Who Really Controls the US?
Not long ago, Robert Samuelson wrote an interesting column for The Washington Post. It refutes the widespread notion that the rich are running our country. Samuelson notes that since the early 1980s, annual outlays for the poor, such as Medicaid, skyrocketed from $126 billion to $626 billion. (The figures are adjusted for inflation-- 2011 dollars.) The average poor person currently receives $13,000 in federal aid, over triple what he got in 1980 ($4,300). The middle class has benefitted even more from government largesse--$725 billion from Social Security in 2011 and $560 billion from Medicare. Social spending amounts to $2.1 trillion annually--well over half of all spending.
The obvious conclusion is that the masses, projecting power through the ballot, are very much in control, not the rich. Samuelson wrote that the need for "pleasing as many people as possible" explains the deficit, and that fixing the problem requires sacrifice. Unfortunately, sacrifice is no way to please the people, and win elections. As I've said for many years, the real problem is the democratic system itself. To maintain his influence, Samuelson can't state that openly. It is, however, the obvious implication, and reality.
The obvious conclusion is that the masses, projecting power through the ballot, are very much in control, not the rich. Samuelson wrote that the need for "pleasing as many people as possible" explains the deficit, and that fixing the problem requires sacrifice. Unfortunately, sacrifice is no way to please the people, and win elections. As I've said for many years, the real problem is the democratic system itself. To maintain his influence, Samuelson can't state that openly. It is, however, the obvious implication, and reality.
posted by starman at 10:37 AM
45 Comments:
It is obvious that the middle class has plenty of power in the U.S. The broad tax base is a key part of that.
Those are some interesting thoughts, Starman.
And much more controversial than you're likely to see elsewhere Chris. I think, though, they'll become more widespread in the future.
Indeed there is much food for thought in this piece and a bunch of points need to be made, I could write a book on it.
Hi Roger. If you have more to say here, by all means post it. :)
Hopefully now I can get back to this. The 3 main issues here are
(1) Who rules? (2) IF (as I'll claim) it's the 1% who rule, then how can you explain why the gov't helps the poor so much? (3) Does democracy necessarily result in disasters (such as our huge national debt)?
(1) Actually it is the rich who have taken over the gov't and are running the show and everybody knows it and it is shocking that Robert Samuelson would try to refute that (I believe it was his father Paul who wrote the standard economic textbook of the 1960s-70s and I thought it was an intelligent and fair-minded text though rather naive about capitalism as if that were a pretty good system (though I will admit that it has some good points)). The chief proof of the domination of the rich is that while what we need now--and have been needing badly for 30 years-- is a giant tax increase focused on the top 1%; while instead of that, the gov't has spent the last 30 years giving the rich huge tax CUTS and it is THESE that have wrecked our economy and created our $16 trillion national debt. The reason we need a giant tax increase on the very rich is that we need to balance the budget, to meet our societal needs such as infrastructure and education, to build a better future such as by creating more and better jobs for the un- and underemployed, to solve poverty and prepare for the Space Age, and to boost the economy, which requires vast gov't spending (as we've seen especially for the last 4 years, when without the giant stimulus bills and subsequent huge spending, the economy would have kept on shrinking instead of--weakly--recovering. The reason the recovery has been so weak is that gov't has not spent ENOUGH--because it was afraid of the huge deficits, which were caused by undertaxing the rich.
(2) But so then if I am right that it is in fact the rich, mostly the 1%, who control the gov't, then how can we explain the enormous programs that help the poor like Medicaid and the $13,000 per year that the gov't spends on the average poor person--in addition to the vast entitlement programs that benefit the middle class, Social Security and Medicare? The answer is mostly that these programs date back to the 1930s to 1960s, a progressive era BEFORE the rich took over it all. You need to realize that this phenomenon of the rich ruling the nation is something that has only developed since the 1970s. It was in the 1970s that we had the most equal income distribution--thanks to the hugely redistributive effects of the New Deal, WW II, the GI Bill, and the War on Poverty, etc. Since 1980, wealth--and with it power--have become more and more unequal, unfair, and unjust, and it will continue getting more unequal and unfair until we REDISTRIBUTE it with massive taxation of the rich and job-creation for the rest.
Still, you might ask some questions like, why if the rich are so in charge have they not destroyed Social Security and Medicare, and not only that, but G.W.Bush instituted a great new benefit, the prescription drug benefit for seniors? And the answer is that they are now trying to do that, just elect Romney especially and he and Ryan will indeed start cutting them and here I have to say something more, which is that these programs do need a lot of reform and I could write whole books about that, but they need to be--and can be--fixed without increasing the inequality, unfairness, and poverty of our system--which will be the result of Romney's "reforms".
(3) It certainly does seem likely that problems like our huge budget deficits are an inevitable result of democracy. Nevertheless, to me it is worth it because it (democracy) is a step towards a more fair and equal civilization, and that is a bigger plus than the deficits are a minus.
I'd be interested in any comments or further rquestions
Thanks for the long post, Roger. Persistence paid off, eh? :)
Had the rich been in charge for 30 years or even ten, they would've had plenty of time to eliminate social security and programs for the poor. They didn't have to wait for Romney. :) Social programs are obviously popular, and the poor and middle class can vastly out-vote the rich (the top 1% or so).
