. Your link doesn't demonstrate the falsity of this hypothesis.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - plorkyeran 7y ago
      The Bush and Kennedy families are currently four-generation political dynasties, while Clinton is a single generation. That'd be a very low upper limit compared to most of history if it does turn out to be an upper limit, but of course there's no way for us to know now if the current generation will also be the final one.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        You need to add the influence those families play in local (e.g. state and city) politics, how they intermarry and extend their reach, how extended family (e.g. different-surname cousins) hold political roles and help each other out into power, and so on. Even going strictly for families: (...) "my research has thus far identified 167 families with members elected to public office for at least three consecutive generations. Twenty-two families have had at least four consecutive generations elected to public office, while four families – Bachhuber/Doyle, Cocke, Lee and Washburn – have had at least five generations." http://theconversation.com/family-ties-why-political-dynasties-rule-in-americas-democracy-36487 http://theconversation.com/family-ties-why-political-dynasti...
        sooheon 7y ago
        Thanks for this and the other links. Does make me wonder whether nepotism or brand recognition plays the bigger role. The more things are accounted for by the latter, the more I want to chalk this up to democracies getting the leaders they deserve, no more.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >This is demonstrably false, at least in American politics. The inter-generational transmission of wealth and power had a half life of, at my last reading, about 1.5 generations. If you mean the public faces of politics (or the "who is who" in CEOs and such), sure. But you don't mean that ultra rich upper class families lose their power in 1.5 generations? http://theconversation.com/family-ties-why-political-dynasties-rule-in-americas-democracy-36487 http://theconversation.com/family-ties-why-political-dynasti... https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/41375_3.pdf https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/4137... https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-most-influential-political-families-ranked-adams-clintons-kennedys-bushes-2018-12#2-the-kennedys-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-most-influential-po... Or internationally: https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14...

coldtea 7y ago

>To the extent that democracy has reduced the longevity of power (compared to e.g. monarchy or theocracy) It just gives it a new public facade every 4-5 years. Those in power remain the same...

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Those in power remain the same This is demonstrably false, at least in American politics. The inter-generational transmission of wealth and power had a half life of, at my last reading, about 1.5 generations. In Sweden, for instance, about 70% of information gets lost in each generation [1]. After a couple generations, the effect tends to disappear. Expecting power dynamics to shift every 5 years is silly. People build life-long relationships. And someone good at leading when 35 is probably still good at 45. [1] https://voxeu.org/article/drivers-wealth-persistence-across-generations https://voxeu.org/article/drivers-wealth-persistence-across-...
- js8 7y ago
  It's also the reason why there is much power in money (in Western societies) - the other venues of power (such as hereditary privilege or religion or mercenaries) have been closed.
- jammygit 7y ago
  This sounded very interesting, so I looked it up. It seems that Sweden during that time seems to have had a 30-70% inheritance tax, depending on the year. That accounts for a loss of 70% of wealth pretty neatly. https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-disastrous-inheritance-tax https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-di... Please correct me if I missed something in my haste
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    The study’s data span multiple inheritance-tax regimes. The results are robust beyond the (since expired) tax.
- sooheon 7y ago
  Interesting to see those stats, but you also see the same family names in politics over and over again (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy...). I could grant that information loss for the population as a whole, and still also recognize that dynasties exist at extremes (Rothschild?). All the "regular people" could be in a flux of wealth gain and loss, and the true upper crust could also be very good at holding on to power. Your link doesn't demonstrate the falsity of this hypothesis.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - plorkyeran 7y ago
    The Bush and Kennedy families are currently four-generation political dynasties, while Clinton is a single generation. That'd be a very low upper limit compared to most of history if it does turn out to be an upper limit, but of course there's no way for us to know now if the current generation will also be the final one.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      You need to add the influence those families play in local (e.g. state and city) politics, how they intermarry and extend their reach, how extended family (e.g. different-surname cousins) hold political roles and help each other out into power, and so on. Even going strictly for families: (...) "my research has thus far identified 167 families with members elected to public office for at least three consecutive generations. Twenty-two families have had at least four consecutive generations elected to public office, while four families – Bachhuber/Doyle, Cocke, Lee and Washburn – have had at least five generations." http://theconversation.com/family-ties-why-political-dynasties-rule-in-americas-democracy-36487 http://theconversation.com/family-ties-why-political-dynasti...
      - sooheon 7y ago
        Thanks for this and the other links. Does make me wonder whether nepotism or brand recognition plays the bigger role. The more things are accounted for by the latter, the more I want to chalk this up to democracies getting the leaders they deserve, no more.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >This is demonstrably false, at least in American politics. The inter-generational transmission of wealth and power had a half life of, at my last reading, about 1.5 generations. If you mean the public faces of politics (or the "who is who" in CEOs and such), sure. But you don't mean that ultra rich upper class families lose their power in 1.5 generations? http://theconversation.com/family-ties-why-political-dynasties-rule-in-americas-democracy-36487 http://theconversation.com/family-ties-why-political-dynasti... https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/41375_3.pdf https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/4137... https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-most-influential-political-families-ranked-adams-clintons-kennedys-bushes-2018-12#2-the-kennedys-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-most-influential-po... Or internationally: https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14...