Wealth and Power

1. 76

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   "The wealth and power of the few should never be allowed to outweigh the wealth and power of the many."
   
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      He agrees.
      

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I use to have a busted clock, it was right a couple times a day as well.
         
         Agreeing with somone on a point that is obviously a correct point, doesn't turn you into them.
         
         Disagreeing with an entity on every other point in existence, doesn't make me wrong simply because they agree with me on this one.
         
         But nicely played.

         replyreport
2. 64

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   If the few are a subset of the many that seems tautological?
   
   If they are not who gets to decide which is which?  There will always be some people with more money and or power than some other people.

   replyreport
3. 76

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   Another way of saying what the thread is about:
   
   1% of the population should not be allowed to have more wealth and power than the remaining 99%. If the 1%'ers wealth and power end up totaling X and the wealth and power of the 99%'ers end up totaling Y. X should not be allowed to be greater than Y.
   
   The few should not be allowed the ability to enslave the many.

   replyreport
4. 73

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   Those with money have the power...it's always been that way.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      But they haven't always had the power to subvert the law of the many. "Equal protection under the law" "No one is above the law"
      
      Those concepts are untrue if an entity can use wealth and personal power to subvert the law or cause the 'law' to be un-equally enforced.
      
      Having or being a leader of a group and being more powerful than the other individual members of that group isn't the same thing.
      
      Being more powerful than the entire group combined, is what I am saying should not be allowed.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Subverting the law is bad enough, however, they are also able to subvert foreign policy to their own ends, artificially inflate food prices, cause famines. They monopolize and control all aspects of life, on a global scale.

         replyreport
5. 64

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   I am more worried about the actual lives of the poor and disempowered than deciding who should be allowed what.  I am not the 1% but I am also not poor and not disempowered, so I have nothing much to complain about on my own behalf. So I would support policies that minimize poverty and disempowerment for whatever percentage are experiencing that.
   
   I think the middle 50% are more part of the problem then victims of it.

   replyreport
6. 76

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   Another way of saying it:
   
   Dictatorships should not be allowed to exist.

   replyreport
7. 73

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   They don't have to be dictators to control the laws...moguls have always had control of the laws..the equality verbalage is to appease the masses into a false sense of security

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So long as they have to also follow these laws equally, I would agree it isn't a dictatorship. But they aren't, the legal system has been done away with through the unequal representation that money brings into the equation.

      replyreport
8. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   My hub on why is world peace not happening explains what is happening in the world of power and wealth we see today.
   
   The power of the individuals who have amassed the greatest wealth should not prevent others from equal opportunity to do the same.
   
   There should be an equal balance of wealth. There should be an equal balance of power. No one side(as a collective) should have more than the other. On an individual basis, equality isn't what many people believe it to be and I have a hub that addresses that also- "how can equality survive in capitalism".

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There were laws created to stop monopolies. Which is why the wealthy don't have single companies. They have subverted the Anti-monopoly laws by forming partnership companies where they have less than 50% of the shares. But they retain control over the people that have the majority shares and thereby subvert the law allowing them to have the power of a monopoly without seeming to be one.
      
      Which makes them a hidden dictator.
      
      If there were unlimited resources in existence your point of "having already become wealthy should not prevent others from also being able to become wealthy" would be true. However reality is the now ultra-wealthy own such a great percentage of the total available planetary resources, that what is left isn't enough for the rest of us to even become middle classed, and it is only getting worse, soon everyone else will not even be able to become poor.

      replyreport
9. 0

   Emile Rposted 13 years ago

   I have no problem with  financial success. We all need to have something to motivate and that is a strong motivator. But, I would like to see a level paying field. Some common sense rules for corporations that trade publicly. Wall Street has proven they have no scruples, and will stop at nothing to attain the highest short term gains possible for their companies, in order to line the pockets of the fortunate few. And they will buy every politician to ensure they maintain the status quo they want.
   
   I say, we pretend like its a game of monopoly. They cheated, so we redistribute their ill gotten gains (of the CEOs, and any individual) into the public coffers level the playing fields so they don't get to break the rules again and boot out any members of congress who gained from that bs game. Jail time all around would suit me just fine, too.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Nice.

      replyreport
10. 64

    psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

    I am starting to think middle class apathy is the main cause of millionaire oligarchy.  We have a system of checks and balances, but more people vote on Pop Idol than the general elections.... We do have the ability to vote for issue-pushing independents.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Since the system of voting is one in which we are supplied with our choices by the ultra-rich 1%'ers, and only get to cast our second-class votes after the 1%'ers have decided who to financially endorse and thereby allow to run for office, the power of 'Our Voting' isn't quite the power you claim it is.
       
       -in other words-
       
       We get to elect anyone they(1%'ers) have decided to allow to compete for our secondary votes. Anyone they don't endorse first, can't even compete for our secondary votes.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          That's absolutely correct. In which of our nations can a prospective leader achieve anything like high office, without  first having satisfied the aspirations of the donors of the party. The only exception I can think of, is where the largest donors are the unions (in my country at least)

          replyreport
       2. 68

          DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Ironically enough, this is just how Iran functions. Only difference is instead of the banks choosing the candidates that we vote on; it's the clerics. The difference between the Republic in the United States and that of Iran is slim to none. Yet we whine how Iran isn't a democracy.

          replyreport