>the political causes of the 1 percent’s rise are directly under the control of citizens.
Patently false. The political causes are directly under the control of the US state and federal legislatures, which are populated by whom?
Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top
141–144 of 144 posts
Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that a real problem? Seems like 5 richest US citizens own less than 0,5% of all US assets. I'd be lot more worried about organizations. JP Morgan chase and General Electric are not exactly democratic either. Both are way richer than Gates. And while church of latter day saints is not quite in the same league, it's incredibly wealthy and not at all democratic. If you assume that Gates foundation gets 5% profits and…
I'm not worried about it, i think its a problem. Also i think the power of companies is a problem too.
I think I have to learn this attitude. That every problem is in fact real, but problems are not equal in relevance. That's respecting people and their issues, while staying sane.
You should pick your battles. And the society should pick their battles. That way you get to have the cake and eat it too.
Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presuming you’re not trolling: take the implication of what you’re saying to it’s natural conclusion (no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc) and explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four? In my view, there should be some correlation between hard work, smarts and financial outcome that isn’t entirely determined at birth.
> Presuming you’re not trolling A rhetorical question isn't a troll. If someone is a troll, just flag them. > explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four As wealthy people die, they give their money to foundations and split it among their progeny and spouses. Some of them, it turns out, aren't great with money. The richest of the rich are no longer Carnegie, Rockefeller, or Weyerhä…
I guess I don’t understand why smart people, like you seem to be, would want to design a system that inherently rewards nepotism instead of one that rewards innovation in the present.
Your system of “natural” fortune spreading was the default for all time until the modern welfare state came along. That’s what you want to return to? Hope that stupidity somehow spreads wealth the best?
Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's likely nothing nefarious It's legal because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but I hope that, before the Koch brothers pass away, we'll see a constitutional amendment overturning this egregious decision. The idea that money = speech is toxic to democracy.
So, what makes newspaper exempt from this? They can publish opinion pieces on who to support, and they are spending a lot of money in producing newspaper. Surely that _should_ violate McCain-Feingold? Except it didn't, because there was a special exemption for media. What makes that fair? Let's say I'm an individual, and I support Santa Claus for president. But I'm also a famous personality, and I spend a million dol…
It's never been illegal in the US to support an issue to the fullest extent of your financial capabilities. You can make statements into a public forum with your every last dollar.
It had been, for decades, illegal for one person to support one specific candidate/campaign. It was never quite enforced such that it made a huge difference (shell companies, PACs, etc make it easy to skirt rules and funnel campaign support) and candidates get progressively better at asking for "support" without actually making the tit-for-tat which moves it from the "lobbying" arena to "bribery".
Also, IIRC that ruling established the precedent needed for SuperPACs and moved the individual contribution threshold.