Basically the problem is insufficient sacrifice on the part of nearly everyone. The solution may be a combination of tax hikes on the wealthy and reduced spending for the rest. But regardless of who is to blame--the rich for not paying enough taxes, the poor/middle class for getting too many benefits--democratic government is ultimately at fault, since it enables everyone to resist sacrifice. As Samuelson noted, ( democratic) government must "follow the path of least resistance" however irresponsible it may be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The United States has always been leveraged by the elites, but this does not always include the wealthiest people. TR split Rockefeller's empire. and money didn't stop that. But, the elites are sometimes wealthy, and sometimes powerful and sort of wealthy, and sometimes very politically savvy. True many of the same family names appear over and over in the President's office or congress year after year, but these people want votes first, and then those votes make power. So yes money talks, but so do large blocks of votes.
"The reason we need a giant tax increase on the very rich is that we need to balance the budget, to meet our societal needs "
I've been listening to balanced budgets since I was in High School in the 1960's. It hasn't happened yet, and will never happen. The modern basis of "money" is "debt", not gold or silver. Too much debt is bad, or the wrong kind of debt, but our domestic product is funded on debt. Your company you work for is debt driven, and I presume you have net 30 as your basis. You borrow against future revenues, or your company does, or you use a credit card to do the same personally.
So I agree that America is and always has been leveraged by the elite, but that does not mean they own it all. They just push a few buttons, and grind a few axes.
And as far as when it started, it was not the New Deal, it began before Washington was president. The founding fathers were not peasants, they didn't like the British stressing out the colonies. They were the elite of the nation, along with their close banking friends.
Remember that it was not that long ago (1900) that the Republicans were the progressives, black majorities voted Republican, and southern Democrats were the radical conservatives.
Thanks Tim and Chris for your comments. I pretty much agree with Tim that a key root of the problem is that people aren't making the necessary sacrifice, and democracy enables the people to avoid this sacrifice--in the short term: It will eventually catch up to them. But I wouldn't be so neutral as to whether it's the rich or the poor that need to be forced to make a bigger sacrifice. It has to be the rich who must pay more. One reason for this is that if the rich pay more, they'll still be rich while better jobs can be created for the poor so that they will prosper as well; but if you force the poor to make the sacrifice, they'll suffer vast hardship.
Chris makes several interesting points. It is true that we still have enough of a democracy so that the 1% don't yet control everything, but, their grip is gradually tightening as the concentration of wealth proceeeds decade after decade. And for example in this election, as in all elections of the last 30 years, we are faced with a choice between a centrist Democrat and a rightist Republican--liberals and progressives cannot run because they cannot get the big campaign contributions that are necessary to buy the enormous amount of media that are needed to get voters' attention (although there are also a heap of other problems with "democracy" as it is practiced here, such as the winner-take-all rule, which, by contrast with a fairer, power-sharing rule, prevents people from voting for those progressive candidates who do manage to run, such as Ralph Nader, even when they strongly support their ideas.
You're right that our whole economic system is based on debt, and it is so important to realize that our general prosperity under capitalism, as well as each company's success in the competitive capitalist system, is based on how much money they borrow. But you must realize that this is a great weakness, that debts by and large cannot be repaid, and that this results in periodic collapses, such as in 1929 and 2008--where this last collapse has been staved off by some $5-6 trillion worth of gov't borrowing over the last 4 years, but this is still hanging over our heads and will bring us down sooner or later. The only real solution is to redistribute the wealth--by taxes is the best way, although there are others, such as by crime, charity and bankruptcy laws (which wipe out the debts of the poor mostly at the expense of (rich) lenders).
Yes, it is amazing how the GOP has transformed from the radical and progressive Lincoln to TR era, to the moderate-liberal Eisenhower to George Romney era, to the current far-right era where they would be happy to throw the poor to the wolves.
From an historical perspective, the United States has only recently been middle class dominated, and much of that occurred after WWII and began to fade after the hyper-inflation of the late 1970's. Then we had the Clinton years where the demographics helped enormously. Baby boomers, a huge segment, began their peak wage earning years and right after the Cold war collapse dividend. I have been restudying 19th century America, and I find it amazing how concentrated the wealth was after the Civil War. Not that it wasn't concentrated before the 1860's, there just wasn't a lot of money period. But the exploitation of half-a-continent made a huge population of wealthy individuals.
I suspect much the same has just occurred in China the last 2 decades. Lots of young people, lots of resources, and an America eager to BUY, BUY, BUY!
I think we still got the best end of this. We got their stuff; they got our bad debt. But all kidding aside, we are part of an overall global crisis. In every nation, everywhere, the wealth is concentrated at the top and getting more concentrated as the population moves from 7 billion to 9 billion. We are just one part of that global trend.
The good news is that most of the population is young. The bad news is that one day, they will be middle aged and desirous of things that they cannot get. What we see in the Middle east will be global. Reactionaries will become more fascist, more homeless, more illegal immigration everywhere, more genocide, more local wars of horror in a global Pax Americana.
The scariest part may be that in 100 years, 9 billion people will die. We have no idea if, like during the 2nd century Roman Empire, the world will depopulate. No one can see that, or even fathom those repercussions, should it happen. All it would take is for there to be about a 1.9 replacement population per couple to occur globally.
The world would look a lot like industrial Detroit - square miles of empty buildings.
We're not there, of course.
I do not have any answers, sorry.
