Such is the case now in the United States. According to the once-prescient Lawrence Lessing (who has since lost his mind to Twitter and TDS), thanks to concentration of wealth, 132 people in the U.S. essentially control elections. They do so by donating—just that handful of people—over 60 percent of Super PAC money. Those 132 represent 0.000042 percent of the total number of voters; most other contributions to candidates are small, many below $200. It sounds nice when a candidate talks about this, but it diffuses power even as you think he owes you something now. That’s because it’s impossible under such circumstances for government to create laws against the interests of the wealthy; after all, they work for them.
FDR's securities laws were a political solution, and they worked well for 40 years. The political solution was gradually removed by Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. By 1999 nothing remained, so pure criminal predators like Bezos and Zuckerberg and Elon are now free to take EVERYTHING.
To be Keynesian, there is a solution. In the long run we are all dead. There is equality in that. But you are correct about the upward funnell when we abandon meritocracy.
【 在 beijingren4 () 的大作中提到: 】 : Reality Check: There Is No Political Solution To Income Inequality : https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/reality-check-theres-no- : political-solution-to-income-inequality/ : Such is the case now in the United States. According to the once-prescient : Lawrence Lessing (who has since lost his mind to Twitter and TDS), thanks to : concentration of wealth, 132 people in the U.S. essentially control : elections. They do so by donating—just that handful of people—over 60 : percent of Super PAC money. Those 132 represent 0.000042 percent of the : total number of voters; most other contributions to candidates are small, : many below $200. It sounds nice when a candidate talks about this, but it : ...................
Reality Check: There Is No Political Solution To Income Inequality
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/reality-check-theres-no-
political-solution-to-income-inequality/
Such is the case now in the United States. According to the once-prescient
Lawrence Lessing (who has since lost his mind to Twitter and TDS), thanks to concentration of wealth, 132 people in the U.S. essentially control
elections. They do so by donating—just that handful of people—over 60
percent of Super PAC money. Those 132 represent 0.000042 percent of the
total number of voters; most other contributions to candidates are small,
many below $200. It sounds nice when a candidate talks about this, but it
diffuses power even as you think he owes you something now. That’s because it’s impossible under such circumstances for government to create laws
against the interests of the wealthy; after all, they work for them.
FDR's securities laws were a political solution, and they worked well for 40 years. The political solution was gradually removed by Nixon, Reagan, and
Clinton. By 1999 nothing remained, so pure criminal predators like Bezos and Zuckerberg and Elon are now free to take EVERYTHING.
To be Keynesian, there is a solution. In the long run we are all dead. There is equality in that.
But you are correct about the upward funnell when we abandon meritocracy.
不想写中文 去 老美论坛发多好啊。
【 在 beijingren4 () 的大作中提到: 】
: Reality Check: There Is No Political Solution To Income Inequality
: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/reality-check-theres-no-
: political-solution-to-income-inequality/
: Such is the case now in the United States. According to the once-prescient
: Lawrence Lessing (who has since lost his mind to Twitter and TDS), thanks to
: concentration of wealth, 132 people in the U.S. essentially control
: elections. They do so by donating—just that handful of people—over 60
: percent of Super PAC money. Those 132 represent 0.000042 percent of the
: total number of voters; most other contributions to candidates are small, : many below $200. It sounds nice when a candidate talks about this, but it : ...................
基本控制？
2016年，这些超级富豪都站在希拉里背后，结果呢？