The Rich Get Richer While the Poor Get Poorer

[ApatheticNoMore]

But wouldn't that same minority still exert influence on politicians once elected by promising to steer business capital into specific districts or by offering post election employment or by favors to family, friends, associates? If that minority is indeed exerting undue influence on politicians through campaign contributions, once denied that avenue, won't another one simply become the favorite way of buying influence?

Funneling money to one's district no matter how it it used is pork (getting that new local highway to nowhere built afterall). What loose is talking about is just general funneling of tax money and favored laws to corporations that have donated a lot irrespective of locality, which is a separate problem. Neither one is good, but taking corporate money out of the election process would probably do a lot to fix the second problem, whereas I'm not sure any even hypothetical fix exists for pork barrel politics.

Personally, I think that if buying influence is as common as some might believe, it would be better to diminish the amount of influence available.

But if buying influence is as common as some might believe, this is equally impossible. Why? Because you try to cut government spending on something that is overwhelming benefiting some corporate cronies say, but because those corporate cronies have so much say (read money) in government it can't as a practical matter be done.

[Alan]

But if buying influence is as common as some might believe, this is equally impossible. Why? Because you try to cut government spending on something that is overwhelming benefiting some corporate cronies say, but because those corporate cronies have so much say (read money) in government it can't as a practical matter be done.

But, as an example, if we did not have a national government so out of line with it's original purpose, one that does not feel the need to legislate that a farmer growing grain for the exclusive use of feeding his cattle is engaging in interstate commerce and therefore subject to Congressional oversight, wouldn't we have far less influence to buy or sell?

[kib]

Re the man with the bulldozer, the point underlying was that this individual has the power to create opportunity or deny it. Not necessarily that he will carve his own river and keep all the water, but simply the idea that the choice is in his hands, is disturbing to me. Bae, everything you've said leads me to believe that you are a wise and compassionate steward of your money. That's wonderful. But its existence still gives you a vast amount of power to force choices on other people, should you choose to exercise that option. You personally might never dream of doing that, but I don't believe you're in the majority there. Perhaps I just don't know enough really rich people.

Alan, I see what you're getting at: if we have an uncorruptible government by dint of the fact that it's agreed to be small and non-intrusive, the ability for wealth to steer the world by bribing it into compliance is limited. But I'm not sure how that actually lessens the amount of overall influence of money. Without the admittedly unappealing complex legalities of the government, those who wish to exert undue influence on others are even less constrained.

[bae]

That's wonderful. But its existence still gives you a vast amount of power to force choices on other people, should you choose to exercise that option.

I'm a bit curious about how I might use my "power" to "force choices on other people"? I am not allowed to hire a private army and point guns at people to force them to vote a certain way, nor am I allowed to bribe representatives to pass laws and regulations. If I had $100 billion sitting in T-bills, I'd only have one vote myself, and campaign regulations would limit the amount I personally could contribute to any politician's campaign.

Nor do I believe it is moral to even initiate the use of force against another, except in defense.

The problem I see is that there is a lot of self-dealing, looting, and corruption in our government at all levels. That is not a problem of wealth, it is a problem of morals, and lack of consequences, and "citizens" who tolerate it.

[kib]

I'm a bit curious about how I might use my "power" to "force choices on other people"? I am not allowed to hire a private army and point guns at people to force them to vote a certain way, nor am I allowed to bribe representatives to pass laws and regulations. If I had $100 billion sitting in T-bills, I'd only have one vote myself, and campaign regulations would limit the amount I personally could contribute to any politician's campaign.

Nor do I believe it is moral to even initiate the use of force against another, except in defense.

The problem I see is that there is a lot of self-dealing, looting, and corruption in our government at all levels. That is not a problem of wealth, it is a problem of morals, and lack of consequences, and "citizens" who tolerate it.

Well, I do agree with you about the corruption of government. But while I also agree that a certain self-entitled mentality lacking in any notable moral responsibility for greater good is at play, the whole purpose of the game is to accumulate MONEY. Money is power, and that is what moves the world. Maybe power / money doesn't corrupt everyone it touches, absolutely or otherwise, but I certainly didn't write the homily.

Money isn't power? So ... let's say that gorgeous mountain of yours happens to contain an enormous anthracite deposit. And let's say half of it is owned by that guy with the $100 billion. Who decides to raze his half, take the coal, and dump the tailings on your half. And when you sue him, he just peels off one million dollar bill after another til you're down to chop bone and he's still got about $97 billion, which affects his actual life not a single iota, he'd probably be more upset over a bad hair cut. The problem, when you boil it down? He had more money, he could keep playing the stupid game til you had to give up and let him have what he wanted. ... are you still sure about that rifle policy??

[bae]

Money isn't power? So ... let's say that gorgeous mountain of yours happens to contain an enormous anthracite deposit. And let's say half of it is owned by that guy with the $100 billion. Who decides to raze his half, take the coal, and dump the tailings on your half. And when you sue him, he just peels off one million dollar bill after another til you're down to chop bone and he's still got about $97 billion, which affects his actual life not a single iota, he'd probably be more upset over a bad hair cut. The problem, when you boil it down? He had more money, he could keep playing the stupid game til you had to give up and let him have what he wanted. ... are you still sure about that rifle policy??

But that's not how it works in the real world. He'd not be able to undertake such an action in the first place, and if he tried, he'd be prevented in about a day.

Our local citizens routinely win against billionaires who are attempting to externalize their impacts onto the rest of us. We've crushed Paul Allen several times, and he's, well, one of the richest men on the planet.

[kib]

Perhaps the real problem isn't that money creates inequality or even corruption but that enough of it creates a complete lack of vulnerability, a lack of any interdependence that might make him less interested in making a mess of your life. The only vulnerability between you and Mr. Soot Factor is on your side. As it is with each and every relationship with an enormous financial inequality.

[bae]

Perhaps the real problem isn't that money creates inequality or even corruption but that enough of it creates a complete lack of vulnerability, a lack of any interdependence that might make him less interested in making a mess of your life.

The Scrooge McDuck Theory.

But again, not really how it works in the real world. Billionaires, in my experience, don't seem to act as you fear. They are, under the mountain of gold, human beings.

Corporations where there is no personal accountability, however, seem to be another story...

[kib]

Sigh. Am I leading with my chin again?

[kib]

Ok, yes. Mr. Soot Factor was a metaphor for the corporate coal industry. But one entity with a million times the resources of another is basically free to do whatever it pleases, because its underlying security is not the least bit threatened by a financial outlay that would entirely destroy the other. Call it a poker game. If you've never seen someone fold in a poker game because they just don't have the chips to keep playing, no matter how good their hand is ... you haven't watched much poker.