As to debt, there is debt and there is DEBT. Most of our issue is due to demographics. Not to be controversial, but abortion has taken roughly 20 million people out of today's landscape. A clamp on legal immigration has removed a lot of youth from our society, as well. The result is we are old. Old people do not spend, and they do not earn as much as 40 year olds. They do not need big houses any more. The economy spirals downward, and debt becomes DEBT. The government did not act fast enough to the change in demographics. And, in fact, the social network isn't funded as well with youth.
Again, I don't have an answer other than to allow more immigration - legally. It has never been populated, but it always eventually builds greatness into our country.
i meant "popular" not "populated". sorry.
I think we need a whole new philosophy to govern policy. Government should spend only (or at least mainly) in the interest of the nation (or planet) as a whole, not individuals. Defense, research and education are worth funding because society benefits. In the long run, space is also a good investment. But government shouldn't have to assume the responsibility for everybody's health care. It certainly shouldn't shell out for retards, or people in the last 6-12 months of their lives. Of course their should be public education warning people to eat healthy, avoid junk food, tobacco and drugs etc. But each individual should be responsible for his own condition. Government should never pay big medical bills as it does now. I have no doubt a society oriented toward the Whole would be relatively debt free and more progressive.
Correction: I meant "there" not "their." Btw Chris, while there was a serious plague, causing some depopulation, in the second century, I don't think its effects were very serious or lasting. The Roman Empire was still very strong under Severus c 200 CE.
I don't see depopulation as anything we need to worry about, because I believe that in the Space Age, whole new worlds will open up for habitation as now-barren planets, moons, and asteroids can be made wonderful places to live with energy, air, and water inputs--and when such vast territory opens up, people will naturally procreate to fill it.
There is one worrying aspect, though, which is that some to many genetic lines may go extinct, especially in places like Russia and the developed countries, like neither me nor my sister have any childen, for example, while among our hundreds of unique genes, there are probably a few good ones, I'm very creative, analytical, mathematical, and idealistic, for example, although there are certainly enough others with these qualities to carry these traits into the future without us. More likely, the extinction of our lineage would mean the end of certain genes whose effects are unknown, but which science will inevitably someday discover and re-create if desirable.
Tim and I both agree and disagree on so many things, all I can think of to say right now is that some day, when there are a lot of populous worlds in the Solar System, Tim and people with similar ideas should havve a world of their own, and if retards get born on that world, and get sick and need health care, I hope Tim will let us--I mean those of us on the world that may be dedicated to people with beliefs like mine--take Tim's world's sick retards off his hands because we can heal them and raise their IQs and employ them to make our world better!
I doubt overpopulation can be solved by terraforming other planets in our solar system and transferring people there. Terraforming may take hundreds or thousands of years, whereas overpopulation is a problem confronting us now, requiring an early, earthbased solution. But Roger may be right about retards. In the future various defects might be easily rectifiable. Or, new technology may make us all look like retards, so it won't make much difference who lives and who dies, lol.
Btw I was assuming that overpopulation not depopulation will remain the major problem.
Developing much more advanced methods of propulsion for spaceships could help greatly. That would reduce the amount of time needed for colonization of other planets. It would enable colonists to reach other planets more quickly.
So many interesting points---
1. I realize now that Chris was particularly concerned with US depopulation, while I focused on WORLD population. First, if we have good gov't, we can solve any economic problems caused by the aging of our population, like if old folks are underspending, the gov't can tax the rich--or even print more money--to maintain the level of demand needed to create full employment with good jobs for all.
But also maybe you will enjoy my fantasy, which I believe can actually happen as a result of global revolution (which ought to result from such facts as that 1000 or so billionaires own more wealth than HALF the human race combined earn in a year--combined with such other facts as the US's relentless unjust wars on Islamic nations). Anyhow what I foresee and which would be wonderful, would be that with the ideal that everyone on Earth should be free to go everywhere they want, "Northamerica" (by which I mean the US + Canada--if Mexico were to be included, it would be called "Norteamerica") could have a total of 800-900 million people--like 200-250 million native citizens (100 million of us having left to travel in foreign lands) plus maybe 600-650 million foreigners who would be mostly tourists on 20-year visas. With good gov't all could prosper.
2. Terraforming isn't necessary nor desirable. Take a typical moon or asteroid, for example, say 3-400 km diameter with a total surface area of 350,000 sq km. Just erect 350 glass domes, or heavy clear plastic tarps each one covering 1 sq km, scattered across the landscape. 30,000 people can live under each dome or tarp, for a total of 10 million people, at a comfortable density of 30 sq meters per person--or actually much more space per person, if you build multi-story buildings. Maybe add a similar amount of square footage for farms and factories. This would still leave 99% of the world's surface pristine for wilderness adventures and exploration.
3. I'm all for better propulsion systems but they're not necessary for populating the Solar System. Even with today's slow rockets, you can cover 100 million miles a year easy and get to all the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, in addition to the asteroids, within 10-15 years, which is quick enough to effectively disperse the Earth's population within a generation.
4. You certainly can't assume that a wholistic regime would run debt-free. A Wholistic gov't would have far stronger ambitions than to just balance its budget; for example, it may aim to build an empire across the Solar System, and it would very likely be more than willing to borrow on a colossal scale to do so.
May I add this, which is an outrageous misconception that the journey to other planets must be a cramped, uncomfortable and boring ride--of course, 10 years of such travel would be unbearable. The truth is that there can be plenty of room and things to do aboard the spaceships.
Thanks for all the commentary!
