Bitcoin Forum

The thesis that the growing inequality since the eighties is allowing a few people to determine in great measure the candidates from (especially) the Republican party, and also their political agenda (rejecting that climate change has a human cause, rejecting any increase in taxes for the richest, defending the annulment of measures to regulate financial markets adopted after 2008, etc.), thanks to their financial capacity that allows them to pay huge contributions to the candidates that adopt their agenda is old.

Krugman has been one of their advocates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/opinion/paul-krugman-plutocrats-against-democracy.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/opinion/krugman-why-inequality-matters.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/musings-on-inequality-and-growth/ (rejecting that increasing inequality has increase grow of the economy)

Also Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMqEn8HSow ("Requiem for the American Dream").

And Robert Reich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GojnBUIz0o ("Inequality for all")

But others have adopted the same perspective:
http://billmoyers.com/story/the-plutocrats-are-winning-dont-let-them/
https://books.google.com/books?id=Rl_vCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://blog.seattlepi.com/robertbrown/2014/12/14/the-superrich-have-hijacked-our-democracy/

Even the New York Times it self published reports with the same vision:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0


But the thesis has its critics too:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-think-about-inequality
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/08/krugman_on_inequality_and_demo

Soon only homosexuals and corporate CEOs have right to have opinions or vote.

Hm, american democracy, what is this? Is this somehow related to NSA mass surveillance or Guantanamo concentration camp?

You mean like they picked Hillary?

Wait, that's not Republican...

Wait, the Republican rank and file have revolted against the "picks of the few..."

So what the fuck you talking about, dude?

Even if with some exceptions (like Ben Carson or Trump, but they are outsiders), GOP candidates received much more money from super PACs or big donations (so, from wealthy individuals) than democrats

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/16/the-massive-difference-in-how-democrats-and-republicans-raise-money/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0 (example, J. Bush vs H. Clinton or Bernie Sanders)

In the OP, I assumed that inequality in the USA (and the way it increased since the 80s) is a general accepted fact.

But one can read a few interesting articles on it:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/

http://time.com/3855971/us-economic-inequality/

http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/income-inequality/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Capitalism consumes democracy as fire consumes oxygen. We will all suffocate if we fail to revolt / recreate / transcend the neofeudal structural genocide in which we live.

I think this problem isn't limited to the republicans. The same thing applies to the democrats as well, with a different political agenda. Actually you find the same issues in all western type representative democracies without a single exception. Without making party finance and donations 100% transparent (what is more or less impossible) you have no chance to deal with these issues. This is how plutocracy/oligarchy working. 

Imho that is only partly correct. There are measures you can take to avoid this massive lobbying.
For example the german voting system: the different parties are getting tax money for their campaigns depending on how much votes they get. There is free time on tv and other stuff.

As far as I know parties in Germany are also accepting corporate and private donations. Until they doing that nobody can guarantee their independence. Lobbies in Germany just as strong as everywhere else.

Yes that is sadly correct too. It wasn't my intention to deny it.
I just wanted to point out there exist measures in other nations that help reduce the power of "big money".

I think that in modern democracy and political system is impossible to separate political campaign from money support.
Money is everything now and can buy influence in media, brainwash people with strong and expensive propaganda, create events which helps politicians etc.
Politic really become dirty job in modern time but it seems it's to late to change it now.
If you have enough money you can buy all of them so it seems there are no real independent politicians in western world.
To sad reality.

To a large extend yes. Politicians can be bought or seduced and corporations have been hijacking our democracy for a while.

Free trade is the thing that gives the average person the incentive to excel. It is the hope of finding riches that pushes people to dig all the wonderful technology out of nature that nature has within itself. It is the further marketing of those technologies that lets us all enjoy new things with more leisure time.

:)

I'm skeptical that capitalism consumes democracy.  Money in itself is a 'vote'. The problem is not enough freedom. Let me explain:

Free trade gives people the ability to improve their lives. Modern life does not have free trade because the money gets stuck in the institutions and governments forbid free trade (economic boycott, slow bank transfers, corruption at al). This is why bitcoin will gives us a breath of freedom for a while (as Satoshi said).

The main problem is indeed the way parties obtain its financial resources.

In some countries the money comes mainly from the state budget. Each party receives money in proportion to the number of votes it gets and there are mandatory limits for the amounts each can spend in the electoral campaign.

But paying parties with tax money doesn't look very sound.

But there should be mandatory limits on the electoral expenses and on each donation. Probably, corporations shouldn't be allow to donate to parties, since they have no political rights. The only explanation for a corporation to pay money to a party is getting political leverage and that is close to corruption.

yes .. this is the true definiton of american democracy.. congrats..

