Or we could just have the government stop having laws that constrain competition, so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps, and then at lower prices people buy more products and services, increasing the demand for labor and decreasing the cost of living.
The recent profitflation phenomenon demonstrates pretty conclusively that we can’t rely on lower production costs to result in lower prices without a lot of aggressive trust-busting.
> so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps
I cannot trust any company with any modicum of success not to immediately exit into the hands of megacorps. I cannot hope that companies have any type of morality/"want to make the world better" anymore.
Oh, yeah, it's a great system if you're someone who has money. Most people don't.
Representatives, on the other hand, can't exist without votes.
Most of the money in politics is spent on convincing voters to vote for a particular rep, that's why money holds sway over politicians. But money in itself isn't actually going to get someone elected.
And isn't it weird how the people who do get elected actually tend to be of at least vaguely similar political leanings to their constituents?
If money was all it took, we'd have no issue electing hard-conservative anti-abortion fundamentalists in, say Chicago, as long as they had policies that their donors found appealing. (Or, conversely, socially progressive, economically regressive 'liberals' in the deep south.)
As it turns out, money in elections can only shift the needle so much, and won't turn black into white.
What it can do is pick a winner out of a lineup of similar candidates, where the margins are close enough that a bigger advertising war chest will move the needle... And even then, all of those campaigns are only possible by ground-canvassing volunteers, who are motivated ideologically, not financially.
If it was that simple then this problem would be solved. Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation. If elected representatives do what their voters want, why are we discussing this?
> If it was that simple then this problem would be solved.
Only if you see the world in black and white.
My thesis is that money is a corrupting influence in politics, but is not the main driver of it.
Meanwhile, money is the only influence in corporate ownership. Which is, incidentally, why most people with money do everything in their power to try to convince us that the solution to all the problems they cause is to move more power out of democratic institutions, and into corporate ones.
> Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation.
What on earth made you think this?
I said that the politicians that get elected vaguely, in aggregate, share the views of their constituents, and you're not going to tell me the deep south in aggregate wants any of these things. It does, however, want a lot of people who talk a lot about Jesus in government, and, well, their ballot results definitely deliver them.
If you believe my thesis is wrong, roughly how much money do you think will get someone like AOC elected in a district in rural Oklahoma? Or MTG in NY's 14th district?
That does support both that governments can't be trusted to behave morally and that voting shares is just as good, but your tone suggests that you're disagreeing with the parent. Am I misreading that intent?
Thank you for prompting me to reread the comment tree to untangle the meandering rambles. Hopefully, this will clarify my perspective.
I think there's a chance you misread. Many times, I feel the conversations we have online would be better off held over a few beers and a backyard barbecue.
I feel that any concentrated center of power cannot be trusted to behave ethically. That's a fancy way of saying you can't trust the government or corporation to behave morally/ethically.
I assert that you have more control over government than you do corporations because, as someone said above, you can lobby/campaign/vote and have an impact on local, state, and federal government. As an aside, the further away from local, the less impact you have.
With corporations, you could buy shares, but given that each share is equal to one vote, the more money you have, the more influence you can exert.
I know it's been a fashion since Reagan to distrust government, but decades of neoliberalism have shown that counting on corporations usually makes things worse. Anytime one transfers a communal benefit into the pockets of a few, bad things happen.
Monopolies are the natural end here, since more money means more ability to invest in machinery to produce (or AI), or just buy up any of the newcomers.
I think the US should seek both capitalistic and socialistic policies simultaneously, but this would require a revolution that may [not be possible / very difficult] to achieve from within the US political system because its "operating system" is tainted by lobbyists for the billionaires.
i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels
ii. Increase capital gains tax significantly
iii. Tax speculation-derived activities, especially real estate and REITs
iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres)
v. Shrink defense spending by half
vi. Enact single-payer healthcare for all eliminating co-insurance and better than Medicare up to UK NHS levels but without the government delivering healthcare directly; there shouldn't be good health insurance for just a few people with good jobs
vii. Greatly expand visas for engineers and entrepreneurs
viii. Also expand visas and professional certification "homologation" for teachers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, and researchers so they don't have to start over
ix. Invest in trade schools: plumbers, electricians, machinists
x. Invest in adult education, GED, and pre-college prep courseware
xi. Earmark funds and network applied STEM courses and internships for industry-practical training, especially for fabs, robotics, and high-tech manufacturing
xii. Invest in childcare and pre-K
xiii. Revisit tariff adjustments on a more frequent and selective basis
xiv. Entrepreneur incubators should get federal subsidies because they're generating wealth
xv. UBI - Everyone gets it without requirements excepted tapering down based on income
xvi. Small businesses should have even greater incentives in banking, real estate, state and federal bid contracts, and tax treatment
Shrink defense spending when Russia and China are gearing up for World domination?
I am from Europe, and in more immediate danger, but I would still hope US will defend any sort of democracy we have vs the threat of dictatorships. I know my country has helped out US with its wars.
Now is the time to increase those budgets, not decrease. Decreasing would actually increase the odds of WW3.
> i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels
My gut feeling is that this would increase inflation, but I could be wrong.
> iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres)
I would much rather the US spend $2.2B on corn subsidies so that we have food security in the event of a global catastrophe. I’d prefer eating nothing but corn flour/meal for years than starving to death.
> v. Shrink defense spending by half
As a (biased) US citizen, I would prefer keeping American Hegemony around, and that doesn’t happen without the massive military overspending the US does.
>I would much rather the US spend $2.2B on corn subsidies so that we have food security in the event of a global catastrophe. I’d prefer eating nothing but corn flour/meal for years than starving to death.
There are definitely other options, I’m not trying to present a false dilemma. My point is that spending 0.03% of total federal expenditures to guarantee food security is money well spent. Subsidizing other crops would work, it just happens to be easy to industrialize and automate corn farming and there’s plenty of good agricultural land in the US that is suited to grow corn.