Even without terraforming, colonizing other planets would be an extremely ambitious and costly undertaking. (I doubt Venus, btw could be colonized at all without first greatly reducing its surface pressure and temperature.) There are other potential problems, notably the longterm effects on a human body of low gravity, as on Mars, the moon and asteroids. Of course I'm all for space expansion, which will no doubt be facilitated by new means of travel, including in time, that of the flying saucers.:) But realistically it'll require a regime willing to subordinate everything to a common cause i.e. a Wholist regime, not one oriented toward satisfying the individual. It is precisely because the individual gets his way under democracy that space is currently underfunded. Americans spend over four times more on tobacco alone than they do on space.
I am not all that and a bag of chips, but history is history. I don't usually make stuff up unless I am writing fiction, I just repeat scholars who do know what they are talking about.
I was talking about global depopulation, but I don't know that would happen. I do know that in about 100 years everyone alive, and many not yet born will be dead. Not because of a plague, but because 100 years is roughly beyond current and projected lifespans. The world could have 10 billion people, or it could have 4 billion people, but I won't see it.
As tot he Roman Empire, the 3rd century is exactly when depopulation began. Rural people were forced to come to cities which were death traps. They could not force march them into Rome fast enough to overcome the plagues.
In the concluding lecture of "The Early Middle Ages", Dr. Daileader ... he points to widespread archaeological evidence of severe depopulation occurring between the 2nd and 7th centuries as the factor undermining both the Roman economy and the Roman military.
http://romanpresentations.blogspot.com/2006/06/depopulation-as-primary-cause-of-fall.html
I know nothing about extra-terrestrial terraforming. I know some of 19th century American terraforming. It was massive; it was rapid, and it was devastating to the landscape, yet created a completely different continent. If you went to a school, a hospital, or parked on a blacktop parking lot, you've seen terraforming. None of that was here 400 years ago, and much of it was not here 150 years ago. For better or worse.
I choose not to use perjoratives toward any person, race, or class of people. All humans, in my opinion, are worth having a quality of life. I'm not too keen on serial killers living and spreading their DNA, but as long as they are locked up and I never have to see them, I can grudgingly come to grant them health care, too, I suppose.
There is government and GOVERNMENT. Every town and state and province has some means of governing rules, laws, and trying to fairly educate and redistribute taxes to aid people in a way they could not do for themselves. As long as there is fair representation, it works sort of OK.
Big government does not know when to cry uncle. They want all the money and all the resources and to spend it in amazingly crazy ways despite being run by reasonably high IQ people. You don't give Ethiopians cows in a desert. You don't allow the southwest United States to quintuple its population in a restrictive water resource area. You don't clamp down on legal immigration only to allow illegal immigration to go unchecked. But it happens.
You explain social programs in the midst of unequal distribution of wealth because the mass of humanity will eventually protest or create acts of terrorism to get attention, and that greases the squeaky wheel. You pray it does not come to that, and people in need and hurting will get assistance.
It took Marches to get the Civil rights act in 1965, and returning WWII GIs to get the GI Bill, and disabled people screaming to get the Americans for Disabilities Act, and so forth.
In American politics the pendulum seems to swing wider than elsewhere. First way to the left, then way to the right, instead of maintaining an even middle ground. I don't know why.
Thanks Chris. I'm getting OT now, but in the late Roman period, people tended to flee into the countryside when crises such as plague struck. Dr Daileader is full of it. Plague and depopulation had next to nothing to do with the fall of the western Empire. They certainly did NOT decisively degrade Roman military power. In the 170s, right after the devastating plague of 166-70, Marcus Aurelius defeated the northern barbarians--in fact so well by 180 that they didn't cause further trouble for over 20 years. Likewise, in the late third century, after the terrible plague of 251-266, the emperors Aurelian, Probus and Diocletian mastered all threats, foreign and internal, from one end of the Empire to the other.
There was no known plague affecting the western Empire in the fifth century when it fell; in fact by 476 CE there had been none of note for 200 years! Clearly, some other factor was responsible for the grave shortage of citizen soldiers by c 400 CE and the resulting disastrous reliance on barbarian "federates."
IMO it is precisely because there is "fair representation" that things are not working out OK. Too many voters are irresponsible. The real "fair representation" would be to have those with the most ability and integrity make the bulk of decisions.
Btw American politics is in fact far more bland than european politics, where the pendulum can potentially swing VERY far to right or left. They have openly socialistic and communist parties with much greater support than similar parties here, and far right groups which, though in the minority, are still significant.
I should've ended my post above by stating that meritocracy is better than democracy. Would you agree Chris, Roger and Neal?
You have every right to say what you want, and this is your blog. I respect that. All I can do is point out history. Here is but one plague.
The Antonine Plague, AD 165–180, also known as the Plague of Galen, who described it, was an ancient pandemic, either of smallpox[1] or measles, brought back to the Roman Empire by troops returning from campaigns in the Near East. The epidemic may have claimed the life of Roman emperor Lucius Verus, who died in 169 and was the co-regent of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, whose family name, Antoninus, was given to the epidemic. The disease broke out again nine years later, according to the Roman historian Dio Cassius, and caused up to 2,000 deaths a day in Rome, one quarter of those infected. Total deaths have been estimated at five million. The disease killed as much as one-third of the population in some areas and decimated the Roman army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Plague
Sorry, but I have to run right now. Keep blogging !!
Oh, and PS, the plagues were in the cities, the peasants were so isolated they rarely interacted with diseases of the city.