The ruling of the Federal Supreme Court on unlimited political donations to parties is a major problem. Maybe now with Scalia gone and a new less conservative judge on his place the Supreme will elaborate on this rule.

The so-called "everything goes" in the name of freedom usually means that the powerful will oppress the weak under the benevolent watch of the State.

you dont know anything about american democracy.. it is best of all so called democracy all over the world but i agree a point that something must be done for the wrong parts of it..

Like many Democracies, the American Political System has some strong and weak aspects:

1) Real freedom of expression and of political activity (except if you are communist, as a heritage of the sad McCarthy period, and recent repression on matters of State secrets).

2) Great system of direct choice of the presidential candidates of the major parties.

3) Strong and independent judicial system and some positive aspects of the trial by jury, even if the practice of electing people with responsibilities on the judicial system can have some weak aspects.


1) Major economic inequality.

2) As stated on the OP, this inequality is having political consequences on the quality of the American Democracy.

3) Weak social protection of poor people (for instance, health protection of the poor, even after the Obama reformations, is still incomplete).

4) A social culture of violence and, in reaction, massive penal repression, including abusive use of the death penalty (I wouldn't like to live in a country where the State only needs a good pretext to kill me). The USA has almost 1% of its population jailed. That is crazy compared with Europeans numbers.

5) Still some problems of racial discrimination, even if the USA is still far to be the worst Democracy with this problem.

6) Some periods of abusive external policy, recently, especially under republican administrations. But in the past, the democrats weren't better. Of course, any country in the world, probably including the Europeans, would do the same or even worst if they had the power the USA has. Power has always ruined the legitimacy of every external policy.

Of course, on the OP, I forgot to mention the major defender that huge economic inequalities have serious consequences on Democracy: Noam Chomsky.

His Requiem for the American Dream is worth watching, even by people that disagree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMqEn8HSow

Noam Chomsky is a SELF ADMITTED tool of the elite. He is an expert in linguistics. Nothing else. I put him one or two notches above Michael Moore or John Stewart as far as credibility. He is just a quasi academic tool bag. BTW RE: the op. If you think Republicans are the only elite causing inequality I think you need to stop getting your news from television and open a couple books. The two party system is just two sides of the same elitist corrupt coin. Divide and conquer.

Accusing Chomsky of being a tool of the elite, and so of inequality, it's like accusing Gramsci (who, as a communist, as far as I know, was the first to elaborate on the "cultural block": a cultural instrument used by capitalists to control ideologically the population and block the "transition to socialism/communism") or Althusser (another communist, who wrote about the ideological State apparatus that had the same goal) of the same.

Isn't that something like thinking that they are/were just puppets, executing a secret planned conspiracy to promote a few changes in order to grant that everything stays the same?

It's like saying that the universal vote was still an instrument of inequality, just a small change to appease the masses, in order to allow that economic inequality kept unchanged, forgetting that universal vote changed a lot, with progressive taxation and social support for the poor.

Of course, the Democrats are also responsible for policies that provoked major inequality. They kept more or less most of the Reagan and Bush senior reforms favourable to the rich.

The Glass–Steagall Act, that tamed banks since the Great depression, was applied on a limited way and ended being repealed on 1999 under Clinton Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Glass-Steagall_Act) and therefore he has major responsibility on the current Great Recession. On many countries, GDP is still below the real values of 2008.

The Democrats are mostly cynical. But many Republicans don't even try to disguise where they stand.

I am not accusing him of anything. Those exact words came right out of his own mouth. I would link the video but I saw it quite a while ago and can not seem to find it again.

If we outlawed political parties in America, we might get freedom rather than a democracy.

8)

Recent studies have highlight several dramatic consequences of poverty on children:

1) The high IQ of poor people is almost irrelevant as a way to allow them to improve their conditions, because of lack of opportunities. On contrast, IQ is decisive on high income families as an instrument to improve even more their conditions (see Eric Turkheimer et alia - Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children, http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles for Online CV/(38) Turkheimer et al (2003).pdf).

2) Poverty changes the way genes act (activating or deactivating certain genes) inducing mental illness and depression on children (Sara Reardon, Poverty linked to epigenetic changes and mental illness, http://www.nature.com/news/poverty-linked-to-epigenetic-changes-and-mental-illness-1.19972).

3) Poverty determines on many ways lack of education and education affects IQ on about 10 points (http://phys.org/news/2013-08-poverty-cognitive-ten-iq.html).


Major inequality isn't only unfair or a peril for Democracy, it's also negative to societies. Many of our best elements root on poverty instead of being allowed to develop their full capacities and help improving society.

Only progressive taxation (the rich paying much higher rates) and free public services, including education and health care, for poor people, can improve the current situation.

