Democracy or Oligarchy?

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

1779, not 1776. Thanks, Keith.

[Sandy]

What's developed in American government with the influence of wealth should make anyone who claims to be a strict constructionist with regard to constitutional interpretation shudder. The fact that many of those who make that claim are just fine with the ability of wealth to purchase government favor is proof of the ability that wealth has to buy influence.

Every administration has had its money trail. Clinton's is tough to figure, but it is clear that the military-industrial complex bought and paid for Ronald Reagan, and the first George Bush. Military contractors also had the second Bush administration by the proverbial 'nads as well, though it was the oil industry that set records for fabulous accumulations of profit, much of it at government expense, during his term. So who owns the government under Obama? I'm sure someone does. Follow the money trail. Although with the way this particular congress has stonewalled, I would say they've been bought to do what they're doing.

[KeithE]

[ET]

[ET]

[Neil Heath]

Thanks for thinking of me so kindly, ET.

[Bruce Gourley]

ET, I'm gonna keep this short too, as I've mentioned this before:

Adam Smith very much supported government regulation of business and banks (he wrote over 100 pages on the regulation of banks alone), in order to prevent commercial/banking interests from making too much profit. Yes, he believed too high of profits destroyed nations. Capitalism, according to the father of capitalism, free markets and modern economy, is designed to benefit all citizens by ensuring that inequality is curbed in the form of higher taxes on the rich, regulations on commerce/banking, living wages for workers, and government funded public education, among other measures.

In short, today's Republican Party has rejected Adam Smith (and capitalism) for an affair with atheist plutocrat Ayn Rand.

[ET]

[ET]

[Bruce Gourley]

ET, it seems you may be (willfully?) out of touch with the philosophical underpinnings of today's Republican Party.

For starters ...

[Bruce Gourley]

ET Says: My premise is that as government grows and its powers expand beyond a limited role, a system is created whereby those with money and access can use that system to benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the citizenry.

I would argue that government growing beyond control is the result of big business (private wealth) taking over government. Economic historians generally point to about 1970 as to when big business effectively gained control of government, meaning that big business attained the ability to steer and write legislation. Since that time, big business-controlled government has steered and written legislation to benefit the wealthy, and -- surprise! -- the government has steadily redistributed a greater share of tax dollars into the pockets of the wealthy, at the expense of the poor, middle class and small businesses.

Tax rates correspond to the conquering of the government by big business. As late as the early 1960s the top tax rate in America was 91% (the richest were taxed at this rate; America's economy rocked during this time), and now it is the 30s (and the economy has struggled ever since Reagan began massive redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich). The reason America is suffering financially is quite simple: the richest are not paying their share of taxes, content instead to force the tax burden upon the poor and middle class, of whom want to pay less and less in order to paid their own pockets even more (or, more realistically, to hide their greedy profits in off shore tax havens to avoid paying taxes).

As Adam Smith warned us long ago, such plutocracy is an enemy of capitalism, and destroys nations.

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... insrc=hpss

[ET]

[Bruce Gourley]

[KeithE]

Good set of articles Bruce. Our economic policies should not be based on fiction.

As for tax rates, the Kennedy drop in top income tax rate was counterbalanced by increases in the capital gains tax rate. It took Reaganomics to drastically lower income and capital gains taxes to levels unprecedented since the lead up to the Great Depression.

[ET]

[KeithE]