Money and Power

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   If money is power, and extreme concentrations of power are fundamentally dangerous to a free society, then why do we not stand up and demand no one be allowed to have too much money (power), in the same capacity that our government has checks and balances to avoid power being overly concentrated in one branch of government?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      OMG - Another human being who is saying what I have been saying!!!! Ban the big corporations. They have too much money and too much power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody should be allowed to have that much money - not because people are jealous of them but becasuse it destablelizes society.
      
      Also, the more money people have, the more dishonest they become. Increasing studies are revealing that. Rich people do not get rich through honesty.
      
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 145432.htm
      
      There is this mindset that if people manage to make money - regardless of how they made it and how many people and communities they destroy in the process - then they must be entitled to keep it.
      
      It has a lot to do with the lust of money. And it is very, very dangerous to any freedom loving society. Sooner or later, the majority of people will become enslaved by the people who have the money and the power.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So the article appears to be saying that if one or a group of people have too much power, it makes them "independent" over those who have less, so to speak, and they then therefore think the rules do not apply to them, which in turn leads to an increase in unethical behavior.  Really interesting.

         replyreport
2. 61

   knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

   Cause everyone wants to be rich, especially Christians, and its why they have the lottery.

   replyreport
3. 65

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   The government is an enforced monopoly of power, whereas money is not power in and of itself just so long as there is appropriate competition. In order to enforce wealth distribution, or any other 'solution' to  the accumulation of wealth, the government must get bigger. This, in turn, compounds the problem as this power becomes more attractive to the richest, and can be used to prevent competition.
   
   The greatest threat to wealth equality is the government, yet the argument is that government must enforce equality. Nonsense, I say.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "The government is an enforced monopoly of power, whereas money is not power in and of itself just so long as there is appropriate competition."
      
      If people recognize the value of money, it is power in and of itself.  Bill Gates could legally hire his own security force if he so desired, and I cannot.  There is also influence on elected officials.  I'm not sure how you think competition solves this, when capitalism has historically produced EXTREME concentrations of wealth in a small number of hands.
      
      "In order to enforce wealth distribution, or any other 'solution' to  the accumulation of wealth, the government must get bigger. This, in turn, compounds the problem as this power becomes more attractive to the richest, and can be used to prevent competition."
      
      This is a little more interesting.  Big government isn't any more desirable than big business.  We can either eliminate the state, or we can reform the way businesses work, and turn them all into B corporations.  The latter is a step in the right direction, since eliminating all government is undesirable.
      
      "The greatest threat to wealth equality is the government, yet the argument is that government must enforce equality. Nonsense, I say."
      
      I don't see how you can possibly affirm the first statement, when historically, the government is only part of the picture.  Extreme wealth concentrations that result from capitalism then exerts a disproportionate influence on the government, thereby keeping themselves in power,  That's the way it currently is now.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You've chosen a perfect example to illustrate my point. The reason security is so expensive is because the government has a monopoly on the protection of property - there is no competitor to the police force. If competition was allowed, there would suddenly be a great demand for cheap security, and the market would accommodate that demand. Bearing that in mind, I concede that richer people will always have greater access to security, even in an anarcho-capitalist economy, but having more assets than the average person, Bill Gates is naturally going to need greater security. I'm not sure whether this is a sign of great injustice or whether it's just a reflection of a necessity - the more money you have the more money you need to spend to protect it.
         
         Historically, it's been violent intervention that has provided cartelisation and centralisation of wealth. In the banking system, for instance, the Federal Reserve is the protector of the Wall Street cartel and prevents competition. If by 'capitalism', you mean people making money, then sure, but this scenario isn't a real free-market. If we had been experiencing massive reductions in government intervention in the economy for the past century, I might've taken your point that capitalism creates inequality, but we haven't, the trend has been to intervene in the economy, which is anti-capitalistic. But this all depends on your definition of 'extreme wealth concentrations'. What would you define as extreme?
         
         I'm wondering how you propose turning the corporations into 'B corporations' without massive government. Do you propose a voluntary method? If so, I'm intrigued.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I do plan to answer you, just so you know.  I want to give a thoughtful response to your thoughtful response, and I haven't sit down and thought it through yet.

            replyreport
4. 84

   Gemini Foxposted 11 years ago

   1. We have been taught in this country via TV that the rich are our royalty and being rich is something we should all aspire to . . . so we can spend more.
   
   2. Americans are meek little sheeples who are terrified of being accused of 'class warfare' - thank you mainstream media for that soundbite . . . I'm sure the elite are relieved we're all petrified of this label.
   
   3. Most Americans just haven't got a clue what 'Wall Street' is let alone what they/the system has been up to for the last several decades.
   
   4. Most Americans are even more clueless as to how to fix the whole problem.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, the TV teaches us that if we have money we can behave like celebrities and escape everyday responsibilities. The wealthy often do not even raise their children but hire nannies.
      
      What's more, being rich allows people to feel like they are the center of the universe. When a person gains sudden wealth, he or she often believes oneself to be invincible--that is because there is no innate biological system that helps us focus on being responsible following great success.
      
      The reason for that is that humans never knew great success for the first 5 million years of their existence. This is why wealthy people often have no problem exercising extreme force--like Qadafi, Mussolini, and bin Laden, they think they are invincible. By the way, Hitler was a billionaire! And Romney ....? He didn't even have a concession speech written for him he thought he was so invincible. (and no, Romney is no Hitler by any means)
      
      Yet, like you infer, we’ve all been indoctrinated to believe that anyone can have great wealth and power. But if you look at most wealthy people, it runs in the family. And before the pundits cry “Socialist,” let’s acknowledge the U.S. still appears to have one of the best democracies that ever existed—because we can disagree without killing each other.

      replyreport
5. 61

   logic,commonsenseposted 11 years ago

   Does anyone in touch with reality think that Anna Wintour is being considered for an ambassadorship for any other reason than she raised a lot of money for obama and now is getting paid back.  Just the tip of the iceberg.  We will soon see more payback to obama donors shortly.  Why else would he want to get another $50 billion for "stimulus"?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Are you trying to prove my point or bash Obama?

      replyreport