"Our democracy is drowning in money" can also be branded, "Our democracy is drowning in speech."
The millions who like being misled by mainstream big money media are doing it wilfully at least. They believe what they want to believe. The only problem I see is how many of them have never been presented with an objective choice between being rational and skeptical versus blind trust of major brands that were pressed upon them from youth.
Is it speech? I would say so.
Does it tend to happen at a quality level for free? Empirically no.
Once I've made my movie, would trying to tell people about it be considered speech? I would say yes.
Does that typically happen for free? I would say empirically no.
This is a simple example of the argument, and in fact the one that went before the supreme court.
Is that much better though? And is that the system we should be content with? Or should be strive for an improved, more equal democracy?
At the end of the day the "money vote" greatly skews the "one person, one vote" principle, which is supposed to give everyone (or those who choose to take it) equal opportunity to influence government decisions. Clearly wealthy people have much more influence than a "single vote" in the U.S. plutocracy or than some random person in the U.S.
Do you actually believe that all people have an equal stake in the future of the country? To me it is blatantly obvious that a party animal of an adolescent, say, does not have the same stake in the future a country than a land-owning parent of three children. I would much, much prefer a system wherein those that have sacrificed real, tangible resources in order to secure voting rights have a voice in the governance of the institutions of state, and those that have not do not.
Thankfully, examples of institutions that function this way abound: It's simply how all modern corporations are structured.
I was not attempting to change your mind, but to point out that your equivalence was mere opinion, dressed up as fact.
If present trends continue, it's not so far fetched...
It'd be an oligarchy if the rich people decided it should be an oligarchy. Right now though, the rich don't pay much in taxes. A few software engineers probably pay more in tax than their CEO. The CEO would have to stop taking aggressive deductions and tax-advantaged compensation if they wanted a 'louder' voice.
Also, it says "Fuck you poor people, you don't get a say in government. If you want a voice you should have been born rich or got some one in a million opportunity." That's a quick road to corporate government ownership.
Walmart has paid some 40 billion in income taxes since Amazon went public. Amazon has paid ~1 billion. I think Walmart should get more of a say in how the country is run since they're paying for ~40x more of it.
I think the shareholders should direct the company's votes because the shareholders own the company and they're the natural party to get the money.
Though I support a 0% corporate income tax like most other economists which would render this moot. and the only way walmart would pay taxes under a 0% corporate tax paradigm would be at the direction of the shareholders.
No, you don't, and I would wager that any corporation operating that way would be run into the ground extraordinarily quickly.
Some people do get to make those decisions, however, but they are all people who are taking real risk with real, tangible resources in order to acquire equity in those firms.
Why should someone who is effectively a customer of a government (taxpayer) make the managerial decisions of that corporation?
Yes, I buy things. I'm a shareholder in Apple, I trade options on Walmart and I don't touch Amazon - so I do have some input into Apple, and conditionally I have some input into Walmart (usually if a position was 'in the money' during a voting period). I'm as much of an activist as I can be, I vote in every election for every security in my portfolio.
Why should someone who is effectively a customer of a government (taxpayer) make the managerial decisions of that corporation?
It's not just the customer, it's the vendor. I know the best way to spend my money, I think other wealthy people do too. We could create a government that does the bare minimum and free up private money to be used as its owners see fit. FWIW, I pay more in taxes than I spend on myself. My tax liability is about 50% higher than my yearly expenditures.
What I'm trying to point out is precisely this: you purchased shareholder rights independently from whatever shopping you've done at these places. In purchasing stock, you have given up the ability to purchase an equivalent amount of consumer or luxury goods. This is commendable! You own part of these companies and have some vested interest in their future. You should absolutely have a say in their governance, proportional to the fraction of the company you own.
These rights are yours because you own shares, not because you shop there.
> I know the best way to spend my money, I think other wealthy people do too. We could create a government that does the bare minimum and free up private money to be used as its owners see fit.
With governments, a rather poor distinction is made between people who are really and tangibly invested in the operating of the state and those who consume government services.
I would agree with you that a sanely-run government would focus only on things that it can do better than other firms and outsource or privatize ruthlessly.
> FWIW, I pay more in taxes than I spend on myself. My tax liability is about 50% higher than my yearly expenditures.
Commendable! I have not done the math but I would not be surprised if my own tax liability/discretionary spending ratios are similar. I would not yet say that I am a wealthy man, however, but I am a patient one. The children of those with low time-preference shall inherit the earth!
If you haven't done so already, make sure that your investing is tax-advantaged to the best of your abilities. I really put a lot of sweat into managing my Roth IRA and it was scary for a few years because there was no room for error in a portfolio that small but I've hit a few home runs and it's been enormously vindicating.
The children of those with low time-preference shall inherit the earth!
It better turn out like that. I kinda hide my financial situation from most people IRL - most of my peer group still has student debt and I could buy a house cash - but I accidentally mentioned that I want to celebrate my next hundred thousand with a used Prius and got a heated reaction. Oh well, some day I can just drive away from the haters on nothing but electric power.
I'm convinced that the first sovereign start-ups to take full advantage of modern corporate structures and capital markets will be able to deftly out-maneuver the lumbering beasts that governments have become both financially and militarily.