
The Rule of the Uber-Rich Means Tyranny or Revolution - bizkitgto
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-rule-of-the-uber-rich-means-tyranny-or-revolution/
======
egberts1
Babble of the proletariat. Try talking middle-class.

------
pm24601
The ultimate uber-rich manifestation: libertarianism.

~~~
pitaj
What have libertarians ever done to deserve such misrepresentative BS?

Meanwhile in the real world, libertarians have little political power or
influence. None of the "uber-rich" in power are libertarian.

~~~
pm24601
Libertarianism is all about the individual and that individual's resources.
Uber-rich have the vast majority of the resources. The uber-rich only need
laws to protect themselves from the non-uber-rich.

The 'middle-class' and poor have no resources and little time to counter the
uber-rich. The middle class gains nothing from giving up government
protection.

Therefore libertarianism is enables the uber-rich.

And btw, the Koch brothers are very much libertarians and they very much have
a lot of power.

~~~
pitaj
Libertarianism is all about opposing coercion. The greatest coercive entity is
the state.

The uber-rich use the coercive political apparatus to benefit themselves.
Libertarians oppose not only this corruption but also the state having that
power to be exploited in the first place.

Libertarian policies lead to better outcomes for everyone, with maybe the
exception of those benefiting from statist disruptions. More economic freedom
leads to more wealth creation and more income mobility. Countries which have
more economic freedom do better than restrictive economies. Countries which
free up their economies see faster growth, and vice versa.

Moreover, the worst industries for consumers are the most regulated and
otherwise distorted industries in the US economy: medical, financial,
educational, etc.

The Koch brothers do support libertarian institutions but they are far from
the most ideological or principled libertarians. The Koch brothers are not
politicians, and them having some indirect political power has not resulted in
significant libertarian policies. The lack of libertarian policy at every turn
is all the evidence necessary that libertarians have little political power.

I'm now going to copy some Reddit comments I've made regarding the power of
market economies and the alternatives. Be aware these are responses to other
people.

On the Statistical Arguments for Statism \-----

> According to the OECD database, countries with strong economic regulation in
> mature capitalism markets perform best with regards to poverty

I'm couldn't find very recent OECD poverty stats and I'm not sure what that
source is referencing, but I think PPP is a good analogue.

Well, I guess if you define "strong economic regulation" as "economic freedom"
you could say they correlate:
[Chart]([https://i.imgur.com/vDCHsfn.png](https://i.imgur.com/vDCHsfn.png))

Sources:

\-
[https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CPL](https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CPL)
\-
[https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls](https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls)

I made the chart in Google Sheets. And yes, I corrected the Economic Freedom
rank for only OECD countries.

> Countries with small governments don't clearly win in life span

Is this adjusted for the different definitions of infant mortality across
different countries? Regardless, it also correlates with economic freedom:
[Chart]([https://imgur.com/AMmDl3g.png](https://imgur.com/AMmDl3g.png))

Sources:

\- [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/rankorder/rawdata_2102.txt) \-
[https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls](https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls)

> Education

Education could be done a lot better in the US, that's for sure. Too bad it's
controlled entirely by governments.

> Safety

The data you linked was missing a lot of countries so I'm not sure how well it
actually goes, but with the data I had, it correlates too:
[Chart]([https://imgur.com/KXxAzLu.png](https://imgur.com/KXxAzLu.png))

Sources:

\-
[https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2...](https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2018)
\-
[https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls](https://www.heritage.org/index/excel/2018/index2018_data.xls)

I have a spreadsheet with all of the data and charts if you really want to see
it.

On the Market Failures of Common Industries \---------

> i would say the extreme privatization of medical services along with the way
> insurance systems work in america is overall detrimental to americans.

Medical is the most socialized industry in the country.

> a bill of ~60k ... honestly unacceptable to me that people can go bankrupt
> over something that is so absolutely outside of anybody’s control

Things outside of people's control is the exact purpose for insurance of all
kinds. Car insurance, home insurance, liability insurance, renters insurance
all exist to cover the unpredictability of the world. Accidents covered by all
of these insurances can affect people's lives as much if not more than medical
emergencies. Should every insurance be nationalized?

> i really don’t know what kind of legislation is involved in regulating the
> medical sector (but it seems to be minimal)

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. The only sector regulated more than medical
is _maybe_ the financial sector, but even that is a stretch.

> i don’t know if the problem lies within the market or the government

The government causes issues with the medical sector in many ways:

\- During WWII, the federal government froze wages. For companies to attract
workers, they started providing other benefits, like medical insurance. This
began the linkage of medical insurance to employment. \- Medicare and medicaid
dump money into the medical sector. This causes prices to inflate. \-
Companies get a tax benefit for providing medical insurance, whereas
individuals do not. \- Companies are mandated to provide medical insurance if
they're of a certain size \- Getting FDA approval for a drug or medical device
is required for it to be used legally. Getting approval is a long and costly
process, driving up the price at which drug and device makers must sell it to
break even, let alone make a profit. It also slows down the rate of
innovation. \- Patent laws give drug companies temporary monopolies on
producing certain drugs. This results in higher prices due to zero
competition. It also slows down innovation because using new drug technology
requires licensing it from the monopoly. \- People are not allowed to use
drugs if they do not have a prescription. \- Marijuana is illegal because of
the stupid drug war \- Insurance companies can't compete directly across state
lines \- Insurance companies are mandated by the federal government to cover
certain things \- Government diet policies pushed for low-fat and high-carb
foods, making the obesity epidemic worse \- Government subsidizes corn and
sugar production, making the obesity epidemic worse \- Medical licensure is a
government-granted monopoly, and they artificially limit the supply of medical
professionals

And many, many more

> i haven’t seen one persuasive, reasonable argument against socialized
> healthcare yet

One argument is "can the federal government do it right?" The government
fucked up medicare, they fucked up medicaid, they fucked up Obamacare. I don't
trust them to do single-payer right, nor do I trust them to do an NHS-like
service correctly. I think states should be able to experiment with that kind
of thing if they want, then at least people have a choice.

Another argument is that the free market can do it better. Market-based
systems like France and Switzerland (while still involving mandates) work
well. If we "reset" the system to enable competition and reduce rent-seeking
and bureaucracy, I am confident it would be waaay better than the current
system and would be better than "socialized" systems as well.

A third argument is that the _best_ care in the world is in the USA, and
that's because companies have the incentives of the market to research and
innovate new treatments, and that medical professionals are rewarded for good
work.

Do I think that single-payer would be better than our current system?
Probably. But I'm also confident that a free-market based system would be even
better.

\---

> the huge amount of government subsidies for education actually drives up the
> price for everybody, so that’s not a capitalism issue

Correct.

> the amount of total student debt is insane. it’s not a healthy long term
> system.

Thanks, government. Yes, we should _right now_ stop guaranteeing student
loans, stop giving out federal grants, and provide a way for those with an
enormous amount of debt to become successful. People should take gap years
after high-school, and go to trade schools or community college more. There
are tons of opportunities for people who go to college, but it's not right for
everyone, let alone jumping in right after high school.