From what I've read, the Antonine plague started early in 166, not 165, after the legions of Cassius stormed Seleucia. And it didn't rage continuously until 180 but died down c 170 and revived late in Marcus' reign, finishing off the ailing emperor. The plague did not prevent Roman armies from having sufficient strength. As I wrote before, the legions of Marcus Aurelius prevailed in the northern wars of the 170s despite the earlier population losses. And even better example is the great third century recovery after the terrible plague of 251-266. To cite just one example, the armies of Aurelian (270-75) beat the Palmyrenes, barbarians and gallic rebels.
I don't think the plague was confined to the cities even if that's where most fatalities occurred. Returning soldiers, and travelers, who must've spread it, no doubt passed through many rural areas too. Peasants did interact with cities because they needed markets for their produce.:)
Btw what do others here have to say about my comment above favoring meritocracy over democracy?
Very interesting historical discussion about an important era of which I admittedly know little, but one thing I think, let me know if this jibes with what you, Chris or Tim know, is that it is economic, the Roman empire--like the Soviet empire and others, fell into a depression so deep that they could not get out of it--which is an inevitable feature of capitalism (or any system in which there is lending and borrowing--the debt eventually overwhelms everything--which is not supposed to occur in socialism, but it did, just due to flawed human nature)--just as if our own gov't had failed to pour trillions of $ into the economy in 2008-9--and some gov'ts, like Herbert Hoover in 1929-33, just don't seem to recognize that that is what they have to do.
Tim and I have talked much about democracy vs meritocracy but I never weary of it! But I don't think Tim has ever answered my question of how to obtain or turn America (or any other country real or imaginary) into a meritocracy, have you?
I have not followed the Roman Era all that closely. I know the rudimentary elements of 1st century era, but in general the Romans expanded their perimeter a little farther than they could control with their population. They also exploited their resources and were unable to keep supplied in some decades. I believe the germanic tribes eventually became citizens and eventually leaders of the Empire.
If by capitalism you mean that one takes capital, invests it for a return, and uses it to create goods for profit, then i suppose the Romans were capitalists. I don't think that was their primary economic system however. I am not 100% sure that the American system or the Western world is capitalist in a true Ayn Rand sense.
Americans experimented with many kinds of utopias in the first 4 decades of the 19th century. I'm not sure many of them worked. Meritocracy sounds good, but it also seems a little utopian if done to an extreme. I'd have to hear moire about it.
I think Herbert Hoover got a bad rap historically, but in my family he was hated with a passion. Many a night I heard his name taken in vain, and this was 4 decades later.
I have not studied the Soviet Union in depth, but I got the idea that trying to keep up with American innovation and technology was impossible. They over extended themselves and that gave a chance for glasnost.
I lived during the Vietnam era. You can't spend money like water, run up a debt, and expect the economy to not take a slaughter. Something must give.
I have had a chance to study the 19th century, and there were some humongous depressions. 1837 was probably the worst next to the Great Depression of the 1930's. 1874 and the gold-silver depression under Cleveland was a whopper too. I ma not so crazy about this depression we're in. I thought it would be 5 years and done, but it is stretching to 7 and looks like it could go 9 years. But at last I see a glimmer of hope, but I fear the Chinese government is about to tank. They are so overextended it isn't funny. I see it everyday in the calls, emails, and discussions I have with Chinese businesses. It's coming, and it is not going to be pretty when it does.
Hi guys, good to see the latest comments. How can a meritocracy come about? Of course it'll never happen as long as there is democracy. That would have to go first, and be replaced, in time, by an authoritarian system with a modern secular ideology. Note that the USSR was fairly meritocratic. There was free education through university level. Capable people could be promoted without having to win popularity contests.
The fall of Rome had nothing to do with an economic depression. Finance did become a serious problem but only because progressive barbarian encroachment deprived the western Empire of key revenue generating provinces, notably Proconsularis in North Africa, in 439.
It is true that the USSR fell behind the west technically and economically. But IMO is was still unnecessary and a mistake to throw in the towel. Capitalism may work better than socialism, but as China amply demonstrates, democracy is not essential for economic and technical success. I don't know about a coming China crisis, though.
Starman you make broad sweeping statements but do it in so brief a manner I never understand what data you are using to back up your opinions. Or if they are just your own opinion.
You don't define "meritocracy", but imply it is purely an intellectual thing. MENSA must love this. Why is a meritocracy mutually exclusive of "democracy" but embraced by "authoritarianism". Shades of Josef Mengele and Hitler! That is a frightening thought.
"The fall of Rome had nothing to do with an economic depression..." What did it it then? Did a meteor wipe them out? (Just kidding). Seriously, what do you think sealed the deal and when?
As to the barbarians, they may actually have preserved the western empire, and I believe the name was Odoacer in 476. I am sure St. Augustine did not think so when he was killed in a Vandal seige.
I won't say that China is now a poster child for democracy, but it has adapted amazingly to allowing some social protest and some freedom of the press. You had to have seen Mao TseTung to appreciate how far they've come. Not that Chiang Kai-Shek was George McGovern either.
My favorite saying is, "Hey, we beat the Commie-Ruskies and turned the Chinese into capitalists. We won! Why doesn't it feel like we won?"
