3 ms·

The topic of the OP is abusing ones outsized financial power to thwart the democratic process. I am fine with either cause you focus on, both are important. I

The topic of the OP is abusing ones outsized financial power to thwart the democratic process. I am fine with either cause you focus on, both are important. I do not disagree with your post, but imho I propose to take another angle. > But in a representative democracy you don't normally cast an official vote yourself True, 1. so what you need is *information*. Here you need an independent press, to give accurate information on what is happening and how the different political parties/representatives conduct themself. The press in the USA is an oligarch party. They fail to inform, to weed out marketing from content. Circus sells better than information, outrage content is more lucrative than facts and research. The editorial boards are directed by commercial ownership. 2. so what you need is *independent representatives*. You think about people like Musk having more time to persuade a representative. Here might be a misunderstanding. You are not rich if you can buy four sports cars and a big mansion. You are rich when you can *buy your representatives*. There are lots people looking for upward mobility, be it in institutions, the judicial system or in political parties. You sponsor a career. There is a way out of this doom loop, but it can't do without erecting those two pillars. If corporate media distorts reality, you have to go grassroots to spread information. That is *the power of democracy*: people taking initiative on their own.

9rx 2y ago
> The topic of the OP is abusing ones outsized financial power to thwart the democratic process. As the topic progressed, it was brought up that a functioning democracy has "way less" income inequality. Which is where I asked if there is really that much income inequality as-is? In most places, the US included, there is a strong disincentive to have an income, and especially a high income. It is surprising to me that income inequality might be that far out of whack because of that. There are one-time income windfalls, like the sale of a high value asset, or winning the lottery. Hence how 20% of the population can, somewhat counterintuitively, be in the top 1%. But I am not sure that is in line with the intent of the comment. If everyone got a chance to have one year with a $100 million dollar income, but otherwise only make $30,000, you would have very high income inequality on a single year basis, but in the end everyone would make the same amount. I am not sure that would impact democracy like one person making $100 million each year with everyone else making $30,000 each year. > I propose to take another angle. It seems to me that angle was already taken, and was already discussed to death before I showed up. I find this topic to be far more interesting, and one that we have barely just scratched the surface of, leaving no reason to pack up and find a new topic. There is no obligation for you to participate if you do not find it interesting in kind, of course, but I do not see the value in taking another angle out of the blue without natural emergence.
- exceptione 2y ago
  > As the topic progressed, it was brought up that a functioning democracy has "way less" income inequality. I brought it up, but should have said wealth inequality to avoid any technicalities. The fish we are talking about have the means to move the nets like they want, so for our subject is does not even matter. Democratic societies with an educated populace, with access to health care, equal rights and a functioning judicial system usually have less anomalies in wealth distribution too. Kleptocracies usually have an extremely rich but small elite, and a poor populace that have less access to education, health and rights. That's all. But as a bonus: the gdp/pp is higher in democratic societies than in kleptocracies. But that is another topic.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > but should have said wealth inequality to avoid any technicalities. But that would be an entirely different discussion, and one not particularly interesting as the wealth inequality impact is much more clear. Regardless of how we landed here, we did, and I think it is an interesting topic that is worth diving into. You must agree, given your continued participation?

9rx 2y ago

> The topic of the OP is abusing ones outsized financial power to thwart the democratic process. As the topic progressed, it was brought up that a functioning democracy has "way less" income inequality. Which is where I asked if there is really that much income inequality as-is? In most places, the US included, there is a strong disincentive to have an income, and especially a high income. It is surprising to me that income inequality might be that far out of whack because of that. There are one-time income windfalls, like the sale of a high value asset, or winning the lottery. Hence how 20% of the population can, somewhat counterintuitively, be in the top 1%. But I am not sure that is in line with the intent of the comment. If everyone got a chance to have one year with a $100 million dollar income, but otherwise only make $30,000, you would have very high income inequality on a single year basis, but in the end everyone would make the same amount. I am not sure that would impact democracy like one person making $100 million each year with everyone else making $30,000 each year. > I propose to take another angle. It seems to me that angle was already taken, and was already discussed to death before I showed up. I find this topic to be far more interesting, and one that we have barely just scratched the surface of, leaving no reason to pack up and find a new topic. There is no obligation for you to participate if you do not find it interesting in kind, of course, but I do not see the value in taking another angle out of the blue without natural emergence.

exceptione 2y ago
> As the topic progressed, it was brought up that a functioning democracy has "way less" income inequality. I brought it up, but should have said wealth inequality to avoid any technicalities. The fish we are talking about have the means to move the nets like they want, so for our subject is does not even matter. Democratic societies with an educated populace, with access to health care, equal rights and a functioning judicial system usually have less anomalies in wealth distribution too. Kleptocracies usually have an extremely rich but small elite, and a poor populace that have less access to education, health and rights. That's all. But as a bonus: the gdp/pp is higher in democratic societies than in kleptocracies. But that is another topic.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > but should have said wealth inequality to avoid any technicalities. But that would be an entirely different discussion, and one not particularly interesting as the wealth inequality impact is much more clear. Regardless of how we landed here, we did, and I think it is an interesting topic that is worth diving into. You must agree, given your continued participation?