Quote:
Originally Posted by Raev
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
you are completely failing to understand that I am arguing for the derivative.
For example, Rome reached its greatest area under Trajan but the Imperial system was already sowing the seeds of its destruction.
Also America by 1922 was already passing Great Britain, e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty
Andrew Carnegie can't create 14 trillion dollars out of thin air for himself. Also, have you heard of the TTIP? Your position that the wealthy have more influence in a free market economy than in a socialist one is flat out ridiculous.
|
So failing to deny that things haven't gotten as bad yet as they were before FDR, your argument is basically "Yea, we're getting there, things will get worse". Not sure how I can refute your fantasies for the future but yea, I guess we'll see.
The wealthy having
political influence is independent of capitalism and socialism and has more to do with our culture and the protections we put in place institutionally to prevent it. I don't think it's a function of capitalism or socialism per se. Economic power being in the hands of those with capital, on the other hand, is the fundamental basis of capitalism. The more capital you control, the greater your ability to acquire a larger share of both current aggregate wealth and newly created wealth. It is only through government or union intervention that we balance the consolidation of capital and the share controlled by people who sell their labor. That is why the
decline in labor's share of American wealth has mirrored the decline in union membership.