Meritocracy--rule of the best or brightest--meshes much better with authoritarianism than democracy. The latter stresses equality ("one man one vote") whereas under modern authoritarianism only an elite has political perogatives. Elite rule or meritocracy reflect a far more realistic view of humanity than democracy. The bulk of Americans don't have a clue about science, economics or international relations, so naturally democracy--empowering the ignoramuses--warps the quality of decision making and standard of leadership (Bush jr and his Iraq war was one example). At least one recent study, by Dunning of Cornell, confirmed what was long obvious to me--democracy doesn't work well because most people or voters just aren't bright enough.
Many Americans claim that the duration of US democracy is proof of its superiority over other systems, which is frankly absurd. Democracy is not the inherently best system; far from it, democracy is essentially a LUXURY. It has persisted here because the US, as a very rich and safe (protected by two great oceans) could long afford luxuries. I think that time is now past. We are at a phase similar to the last days of the Roman Republic, which arose in a small city state and became obsolete in an empire.
As for the fall of the western Empire, it was basically due to a loss of support from its own citizens. By c 400 CE few would serve in the army anymore, which compelled a reliance on dangerously unreliable barbarian "federates." Since barbarians had nearly all the fighting power, and a different agenda than that of the empire, they gradually took its territory, until even Italy was under their control (476).
China is freer economically but it remains authoritarian--look at Tianamen square. The west may have converted China to capitalism but not democracy, while to an extent Russia is reverting to authoritarianism.
It doesn't feel like we've won because of our own problems which democracy, the supposed everlasting panacea, just can't fix.
Tiananmen was 1989, and I think things are slightly better. Chen Guangcheng was allowed to leave.
Thank you for your discussion on Rome. I appreciate it.
Meritocracy and democracy. The United States is technically a representative government known as a republic, or a democratic republic. That is slightly different from the classic democracy.
In the 1770's and so forth, the requirements were that you had to be a land owner to have a voice in government. You had to be white, you had to be male. In many cases, immigrants were also banned even if they owned land. They certainly felt they were meritocrous.(sp?)
We continue to not be able to vote for the Presidency directly. It must be done through the electoral college. That is certainly not "democracy".
The principle of elitism led to much civil discord, and a little thing called the Civil War. In Rhode Island, the Dorr rebellion (circa 1840) was significant in allowing those who did not own land to vote. Irritation with special castes or elites also led to England's Magna Carta, and later about 1867 Parliament broke from the rule of the King. The Tsars lost in the Russian revolution. And so forth. Then there was Rhodesia, South Africa, and to a certain extent what is going on the Middle East today, and in Iran and Syria specifically. Elitism can be problematic to obtain and to maintain.
Look forward to more discussion!
25 October 2012
Breaking news.
(So mush for meritocracy and an authoritarian government. Even there, the 1% are the 1%).
Family of Prime Minister Holds a Hidden Fortune in China
Many relatives of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, including his son, daughter, younger brother and brother-in-law, have become extraordinarily wealthy during his leadership, an investigation by The New York Times shows. A review of corporate and regulatory records indicates that the prime minister’s relatives, some of whom have a knack for aggressive deal-making, including his wife, have controlled assets worth at least $2.7 billion.
So many threads here I want to comment on but let me start with meritocracy again which is like authoritarianism is no more apt to result in meritocracy than democracy is. All through history, and all around the world today, there are authoritarian gov'ts and fewer of them are meritocracies than democracies are, I think, do you disagree?
Now so here is my scenario: And I feel I can say this partly because I identify with some of the world's greatest dictators, I mean I feel very much like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, in that I deeply understand their motivations and they are so much like my own, it is wrong to think of them as solely evil, or even as mainly evil; certainly they were motivated very largely by their hatred of the status quo, and rightly so, the status quo in each of their cases was certainly evil, deserving of being hated and destroyed, as one character in my novel says, "I don't want to hurt any people, I only want to change the evil laws and institutions--unfortunately, there are hordes of people ready to kill to defend those laws and institutions!" You know, if you set out seriously to make the world a better place, you will stir up powerful enemies that will require terrible wars or repression to overcome.
Of the 4 authoritarians I mentioned, Hitler WAS different from the rest in that as far as I know (I could even be wrong on this) he had no democratic tendiencies even latent, although even there, that could be just because as long as he ruled, Germany was in perpetual crisis, and if he had beaten the USSR, and found Germany at peace and prosperous, he might well for all I know have begun to think about ways to make Europe (now that it was Judenrein--I mean that the US should have accepted all of Europe's unwanted Jews, gypsies, mental defectives, etc.) more free and equal. But as for Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, they all were dedicated to equality, and democracy is part of that. Why, then, did they never move towards democracy during their reigns? It was because they always faced bigger problems. If and when they had overcome those more urgent problems, they might very well, as I would, move towards more equal power-sharing, i.e., democracy.
Anyhow so, here is my future scenario, we need a world revolution (e.g., a thousand billionaires have more wealth than HALF the world's people combined earn in a year); so let us suppose that that happens. The first result would be that a bunch of revolutionaries--ranging from master thugs to master politicians to idealists and charismatics who will have been able to gain a following like Mahatma Gandhi--will be in charge, kind of like the French Revolution perhaps, good and bad people but probably some of whom would be people with a mentality like mine/Lenin's/Stalin's/Hitler/s/Mao's. So they/we will all have our own agendas yet most would probably seek a powerful plan for global economic development leading to a Space Age--which so incidentally would be what the world's people themselves want, but also there is that most would desire an immense redistribution and more equality. Which would ultimately lead to more democracy.
At least that's my dream for the world future.
