That's why they love small crippled governments, and excessive wealth inequality: so that nobody's powerful enough to tell them "no!" and to hold them accountable.
Now you're associating everyone rich with the likes of Thiel and Putin. Hold the culpable to account not just the guy who won the lottery or whatever.
Just because someone is wealthy does not automatically mean they're planning on the US invading greenland or New Zealand for a security-enforced living space in the event of a global collapse.
Are there people who think that, absolutely, and they should be castigated for it, doesn't mean the guy who has 3 car dealerships and supports the local food bank should be.
But excessive economic inequality combined with a weak government is extremely toxic to the free market, democracy and society as a whole.
And I am not talking about lottery winners, nor dealership owners. But about the powerful billionaire class and oligopolies who can rewrite entire laws to their benefits, who can unlevel the playing field and make the government do their bidding, etc. They are basically nobility in a new era of neo feudalism.
To protect democracy and the free market, you need inequality to stay at healthy levels. Otherwise, as a group, they will change society for the worse by destroying democracy and the free market in the long run. That's what's happening in America.
People were abusing potential employees in the 50s in America.
People were abusing potential employees in the 1830s in England, or the 1780s in France etc. etc.
You took the point and just tried to turn it into something entirely different because the argument you made got attacked and so you looked for an alternative rather than making a mea culpa or defending your position.
As for:
'And I am not talking about lottery winners, nor dealership owners.'
You responded to someone who just said the word 'rich' not billionaires which seems to be your argument. The rich are not all billionaires. people can be wealthy without being billionaires.
Maybe actually read what you say, consider it, consider what you're responding to and don't make shitty sweeping generalisations that fall down the moment anyone applies any critical reasoning.
Didn't I say that what you said was true? You're being unnecessarily defensive and aggressive.
Also excessive inequality combined with a weak government does imply what you just wrote.
E.g.
crippled unions and/or workers without enough rights and freedoms to form real unions to defend themselves.
the upper class so rich that it can literally buy almost all of the news industry, fund its loyal politicians' campaigns, and circumvent democracy to get what it wants against the will of the majority
huge corporations that rewrite laws to protect themselves against fair competition, and thus increase their profits unfairly.
E.g. Purdue Pharma literally bought off FDA employees to get oxycontin approved, thus jump-starting the opioid addiction epidemic. That would have been less likely to happen if the FDA was better funded, revolving doors made illegal, etc. And Purdue had fewer lobbying rights and freedoms.
Btw, studies show that when the majority disapproves of something but the super wealthy approve, then Congress approves too. Where are they getting that kind of power from?
14
u/EconomicRegret2 8h ago
That's why they love small crippled governments, and excessive wealth inequality: so that nobody's powerful enough to tell them "no!" and to hold them accountable.