Inequality Killed the Roman Republic
themetasophist.com
themetasophist.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...
It makes the argument that inequality is a key driver for many of the woes of our current time. Unless something is done about this (and they make some suggestions on what to do), the future does not look great.
They argue part of the problem is the people that suffer the most due to this inequality, often latch onto other more visceral fears and then lash out based on that.
The Monopoly psychology experiment is also quite revealing.
Doomsday predictions haven't panned out so far.
Public service attempts to do this with stability and benefits. In other words, in exchange for power you are promised a comfortable life. This used to work but no longer does because property prices near desirable cities, where the bureaucracies are located, are increasingly unattainable even to well paid bureaucrats. The military gets around this, with much lower pay, by providing lodging for soldiers. Perhaps we should do the same for bureaucrats? The revolving door would have less appeal if you didn't need to plonk down a million dollars to live in Bethesda.
The difficulty is that there is a downward spiral: if fewer talented people enter the public service or politics because it is becoming relatively unattractive, the average performance of that class goes down. That makes it harder to justify any increase in salary or other benefits, reinforcing the dynamic.
The reason to avoid a monetary reward is not that it is tacky, but because money can easily be used to pass on influence to offspring, such as by boosting their profile, or buying votes for them. This can undermine a selection mechanism where they should win or gain reputation by engaging in pro-social activities.
Also, not everything may be monetised. I cannot sublet the garage attached to my apartment for example, because the contract forbids it. AirBnB is banned in some cities/situations.
Doesn't seem like a solution to me.
That doesn’t mean that things will be going well for these populations. You might just have a lot of death and suffering that will be ignored or hidden form the wider population.
You might also have important declines in life expectancy, wellbeing and happiness.
So, sure, a system can be robust and stay in place for a long time, doesn’t mean it won’t suck.
But what's more interesting is what he says comes after: in reaction to a dominant leadership, the masses withdraw their loyalty and start to devise new religious forms (or maybe repurpose old ones). So a growing religious fervour could be a sign of things going wrong. I don't think we see that yet, but it could be something to keep an eye out for if people lose faith in the power of politics to improve their situation.
I’d also argue that our leaders have lost their creativity. The real test will be over the next two years. The Democrats have that long to show they can rekindle creativity that will help people. If they don’t, I fear Trump may turn out to be a leading indicator to much worse demagoguery.
But it seems to me that there is still a lot of energy from the population at large being devoted to politics, such as with the higher turnout in the last presidential election. When that starts to decline, such as when people just can't be bothered to vote, will be the real sign they no longer have faith in politics.
I think you are right regarding creativity – but that is the case across the West it seems to me.
This should be a cause around which both progressives and populists could coalesce, which I suspect is one reason it is ignored or mocked.
Do you mean "usury" as in "lending money at interest"? I really don't see how that's the underlying cause of inequality. Very, very few (if any?) of today's financial elite became rich due to interest payments.
Any even if it were true: Good news, because interest rates are at a long-time low!