There’s nothing “vague” about it; someone with billions of dollars has far more influence over the government and far more non-government power than someone with only thousands of dollars. And why should they be allowed to trample over others because they are rich?
. . . he should go through his laundry hamper and check all his pants pockets.
But again, money isn’t the only path to political power. If the end result of reducing inequality was more of a voice for the average person, it might be a worthy goal. But the average person would still be right where they were before, while the influence of various groups and individuals who do not rely on money would increase. Gates loses power, Ailes gains. the Kochs lose, David Axelrod gains.
It’s the most important one by far.
I don’t know about that. Seems that it’s more personal relationships that matter in politics, which is why the big money guys love to hire former legislators to lobby.
Either way, it’s not something one can prove.
Not really a good argument. Those former legislators aren’t advancing their own views; they’re advancing the views of the rich men who employ them.
It’s like arguing that Rolls Royces aren’t just a rich man’s car because chauffeurs drive them too.
You get away from me with your heathen math!
However, those former legislators would have outsized influence even if they weren’t sock puppets, and sure enough when they are acting in their own interests they get a lot more face time than you or I would. I was just observing that rich folks recognize that personal relationships matter more than mere money, which is why they spend so much time hobnobbing. And if they don’t have a personal connection with a particular legislator, they hire someone he or she does know to talk to them.
No, that is what he fondly thinks he is going to show to be a mistake.
Imagine how much face time they’d get with their old friends if they weren’t handed out fat campaign contributions.
And if you take the money out of politics, you just empower the party functionaries, who already wield outsized power. And the media, who get to play kingmaker.
Everyone else would be better off by the amount we save by not paying it to Bill Gates: $477 million.
The party functionaries only have two bases for their power: control of finance and influence over voters. The former is just more evidence of the power of money.
And the latter is not a problem. There isn’t a problem with party functionaries being spokesmen for the voters - ideally, that’s what they would be all the time.
As for the media, I don’t think anyone’s naive enough to think they’re an independent voice. Like lobbyists, they’re just another tool used by people who are wealthy enough to own those kind of tools.
The model I was thinking of are left-wing dictatorships where the state controls most industries. Since money is no longer what buys influence, political loyalty substitutes. If more equal distribution of wealth meant more equal distribution of political power, we’d see such a phenomenon in places run under Marxist principles. But we don’t. Rather, power is held by the party hierarchy, not the people.
What makes Western systems preferable and more responsive to the public is the wider variety of paths to power and influence, whereas other forms of government generally only have one path. A better system yet would be one in which all voices were given equal weight, but that’s a problem the philosophers haven’t solved yet.
Why? The only choice isn’t between American style plutocracy and Communism; there’s many more choices of political systems. No one said anything about getting rid of democracy or state ownership of anything.
No, those aren’t the only choices, but those are the only real world examples. There are Western countries with less extreme wealth inequality, but we’re still talking pretty huge differences. And with that wealth comes political power. More political power, actually, because it’s possible for one company to control a small country’s economy. Ericsson’s capitalization for example is 10% of Swedish GDP. that’s power.
The other problem is that as wealth inequality decreases, it doesn’t empower the people. It just empowers the elite political class. Witness the EU, and how voters have just been bypassed time and time again ever since the fiscal crisis started. Or how the EU Commission wants to impose press controls because they are displeased with how the British press has covered their activities:
Angered by the British media’s coverage of Brussels, the European Commission says it wants to be a “moral compass” against press misconduct, seeking new national and Europe-wide regulatory powers over journalists.
The EU has spent £2.3 million on the previously unpublicised “Mediadem” project to “reclaim a free and independent media”. In a “policy brief” co-authored by its lead British researcher, Rachael Craufurd Smith, Mediadem says it is “simplistic” to “see state influence [over the press] as inherently stifling”
I also can’t help but notice that once the rich have been reduced as an influence, the political elite next turns to the press. It happened that way in Venezuela. First they went after great concentrations of wealth, then they sought to put private media opposed to that policy out of business by revoking their licenses.
The political class will always seek to accrue power to itself and will fight any other entity that can challenge it. They will even try to enlist public support to squelch alternative sources of power and influence.
I remember this Bill Gates joke:
“Bill Gates is fabulously wealthy with 10 billion dollars. But with that head of hair, he must think a decent haircut costs 11 billion.”
So, no more fancy stylists for Mr. Gates.
I can’t prove it, but after reading a few books on North Korea, I’m pretty sure their income inequality is even greater than ours. A lot of people live their whole lives in slave labor camps and never have any money – in theory, they don’t know what money is – so the ratio of income between the top couple of percent of the population, and the bottom, is infinite.
Real world examples of countries that combine high income inequality and high wealth inequality, are South Africa, Botswana, the US, and, of course, any country with slavery.
Looking at the Wikipedia charts*, real world examples of countries that have both high income equality and high wealth equality aren’t quite as easy to find (many are good on one but not the other. However, Finland and Norway are standouts on both.
As for how to improve the situation, I don’t know for sure. No one does. However, I don’t think it is a purely left/right issue.
My favorite idea for decreasing US income inequality is to discourage discrimination in employment against the 65 million Americans with criminal records. And then stop giving so many of them criminal records. And substitute rigorous probation for prison, especially for non-violent crime. If somebody blows off a probation appointment, track them down, and jail them for the weekend (without TV!) so they don’t lose their job.
And we do know some of what is needed to improve education. States should stop slashing aid to universities, and the feds need to stop the Head Start sequester. We need more government-supported job training.
More progressive taxation? Well, up to a point, I am for it. I’m especially for high taxes on wholly unearned income, including inheritence, and even jumbo lottery winnings. But increasing income tax progressivity will cause a lot of companies to turn around and increase the pay of their best workers to compensate, with a rise in-kind benefits like company-provided cars, meals, and smart phones. I’ve read that in-kind tax dodges were common when Britain had very high marginal rates. So the results of tax policy aren’t as predictable as might be thought.
As for what conservative ideas can contribute, something needs to be done about the sky-rocketing rates of Americans on disability, where people trade not having to work for lifetime low income. The ads I see, on the Philadelphia subway, for social security disability attorneys, should be outlawed. With improvements in health care, the number of people who can’t work productively should decline, and, when it doesn’t, DA’s should open more fraud investigations. Low income certainly is not, in most cases, a lifestyle choice, but in a few cases, it is.
But if he did, that would be seriously cool.