On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:15 PM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >> But there is truth there. There is a number of very rich and very >> powerful people who by definition are part of the top 1% in the income >> distribution - this includes for instance some of those who run the >> big banks - have through massive amounts of money spent on lobbying >> and other means have "bought" a large part - if not a majority - of >> the US Congress. That is, to say that they own the government is >> rhetoric that is not too far from the truth that their influence over >> government is very, very, very, very, very out of proportion to their >> numbers. (I do not see why you think that this is OK if you think that >> this is OK - and you speak as if you think that it is OK.) >> > > I don't think it's OK to be ridiculously sloppy in one's thinking. > > People say "rich and powerful" as if these were synonyms and further there's > the implication that "not rich" means "not powerful" i.e. "if and only if > rich, then powerful". > > I think as math-focused people with some respect for logic, we should not > traffic in such slovenly thinking. One may be rich and not particularly > influential, influential and not rich, influential and then rich, rich and > then influential etc. etc. > > Does this mean I'm denying the existence of rich and powerful (influential) > people? Not at all. > > What I notice about a lot of people is they swill in victimhood saying to > themselves "I'm not rich and therefore not powerful and therefore it's not > my problem or concern how the world is going -- other people are to blame > for everything that's bad about the world". > > A lot of rich folks are so bogged down managing their portfolios and looking > after their assets that they really have no time to focus on policy, public > affairs, or whatever. People with little money and not much to lose may be > able to devote themselves to various forms of activistism quasi full time. >
You did not address the truth of what I said. (Yes, most of the top 1% of the income distribution are not involved in "buying" politicians. So what. I does not change the truth of what I said.)
I addressed you condemning the Occupy movement, abd doing this your using language suggesting that you deny the truth of what I said.
Since Reagan, there is less and less of what could be called social democracy in the US, and less and less of what I call capital democracy or entrepreneurial democracy in the US.
On this latter type of democracy being destroyed by some of those in the top 1%: Because the banks are less and less making capital available via business loans to people not already rich to become practicing capitalists - that is, to become business owners, the percentage of the US population that own a business has been cut in half since Reagan in the early 1980s began this destruction of capital democracy or entrepreneurial democracy in the US.
Note 1: This destruction is in the form of giving these relevant rich and powerful people what they want, which is less and less regulation on the banks, enabling these banks to more and more make more money more quickly more easily than lending it to common folk in the US to start a business, this making more money more quickly more easily being in the form of gambling (especially via more and more unregulated electronic trading) in various stock, bond, commodity, and other markets all over the world.
Note 2: These relevant rich and powerful people conned and bought people in Congress with the lie, "If you let us make more money more quickly more easily in these ways, them we will have more to lend to common folk in the US to start a business."
It's easy to see the con Note 2 talks about: Since these folks running the banks have the present legal obligation to maximize profit for the shareholders (this legal obligation also the result of their influence in Congress) they will always do less and less of what is less profitable like lending money to common folk in the US to start a business, no matter how much money they make doing this more profitable stuff. History is showing us that the only way to maximize the banks doing what is best for the economy - including lending money to common folk in the US to start a business - is to force them to do it either by the type of regulations that would force them to do it or by changing the laws as to what their legal obligations are or by doing what countries like Norway do, nationalizing them either fully or even just partly by merely buying up at least a majority of the stock that would give the government a majority vote on the board of the directors (in effect giving the government control of the corporation).