Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

The wealthy got crazy wealthy, the middle made a couple of extra bucks and the poor climbed out of poverty from the record highs in the 60s to today's lower levels.

When wealth gushes up and trickles down, the relativities are inevitable.

When enough wealth is concentrated at the top, corporations will essentially decouple from the broader economy, mostly doing B2B with each other, with no need for the custom of regular people and the small amount of money they have.

I hear that soon enough 40% of all jobs will be replaced by AI. If people are not working, dependent on government to survive, what is democracy?

There are many things that contribute to this. One of them is that the rich keep their money stached away; they don't spend it. Ordinary people like us earn, and spend most of it, because we have no choice. The upshot is that *our* money circulates within the economy, making a contribution, keeping it all going. That of the super-rich is kept apart, *not* contributing to the economy...

Exactly, hence why trickle down is an illogical (and ineffective) economic strategy.

[Sy Borg]

The wealthy got crazy wealthy, the middle made a couple of extra bucks and the poor climbed out of poverty from the record highs in the 60s to today's lower levels.

When wealth gushes up and trickles down, the relativities are inevitable.

When enough wealth is concentrated at the top, corporations will essentially decouple from the broader economy, mostly doing B2B with each other, with no need for the custom of regular people and the small amount of money they have.

I hear that soon enough 40% of all jobs will be replaced by AI. If people are not working, dependent on government to survive, what is democracy?

There are many things that contribute to this. One of them is that the rich keep their money stached away; they don't spend it. Ordinary people like us earn, and spend most of it, because we have no choice. The upshot is that *our* money circulates within the economy, making a contribution, keeping it all going. That of the super-rich is kept apart, *not* contributing to the economy...

Exactly, hence why trickle down is an illogical (and ineffective) economic strategy.

The really fun part happens when a threshold is reached, where so much wealth is in corporations so little with individuals that there will be almost a complete decoupling. If most of the money is with other corporations, most will simply make their money from B2B, with no need to deal with the general public at all.

[LuckyR]

The wealthy got crazy wealthy, the middle made a couple of extra bucks and the poor climbed out of poverty from the record highs in the 60s to today's lower levels.

When wealth gushes up and trickles down, the relativities are inevitable.

When enough wealth is concentrated at the top, corporations will essentially decouple from the broader economy, mostly doing B2B with each other, with no need for the custom of regular people and the small amount of money they have.

I hear that soon enough 40% of all jobs will be replaced by AI. If people are not working, dependent on government to survive, what is democracy?

There are many things that contribute to this. One of them is that the rich keep their money stached away; they don't spend it. Ordinary people like us earn, and spend most of it, because we have no choice. The upshot is that *our* money circulates within the economy, making a contribution, keeping it all going. That of the super-rich is kept apart, *not* contributing to the economy...

Exactly, hence why trickle down is an illogical (and ineffective) economic strategy.

The really fun part happens when a threshold is reached, where so much wealth is in corporations so little with individuals that there will be almost a complete decoupling. If most of the money is with other corporations, most will simply make their money from B2B, with no need to deal with the general public at all.

The vast majority of corporations get their revenue from consumers.

[Lagayascienza]

The problem is that if all the wealth ends up in the hands of the few multi-trillionaires who own the mega-corporations, money won't trickle down. Especially if AI makes most jobs obsolete. In which case the vastly increased masses of poor will have little with which to consume. If that happens, then governments would need to step in and tax the trillionaires so as to provide something like a UBI with which the masses could keep consuming. But if corporate power over governments increases, taxing the multi-trillionaires may become even more problematic than it currently is.

[LuckyR]

The problem is that if all the wealth ends up in the hands of the few multi-trillionaires who own the mega-corporations, money won't trickle down. Especially if AI makes most jobs obsolete. In which case the vastly increased masses of poor will have little with which to consume. If that happens, then governments would need to step in and tax the trillionaires so as to provide something like a UBI with which the masses could keep consuming. But if corporate power over governments increases, taxing the multi-trillionaires may become even more problematic than it currently is.

Once a human has more money than they and their heirs will ever spend, I understand the psychological desire to accumulate even more despite logic telling you that it's better business to have your customers to possess enough wealth to purchase even more of your product.

[Sy Borg]

There are many things that contribute to this. One of them is that the rich keep their money stached away; they don't spend it. Ordinary people like us earn, and spend most of it, because we have no choice. The upshot is that *our* money circulates within the economy, making a contribution, keeping it all going. That of the super-rich is kept apart, *not* contributing to the economy...

Exactly, hence why trickle down is an illogical (and ineffective) economic strategy.

The really fun part happens when a threshold is reached, where so much wealth is in corporations so little with individuals that there will be almost a complete decoupling. If most of the money is with other corporations, most will simply make their money from B2B, with no need to deal with the general public at all.

The vast majority of corporations get their revenue from consumers.

Will that remain the case if 90% of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%? B2B is already projected to increase significantly. How could it not, when money is gushing upwards and barely trickling down?