When inequality reach the current conditions, where a person can earn more than 100,000 times the income of another, their life and conditions are so different that, as someone said, if seems like they are from different species.

With the recent advances on fighting aging and genetic manipulation that can became indeed real. The few with money to pay for them might extend their life span and even change their own genes in order to become more or less a real different subspecies.

Robert Reich has been another author arguing that inequality is threatening the american democracy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_for_All

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GojnBUIz0o

The US election is all money usually the candidate with the biggest purse wins except in this years election.

Yes, Trump really managed to win with much less money than Clinton.

Clearly, he promised things that the exploited Americans, paid with stagnant wages since the eighties, were concerned.

However, it's hard to believe that the Americans agree with other things he said.

It's even more hard to believe that the poor americans elected a rich guy and a lot of his rich friends to lead them. And they think this is going to be good for them.

Even less taxes for the rich, even less regulation for corporations, goodbye health care for the poor, climate changing is a myth, torture is alright, more or less goodbye NATO, goodbye trade organization, Putin is a good guy, an impulsive and capricious person with the finger on the nuclear missiles... paradise on Earth.

It seems to me that Trump was just using the Americans. He cheated them. He is certainly an idiot, but I don't think he understands that all his promises is a fraud. I think that this clown will make the lives of Americans worse.

Inequality and money hijacking is not related to American Democracy if it is then a large number of Americans are doing that then possibly the United States of America is a very hostile and full of chaos right now. But you cannot equate the greediness of politician to the American Democracy. Greedy and selfish politicians, the few and the elite, are the monsters that stains the dignity of American Democracy.

America just need to hope that a good leader who can stand on its own without being dictated by the oligarchs and the elites but will stand on the side of what is right in words and in deed will emerge to save America from the crutches of corruption and greed.

Yeah sure, why not?

We just elected the guy to continue these practices..
Not that the other wouldn't have.. Maybe a little lighter on the gitmo..

And please tell me isn't that the oligarchs are creating large number of jobs? How much need to open shops and cafes to match the number of jobs from one plant? Where to earn money to buy something at the store or eat in a cafe?

For me, the problem stems from the very concept of elected representatives.  Sure, back in the early eras of what we now think of as national governance, it made a whole lot of sense.  The only practical way to communicate over long distances was a messenger on horseback, so a highly centralised system was both inevitable and necessary.  The problem with centralised systems is that they are highly prone to corruption.  The reason it was deemed tolerable is, due to the lack of communication over long distances, the majority were blissfully unaware and generally ignorant of all the corruption going on.

But obviously times have changed.  People are all too aware of the gross corruption and "lobbying" (which, let's be honest, is just a polite word for more corruption).  So the governance model needs to change with it to become less centralised.  So we have to ask now what legitimate purpose can actually be served by elected representatives.

Many would have you believe that we need politicians to make decisions for us because the alternative would be "anarchy".  A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.  But I feel this is merely a smokescreen to deflect from the undeniable fact we have a kleptocrat governing class who feel the rules don't apply to them.  Their only motive to perpetuate the myth that we need them is greed.  Representatives are an outdated concept.  Communication is now global.  There is no sense whatsoever in restricting power to a small number of individuals who abuse the law to reinforce their position of power and profit.  Abuses causing ever increasing inequality.  Yet we trust them to make decisions for us.  Decisions that are swayed by vested interests.  Decisions that are affecting all our lives.

Why do we still accept this absurdity as normal?

Less taxes period check..
Less regulation check..
Less free shit check..
Climate change (man made) is a myth check..
Torture terrorists check..
Screw NATO if they don't pay up check..
Screw china raping us on trade check..
Putin ain't so bad check..
People will think twice before messing with the USA with Trump's finger on the nuke button and our mad dog sec of defense check..

I'd definitely vote for that again..

A good tactic! To choose the President-jerk others feared that nuclear button in the hands of a jerk. Only you forget that this moron not only will control the nuclear button, but to control America. Is it less dangerous?

Clinton and the liberals wanting to turn 2017-2024 into 1984 for america is the most dangerous..

The greatest enemy is the one trying to take our free speech in the name of PC newspeak.
Trying to propagandize us at every turn with the main stream media..
Trying to dilute our country with liberal voting immigrants that bring murder, rape, drugs, terrorism, you name it.. 

Trying to take away our right to bear arms and make us docile lambs they can control..
Are you not from the USA? Do you not know what it feels like to be armed to the teeth? To know that you CAN resist tyranny? 
Feels good..

All this cannot be done if America has really consolidated society. Only United under the common idea possible to oppose the forces trying to tear America apart. To deprive Americans of the right to arms it would be 50% of their victory.

