Post by Malcolm McMahon Post by MarkA
On Mon, 21 May 2018 10:30:37 -0700, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
A newly established political system has to follow and serve the truth
of God in order to replace the old and outdated political system that
has failed to serve the truth. That was how our modern day political
system established itself to gain legitimacy. Without being justified
by the truth, no political system or ideology would gain popularity.
Democracy is more popular among the rich than the poor. Kind of a paradox.
Speaking from the perspective of someone born and raised in the USA, the
USA was founded by people who rejected monarchies, and established a
democratic form of government.
A more democratic form of government than the UK of the mid-to-late
18th century was, but it was always a "mixed constitution." The
reason people squabble over "The US is a democracy" v "The US is a republic"
is because it was always, from the Constitutional Convention on, meant to
be a republic with democratic elements, but ones restrained by a
constitutional order. The Convention occurred in the aftermath of
state governments under the Articles getting a little "too democratic"
for the men who set about first amending, then replacing the AoC.
Consider Shay's Rebellion:
There had been a spate of laws on the state level promoting
debt relief, and there was a fear than unchecked democracy
would, at the extreme, redistribute property from those with
it, to those without.
Some would day this is what the income tax does, now.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The founding fathers too were rich.
Post by MarkA
Evolution being what it is, the
wealthiest figured out how to manipulate the system in their favor, so we
now have a system where the ultra-wealthy are reaping huge profits,
everyone else is just squeeking by, and the voters are pawns in a game
they don't even know is being played.
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are
putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. -- Mark Twain
Which shows this is hardly a novel situation.
When you look at the figures it's actually the relative equality of the 20th century which is out of line. Wealth in most of the West is actually less concentrated now than it was at the start of the 20th century. Yes, it's getting more concentrated, but from a historically low level.
The seem to be two primary reasons for the relative equality in the middle of the 20th. The shocks of the great depression and the two world wars, and redistribution through progressive taxation.
Ford/Taylor probably contributed by sparking off the virtuous circle of mass production and mass consumption.
All these factors are now on the wain.
It's useless to blame rapacious capitalism. Capitalism is no more rapacious than its always been; government no more corrupted by it. Capitalism is, believe it or not, a big improvement one what went before.
Comparing our current economic situation to the years just after WWII
is always an unfortunate benchmark. Most of the US's international
trade competitors and partners were either destroyed by the war or
severely weakened by it. Paradoxically, Germany and Japan, who lost,
rebuilt themselves into more modern, higher tech societies than the
UK, which won, but nearly exhausted itself in so doing. It was only
natural that US % of world production would decline as the rest of the
world rebuilt from the devastation of WWII.
Distribution of wealth and income equality/inequality is only one
measure of how an economy is doing, and far from the most important
one. What about the standard of living of the poorest people, of the
folks who work, but make the least? Of those with median incomes?
If those are high, in comparison to other countries, who cares if
the rich are ultra-rich? If the average Joe and/or Jane can't find
employment that allows them more than a subsistence lifestyle, then
the country has a problem. I'm assuming we are talking about people
who are healthy enough to work, and aren't alcoholics or drug addicts,
or developmentally disabled.*
I really don't care how much money Warren Buffet has, or Bill Gates
has. I actually am glad Elon Musk has made a pile, because he is
using it to build infrastructure that could conceivably be of great
benefit to humanity. But even if he "wasted" it on wine, women
and song, it's his money, he made it, and the vintners and musicians
and party girls will get paid, and then they'll invest the dough or
squander it as they please.
* Even though organizations like Goodwill often place people with
DD diagnoses and they can be very good workers.