[LuckyR]

Exactly, hence why trickle down is an illogical (and ineffective) economic strategy.

The really fun part happens when a threshold is reached, where so much wealth is in corporations so little with individuals that there will be almost a complete decoupling. If most of the money is with other corporations, most will simply make their money from B2B, with no need to deal with the general public at all.

The vast majority of corporations get their revenue from consumers.

Will that remain the case if 90% of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%? B2B is already projected to increase significantly. How could it not, when money is gushing upwards and barely trickling down?

A better question is will wealth inequity ever get to the extreme level you predict. As it happens the US and Haiti have almost identical wealth inequity, yet seem to be dissimilar in just about every other economic measure. Long story short, there's more to how economies behave than just wealth distribution.

[Good_Egg]

I think I would expect "democracy" to refer not only to voting, but also to all that follows. Specifically, the votes lead to the appointment of a 'democratic' government, and the voters agree to abide by, and support, the results of the vote. This gives the government the democratic mandate it needs to do the job it is elected to do.

The extent to which a democratically-elected government has a "mandate" to do any particular thing is debatable.

I think what you're saying is that there's as much voting as there ever was, but that people have less faith in it. Less commitment, less belief, less willingness to "abide by and support" the result. E.g. in the US more willingness to go to law to try to overturn it.

And yes that's not a Good Thing.

I wouldn't describe that loss of faith in democracy as a reduction in democracy, but that's maybe down to use of language.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think I would expect "democracy" to refer not only to voting, but also to all that follows. Specifically, the votes lead to the appointment of a 'democratic' government, and the voters agree to abide by, and support, the results of the vote. This gives the government the democratic mandate it needs to do the job it is elected to do.

The extent to which a democratically-elected government has a "mandate" to do any particular thing is debatable.

If that is so, I think it's a problem. The point of a (democratic) election is to appoint representatives to govern on behalf of all, because populations of many millions can't all practically take part ... except by voting for the representatives they want. Nevertheless, there is no point in voting if there is no practical result, i.e. a mandate to govern, and a commitment to follow the lead of that government, even if you (or I, or anyone) didn't vote for them. Without such basic commitments, there can be no real-world 'democracy', IMO.

[Mo_reese]

It appears to me that it's human nature to want to gather as much of the available resources for one's self to insure one's security. I believe that society looks up to those that have been able to gather the most resources as that's the common goal. The fact that others may suffer in one's quest isn't personal it's "just business". In the early 1900's in the US the accumulation of resources saw more and more people hurt until the system self-destructed. I believe that it resulted in some of the wealthy figuring out that for them to exist, there needed to be a balance but as time went by, the greediest ignored the past crash and started plundering. Today they are buying hospitals, doctors clinics, homes, apartments, vet clinics, mobile home parks, etc. and plundering them for the resources. I see no way to stop this train headed off a cliff.

[Sy Borg]

The really fun part happens when a threshold is reached, where so much wealth is in corporations so little with individuals that there will be almost a complete decoupling. If most of the money is with other corporations, most will simply make their money from B2B, with no need to deal with the general public at all.

The vast majority of corporations get their revenue from consumers.

Will that remain the case if 90% of the wealth is concentrated in the top 1%? B2B is already projected to increase significantly. How could it not, when money is gushing upwards and barely trickling down?

A better question is will wealth inequity ever get to the extreme level you predict. As it happens the US and Haiti have almost identical wealth inequity, yet seem to be dissimilar in just about every other economic measure. Long story short, there's more to how economies behave than just wealth distribution.

Inequity will obviously become much greater, with AI replacing ever more human jobs. B2B will then logically replace public transactions. Do you do business with Blackrock? What is an individual in the face of Blackrock's nine trillion dollar holdings?

The number of people dependent on government payments is always rising, and it will rise more as social security is replaced by a UBI. It's currently a messy transitional period between what we can call the Time of Human Labour and the Time of Machine Labour.

[Good_Egg]

The extent to which a democratically-elected government has a "mandate" to do any particular thing is debatable.

If that is so, I think it's a problem. The point of a (democratic) election is to appoint representatives to govern on behalf of all, because populations of many millions can't all practically take part ... except by voting for the representatives they want. Nevertheless, there is no point in voting if there is no practical result, i.e. a mandate to govern, and a commitment to follow the lead of that government, even if you (or I, or anyone) didn't vote for them. Without such basic commitments, there can be no real-world 'democracy', IMO.
[/quote]

Clearly the duly-elected representative has a mandate to do something. The question is whether they have a mandate to do whatever the hell they feel like, or whether there is some limit to the proper exercise of government power. That's where the debate lies.

If there are decisions that have to be made, then the least-bad person to make them may be the person whom the majority has agreed should make them.

But if it is meaningful to talk of good government - government that acts on best advice from those with relevant expertise, or government in the interests of all rather than of a faction (e.g. by growing the cake rather than focussing on who gets the biggest slice) - then a "mandate" doesn't turn a bad decision into a good one.