Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 10-25-2007, 07:36 AM

I suspect you are saying that you object to any instance of the majority using their superior voting numbers to legislate the redistribution of wealth away from the few who own most of it, into the control of everyone else....even if the holding of all assets in the country...now in excess of 70 percent by the top ten percent...were to rise to their holding 90 percent of all of the wealth.

You do not recognize, as a negative for the majority, the power and influence that the huge wealth advantage buys the wealthy elite. You advocate for a political system that does not "interfere" with wealth accumulation, even if it results in poverty and subsistence living for the vast majority. If the wealthiest end up with 90 percent of the wealth...do you think that they would be positioned to pay higher or lower wages to laborers than they currently pay? Do you think that they did not "interfere" with, what would have been a predictable process of majority rule...with the priorities of the majority routinely implemented via legislation....by buying the votes of the peoples' representatives....to block legislation that the wealthy perceived as negatively impacting their further wealth accumulation, or preservation?

Our country is skewed now to an extreme where more than 70 percent of all assets are controlled by ten percent of the residents..... wealth distribution here is much closer to that occurring today in Mexico or in Venezuela, than in Denmark or Sweden..... Do you think that this is so, because of non-intervention by government....in the US and Mexico, compared to, in Denmark or Sweden?

Can you consider that the distribution of wealth here is mitigated by the wealthy blocking the political influence of the majority, as it is in Mexico....using the government to create conditions that maximize the profits and income of a few who pay to make the government work for them.... whereas the majority in Denmark and Sweden have summoned the political power of their numerical majority to make their governments responsive to their priorities, to the detriment of their wealthiest class?

10-25-2007, 07:36 AM	#27 (permalink)
host Banned	I suspect you are saying that you object to any instance of the majority using their superior voting numbers to legislate the redistribution of wealth away from the few who own most of it, into the control of everyone else....even if the holding of all assets in the country...now in excess of 70 percent by the top ten percent...were to rise to their holding 90 percent of all of the wealth. You do not recognize, as a negative for the majority, the power and influence that the huge wealth advantage buys the wealthy elite. You advocate for a political system that does not "interfere" with wealth accumulation, even if it results in poverty and subsistence living for the vast majority. If the wealthiest end up with 90 percent of the wealth...do you think that they would be positioned to pay higher or lower wages to laborers than they currently pay? Do you think that they did not "interfere" with, what would have been a predictable process of majority rule...with the priorities of the majority routinely implemented via legislation....by buying the votes of the peoples' representatives....to block legislation that the wealthy perceived as negatively impacting their further wealth accumulation, or preservation? Our country is skewed now to an extreme where more than 70 percent of all assets are controlled by ten percent of the residents..... wealth distribution here is much closer to that occurring today in Mexico or in Venezuela, than in Denmark or Sweden..... Do you think that this is so, because of non-intervention by government....in the US and Mexico, compared to, in Denmark or Sweden? Can you consider that the distribution of wealth here is mitigated by the wealthy blocking the political influence of the majority, as it is in Mexico....using the government to create conditions that maximize the profits and income of a few who pay to make the government work for them.... whereas the majority in Denmark and Sweden have summoned the political power of their numerical majority to make their governments responsive to their priorities, to the detriment of their wealthiest class?