Everybody knows taxes are evil. The only fair society is one without taxes. People should just need to pay for direct services they need.

If a foreign country invaded, we would gather together and resist it with our private weapons exercising our divine right to bear arms.

If someone murdered other, we would take care of him with the old Lynch standard. No need for police or courts.

If we took care of an innocent guy, too bad, currently many also are executed innocent. Who said the world is or should be fair?

If the rich are getting even more rich and pay tax rates lower then the poor and low middle classes, too bad. Who said the world...?

Regulations are another evil. The only fair rule is one out of a free agreement.

Poor families should be allowed to put their children to work. And corporations should be allowed to help them sustain themselves by hiring these children.

All consumer, safety and environmental regulations are also evil. Trump is going to abolish them all and make paradise on Earth.

Everybody knows that free services to the poor are also evil and unfair. Why should I pay, but not them? They will starve or die because of simple diseases, easy to be cured? Too bad. Who said the world...

They can sell themselves as slaves: problem solved. Their owner will take care of them. Someone who doesn't have the means to take care of him self doesn't deserve to be free.

Actually, abolition of slavery is also a regulation, therefore is evil.

Alright, alright, I can concede that coercive slavery was a little too much. But here we have voluntary slavery. It's the poor that sell his children or himself. It's a free agreement, so it's fair.

Everyone knows that we are not emitting CO2 to the atmosphere. I read that online.

And even if we were emitting a little CO2, it's a coincidence that the same exact amount is growing on the atmosphere.

Anyway, everyone knows that the amounts of C02 on the atmosphere are irrelevant on the temperature of the Earth. Venus is a living hell and has enormous amounts of C02 in the atmosphere, but that is just a coincidence.

Scientists know nothing, it's all a conspiracy by the hippies, liberals, the United Nations that want to rule us and the solar energy corporations.

With Trump, all our corporations will be allowed to pump CO2 to the sky like if there was no tomorrow. The Chinese and the Indians in retaliation will do the same, but that won't affect the climate. Paradise on Earth.

The United States are going to repel all international regulations on trade and impose heavy taxes on importations.

These taxes are not evil, only the others are evil.

Many of our corporations that have factories abroad and that export goods to the USA are going to be hurt too, but too bad.

Many of them have also factories on the USA and might go bankrupt and fire people, but they are traitors for installing their factories abroad.

The Europeans, Chinese, Japanese and, actually, all the rest of the world, are going to retaliate and this might provoke the collapse of international trade with lots of American corporations going down, but at least Trump will teach a lesson to all those countries that they can't rape us.

Of course, torturing terrorists is fair game! All of them have red signals on their faces "saying I'm a terrorist, torture me". So, no risk of torturing innocents.

Anyway, everybody knows that all Muslims are terrorists, so torturing them is obvious.

If the Europeans don't start paying us, we'll end NATO and abolish the basis that kept peace for more than 70 years. That can end up creating a new world war, but it will be the Europeans fault.

Actually, Putin is going to love the abolition of NATO and he isn't so bad.

Everybody knows that Putin doesn't have Russian troops on Ukraine and he didn't occupy the Crimea. It was the people from Crimea that organized the referendum and called the Russians in after.

Other countries will fear us a lot with a person like Trump in power. Yes, Trump looks a little impulsive and often changes his mind: he might end up thinking that Putin, after all, is really bad and pick a real fight with him or with the Chinese.

But if that ends up bad with mushroom clouds all over the northern hemisphere, I think that won't be that bad. Hippies and liberals have been exaggerating the risks of a nuclear war.

I bet it will make America great again.


P.S. In case of doubt, let me confess you that this text is all a little sarcasm. I didn't believe there were people who actually agreed more or less with this. Not even Trump believes it.

Well, those who argued in favor of taking away the guns lost the elections. Now Republicans are in a majority in the senate and the house. A republican president in power will ensure that pro-gun right judges will be appointed in the SCOTUS.

With AI taking away manual and even middle intellectual jobs (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1538764.msg17436590#msg17436590) inequality will rise even more, moving into poverty or welfare the less brilliant/educated ones.

Money has always been the real issue in American Democracy, or should i say the whole world. The USA democracy has been hijacked by Wall Street, They control the Politicians and most of the laws seems to benefit them instead of the populace. Obama had the opportunity to make them answerable to the greedy ways but instead he choose to bail them out when they plunged the country into recession am sure he lost the respect of the people and am sure contributed to the Democrats losing the elections aside choosing a candidate who was stained with controversy.

Of course, the Supreme Court had a negative role on this issue:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?

What a difference on other countries:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/brazilian-supreme-court-bans-corporate-donations-political-candidates-parties