~~~
pitaj
Continued

On the idea of Capitalism as an Outdated System unfit for the First World
\--------

> though, it did also cause that problem

One could make an argument that government subsidization of roads resulted in
urban sprawl and general lack of population density, which resulted in a ton
of transportation being done with cars, the least efficient form of
transportation.

Another argument one could make is that restrictions on nuclear power have had
a disastrous effect on emissions. If nuclear power was more widespread,
electricity would be cheaper (an economic boon) and much, much cleaner.

> But it is increasingly proving to be inadequate to address the problems of
> first world nations.

The market economy created first-world nations.

\- Countries which are more free economically are more prosperous compared to
similar countries which are less free \- Countries which free up their
economies are more prosperous afterwards \- Countries which restrict their
economies are less prosperous afterwards \- Industries which are more free
have more innovation and are more consumer-friendly

Free trade is well-known by every version of economics to be a huge boon for
every country involved.

> The poor are poorer & account for a larger percentage of the US population
> as compared to 30 years ago.

Increasing or stagnating poverty is a result of bad government policy
including the drug war and the welfare gap.

> money in politics, sophisticated AI in sales, marketing, & advertising,
> unprecedented range of automation, & radically diversified/global scale
> business means that the consumer has simply lost any power in the market in
> all but the most extreme cases

Citation needed. Also, what kind of policy would you propose to "fix" this
without having drastic damaging unforeseen consequences?

> Highly organized & well funded corporations, organizations, & industries
> have power in the modern day (both through technology and through politics)
> that they could have never dreamed of just a few decades ago.

The amount of power an organization can have through politics is a function of
the amount of power the government has. Technology works both ways: it allows
organizations to have more power but in the same proportion if not more allows
for individuals to have more power. See: the printing press.

> That's why I believe that smart regulation on business is extremely
> important in the modern day.

Corporatism and cronyism is a blight. Rent-seeking and regulatory capture are
widespread, and the only way of getting rid of them is to reduce the power of
the government in those areas.

> I also believe that it's imperative that we start exploring new economic
> models, in search of something better than capitalism

Like what? The economic calculation problem is unlikely to go away.

> it might already be showing its cracks

The state creates those cracks by continuously pounding the market with
regulation and other distortion factors.

------
pitaj
> They have seized total political power. These pathologies inform Donald
> Trump, his children, the Brett Kavanaughs, and the billionaires who run his
> administration.

Ah yes because the _impoverished_ Democrats are fighting for the common man!
It's only with the current administration that the "uber-rich" have taken
over.

Give me a break. Partisan hacks are ruining political discourse, and framing
everything as the end of the world isn't helping either.

The inability of the left to interpret the actions of the right as anything
but _evil_ only makes people perceive them as more out-of-touch and
pretentious. Studies have shown that rightists (for lack of a better term) are
more analytical and understand the positions of the opposition better than
those on the left.

~~~
sharkmerry
Can you link some of those studies? Would love to read them

~~~
pitaj
Conservatives understand liberals better than the reverse

[1]: [https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/liberals-
conserva...](https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/liberals-
conservatives-and-the-haidt-results/46113) [2]:
[https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-
passages/haidt/conserva...](https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-
passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-
understand-conservatives/)

Rightists are more analytical

[3]: [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-28/study-
of-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-28/study-of-politics-
and-analytical-thinking-puts-libertarians-on-top) [4]:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322862039_Cognitive...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322862039_Cognitive_Reflection_and_the_2016_US_Presidential_Election)

~~~
zen_of_prog
Link [3] is about libertarians being more analytical. From the article:

> Democrats/liberals measure as somewhat more analytical than
> Republicans/conservatives