Of course many authoritarian systems, like monarchies aren't meritocratic. That's why I wrote MODERN authoritarianism--the kind based on rational or secular ideology. Meritocracy is the key to authoritarian stability and effectiveness. It can neutralize a lot of opposition simply by allowing capable people from the lower classes to rise to elite status, provided they're loyal. And of course a meritocratic elite maximizes the quality of decision making.
@Chris: Of course the US isn't a perfect democracy but the masses don't have to be fully in control to mess things up, lol. China may be slightly "better" but is still authoritarian. Glad you appreciate my views on the fall of Rome.:)
(Getting back to progrev): Redistributing wealth to the masses is not the way to make great progress in space. Although many decadent fatcats SHOULD be deprived of their riches, the beneficiary should be the STATE not the masses. (giving money to the latter would only result in wealth going straight back to the rich, since most became rich because, unlike us, what they offer is what the masses WANT--booze, junk food, porn etc.) Great progress in space requires concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a great visionary State, not equal distribution, which results in a petty consumer society like what we have now.
Now it's been several days since I've been able to get back to this alas the conversation may have died off already but let me try to carry it on a bit. I still seem to be missing something from Tim which is how to create a meritocracy. I mean like it's not going to be on the ballot such that we could vote on it, nor is it likely to become a direct object of a revolution except that each revolutionary considers himself to be the most meritorious (just as Obama and Romney do LOLLOLLOLLOL!!!!!!) I mean our revolutionary slogans are going to be to tax the rich, to create jobs, to stop the stupid wars (their newest adventure seems to be developing in Mali, how do you like them apples?????)--I can't see anybody holding a sign or chanting "MERITOCRACY NOW!" So like I said, if we do get a Revolution, I'll know how to go about establishing a more direct democracy but I have no idea of how to go about establishing a meritocracy. In the USSR they had a bit of a meritocracy in that as you said they educated the people, and also Stalin chose his successor Khrushchev on merit (as he defined it) and so on such that they finally wound up with Gorbachev who really was a good guy except that he allowed the Empire to collapse but other than that he was a great leader. And haven't I read that in ancient China they gave exams to select the top bureaucrats? So are you suggesting that these types of processes would be the way to create a meritocracy? It reminds me of civil service exams that people take if they want to work for some level of government, but of course these merely test for specific areas of knowledge and skills, totally unlike the qualities desirable in a leader but do you think that some sort of test or exam could and should be created for rulership quality?
So also anyhow sometimes I don't think Tim knows or would agree that the goal is the quality of life and the highest fulfilment of people's potential--the advancement of the State is only a means to that end, not an end in itself because the State has no consciousness, no life of its own, no soul. Maybe you disagree with that assertion.
Anyhow can I go back to 2 other topics (1) the fall of Rome, didn't you say that Rome fell partly because they lost their wealth-producing provinces, but one reason they lost them was that the Roman citizens didn't care to fight for the Empire? And if so my point was economic, that the reason the citizens didn't care about the Empire was maybe that it no longer had anything to offer them, such as jobs or a way of earning a livelihood. THAT was what I see as having been caused by a great economic depression. (2) As for life on Venus, you know, all that is required is enormous and powerful refrigeration using technology that's been common ubiquitous in the rich countries for 60 years. It's just a matter of scaling it up a billion-fold, I don't see why you are having any problems with this, you know that there would be enormous economies of scale. I'm sure it could be afforded at a cost of like $100,000 a year per person and probably much less. I am reminded of the gigantic engines that power the gigantic ships like aircraft carriers, why couldn't these be just octupled in size and number? I'm reminded too of over a hundred years ago we dug the Panama Canal, I mean vast projects like this are doable as soon as you can get anybody in gov't that has the will, like TR. (Which, of course, you can't, any longer, under our rotten system.)
There are numerous utopian experiments that could be discussed pro and con various kinds of meritocracy, or other parameters. These are beyond my ability to discuss.
Rome, I have had my say.
As to extraterrestrial exploration, I believe we are now in an era where devices and machines can now do our exploration. Not well, but we are getting better.
So, we no longer need cumbersome oxygen and water, or worries about temperature, pressure, or gravity. We can build a machine that would do much of the work for us, and as we learn, we can understand what we as humans can and can't do on other worlds.
One last comment, this week a Chinese leader was called out for becoming a billionaire at the public's expense. I had said before something was brewing in China, and as the leadership transitions next year, and their economy goes south, it is going to be very interesting.
Which reminds me of the old curse, "May you live in interesting times."
Good to see more comments. You know, Roger, I just experienced the same kind of problem that kept you from commenting. Again persistence paid off. :) It is true that meritocracy can't be the public goal of a revolution. To succeed a new regime must have broad support. One could help get it by promising "equal opportunity for everyone."
The Chinese system of exams wasn't very meritocratic because in practice only the rich could afford the years of study and practice needed to pass. The 15th century Ottoman system was fairly meritocratic. A westerner contrasted the Ottoman practice of "searching out and educating as the priceless treasures of the State all of their most promising boys, regardless of birth or race" and the western concern for a fine horse or parrot and "utter neglect of all human youth except those born to rank or money." In the future, people may be systematically designed to be in certain classes. Now, meritocracy can best be achieved by childhood nurturing, free education through university level, and selection by an elite.
The late Roman Empire may have reduced many of its people to serfdom. But the army was still an avenue of escape and advancement. However by the late fourth and fifth centuries few citizens would serve. This apparently led to the weakening and collapse of the western empire.
Nanotechnology may be the key to greatly enhanced space exploration at relatively low cost. A tiny probe wouldn't require a great deal of energy to be propelled toward its destination at great speed.
As for meritocracy, yes, the ideal of equal opportunity must be one of the greatest goals of the Revolution! I also remember another way the USSR tried to build a meritocracy, which was by requiring anybody with ambition to join the communist party, which was a way both to select the "best and brightest" and to teach them about their ideology--which was supposed to increase their merit. AFAIK it worked as well as or better than the "representative democratic" concept that the masses should elect the most meritorious candidates. My concept of direct democracy might also produce somewhat of a meritocracy in that where all governmental decisions would be made by discussion groups open to all, the participants who had the best ideas and most knowledge ought to have the most influence in the groups' decisions. But, you know, the first thing I think of is the dramatically bad public decision-making that led to the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1. But I think that if the people had actually gone to meetings to discuss the issue, they might have reached a better decision--and in direct democracy, people WOULD go to such meetings because they would be paid to do so.
In Rome, the army cannot have been an avenue of escape, opportunity, jobs and advancement for the masses in large number because the gov't didn't have enough money to support a decently-paid large armed force--because they didn't tax their rich enough (I assume)--just like our current gov't.
Now onto space, I am surprised at both Chris's and Tim's apparent willingness to turn space exploration over to robots??? Don't you know that space is a great adventure and liberation that people want to have? People want to go to the Moon, Mars, and everywhere else--the Solar System is full of fantastic and wonderful places--don't you think??? Building machines to do the exploration is completely beside the point, I think--I mean like don't YOU want to go out there?????
As you know, I opposed the Gulf war of 2003. But the masses supported the foolish invasion. The common people know next to nothing about issues and foreign policy; they just rally around the flag, "support the troops" and act "patriotic." The mindlessness with which the people supported the 2003 war was further confirmation, to my mind, of the bankruptcy and obsolesence of democracy. The good arguments of professors and others were totally unheeded. Ergo, I very much doubt public discussion meetings would accomplish anything; the voices of reason are drowned out in any equalitarian system.
Down to the 430s, the western Roman Empire had plenty of tax money coming in from Proconsularis and elsewhere. The problem wasn't inadequate funds to pay soldiers. PLENTY of barbarians were willing to serve for pay. But not citizens, unfortunately.
I agree that humans should go into space although it may be necessary to genetically modify people to better withstand low gravity etc conditions. In any event, robots and nonanotech probes may only be an interim measure, until infrastructure capable of supporting humans exists.
Btw why not comment on the most recent post too?
ok I will comment next on your most recent post but I would also like to repeat because it doesn't seem to me that you quite took into account the point I tried to make before, which is this vital difference between the sort of crummy democracy we have now and the direct democracy I want to institute. As you note, the good arguments against the 2003 (and 1991) war(s) went unheeded by the masses. There is no accountability and no incentive for the masses to pay any attention to the professors and others who were presenting sound antiwar arguments. In direct democracy, in order to earn their pay, the voters who will make the policy decisions on any particular issue will be required to attend the discussion group DG meetings, listen to the debate, ask questions, discuss the answers given, study the issues, etc. This will greatly increase their wisdom and merit! Of course, these voters will be self-selected--they will consist of (and only of) people who care enough about a particular issue to work on it. Now, there is this aspect too to consider, especially in certain controversial cases (such as the war(s) in question), the people who do take part in the DG's may reach conclusions that are different from those reached by the ignorant masses that had not participated. So more dialog will be needed.
You know, the reason the barbarians were willing to serve while the citizens were not was probably that the barbarians were more desperate for the money, just like today, women in Africa will work a whole day to gather 50 cents worth of firewood and a bucket of water, while Americans would refuse to take any job that paid so little. So, while Rome may have had enough money to hire whole armies of barbarians, they might not have had enough to hire citizens. Do you have any information about how much money thay actually had or how much they taxed their rich?
I'm all for genetic modification of people to improve their brains and strength and yes even their toughness against conditions of hot, cold, high pressure and vacuum, poisonous atmospheres, and even possibly prions (do you know about those?) or other weird things that might have evolved on other worlds. But we should not genetically modify people IMHO to cope better with any one or two of these difficulties, because everyone should travel to all kinds of worlds, like to both Mars and Venus, for example.
I am not sure I can contribute any more to this discussion. I will keep reading, though.
Well, I dunno. If the voters are self selected, there will be a lot of ignoramuses who care much more about an issue than they know about it. We saw the multitudes of passionate, pro-war, "patriotic" types. Most people can't get much out of listening to professors because of their innate limitations. It would be better to just have a meritocraticy where experts make policy, or at least exert a greater influence.
You're right that barbarians were willing to serve because they were poor and wanted the pay. But pay had, I believe, little to do with the refusal of most citizens to serve. Lots of citizens were serfs or unemployed urban dwellers and probably little better off economically than barbarians.
I don't know if it would be possible to engineer people to survive low gravity, frigid Mars AND higher gravity, hotter Venus. But who knows, maybe gray ETs are already capable of surviving under a variety of conditions and we'll learn from them, lol. Jump in any time you want, Chris. But I think it's time to move on to the latest post.
I'm glad Chris wasn't quiet because he lost interest but anyhow I guess I'll move on to the next post even though there's still enough loose threads here to keep going for a few more years! Some of which will resurface on later posts I'm sure.
Post a Comment
<< Home